Go/No-go: KMSN-KCAD 2/11/11

[flyingcheesehead]

I've enjoyed some of the go/no-go threads we've had here, and generally learned a lot. So, here we go again - Go, or no-go?

The pilot: Me. Comm-ASMEL-IA (like that matters), instrument rated, current, and proficient.

The airplane: Diamond DA40 Star. G1000, XM weather datalink, but no de-icing capability.

The flight plan: Madison, WI to Cadillac, MI, IFR. KMSN MTW MBL KCAD, cruising altitude 13,000 feet MSL, departing 1800Z on Friday, 2/11 (today).

The main concern: Ice. Secondary concern: Effects of the lake on ice and cloud cover over the lake.

I would like to cruise in the clear over the lake if at all possible, and 13,000 feet is about my only option eastbound. Lower and I am no longer able to glide to shore for the entire crossing, higher and I would need oxygen. (For the same reason, I generally file 9,000 feet as my initial altitude and begin the climb to 13,000 crossing the shore.)

Here's the forecast weather situation:

TAF KMSN 110520Z 1106/1206 22003KT P6SM SCT250
FM111200 21005KT P6SM SCT060 BKN120
FM111500 21008KT P6SM OVC060
FM111700 22010KT 6SM HZ BKN025 OVC050
FM112000 22012KT 5SM -SN BR BKN016 OVC025
FM120100 24010KT P6SM -SN SCT016 OVC022
FM120500 27008KT P6SM OVC023
TAF KTVC 110520Z 1106/1206 VRB03KT P6SM BKN035
TEMPO 1106/1109 5SM -SHSN OVC030
FM111400 21006KT P6SM BKN035
FM111600 21008G14KT P6SM BKN035
FM111800 21010G16KT 6SM -SHSN OVC035
FM120000 24008G14KT 5SM -SHSN OVC030

FA 110245
SYNOPSIS AND VFR CLDS/WX
SYNOPSIS VALID UNTIL 112100
CLDS/WX VALID UNTIL 111500...OTLK VALID 111500-112100
WI LS UPR MI
NWRN WI-WRN LS...SCT050 SCT CI. 09Z SCT040 SCT100. 14Z SCT-BKN050
BKN120 TOP FL200. OTLK...MVFR CIG SN BR 18Z IFR.
SWRN WI...SCT040 SCT-BKN CI. 09Z BKN100 TOP 160. 14Z BKN040 TOP
120. OTLK...MVFR CIG SHSN 18Z IFR CIG SN.
NERN WI-CNTRL LS-CNTRL UPR MI...SCT CI. 12Z SCT100 SCT CI.
OTLK...VFR 20Z MVFR CIG SN.
SERN WI...BKN CI. 08Z BKN150 TOP FL200. 12Z BKN080. OTLK...VFR
17Z MVFR CIG SN.
ERN LS-ERN UPR MI...SCT050. XTRM ERN LS AND CSTLN BKN025 TOP 070
WDLY SCT -SHSN. OTLK...XTRM ERN LS AND CSTLN MVFR CIG SHSN ELSW
VFR 20Z MVFR CIG SHSN.
.
LM LWR MI LH
XTRM ERN LM-WRN 1/3 LWR MI...BKN030 TOP 070. WDLY SCT -SHSN.
OTLK...MVFR CIG SHSN.
RMNDR LM...SCT-BKN CI. 12Z BKN100-120 TOP FL200. OTLK...VFR
18Z SRN PTN MVFR CIG SHSN 20Z NRN PTN MVFR CIG SHSN.
RMNDR LWR MI-LH...SCT-BKN CI. OCNL SCT-BKN040 TOP 070. OTLK...VFR
20Z MVFR CIG SHSN.

USAirnet currently indicates that for the 1PM to 4PM (Eastern) timeframe in Cadillac, clouds will be 2-3,000 feet, visibility greater than 6, surface temp 17ºF.

