VFR travel in midwest at Christmastime with baby - bad idea?

[avbug]

own a plane capable of handling just about anything Mother Nature can throw at me.

It's good that you appreciate your own limitations, but that quoted line is a worry. If your airplane that's capable of handling just about anything mother nature can throw at you is one of the aircraft you've got listed in your bio...you need to experience more of what mother nature can throw at you before you make such dangerous, sweeping assumptions.

The Cessna 340 is a nice light piston twin, but far from excepionally capable in weather. Like the 310, it will do okay up to a point, but it's full of limitations, including performance limitations. If it's any of the single engine airplanes in your bio to which you're referring...let's not even go there.

There's not an aircraft made that can handle anything mother nature can throw at it. Let alone a light piston single or twin.

What's the definition of severe icing, after all...but icing in excess of what the aircraft systems can handle, right? (right). If you haven't seen that yet, plan carefully so that you don't, because you had better believe that mother nature can throw a whole lot more your way than either you, or your airplane can handle.

 

[down2mins]

Agreed on the changing Wx. I instruct out of CMH. (Partly because of Wx), but in Nov, I had 6 VFR flights.

 

[xjcaptain]

I guess I'll be the lone dissenter here.....with a few caveats. Flying in the midwest in the winter can be some of the best flying conditions around, providing there is a large high pressure system parked in the middle of the country. This happens quite regularly. With that said it is also very reasonable to expect low IFR conditions that could stick around for quite a while if that high isn't there. With the proper weather the trip could be great. Excellent visibility, smooth rides, better than normal performance due to the cold temperatures and great tailwinds eastbound. Might take a bit longer getting hime through!!! However, don't get trapped into HAVING to get together with the family and allowing that to cloud your judgement. Watch the weather, watch your limitations and enjoy the ride.

 

[JimG]

There's not an aircraft made that can handle anything mother nature can throw at it. Let alone a light piston single or twin.

Agree 100% with your post.

I'm not going to argue with you one bit.

I was actually exaggerating to make a point the other way that my 340 (only plane I own right now) can handle ALOT more Wx than I'll ever be comfortable flying in.

That's all.

If you haven't read many of my posts, then you don't know that I have this big yellow streak down the middle of my back when it comes to serious Wx flying.

It starts at the base of my skull and runs right down to my ass.

 

[wrxpilot]

Dick Karl's column in Flying Magazine this month wrote about this same thing BTW....he had airline tickets as a back up plan for an important event he had to be to, and he flies a Cheyenne I, with several thousands of hours TT.

I strongly agree with this advice. I'm doing a considerably longer but possibly easier (weather wise) trip from Colorado to south FL for Christmas in a 172. I have an instrument rating, but it's fresh so I'm going to be very conservative (no hard IFR). I have fully refundable roundtrip tickets on southwest, as does my passenger. This will allow me to have a clear head when making a decision about the trip on departure day.

 

[avbug]

If you haven't read many of my posts, then you don't know that I have this big yellow streak down the middle of my back when it comes to serious Wx flying.

It starts at the base of my skull and runs right down to my ass.

You and me both, Jim.

One of my job functions right at the moment is to go find as much ice as I can, as much supercooled water as I can, and ideally as much convectivity as I can, and stay in it. 2-3" of ice isn't uncommon. However, while that's going on, we're VERY careful to monitor our flying surfaces by instrumentation and visually, augmented by visual observations, to determine that ice using building where we don't want it.

Under normal circumstances, this isn't something you want to do. Part of our mission is research to study these conditions, and part of it involves other work related to these conditions...but we fly specifically to find and enter these conditions.

Be careful about advice regardint tops of clouds vs. other parts of clouds...we often find very large water droplets and rapid ice buildup in the middle of the clouds. Tops can already be freezing...but there are mid points near or just above the freezing level, up to around minus ten C or so, where icing buildup is very rapid and the largest amount of supercooled water exists. If you're finding that the aircraft wants to climb you're in rising air, and you've got moisture coming from beneath you. If you're in freezing conditions, you're in circumstancs that are very conducive to forming ice.

