Good day to 'fly' by car

My wife, Lil, and I flew from home in NJ to Chicago on Sunday, so that we could fly around Illinois looking at schools with our son Max. Our first flight in the area was scheduled for yesterday morning - Palwaukee to Urbana/Champaigne, to visit U of I.

Unfortunately, the progs came true; and by the time I had to make my go/no-go decision, TStorms had moved into the area; worse, the line trailed south and west, pretty much putting the kibosh on my plans to fly due south. Today is a similar situation.

I took some pics (imagine that!). Below is a radar view, as well as some pics of these rather impressive storms.

So… instead of flying for less than an hour each way, we wound up driving - over 7 hours there and back. Mind-numbingly boring, but one of those times where it was definitely better to be down here wishing I were up there, than up there - wishing I were down here.

Mike: I managed to fly from Hyannis (HYA) on Cape Cod to my home in Louisville (LOU) on Sunday. The trip was supposed to be about 720 NM, and without winds it should have taken about 4.5 hrs (LOP of course).

Due to routing around NY City via Worcester, MA, Wilkes Barre, PA and then T-storms south of Pittsburgh, PA and then just south of Dayton, OH for an early due south arrival into Louisville, and of course 20 - 30 knot headwinds, it took 5 hours 20 minutes. I landed with 8.5 gallons, in lovely VFR skies. (Does anyone doubt the merits of LOP now?) I am not happy about only having 8.6 gallons (43 minutes) upon arrival, but I passed over 2 airports in the last 30 minutes of the trip and I knew the conditions at all three fields was VFR. (Just to keep it all legal, I did cancel my IFR about 15 minutes before landing.

I departed just after noon and landed about 5:30 PM. I bet that I flew through much of the same airspace that you would have. I stayed at either 6,000’ for most of the trip to avoid stronger headwinds, but this took me through the typical light cumulous clouds. (I was alone.) I climbed to 8,000 for the last 1.5 hours as the WX began to deteriorate and the clouds grew.

Your radar picture looks about right for what I passed between (north of Cincinatti.) In fact, I recognize that cloud in your bottom picture! I actually think that I can see a black speck in front of the cloud, which is either me or a bug on your windshield.

Yep, I flew from Charleston to Cedar Rapids, IA that day. Fortunately, I stayed south of most of the mess and most of it had disapated anyway by the time I came through.

Attached is a picture of some folks at London, KY that spent 5 hours on the ground waiting for the weather to clear. They were on their way to Ft. Knox.

Dear Mike,

My husband Sam and I intended to attend the migration in Duluth and flew from Corpus Christi to about Waco, TX before deciding there was no practical way around the thunderstorms.

We have been planning a trip to Asheville, NC for this weekend or early next week. That would be from Corpus Christi, TX to Jackson, MS and then Asheville. On the 29th. we were planning to fly from Asheville on to Saranac Lake, NY. I have been watching the Weather Channel and have decided that Noah may have had the right idea.

Do you realize that for every stop that a Cirrus SR22 makes with legal fuel reserve (if there were not thunderstorms in all quadrants), it would take a full days drive in a car even on our Interstate Highway system?

Here’s hoping the thunderstorms move to the west for awhile.

Mary Helen
N220MH
s/n 205

In reply to:


Just to keep it all legal, I did cancel my IFR about 15 minutes before landing.


Great bladder work, Marty!
Marty, you would not have violated any FARs by landing with less than 45 minutes of fuel. The FARs require that you depart with sufficient fuel, including the trip to the legal alternate if required, based on your flight planning and forecast winds and weather. Once in the air you can choose any alternate alternate [:)] and make decisions on whether to continue to your destination in the face of stronger headwinds, divert, etc.

It would have been a good idea to declare “minimum fuel” to the controller. This phraseology is intended to let them know that you can’t accept undue delays, but it falls short of declaring an emergency. Here’s the AIM excerpt:

5-5-15. Minimum Fuel Advisory

a. Pilot.

  1. Advise ATC of your minimum fuel status when your fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, you cannot accept any undue delay.

  2. Be aware this is not an emergency situation, but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.

  3. On initial contact the term “minimum fuel” should be used after stating call sign.

EXAMPLE-
Salt Lake Approach, United 621, “minimum fuel.”

  1. Be aware a minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority.

  2. If the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due to low fuel and report fuel remaining in minutes.

REFERENCE-
Pilot/Controller Glossary Item- Fuel Remaining.

b. Controller.

  1. When an aircraft declares a state of minimum fuel, relay this information to the facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred.

