Go IFR, VFR, or Drive?

[skidoo]

So here is a scenario I tend to have a lot this time of year.

Departure KGPI
Destination KBIL

Airplane: Cessna T182T - G1000
Fuel: enough to fly to destination and back plus reserves.

Weather:

Departure: OC to Broken - Ceiling 5K, temp 38F
Airmet for Icing 5K to 12K in the departure area. One Pirep confirmed light ice from 7.5K to 10K. No icing forecast 15K or above.

Enroute: All airports enroute are reporting VFR and ceilings of 8K to 12K. Radar show scattered areas of snow showers such that one could route around them. But Satellite shows clouds mostly OC to Broken most of the Route.

Destination: Clear or ceiling at 12K or higher (i.e.> 15K MSL)

Visibility: > 10 everywhere underneath or above, except areas of precipitation.


Options:

1) File IFR, find a hole at departure, climb to 15K, get clearance and fly on top, expect destination to be clear in 2 hours.

2) Fly VFR, stay low like 5 to 7K, follow the valleys and interstate. Need to cross two major passes above 6K to 6.5K MSL.

3) Just Drive.


For 1), my concern is counting on a hole being present when I am ready to depart.


For 2), My concern is getting stuck in a valley that happens to be precipitating across the valley at the time. What is my out if the valley fills in ahead and then also behind with no airfields available. Do I choose to circle and wait, or set it down on the highway or field, or take my chances with ice, declare an emergency and climb to the top?

For 3), This is an easy choice and is my choice for now. But, my concern is if I am being too cautious. Maybe so in the flatlands, but in these mountains, maybe not so much?


My other question is when icing is forecast as possible from 5K to 12K MSL, but ceilings are being reported at 10K AGL (i.e. 13K MSL), what am I to think regarding icing in that area? In that case, if I flew at 10K msl, I would be 3K under the ceiling... This is what frustrates me so much regarding the icing forecasts...

For those of you with experience in the Western Mountains, any input?

 

[poadeleted20]

Check all the available weather data, do what you think is safe, and ignore anyone who says "fly" when you didn't like that idea yourself.

 

[frfly172]

You know there is ice up to 10 K ft. Why chance it,what if you don't break out at 15k. Why do you think they call them suckers hole?

 

[Hydroguy2]

I'm VFR only but also struggle with crossing the passes going from 8u8(townsend) to 97MT(cabincreek) or S27(Kalispell city). SO here is a little helper to "view the routes". Webcams...Some are fixed direction cams others can pan tilt zoom.

http://www.bigskyfishing.com/Web-Cams/Web-Cams.htm

 

[Alexb2000]

I've faced this so many times I can't count. Go to the airport and look around for a hole large enough to circle in. Don't try to figure this out on a weather computer, it's a visual exercise. File up. Fly to the hole and begin circling up. Tell ATC you are on a circling VFR climb to on top with an IFR plan on file. Once you top open the plan or if you need to go above 18, open on the way up.

IF you can't top, or if the hole begins to close, circle back down and land. Don't do this without 100% confidence in VFR ceilings so you know you can get back in without shooting an approach in icing, that's the out.

If I didn't fly on icing days, I would be on the ground 8 months a year.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

In a non FIKI machine I always start by assuming I cannot fly and then use the evidence available to attempt to prove otherwise. Getting caught in a canyon is a real possibility, and I would have to know the terrain before I could offer any judgement on that. Counting on a hole when you need one is a losing proposition.

 

[pericynthion]

Got oxygen?

 

[Ted]

When are you looking at this? I'm looking at similar tomorrow.

 

[skidoo]

Got oxygen?

Yes, and it works great!

 

[skidoo]

When are you looking at this? I'm looking at similar tomorrow.

I was looking at today's weather as an example, but I am actually looking at doing this for Monday morning or afternoon 11/18. But, another thing just came up that would benefit a stop in Missoula with quick easy ground transportation there. And, the turbulence doesn't look good anyway. So, I decided to just forget about it this trip and drive. There will be another day when I need to look at a similar situation and may decide differently...

