Clouds

[Africanlion]

Wannabe airman here
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson

Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc

Thanks in advance

[piperboy84]

Wannabe airman here
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson

Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc

Thanks in advance

Clouds: Under over around but not into or thru.
High Altitude: decreased performance. Longer take off , landings and climbs.
Learning: I suppose it would be but you're going to have to go in the deep end eventually.

[Romeo Tango]

Obviously one can go round/under clouds a lot of the time .... but sometimes they go all the way to the ground or too close anyway (I note you are in Scotland - look out of the window). With more advanced training one can also go through clouds.

[Jan Olieslagers]

With more advanced training one can also go through clouds. At least if also the required equipment is there.

[alex90]

At least if also the required equipment is there.

And it's also "the right type of cloud" wouldn't see me willingly flying in IMC when cumulonimbus / towering cumulus are present. Been there once when they were not forecast, not planning on doing that again anytime soon!

[Tarq57]

The main dangers, at training/junior private pilot level, are (1) disorientation. (2) the cloud may contain an obstruction, such as a hill or radio tower.
Disorientation is dealt with by practice at instrument flying.
Avoiding hills and towers in cloudbanks is dealt with by not flying into clouds, unless on an appropriate instrument flight, with the license etc that entails.

[Colibri49]

Hi Africanlion,


Many years ago I learned to fly at an airfield on the SA Highveld at an elevation of 5250', or near enough 1 mile above sea level. It helps a lot with engine performance if the engine is either turbo-charged or super-charged. However on hot summer days when temperatures were around 25 to 30C, the density altitude was a lot higher and so take-off runs were much longer than at sea level on a cool day.


Totally agree with those above about the risks posed by flying into any clouds without proper instrument training and an inappropriately equipped aircraft. CBs in SA can extend upwards of 60,000' and be violent enough inside to destroy an aircraft.


In spite of having held a full instrument rating for many years, I and others have occasionally experienced the "leans" in cloud and it takes all your concentration and training and experience to avoid entering a potentially fatal situation. I have seen with my own eyes the tragic wreckage and human remains of someone who entered cloud without training.


Alles van die beste!

[Pilot DAR]

warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap

Welcome AfricanLion.

One thing to bear in mind is that flight "around" clouds can usually be safely managed by a diversion. The notion to "turn back" should be considered in the context of approaching deteriorating weather, that's a different thing. You can be flying on a nice day, and approaching increasing cumulus cloud. That's usually no problem, if you can maintain the required visibility and minimum altitude by flying round or under them (over is less well accepted).

However, if you're flying along, and approaching deteriorating weather, and there is no plan to maintain the required "visual" conditions of flight (IFR excepted), and the weather information for stations ahead to confirm that your decision making us valid, then yes, you should turn back. These are really differing circumstances, though "clouds" is nearly always a common theme.

An example would be flying on a clear day, with no cloud and unlimited visibility, and then encountering ground fog ahead. That's nearly always a "turn back" situation, as you are usually not able to assure that you will have visual contact with suitable landing areas ahead, and descending "VFR" into fog is verging on suicidal.

During your flying instruction these concepts will be introduced to you. Fly as trained, with cautions conservatism, and you'll be fine. That training will include the concept of turning back "diversion", and this is an important concept to embrace. All experienced have had to do it, and a few have died because they did not.

[Jonzarno]

I have seen with my own eyes the tragic wreckage and human remains of someone who entered cloud without training.

To emphasise just how dangerous this is, and that it doesn't matter how good a VMC pilot you are, it is believed that loss of control in IMC is how Albert Ball VC, one of the most successful WW1 pilots, was killed.

[oggers]

the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson

Not actually a silly question. There was a foreign student undergoing flying training with the RAF/RN. Despite all the checks and measures on his progress, his first solo x-country ended when he flew into a cloud and ended up bailing out. Ultimately it happened because the guy had not even thought to ask himself this very question. If you see a cloud coming you avoid it in the most convenient manner, as Pilot DAR explained. Turning back is a good option if you already flew into a cloud by accident.

Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc

Yes, the weather is better for flying training in southern Africa. I would train wherever is the most convenient and cost effective for you personally, but I would prioritise a good school/instructor. At some point it becomes good experience to have marginal weather but all other factors being equal you want the place with the best weather for the PPL course.

[Mariner9]

Calm winds at ground level do not necessarily translate into smooth flights - you can get a lot of thermal activity in SA. Furthermore, training in SA will not properly prepare you for UK procedures in general and the weather in particular.

That said, not a bad idea to get your PPL over there than come back and do a few hours post-PPL training in the UK.

[Africanlion]

Thank you all for your kind replies. I had an hours flying a a birthday present at Perth airport Scotland courtesy of the wife and I loved it. I had control in the sky and instructor took off and landed. Its a rush like no other though for some inexcusable reason I was very apprehensive and nervous doing a left bank (maybe I was a pilot in my former life who came to grief doing a left turn lol)


The reason I introduced the STOL element is because I desperately want to own a Zenith 701 STOL aircraft one day as its very suited for Africa and the ability to land in the bush is very key for me

What instruments are added to an aircraft to make it instrument rated. How about those fancy GPS looking things made by garmin and co do they not help avoid mountains and such? Thanks

[alex90]

Africanlion,

I am glad to hear you really enjoyed the trial flight. Also glad to hear that you are seriously considering becoming a pilot.

Unfortunately, there is a lot to consider between doing your PPL and getting your full instrument rating. To note, you need both the plane, and pilot to be suitable and legal for IFR flights. This entails getting your IR (instrument rating - on top of your PPL, this takes a lot of hours, both in the air and on the ground) and flying a plane which is allowed to fly in IMC (your Zenith idea would be illegal to take into IMC in many countries, so you'll have to look into that).

