Flight plan

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.
Hank

"Hankal" wrote in message ...
I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph.

You'd have to tell us what the ground speed is for us to make an intelligent decision
on this. But I assume you're talking like something like a 7 hour total flight time
(without stops)?

Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.

Depends on your goals. If you're time constrained, trying to avoid fuel stops (even
if it means using lower power settings to increase your range) may be a better idea.
Of course, if you're like us we like stopping in at little airports and one or both of us
tends to need to use the bathroom. My plane carries enough fuel to make an 8 hour
nonstop flight, but we always tend to make one or two stops on the way anyhow.

(Hankal) writes:

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM. I have 3 fuel stops appr venly
spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph. I could make this
trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports. Many of
my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once
airborne they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel. What
is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.

(I'm assuming that you're flying IFR, given the newsgroup.)

Do your pilot friends fly IFR? If so, do they file legal alternates
that they could actually use, and do they have the required fuel
reserve for use after the alternate? Three fuel stops for 750 nm does
not sound at all unreasonable for an IFR flight in IMC in a slow plane
-- if the weather system is big enough, a good alternate might be a
long way away from the destination.


All the best,


David

On 09 Oct 2003 17:00:51 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.
Hank

I flew from the DC (KGAI) area to Kansas. I planned a fuel stop in
French Lick, In. (KFRH) it was halfway and they had cheap fuel. The
predicted ceiling was 1500 feet so I filed an alternate at
Bloomington, In. (KBMG) which had an ILS and a predicted ceiling of
2500. On the way out the predicted 20 knot head wind was 60 knots so a
dropped from 12,000 feet to 4,000 feet. It was solid IMC but the head
winds were only 30 knots. I still had enough fuel for the flight and
everything below me was below minimums (the weather was moving east as
expected). When I got to French Lick, I flew the GPS approach to the
minimum 500 feet but I was still in solid IMC so I declared a missed
approach and went to Bloomington. The 2500 foot ceiling was 300 feet.
I missed on the first attempt, on the second I broke out and landed. I
still had 6 gallons when I landed, but the fuel warning light was on
from just before French Lick and that didn't improve my frame of mind.
Luckily I wasn't pushing the limits of fuel when I planned the flight,
but I decided that I would never again plan a fuel stop at an airport
without an ILS, I don't care how much cheaper the gas is.

you had 6 gallons left, bet the pucker factor was really kicking in


ArtP wrote:

On 09 Oct 2003 17:00:51 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.
Hank

I flew from the DC (KGAI) area to Kansas. I planned a fuel stop in
French Lick, In. (KFRH) it was halfway and they had cheap fuel. The
predicted ceiling was 1500 feet so I filed an alternate at
Bloomington, In. (KBMG) which had an ILS and a predicted ceiling of
2500. On the way out the predicted 20 knot head wind was 60 knots so a
dropped from 12,000 feet to 4,000 feet. It was solid IMC but the head
winds were only 30 knots. I still had enough fuel for the flight and
everything below me was below minimums (the weather was moving east as
expected). When I got to French Lick, I flew the GPS approach to the
minimum 500 feet but I was still in solid IMC so I declared a missed
approach and went to Bloomington. The 2500 foot ceiling was 300 feet.
I missed on the first attempt, on the second I broke out and landed. I
still had 6 gallons when I landed, but the fuel warning light was on
from just before French Lick and that didn't improve my frame of mind.
Luckily I wasn't pushing the limits of fuel when I planned the flight,
but I decided that I would never again plan a fuel stop at an airport
without an ILS, I don't care how much cheaper the gas is.

Well, you certainly learned a lesson - but I don't think you learned
the RIGHT lesson. I don't think your error was in choosing an airport
without an ILS as your fuel stop. With forecast ceilings at 1500 ft
and approach minima to less than 600 ft (I'm sure the 500 ft is an
error, since published minima there don't go that low) you had a very
reasonable expectation of getting in. More to the point, even if
there was an ILS, if the weather forecast is going to be wrong by 900+
ft, it can just as easily be wrong by 1300+ ft and an ILS will be no
great help.

The real issue is that the straight-line distance between KFRH and
KBMG is less than 40 nm, with no significant geographic features
between or near those airports. I'm actually quite familiar with that
part of the country (having learned to fly there) and I know it's
pretty rare for a North-South dividing line between weather systems to
occur that far South in the state. Usually, when such a line exists,
it exists North of IND. In any case, unless one has very intimate
knowledge of the local microclimate, one should always assume that two
airports separated by less than 50 miles of mostly flat terrain are
likely to have substantially similar weather - forecast or otherwise -
and that if it goes bad at one, it will go bad at the other as well.

Bottom line, you chose an alternate that was almost certainly within
the same weather system as your destination. That can be acceptable
if the only reason you filed an alternate in the first place was
legality (let's say the weather is 1500 and 10, locked in tight and
not changing or moving) but when the weather forecast is a bust (winds
substantially different from what's forecast, widespread below-mins
conditions) that simply doesn't cut it. You need an alternate that is
and will remain outside the weather system at your destination.

