Night, LIFR, SEL- What makes good Go/ No-Go Decisions

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
In this work of fiction the conditions are as follows:

KBFE 032100Z 00000KT 1SM P6000FT -RA BR(Mist) OVC010 10/11 A3005 RMK A02 CIG1000
Crap: I screwed up with the OVC report, it should say OVC001

These conditions are covering a large area of about 200 miles around. Your departure from BFE (Bum Fuk Eegip Airport) to your destination of KMON (Middle of Nowhere) is at the edge of your fuel range based on your full cargo of people and bags. You are reserve fuel legal for this flight.

TAF for the destination are as follows:
KMON 032300Z 040200Z 36005KT 4SM CLEAR OVC100
and the trends indicate stable air no convection expected during the trip and no icing conditions.

Much discussion in the past about 0/0 takeoffs and this Part91 Flight, the PIC will determine the Go/ No-Go decision.

If you're the type that never will do a takeoff with 100ft ceiling, then I understand you level of risk tolerance, but this scenario is for those that would conduct such an operation. I'd like to understand how you evaluate risk in this scenario. I would also like to know your line of demarcation that changes your decision from favorable to not favorable.

BTW, there are some of you that I would really like to hear from on this topic, so don't be bashful.
 
Last edited:
What's the weather along the route?

If your starting airport is LIFR, but everything not too far after, say 20nm, is better and forecast to stay that way I'd launch.

I might also have more than one alternate in mind, including one near my point of origin.
 
I'd start by saying that Part 91 minimum legal fuel reserve is not enough for me -- I always plan to have one hour remaining when I land, and at any point along the way if I see I won't have that, I land and refuel.

That said, I'm pretty much with James -- as long as the weather allows a safe takeoff at my departure point, and I have reasonable options all along the route, the fact that it's 1000-1 at my departure airport won't by itself cause me to delay/cancel. And absent any crazy ODP issues (like those at Cumberland MD, KCBE), 1000-1 allows a safe takeoff in most any light plane.
 
You mentioned "these conditions cover a large area around 200mi around". I assume that's around the departure airport.

If it was just some scud or fog locally I would take off and fly. Assuming there were nearby airports with decent weather.

But if the conditions at the departure airport were widespread, not going.
 
I haven't taken an ILS down to minimums yet. I'm not current but I would say right after my checkride, I would go down to minimums. If I'm not comfortable taking an ILS down to minimums then my CFI didn't teach me right. I don't really agree with IFR personal minimums. If I'm not comfortable shooting the approach down to the published minimums then I need more training
 
I should say that the 1 sm vis gives me a lot more pause than the 1000-foot ceiling. Vis that low can make it very hard to land out of a nonprecision approach unless the HAT is unusually low (400 or less) or you're flying a helicopter or V-22 Osprey. The problem is that without an approach lighting system or REIL's, your flight visibility (slant range) through that fog often puts you 3/4 mile or less from the runway when you actually see it, and it's hard to get down safely from that point. That's why I love WAAS GPS so much -- it gives you an ILS-like approach to low HAT's (and thus much shorter slant ranges to the runway) at the host of airports without ILS, and makes landing in marginal visibilities like 3/4 to 1-1/2 sm a whole lot easier.
 
Jaybird180 said:
In this work of fiction the conditions are as follows:

KBFE 032100Z 00000KT 1SM P6000FT -RA BR(Mist) OVC010 10/11 A3005 RMK A02 CIG1000


If you're the type that never will do a takeoff with 100ft ceiling, then I understand you level of risk tolerance, but this scenario is for those that would conduct such an operation.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting 100' ceiling?

The conditions you posted show a 1000' ceiling.
 
Another question to ponder is - where would you land if something went sideways after takeoff? Could you get back to the runway with the conditons you took off in?

Jim
 
Einstein376 said:
Another question to ponder is - where would you land if something went sideways after takeoff? Could you get back to the runway with the conditons you took off in?
Click to expand...
Why would someone necessarily have to get back into the same airport from which they departed? Say you're launching out of Jaybird's home 'drome of Freeway Airport in Mitchellville MD (W00). If "things go sideways", you'd probably want a lot bigger runway anyway, and once you take off IFR, you could probably land just as soon at BWI or DCA where they're much better equipped for an emergency and have much lower mins approaches. Obviously, if you're launching out of Boondock Municipal in the middle of Montana where the next closest airport is 100 miles away, you'd have to think about that situation, but otherwise, there's no real driving need to return to the same airport from which you departed.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why would someone necessarily have to get back into the same airport from which they departed? Say you're launching out of Jaybird's home 'drome of Freeway Airport in Mitchellville MD (W00). If "things go sideways", you'd probably want a lot bigger runway anyway, and once you take off IFR, you could probably land just as soon at BWI or DCA where they're much better equipped for an emergency and have much lower mins approaches. Obviously, if you're launching out of Boondock Municipal in the middle of Montana where the next closest airport is 100 miles away, you'd have to think about that situation, but otherwise, there's no real driving need to return to the same airport from which you departed.
Click to expand...

