VFR in the mountains - a cautionary tale, especially for us flatlanders

[Salty]

I realize you were in the land of few airports, but they also don’t have much traffic. One option to your CFIT issue would have been to navigate to an airport with an IAP. If the was a hole over the airport, and descend in a hole within circle to land protected area, which at an airport with Cat C would have been over 5 miles wide and the ASOS would have given you the bases.

If you spent more time reading my posts and less time criticizing them you may have noticed the OP had this in it.

I was at the point where my only alternative was going to be to fly an approach without proper gear

 

[Clip4]

If you spent more time reading my posts and less time criticizing them you may have noticed the OP had this in it.

I didn’t say fly an approach, I said descend over the airport thru a hole.

 

[Salty]

I didn’t say fly an approach.

At this point I'm totally convinced you are just trying to get me to put you on ignore. Maybe I should so that everyone else doesn't have to suffer through your attempts.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

Yes, there was a broken layer below. It was broken even at my destination, actually it was scattered in many areas. but not to the point where I was comfortable circling through a hole without knowing the topology in that area. I could easily get below the cloud layer - if I wasn't worried about slamming into a mountain peak on the other side of the hole I was descending through, or being stuck in a valley I couldn't get back out of and didn't go all the way to my destination. I did actually drop down into a valley a couple times where the clouds allowed, until I realized it wasn't the valley my airport was in, and had to go back up. Again, not a situation I find appealing.

As I said, I did in fact find a hole big enough with cloud bottoms high enough that I could get under it without fear of CFIT, but I'm not happy about the situation I put myself in. I had not sufficientlly considered the danger involved in getting through a broken/scattered layer in unfamiliar terrain. I thought, hey it's broken/scattered and every airport around is VFR. This works perfectly fine in Florida.

It was not a matter of not understanding the weather. Nor was it a matter of the forecast being wrong. It was a gap in my knowledge of how the existing weather would impact me in that specific scenario / location. At the time, it seemed to me safe to assume with 3000 foot ceilings and scattered forecasts in the area, I'd be just fine. I do not hold that opinion any longer.

On my way back home, I flew around this area as the weather was much the same. It took an extra 30 minutes to get home, but I was much more safe.

It sounds like you learned a lot without having an incident. I'd say you did alright and you'll learn more for a better preflight the next time. Sounds like another day in the cockpit. Well done.

 

[Hang 4]

@Salty said all the airports were VFR, meaning bases >3,000 agl. He found a hole and dropped through it. No need for circling mins or class c or an IAP for that matter. Reading helps.

 

[bflynn]

My take away was a reminder that the ground isn’t flat and mountains definitely are not. Secondarily, when flying toward a location with rising terrain your ground clearance will get smaller. Don't judge clearance by where you took off.

Good reminder, thanks to Salty for posting.

 

[Huckster79]

This is why *long* cross country flights are great learning experiences. While much about the NAS is consistent everywhere (and good thing, too), the terrain we fly around and the weather it causes can vary widely, and there's just a ton of things out there to be seen and experienced.

It's also why I like to say that you need to continually push your personal envelope to become a better pilot, but only push one corner at a time. That means, when you take a really long trip the first time, or visit areas that are unfamiliar to you, it's best to do so in an airplane you know really well.

Now get outta the nest, little birds!

They sure are! I flew my lil Cessna 140 all over the country, I’ve got the Mooney around the east half of the US a couple times and you’re right- you learn so much more “out on the road” than doing repeated tours of your home county!

 

[Albany Tom]

Huh. My take away from this whole thing really isn't about the weather so much. It's along the lines of "if you're going to fly somewhere different, and mostly you fly around the same place, maybe a good idea to figure out what's different about it and see if it matters much." Which is good advice.

I'll toss out an example that isn't about me, and isn't about flying. Years ago, friend who was from down south was up here driving around in the winter. Didn't have any winter clothes with him, but to him it wasn't a big deal because he had heat everywhere he was going. I pointed out that in the weather here at the time, that if he slid off the road in a ditch, and the car stopped running and nobody found him, he'd be frozen by morning. Just a local thing he never thought of. Going around in the southwest in the summer? Substitute not enough water and it's more or less the same thing.

WV weather? It's not always good. It was a long time ago, but Southern Airways Flight 932 still brings up memories.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

• What are some of the disadvantages of the Skew-T Log-P diagrams:
• Available generally twice a day (00Z and 12Z), character of weather can change dramatically between soundings.
• Sounding does not give a true vertical dimension since wind blows balloon downstream
• Sounding does not give true instantaneous measurements since it takes several minutes to travel from the surface to the upper troposphere

Actual soundings are done twice a day in a limited number of locations.

SkewT LogP diagrams are based on a computer model informed by soundings and other data, and are available hourly anywhere.