With regards to your Garmin GPS (and stuff), yes, there are some such as the G1000, G500, G600 (or G900X for homebuilt) for instance, which would have (sometimes optionally) SVT (Synthetic Vision Technology) which *may* or may not display all mountains and obstacles. This isn't something that we rely on, and in some countries, you are not allowed below something called MSA (minimum safety altitude - MVA [minimum vectoring altitude]) without being on an instrument approach (UK excluded of course!). These are generally not available outside of large airports, but in some countries (USA) are becoming much more frequent (UK get with it please....) - if you are planning on flying IFR in the African bush, with your little Zenith (providing you have the rating, and the plane has been cleared for IMC / IFR flights, and of course you are current in IFR flying etc...) you would still need to be sure that you either have an airport with an instrument approach, or be sure that your destination's weather is flyable under VFR (visual flight rule) [and maybe have a change of underwear after going through the usual convective weather.]

re: your left turn, people are often more scared whilst sitting on the left, to turn left, as you feel closer to the ground and have a better view straight down! ;-)

I hope this helps & good luck learning!

[thing]

Personally I would concentrate on doing your 'vanilla' PPL first before you worry about cloud flying. You are not allowed into cloud (bearing in mind there are no 'stop' signs on the outside of them...) with a plain PPL anyway, you would need to do the instrument rating to get the bit of paper and more importantly the training that allows you to do it.

Flying in cloud can be very disorientating even with the proper training. Without the proper training it is often fatal. I have had the 'leans' once and that was enough, I was convinced I was doing a slow roll to the left. It took all of my concentration to stay right side up. It probably only lasted less than a minute but it felt like hours.

Good luck with the training, you will enjoy it but take one step at a time.

[9 lives]

AfricanLion,

Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.

I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.

It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.

The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

if you can maintain the required visibility and minimum altitude by flying round or under them (over is less well accepted).
Yes, well, I went over a little cloud once by going up ... into Luton's airspace. No terribly great harm done, as I was talking to a Luton controller at the time, who was helping me get home after a turn-back through rather worse weather than forecast.


[There's also the "if you can see through it you can fly through it" thing, but I wouldn't dream of mentioning that anywhere a newbie might read it. Just in case, for the avoidance of doubt, they try it and kill themselves.]

[Africanlion]

AfricanLion,

Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.

I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.

It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.

The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.

Again the fascination with IFR isn't the thrill of having one but I want to be as safe as possible when I am flying so I figure why not be trained for all scenarios. A recent crash by a dual engine on zimbabwe/Mozambique border put the fear of god in me and it was suggested the fog disoriented the pilots and some suggested he wasn't IFR trained

http://clubofmozambique.com/news/eta-aircraft-crash-kills-six-people-in-manica-noticias/


Food for thought and I appreciate your input. My fixation with STOL is not anything to do with excitement per we but for practical reasons. I shall be returning to Africa to settle and in my business in minerals and mining a bush plane would be a god send seeing as Africa's roads aren't the best outside of the big cities and urban areas and driving at night can be downright dangerous in places like Mozambique, Botswana etc due to wildlife.ideally a Cessna would have been my preferred plane but they seem to cost a fortune for one in good condition whereas a brand new zenith is about £40 000 give or take and it does seem to have a shorter take off roll which is main thing for me

My next question would be where can one source an aero engine conversion to run on normal pump petrol and diesel would be even better.

[9 lives]

For 40,000 pounds, you can buy an excellent condition Cessna 150, and have a STOL kit installed. It still will not outperform a 701, but if the difference in runway requirement between a 701 and a C150 is making the go/nogo difference, you need to be considering your operation pretty carefully - you're on the edge!

I'm not knocking a 701, nor other non certified aircraft, they have an important place in the aviation community. However, if you're not a tinkerer, you may not find a lot of cost saving in operating a non certified aircraft. A common, certified aircraft will have the best parts availability, and lots of mechanics who know how to keep it running, particularly in more remote places. On the other hand, if you're really good with aircraft maintenance, and are properly equipped, DYI does work.

Get your license first. Choose to train in a C 150 (as opposed to a C 152) if you can. They're modest, old planes, and people laugh at them, but they are decent at moving two people into less than ideal runways, and easy to maintain. They will also run on mogas which does not contain ethanol. After you get your license, fly a bunch a of different types, and learn the operating cost and ease from owners, then make your decision....

[Colibri49]

A 701 fitted with a Rotax 912UL (80hp) or a Rotax 912ULS (100hp) can also run on unleaded mogas. There is the option of the Rotax 914 turbo (115hp) which runs on unleaded mogas and would maintain its power in high and hot conditions. However all these Rotax variants can run on 100LL avgas, although the recommendation is for mogas, due to avgas fouling the engine with lead deposits and necessitating halving the service and inspection intervals.

Another consideration potentially against the 701 is whether or not the SA CAA restricts its maximum gross mass to 450 kg (as in the UK) thereby penalising the payload. Usually in the UK this limit precludes carrying a passenger with a full fuel load for all such "microlight" aircraft. (Silly word; I prefer ultralight.)

I built and maintain my aircraft and therefore know what an enormous saving this is in maintenance costs. But if you want to keep your aircraft safe and reliable, you probably need to devote an hour or more to its upkeep for every hour spent in the air, depending on what type of flying you're doing. Such things as keeping it clean so that you can see problems good and early, daily inspections, periodic inspections and inevitable running repairs all add up the non-flying hours needed for safety.