When operating at the limits of range, that generally means having an
alternate where you can 'stop short' without ever going to your
planned destination and getting into the ugly weather system. I
realize weather at your destiantion was not available, but I'm sure
that BMG had weather reporting accessible through FSS, EFAS, or ATC -
and that should have been a clue. In general, I would say that if you
are flying in a weather system that has already caused widespread
below-minimums conditions and you lack the range to leave that weather
system, then the critical situation has already started.

Fortunately, the weather did not go below mins on the ILS at BMG. It
could have done so easily. Also fortunately, you had the necessary
skills to shoot a real ILS to minimums - something that,
unfortunately, is not really true of everyone with an instrument
rating. Sometimes good skill will make up for a poor decision - and
since we all make poor decisions sometimes, that makes skill very
important.

In general, the FAA rules for alternate minimums and fuel requirements
are a lot like the FAA rules for VFR minimums and fuel requirements.
I don't really want to see them any more stringent, because sometimes
a mile and clear of clouds is OK, and sometimes 30 minute reserves are
OK, but in most cases a reasonable safety margin requires much, much
more, is highly variable, and is not reasonably addressed by arbitrary
numbers labeled personal minimums. By the same token, sometimes a 600
and 2 alternate is OK, and sometimes enough fuel to get there plus 45
minutes is OK, but in most cases a reasonable safety margin requires
much, much more - and once again, arbitrary numbers don't cut it.

Requiring your fuel stops to have an ILS can't hurt, but it may not
help either. Choosing a fuel stop with an ILS would have made things
better in this particular case - always assuming that FRH wasn't at
150 ft. Given that it was certainly below 600, and given that BMG was
at 300, that's far from certain.

Michael

ArtP wrote
I flew from the DC (KGAI) area to Kansas. I planned a fuel stop in
French Lick, In. (KFRH) it was halfway and they had cheap fuel. The
predicted ceiling was 1500 feet so I filed an alternate at
Bloomington, In. (KBMG) which had an ILS and a predicted ceiling of
2500. On the way out the predicted 20 knot head wind was 60 knots so a
dropped from 12,000 feet to 4,000 feet. It was solid IMC but the head
winds were only 30 knots. I still had enough fuel for the flight and
everything below me was below minimums (the weather was moving east as
expected). When I got to French Lick, I flew the GPS approach to the
minimum 500 feet but I was still in solid IMC so I declared a missed
approach and went to Bloomington. The 2500 foot ceiling was 300 feet.
I missed on the first attempt, on the second I broke out and landed. I
still had 6 gallons when I landed, but the fuel warning light was on
from just before French Lick and that didn't improve my frame of mind.
Luckily I wasn't pushing the limits of fuel when I planned the flight,
but I decided that I would never again plan a fuel stop at an airport
without an ILS, I don't care how much cheaper the gas is.

Like everyone says, a lot depends on speed, weather, etc. My 2 cents:

Plan and file conservatively. IFR alternates + 30 extra minutes for Momma
if IMC is out there. Then fly the plan until you know better. There's
plenty of time to amend, re-fold charts, and examine price lists if you
decide to fly a longer leg.

OTOH, If IMC operations are involved, forget the price list and make all
airborne plans based on range, capability, and critical facilities (weather,
runway length, ILS....possibly fuel availibility - fuel price doesn't even
figure in at that point). You don't want to compromise the flight and your
safety to save $1 a gallon

Get and use some sort of range extender. As mentioned, Little John is fine,
baggies if you can handle them (tampons help), absorbent gels in a bag seem
the best to me. Even if you are determined to land to pee, have a backup.
Nothing worse than squeezing you legs together and having your eyes tear up
while on extended downwind to Runway 10,000' at Long Walk International.

"Hankal" wrote in message
...
I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11
gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about
$100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once
airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.
Hank

In article , Hankal
wrote:

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11
gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00
by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.

My wife has a rule that we have to stop every two hours, regardless of
total trip distance (unless it is a 2.5 - 3 hour trip).

This is just a question, but is gas prices there that big a difference where you
can save 100$ by going to smaller airports?

Personally, in my plane, I have 72 gallons of fuel, flight plan 150 TAS, usually
fly 5 hours, that gives me about 1.5 hours left. But I also have a fuel flow
instrument that shows me my endurance and GPH. I make the least number of stops I
can. Flew a 1445 NM trip, one way, on july 4th, stopped 3 times, longest leg was
680 nm.

Hankal wrote:

I am filing a flight plan 750 NM.
I have 3 fuel stops appr venly spaced. I have 48 gallon usable and burn 11 gph.
I could make this trip with only 2 stops, but choose 3. I save about $100.00 by
landing at places where fuel is less that the big airports.
Many of my pilot friends tell me that I am crazy (which may be) Once airborne
they tell me they do not land unless they need fuel.
What is you opinion? Am I to frugual or conservative.
Hank

Jeff,

What are you flying? How many degrees rich of peak do you fly? 150 TAS on 11
gph is pretty good performance.

Michael


"Jeff" wrote in message ...
This is just a question, but is gas prices there that big a difference
where you
can save 100$ by going to smaller airports?

Personally, in my plane, I have 72 gallons of fuel, flight plan 150 TAS,
usually
fly 5 hours, that gives me about 1.5 hours left. But I also have a fuel
flow
instrument that shows me my endurance and GPH. I make the least number of
stops I
can. Flew a 1445 NM trip, one way, on july 4th, stopped 3 times, longest
leg was
680 nm.