As noted above, they're talking about tops to FL200 over a good chunk of the lake - But that doesn't seem to be what the Skew-T plots indicate. Here are the Skew-T's for MSN, MTW (right on the west edge of the lake), MBL (right on the east edge of the lake), and CAD:

So... Given the above, what say ye? Go, or no go? (I'll let y'all know what I did afterwards.)

 

[Gary F]

Lake Michigan is really cold this time of year. It's a good think that the Lycoming IO360 is reliable.

 

[Ted]

Well, we know what you did, it involved flying over the lake in a single in winter.

(of course, I don't like flying over water, wilderness areas, or anyplace other than the plains in a twin)

I'm also guessing that you were going to start off at some lower altitude and climb to 13,000 for going over the lake, then descend after, since at 13,000 you do need oxygen after 30 minutes. Based on what your iThing says, it looks like you're looking at about 23 minutes over the lake with your generous tailwind.

You're looking at going through a cloud layer on both ends, and a worse cloud layer on the departure end (where you're trying to climb through it). Additionally, based on the area forecast, you're looking at potentially being in a cloud layer over the lake (which tends to make more ice in my experience). Being above or below it would be better. At 13,000 ft, pick up any ice and the DA40 will have zero climb performance, so your only option will be down (which cuts into your glide), and then you'll probably be landing with ice on the plane.

To boot, you're looking at doing this in a plane that doesn't have any de-icing equipment. Which, to me, makes a go decision when you could encounter ice a foolish decision (irrespective of the rules). Based on the information you've given me, it's an easy decision: NO. Flying into potential icing conditions in a plane not equipped for it being my primary reason, and the fact that your flight plan puts you with a pretty narrow window for what altitudes you're willing to fly at to get glide distance, and the forecast of going both up and down through a layer (a thicker one at the beginning).

Of course, come departure time things may not be what the forecast states, and it may turn out that it looks like you can easily go VFR there, and if that's the case, I'd go VFR and bring my charts as backup in case I have to descend through a layer. I'll avoid climbing through an ice layer if I can, even in the de-iced twins I fly. Done it enough times, sure, but it is to be avoided if feasible.

 

[Henning]

I would not do it in IMC over the lake unless it's frozen solid.

 

[Ted]

By the way, I started a thread a while ago, hoping to compile a bunch of go/no-gos together for good reference:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33383

 

[Ken Ibold]

For me that's a no-go. If this was a must-go to destination, I'm going the long way around the south in this scenario.

You didn't address survival equipment on board, and I would hope that if you went you had it, just in case icing prevented your 13,000 foot crossing. Even so, a raft in lake michigan in February is a place I would not want to be.

 

[Jack Spectre]

If you go around to the south, it adds less than an hour of flight time at the DA40 cruise speed. Also, you won't have to climb to 13,000 feet.

If you have to put down in the lake, it's going to hurt the whole time you are dying.

 

[tonycondon]

you've got at least 4000 ft of ice to climb through on departure. that answers the question for me

 

[nddons]

If you have to put down in the lake, it's going to hurt the whole time you are dying.

Ouch. Brutal, Jack, but I would think it is spot on. Kent's flight plan gave me the willies even without the subsequent discussions on icing.

 

[dmccormack]

Benefit/Risk Analysis:


Option1:
B: Trip as planned: Save 45 minutes
R: Engine out over lake, wet, cold fatality

Option 2:
B: Trip routed south of the lake
R: Add 45-110 minutes fuel use
R: Emergency landing at small airport with stale Snickers in Vending Machine

Option 2:
Wait for better wx

Option 3:

Drive
Risk: Wimp

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lake Michigan is really cold this time of year. It's a good think that the Lycoming IO360 is reliable.

I wouldn't do this in anything that didn't have the glide range of the DA40... I've gone around in singles or over in twins on every winter trip to Cadillac.

Well, we know what you did, it involved flying over the lake in a single in winter.

Can you tell me what I did? I haven't left yet, and it'd really make this whole decision easier.

