2nd XC

[mmilano]

yesterday i did my second XC, this one was longer and much more challenging.

i departed carlsbad (crq) for twenty-nine palms (tnp) at 2:30pm. i needed to get fuel at tnp because i still had to stop at borrego valley (l08) before heading back.

the leg to tnp was pretty smooth. after about 18 minutes i reached 7500 so i could safely make it over the mtns right before palm springs. the headings i calculated on the plotter were right on.

i came in a little high, and even though i could have probably landed it, i opted to go around remembering that the different strip widths can alter perception of runway length.

this was my first time at tnp, and first time fueling from a self-serve pump. there was fuel truck that was re-filling the station, so i had to wait for about 20-30 minutes until he was done. i got a taste of some 'hanger talk' as i was talking to a pretty old glider pilot. he was telling me how he was in in a small plane like mine with a friend, and they weren't climbing well, so they headed toward a thunderhead in the distance, and "since we are glider pilots", they used the updraft of the thunderhead to gain some rediculous rate of altitude. he was a very nice guy.

as for the more stressful part, on my climb out of tnp, i was not doing too well in the hot desert with full tanks, but i did a couple circles to get up to altitude to make it over the ridge to borrego valley.

as i approached the ridge at about 7500ft, something was not right. my course seemed to be off judging by the salton sea and the peak location. no problem, i just modified course to where i should be crossing over.

as i got even closer, i started experiencing down drafts and loosing altitude. i put power to 100% and set the climb to vx and i was still loosing 1,000 fpm!

i turned away fromt he ridge to get a little distance, and then modified my course to go completely around them. it added about 45 minutes to the leg, but i had plenty of fuel. this worked out good and tested my wits a little bit.

i had a good landing at borrego, and taxied back for take-off because i've added 45 + 30 un-expected minute to this trip already.

the departuer wasn't much different at borrego. i had to gain a LOT of altitude to get over palomar mtn. after a few zig zags i was at 8500ft, with the sun right in my eyes. the windshield had all these lines in it as if someone rubbed it with sandpaper in a circular motion. after a few minutes i decided i could manage, but i would definately be getting flight following on the way back.

i called la center, who in a few minutes handed me off to so cal. so cal was talking real fast and then he mentioned something about a vor 4 miles out and i wasn't sure what response he wanted. i wasn't using vor. after i told him i was a student pilot, he was a little easier on me.

for this leg, my heading was right on as planned. FF had me alter course 20 degrees for a half minute to keep seperation, but that was it. my course was so good that he asked if i was using the localizer... then told me i was right on track for it and gave me the frequency.

as was toward the end of my decent out of the mtns, he told me the field is 8 miles ahead and handed me off to palomar tower. the sight was amazing!

crq is a couple miles from the ocean, and i was landing runway 24 which faces it. there was a cloud layer over the ocean up to 1500 ft maybe, and the sun was a dark red, finishing it's setting behind the clouds as i was on long final.

the airport lights were on, traffic at palomar was light, and the landing was good enough ( my gauge for that is that i wouldn't be embarrased if someone saw it )

taxied, parked, packed it up, drove home happy.

i logged 3.7 hours and was exhausted. cruising speed in the 152 is supposively 107, but i think i need to calculate a lower speed to get more accurate for the time in route. maybe when it was new, but there is no way the airpseeds are calculating correctly.

wasn't expecting such a long post, but it was nice to reflect on the experience anyway.

 

[jdwatson]

Great post !

Sounds like you learn a great deal all the while having some fun. The sights from altitude are so different than from the ground.

I've never had the opportunity to self-serve pump.

I miss being able to add 'student pilot' to the end of my transmissions when talking to high volume, lightning tongued controllers. Most of them will slow down if you ask nicely. I'm a huge fan of ATC.

You should put this post in your flying journal. In 20 or so years, it'll be even more fun to look back on it. Unless the ADIZ has replicated itself over all the Class-B airspaces.

You did file your comment against FAA-2004-17005 at http://dms.dot.gov/ didn't you ?

 

[GMascelli]

Great reading Mike........Thanks for posting!

