Commercial crosscountry PIREP (way too long)

I wrote most of this just after getting back from a solo cross-country
towards my Commercial certificate. I'd never flown so far solo before. I
realize for some of you old hands this isn't exceptional, but I'm still
kicking off what seems like a whole series of training wheels. I thought I'd
write these impressions while they are fresh, before I drop into bed under
the influence of two large glasses of wine.

I'd spent some hours during the week working out the various options. All of
them involved going from Paine Field with different routings to either North
Bend or Roseburg, both in Oregon. Not being sure of the fuel consumption of
our elderly 172's, I had a conversation with our chief instructor yesterday
and decided to assume 9gph, and make two fuel stops. North Bend turned out
to have a forecast of strong gusting crosswinds (outside the envelope of
both me and the plane) and - I just checked - the forecast was accurate.
Roseburg was also forecast to be gusty - and it wasn't.

I hadn't slept well the night before, partly because of the anticipation,
and I came close to canceling. Still, I inventoried my state of alertness
and decided I was OK (feel free to flame me here). The only plane available
for the full day was 6132G, a nice craft to fly but with basic radios with
no flip-flop. That was actually no problem; the radio changes were not
challenging. I arrived at Regal Air around 10:15, talked to briefers, and
even filed IFR plans for the first and last legs, although I don't really
know why - there is very little advantage around here in IFR over flight
following on a CAVU day, and as it happened today the IFR altitudes had a
strong headwind for the first leg, which I was able to duck. Also, the
plane's VOR receivers hadn't been calibrated since May, and since the Paine
VOR is out of service it'd have been hard to verify them before launching
anyway. But I used flight following on every leg.

Weather for the entire route was unlimited and clear. I packed two water
bottles, granola bars, fruit and a sandwich, fired up my old Airmap 300 with
the 1999 database and was off at 11:28.

OK, I'll be honest. After all the planning, the four segments themselves
were pretty routine. PAE to HIO just required that I avoid the perma-TFRs
and the Blue Angels TFR. I gave the Angels a wide berth and couldn't
actually see any of their performance. Charged down to Hillsboro, had the
same problem as once before with making out the airport, landed bouncily on
the cross-runway 02 (the main runway 12-30 was closed for cleaning) and went
to find my son and grandson who live nearby and had come to meet me. Hung
out with them and paid for the tank top-up. Talked to a briefer and
mentioned that the ride down was smooth but light turbulence during the
descent. Later I saw that he had recorded that as a PIREP.

The family waved me off and I went south, UBG direct Eugene and on to
Roseburg. On the way down, near Salem, I had used the GPS to calculate the
winds. At 6500 feet, my result was the same as the 6000 winds aloft
forecast, except one knot different, so there was another PIREP. Although it
seems like a dream now, the view over the Willamette valley is gorgeous. The
valley itself is well tended, the Pacific was shimmering beyond the coastal
range, and Mount Jefferson and the Three Sisters marked the Cascades. Not
once did I get a traffic call in all of Oregon.

RBG is hidden in a notch as the valley gives way to some hills, finally
revealing itself, with the 34 pattern rather too close for comfort to a
ridgeline to the west. Landed reasonably, and took some pictures just to
prove the point, and refilled the water bottles. I got a youngster to sign
the logbook, because I thought at least someone should. Roseburg was 99
degrees (yes, I had estimated the density altitude), and the nice dry breeze
meant some of the oil intended for the sump went onto my shirt. So I was in
Roseburg longer than intended, and left half an hour late on my schedule for
the day.

I flew airways most of the way to McMinnville, ignoring the GPS this time.
By now there was a sameness to the flying, but I found a liberal talk radio
show on the ADF, which resulted in my missing a couple of calls from
Center... At MMV there was a 6-knot crosswind, and taking extra care in the
landing (and despite an updraft on short final) I was very pleased with a
smooth straight touchdown. I had called the FBO on Unicom, so they came out
to meet me and refill the tanks again. I got a quick turnaround to get me
back on schedule.

