Go/No-go: KMSN-KCAD 2/11/11

No boots on the BE95, if it's the one Stan posted. (He rents from Spring City.) :(

And a Duke? For RENT? Really? That'd be awesome. Probably expen$ive too. They don't list it on their site tho.


I'll rent you a Duke, all you have to do is buy it a pair of engines and I'll let you fly it all you want for $400hr dry....:D
 
The Duke rents for $5-600 an hour, last time I checked, and required a boatload of multi- hours and a high altitude endorsement. I have flown over Lake Michigan many times in IMC during the winter but would only do it in a twin with ice protection. Even then, I like to cross at least at 10k or higher until close to either shore. There have been times where the TKS has kept the airframe free of ice, but the spinners and radome have accumulated over an inch. I would not want to see that much on an airfoil.

Interesting bunch of opinions voiced here.
 
Kent:
Your first sentence of this thread implies you're open to discussion yet respond like an emotionally compromised teenage girl.
Dude...you're a child

IMO your post is the childish one.
 
Kent:
Your first sentence of this thread implies you're open to discussion yet respond like an emotionally compromised teenage girl.
Dude...you're a child

Sorry "dude," but you didn't really offer anything constructive. Three times you mentioned icing at 13K when I think I made it quite clear:

I would like to cruise in the clear

That's why I want to be cruising in the clear.

Yup... That's why I want to cruise in the clear.
 
So... I will mention here that there is a good chunk of my decisionmaking process that is missing from this thread, unfortunately - Because the weather was forecast to get worse, I was more concerned with getting to the airport early enough to be able to launch if I decided on a "go".

So - For those that feel they need to judge based solely on what's posted here, you're still missing a big part of the picture. Hopefully next time I post a G/NG thread the weather will be improving so that I can post all the details.
 
Kent:
Your first sentence of this thread implies you're open to discussion yet respond like an emotionally compromised teenage girl.
Dude...you're a child


Dude?!? You're calling him a teenage girl and a child and you speak like that?

Did you follow the entire conversation or did you just read the first post and then respond? Kent is a very concientious aviator and all who participated gave different tidbits of information and all, including him, worked out that it would not be a good flight.

You're concerns are valid, and we appreciate the input, but what's with the attitude?

Even the WTF is out of line.
 
John Galt (or Ayn Rand :dunno:), thanks for that followup. I think it speaks a lot better for where you're coming from than the original post. It might help even more if we knew a little bit about you. As you're clearly aware, Kent is pretty much a known quantity! :)
 
Bottom line is, He didn't go. But as you can see from my prior post, I just needed to be certain of that.:rolleyes2:

Yes, it's a cost conscious decision when a FIKI Seneca is available. We don't want to be in the position of, "Only as much safety as I am willing to pay for". That causes physical injury.
 
Yes, it's a cost conscious decision when a FIKI Seneca is available. We don't want to be in the position of, "Only as much safety as I am willing to pay for". That causes physical injury.
Bruce, isn't most safety a cost/benefit analysis, in other words, "Only as much safety as I am willing to pay for?" If that weren't the case, all our cars would be fitted with every safety device available, and would probably make go/no-go decisions for us. Planes too!
 
What about option 4, the UP route?

Y'know, I didn't even really consider that. It's only 12nm farther than the Chicago lakeshore route, and is quite a bit shorter than the all-the-way-around-Chicago route. Looking back at the METARs, I could have gone low on the airways up to GRB, after which it'd have been severe clear the rest of the way up to ISQ and back down over SJX to KCAD.

Oh well. Probably for the better anyway. When I called to cancel my hotel reservation, they said "Um, we don't have a reservation under that name." :eek: Well, I guess I won't be losing a night's worth of lodging for canceling!
 
Yes, it's a cost conscious decision when a FIKI Seneca is available. We don't want to be in the position of, "Only as much safety as I am willing to pay for". That causes physical injury.