For all that I know, SA might insist on a certified engineer being involved in overseeing the maintenance of an uncertified aircraft anyway.

Having spent years flying professionally in SA before emigrating, I would be more than slightly reluctant to operate such a small and inappropriate aircraft in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). I would only want enough instrument flying training to get me out of IMC as quickly as possible, if I accidentally found myself in cloud.

How things have changed since I used to fly in SA ! Here's a brochure with some useful info, including confirmation that they have a 450 kg limit like in the UK, which probably would apply to the 701. I see that they also have a 700 kg limit which covers a great many more types and possibly one of those would suit your purposes better.

With a cruise speed of 80 mph and a fuel capacity of 76 litres, you'd be limited to little more than 300 miles with a safe reserve and without being allowed to carry a passenger. The Cessna 150 would be far better in terms of speed, range, load and reliability, but at 726 kg max, it would be out of the National Pilot Licence permitted weight of 700 kg. The choice is yours!

PS: the brochure also shows that you can't train for an instrument rating in the weight categories up to 700 kg.


www.wingspark.co.za/wingsflightschool/Want%20to%20fly%20Brochure.pdf (http://www.wingspark.co.za/wingsflightschool/Want%20to%20fly%20Brochure.pdf)

[funfly]

If you are lower and the air is thicker (more dense) then you have more Oxygen per cubic foot so each gulp of air that the engine takes will contain more oxygen and the engine will perform well. As the air thins out or you get higher then the air is literally thinner with less oxygen per gulp of the engine.
There are many of us here who have fallen into the trap of flying fully loaded when the air is hot (less dense) or the airport is high, only to find that the aircraft struggles to get up (Most of us will have got away with it but learned a valuable lesson from it)

[Ebbie 2003]

Personally I am not a fan of clouds, flew into one once that was thin mist but become a full on cloud around me - not a fun experience.

I do try to go over them, the air seems smoother.

On my recent trip down from the US I tried something I saw mentioned on there and referred to as the thumb trick - I was dubious but gave it a go.

Rest your hand on the glareshield - line up top of thumb with top of cloud - keep still for a count of about 3-5 - if the cloud creeps about the thumb you are going to go through it, if it creeps down you are going over. Works for the bottoms of clouds too - best thing I ever saw on here and it worked perfectly, I skimmed over the tops of a few using it.

Not a fan of going around clouds - I do steer around the columns of cloud that climb out of the layers though.

Down here I find that there is generally a layer with bottoms at about 3,000ft and tops up to about 6,000 - weird thing is buzzing along it always seems that one is surrounded by clouds that are all 360 degrees around but 5-10 miles away (it's a visual thing with some 5 miles and behind the at 10 miles etc etc) - I have some photos of the effect if I could figure out how to attach them.

[Council Van]

Most of the time in Southern Africa you would not need to worry about flying in Cloud's.

In a light aircraft however good an instrument pilot you are you would not want to fly in or near African thunderstorms. I came out of Dalaman in Turkey last week and we went through the edge of a storm (fault with the weather radar range function) and the ride was quite rough in our big shiney jet. Storms in Turkey in May are just babies compared to the monsters you get in Southern Africa!

With reference of the thumb method above. Take a half full bottle of water. Hold it in front of you so you are looking across the top of the water.. Cloud below the top of the water then over the cloud you go. Cloud above the top of the water then into the cloud you go.

[9 lives]

we went through the edge of a storm (fault with the weather radar range function)

Speak firmly at the weather radar, and tell it who's in charge! Then fly around the weather ;).

I was the junior co pilot to a very experienced (ex RAF Red Arrows) pilot, as we ferried a Twin Otter the length of Africa in 1985. We had no weather radar, nor flight into icing equipment, so although filed IFR, we were really VFR in terms of equipment. Maps were not great, so we were filed on airways, but having to sometimes fly lower than the minimum altitudes, as the Twin Otter could not practically reach them. As we flew toward a rather large cloud, at somewhere around 7000 feet (I don't remember exactly), my Spidy senses tingled. I suggested that we fly around that cloud. After some persuasion, and a little muttering about inexperienced pilot, he went around. As we got around the upwind side, I saw that the cloud was full of rocks, it was one of the first of the mountains in northern Kenya. Lesson learned indelibly!

Unless you're fully equipped for flight in cloud, and doing it exactly as it should be done - don't!

I'm still alive to share these life threatening stories, so I do. Sadly, my mentor, who taught me (or allowed me to learn) so much, was one of two pilots in a fatal accident of a Dash 7, so my lessons from him ended with the report of that flight...

[Africanlion]

Thank you you all for your kind replies

How about the Zenith 801 would that pass the weight requirements in SA

What's main difference between Cessna 150 and 172

[9 lives]

The Cessna 150 is a modest, economical two place plane, with adequate handling, and decent short runway performance, better with a STOL kit installed on the wing.

The Cessna 152 is a re-engined C 150, a little faster, and more powerful, though not as good as some 150's in a shorter runway.

The C 172 is a decent two place plane, or a modest compromise as a four place. Faster than a 150/152, and more expensive to operate, but, will carry more if that's what you want to do.

There were a few modified C 152's with more power yet, and a changed propeller, they were eager aircraft, I'd be pleased to have one, but they are uncommon.

There are differences in the 172 over the decades, and what you gain one way, you lose another. I would rather an older one (pre 1962). Similarly, the 150 varied over the decades, though not as much as the 172. The 152, all of which were about the same as each other (they did not have "A"/"B"/"C" etc.), were airframe the same firewall back, as the last 150's made, 150M's. Only the flaps were different. All 150's have 40 degrees of flaps available, no 152s do, 172's come either way. For short runways, 40 flap is beneficial. There are 40 flap detractors, pay them no heed, if short runway operation is your objective.

