Mist and/or fog enroute
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji - indeed. But of what comfort is that when it all goes quiet up front and you can't see the ground?
I was far from 1,000 hours when mine happened (and I know some guys who've had up to 3 in those number of hours), which of course doesn't contradict that the average is 1 in 1,000 hours. The reality is it could just as well happen in hour number one as in hour number 1,000. Or 5,000. Or never in a pilot's flying lifetime!
Something that has kept me alive in 35 years of SEP flying, even ahead of "never take the aeroplane anywhere your brain hasn't already been", is "ALWAYS have an 'out'".
Flying over fog denies you that. I would not be happy to fly with any pilot who accepts, knowingly, a situation where if the engine fails there is no 'out'. Flying over water is a grey area for me this respect, but flying over extensive fog isn't. You have pretty much no chance.
For me, that indicates a non risk-averse attitude. Not a good thing in a pilot IMO.
I was far from 1,000 hours when mine happened (and I know some guys who've had up to 3 in those number of hours), which of course doesn't contradict that the average is 1 in 1,000 hours. The reality is it could just as well happen in hour number one as in hour number 1,000. Or 5,000. Or never in a pilot's flying lifetime!
Something that has kept me alive in 35 years of SEP flying, even ahead of "never take the aeroplane anywhere your brain hasn't already been", is "ALWAYS have an 'out'".
Flying over fog denies you that. I would not be happy to fly with any pilot who accepts, knowingly, a situation where if the engine fails there is no 'out'. Flying over water is a grey area for me this respect, but flying over extensive fog isn't. You have pretty much no chance.
For me, that indicates a non risk-averse attitude. Not a good thing in a pilot IMO.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Gloster,UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly (I may be rusty here) The Uk has a VFR mandate for being in sight of the ground. In Johnny Foreign land of EASA there is something colloquially called VFR "on top". EASA rules may have changed the UK rules that are in my Air Law book, but the weather hasn't read any books, new or old. Some examples:
-Flying this morning was particularly grotty. The cloud didn't have a base. It just got soupier and soupier as you went up. I never got 2000'. Terrain avoidance, land clear and even the 500 ft rule were all in my mind. Yes I was also lit up like a Christmas tree.
-In the later morning, the cloud lifted and threatened to have holes. There was absolutely no way I was going to go up through them, because I'd have a bigger problem: how to get back down through them.
-Consider that most beautiful of alternative days. Lovely puffy cumulus to play around. You are on a cross country. The Cu becomes strato cumulus and your 3/8 becomes 5/8 with patches of blanket across parts of the terrain. You can see the ground -frequently, but this becomes occasionally. What was that town? That becomes the new game. It's all too easy to head off 30 degrees away from your planned route.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.
-Flying this morning was particularly grotty. The cloud didn't have a base. It just got soupier and soupier as you went up. I never got 2000'. Terrain avoidance, land clear and even the 500 ft rule were all in my mind. Yes I was also lit up like a Christmas tree.
-In the later morning, the cloud lifted and threatened to have holes. There was absolutely no way I was going to go up through them, because I'd have a bigger problem: how to get back down through them.
-Consider that most beautiful of alternative days. Lovely puffy cumulus to play around. You are on a cross country. The Cu becomes strato cumulus and your 3/8 becomes 5/8 with patches of blanket across parts of the terrain. You can see the ground -frequently, but this becomes occasionally. What was that town? That becomes the new game. It's all too easy to head off 30 degrees away from your planned route.
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dominatio:
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. Please don't be put off asking any questions.
There are VFR rules and IFR rules but you can also have your own rules (as long as they are in addition to and not subtracting from the 'official' rules). Personally I would find it slightly mad to fly above a fog bank in a SEP whether it was legal or not. Always always always consider whether you have an out if the fan stops.
There are airfields that my clubmates have no compunction about flying to that I avoid like the plague because the approach/departure is over housing/industrial estates etc. Likewise I have an IMC rating or whatever it's called these days but I won't take off unless the cloudbase is 1K or above even though legally I can do so. I don't want the quiet bits to start when I'm at 600' in cloud.