Well... Considering that this is really the one trip of the year where the Seneca would be useful, all the money I'd need to spend to stay current and proficient in the Seneca means that I'd probably just skip the trip due to the extreme cost anyway! :cryin:
 
The scenario outlined in this thread is a flight planned by a commercial pilot in marginal conditions using an aircraft not suited for the task. While I think it's a great idea to discuss scenarios, I believe this one was handled poorly due to Kent's specific action of heading off to the airport with the intent of embarking on this flight.

Let me add some more info here for clarity's sake. Like I said in my previous post, I did not post much in the way of weather info on Friday because there was some time pressure with conditions forecast to deteriorate later in the day. Also, since I was doing most of my planning on ForeFlight, it was not a simple copy-and-paste to put the actual weather data here, I'd have had to seek out the information again on my computer and posted it, or go to PoA on the iPad or whatever. So, part of the story is missing here, and clearly gives some incorrect impressions.

By the time I left for the airport, I had decided that the over-water route was pretty much out. I left for the airport with the intention of possibly making a go at it VFR around the south end of the lake.

Since that wasn't my plan A, I hadn't looked at the TAF's down in that area, but while I was on my way to the home 'drome, it started snowing - four hours earlier than forecast. MSN and UGN both went IFR during my drive as well. By the time I arrived at the airport, MSN was MVFR and UGN was back to VFR, but there was some snow on the radar to the west of the route.

I don't like to fly VFR in when the visibility is less than good VFR, and even the lakeshore route leaves you with few options: You have very little room horizontally between the city and the lake, and very little room vertically between the lake and the Bravo, and no airports between UGN and GYY. Having snow move in from the west while you're in that area would not be good.

My frustation lies in the fact that he was seriously considering this flight, especially after a number of people replied by saying it was not a good idea.

Everyone's risk profile is different. I know a LOT of people will not cross Lake Michigan in a single regardless of glide range. EdFred crosses the lake all the time without even thinking about it.

I have a specific protocol that I have developed for crossing the lake when there will be any exposure time - And crossing in February does not fit that protocol. The crossing was predicated on flying the airplane that can cross with no exposure time.

I got the feeling that a lot of the "don't go" answers were from those who would not cross the lake, period - And where there was advice to not go, it either was based on things that didn't necessarily apply (Ted's answer about no de-icing equipment - It was a given that ice in the climb causes a change in plans), or was based on that person's own risk profile (ie, Ken & Henning's answers).

As a commercial pilot, my belief is that he should be held to a higher standard and should have had the judgment to reject this flight at the outset.

And when I have pax aboard, I do hold myself to a MUCH higher standard - Like I've said, "be the pilot your passengers think you are" - but when I'm by myself, things are different. Heck, I probably wouldn't take pax over the lake at all, simply because it'd probably make them nervous even if I did assure them we could glide to shore. Does that mean *I* shouldn't go over the lake myself? :dunno:

He did nothing that violates the FAR's but his intent seems pretty clear. In my original, regrettably offensive post I outlined a number of weak decisions that could have made for a classic case of a pilot killing himself with bad choices made before ever flipping the master.

You seemed to be fixated on picking up ice at 13k over the lake... That was never really a worry at all - While earlier area forecasts were for higher tops, all of the other data indicated tops below 10K. In addition, were I to arrive at 13K and still be IMC, I'd turn around. The lake can do some interesting things to the atmosphere, especially in terms of temperature and moisture content, and I'm simply not comfortable cruising in IMC over the lake at this time of year.

Then there was the comment about visible moisture. Visible moisture ≠ icing. Sometimes, yes, but certainly not always - And generally, icing is a bigger problem around here in Oct/Nov and March than it is in Jan/Feb. IIRC I have more actual IMC time logged in December than any other month - And that's mostly in non-FIKI airplanes. (Somehow, I've never picked up any ice when flying a FIKI airplane. :cryin:)

Finally, you call the plane a "Diamond Mosquito" and make an unintelligible comment about it's "long track record of ice/altitude performance" - What did you mean by that, exactly? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. I haven't had the DA40 to 13,000 yet but I have had it to 11,500 and it was still climbing 600 fpm when I got there.