After that, there dozens of other Cessna types, all with their own characteristics...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

the two of you aren't particularly heavy, and/or
you don't want to load all that much fuel, and/or
you're not bothered about operating over the legal weight.
And on this last point you might not be particularly bothered if you've got 2km of tarmac runway at sea level in a cold country, but you might be rather more bothered if you want to achieve book take-off and landing performance figures for short, hot, high, non-tarmac runways.



[FTAOD: I am not advocating operating an aircraft overweight.]

[9 lives]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

Is true. It is for that reason, I have come to appreciate the 150. It actually has a lesser useful load, though with the standard 48" pitch prop actually gets out of tighter spaces better.

When the 152 was first introduced, woohoo! It was a 150 with 110 HP! It's be a rocket! We all wanted to fly it. It was 1978, and I was about to solo. It came to pass that as my flying club bought the first 152 which came to Canada, I became the first student to first solo in it - when it had 33 hours total time! (My instructor was challenged for sending me first solo in a brand new plane!). But, in finishing my PPL on a mixture of 150/152, I came to prefer the 150.

Any aircraft choice requires the purchaser to do their homework, and assure that the aircraft selected has the operational capacity to do the job. But remember, don't but more plane than you really need. fly with economy most of the time, and rent bigger on the less common occasions you might need the greater capability. Owning does not stop you from still renting!

[Colibri49]

The 801 is a big heavy thirsty beast which would necessitate having a full PPL, rather than the SA NPL. So how about the 750 STOL which at a maximum operating mass of 650 kg falls into the LSA 700 kg category? If it's possible to obtain one with a Rotax 914 turbo, you'd have the answer to hot and high operations from short-ish strips and with full fuel you could still carry a passenger, there being well above 400 lbs load capacity left after filling the tank. Bundu Aviation has several other engine and propeller options, so a turbo may not be necessary. The bubble doors make for an exceptionally wide and comfortable cabin.


At 90 to 95 mph cruise (max is 100) you'd have a range between 350 and 400 miles with maybe 1/2 hour reserve. There's also the option of extra fuel tanks.

The 750 is already on the SA register, or else as first buyer/builder you'd have the great trouble and expense of getting it through many "hoops" in order to get their approval.

STOL CH 750 light sport utility airplane from Zenith Aircraft Company - the ultimate short take-off and landing sport kitplane - Sport Pilot Ready (http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/750-performance.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKNKX0jJwKM



https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bundu+aircraft+zenith+750&spf=1494593942838

[WHBM]

Get your instructor to take you up into a significant cloud. Several times. Do a 180 inside it and come out level again. It may not be in the PPL skill test but is worthwhile not to be doing it the first time untrained.

The V part of VFR also applies. Mr WHBM Senior, on the ground at his RAF base in WW2, witnessed two aircraft in the loose circuit enter a cloud from opposing directions. Loss of two full crews. He remembered it for the rest of his life, and after he told me, I will do so too.

[Capt Kremmen]

Africanlion


I've operated two Zenair 701s here in GB for the last twenty years in the Group A category at 500Kg. I had partial panels in both, supplemented by satellite derived information from a GPS. One, has the 80hp Rotax, the other the 100.


Subject to the rules of weight and maintenance prevailing in your country, I would endorse the 701 for your purpose. There is hardly a better Stol a/c on the planet. Here mogas is normally used. We do our own maintenance with certain items inspected and signed off by an inspector.


Fuel load is 90 liters (20 galls) to empty. 44lbs of baggage carried on rear parcel shelf - if need be. Unless you have a three axis auto pilot I wouldn't recommend flight in IMC in any a/c.


The 701 is simple, robust and does what it says in the blurb. An all round superb aircraft.

[thing]

The 152 is only really a two seater if

the two of you aren't particularly heavy, and/or
you don't want to load all that much fuel, and/or



This is true, so I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 150 Aerobat. 130hp donk (although no where as smooth as the Lycoming) and 40 degrees of flap. Plus with full fuel it will lift two 200 pound people legally, depending on the actual fit of that particular aircraft obviously. OK it has a few litres less usable but it's a damn good short field beast for a 150. My prefered 150/152 out of them all if you don't mind the RR vibration generator up front.

[Mechta]

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6c4e0e9c402a0a9e79e06282cdfb888-c

[Colibri49]

Hello again Africanlion,


YouTube presented another video to me unsolicited and unresearched, but I thought you might be interested because its main focus is on the benefit of turbocharging at high density altitudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8-VaGQ-_8Y


Of course Bundu Aviation would be delighted to oblige you by fitting such improvements, as stated in their video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKNKX0jJwKM

[9 lives]

Turbo is great, if you need it where you operate normally. Otherwise, it is expensive, heavy, and may demand expensive maintenance. Buy what you need in the plane, don't buy what you don't need.

[foxmoth]

Unless you have a three axis auto pilot I wouldn't recommend flight in IMC in any a/c.

What a load of rot, if you are in practice and the right aircraft it is no harder than flying VMC, even a bit out of practice and not so ideal aircraft it can be easier to climb up through a layer and then sit in the sunshine rather than scud run!

[Capt Kremmen]

Well that's fine for a Sky God such as yourself but, for some of us lesser mortals - the belt and braces approach is more suitable !

[Romeo Tango]

If you need a 3 axis autopilot to feel safe inside a cloud you have no business being there.