  2. Be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft.

Gordon: Your flight to the Migration was my inspiration for my endurance attempt! It also helpoed that I was alone.
I appreciate your comments of minimum fuel, and while I won;t dispute the regs, there are some practical limitations.
First, once you mention “minimum fuel,” ATC will treat it as an emergency.
Secondly, once you identify that you have a low fuel situation, practically speaking, it is the PIC’s responsibility to do something about, in other words, land and get fuel! It is very hard to answer the question, “Why didn’t you land and get more fuel?” if there are/were accessible airports and good WX.

Third, on the one occasion when I did try that approach, ATC was not very concilliatory. After 3 hours of flight, bad winds and worse vectors, I was given yet another reroute which extended the trip. I informed ATC that I could make that, but could not suffer another reroute as I was at, “minimum legal IFR reserves.” ATC refused to give me a better routing (Miami Center was responsible, but I was speaking with Tallahassie Approach), and clearly implied that a landing was a better alternative. The intent of their suggestion to point out local airpports was clear. Yes, WX was also very VFR. (For those who have not been following Scott’s WX posts, the FAA now has added “Very VFR” as a new term meaning VFR with only the slightest of clouds for hundreds of miles.[;)])

So based upon these experiences and thoughts, I decided to stay well clear of the margins of the FARs.

In reply to:


It would have been a good idea to declare “minimum fuel” to the controller. This phraseology is intended to let them know that you can’t accept undue delays, but it falls short of declaring an emergency.


That’s a good idea when IFR, as Marty was. But as a point of interest, this was extensively discussed recently on AvSig which includes a number of controllers. They said that a Minimum-Fuel declaration from a VFR would just get a head-scratch and a shrug. They view VFR’s as doing their own thing, so if a VFR is low on fuel they assume it will go and get some.

-Curt

In reply to:


So based upon these experiences and thoughts, I decided to stay well clear of the margins of the FARs.


Marty - my point was that the FARs do not stipulate that you land with 45 minutes of reserves. You must depart with those reserves. That’s it. Agreed?
The “minimum fuel” call is not an emergency situation. It was developed specifically to allow you to state your concern without having to declare an emergency.
The ATC Handbook (7110) states:
MINIMUM FUEL – Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.

Please see this description from the NASA ASRS program of the minimum fuel call and it’s intent and implications. It came about after an Avianca 707 ran out of fuel, flamed out, and crashed in New York in 1989 basically because the pilots were reluctant to declare an emergency.

I’ve never had to do this, and you have it right that it certainly is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the fuel situation is under control, diverting if necessary. But I can certainly imagine situations where the minimum fuel call rather than an emergency declaration would be appropriate.

In reply to:


They said that a Minimum-Fuel declaration from a VFR would just get a head-scratch and a shrug.


Oh, VFR, certainly. It is meaningless if you’re VFR.

The minimum fuel declaration came about because the FAA realized that pilots were getting themselves in trouble because of fear of the FAA, exactly the opposite of what the FAA fear factor is supposed to do. Another situation that I think is similar is icing. Pilots are sometimes reluctant to inform ATC (or flight service) that they’ve encountered ice, much to their detriment and the detriment of other pilots on that route. I think that is why FAA doesn’t aggressively pursue pilots who encounter ice unless it is a pretty egregious situation (e.g., severe icing is forecast).

In reply to:


They view VFR’s as doing their own thing, so if a VFR is low on fuel they assume it will go and get some.


Declaring “minimum fuel” is one of many things this VFR pilot should have done, rather than running out. In this situation, I think the declaration might have been more meaningful, since he couldn’t “do his own thing”.

Steve

In reply to:


My husband Sam and I intended to attend the migration in Duluth and flew from Corpus Christi to about Waco, TX before deciding there was no practical way around the thunderstorms.


Mary Helen,

As nice as it would have been to see you and Sam at the Migration, I’m glad you made the careful decision. We’ll have lots of events - mostly on CAVOK days, because we have Scott on the job.

In reply to:


Do you realize that for every stop that a Cirrus SR22 makes with legal fuel reserve (if there were not thunderstorms in all quadrants), it would take a full days drive in a car even on our Interstate Highway system?


I’d never thought of it that way. Makes me happy about my decision to move to an SR22!

  • Mike.

In reply to:


Do you realize that for every stop that a Cirrus SR22 makes with legal fuel reserve (if there were not thunderstorms in all quadrants), it would take a full days drive in a car even on our Interstate Highway system?