And so back to Everett, via direct Olympia, direct. This was another leg for
sightseeing and checking off the landmarks. Here, my broken sleep had some
affect on my alertness. Although my flying was fine, and I didn't miss
anything on the radio, I found myself fixating on one instrument or another
and had to jolt myself back to a normal state. This was also the longest of
the four legs. After Olympia I had a series of negotiations with the
controller, which brought me back to the desired alertness. He didn't want
me within 10 miles of the SeaTac evening push, and I didn't want to be too
low ... I could have canceled FF, but that would have been rude, somehow. We
worked it out and finally, after a long straight-in, with all my wits about
me, I did a smooth, soft landing that bisected the centerline.

Lessons learned. Get sleep. Just conducting the airplane on a series of 90
minute legs can be draining, and the need to keep having something to do.
What I had almost forgotten - a good plan, with latest wind forecasts, can
be carried out almost to the minute. And, I suppose the best lesson, how
easy I found the whole thing. And the scenery isn't bad, either. I know one
purpose of the commercial XC is to help you deal with changing weather. Oh
well. It did get hotter in the Deep South, and there was an impressive
pressure gradient that was probably responsible for the surface breezes.
Even my calls to Fligh****ch tended to get a "still CAVU, why are you
asking, thanks for the PIREP".

About that fuel consumption. I had planned for 65% cruise, using the book
values for RPM under the altitude/temperature conditions, and the numbers
worked out at around 7.5gph, which is pretty good. That assumes the same
burn rate for descent as for cruise, so it's probably an underestimate, but
in any case I seem to have easily matched the book consumption. Not bad for
a 1979 Skyhawk.

Hobbs 6.8
Straight line PAE to RBG 284
Distance flown 585

-- David Brooks

You get traffic reports with VFR flight following, too, AJW. That's what it
is for. The real name of FF is "Radar Traffic Information Service" (4-1-14
AIM). Not the best reason for choosing IFR over VFR.

Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I almost always file IFR. It makes
(in my view, at least) flying much easier.

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:xE_Rc.101784$8_6.36019@attbi_s04...
[...] I realized how scary
it would be to land there at night. That realization sort of put me off
going to new airports at night VFR.

For some airports, it should. For others, it's not such a big deal.

It depends a lot on the airport itself and the terrain around it. I'm also
more comfortable flying into an unfamiliar airport at night if it's got an
instrument approach I can use, especially if I'm actually flying on an IFR
flight plan and am under radar control.

Other airports, even if I'm familiar with them, I would be VERY wary about
landing or departing at night.

Of course, there's "night" and then there's "NIGHT". With clear skies and a
full moon, night operations are a lot easier. Overcast or new moon
conditions are basically IFR, at least in the rural areas, even if you're
legally flying VFR.

As usual, it comes down an "it depends". You're wise to avoid night
operations at *certain* airports that you're unfamiliar with, but don't
limit yourself unnecessarily.

Pete

AJW wrote:

You get traffic reports with VFR flight following, too, AJW. That's what it
is for. The real name of FF is "Radar Traffic Information Service" (4-1-14
AIM). Not the best reason for choosing IFR over VFR.

Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I almost always file IFR. It makes
(in my view, at least) flying much easier.

I'm still wavering on this issue, but when flying eastbound, I usually file
IFR so that I can get above the clouds and pick up the strong tailwinds.
Sometimes IFR doesn't make sense westbound because the MEAs are too high
(navaid reception, not terrain) and would put me into the strong headwinds.
North and south are tossups, of course, since you can have a headwind or
tailwind either way. When you're flying a slow, 126-knot plane like a
Warrior, a 30-50 kt headwind or tailwind makes an enormous difference in
your ETE.

When in doubt, I file -- if I get a clearance I don't like and I'm in good
VMC, I can always cancel IFR. If I'm in IMC or MVFR conditions, well, I
need to be IFR anyway.


All the best,


David

"I can appreciate your not flying IFR. but in general it's so much easier to
plan and fly under those rules than VFR, and the traffic reports are nice to
have. too."

Agreed...but I interpreted your comment about traffic reports (above) to
mean that they were not available when VFR.

Bob

"AJW" wrote in message
...

You get traffic reports with VFR flight following, too, AJW. That's what
it
is for. The real name of FF is "Radar Traffic Information Service"
(4-1-14
AIM). Not the best reason for choosing IFR over VFR.

Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I almost always file IFR. It
makes
(in my view, at least) flying much easier.