IFR magazine gets a new editor!

He's from the school where the weather briefing is, "hey, where's the tropopause, today?"

Belvoir Magazines are totally dependent on circulation and as such the editors have to promote "just this side of" outrageous things. Bertorelli: We don't need no steenkin pulse oximeter". etc. etc.
 
scottd said:
Yes, this is the same Frank Bowlin that wrote this article last October entitled, "Don't Bother Getting Wx."
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm stunned by that article.

No tornadoes, hurricanes, thunder- storms, hail, or heavy freezing rain? Good. Next, you might glance at some big pictures of the en route weather. Look for the same aluminum-chew- ing monsters and, if none jump off the chart at you, check the TAF for your destination. Anything that’ll break you or your craft? Forecast below mins on the lowest approach? No? Let’s fly.​

So there's freezing rain and I launch anyway. Nobody says it's "heavy", so I fly right into it. Yeah, great idea.
 
Welcome to professional flying ladies and gentleman. There are parts of his article that make perfect sense.
 
Hey, at least it's clear it's an opinion. It's a far cry from their sister pub IFR Referesher which published inane and incorrect things. Fortunately, the editor in the days I had that subscription was canned but I've never gone back.
 
Inverted said:
Welcome to professional flying ladies and gentleman. There are parts of his article that make perfect sense.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I didn't get the impression that the author disregarded weather, but instead he utilized resources that GA pilots generally do not have access to. When I was flying when I was told to we checked weather with an eye to determining search methods, not to decide if we were going to go. We went, period. Overall I find useful information in IFR magazine, and think it fills a purpose.
 
NoHeat said:
Wow, I'm stunned by that article.

No tornadoes, hurricanes, thunder- storms, hail, or heavy freezing rain? Good. Next, you might glance at some big pictures of the en route weather. Look for the same aluminum-chew- ing monsters and, if none jump off the chart at you, check the TAF for your destination. Anything that’ll break you or your craft? Forecast below mins on the lowest approach? No? Let’s fly.​

So there's freezing rain and I launch anyway. Nobody says it's "heavy", so I fly right into it. Yeah, great idea.
Click to expand...

I think the point is to launch if nothing is obviously hazardous to YOUR aircraft. Moderate freezing rain apparently is not to his, but may be to yours.

Sent via teletype
 
The OP's linked article isn't too far off for todays TAA and corporate aircraft. Icing is a must checked, along with major WX info such as convective activity, major storm lines and turbulance. TAF's, METAR's, and many divert decision sources of info are now in the aircraft, sometimes on mutiple devices No sense in memorizing forcast info that is likely to change or be irrelevent to the actual conditions.

Make sure your safe for the departure, know the general WX in your area, and the general conditions at destination. Work out the rest as it plays out.

How many times have we studied tons of forcasts only for them to be wrong atdestination by the time you get there? Especially in lower ceiling IFR situations.
 
I am curious as to Ken's opinion.
 
It's similar to Richard Collins' opinion, I believe. He had the strategy of departing even if weather at the destination or along the way would force a diversion. He would go as far as was safe, land, and allow the storm to blow over. According to him, it proved to be an effective strategy almost every time, and often he was even able to proceed all the way to his destination due to improving conditions as he flew.

Sent via teletype
 
cheap weenie said:
It's similar to Richard Collins' opinion, I believe. He had the strategy of departing even if weather at the destination or along the way would force a diversion. He would go as far as was safe, land, and allow the storm to blow over. According to him, it proved to be an effective strategy almost every time, and often he was even able to proceed all the way to his destination due to improving conditions as he flew.

Sent via teletype
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I use this strategy and it has consistently proved to allow me better utility. I allow a little extra fuel for cross range wandering if I need to work through weather, and set absolute "No gos" and stick to them. The benefits are huge IMHO.
 
Honestly, checking NOTAMS are more important when it comes to a successful flight than weather is IMO. Despite what the GA pilot knows or realizes, most corporate or commercial aircraft can handle, and are built to handle just about every type of moderate weather out there. Freezing rain, freezing fog, snow, lightning, turbulence etc. In fact most severe weather moves so quickly that when it comes to actual weather for the time of arrival will usually be different than what the TAF says. I didn't care about that huge line of severe weather over Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma etc because we can fly above, or make slight diversions to get where we need to go. However, NOTAMS are what can make or break a flight, or at the very least make the crew look like morons. If there are thunderstorms over the airport you are landing at, holding for 15-20 min, or diverting is common. But arriving at a CAVU airport with the runways closed is a bit of an issue.
 
cheap weenie said:
I think the point is to launch if nothing is obviously hazardous to YOUR aircraft.
Click to expand...
True, and he said upfront that he flies for an airline. However, the disconnect comes when the illustrations show a couple guys in small airplanes who don't have the advantages that he does as far as their equipment goes.
 
