Flight plan

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.

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.

(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

From the fuel consumption and usable, I'm guessing you fly a Cherokee
180/Archer? If so, you can probably do better than 11gph by flying
high and leaning aggressively. On long xc's flown at 8-11k ft, I plan
for 10gph and end up getting better.

If the weather is good VFR, I would fly the 750 with a single refuel
in the middle of the trip. Use airnav.com to pick the cheapest fuel
stop.

If the weather is IFR, there are lots of decisions to be made as
Cherokees have poor IFR range. The safe bet is to make two fuel
stops. Given the right set of winds, destination forecast,
destination ILS, I would still make it with a single fuel stop.

As far as planning fuel stops. If I am not in a hurry, I will go
pretty far out of my way to patronize an FBO with cheaper fuel. For a
while Basler Flight Service at Oshkosh had $1.60 fuel, while my home
field in the Chicago suburbs (3CK) was $2.85. A few times I waited
until I had 20 gallons left, then made the 50 minute run to Basler.
While I didn't save any money, it was as close to a free flight as you
can get.

Filling at homebase: (starting with 20gallons)
30 gallons to full * $2.85 = $85.50

Filling at Basler (starting with 10 gallons after 10gph on 1hr trip)
40 gallons to full * $1.60 = $64.00
plus 10 gallons to top off back @ 3ck ($28.50) = $92.50 total

So, the trip to OSH and back cost me $7.00 more than just filling the
plane at my homebase. Hard to beat that!

-Nathan

Nathan Young wrote:
: From the fuel consumption and usable, I'm guessing you fly a Cherokee
: 180/Archer? If so, you can probably do better than 11gph by flying
: high and leaning aggressively. On long xc's flown at 8-11k ft, I plan
: for 10gph and end up getting better.

I fly a Cherokee 180, and I routinely plan for 10 gph and get
8.5-9 gph. From all I've read it's pretty much impossible to hurt the
engine with the mixture knob at power setting less than 75%, so I usually
fly at 65-70% power and lean until the power drops off slightly, but
before it's rough. It works out to be right about at peak EGT, and
consequently the 8.5-9 gph. My last trip from Ohio to Virginia had a 30
kt tailwind, so I throttled back to 55% power at 9000'. Had 135kt
groundspeed and burned 12 gal in 1.75 hours... Like cruising in a
Cessna 150, but with better climb...


: If the weather is good VFR, I would fly the 750 with a single refuel
: in the middle of the trip. Use airnav.com to pick the cheapest fuel
: stop.

Airnav rocks. Between that and DUATS to make wind-corrected
flight plans, you can almost forget all the paperwork for the PPL (j/k).

: If the weather is IFR, there are lots of decisions to be made as
: Cherokees have poor IFR range.

Actually, given the trainer/low-end-cruiser status of a Cherokee,
I think it's got pretty good range. Remember that just because you have a
bigger engine doesn't mean you need to use it. The airframe is happy with
a 150 hp engine at 8 gal/hour. Putting more power on it in cruise won't
get you there much faster ( 5 kt), but just burn more gas.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Don't pay any attention to anyone except you. If you are more
comfortable stopping more often, do it! There's a lot of things
my airplane "can do" and "is allowed to do" that I won't.

Personally, my rear end doesn't like being strapped in more than
2.5 hours. I can make it to 3 but only if absolutely necessary.

Besides, cheaper fuel is good. Never having to say "I'm Sorry"
because you ran out of fuel with the airport in sight is
*really* good!

Michael
I have a Turbo Arrow III, its a 200 HP, fuel injected and GamiJectors
I usually try to fly at 12 gph unless I am needing to stretch it, I also fly
around 11,000-12000 ft and at 65% power (30' MP and 2400 RPM).
Here is my Baby
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/index.html


Michael 182 wrote:

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.