I am not implying that Kent is a bad pilot. I think he made a poor choice, as a commercial pilot, to put in writing his plans for a risky flight over treacherous terrain into what could be considered known icing conditions in an airplane not equipped as such.

Icing is a complex equation. FWIW, there were no AIRMETs for icing along my route - There was one well to the west and south, and the PIREPs available at the time I left for the airport seemed to indicate that that particular AIRMET's borders were correct. I posted the Skew-T's - And those indicated to me that the clouds would be extra-cold (ie, probably all ice crystals already so no risk of icing). I am not an expert on ice by any means, and part of the reason that I laid all this out on the table was to get the opinions of those like Bruce and Scott who can read those tea leaves better than I can so that I could learn something, and hopefully others would learn as well.
 
Y'know, I didn't even really consider that. It's only 12nm farther than the Chicago lakeshore route, and is quite a bit shorter than the all-the-way-around-Chicago route. Looking back at the METARs, I could have gone low on the airways up to GRB, after which it'd have been severe clear the rest of the way up to ISQ and back down over SJX to KCAD.

Oh well. Probably for the better anyway. When I called to cancel my hotel reservation, they said "Um, we don't have a reservation under that name." :eek: Well, I guess I won't be losing a night's worth of lodging for canceling!


Lol, the tricks you learn as a utility pilot when you have 2 options, go or quit. They don't care how you do it, just that you damn well get it done. It's been only very rare days when I have not been able to get somewhere VFR.
 
What I did say was that your available time at 13,000 might not be long enough to shed any ice that had accumulated. With tops forecast at FL20, it would not be a surprise to find a cloud layer above your altitude, in which case the sun's radiation would likely be removed from the equation leaving only sublimation for ice removal.

If I picked up any ice in the climb, I wouldn't have gone over the lake... At that point, it's plan B time. Or C or D... Because, as you state:

My point is that if you depart thru the forecast lower layers and accumulate a load of ice, it’s doubtful the airplane would have the ability to climb to your intended altitude. In that case you would not be able to reach the colder, drier, higher altitudes that encourage sublimation. You would then be additionally exposed to the risk of being outside gliding distance from shore.

But, this wasn't so much a thread about in-flight decision making as it was about "what will I see in the air if I go?" The Skew-T's looked OK to me (IIRC the clouds were going to be 14ºF or colder) - Nobody's said a thing about that at all, aside from what comes across as "OMG, there's a cloud, it's cold, there must be ice" which is not true.

Aerodynamically the Diamond is built to be fast and efficient using a small engine. The major reason for this is its wing planform: thin, long span, narrow chord. Planforms of this type are very unforgiving to ice accumulation. The DA's thin horizontal stabilizer would gather ice 3-4 times faster than the wings, very quickly setting up a perfect situation for tailplane stall. Therefore not much (albeit unofficial) information is available about its track record in ice because there are not many pilots willing to try. (Similarly one of the reasons Cirrus has continually upgraded their anti/de-ice systems: it too has a long, thin, two-part, variable aoa wing that doesn't like ice.)

With its wing design, the DA's are more reliant on airspeed to generate lift. The small engine and narrow useful load proves it does not have much excess thrust. Taking all of this into consideration, the airplane is a very poor candidate for use in potential icing conditions.

That is exactly what I would have thought about the Diamond's performance in ice, too, mostly based on my discussions with Cirrus pilots - The Cirrus performs very poorly in ice, and I have heard from multiple sources that you can expect to lose about 20 knots of airspeed in the Cirrus VERY quickly upon encountering any ice. But, the Diamond is (thankfully) not a Cirrus...