Traditional wisdom says that climbing a little or descending a little will get rid of it...and in stratified air that's true. But if it's bumpy you may be in convective conditions and icing can extend a lot way above, and may not melt well beneath. If you weren't in them a moment ago, your best bet may to be going back from whence you came, which may mean turning around. Icing in the cloud can extend to minus 40 in some cases, which is very cold...but where supercooled water can still exist.

Any time lifting action is taking place, be it convectively with warmer air from beneath, or from another source such ar orographic lifting from rising terrain, icing can extend for a considerable vertical distance. Once icing begins and performance deminishes, climbing out of it may not be possible...especially in a limited performance airplane that's already struggling with climb at altitude. Descending further may not save you, as you're descending into rising supercooled air.

We get a lot of graupel, which is by definition soft hail. But it appears as large globs of freezing ice, doesn't sound like rain or hail, doesn't do damamge on impact as a rule, but builds up very rapidly into a glazed-rime appearance that adds significant aerodynamic disruption as well as weight. it doesn't shed easily, but it does build up and can go beyond protected anti-icing or de-icing surfaces, quickly. In these cases, once you're have it on the airframe, very likely you won't be getting rid of it very quickly.

Some of the worst icing I've seen was in a piston twin commander in Arizona in the spring time, and it did significant damage to the airplane in very short order, as well as causing a rapid performance loss in conditions that neither had a forecast of ice, nor were seeing reports of ice from other aircraft in the area. It occured in mountainous terrain, and a rapid of injection of moisture into rising air in one particular location (mogollon rim) caused enough icing to cause a 50 knot airspeed loss in less than a minute, airframe damage (holes in the sides of the airplane adjacent to the propeller cut line), and controllability issues. In that case, descent was unavoidable, and our descent was limited by terrain, whch we reached visually at nightfall, and we were unable to shed much of the ice...because we couldn't descend further.

I have a very healthy respect for ice, because I've seen it grow beyond my capabilities and those of the aircraft very quickly...going from unreported or trace ice to severe in a very short time. Even with deice and antiice available, it can still quickly overwhelm one's ability to cope, in which case one is left to planning...avoiding, or knowing where to go to avoid it or escape it. In the case of the latter situation above, following contact with the surface visually, we landed nearby and had considerable airframe ice present after exiting the airplane by the fuel pumps on the ground. Again, ice wasn't forecast, wasnt' reported, and hadn't been an issue up until it began to rapidly build. When it did, we were unable to hold the MEA, unable to turn or divert due to terrain, and were left with a descent to lower straight ahead. In retrospect, either higher altitude prior to reaching that area, alterante routing, lighter weight, or a number of other choices would have enhanced our ability to cope...but conditions still quickly overwhelmed us beyond what we were capable of handling. Keep that in mind as you approach your winter flying.

Bear in mind, too, that ice isn't soley a January thing. Years ago I recall three crewmembers, including the chief pilot and a check airman who were killed in a light twin on an approach in mountainous terrain in the US in June...due to airframe ice. They were experienced in the aircraft type and in the area, and the aircraft was equipped for flight into known ice.

It scares us both for a good reason...and that's a good thing. A healthy respect for what gives you goose bumps may just mean a longer life for you, and your passengers!

 

[Metro752]

Agree 100% with your post.

I'm not going to argue with you one bit.

I was actually exaggerating to make a point the other way that my 340 (only plane I own right now) can handle ALOT more Wx than I'll ever be comfortable flying in.

That's all.

If you haven't read many of my posts, then you don't know that I have this big yellow streak down the middle of my back when it comes to serious Wx flying.

It starts at the base of my skull and runs right down to my ass.

you got the sh1ts while doin a hand stand?

 

[Princedietrich]

avbug, you dont' fly for NASA Glenn do you?

 

[avbug]

No, the closest I've ever been to NASA is having an astronaut rercruitment poster on my wall way back when, and a brief trip to cape caneveral to watch a launch, once.

Educated people like those you find at NASA don't talk to people like me.

 

[Princedietrich]

Reason I asked was that you mentioned flying around and actively trying to find iced up nastiness. I always thought those NASA guys in Cleveland were the only ones crazy enough to do that stuff.