 

[akpilot907]

If it was for buisness, I'd drive. Wake up earlier and head out with a cup of hot joe! The Alaskan bush pilot side of me would say to fly VFR underneath it all, but keeping an out at all times if encountered with a tricky situation. I agree with the first comment on icing up to 10,000ft. There is also a report of known icing... Remember, airplanes that are not certificated for flight into known icing conditions is prohibited. AOPA had an interesting crash investigation that involved a Cirrus, pretty similar to something like this senario. The pilot took off out of somewhere in the western US after attending the super bowl. A weather front was moving in and he tried to get in front of it. There were PIREPS of known icing in the area, but were not briefed to the pilot during the call to FSS. He was briefed that there was a possibility of icing through his climb up to the MEA, the rest goes down hill. A good case to study, I'll PM you the link if I can find it again...

 

[flyingmoose]

WHat is the disadvantage to staying under it?

 

[timwinters]

WHat is the disadvantage to staying under it?

If I read his post correctly, he probably can't, it's not flatland and he has two passes to navigate. Thus, that eliminates the VFR option.

I'd drive.

But, then again, I'd make that decision on my own.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If I read his post correctly, he probably can't, it's not flatland and he has two passes to navigate. Thus, that eliminates the VFR option.

Or maybe he can, but doesn't want to take the chance of getting trapped between the ceiling and rising terrain.

 

[Ted]

I was looking at today's weather as an example, but I am actually looking at doing this for Monday morning or afternoon 11/18. But, another thing just came up that would benefit a stop in Missoula with quick easy ground transportation there. And, the turbulence doesn't look good anyway. So, I decided to just forget about it this trip and drive. There will be another day when I need to look at a similar situation and may decide differently...

We're starting the day in Fargo, heading to Great Falls for fuel, then on to Seattle. The weather today for the first half to Great Falls doesn't bother me. Of course, having de-ice changes my perspective slightly on climbing through a relatively layer out here, especially with 600 HP on tap.

The second half is another issue, but there are options. We just won't be flying D->Seattle today.

 

[Ted]

Or maybe he can, but doesn't want to take the chance of getting trapped between the ceiling and rising terrain.

That would be bad. Mountains have always won in battles with airplanes.

 

[LDJones]

Last time I flew out of KGPI there were low clouds and thunderstorms to the south. So we opted to go VFR to the south, then turning east ahead of the storms, with a defined set of airports along our route that would be our "out" if the weather deteriorated on us. We evaluated the weather ahead as we passed each of those airports, and only pressed ahead when satisfied we could make the next one, or could turn back if necessary.

But if there's the slightest doubt...drive. As my original flight instructor said one day when I was evaluating a scud-running scenario: "Loren, days like today are why they make Buicks."

 

[Sac Arrow]

If I can't count on staying VFR under it I'm driving.

 

[cirrusmx]

if hesitating and asking on the forums for a go/no go decision, then just drive my friend. You are obviously not comfortable with the available weather data.

 

[Marauder]

But if there's the slightest doubt...drive. As my original flight instructor said one day when I was evaluating a scud-running scenario: "Loren, days like today are why they make Buicks."

Love that line Loren. This time of year is always a challenge for those of us in the northern states. I spend a lot of time in WNY in the winter and find myself driving about half of the time due to the uncertainity of when & if icing is present and what my work schedule will afford me to wait out.

 

[DavidWhite]

You know there is ice up to 10 K ft. Why chance it,what if you don't break out at 15k. Why do you think they call them suckers hole?

btdt in an almost identical plane. My inexperience with ice led me to make a poor decision and it could have killed me.

PS - I'd be driving

 

[comanchepilot]

Fly VFR under the deck? You need to add the surface MSL to the bases so with a 4k MSL and 8k ceiling you have clouds at 12k. The real issue is VFR under the deck, right? If it's doable and the winds over the peaks would not cause bad rotors and up/down drafts then I'd go VFR and pick up a pop up Ifr when and if needed understanding that the MEAs are in the forecast icing . . . .

 

[Clark1961]

Fly VFR under the deck? You need to add the surface MSL to the bases so with a 4k MSL and 8k ceiling you have clouds at 12k. The real issue is VFR under the deck, right? If it's doable and the winds over the peaks would not cause bad rotors and up/down drafts then I'd go VFR and pick up a pop up Ifr when and if needed understanding that the MEAs are in the forecast icing . . . .

I've done this. It helps to follow the mtn flying "rules" as best you can and to make sure you've flown the route in clear weather so you can tell where you are with just a few visual clues. The most important rules are probably 2,000' of clearance over a pass and winds below 30 knots. You can live with reduced visibility if you *know* the area by sight. The problem with not *knowing* the area is a mistake in picking a valley/route stands a chance of killing you.