All the stories I read make me want it even more. By the way....good job on the 2nd XC

 

[gismo]

Sounds like you did fine. I wouldn't take that gray haired glider pilot's advice and climb under a thunderhead, but there is a lot you can learn about lift and climb rate enhancement by flying gliders.

You may already know this, but the correct way to approach a ridge is at a 45 degree angle to the ridgeline. This is to help with the very situation you encountered, downdrafts that exceed your climb rate as you approach the lee side. By approaching at a big angle you will be able to turn away fairly close to the ridge if things aren't working out. If the wind isn't coming straight off the ridge, it's best to approach from the side that has you flying into the wind as this minimizes the radius of your turn. One other note, when you are fighting a downdraft, use Vy not Vx as this will minimize the loss of altitude or improve your rate of climb. Vx might be more appropriate if you were attempting to climb above the ridge from below, but if you encounter a downdraft that kills your climb at Vy when still below the ridge level you might as well turn away at that point because you aren't going to clear. Approaching at Vy also provides you with the the option of trading a little airspeed for a little altitude when turning away and this also reduces your turn radius.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What a great story, isn't it all exciting?!

 

[mmilano]

yes, very exciting. i hope the next time i do a trip like that though that i'm in a slightly bigger plane with a little more power.

jdw: that is a good idea to save the write-up for later. thanks .. i didn't really have a complaint about atc. thinking back on it now, he was probably assuming i wanted to track the julian vor when i got within range, but i didn't know if flight following really helped you with your flight route on that level. this was my first time using following alone, and after that confusion he was very helpful. i suppose the student thing helped.

lance: thanks for the advice. i did not know that, although the closer i got to the ridge line, the more i did turn away, finally completing a 180 to get a little distance from them before i turned back to paralel them.

the vy vs. vx is interesting, i wish i would have known it then so i could see the difference. i thought vx would for sure be the best way to maintain my altitude for the next couple miles.

thanks for the comments.

 

[Richard]

Lance, I'm disappointed in your response RE: Vy in downdrafts. To be sure, Vy is preferable to Vx but when encountering downdrafts the best option is to dive because this is the surest way to maintain thine airspeed and GS. GS is important because it gets you out of the area that much quicker. Anything else only prolongs your exposure to the downdrafts and may lead to your sudden demise.

As for flying at an altitude which provides minimal clearance to a ridge; that is a serious lapse of judgement. I think this is what you were addressing, if correct than I withdrawl my disappointment.

 

[gismo]

Lance, I'm disappointed in your response RE: Vy in downdrafts. To be sure, Vy is preferable to Vx but when encountering downdrafts the best option is to dive because this is the surest way to maintain thine airspeed and GS. GS is important because it gets you out of the area that much quicker. Anything else only prolongs your exposure to the downdrafts and may lead to your sudden demise.

It is true that the speed that will give you the least altitude loss is greater than Vy in a headwind or downdraft, but at high altitude, the published Vy will be higher than the actual (altitude compensated) Vy anyway so it'll be fairly close. In any case it will do better than Vx when approaching a ridge. Flying away from a ridge in a downdraft means you are flying in a tailwind so speeding up isn't likely to help.

As for flying at an altitude which provides minimal clearance to a ridge; that is a serious lapse of judgement. I think this is what you were addressing, if correct than I withdrawl my disappointment.

I couldn't quite follow that, but sometimes the only way to clear a ridge or saddle is to come fairly close to the top of the ridge. That's why you approach at an angle so you can turn away if it's not working out. As long as you always have a "way out" I don't see this as a "serious lack of judgement", unless you attempt it when the wind across the ridge is high enough to create signifcant turbulence (typically > 20 Kt).

 

[Richard]

It is true that the speed that will give you the least altitude loss is greater than Vy in a headwind or downdraft, but at high altitude, the published Vy will be higher than the actual (altitude compensated) Vy anyway so it'll be fairly close. In any case it will do better than Vx when approaching a ridge. Flying away from a ridge in a downdraft means you are flying in a tailwind so speeding up isn't likely to help.

