Clouds
 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.]

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...nica-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.

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....

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

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)

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.

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.

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...

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

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...

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.]

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!

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

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



https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl...=1494593942838

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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 !

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

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.

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!

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.