Dishonest PIREPs

flyingcheesehead

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
24,256
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name

Display name:
iMooniac
I didn't think a whole lot about this until we were discussing it in chat tonight, but now that I've thought about it, I've gotta post.

Last Sunday, after hitting 11 airports for the ConUS challenge on the way home from 6Y9, I had a weather dilemma. There was a large thunderstorm moving up from the south that was already over Madison. It was oriented mostly north-south, with the north end a bit farther to the west, and the heavy precip was along the east end. After watching it on a couple of previous stops, I took a longer look when I stopped at 63C, my last stop. Madison was still getting very wet, but wasn't getting the L4 and L5 stuff any more. However, the L5 was headed directly at 63C and there were no tiedowns there, so I decided to depart and if it really was crappy I'd land at RYV until I could get back to MSN. (63C was still good VFR, with menacing black clouds to the west-southwest.)

After departure I grabbed the ATIS and got a popup IFR plan from Madison Approach. I was cleared to MSN via radar vectors at 4,000, fly heading 140. Shortly thereafter, a Cessna 152 checked in VFR on the east-side freq (I was on west) but one controller was working both sectors so I did hear half the conversation, which was all that was needed. Here's what I heard:

"Cessna 469, squawk 04xx"
"Cessna 469, radar contact. Are you aware of the weather?"
"Cessna 469, be aware that I'm showing level 3 precip between you and the field and another aircraft just reported mile and a half visibility. Are you sure you want to continue?"
"Cessna 469, it looks like you passed the runway centerline. Fly heading 190, I'll vector you back onto final."
"Cessna 469, fly heading 210, contact tower now, 119.3."

This was for runway 21, so the approach controller vectored him the whole way in. I was shaking my head and thinking "there's a guy that's gonna make the news someday." I didn't think his idiocy would directly affect me, but then a minute later, I got this:

"Skylane 271G, I'm showing some precip between you and the field, but there's a 152 ahead of you that just flew VFR to runway 21 and reported 3 miles visibility the whole way in. Do you want the visual?"

:mad: :mad: :mad:

"Negative Approach, 271G is solid IMC, request the ILS 21."

I had a limited perception of the horizon out the window due to city lights below making the muck glow. At the FAF, though, I was still IMC. Inside the FAF I would occasionally catch a glimpse of lights on the ground and I thought I saw the beacon once. Rain was still comin' down. I spotted the rabbit at about 850 AGL.

No flippin' way it was VFR. I taxied in, parked with the wing just under the overhang of the south ramp terminal (reason #1 to fly a high wing), and shook my head in disgust at the stupid 152 pilot. IMHO, that was a pretty blatant "Cover-my-ass" PIREP on his part, as both the previous plane and the next (me) were reporting IMC. I never did check to see if his PIREP made it into the system, but the MSN controllers are very helpful and often do enter the PIREPs, even requesting PIREPs for the sole purpose of doing so sometimes.

It didn't occur to me until we were in the chat tonight, though... What if the hazard was ice instead of low vis? A cover-your-ass PIREP for negative ice, while it may save your ticket, could literally kill the next guy. During the winter I rely heavily on PIREPs for ice (or no ice) as the forecasts are often just plain wrong.

Is there anything that can be done about this? The airplane belongs to another club on the field so I have no idea who was flying. The best I can think of is an ASRS report so that maybe someone will think twice before doing that. Problem is, the kind of pilot who actually reads those probably isn't making cover-my-ass PIREPs either.

:mad:
 
Ive heard of competing cargo carriers occasionally reporting severe ice that wasn't there, in order to kibosh the other guy's flight! (not sure how much credence I can give that story however)

Much like any wx reporting, how much faith can you put in any pirep?

I too would be astonished and angered by deliberately misleading ones.
 
I think a friendly chat with an instructor or officer of that other club might produce the most effect. I know if our Flight Director got a report like that with tail number and time there'd be some " splainin to do, Lucy"

Joe
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It didn't occur to me until we were in the chat tonight, though... What if the hazard was ice instead of low vis? A cover-your-ass PIREP for negative ice, while it may save your ticket, could literally kill the next guy. During the winter I rely heavily on PIREPs for ice (or no ice) as the forecasts are often just plain wrong.