Since you are the weather expert, here is what the FAA officially says about Skew-T in the FAA-8083-28 Aviation Weather Handbook, section 25.3.2.1 (new from the FAA in 2022), “The diagrams are intended for, and used by, meteorologists as part of their analysis of the atmosphere and formulation of various forecasts”.

I realize Skew-T has a cult like following of pilots, but Skew-T is not included in any FAA pilot training handbooks.

We all know that the FAA is very quick to add things to their documents.

There's plenty of non-FAA-blessed weather products. That doesn't mean they're useless. I don't see windy.com in there either...

The average pilot would be much better served learning weather theory and the common FAA weather products than venturing in to Skew-T.

The average pilot would be much better served with BOTH.

Unfortunately, the cult promotes Skew-T to pilots that lack fundamental weather theory and weather services knowledge and it’s a disservice to GA.

The Skew-T is something that actually made me question a lot of my knowledge and want to learn more about weather. And it's a very useful tool regardless. You'd probably be a safer pilot if you weren't so busy hating on it.

 

[Jim K]

Actual soundings are done twice a day in a limited number of locations.

SkewT LogP diagrams are based on a computer model informed by soundings and other data, and are available hourly anywhere.

We all know that the FAA is very quick to add things to their documents.

There's plenty of non-FAA-blessed weather products. That doesn't mean they're useless. I don't see windy.com in there either...

The average pilot would be much better served with BOTH.

The Skew-T is something that actually made me question a lot of my knowledge and want to learn more about weather. And it's a very useful tool regardless. You'd probably be a safer pilot if you weren't so busy hating on it.

I can't like this twice, so I'm quoting it. The computer model "soundings" are amazingly powerful and accurate tools, particularly during the colder half of the year.

Regardless, as I read it Salty's issue wasn't with knowing cloud heights, but rather not considering surrounding terrain, something I've been guilty of in places as benign as Arkansas.

 

[Clip4]

Actual soundings are done twice a day in a limited number of locations.

SkewT LogP diagrams are based on a computer model informed by soundings and other data, and are available hourly anywhere.

We all know that the FAA is very quick to add things to their documents.

There's plenty of non-FAA-blessed weather products. That doesn't mean they're useless. I don't see windy.com in there either...

The average pilot would be much better served with BOTH.

The Skew-T is something that actually made me question a lot of my knowledge and want to learn more about weather. And it's a very useful tool regardless. You'd probably be a safer pilot if you weren't so busy hating on it.

So if I use Skew-T and fly VFR into a mountainous area with my head up my rear, will the ground be any flatter?

VFR weather related accidents are not be caused by a pilot’s failure to use Skew-T. The are caused by improperly using or failure to use the current FAA Wx products, failure to apply risk management, and failure of ADM both pre and during flight.

 

[bbchien]

No but you'll have a better appraisal of the risks, e.g when the red line and the blue line begin to dance together, say at
Sisters Island, AK....then you'll know what' at the valley mouth.

We have gotten better (collectively). Fifteen years ago the attifude on this board was "why do I have to pay for edcuation as to the Skew T Log P. It should be free". "FAA has nothing on it". Now SOME pilots have learned to use it.

(Asking if the land is any flatter becuase of the SkewT is sort of like the alcohol abuser saying, "i can handle it". You can't know if you don't know.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So if I use Skew-T and fly VFR into a mountainous area with my head up my rear, will the ground be any flatter?

No, but you'll know in advance whether you risk the VFR not being VFR any more. It is the combination of the terrain and the weather that causes the problem, not the terrain alone.

VFR weather related accidents are not be caused by a pilot’s failure to use Skew-T. The are caused by improperly using or failure to use the current FAA Wx products, failure to apply risk management, and failure of ADM both pre and during flight.

Whether or not the weather products have been blessed by the FAA has zero relevance.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, there was a broken layer below. It was broken even at my destination, actually it was scattered in many areas. but not to the point where I was comfortable circling through a hole without knowing the topology in that area. I could easily get below the cloud layer - if I wasn't worried about slamming into a mountain peak on the other side of the hole I was descending through, or being stuck in a valley I couldn't get back out of and didn't go all the way to my destination. I did actually drop down into a valley a couple times where the clouds allowed, until I realized it wasn't the valley my airport was in, and had to go back up. Again, not a situation I find appealing.

As I said, I did in fact find a hole big enough with cloud bottoms high enough that I could get under it without fear of CFIT, but I'm not happy about the situation I put myself in. I had not sufficientlly considered the danger involved in getting through a broken/scattered layer in unfamiliar terrain. I thought, hey it's broken/scattered and every airport around is VFR. This works perfectly fine in Florida.

It was not a matter of not understanding the weather. Nor was it a matter of the forecast being wrong. It was a gap in my knowledge of how the existing weather would impact me in that specific scenario / location. At the time, it seemed to me safe to assume with 3000 foot ceilings and scattered forecasts in the area, I'd be just fine. I do not hold that opinion any longer.

On my way back home, I flew around this area as the weather was much the same. It took an extra 30 minutes to get home, but I was much more safe.