[Capt Kremmen]

Too right ! That's why I'm never there. Uncontrolled flight into terrain remains the number one cause of accidents. Keep out of the white fuzzy stuff unless you're wearing belt and braces.

[lasseb]

Uncontrolled flight into terrain remains the number one cause of accidents.
Uncontrolled flight into terrain is not an accident cause, its an accident result. An accident in flight that does not end with "flight" into terrain, is probably not that serious an accident :O

But seriously... If anyone with an IR/eIR/IMCr thinks that an autopilot is required to fly IMC, they should immediately go to the nearest authority and deposit the rating!

[Colibri49]

Africanlion,


The little debate above regarding the merits of flying in IMC with or without the benefit of a 3 axis autopilot is a bit of a red herring, because the added complication and expense of fitting such aids is probably beyond what you have in mind and might not be permissible in SA anyway. By not offering training for an instrument rating in aircraft below a maximum mass of 700 kg, the South Africans are making it clear that they don't expect anyone flying such light aircraft even to be contemplating it!


Benefit of hindsight and flying over 30 years and thousands of hours IMC with a full UK Instrument Rating, plus having flown in SA IMC without any kind of autopilot or stabilisation, allows me to have an opinion. Instrument flying without such aids is very hard work and makes you really tired very quickly, especially in strong turbulence such as is more common in cumulus clouds in hot countries.


This tiredness can kill you, because it becomes really difficult in quite a short time to maintain the full mental picture of the flight which you are making. So omissions and mistakes will soon happen without you noticing them.


Something else I'd like to add is the difference in IMC between the UK, or some of the relatively low-terrain European countries and parts of South Africa where some mountains reach up to above 10,000 ft. Even if you aren't planning to fly near the rugged terrain regions, but to remain over the Highveld, thunderstorms of truly monstrous scale often bubble up out of nowhere in a remarkably short time-scale from the middle of the day onwards.


It's really difficult for the meteorologists to predict the location and extent of such cumulonimbus activity, which often contains hail. It sometimes happens that these destructive "storm engines" are embedded inside other more benign layers of cloud, meaning that you've no chance of seeing them while in IMC without the benefit of on-board radar.


Similar storms occur over the American prairies and to get an idea of their violence, a military C130 Hercules (very strong airframe) once got spat out of a storm minus one or both wings. Vertical currents inside them can reach 1000s of feet per minute.

[Capt Kremmen]

All things being equal, no red herring. So many advantages. Lower stress/amxiety, options etc. An a/p could save your life. 54 years after first solo allows me to express an opinion. Don't tempt fate. "Requirement" doesn't come into it.


If you feel competent and safe without it - fine. I don't.

[Pilot DAR]

The valuable discussion about IMC flight and autopilot, and the varying opinion, is worthy of consideration. However, let's remember the context of the original question. Any of this is well beyond the initial student pilot, and probably not even in a context where the value of the discussion can be appreciated by a very low time pilot.

[Ebbie 2003]

I have a 3 axis autopilot in my airplane.

It means I am not as scared of clouds as I used to be - still don't like them.

The AP has got me out of serious trouble once when I went into IMC (the dreaded cloud) - it doesn't really matter how it happened - it was a full on white out - I had watched the 178 Seconds to Live video - no panic just flicked a switch and pushed a couple of buttons - sorted - got out of the cloud and carried on to Trinidad.

If you have kit in the airplane use it:)

[Ebbie 2003]

Me again.

This is rather good for those who like to avoid clouds - good for planning - here I know probably clouds with bottoms at around 3,000 and tops around 5,000 - but it helps to have confirmation.

This site is rather good

Form to request gramet aero (http://www.ogimet.com/gramet_aero.phtml.en)

Seems to work all over the world and processes the raw data into a very good graphic - just put in the icao codes for the route, the time of commencement in hours from now, the flight level.

It then shows the clouds, your flight, the freezing level, rain/snow etc etc. along the route of travel - really, as I say rather good, for us nephophobics
:ok::sad:

[thing]

Re auto pilot and IMC. I only fly one aircraft with an autopilot. I was IMC once and thought I would turn it on as a bit of a luxury. It decided to put me into a 20 degree right bank (no I didn't have heading selected or anything, this was just turning the thing on...). I switched it off and only use it in VMC now. I don't know if I'm in the majority here but I find flying on instruments quite relaxing.

[Maoraigh1]

Re. "178 seconds to live". With under 80 hours, I got into cloud in a C152. I did as taught. Went on Instruments, did a 180° turn. Flew back until I got out of cloud. My instructors had failed to teach me to lose control if I got into cloud. I later did an IMC Rating, which I never used and allowed to lapse. I now fly an aircraft with no AH so 178 seconds is much longer than I'd expect, but with an attitude indicator you should be able to survive. IF you don't lack confidence and panic.

[Pilot DAR]

I was once asked to fly a check flight in a Bellanca Viking, which had not flown in a few months, just make sure everything was working. While up, I decided I should check the autopilot too. I set everything up, heading bug on present course, and switched it on. Bellanca Vikings are fairly crisp maneuvering planes, and I was reminded of this as the roll angle commanded by the autopilot passed 60 degrees - too steep! I disconnected it. I decided that to properly report the defect, I should see just what it would do if allowed. The second test I aborted as the roll angle exceeded 120 degrees. I snagged it.

If you have an auto pilot you know and trust, excellent. If you don't quite know and trust it yet, get to know it in severe clear first!

[Capt Kremmen]

CV


You very clearly illustrate the difference between the IMC skills of 'Sky Gods' and lesser beings such as myself !