I actually did pick up ice in the Diamond once. Yes, it was inadvertent and unforecast - And a good example of how complex the icing equation is, since I did not pick up any ice in the climb, but descending through the same layer less than 20 minutes later, I did pick up ice.

After hearing the Cirrus horror stories, I was mighty surprised to find that the DA40 seemed completely unfazed by the ice. When I leveled out (in the clear), the true airspeed was EXACTLY what I would have expected out of a clean airframe - 139 KTAS at 4,000 feet. I did a fairly fast approach, but she floated and floated and the stall warning and touchdown occurred at the expected airspeeds for a clean airframe as well. If I hadn't seen the ice, I'd have never known it was there by any other means either. Blew me away. I wouldn't trust it to haul as much ice as the 182, but it's certainly no Cirrus. :dunno:
 
The Skew-T's looked OK to me (IIRC the clouds were going to be 14ºF or colder) - Nobody's said a thing about that at all, aside from what comes across as "OMG, there's a cloud, it's cold, there must be ice" which is not true.
14F (-10C) is not too cold for ice if that's what you're getting at.

coldops201_PROBOFIC.jpg


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...news/coldops1010p06.xml&headline=null&next=10
 
That was a fascinating article. Some of the things I saw that were pretty surprising:

Even though all the conditions for icing are present, an actual icing encounter will happen only 40 percent of the time

FAA documents also claim that ice accretion can cause a hazardous weight increase. Hogwash, says Perkins. The total weight increase associated with the heaviest ice buildup is only a few percent of the aircraft's total weight.

Icing conditions seldom exist for more than 50 miles laterally

These all imply that icing isn't that big of a threat, which is not true. It's just that the things that say "ice is dangerous" weren't really a surprise to me.

I highly recommend that those who are looking to learn more about ice read the whole article (Mari's link is to page 2/8).
 
That was a fascinating article. Some of the things I saw that were pretty surprising:

These all imply that icing isn't that big of a threat, which is not true. It's just that the things that say "ice is dangerous" weren't really a surprise to me.

I highly recommend that those who are looking to learn more about ice read the whole article (Mari's link is to page 2/8).
Keep in mind that Business and Commercial Aviation, where the article originated, is aimed at, well, business and commercial aviation. So when they talk about the weight of the ice they are probably imagining a bigger airplane with more thrust to weight than the DA-40. In the same way, 50 miles is not a long way in a faster airplane and a large majority of their audience flies FIKI equipment.

I recommend the whole article too. I think that, in general, Business and Commercial Aviation does a good job with their magazine.
 
Keep in mind that Business and Commercial Aviation, where the article originated, is aimed at, well, business and commercial aviation. So when they talk about the weight of the ice they are probably imagining a bigger airplane with more thrust to weight than the DA-40.

Yup... That statement lead me to think for a minute about the ratio of forward-facing surfaces to max gross weight, and a bizjet is certainly going to have a lower ratio than a bugsmasher.

I'm also starting to think that I need to pay a visit to those icing folks at Lewis with some recording equipment and do some podcasting about it...
 
Yup... That statement lead me to think for a minute about the ratio of forward-facing surfaces to max gross weight, and a bizjet is certainly going to have a lower ratio than a bugsmasher.

I'm also starting to think that I need to pay a visit to those icing folks at Lewis with some recording equipment and do some podcasting about it...
Lewis? As in Lewis University in Romeoville? When I think icing research, I think of NASA Glenn Research Center. Ahhh, a little digging, and I see that the Icing Research Tunnel (http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/index.html), part of the Glenn Research Center. I presume this is what you're referring to.

BTW, GRC has some icing videos available from Sporty's: http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/education/products.html
 
Lewis? As in Lewis University in Romeoville? When I think icing research, I think of NASA Glenn Research Center.