(of course, I don't like flying over water, wilderness areas, or anyplace other than the plains in a twin)

Funny, most people would RATHER have a twin in those cases.

I'm also guessing that you were going to start off at some lower altitude and climb to 13,000 for going over the lake, then descend after, since at 13,000 you do need oxygen after 30 minutes.

Yes. Generally 9000 to start.

You're looking at going through a cloud layer on both ends, and a worse cloud layer on the departure end (where you're trying to climb through it).

True - I also have a ton of space below said cloud layer and I can come right back down if I start to pick up any ice.

Additionally, based on the area forecast, you're looking at potentially being in a cloud layer over the lake (which tends to make more ice in my experience). Being above or below it would be better. At 13,000 ft, pick up any ice and the DA40 will have zero climb performance, so your only option will be down (which cuts into your glide), and then you'll probably be landing with ice on the plane.

Yup. That's why I want to be cruising in the clear. Now, the area forecast seems to be the ONLY thing indicating tops that high... Actually, the current FA says that's not happening until 22Z over WI, and now they're calling for tops at only 5,000 over the lake and the Lower Peninsula.

I would not do it in IMC over the lake unless it's frozen solid.

Yup... That's why I want to cruise in the clear.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you have to put down in the lake, it's going to hurt the whole time you are dying.

Oh believe me, I have thought this through long and hard. There's a plane in my logbook that took a dip a few years ago and the pilot survived the ditching but not the cold water. In the 182, this is an automatic "around" trip. The DA40 at that crossing can glide to one side or the other for the whole crossing.

If I were to get in a situation where I knew I was going into the water this time of year, the shoulder belt would come off and the stick would go forward. I'd rather go splat than take a cold bath.

R: Engine out over lake, wet, cold fatality

Again... I can glide to one side or the other in the DA40.

Drive
Risk: Wimp

Meh... To me, I'd rather stay home than drive 8 hours each way for something that's only a weekend trip.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You can see this transition in the loop (13Z to 00Z) below where the cloud cover is forecast to begin to blossom at about 16Z especially east of LM. Cloud cover fills in pretty quick after that closing off completely by early evening across your entire route. It's that warmer low level air on the east side that will give rise to rather unstable conditions in the boundary layer producing the stratocumulus deck you see develop over the region.

This is a typical scenario where you won't see the Aviation Weather Center issue G-AIRMETs for this area, but that does NOT mean the lack of potential icing on descent. The other concern is that the weather east of LM will start to go downhill pretty quickly into the early evening. So any delay on your part will put you at greater risk.

Scott,

What exactly are we looking at in that graphic? The scale has no units, so I'm not sure quite what the whole thing means...

So far, the PIREPS seem to be following the G-AIRMET pretty much exactly.

Definitely concur on the delays. So, it's time for me to get outta here! I have about a 1.5 hour drive to the airport, so I'll take another look when I get there.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Again... I can glide to one side or the other in the DA40.

Unless you're iced.

 

[roncachamp]

If you go around to the south, it adds less than an hour of flight time at the DA40 cruise speed. Also, you won't have to climb to 13,000 feet.

Go around to the south and you have to go around Chicago approach as well. Going around to the north actually adds less because the lake is the only issue.

If you have to put down in the lake, it's going to hurt the whole time you are dying.

But that will be brief.

 

[vontresc]

Simple Kent, KMSN Direct KESLI Direct KCAD

 

[roncachamp]

Simple Kent, KMSN Direct KESLI Direct KCAD

You obviously mean KELSI. KMSN..KELSI..KCAD goes through Chicago approach, better plan on something like KMSN..KELSI..EON..OXI..KCAD.

 

[vontresc]

Lol my Lysdexia got the better of me...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Go around to the south and you have to go around Chicago approach as well. Going around to the north actually adds less because the lake is the only issue.

Looks like VFR is still an option that way - If that's how I go, it'll be down the lakeshore.