[cats_five]

Wannabe airman here
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
<snip>
Thanks in advance

If it's a good day with nicely formed cumulus then under clouds is where you will find gliders, along with strong up-drafts. Gliders are hard to see though easier when they are thermalling, so directly under a Cu isn't in my view the best place to fly. Most gliders flying cross country in the UK (and I believe SA) now carry Flarm so we have a little help to the Mk 1 eyeball to spot other gliders. Also we have had plenty of practise, which helps a bit.

[Ebbie 2003]

Thing, I should have mentioned that my airplane is properly maintained and that I do all the preflight AP checks and set it up properly before I fly even if I have no plans to use the AP.

Generally on the 178 second thing - I would guess that 99%+ of the pilots who have killed themselves accidentally (or deliberately) flying in to cloud had a working AI on board.

Clouds'll kill ya - nasty puffy white b'tards!

[Capt Kremmen]

Thing


"I find flying on instruments quite relaxing..."


Would you share your secret ? It would save some of us an awful lot of cash invested in IMC and IR ratings plus big bucks in maintaining good currency and practice and we could sell the a/p on Ebay !

[thing]

No secret, it's just a matter of getting into the groove or zone for want of a better expression. You have a guy with a big radar looking out for you, all things being equal your kit is working correctly so just sit back and relax. All you have to do is watch a few dials and don't get over excited when one of them moves. Just ease it back in. Quite satisfying, to me at any rate. It's just the mental approach to it that's important rather than superman like ability (which I certainly don't have )

Obviously we still need lots of cash invested in ratings and currency as well!

[n5296s]

fwiw I agree with thing. Sadly I don't get many opportunities to fly in real clouds round here, but I do enjoy it. I have an autopilot but I generally turn it off when I'm in actual, for the rare opportunity to hand fly on the dials.

Oh, but my a/p is only two-axis (STEC 30, no auto trim)... so by the standards of some on here I shouldn't be there in the first place I suppose. I mean, I might miss the "trim required" light and fail to hand trim, and what would happen then?

[Ebbie 2003]

In my airplane I have an Autocontrol plus a separate STEC - no auto trim on the pitch - I do keep a good look out for the lights, but only for when I turn it off - the STEC can handle huge out of trim forces - but I always trim it the second the light comes on.

I still think you're a mug not to use kit in the airplane - OK hand fly in IMC but not a sensible thing unless one has been awarded official Sky God 1st Class with Clusters and have lots of hours - for us newbies with only a couple of hundred hours not such a good idea.

Still not a fan of clouds:uhoh:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

OK hand fly in IMC but not a sensible thing unless one has been awarded official Sky God 1st Class with Clusters and have lots of hours - for us newbies with only a couple of hundred hours not such a good idea.
Wot I don't get about the people saying this is how confident they would be at taking over when the autopilot fails? - surely only those who are totally confident at hand flying in IMC should switch the autopilot on?

[thing]

In my airplane I have an Autocontrol plus a separate STEC - no auto trim on the pitch - I do keep a good look out for the lights, but only for when I turn it off - the STEC can handle huge out of trim forces - but I always trim it the second the light comes on.

I still think you're a mug not to use kit in the airplane - OK hand fly in IMC but not a sensible thing unless one has been awarded official Sky God 1st Class with Clusters and have lots of hours - for us newbies with only a couple of hundred hours not such a good idea.

Still not a fan of clouds:uhoh:

You don't have to be anything near a Skygod first class. I get the impression that whoever you did your IMC training with scared you to death about flying IMC, it's no big deal at all to hand fly in it or hand fly an approach. I'm only a 350 hour or so bog standard club pilot not an 20,000 hour ex airline God. Mind you I did my IMC training and night training straight after the PPL as I saw it as essential, my PPL wasn't finished in my mind until I'd done it all. So I've always done it I guess.

[n5296s]

surely only those who are totally confident at hand flying in IMC should switch the autopilot on?
Quite so. If you're depending on the autopilot, what happens when it stops working while you're in the clag? There have been fatals because of precisely this - pilot depends on autopilot, a/p dies in mid flight, pilot rapidly does the same. Not healthy.

It's certainly going to be tricky to pass an IPC or IR checkride just relying on the a/p.

[Capt Kremmen]

Don't make yourself a 'hostage to fortune'. You're in a hostile environment, you might need all the help you can get.


If the fan stops do you fold your arms close your eyes and pray ? No, you plan for a controlled descent, and a glide approach coupled to an arrival on a friendly piece of terra firma - if you're lucky !


I sail small boats. The most useful bit of kit I have is an auto pilot slaved to a GPS. It frees me from the tyranny of the steering wheel in almost any kind of weather. It's much the same in the air.


If solo longish distance flying in changeable weather is your forte then stack the odds in your favour. It makes a lot of sense.

[Colibri49]

In my time as a commercial pilot I have flown with a few former military test pilots, one from ETPS (Empire Test Pilot School) and the others from equally respectable foreign equivalents, EPNER of France being one. What marked these exceptional pilots out was their humility and complete acceptance of their own potential to make omissions and mistakes. Apart from their handling skills, high IQs and scientific proficiencies, which might have led others to believe that they were "SkyGods", they exhibited remarkable humility.


Having been "put through the wringer" in the simulator at least every 6 months for some decades and flown with outstandingly capable colleagues in all weathers, I can vouch that none of them and least of all the test pilots would ever advocate flying IMC without the autopilot engaged in rough weather. We would all be relaxed enough to hand-fly on instruments for practice in benign conditions, including the ILS down to 500' QFE or lower, but only if there wasn't some distracting problem to deal with.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I sail small boats. The most useful bit of kit I have is an auto pilot slaved to a GPS. It frees me from the tyranny of the steering wheel in almost any kind of weather.
I was very impressed with one of those devices on a yacht I got to ride in for a few days. Tell it to follow the magenta line, and it just did exactly that - magic!