Of course at the end of the day if icing is probable or likely then stay on the ground or be over-the-top with clear sky on both ends.

 

[flyingmoose]

If I read his post correctly, he probably can't, it's not flatland and he has two passes to navigate. Thus, that eliminates the VFR option.

I'd drive.

But, then again, I'd make that decision on my own.

I must have read it wrong, but I though option two was: 2) Fly VFR, stay low like 5 to 7K, follow the valleys and interstate. Need to cross two major passes above 6K to 6.5K MSL.

 

[tehmightypirate]

I would have said option 1 for sure but that icing pirep nixed that in my mind. If your hole isn't there or closes on you or the clouds rise and you ice up halfway that just sounds like a terrible time or possibly a no-go call in mid-flight and a waste of time.

 

[Ghery]

I've got the IR, but this looks like a drive trip to me. Not just forecasts of ice, but PIREP of same. Rules out punching through the clouds IFR. Passes are too iffy for me VFR. I'd drive, and then watch the weather fully support a nice VFR flight. Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.

 

[Alexb2000]

Since I said number one, I'm surprised so many took other choices. Other than being conservative, why not?

The OP has the aircraft to top those conditions easily. As long as a suitable hole can be found it shouldn't even be exciting.

 

[akpilot907]

Flying into Mountainous terrain with low ceilings, precip, and a single engine aircraft is extremly dangerous... Unless you have a 300-1 thrust ratio and can climb to FL600 in 10 minutes, don't attempt to play chicken with the mountain. Scud running through those mountains, from that I can see on ForeFlight, there aren't many options for a divert or easy options to land at another airport... But if you ever find yourself in a tricky situation, a highway/road is an option...

The rule of thumb while flying through a mountain range, at least here in Anchorage/ Fairbanks, is to hug the right side of the mountain edge while flying through, this is simply for other aircraft coming through, somewhat similar to a two-way traffic flow. Most passes in the mountains have a set radio freq. too, perhaps ask around to other pilots..

 

[tehmightypirate]

Since I said number one, I'm surprised so many took other choices. Other than being conservative, why not?

The OP has the aircraft to top those conditions easily. As long as a suitable hole can be found it shouldn't even be exciting.

Icing pirep and no guarantee of a hole to the top or back down.

 

[akpilot907]

Icing pirep and no guarantee of a hole to the top or back down.

 

[Alexb2000]

Icing pirep and no guarantee of a hole to the top or back down.

Not from a weather forecast, but just look at the sky. All pilots get a sense of whether or not there is enough room for a VFR climb or at least they should.

 

[skidoo]

Thanks for all the replies... I'm still having trouble with the concept that all airports along the route can report VFR conditions and I may still need to choose not to fly. Anyway, here is an update for an actual decision today:

Last night, there was an airmet Tango for all of Montana, surface to 16K. There was an airmet for Icing in the departure area, and the common some risk of light icing along the route, from 5K to 12K. And I was considering options. But, I received notice that I needed to do some very important business in Missoula, and needed to be done by a deadline early morning. It was important enough that would be expected to add a lot of stress for much of the day.

So, I decided to just forget any planning to fly and just drive. I thought perhaps I could have made it just fine, but did not want to fight turbulence on top of everything else.

So, we get on the road and as the sun rises, it becomes apparent that clouds were quite high and not as thick as expected. Here are a couple of photos at sunrise near the departure area and a few more of the clouds enroute. The last photo shows the winds at the destination area.

There were surely areas of sunshine, and the ceilings were certainly high enough for VFR the whole way. But, the clouds varied quite a bit and there was a prevalence of lenticular type of clouds which I think confirmed the turbulence forecast. The winds were forecast in excess of 50 kts with most a tailwind.

 

[Marauder]

You live in a beautiful place, but one where I could see challenges flying small planes...

 

[akpilot907]

That is beautiful! Welcome to the wonderful world of weather forecasting... That whole drive must have been, Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda!

 

[timwinters]

That whole drive must have been, Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda!

I had a few of those when I was working in Cleveland. More often than not, though, I couldn't see the tops of cell towers along the interstate from Columbus to Cleveland when I opted to drive, especially in the winter months.

You make the call, go, and don't look back.

