I fly a Mooney M20K 231 out of KIER and have about 300 hours of actual instrument time. I've been building a preflight go/no-go aid for IFR flights under Part 91, and I'd like experienced IFR pilots to try it and tell me where it's wrong.
You enter the route, departure time, airplane and your personal minimums. It pulls METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs, G-AIRMETs, PIREPs and model data, and gives GO / CAUTION / NO-GO with the reason for every point:
- Weather at departure, destination and alternate against the approach minimums you fly plus your own margins, crosswind and gusts.
- Whether you need an alternate (§91.169), and every airport with an approach within 100 nm of the destination, with whether its TAF meets alternate minimums at your ETA.
- Fuel (§91.167) from a climb/cruise/descent simulation using your airplane's performance table and forecast winds aloft.
- Icing, freezing level vs. MEA and cruise, and convection along the route: model CAPE and lifted index at the time you pass each point, plus the SPC day 1–3 outlooks.
- More than 20 hours out, it switches to an outlook from the National Blend of Models (chance of IFR, thunderstorms, freezing rain) and says "looks good / marginal / looks bad" instead of go/no-go.
- A threat map, a vertical profile of clouds and freezing level, and a one-click Reverse for the trip home.
It's a decision aid, not a briefing. It doesn't check NOTAMs, TFRs, terrain or airspace, and it can't see non-standard alternate minimums unless you enter them. You still need the official briefing.
It's free (MIT license) and runs on your own computer, Windows, Mac or Linux, with only Python needed. Nothing about you or your flight is uploaded.
github.com
What I'd most like to hear: cases where the verdict is wrong or the reason doesn't hold up, and what you check before an IFR flight that it doesn't.
You enter the route, departure time, airplane and your personal minimums. It pulls METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs, G-AIRMETs, PIREPs and model data, and gives GO / CAUTION / NO-GO with the reason for every point:
- Weather at departure, destination and alternate against the approach minimums you fly plus your own margins, crosswind and gusts.
- Whether you need an alternate (§91.169), and every airport with an approach within 100 nm of the destination, with whether its TAF meets alternate minimums at your ETA.
- Fuel (§91.167) from a climb/cruise/descent simulation using your airplane's performance table and forecast winds aloft.
- Icing, freezing level vs. MEA and cruise, and convection along the route: model CAPE and lifted index at the time you pass each point, plus the SPC day 1–3 outlooks.
- More than 20 hours out, it switches to an outlook from the National Blend of Models (chance of IFR, thunderstorms, freezing rain) and says "looks good / marginal / looks bad" instead of go/no-go.
- A threat map, a vertical profile of clouds and freezing level, and a one-click Reverse for the trip home.
It's a decision aid, not a briefing. It doesn't check NOTAMs, TFRs, terrain or airspace, and it can't see non-standard alternate minimums unless you enter them. You still need the official briefing.
It's free (MIT license) and runs on your own computer, Windows, Mac or Linux, with only Python needed. Nothing about you or your flight is uploaded.
GitHub - gfotakis/ifr-go-no-go: Preflight go/no-go decision aid for IFR pilots (FAA Part 91): weather, alternates, fuel, route hazards, CAPE/lifted index and a vertical profile.
Preflight go/no-go decision aid for IFR pilots (FAA Part 91): weather, alternates, fuel, route hazards, CAPE/lifted index and a vertical profile. - gfotakis/ifr-go-no-go
github.com
What I'd most like to hear: cases where the verdict is wrong or the reason doesn't hold up, and what you check before an IFR flight that it doesn't.