There's the legal part of flying and then the common sense bit.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. Please don't be put off asking any questions.
There are VFR rules and IFR rules but you can also have your own rules (as long as they are in addition to and not subtracting from the 'official' rules). Personally I would find it slightly mad to fly above a fog bank in a SEP whether it was legal or not. Always always always consider whether you have an out if the fan stops.
There are airfields that my clubmates have no compunction about flying to that I avoid like the plague because the approach/departure is over housing/industrial estates etc. Likewise I have an IMC rating or whatever it's called these days but I won't take off unless the cloudbase is 1K or above even though legally I can do so. I don't want the quiet bits to start when I'm at 600' in cloud.
There's the legal part of flying and then the common sense bit.
I think Thing gives very good advice here. When you’re an inexperienced pilot, you worry more about the rules than the actual situation, i.e. am I breaking the law, am I going to get into trouble?
Once you’ve got to a certain level, you realise that you can fly extremely dangerously whilst conforming to all the regulations and safely while (ahem) bending them a little bit. The tricky bit comes in knowing what’s important and what isn’t: essentially, you can do what you like as long as you don’t make a public show of it. There are no “air police” shadowing you, therefore it is up to your own sense of self-preservation and responsibility to other users of the air to behave sensibly in this regard. It’s called Airmanship and seems to be a bit of a forgotten cause these days.
Once you’ve got to a certain level, you realise that you can fly extremely dangerously whilst conforming to all the regulations and safely while (ahem) bending them a little bit. The tricky bit comes in knowing what’s important and what isn’t: essentially, you can do what you like as long as you don’t make a public show of it. There are no “air police” shadowing you, therefore it is up to your own sense of self-preservation and responsibility to other users of the air to behave sensibly in this regard. It’s called Airmanship and seems to be a bit of a forgotten cause these days.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s called Airmanship and seems to be a bit of a forgotten cause these days.
It's absolutely true you can be whiter than white legal, while flying very unwisely. Conversely you can do stuff which is entirely safe, but not legal.
I'm grateful for the wise pelicans (OK, there were a couple of hours builders in there as well but the wisdom of the WPs drowned them out) who taught me Airmanship if it can be taught (I think it can if the stude is receptive). These WPs are still around, but perhaps much less common than in the 1970s when I did the PPL. They are worth seeking out.
Beyond the PPL, you learn through experience what kills pilots and what doesn't. You see over the decades who has the 'incidents' and who doesn't. What's legal isn't always the measure (though of course, often it is as air law is modified by a desire to reduce accidents).
So stay legal, but THINK!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Personally I would find it slightly mad to fly above a fog bank in a SEP whether it was legal or not.
I didn't consider this "slightly mad" as I was scraping along the bottom of CAS and (in theory) could have made one side or the other if the fan stopped. And as I could see the coast on both sides throughout it was legal whichever set of rules you use.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't consider this "slightly mad" as I was scraping along the bottom of CAS and (in theory) could have made one side or the other if the fan stopped.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi
you have reasonable questions and I will try to give you reasonable answers but I have not flown GA in europe.
1. In the states, you can certainly be VFR above the undercast, just comply with VFR minimums.
a. IF you are VFR above the undercast and you have problems and must land right away, you have better have an option in mind. You must also rely on navigation methods that do not depend upon you see the ground below you or nearby your route of flight. (vor etc).
AS a practical matter I flew small single engine planes VFR (though IFR rated and equipped) over the foggiest parts of california . I flew with a chart on my knee and could figure out a gliding approach to nearby airports, whether I could see them at all or not. Vicinity and pray sort of thing. The engine never quit and I never had to do it in real life. (though I taught and tested the technique to my students)
I've also flown over the Sierra Nevada (peaks over 14k) at night in single engine planes and am here to type about it. But it is demanding and the "OUTS" are few and far between. Having a two engine plane with a single engine ceiling of only 5000' only adds time to the situation , but again the engine(s) kept running.