Simple Kent, KMSN Direct KELSI Direct KCAD

That actually puts me over a LOT of lake. Now, I've done this trip around the south end IFR - It took 4.4 hours. Note that over the top should be about 1.3!

One last thing I didn't post - It's clear in Cadillac right now.

If I do end up IFR (which I will if I go over), I'll be on here: http://bit.ly/eZt0Lm

 

[Ted]

Funny, most people would RATHER have a twin in those cases.

One of these days I'll learn to proofread.

True - I also have a ton of space below said cloud layer and I can come right back down if I start to pick up any ice.

A ton? The TAFs didn't seem to say you had a ton unless your departure times were different than what I read. Not being familiar with the MVAs in your area, it looked like you might have to do an approach to get back down.

Basically, if you have a reasonable doubt of being able to remain in the clear for the whole trip, it should be a no-go without the proper equipment to deal with it. You're talking about a lot of risks built on top of eachother, and this comes from someone who's been called insane in more than one instance. Plus, even with your theoretical "I can glide to shore," that is a really bad out to have in the event of an engine failure, because you'll typically have a headwind and worse glide performance when you need it. If you accept that you'll end up in Lake Michigan in the event of an engine failure, I'd view it differently.

 

[gismo]

For me that's a no-go. If this was a must-go to destination, I'm going the long way around the south in this scenario.

You didn't address survival equipment on board, and I would hope that if you went you had it, just in case icing prevented your 13,000 foot crossing. Even so, a raft in lake michigan in February is a place I would not want to be.

I'd think a handgun would be more useful than a raft this time of year.

 

[tonycondon]

I'd think a handgun would be more useful than a raft this time of year.

which reminds me of my favorite Lance quote. something like "I'm pretty sure a bullet to the head is disqualifying for a class 3 medical"

 

[SkyHog]

What altitude do you need to be able to glide across the lake with a few inches of ice on the wings?

 

[gismo]

What altitude do you need to be able to glide across the lake with a few inches of ice on the wings?

At least you wouldn't need to worry about the ice induced loss of prop efficiency.

 

[Henning]

I wouldn't do this in anything that didn't have the glide range of the DA40...

Yup... That's why I want to cruise in the clear.

You need to be in the clear through the whole column though or that glide range is going straight to hell as soon as you pick up ice on the way down.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, crap.

Now that I've made the 1.5 hour drive to the airport...

Option 1) IFR over LM - The PIREPS indicate that the ice has made it here.

FLD UA /OV FLD270010/TM 1730/FLUNKN/TP C210/SK TOP060/TA M10/IC LGT RIME/RM OCNL LGT RIME ICING
MSN UA /OV MSN135010/TM 1813/FL080/TP CRJ7/SK OVC030-TOP082/TA M13/IC LGT RIME

A little ice in the climb means crappy performance up at 13K, not to mention unknown glide performance. No go here.

Option 2) VFR down the lake shore. Both Madison and Waukegan went IFR while I was en route which cuts off this option.

KMSN 111749Z 21006KT 2 1/2SM -SN SCT023 BKN044 OVC060 M09/M12 A2988 RMK AO2 P0000
KUGN 111646Z 22008KT 2SM -SN BKN025 BKN043 OVC050 M08/M13 A2994 RMK AO2 SNB1556E05B31 P0000

While not technically IFR right at the moment, it is 3SM -SN BKN021 and MSN, and I don't like low-vis VFR. There's also a lot of snow and such on the radar between MSN and UGN as well as on the eastern side of the south part of the lake.

No go here.

Finally, Option 3) IFR the super-duper-FU-Chicago-long way around. There's also ice this way, and lower ceilings and such as well.

KRFD 111854Z 20007KT 3SM -SN FEW015 OVC022 M07/M10 A2992 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 4 SLP146 P0001 T10671100
RFD UA /OV RFD/TM 1726/FL095/TP BE9L/SK TOP095/SKC/TA M10/IC LGT RIME 095

No go here... No go, period.