Sorry. NASA-Glenn used to be NASA-Lewis - And my sister worked there when it was Lewis. Old habits die hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Research_Center said:
It was initially named the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory after funding approval was given in June 1940. It was renamed the Flight Propulsion Research Laboratory in 1947, the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in 1948 (after George W. Lewis (head of NACA from 1919 to 1947) and the NASA Lewis Research Center in 1958.
On March 1, 1999, the Lewis Research Center was officially renamed the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field after John Glenn (American fighter pilot, astronaut and politician). Within NASA, Glenn is often referred to by the acronym GRC.

Huh... Well, that makes sense. She was working on testing new materials for the SSME's in the early 90's... That's propulsion all right!

gprellwitz said:
Ahhh, a little digging, and I see that the Icing Research Tunnel (http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/index.html), part of the Glenn Research Center. I presume this is what you're referring to.

BTW, GRC has some icing videos available from Sporty's: http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/education/products.html

Not only the tunnel (which I think is in Sandusky) but they're also the folks who make the videos you may have seen where they take a Twin Otter out and turn it into a popsicle - Right up to the verge of losing control - before they pop the boots. All in the name of research. The article Mari linked to above mentioned that the statistics they were quoting were gleaned from 135,000 flights into icing conditions. :eek::crazy: Needless to say, they have more experience with icing than everyone on this board put together.

I've also heard that they welcome GA pilots, and have an "icing simulator" of some sort that you can fly - For free. (Shhh! Don't let the Republicans hear that! :no:) Sounds like a good way to do some learning...
 
Last edited:
In the same way, 50 miles is not a long way in a faster airplane and a large majority of their audience flies FIKI equipment.

That's very true, and that plays into my go/no-go decision when it comes to icing.

For example, about a month ago I had a segment that was probably about 150-200 nm where I figured icing might occur. Well, I was doing 240 kts GS in the 310 with a hellacious tailwind. Even if the whole thing was ice, looking at about 40 minutes to get through it maximum. And, at 15,000 ft, lots of room to go down. Fortunately, my 15,000 ft spot happened to be an ice-free zone, it was only on the climbout that I got any. Had the winds been reversed and I'd been looking at 1.5-2 hours to get through that same zone, I likely would have had to replan.

The bits about the frequency of ice surprised me since ice seems to stick to anything I fly like a magnet. Although the definitions might be different. Most of the time it's not anything to write home about, but there's something there.

I agree with the weight sentiment, though. If you build up enough ice that the weight is an actual concern, then you're probably worrying about the aerodynamics more at that point.
 
Last edited:
The bits about the frequency of ice surprised me since ice seems to stick to anything I fly like a magnet. Although the definitions might be different. Most of the time it's not anything to write home about, but there's something there.
According to the article you just need something bigger and faster. :D

Ice accumulation on the aircraft depends upon the temperature of the exposed surface. If the aircraft is cruising at 250 KIAS at 10,000 feet, the ram rise due to kinetic heating typically will add 10°C to the exposed surface temperature. However, if you're directed to slow to 180 KIAS, the ram rise is only half as much.

In essence, a large aircraft, traveling at high speed through icing conditions, has relatively high immunity to icing because of its poor collection efficiency and kinetic heating. In contrast, a small aircraft, cruising at low speed, is a much more efficient ice collector.
 
According to the article you just need something bigger and faster. :D

I'm all for bigger and faster, so long as I don't have to pay the fuel bill! :D

But as it points out, small aircraft like what most of us fly are more efficient ice collectors than your overpowered Twin Cessna. ;)
 
...For example, about a month ago I had a segment that was probably about 150-200 nm where I figured icing might occur. Well, I was doing 240 kts GS in the 310 with a hellacious tailwind. Even if the whole thing was ice, looking at about 40 minutes to get through it maximum...

Ted,

Why would your groundspeed matter? Wouldn't a tailwind be pushing the icing atmospheric conditions along too?

-Jason
 
Why would your groundspeed matter? Wouldn't a tailwind be pushing the icing atmospheric conditions along too?

Not Ted, but it depends what's causing the icing. If orographic lift is involved, the tailwind will help since the conditions aren't going to be moving the way they would otherwise.
 
