First approach in actual

David Megginson wrote
Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
engine.

Given what I've seen of winter flying, I think the problem is with
your imagination .

Seriously - any time you stick your nose into the clouds in
subfreezing temperatures, you are accepting SOME risk of ice taking
you down. Legalities aside, you have to decide how much risk you are
comfortable with. But having made that decision - realize that danger
is relative, and inexperience can be a magnifying glass (to quote
Lindbergh).

Having encountered ice both in low powered airplanes (Tomahawk,
TriPacer) and in my 320-hp Twin Comanche (comparison not direct - the
150-hp TriPacer was 2000 gross; the 320-hp Twin Comanche is 3600
gross, so the power loading difference is significant but not as
dramatic as the raw numbers might suggest), I can tell you with
absolute certainty that there is a DRAMATIC difference in the options
available. And so yes, I believe understanding of that difference
(which, unfortunately, only comes with experience) would indeed cause
you to cancel fewer flights with the bigger engine while maintaining
the same (non-zero) tolerance for risk.

Of course there is more to it than just power - I would be far less
comfortable in icing conditions in a Tiger than in a Cherokee 180,
even though the power is the same. Aerodynamic design counts for
something as well. But the basic idea is that there are differences
in the way different airplanes handle ice accumulation, and those
differences are significant. There are those who would believe that
unless you're in a known-ice Navajo, you might as well be in a
Cherokee - but that is simply not true. More power gives you more
options to escape.

Of course if your tolerance for icing risk is zero, this all goes out
the window. But in that case, the instrument rating is worthless in
half the US for half the year, and I imagine it's only worse in
Canada.

The one situation I can think of where it would make a big difference is
flying in the mountains out west (which I don't do) -- I'd be nervous flying
IFR in even remotely-possible icing conditions in a 160 hp or 180 hp plane.

Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...

I'll give you another situation - you have a low overcast layer, bases
about 1500, tops to 5000 or so. With plenty of ponies, you can put
the plane level at full power under the bases, accelerate to as far as
she will go, zoom up, and in about three minutes you are on top -
carrying some ice, but now you're in the sunshine and that ice will
come off. Try that trick with a Cherokee...

Michael

I'm a bit skewed on avionics, since I do the installation and shop around. All
I have for a benchmark is going from *NOTHING* in the panel to a full King digital IFR
stack for about $4.5k TOTAL (less my install time). I know that's a gross exception
to the normal costs, but adding a single somewhat-optional item for $4.3k sounds
rather expensive by comparison. Usually going early enough in the day will get you by
anything that you can avoid with a stormscope, I'd think.

-Cory

David
Megginson wrote:
: wrote:

: Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
: airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
: airframe.

: It's not quite that bad. A new Stormscope installed was about USD 8K when I
: checked last spring; the used one I ended up putting in my Warrior was about
: USD 2.5K plus installation (about USD 1.8K). It's cheap enough that it's a
: worthwhile investment even for an entry-level IFR plane. Now, if you're
: asking whether I'd put a Garmin 530, a two-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance
: systems, etc. in a USD 55K plane, you'd find that you and I agree.


: All the best,


: David

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Michael wrote (massively snipped):

Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
engine.

Given what I've seen of winter flying, I think the problem is with
your imagination .

Fair enough -- we all have different ideas of risk. For example, I'm
comfortable flying single-pilot IFR at night (without an AP in my plane),
and am willing to do circling approaches, but I won't fly circling
approaches in low IMC at night. Some might say that I'm nuts to fly SP-IFR
without an autopilot, and others might say I'm overly cautious in avoiding
night circling approaches -- we have to respect each others' personal limits
as long as they're reasonable.

Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...

Good point -- in that case, the extra horsepower might save me a diversion.
It's not a safety issue in that case (I always have the choice of turning
around rather than flying into the clouds), but it does save the trip. Of
course, a turbocharged engine and an oxygen bottle would be an even bigger
benefit.

I'll give you another situation - you have a low overcast layer, bases
about 1500, tops to 5000 or so. With plenty of ponies, you can put
the plane level at full power under the bases, accelerate to as far as
she will go, zoom up, and in about three minutes you are on top -
carrying some ice, but now you're in the sunshine and that ice will
come off. Try that trick with a Cherokee...

With only me on board, I might manage it in five minutes if I didn't pick up
too much ice, but fully loaded, I agree, it would be more like 10 minutes
even in the best circumstances and quite likely not at all if the plane iced
up too badly. Then again, my airframe icing tolerance is exactly zero -- at
the first trace, I change altitude (all I've had to do so far) or turn back
or land. As soon as I saw any ice in the clouds I'd be on my way back down
again, even with a fast plane.

There are some alternatives, though -- one is to do a shuttle climb
(climbing hold) within a few miles of the airport. If you succeed in
topping out the clouds without picking up ice, you continue on your way; if
you accumulate a lot of ice suddenly, you're within a couple of minutes of
the runway.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote
Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...

Good point -- in that case, the extra horsepower might save me a diversion.

No - it could save you an emergency. You can be flying over the top,
doing fine - and then the tops rise faster than you can climb. If
your ice avoidance strategy is staying on top, and you can't manage AT
LEAST a solid 500 fpm climb to outclimb rising clouds, you don't have
much of a strategy. BTDT.

With only me on board, I might manage it in five minutes if I didn't pick up
too much ice, but fully loaded, I agree, it would be more like 10 minutes
even in the best circumstances and quite likely not at all if the plane iced
up too badly. Then again, my airframe icing tolerance is exactly zero -- at
the first trace, I change altitude (all I've had to do so far) or turn back
or land. As soon as I saw any ice in the clouds I'd be on my way back down
again, even with a fast plane.