You make a good point about speed but my point was to expediate leaving the area. The original poster mentioned Vx and I thought, uh oh. Picking a 'book speed' and targeting that on the ASI could be trouble--just when you think you're doing okay. That explains my 'disappointment' I felt from your response. Bad technique but a 'correct' airspeed would not culminate in a happy outcome. By mentioning Vy it seemed you were supporting just that.

It didn't occur to me you had flying away from the ridge in mind when you wrote what you did. Heck, if flying away from the offending terrain I wouldn't dive, I'd just take whatever comes, as long as their were no other terrain to avoid on my new heading and I stay within the parameters.

I couldn't quite follow that, but sometimes the only way to clear a ridge or saddle is to come fairly close to the top of the ridge. That's why you approach at an angle so you can turn away if it's not working out. As long as you always have a "way out" I don't see this as a "serious lack of judgement", unless you attempt it when the wind across the ridge is high enough to create signifcant turbulence (typically > 20 Kt).

What I had in mind here was if a climb is needed to clear yonder ridge then the pilot has made an error in altitude. Sure, turning away from the ridge is an option but there are other options to exercise before turning away. Too low alt removes a lot of those options and forces either a climb to the accident scene or to turn away.

I see what you're saying about minimal clearance 'tween a/c and ridge. I guess here is where it comes down to individual acceptance of risk. The only way I would fly down low close to a ridge is if I was intimately familiar with local wx patterns. I know the winds in the coastal mtns so I don't have a problem here but I would consider altering that technique when in another neighborhood. For someone with zero-none experience I would say no way solo.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I used to accelerate the airplane when in sink in order to exit it faster when in such situations. It means a greater descent rate initially, but the end result is better usually. You have to Make Sure you are heading towards lift and away from rising terrain though.

 

[Richard]

To be sure, Vy is preferable to Vx but when encountering downdrafts the best option is to dive because this is the surest way to maintain thine airspeed and GS.

Rereading what I wrote. Lest anyone get the idea that I'm talking about the pitfalls of the 'dangerous' downwind turn be assured I certainly am not.

 

[Richard]

I used to accelerate the airplane when in sink in order to exit it faster when in such situations. It means a greater descent rate initially, but the end result is better usually. You have to Make Sure you are heading towards lift and away from rising terrain though.

Would lack of downdraft suffice as a substitution for lift, as used in this context?

 

[Rudy]

Awesome post,
Sounds like you had a good flight and learned a lot.
It is great to hear of a flying adventure especially if there are challenges during it.

Thanks for sharing,

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Would lack of downdraft suffice as a substitution for lift, as used in this context?

I suppose. however, I find when flying in the mountains of NM and W Texas that you are either in lift or sink due to constant thermals, mechanical turbulence or even wave activity........and vsi=0 is rare!

 

[Richard]

I suppose. however, I find when flying in the mountains of NM and W Texas that you are either in lift or sink due to constant thermals, mechanical turbulence or even wave activity........and vsi=0 is rare!

What you say about the convection and that your tag reads W TX I had to look to see where Marfa is. Wow, you're way down there. Anyway, we were cruising along out of El Paso heading east and we came across that high plateau at 9,500. Sharply rising out of what looked to be salt pan it was a sight to behold. About a minute before we crossed onto the higher terrain I cinched up the belt real good and advised my partner to do the same. Lucky for us. All the way to OK did we get tossed like a salad.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What you say about the convection and that your tag reads W TX I had to look to see where Marfa is. Wow, you're way down there. Anyway, we were cruising along out of El Paso heading east and we came across that high plateau at 9,500. Sharply rising out of what looked to be salt pan it was a sight to behold. About a minute before we crossed onto the higher terrain I cinched up the belt real good and advised my partner to do the same. Lucky for us. All the way to OK did we get tossed like a salad.

Thatd'be us. You were probably looking at Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in Tx (87-8800msl I think) - it has quite a bit of scrap aluminum on it, btw. Whenever I am in central or east Texas and people ask about where we flew in from 90% cannot believe there are mountains in Texas and that they get snow most years. It really is a big state.