Until, that is, we came across some rather bigger seas, whose frequency seemed to induce positive feedback in the autopilot's control loop, which threatened to roll the mast out of the boat. So we turned it off and steered with the tiller by hand, and bloody hard work that was too!

[thing]

I can vouch that none of them and least of all the test pilots would ever advocate flying IMC without the autopilot engaged in rough weather.Fine if your aircraft has an autopilot. I'm not advocating not using it at all. It's just that the vast majority of your normal club light aircraft don't have autopilots. I've flown a largish selection of different ones and have only flown one that has. And that didn't work when I wanted it to...I'm also pretty sure that your experienced friends would be quite capable and confident of flying without the autopilot in rough weather if they had to.

If solo longish distance flying in changeable weather is your forte then stack the odds in your favour. It makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I just find it a little worrying that some posters who (I assume) have at least an IR(R) would find it uncomfortable flying in IMC without an autopilot. It's not the use of it that worries me, it's the lack of confidence they feel if they couldn't use it. I find that quite disturbing, and that is not an affront to their abilities, I'm sure they are capable pilots. It's the mindset that concerns me.

Edit: In the same way that I'm concerned about two pilots I know who will turn back, or even not take off if their Skydemon drops out. I use Skydemon all of the time unless pottering locally, however it's just a minor inconvenience if it stops operating as advertised. Five years ago we all flew perfectly well without it...

[Romeo Tango]

I'm with thing on this one.

As I see it new pilots are trained to be frightened of clouds and perhaps this makes many nervous even after getting IMC/IR ratings. It certainly took me some time to get over it. Now I am perfectly happy to fly a 6 hour leg in real IMC by hand. My aircraft only has a temperamental wing leveler.

IMHO if those who depend on autopilots turned them off and hand flew for a few tens of hours they would be just as relaxed.

[tmmorris]

I did a long day for Project Propeller last year consisting of IFR to Shoreham, NDB letdown, IFR to Church Fenton (Doncaster ILS cloudbreak), then back again. Round London in each direction I had to be in IMC due to the controlled airspace - oh, the irony - though on the long legs to Yorkshire I was mostly IFR on top in the sunshine, and we were able to duck through a hole and get into Shoreham VFR the second time. Final leg was VFR under the cloud base around 1500 to get back into my home base as ATC had closed and the ILS wasn't available. All this in a very bog standard (sorry A and C) PA28.

The dangerous bit? The VFR at the end. IFR in IMC without an autopilot really is no big deal; if IMCR/IR(R) holders can't do it they will quickly self-eliminate at their next renewal.

Oh, and PS, this doesn't count for CPL cross-country because it was IFR. More irony...

[funfly]

I remember that when I was learning to fly IMC the lesson periods were the most rewarding and most interesting exercises I had and I emerged a better flier for it. I would recommend it to anyone.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

IFR in IMC without an autopilot really is no big deal; if IMCR/IR(R) holders can't do it they will quickly self-eliminate at their next renewal.
Disagree. For the IR(R) renewal you're probably mostly not in real cloud, and there are enough unconscious hints (eg, the sky is brighter than the ground, perhaps, but I haven't really analysed it) for me to keep the aircraft the right way up most of the time without doing the proper scan that's needed in real cloud.

[Ebbie 2003]

Maybe it's the long legs I fly (100 miles is a short one and 400+ is more common) that makes me value the AP - just spend my time keeping clear of the clouds.

So down here - take off, AP's on at about 1,500ft, point airplane at other island, set alt hold at cruise height, switch tanks every half hour, keep away from clouds, switch off AP's when island spotted and land.

The clouds here tend to have bottoms at around 3,000ft and top out around 5,000 - some have CN columns growing out of them - I do keep away from those by several miles - tend to go over clouds as it is less bumpy (i.e not bumpy at all).

I am not saying one should not hand fly the airplanes, just that getting help from the AP when one gets into clouds makes sense - so long as the kit is properly maintained, one knows how to use it and one doesn't solely rely on it.

Still not liking them clouds:ooh:

[tmmorris]

Gertrude I think I disagree the other way. In real IMC you are seldom completely without any visual cues - e.g. as you say, it's brighter up than down, etc. Under a hood I find it hard to relax - it's uncomfortable and very restrictive of the view.

Shows we're all different, I guess!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Shows we're all different, I guess!
I'm always saying it would be boring if we were all the same :)

[thing]

Unless you were all like me. It would be a perfect world then.


;)

[Capt Kremmen]

Romeo Tango


Deepest respect. I'm bowing deeply from the waist. I cannot begin to even imagine the sheer tedium of hand flying an a/c for six wearisome hours in clag and all the while not taking your eyes of the panel scan.


How anyone can even contemplate this much less maintain the level of concentration required is truly beyond my comprehension. How you do it I know not. If I was faced with a similar situation I'd shoot myself if I couldn't buy, borrow or steal an a/p !

[funfly]

I found when flying that lessons were far more enjoyable than general flying which, on the whole, was pretty boring.

[9 lives]

I cannot begin to even imagine the sheer tedium of hand flying an a/c for six wearisome hours in clag and all the while not taking your eyes of the panel scan.