You may not have that option - if it's below the MIA, you would need
to shoot an approach. Having extra horsepower makes a big difference
there too - it gives you time to get down in a controlled manner.

If the bases are above the MIA, why risk the ice at all? Just go VFR.

Yes, there are situation where the bases are above MIA where you are,
but you need to climb to get where you are going. Now we're back to
dealing with mountains, and see above about clouds climbing up to get
you.

There are some alternatives, though -- one is to do a shuttle climb
(climbing hold) within a few miles of the airport. If you succeed in
topping out the clouds without picking up ice, you continue on your way; if
you accumulate a lot of ice suddenly, you're within a couple of minutes of
the runway.

No, you're NOT within a couple of minutes of the runway - not unless
the bases are reasonably high (above MIA, anyway). It's one thing to
fly below MIA under the bases when you can see what's ahead of you,
another thing entirely to try and descend out of the clouds, below the
MIA, not on an approach, and likely with your windshield iced over.
But without the big engine to carry you through the approach, that's
exactly what you might wind up doing - thus increasing the risk.

Michael

Michael wrote:

No - it could save you an emergency. You can be flying over the top,
doing fine - and then the tops rise faster than you can climb. If
your ice avoidance strategy is staying on top, and you can't manage AT
LEAST a solid 500 fpm climb to outclimb rising clouds, you don't have
much of a strategy. BTDT.

Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an unusually
powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without a
turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to rise
because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any more.
That's a diversion, not an emergency, unless you're cutting it close on fuel.

You may not have that option - if it's below the MIA, you would need
to shoot an approach. Having extra horsepower makes a big difference
there too - it gives you time to get down in a controlled manner.

If the bases are above the MIA, why risk the ice at all? Just go VFR.

Yes, there are situation where the bases are above MIA where you are,
but you need to climb to get where you are going. Now we're back to
dealing with mountains, and see above about clouds climbing up to get
you.

Not just mountains -- even big hills can cause trouble with a 3,000 ft
ceiling. There's also the issue of IMC along the route, like the
lake-effect muck that usually sits over Watertown and Syracuse.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message =
...
=20
Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an =
unusually=20
powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without =
a=20
turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to =
rise=20
because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any =
more.=20
=20
=20
David

In summertime, it certainly does NOT take an "unusually powerful =
developing
CB" to have tops rising faster than 500 fpm.
However, since the topic is really concerned with ice and cold-weather =
flying,
your answer is appropriate in context. No harm, no foul.
---JRC---

wrote:
I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC,
but it has to
be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to
deal with any
ice,

Agree.

or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.

What equipment do you need for that that a Cherokee 180 couldn't carry?
I have satellite NEXRAD + lightning that lets me deal with embedded TS
just fine.

: No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I
bought
: it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training
wheels"
: purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing
hand
: flying.

That's where I'm at... Not seeing the need to fork out the cash
for an
autopilot, but it would be nice to have as "backup training wheels"
just in case you
need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC.

I have a little different philosophy about this: I believe you should
use everything you've got. The autopilot has the same status as the AI
as far as I'm concerned: it requires proficency to use properly. That
case where you "need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC" is not the
time to make a mistake setting the autopilot.

For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
the soup... just don't get to do enough.

Some pilots seem to be a lot more relaxed than I am in IMC: I get
paranoid. I'm always expecting trouble - instruments, engine,
whatever -so I use the AP because it reduces the task load and improves
my overall awareness.

This is really why there are two pilots in an airliner, not just to have
a backup in case one dies. It's one of the reasons airline flying is so
safe. I try to follow their example to the extent my equipment allows.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
: What equipment do you need for that that a Cherokee 180 couldn't carry?
: I have satellite NEXRAD + lightning that lets me deal with embedded TS
: just fine.

Not that it wouldn't carry, but for the most part just doesn't make financial
sense to add it.

: I have a little different philosophy about this: I believe you should
: use everything you've got. The autopilot has the same status as the AI
: as far as I'm concerned: it requires proficency to use properly. That
: case where you "need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC" is not the
: time to make a mistake setting the autopilot.

I wasn't suggesting not using it until you need it, and I agree that you need
to be familiar with it. It's the pilots (VFR or non-current/comfortable IFR) pilots
that say things like, "I just needed to punch through a layer, so I just put the
autopilot on to climb through it." Those kinda auto-pilot-IMC'ers make me shudder.

: For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
: the soup... just don't get to do enough.

: Some pilots seem to be a lot more relaxed than I am in IMC: I get
: paranoid. I'm always expecting trouble - instruments, engine,
: whatever -so I use the AP because it reduces the task load and improves
: my overall awareness.

I wouldn't say "relaxed" is correct, but I consider any IMC time additional
training. Since most of IFR is combating task saturation, I think hand-flying while
*also* trying to expand your scan, keep tabs on weather, etc, is good practice. Since
you won't have any problems 95% of the time, that means when the chips are down that
few other percent of the time, you'll have CPU cycles to deal with it.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

David Megginson wrote
Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an unusually
powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without a
turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to rise
because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any more.

Yeah, I used to think so too. I turned around. It didn't help. The
clouds kept rising. But you're welcome to disbelieve me if you like -
you'll find out eventually.

Not just mountains -- even big hills can cause trouble with a 3,000 ft
ceiling. There's also the issue of IMC along the route, like the
lake-effect muck that usually sits over Watertown and Syracuse.

Yes, there are situation where this is the case. And there are plenty
more situations where the bases are below the MIA, and climbing into
the soup in a low-powered airplane means rolling the dice on coming
out the bottom at a random spot rather than on an approach. Of course
it's a roll of the dice in ANY airplane - severe icing will bring down
anything - but the less excess power you have available, the worse the
odds are.

Michael