IFR just 5.4% of the time

On 2/28/2007 2:45:53 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:

This gives a maximum of a few days (1440 observations), as far as I can
see. Can anyone see a way to get past that?

Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click the
"Get OBS" button?

--
Peter

On 2/28/2007 3:10:04 PM, "Peter R." wrote:


Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click the
"Get OBS" button?

Disregard. I had failed to see that it would replace whatever I typed in with
1440, as if that is the limit.

--
Peter

I tried 20,000 and it defaulted to 1440
Jim

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 2/28/2007 2:45:53 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:

This gives a maximum of a few days (1440 observations), as far as I can
see. Can anyone see a way to get past that?

Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click
the
"Get OBS" button?

--
Peter

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
I realized that I'd unconsciously expected travel time to drop to zero.

Ahhh.... the famous "Greed for Speed" disease! This happens when we step up
to faster airplanes also! After sitting 3-4 hours in the Aztec, my wife
always teases me that she want's a VLJ so we can get places faster. My
response is always "You find a way to pay for it, fuel it, insure it, and
maintain it, and I'll fly it." That usually slows her down.

One thing we've learned by running "dream numbers" is how truly expensive it
becomes if you want to fly faster than 200ktas with a full fuel payload of
over 1000 lbs.

Jim

For what it's worth, flying out of KBED (Hanscom Field, near Boston),
my log book shows 31% of my total time in IMC. These flights were
mostly done for business reasons (yeah, and I held board of directors
meetings by looking in a mirror) and so were on a schedule mostly
established before a reliable forcast for the ETD was available.
("Yeah, Jake, I'll fly into Rochester next Tuesday, let's plan on
meeting about 11 that morning").

It's also true that about 10%of those trips were cancelled ("Hey Jake,
there are embedded thunderstorms between here and there, let's
postpone the meeting until tomorrow.")

A further truth: it is a rare cross country flight, and I can't
remember the last nighttime flight, that I did not fly under IFR. It's
simply a LOT easier to do it that way.




On Feb 28, 12:08 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...

Pilots are always surprised when I tell them that Mary and I have
traveled the country extensively by light plane for 12 years, all
VFR. While it's true that we have to be flexible, my experience has
been that it is rare, indeed, that we must cancel a flight due to IFR
conditions that we would have flown in our Pathfinder (a Piper
Cherokee 235), even with the rating.

Many people have questioned the validity of our experience, wondering
if we scud-run everywhere, or are simply not telling the truth. Well,
in a strange twist of fate, a friend of mine recently completed a
study of ASOS observations from 2002 - 2004 here in Iowa City. His
primary goal was to determine prevailing wind direction while IFR
conditions existed, but he inadvertently turned up some interesting
data that supports my informal observations.

During that two year period, he looked at ~33,000 recorded hourly
observations at KIOW. Just 1765 of those observations were IFR, or
5.4%.

Now, of course, there were an unknown number of marginal VFR
conditions in the data set, but these results pretty well confirm my
(non-scientific) observation that showed us canceling just a handful
of flights each year due to weather, and a truly tiny set that were
canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we would feel safe flying
Atlas in. Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.

What does this mean? A few conclusions:

1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
rough-and-tumble Midwest.
2. VFR cross country flying can be safely done, with the right
attitude, even in marginal equipment like most of us fly.
3. Obtaining the instrument rating is an excellent exercise, and makes
you a much more precise (and thus proficient) pilot, but unless you're
moving up to heavier metal, it won't help you much.
4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
pilots are current or proficient. There simply isn't much need for
it, unless you're flying on a schedule, in rated equipment.

My purpose in sharing this is not to belittle those who have obtained
the instrument rating. On the contrary, I am a much better pilot
thanks to the instrument training I have obtained, and intend to
finish up the rating when we have finished the hotel remodeling.

However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
afford something like a Pilatus.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

First, Thomas, let me congratulate you on the civil tone of your
response. It's quite pleasant, thank you!

And now you expect me to congratulate you on being condescending and
arrogant without any provocation and totally out of the blue? Why on
earth are you doing that? It could have been an interesting discussion.
Sad...

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Your method of posting is usually
so confrontational that I truly was thankful that you had restricted
your remarks and opinions to aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.

That's really the reason for the IR, in my opinion. It's not that
you'll actually fly a whole lot more, but you'll not worry about those
clouds building "over there" as much. In the end, that is why Mary
and I will eventually get the rating.

Of course, your confidence level should be directly related to your
currency and proficiency. If my observations prove anything, it's
that most instrument-rated private pilots don't use the rating enough
to be proficient.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On the other hand, on the East
side of the Mississippi, the winter can bring days and even weeks of
marginal weather, and the spring and summer bring fronts and convective
activity that isn't to be trifled with.

While your stats may be correct (although my experiences don't bear
them out) what you are not factoring in is the number of days out of
those IFR 5.4% when conditions would stop me from flying **even if I
were instrument rated **, because of my aircraft.

Here in the Midwest, a very large number of the crap-weather days
would preclude flying in Atlas, regardless of rating.

Today is a perfect example. It's actually been mostly VFR here all
day, with periods of "soft" IFR sprinkled in -- but nothing less than
a King Air is flying, because of ice.

Doesn't matter of your the Ace of the Base -- if you're flying a
Cherokee in February, you're gonna be sitting on the ground a lot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

and I can count just TWO that are both current and
proficient instrument pilots.

Did you count me into that mix? I met you last summer. Flying IFR twice
per week since I met you, I am definitely both current and proficient.

Yep.

(Of course, I tell that to *everyone*... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Kyle Boatright" writes:

What does this mean? A few conclusions:
1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
rough-and-tumble Midwest.

Your stats showed only 5% or thereabouts IFR weather. Fair enough. So, 5% of
the time, you won't be able to get in or out due to IFR conditions. I'd
venture that there is another 5% where marginal VFR exists and you wouldn't
venture too far from home in those conditions. So, now we're at a 10% no-go
rate. [...]

Interesting calculations. One extra factor to consider. Chances are
that that 5% figure was calculated on a 24-hour basis, when instead it
would be appropriate to weight it for the daylight or nearly-daylight
hours, when more flying is likely to take place.

- FChE