Reminds me of some of my learning experiences over the past thirty years.

 

[Palmpilot]

No but you'll have a better appraisal of the risks, e.g when the red line and the blue line begin to dance together, say at
Sisters Island, AK....then you'll know what' at the valley mouth.

We have gotten better (collectively). Fifteen years ago the attifude on this board was "why do I have to pay for edcuation as to the Skew T Log P. It should be free". "FAA has nothing on it". Now SOME pilots have learned to use it.

(Asking if the land is any flatter becuase of the SkewT is sort of like the alcohol abuser saying, "i can handle it". You can't know if you don't know.)

When I finally got around to reading up on it, I discovered that it wasn't that hard to understand the basics of it. (Unfortunately, I haven't had a need to fly in questionable weather since then, so I've forgotten what I learned. )

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Your last point is very important. When I started teaching pilots how to use the Skew-T diagram to GA pilots 25 or so years ago, I discovered that I could use it as a canvas to teach pilots the basic principles of weather. Still doing that today for my online classes that now follows my Skew-T book.

And reading some of your posts here on the subject kinda blew my mind, and made me realize that I didn't even know enough about weather to learn what you were trying to get across in some of those posts!

 

[scottd]

VFR weather related accidents are not be caused by a pilot’s failure to use Skew-T. The are caused by improperly using or failure to use the current FAA Wx products, failure to apply risk management, and failure of ADM both pre and during flight.

The reason VFR pilots have these accidents is because they are not meteorologists and have a difficult time consuming the weather guidance that is available and being able to apply that guidance to quantify personal risk. Weather is complex and pilots generally prefer a simple and well-integrated solution to a fairly complex problem. After 3.5 years of research, I was able to develop a solution to this problem.

Nevertheless, the Skew-T does help to drill down and can fill in the gaps in time and space with details that the official products don't easily provide. Moreover, learning how to use the diagram will elevate the pilots understanding of basic weather principles. I've been teaching pilots how to use the Skew-T for over 25 years and those students that do take the time to really learn this, have a much better appreciation and understanding of how to plan a safe flight that meets all of their personal minimums.

 

[Clip4]

The reason VFR pilots have these accidents is because they are not meteorologists and have a difficult time consuming the weather guidance that is available and being able to apply that guidance to quantify personal risk. Weather is complex and pilots generally prefer a simple and well-integrated solution to a fairly complex problem. After 3.5 years of research, I was able to develop a solution to this problem.

Nevertheless, the Skew-T does help to drill down and can fill in the gaps in time and space with details that the official products don't easily provide. Moreover, learning how to use the diagram will elevate the pilots understanding of basic weather principles. I've been teaching pilots how to use the Skew-T for over 25 years and those students that do take the time to really learn this, have a much better appreciation and understanding of how to plan a safe flight that meets all of their personal minimums.

I am not discouraging anyone who wants to learn Skew-T from doing so after they have a full understanding of basic weather theory and FAA weather services.

If they haven’t done this first, Skew-T adds more complexity to the problem by adding another weather product which does require the pilot to be his own meteorologist.

What gets me rather condemning of the Skew-T folks is when they attempt to teach pilots Skew-T as a solution for poor weather knowledge as the end all to their woes.

 

[scottd]

I am not discouraging anyone who wants to learn Skew-T from doing so after they have a full understanding of basic weather theory and FAA weather services.

If they haven’t done this first, Skew-T adds more complexity to the problem by adding another weather product which does require the pilot to be his own meteorologist.

What gets me rather condemning of the Skew-T folks is when they attempt to teach pilots Skew-T as a solution for poor weather knowledge as the end all to their woes.

I am glad to see you aren't discouraging learning how to use the Skew-T. When someone sends me an email asking for me to help them increase their weather knowledge so they can make better operational decisions and feel more confident, I often ask them if they want to learn how to use the Skew-T...not to become their own meteorologist, but to learn about the basic principles of weather.

After spending about ~15 one-on-one online hours with them properly teaching them how to use it (not trying to learning it own their own accord), I find that they are better prepared to do a more thorough preflight weather briefing since I am also teaching them how to best integrate this into all of the official products as well as other supplemental guidance. Most of my students come away with that knowledge they were always missing from their primary training...and they know the basics of how to use the Skew-T and understand its limitations.

However, pilots that go out on the Internet and try to learn it on their own will typically misinterpret how to use the diagram which can be rather dangerous. Or they get frustrated with the fact that what they see on the Skew-T isn't anything like what they are seeing outside of the cockpit. This often occurs when pilots don't know how to deal with cumuliform-type clouds...they see a rather large dewpoint depression (temp-dewpoint spread) at their cruise altitude using a forecast sounding and think there's no chance for clouds. Then they go flying and have to dodge clouds for most of their flight. They don't quite get the fact that these clouds are produced through ascending air and don't understand how to determine this on a forecast sounding.