So, fly over the mist or fog, but think about what you are capable of handling just in case. Get radar following (or whatever you call it there) and if you lose it, get a vector to the clear or some airport even if not clear and hope you can let down safely.
I remember reading that our aviation antecedents would fly over the mountains of the eastern USA using a cigar as a timing device...when the cigar was finished, it was time to let down and hope for the best.
Good luck and always think, and then think even more!
you have reasonable questions and I will try to give you reasonable answers but I have not flown GA in europe.
1. In the states, you can certainly be VFR above the undercast, just comply with VFR minimums.
a. IF you are VFR above the undercast and you have problems and must land right away, you have better have an option in mind. You must also rely on navigation methods that do not depend upon you see the ground below you or nearby your route of flight. (vor etc).
AS a practical matter I flew small single engine planes VFR (though IFR rated and equipped) over the foggiest parts of california . I flew with a chart on my knee and could figure out a gliding approach to nearby airports, whether I could see them at all or not. Vicinity and pray sort of thing. The engine never quit and I never had to do it in real life. (though I taught and tested the technique to my students)
I've also flown over the Sierra Nevada (peaks over 14k) at night in single engine planes and am here to type about it. But it is demanding and the "OUTS" are few and far between. Having a two engine plane with a single engine ceiling of only 5000' only adds time to the situation , but again the engine(s) kept running.
So, fly over the mist or fog, but think about what you are capable of handling just in case. Get radar following (or whatever you call it there) and if you lose it, get a vector to the clear or some airport even if not clear and hope you can let down safely.
I remember reading that our aviation antecedents would fly over the mountains of the eastern USA using a cigar as a timing device...when the cigar was finished, it was time to let down and hope for the best.
Good luck and always think, and then think even more!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piperboy,
Seems to me a little thread drift . . .
“do I really give amonkeys what the field is reporting, how would one determine from thetaf/metars what the "tops" of the mist or fog is”
In my opinion, yes you do give a “monkeys” - the field forecast is important to your planned alternate options. In the example, a report of fog is read as field un-available.
VFR on top. When on top of a cloud layer, a reasonable cloud base (say 1,000 ft) would give an opportunity for a forced landing. In this example fog would precludes uch a contingency. A radar service cannot give you an acceptable RVR (probably better to be vectored away from built-up areas).
(I assume nav does not require ground reference).
TheTAF-Metar gives the cloud layers to expect, reported as the bottom of the layer. Also any PROB forecast would give a trend i.e. is the fog expected to clearor getting worse?
On climb out from your clear departure field, the forward situation and any need to return should be apparent.
In the Maule, a few clear views of farmland would provide a contingency and goahead, whereas a fog blanket would probably press the return button, depending on the confidence of a clear destination and time of exposure.
I don’t see that IFR/ IR gives any additional options with this example (fog = RVR less than acceptable – assuming your Maule is not CAT3 equipped
).
flyme
Seems to me a little thread drift . . .
“do I really give amonkeys what the field is reporting, how would one determine from thetaf/metars what the "tops" of the mist or fog is”
In my opinion, yes you do give a “monkeys” - the field forecast is important to your planned alternate options. In the example, a report of fog is read as field un-available.
VFR on top. When on top of a cloud layer, a reasonable cloud base (say 1,000 ft) would give an opportunity for a forced landing. In this example fog would precludes uch a contingency. A radar service cannot give you an acceptable RVR (probably better to be vectored away from built-up areas).
(I assume nav does not require ground reference).
TheTAF-Metar gives the cloud layers to expect, reported as the bottom of the layer. Also any PROB forecast would give a trend i.e. is the fog expected to clearor getting worse?
On climb out from your clear departure field, the forward situation and any need to return should be apparent.
In the Maule, a few clear views of farmland would provide a contingency and goahead, whereas a fog blanket would probably press the return button, depending on the confidence of a clear destination and time of exposure.
I don’t see that IFR/ IR gives any additional options with this example (fog = RVR less than acceptable – assuming your Maule is not CAT3 equipped
). flyme
Last edited by flyme273; 18th Sep 2014 at 08:49. Reason: spaces
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Go at 6,499' per chance?