From a regulatory point of view it doesn't matter at all if a pilot reports "negative ice". A PIREP can create known icing in a place where no icing was forecast, but a PIREP can not remove known icing status from a place where icing was forecast. From a saftey point of view, you really don't want to be basing go/no go decisions on negative icing PIREPS in forecast icing areas. Bad idea.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Ive heard of competing cargo carriers occasionally reporting severe ice that wasn't there, in order to kibosh the other guy's flight! (not sure how much credence I can give that story however)

Give it good credence--it happened. The story was an appealed "flight into known icing" bust and it was well publicized ~ 1 year ago.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Give it good credence--it happened. The story was an appealed "flight into known icing" bust and it was well publicized ~ 1 year ago.

Wow so much for the Fraternity of Flyers!

Also Kent any chance the guy did have 3mi vis and his hole closed up by the time you got there. In some places vis can go from 3 to zero in the blink of an eye?
 
I've been in the situation that Adam describes. Within a period of less than 5 minutes viz went from VFR to hard IFR. It usually takes longer to clear, unless it is a heavy cell.

I shot the GPS approach into Tyler a week and a half ago, because the ceilings were low enough (<1000) along the approach path. Yet there was at least on VFR departure - and ceilings seemed higher south of the field. I might have been able to do a contact approach if I'd been on the VOR approach instead of the GPS, but why risk it?

At the same time, there was a 414 on frequency trying to get into a local uncontrolled field (I've been in there, it's cheap fuel). His first attempt was a missed, with a request to ATC for a clearance above MVA, but close to the field so he could pop down as a hole got big enough. About 10 minutes later he went in on a visual.

So yeah, conditions can change. But I've also seen a number of occasions where pilots have filed incorrect pireps....
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Ive heard of competing cargo carriers occasionally reporting severe ice that wasn't there, in order to kibosh the other guy's flight! (not sure how much credence I can give that story however)

Give it good credence--it happened. The story was an appealed "flight into known icing" bust and it was well publicized ~ 1 year ago.

wow, good to know - Id like to hear more about that!
 
AdamZ said:
Also Kent any chance the guy did have 3mi vis and his hole closed up by the time you got there. In some places vis can go from 3 to zero in the blink of an eye?

Possible, but I base my suspicion on the fact that the previous plane as well as the next plane (me) both encountered IMC, and the interaction with the controller where the Cessna pretty much ignored an obvious hint from ATC that coming in VFR was not a good idea, and the fact that the Cessna couldn't hold heading and had to be vectored to the runway (which wouldn't have been necessary if he could see it.)

All of that makes it "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my book. Classic get-home-itis.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
From a regulatory point of view it doesn't matter at all if a pilot reports "negative ice". A PIREP can create known icing in a place where no icing was forecast, but a PIREP can not remove known icing status from a place where icing was forecast.

All right, it's learning time. Ed, I couldn't find any definition of known icing in FAR 1.1 nor any mention applicable to small airplanes in part 91. Can you point out a FAR reference?

From a saftey point of view, you really don't want to be basing go/no go decisions on negative icing PIREPS in forecast icing areas. Bad idea.

One PIREP, no. But there'll often be forecast icing and five pireps for negative icing around here.I guess that seems to be my standard - if there are multiple PIREPs and all of them are negative icing, I'll go take a look. Forecast and actual freezing levels are off by several thousand feet more often than not. Around here, anyway.
 
I think Joe was right on and the club's records would reveal the identity of the offending pilot. A club officer could have a good chat with that pilot. I would go one step further, have the officer report back to you and if you're dimayed with the results of that conversation with that pilot you should follow up with the FSDO safety officer.

That doesn't mean you're bringing the whole weight of the FAA down on a fellow pilot; typically, it would simply result in the safety officer having a one on one chat with the offending pilot.

OTOH: just chalk up as more evidence that pilots are trying to kill you and should not be trusted.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
wow, good to know - Id like to hear more about that!

The basic story was two Part 135 cargo operations based at the same airport. One of the operators had a habit of filing bogus icng PIREPS which would effectively ground their competitor's aircraft. A pilot from the victim operation flew anyhow when one of those PIREPS was in place. He was busted, appealed, but the FAA nailed him all the same. IIRC, the story was well covered in AOPA's legal column, Avweb, etc.
 
Back
Top