Kent is correct. In this case, the weather was staying pretty still. I, however, was not. :)
 
Interesting discussion.

I wouldn't have gone, even if things were improving instead of deterioating. But I appreciate the thought process.

I wouldn't fault Kent for heading to the airport with the intention of making the flight. Flying to the airport and even pre-flighting the aircraft is not a go/no-go decision. Until he leaves the ground, no harm no foul. As I believe I saw Richard Collins say at one point, "dynamic weather, is, well, dynamic".

Getting to the airport early to make a go/no-go decision is probably the best choice. You have time to evaluate the equipment, and can act on the information when it presents itself. I'm assuming his airport has the same weather tools that he would have sitting at home.

By not driving to the airport to make the final go/no-go decision you are just adding to time pressure.

All that being said, does anybody have a good resource for learning about skew-T plots? It's not something I use for my flight planning regularly.
 
I wouldn't fault Kent for heading to the airport with the intention of making the flight. Flying to the airport and even pre-flighting the aircraft is not a go/no-go decision. Until he leaves the ground, no harm no foul. As I believe I saw Richard Collins say at one point, "dynamic weather, is, well, dynamic".

I really headed to the airport not necessarily with the intention of making the flight, but with the intention of already being at the airport if the decision was "go." With weather forecast to deteriorate, you really can't make a decision from home unless it's an absolutely no way am I going to go decision.

Getting to the airport early to make a go/no-go decision is probably the best choice. You have time to evaluate the equipment, and can act on the information when it presents itself. I'm assuming his airport has the same weather tools that he would have sitting at home.

Well, since I use mostly my iPad in both places, yes. ;) But yeah, that was the basic idea behind just heading on out to the airport.

FWIW, when I left home, tops were still indicated to be at or slightly below 7000 MSL, and the METAR at MSN said OVC046 (ie, about 5500 MSL bases) so a fairly thin layer. I live only a few blocks from Lake Michigan and my drive to KMSN goes right down the lakeshore on Lincoln Memorial Dr. early on. I watched the airliners flying into KMKE on the visual to 19R over the lake - Looked like ceilings were quite high over the lake as well, and after I turned westbound there was a bright spot in the clouds, also indicating a thin layer. In any case, if I did get any ice on the plane, it was going to be an automatic switch to plan B. But after looking at the likelihood of the various options, it really just felt like a better idea to cancel.

Ironically, I was somewhat worried about the weather for the return flight on Sunday as well, which led me to lean toward the no-go - And then Sunday turned out to be absolutely beautiful despite some VERY low pressure - at one point the altimeter setting was 29.38, but it was a bright, sunny, unseasonably warm day with CAVU. Oh well, at least I got some flying in for the weekend. :)

All that being said, does anybody have a good resource for learning about skew-T plots? It's not something I use for my flight planning regularly.

I think the general consensus is that Scott D's materials are the way to go, specifically the "Ice is not nice" package: http://chesavtraining.com/ice_is_not_nice.htm
 
Kent,

Thanks for the plug. However, I "shut down" the chesavtraining site about 2 years ago when I launched AvWxWorkshops.com. The Ice Is NOT Nice series and Intro to the Skew-T is now a premium workshop on my new site.

I thought I saw that a couple of weeks ago - But when I googled "Ice is not nice" it took me straight to chesavtraining. Might want to fix that. ;)
 
Kent,

Thanks for the plug. However, I "shut down" the chesavtraining site about 2 years ago when I launched AvWxWorkshops.com. The Ice Is NOT Nice series and Intro to the Skew-T is now a premium workshop on my new site.

Scott, I read a great article of yours for a recent IFR Magazine issue on ice and clouds. However, when I read your stuff, my head hurts. However, that might have been because I was wedged in a CRJ window seat next to someone who doesn't understand "personal space" instead of flying myself. :incazzato:
 
Back
Top