I guess it's a matter of what you have to fly, and what you're used to. I used to hand fly two or three hour legs home, hard IFR, at night, often in winter icing, while my exhausted Captain "relaxed". I can't say I enjoyed it, but I signed up to fly, and that was the flying. The Aztecs did not have auto pilots. If I wanted to get home (let alone the employer expectation), the plane had to be hand flown. And, to be clear, that was old school panel - no HSI, no RMI, no RNAV... EFIS and GPS? Not thought of yet... It can be done, and was common "back then"....

Perhaps the basis of perception is different now....

[Romeo Tango]

Romeo Tango
I cannot begin to even imagine the sheer tedium of hand flying an a/c for six wearisome hours in clag and all the while not taking your eyes of the panel scan.

How anyone can even contemplate this much less maintain the level of concentration required is truly beyond my comprehension. How you do it I know not. If I was faced with a similar situation I'd shoot myself if I couldn't buy, borrow or steal an a/p !

Once you have trained your hind brain it does not require much concentration, it becomes a background reflex to keep straight and level with occasional course corrections. Of course just looking at water vapour for 6 hours is boring .... but usually it is made worthwhile when one gets to clear air and some breathtaking cloudscape.

Sometimes the weather is bad and there is a schedule to keep

[thing]

I cannot begin to even imagine the sheer tedium of hand flying an a/c for six wearisome hours in clag and all the while not taking your eyes of the panel scan.



Some people can watch TV for six hours at a stretch...I would rather stick pins in my eyes but I guess it's what they get used to. They don't get up and say 'My God that was boring.' Or maybe they do I wouldn't know.

[Romeo Tango]

6 hours inside a cloud is unusual .... but that is what the weather gods occasionally decree. No flight is the same, some are more interesting than others. One needs to be able to cope with what one gets.

Winter is what makes the summer nice.

[Capt Kremmen]

"one needs to be able to cope with what one gets..."


So much easier with an autopilot !


I can see where we're going with this one. We need the application of a bit of Reductionist Theory here. Let's chuck out the AI/HSI/VSI/Turn Co-ordinator. Ebay beckons, plus a few quid.


Six inches of string glued to the inside of the windscreen with a nut tied to the end and we're in business ! Instead of being hypnotised by the scan, we can enjoy the hypnotic pendulum effect of our new cost effective auto pilot.


I might be able to do Cairo - Capetown nonstop with that kit - and solo or, has that already been done ?

[thing]

I think you're missing the point here...no one is saying don't use the autopilot, if I flew a plane with a working autopilot I would use it myself on long legs. But being as I'm guessing the vast majority of people who fly GA fly aircraft without autopilots then we have to hand fly them in all conditions including long IMC legs and all the rest of it which you should, autopilot or not, be able to do easily and confidently. It's the lack of confidence in not using the autopilot which is the issue.

[Capt Kremmen]

I think that I've got a kind of built in ability to frequently miss the point ! My attitude - forgive the pun - towards a/p's is that if the a/c has one then it might as well be used. It will fly the a/c much more precisely than any hand.


I fail to see any virtue in long spells of hand flying. Occasionally yes, to keep in good currency and practice. Of all the time spent aloft buried in clag, if 80% or thereabouts is spent on a/p and around 20% is given over to manual control, this I would have thought gives about the right balance for most.


I understand that my comments re the a/p have relevance only for the few GA a/c equipped with such and for those who frequently fly in marginal conditions.

[Africanlion]

Again please excuse my ignorance and please don't laugh but I didn't know small GA planes can have auto pilot. So how would that work on a plane such as a zenith 701 with a control column and how much would such kit cost?:8

[Capt Kremmen]

If you contact Zenair (Google) in America, they'll have all the answers.

[9 lives]

Though I cannot state a price for an autopilot in a Z 701, I did oversee the installation of a two axis coupled autopilot on a friend's C 182 a few years back. The cost exceeded US$30,000. Thereafter, there is more costly maintenance to assure it's correct operation. And, you're carrying around a few pounds of extra equipment the who life of the plane. Though, in theory, any airplane could be equipped with an autopilot, I would not assume good function of an autopilot in an aircraft as light as a Z 701, the rates of the controllers might not be adequate for and aircraft that light and agile.

Ironically, most of my long past hard IFR flying was hand flown, as those aircraft (Aztecs) were not autopilot equipped back in the day. Since then, with more autopilot availability, I rarely use them, I enjoy the flying!

People at the beginning stages of piloting are better to focus on learning the basics well, and perhaps then getting an instrument rating with a few hundred hours of experience as a pilot. Thereafter, consider autopilots.....

[Ebbie 2003]

Cost of a basic wing-leveler in a an experimental type, the kit would be about US$2,000 - plus your own time to install it.

If you want fancy GPS steering, alt hold etc - assuming ne has the GPS already (you can feed from some handhelds) say double it.

The time if billed would likely run to about $15,000 - but if one has an experimental I assume one would do it oneself.

Only last month the FAA approved some low cost AP systems for 172/182, other types soon to be approved including the PA28 - the same month I spent $10,000 getting the ones in my PA28 refurbed:(

[mary meagher]

Visiting family in Texas, I signed up to study for the full instrument rating at Georgetown. And so was able to file IFR for all my US of A flying, in a rented spam can with nothing so elegant (and unnecessary) as an autopilot. I prefer to stop for coffee etc every two or three hours on any trip, and don't get too tired....Feels a lot safer to know the controllers are there to help if needed.

Much easier to fly solo, then you don't have to worry about your passengers.

Once you have the IR and are in practice, it is a pleasure and challenge to fly in clouds of every sort (except CB!). However, as a previous poster has mentioned, in the UK and Europe gliders are frequently found under cumulus clouds. Seldom actually in them.