 

[Alexb2000]

Thanks for all the replies... I'm still having trouble with the concept that all airports along the route can report VFR conditions and I may still need to choose not to fly. Anyway, here is an update for an actual decision today:

Last night, there was an airmet Tango for all of Montana, surface to 16K. There was an airmet for Icing in the departure area, and the common some risk of light icing along the route, from 5K to 12K. And I was considering options. But, I received notice that I needed to do some very important business in Missoula, and needed to be done by a deadline early morning. It was important enough that would be expected to add a lot of stress for much of the day.

So, I decided to just forget any planning to fly and just drive. I thought perhaps I could have made it just fine, but did not want to fight turbulence on top of everything else.

So, we get on the road and as the sun rises, it becomes apparent that clouds were quite high and not as thick as expected. Here are a couple of photos at sunrise near the departure area and a few more of the clouds enroute. The last photo shows the winds at the destination area.

There were surely areas of sunshine, and the ceilings were certainly high enough for VFR the whole way. But, the clouds varied quite a bit and there was a prevalence of lenticular type of clouds which I think confirmed the turbulence forecast. The winds were forecast in excess of 50 kts with most a tailwind.

Only you can make the call, but I would have flown no question. Your example was exactly what I see in NM all the time and the reason for my comments. That's why I don't rely on weather reports as much as just looking at the sky when the sun comes up. I fly high and usually the bumps are not that bad especially on a winter morning even if the winds are strong.

 

[Ghery]

Thanks for all the replies... I'm still having trouble with the concept that all airports along the route can report VFR conditions and I may still need to choose not to fly. Anyway, here is an update for an actual decision today:

Last night, there was an airmet Tango for all of Montana, surface to 16K. There was an airmet for Icing in the departure area, and the common some risk of light icing along the route, from 5K to 12K. And I was considering options. But, I received notice that I needed to do some very important business in Missoula, and needed to be done by a deadline early morning. It was important enough that would be expected to add a lot of stress for much of the day.

So, I decided to just forget any planning to fly and just drive. I thought perhaps I could have made it just fine, but did not want to fight turbulence on top of everything else.

So, we get on the road and as the sun rises, it becomes apparent that clouds were quite high and not as thick as expected. Here are a couple of photos at sunrise near the departure area and a few more of the clouds enroute. The last photo shows the winds at the destination area.

There were surely areas of sunshine, and the ceilings were certainly high enough for VFR the whole way. But, the clouds varied quite a bit and there was a prevalence of lenticular type of clouds which I think confirmed the turbulence forecast. The winds were forecast in excess of 50 kts with most a tailwind.

That is beautiful! Welcome to the wonderful world of weather forecasting... That whole drive must have been, Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda!

I've had more than one drive across the state of Washington because forecasts didn't look good, but once on the road it was clear that VFR across the state would have been fine. Hence, the IR. But, going back to the original post - there was a PIREP of icing and the forecast was iffy for the passes (VFR). Yes, in hindsight you could have flown, but you didn't know that when you had to make the call. BTDT. Oh well.

 

[Ted]

So I flew that route on Monday and passed over Missoula from Great Falls. That portion was easy, and I thought it would be from the weather I saw. Although I went IFR I got a block 13-14k and stayed in VMC. My out was to turn around and go back to GTF. Easy with the 60 kt tailwind I would've had. Then was Missoula to Walla Walla, similar. In a 182 you might've been faster driving with that headwind.

After that MEAs dropped, options increased, etc.

I chose not to go the more direct route to Seattle because of icing concerns. Looks like I was right. Flight was pretty easy.

 

[skidoo]

So I flew that route on Monday and passed over Missoula from Great Falls. That portion was easy, and I thought it would be from the weather I saw. Although I went IFR I got a block 13-14k and stayed in VMC. My out was to turn around and go back to GTF. Easy with the 60 kt tailwind I would've had. Then was Missoula to Walla Walla, similar. In a 182 you might've been faster driving with that headwind.

After that MEAs dropped, options increased, etc.

I chose not to go the more direct route to Seattle because of icing concerns. Looks like I was right. Flight was pretty easy.

Great! Did you notice any turbulence at that altitude in the Montana part of your route? I'm curious how that part of the forecast actually came out.

 

[Ted]

Great! Did you notice any turbulence at that altitude in the Montana part of your route? I'm curious how that part of the forecast actually came out.

Egh, light chop was the worst of it over that area. I got moderate a good portion of the way up the coast from Portland to Seattle at 6k.

Here was the route for that leg:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N488SP/history/20131118/1900Z/KGTF/KPAE