single pilot ifr trip tonight

Snowbird wrote:

Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
feel sferics allow and in what circs?

What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?

A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
know where it's going to be.

As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's nothing
but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit of the
strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.

What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
nice.

- Andrew

A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
know where it's going to be. [...] the first strike has to be somewhere.


One infers where it's going to be from where it's been. I suspect (but don't
know since I haven't used it) that a strikefinder also shows the little sparks
that aren't full lightning strokes which may occur before a storm fully
develops. So, you would get some advance warning. But the only device that
tells the future is transparant and spherical.


What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
nice.


Radar only shows rain (and such), not turbulence. You can get heavy rain in
smooth air, and wing-wrenching turbulence in clear air. Radar is good info,
but again requires interpretation and active management (you need to tilt up
and down to see stuff above and below).

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Snowbird wrote:


Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
feel sferics allow and in what circs?

What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?


A strikefinder, as I understand it, tells where lightning is. I prefer to
know where it's going to be.

I don't know of any clairvoyant avionics at present. :-) Lightning is
lonely and tends to stay with friends. So, if you see one strike,
you'll likely see others very near by.


As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's nothing
but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit of the
strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.

True, but using your eyes and center radar can give you a clue where the
activity is likely to begin. No guarantees though.


What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would be
nice.

I'd prefer both sferics and radar, but given the need for a pod on a
single and the cost, I think a Strikefinder or Stormscope is an
excellent investment. I flew with a Strikefinder for many years and
found it very helpful in avoiding thunderstorms. I personally would
rather fly in heavy rain than in heavy turbulence, and lightning tends
to correlate well with turbulence.


Matt

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Bob Noel" wrote:

IFR GPS - yeah, whatever

Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
airplane.

Out west you might not be in IMC, but "on top", where the peaks poke through
the cloud tops, is quite common.

Imagine letting down through those conditions.

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

I don't know of any clairvoyant avionics at present. :-)

Huh. Damned FAA.

[...]
As far as surprises: the first strike has to be somewhere. There's
nothing but "big sky" which says that it'll be 200 miles out (the limit
of the strikefinder in a plane I fly) instead of 200 feet out.

True, but using your eyes and center radar can give you a clue where the
activity is likely to begin. No guarantees though.

In IMC, how useful are eyes? This is not a rhetorical question, BTW. *Is*
there something for which we should be looking?


What would I prefer? I don't really know what's available. RADAR would
be nice.

I'd prefer both sferics and radar, but given the need for a pod on a
single and the cost, I think a Strikefinder or Stormscope is an
excellent investment.

Ah. I was actually thinking of something like NEXRAD downloads. I think
the type of RADAR you mean will be...a while in coming for me.

I flew with a Strikefinder for many years and
found it very helpful in avoiding thunderstorms. I personally would
rather fly in heavy rain than in heavy turbulence, and lightning tends
to correlate well with turbulence.

Yes, well, nowadays I associate rain with icing. But that's temporary; I'll
get over it in a few months. Of course, that too is temporary.

- Andrew

To help everyone in this discussion avoid jumping to absolutes (I'm
not accusing you of that, by the way), here's a different way to
approach the problem. Let's say you have a basic plane like mine -- a
125 kt, 160 hp, fixed-gear Warrior II with dual NAVCOM, DME, and ADF
-- that you fly a few hours each month in actual IMC and the rest in
VMC or marginal VMC (filed IFR, in that case).

I think given the class of airplane, you really need to consider trading up to a
more capable airplane before installing some of the items on the list. You'll
end up with way more money invested in your upgrades than you can recoup on
resale for this kind of airplane. Besides, you'll find it's less expensive to
let someone else install this stuff. Buy an airplane with the equipment you want
already installed, to the extent possible. But OK, I'll accept your premise
anyway, and comment on your list


You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
currently in alphabetical order:

Electric AI (backup)

Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com instead.
There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's in the price range
of what you'd want in a piston single. They are either way too expensive, or
they just don't work very well. Apologies if everyone is getting tired of me
pushing this dual-rotor pump, I've posted about it several times. I just think
it's a great price performer and gives a lot of redundancy for the money.

Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)

Nice to have, but not a necessity in this class of airplane. Get one when you
move up to a big-displacement six.

HSI (slaved)

Nice to have, but too expensive to put in this class of airplane.

IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

Yes. I might even spring for the moving map. Garmin 430 is still the sweet spot
in this market, IMO, for this class of airplane.

Stormscope (or Strikefinder)

Very useful if you're doing summer cross countries, at least in the middle
atlantic states where I fly most. Adds a lot of capability to the airplane, IMO.
Marginal whether you want to move up to more of a travelling airplane first,
rather than put this money into a basic IFR trainer.

TPAS

I think the mode-S transponder with the Garmin 430 might be justifiable in this
airplane, especially if you're getting the 430 anyway, and have to replace the
transponder for some reason.

Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

Yes, useful. Consider getting one that's independent of vacuum.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

Dave Butler writes:

I think given the class of airplane, you really need to consider
trading up to a more capable airplane before installing some of the
items on the list.

Yes, I agree -- the point of the exercise was just to get away from
absolute arguments about autopilots, IFR GPS, etc., and see how people
actually prioritize safety equipment on airplanes.

In real life, I may have to move up to an Archer or even a Six in a
few years anyway as my family grows, so I'll probably look for most of
what I need already installed in that. I may install a few of the
things near the top of my own list, but I'm waiting to prove to myself
that they're necessary. The Stormscope (probably used) and
wing-leveller (new) are the most likely candidates; an IFR GPS would
slip in only if I had to start cancelling trips or diverting to
alternates because of a lack of non-GPS approaches.

Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com
instead. There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's
in the price range of what you'd want in a piston single.

I planned to do that when my previous pump failed in September, but
AeroAdvantage was quoting a shipping date more a month away and
talking as if it could be much longer -- I didn't want my plane to end
up grounded for most of the fall.

Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

Yes, useful. Consider getting one that's independent of vacuum.

If I do this, I'll put in a new STEC 20, unless something better comes
along in the low price range before then.


All the best,


David

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
With practice, one learns to compensate and *not* pull the yoke
while performing other tasks. You move your eyes or position,
scan to be sure you're compensating correctly, then go back to
task.

Also, learn to handle the yoke without using a death grip. It may require
a
bit more than fingertip pressure to handle the yoke in turbulence, but
"white knuckles" only makes the sensations worse.



Go get a few hours in a Robinson R22. You will learn how to lightly grip the
stick.

David Megginson wrote:
Dave Butler writes:

Go with the dual-rotor vacuum pump from http://www.aeroadvantage.com
instead. There just isn't a quality electric AI on the market that's
in the price range of what you'd want in a piston single.


I planned to do that when my previous pump failed in September, but
AeroAdvantage was quoting a shipping date more a month away and
talking as if it could be much longer -- I didn't want my plane to end
up grounded for most of the fall.

Quite so. You probably need to think of it as an upgrade and just replace the
pump preemptively while your old pump is still working. That way you have a
working pump to keep around as a spare. When I got mine a few weeks ago they
were quoting 3 weeks delivery.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Regards,

Dave

David Megginson wrote
But they do have better statistics about accidents than we can get
publicly. They know a lot about their individual policy holders, both
the ones who get in accidents and the ones who don't.

Yep. Therefore, the things that do (and don't) get you lower rates
are telling.

There are two PA-30's on my home field now. I own one of them. Both
are insured. I pay about 35% of what the other guy is paying for the
same coverage. There are reasons.

My PA-30 has Stormscope, autopilot, and backup AI. His has none of
these things. However, the insurance companies don't care. They
don't even ask. Further, I agree with their logic. I do not believe
any of these items is a significant safety advantage. However, each
provides a utility advantage.

Backup AI - unlike most people here, I've had an AI failure in night
IMC, on the climbout, during a reroute. No big deal flying partial
panel. Also no big deal flying the AI on the passenger side. But
having the extra AI meant I was legally able to complete my flight,
rather than calling it off and coming home.

Autopilot - great workload reducer for those long days in the cockpit.
Spending 10 hours in the seat without it means being worn down to the
bone by about the ninth hour. If the last two hours of the flight are
going to be night-IMC with bad weather and a circling approach, I'll
bag it and stay the night somewhere. But my new MO is to have the A/P
fly the boring enroute segments in good weather, while I listen to
tunes, watch the scenery, eat a sandwich, and save the hand flying for
the bad weather. Then I hand fly the last couple of hours, fresh as a
daisy.

Stormscope - means I can launch into areas of scattered T-storms and
go around the cells. As I've gained experience with it and learned
the fine points of interpretation, I've discovered that it can be used
as a predictive device (contrary to some opinions expressed here).
I've completed many flights with it that would otherwise be no-go.
RADAR would be nice, but it's about 5% more capability at ten times
the cost.

On the other hand, there are things the insurer does want to know. In
addition to the usual (total time, multi time, make and model time)
they're starting to really pay attention to recurrent training.
Nobody (including me) is covered in my airplane unless, within the
past 12 months, he has had an IPC which includes single engine ops -
in make and model. Just being legally curent for IFR no longer cuts
it, and neither does an IPC in a simpler airplane. I can get a policy
without this restriction - for $1300/year more.

The implication is clear. Rather than spending your time and money on
gadgets, go for high quality recurrent training. It will make far
more difference than any gadget.

Electric AI (backup)

There is no electric AI out there that is reasonably reliable at a
reasonable price. RC Allen is junk. Further, for what you pay for
that backup, you can take recurrent training in partial panel
operations every three months. If you keep your partial panel skills
honed to a fine edge, I assure you that loss of an AI will be no big
deal, especially in a Warrior.

Then there's the issue of the vacuum pumps. Vacuum pumps are
extremely reliable, last longer than the engine, and fail gracefully
with plenty of warning. Of course I mean wet pumps. Dry pumps are
unmitigated junk. They fail catastrophically, with no warning, on a
regular basis - if you need one, you really need two. Also, since
they have an infant mortality rate, prophylactic replacement is really
not a solution. The solution is replacing the dry pump with wet.
There are wet pumps made for most engines, especially the O-320.

Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)

Engine monitors are great for maintenance - they immediately tell you
which jug is bad. Problem is, you can't do anything about it in the
air anyway, and you're going to know that SOMETHING is wrong without
one. They're great for efficiency - with one of those and GAMI's you
can run lean of peak and save on fuel. Of course it will take
hundreds of hours to make up the costs of the equipment and
installation. Frankly, I'm not too impressed by an engine monitor as
a safety item.

HSI (slaved)

Nice to have. Not particularly important unless your scan is poor or
things happen very, very fast.

IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

In 3+ years of flying IFR regularly, not having one forced me to
divert to a nearby airport and complete the remaining 11 miles of the
trip VFR - ONCE. Other than that, a VFR unit is dramatically cheaper,
has a better user interface, and, given the electrical systems of the
airplanes we're talking about, far more reliable. Yes, more reliable
- because it will run off backup battery power. Sure, you could do
that for an IFR GPS - if the FAA would let you. They won't.

Michael