And just as if to rub it in... The following PIREP just came through - And I think it was probably given by one of my skiplane flying cohorts. (Have fun, Nigel...)

CAD UA /OV CAD/TM 1752/FL042/TP BE35/TA M03/TB NEG/IC NEG/RM TOPS 042



Blech. Maybe I need to drop a couple grand and get checked out in the Seneca.

 

[Ted]

Blech. Maybe I need to drop a couple grand and get checked out in the Seneca.

Such situations are part of why I bought the Aztec. De-ice is not an automatic get out of jail free card and really frequently requires a significantly closer look at the weather, but given where you're planning on going, I wouldn't hesitate in the Aztec.

Good decision.

 

[tonycondon]

sorry kent, i know you were really looking forward to skiing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Such situations are part of why I bought the Aztec. De-ice is not an automatic get out of jail free card and really frequently requires a significantly closer look at the weather, but given where you're planning on going, I wouldn't hesitate in the Aztec.

Yeah, a little light ice with the tops below 10K wouldn't make the Seneca break a sweat.

It's just that whole $300+/hr thing that's kept me from doing it so far. Not to mention, trying to stay current and proficient in it. It'd cost me at least a grand a year just to stay current.

 

[Ted]

It's just that whole $300+/hr thing that's kept me from doing it so far. Not to mention, trying to stay current and proficient in it. It'd cost me at least a grand a year just to stay current.

And several grand more than that to stay proficient.

$300+/hr for a Seneca? Geez, that seems high.

 

[gprellwitz]

Good choice, Kent! Leslie and I were looking to fly up to Oshkosh tomorrow, and decided not to, based partly on probability of ice.

 

[bbchien]

I trust you did NOT go.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

$300+/hr for a Seneca? Geez, that seems high.

It is... Kind of... But there are only two options I know of within a couple hours' drive of me to rent a de-iced twin: $305?/hr for the Seneca II at Madison, or $317/hr for a Diamond TwinStar at Waukegan. There are other twins, but they're all of the trainer variety (Duchess, Seminole) and not de-iced.

I trust you did NOT go.

No, I did not go.

I was thinking about it later on today - How when you get the instrument rating, the go/no-go becomes much harder and more complex... And as I've stated here before, I pretty much never cancel until the day of. But generally, even the toughest decisions have always seemed to end up working out to a clear answer.

Today, for example - I spent most of the 1.5 hr drive to the airport turning over scenarios in my head and coming up with outs, as well as thinking through what my in-flight no-gos would be (EG arrive at the lake shore at 9000 feet and see higher clouds anywhere over the lake) but by the time I arrived at MSN and saw that the icing PIREPS had made it that far east and both MSN and UGN had gone IFR during the previous hour, it was a very clear choice.

 

[Henning]

Well, crap.

Now that I've made the 1.5 hour drive to the airport...

Option 1) IFR over LM - The PIREPS indicate that the ice has made it here.

FLD UA /OV FLD270010/TM 1730/FLUNKN/TP C210/SK TOP060/TA M10/IC LGT RIME/RM OCNL LGT RIME ICING
MSN UA /OV MSN135010/TM 1813/FL080/TP CRJ7/SK OVC030-TOP082/TA M13/IC LGT RIME

A little ice in the climb means crappy performance up at 13K, not to mention unknown glide performance. No go here.

Option 2) VFR down the lake shore. Both Madison and Waukegan went IFR while I was en route which cuts off this option.

KMSN 111749Z 21006KT 2 1/2SM -SN SCT023 BKN044 OVC060 M09/M12 A2988 RMK AO2 P0000
KUGN 111646Z 22008KT 2SM -SN BKN025 BKN043 OVC050 M08/M13 A2994 RMK AO2 SNB1556E05B31 P0000

While not technically IFR right at the moment, it is 3SM -SN BKN021 and MSN, and I don't like low-vis VFR. There's also a lot of snow and such on the radar between MSN and UGN as well as on the eastern side of the south part of the lake.

No go here.