There is no cure for stupidity. Its not even a matter of what is in the cockpit. You still have to be smart about the situation. Its not like I dont check weather at all, but it takes maybe 5 minutes to look at weather at the airports in which you are operating, and enroute. Most accidents involve people flying into severe sells that take wings off (family in PC-12). Show me preflight weather data that accurately shows severe weather? I will save you time, there isn't one. So instead of seeing some thunderstorms being forecasted and canceling the flight, you can use services available to you in real time to avoid significant weather as it comes at you. This is what the part 135 and 121 operators do, and have done every single day for decades.
 
Everskyward said:
True, and he said upfront that he flies for an airline. However, the disconnect comes when the illustrations show a couple guys in small airplanes who don't have the advantages that he does as far as their equipment goes.
Click to expand...

You would be shocked at the percentage of major aircraft that operate /A or /G, and have little to know airborne weather equipment. There are plenty of services available to you if you have a VHF radio.
 
Inverted said:
You would be shocked at the percentage of major aircraft that operate /A or /G, and have little to know airborne weather equipment. There are plenty of services available to you if you have a VHF radio.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Read what I quoted regarding equipment in small airplanes, then read my post about how its not just small airplanes that dont have a plethora of onboard weather equipment.
 
Inverted said:
Read what I quoted regarding equipment in small airplanes, then read my post about how its not just small airplanes that dont have a plethora of onboard weather equipment.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you consider "weather equipment". Larger airplanes generally have anti-icing equipment that is more effective than what is available on smaller airplanes. They also usually have onboard radar (as opposed to something like NEXRAD). Just these two things make a big difference.
 
I am not sure what you consider "larger airplanes" I flew Chieftains that had pretty darn good anti icing equipment, and that is a small plane to me. Anti icing equipment is completely different from weather avoidance equipment. 3 of the Lears I fly have zero weather avoidance equipment on board. 1 has XM. Onboard weather radar is all but useless when trying to circumvent severe weather. Ask the crew of AF447.
 
Inverted said:
I am not sure what you consider "larger airplanes" I flew Chieftains that had pretty darn good anti icing equipment, and that is a small plane to me. Anti icing equipment is completely different from weather avoidance equipment. 3 of the Lears I fly have zero weather avoidance equipment on board. 1 has XM. Onboard weather radar is all but useless when trying to circumvent severe weather. Ask the crew of AF447.
Click to expand...
When I flew Lears they had radar but no XM. I think radar works pretty well if you understand its limitations. I have only flown an airplane with uplink weather once or twice and I don't have an iPad. There's no way I would fly a small single-engine airplane into some weather situations where I would have taken the Lears without too much concern.
 
Everskyward said:
There's no way I would fly a small single-engine airplane into some weather situations where I would have taken the Lears without too much concern.
Click to expand...

Oh without a doubt. But thats exactly my point. That article is not geared towards the 172 IFR guys.
 
Inverted said:
That article is not geared towards the 172 IFR guys.
Click to expand...
Right. But that is my point. If he was writing this to an audience of airline, corporate or freight pilots it would be more appropriate. Well, actually it would be telling them things they already know. But I thought that IFR Magazine was geared to people who fly smaller airplanes. Even the cartoon illustration shows smaller airplanes.
 
Everskyward said:
Right. But that is my point. If he was writing this to an audience of airline, corporate or freight pilots it would be more appropriate. Well, actually it would be telling them things they already know. But I thought that IFR Magazine was geared to people who fly smaller airplanes. Even the cartoon illustration shows smaller airplanes.
Click to expand...
the job of an editor is to focus the magazine to exceed (or at least meet) the needs of the readers. If the readers run the gamut -- such as airline pilots to GA pilots -- the article needs to make it clear what segments of the readership it applies to. To do otherwise would be a failure on the editor's part to fulfill the magazine's duty to the reader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top