I think you’ve even underestimated it. My recent legs were 815 NM, = 937 statue miles, in a little less than 5 hours, landing with 20 gallons of fuel left (over 1.5 hours at the fuel flows I was seeing) running LOP. In a car, 937 miles is more than a reasonable day’s drive.

Flying out of Camarillo, Calif, I have no (really no) experience in planing flying around tstorms. I took off through a 500ft low cloud layer on July 3. Usually the tops are about 2000 ft
I look forward to my 22 some day.

Scott

Dear Mike,

You will love the SR22. It would be even greater with air conditioning and blue skies.

Mary Helen
N220MH
s/n 205

Dear Gordon,

  1. I personally never plan for over 600 nm. 2. I always file IFR direct, but leaving CRP I am always vectored around military, Mexico or HOU airspace. 3. I almost always run into weather i.e. thunderstorms. 4. I find that 17 gal. per hour is realistic with my plane (o.k., I hate throttling back). 5. Obviously the heat does not bother you as much as it does me, or many of your flights are up and down the Pacific Coast which I admit is much cooler than South Texas.

Mary Helen
N220MH
s/n 205

In reply to:


Obviously the heat does not bother you as much as it does me, or many of your flights are up and down the Pacific Coast which I admit is much cooler than South Texas.


Au contraire! At altitude it is ISA+20-25 most of the summer and early fall. The coastal marine layer keeps us nice and cool on the ground, but above the marine layer inversion (typical tops 2500’) the heat is on. The marine layer is the only reason we’re not cookin’ like Mojave, which is only 60 nm from Santa Barbara! A look at the ADDS temperature plot for tomorrow shows I will have hotter temperatures aloft than you by about 5 degrees C.

Re 17 GPH and throttling back, if you run LOP you can gain a couple hundred miles of range in trade for 5-10 knots of airspeed. If that eliminates a fuel stop, it will more than pay for itself in total time to destination. Plus your engine will run cooler.

Dear Scott,

I lived in Cupertino for 11 years, and I remember very few thunderstorms. In winter, we usually had some light rain. As to your 500’ cloud layer, we have that frequently. We call it fog which I am sure that Camarillo has occasionally (I know that Ventura must get the fog off the Pacific like the Bay Area does).

In South Texas, East Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc., where I do a lot of my flying, afternoon thunderstorms in the summer are normal (the all day long thunderstorms are not as common). I file IFR, check weather radar, get a weather briefing immediately before each flight, stop about every 3 to 3 1/2 hours, get a weather briefing at each stop and again check weather radar before preceding. I have a Stormscope (also had one in my 182 Cessna) which I watch closely during flight. I watch for cells, their movement and buildup. When I went to Sun 'n Fun this spring, the weather was clear from CRP to Tampa Int’l. On the way home, there were thunderstorms in MS, LA and TX (probably other states too). After watching cells on Stormscope and checking ATIS in Meridian where I was planning to land, I decided to land in Jackson. I was able to leave Jackson before thunderstorms arrived. We filed for Dallas, but with headwinds and thunderstorms, in Louisiana we decided that we could get to Corpus Christi, but Dallas was questionable. We flew to Dallas from Corpus Christi the next morning with tailwinds and no thunderstorms. This was not the first or last time that I have filed to one airport and had to refile in the air to another airport due to a buildup of thunderstorms. The Stormscope and Sky Watch in my SR22 are great.

Mary Helen

Dear Gordon,

It was way too hot at 2500’ today when flying to IKG where I took my plane to be repaired after having service bulletins taken care of elsewhere. My mechanic, Mike Muzyczyn, in Kingsville has made it a little easier on me. I was unable to use the hand brake as I could not reach it, so I had to close the Cirrus’ door before start up (I could not close the door with my seat in flight position); therefore, I was often too hot before takeoff. Mike has made me a tool with which to pull and then release the hand brake, so that I can now close the door after runup. Went to Keith’s at ADS and saw the Cirrus that they are air conditioning. Can’t wait.

As to running LOP which I am sure that you are able to do well, I think that for me it is wiser to wait for Fadec. As to throttling back, I like to fly as fast as I can, and I want to get to each stop as fast as I can. The legs that I fly (2 i.e. Duluth or Green Bay to 3 i.e. Saranac Lake, NY or San Diego, CA maximum) would be short for you but are long enough for me. I guess that I need breaks more often than you.

Mary Helen
N220MH
s/n 205

I flew “over the hill” from PAO to WVI during the summer a couple of years back. It was 95 degrees on the ground at Palo Alto and 95 degrees at 3500’ through the notch, and 95 degrees at pattern altitude at Watsonville. It was 65 on the ground…