Finally, Option 3) IFR the super-duper-FU-Chicago-long way around. There's also ice this way, and lower ceilings and such as well.

KRFD 111854Z 20007KT 3SM -SN FEW015 OVC022 M07/M10 A2992 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 4 SLP146 P0001 T10671100
RFD UA /OV RFD/TM 1726/FL095/TP BE9L/SK TOP095/SKC/TA M10/IC LGT RIME 095

No go here... No go, period.

And just as if to rub it in... The following PIREP just came through - And I think it was probably given by one of my skiplane flying cohorts. (Have fun, Nigel...)

CAD UA /OV CAD/TM 1752/FL042/TP BE35/TA M03/TB NEG/IC NEG/RM TOPS 042



Blech. Maybe I need to drop a couple grand and get checked out in the Seneca.

What about option 4, the UP route?

 

[AcroBoy]

Not sure where you live in SE Wisconsin, but Spring City Aviation at Waukeha has a Travelaire that I recall has boots, etc. They also rent a Duke if you really want to go in style. The reasons you discuss are why I went with a Baron with TKS and known ice certification.

 

[roncachamp]

After reading thru this interesting post, there seems to be a good chain of bad choices forming:
-Your total safety plan over water is the glide ratio of a DA40. With that small diameter prop and long skinny spanwise loading wing, the smallest amount of ice would add up quickly and you splash.
-That little engine struggling up to 13,000 ft with no power to spare for an ice load.
-Your plan is to be up there for almost 30 minutes with no Ox, (if you got there at all) which might not be enough time to shed ice before being forced to descend.
-You're flying to the east side of a big lake, directly into the atmosphere of higher moisture content.
-The forecast says you're almost guaranteed to fly thru visible moisture
-Flying a Diamond Mosquito with it's long track record of ice/altitude performance (sic)

WTF!?

Win the future?

 

[nddons]

Not sure where you live in SE Wisconsin, but Spring City Aviation at Waukeha has a Travelaire that I recall has boots, etc. They also rent a Duke if you really want to go in style. The reasons you discuss are why I went with a Baron with TKS and known ice certification.

Not sure about the boots, but $253/hour wet.

http://springcityaviation.com/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=detail&id=3&Itemid=94

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not sure about the boots, but $253/hour wet.

http://springcityaviation.com/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=detail&id=3&Itemid=94

No boots in that pic - I didn't think you could get boots on a Travel Air.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

After reading thru this interesting post, there seems to be a good chain of bad choices forming:
-Your total safety plan over water is the glide ratio of a DA40. With that small diameter prop and long skinny spanwise loading wing, the smallest amount of ice would add up quickly and you splash.

Which is why I didn't go that way.

-That little engine struggling up to 13,000 ft with no power to spare for an ice load.

And if I were going to 13K... I wouldn't do it with any ice, or cruise in any IMC.

-Your plan is to be up there for almost 30 minutes with no Ox, (if you got there at all) which might not be enough time to shed ice before being forced to descend.

So. Yeah. Did you actually read anything in this thread?

-You're flying to the east side of a big lake, directly into the atmosphere of higher moisture content.

Oh no. Not moisture.

-The forecast says you're almost guaranteed to fly thru visible moisture

Shocking. (Do you think I don't know/consider this stuff? Did you know that visible moisture does not always mean icing?)

-Flying a Diamond Mosquito with it's long track record of ice/altitude performance (sic)

And... What exactly are you referring to here?

Better choice may be to stay home and read up on weather and ADM

Better for you to actually read the thread before posting.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not sure where you live in SE Wisconsin, but Spring City Aviation at Waukeha has a Travelaire that I recall has boots, etc. They also rent a Duke if you really want to go in style. The reasons you discuss are why I went with a Baron with TKS and known ice certification.

No boots on the BE95, if it's the one Stan posted. (He rents from Spring City.)

And a Duke? For RENT? Really? That'd be awesome. Probably expen$ive too. They don't list it on their site tho.