This was exactly my thought process behind one of my 0/0 departures. It was 1/8 mile and Ceiling Indefinite one morning departing MYF, but at least 1/4 and 200' at SAN only a couple miles away. I basically reviewed/briefed the ILS 9 for SAN as part of my departure briefing. If anything went wrong on the departure, I'd declare and ask for immediate vectors to Lindbergh.
 
Einstein376 said:
Another question to ponder is - where would you land if something went sideways after takeoff? Could you get back to the runway with the conditons you took off in?

Jim
Click to expand...

Nope

Say your mins are 500' and 1.25mi

Ceilings are 200' and 1mi

You can launch 91/135 but you ain't getting back in
 
Ron Levy said:
Why would someone necessarily have to get back into the same airport from which they departed? Say you're launching out of Jaybird's home 'drome of Freeway Airport in Mitchellville MD (W00). If "things go sideways", you'd probably want a lot bigger runway anyway, and once you take off IFR, you could probably land just as soon at BWI or DCA where they're much better equipped for an emergency and have much lower mins approaches.
Click to expand...

Regardless of runway size, isn't it a bit tricky to get in with your typical Part 91 flight plane with 100 ft. ceilings? (assuming the OVC010 was a typo and should have been OVC001). I'm not an IFR pilot, just curious and trying to learn.
 
Last edited:
F01LA said:
Regardless of runway size, isn't it a bit tricky to get in with your typical Part 91 plane with 100 ft. ceilings? (assuming the OVC010 was a typo and should have been OVC001). Not I'm not an IFR pilot, just curious and trying to learn.
Click to expand...
If the ceiling is 100 rather than 1000, then yes, it's very tricky to get in, and it's not likely DCA or BWI will be much better than W00, so you'd need to consider other options, including delaying until you have someplace you can get in within 20 minutes or so flying time (about the least time it would take to get from the departure end of the departure airport out to the IAF and then back in to land at the original departure airport).
 
Ron Levy said:
If the ceiling is 100 rather than 1000, then yes, it's very tricky to get in, and it's not likely DCA or BWI will be much better than W00, so you'd need to consider other options, including delaying until you have someplace you can get in within 20 minutes or so flying time (about the least time it would take to get from the departure end of the departure airport out to the IAF and then back in to land at the original departure airport).
Click to expand...

Got it. This thread is confusing because of typos, but I believe the original poster means taking off from a large area of 100 ft. ceilings, and flying to an area with 1000 ft. ceilings. So, no real place to land for hundreds of miles after you take off.
 
I screwed up the METAR and have now edited it to be consistent with the question.
 
I wouldn't takeoff on a 100' ceiling personally. I would prefer to have the option of returning to the airport at least on the instrument approach or seeing some more ground if things goes wrong. Now if the departure airport was above the approach minimums, I could convince myself, but right now I kind of like 500-600' as it gives me a little visual flying room under the clouds. I also plan on an hour of reserve for safety.
 
Jaybird180 said:
In this work of fiction the conditions are as follows:

KBFE 032100Z 00000KT 1SM P6000FT -RA BR(Mist) OVC010 10/11 A3005 RMK A02 CIG1000
Crap: I screwed up with the OVC report, it should say OVC001

These conditions are covering a large area of about 200 miles around. Your departure from BFE (Bum Fuk Eegip Airport) to your destination of KMON (Middle of Nowhere) is at the edge of your fuel range based on your full cargo of people and bags. You are reserve fuel legal for this flight.

TAF for the destination are as follows:
KMON 032300Z 040200Z 36005KT 4SM CLEAR OVC100
and the trends indicate stable air no convection expected during the trip and no icing conditions.

Much discussion in the past about 0/0 takeoffs and this Part91 Flight, the PIC will determine the Go/ No-Go decision.

If you're the type that never will do a takeoff with 100ft ceiling, then I understand you level of risk tolerance, but this scenario is for those that would conduct such an operation. I'd like to understand how you evaluate risk in this scenario. I would also like to know your line of demarcation that changes your decision from favorable to not favorable.

BTW, there are some of you that I would really like to hear from on this topic, so don't be bashful.
Click to expand...

I'd fly that but I'd carry an extra engine.
 
My perspective will be a little different because I actually lived through a scenario like this and it changed my decision making.

I took off from an airport one crappy day. Skies were partially obscured 200' in rain and mist. The area was widespread low IFR from the departure airport up to the KELM (Elmira, NY) area. My destination was KBUF (Buffalo, NY) was good VFR. Tops were 6k and I was cruising at 8k enjoying the view.

I was in what I call the Bermuda Triangle of the northeast (KIPT, KELM, KRDG) when the reality of flying single engine over LIFR with an engine problem makes you appreciate the gravity of your situation.

Fortunately, there were MVFR conditions at the Grand Canyon airport and I was able to nurse the plane there. Once you experience something like that, your decision making changes. I now want to have at least 1000' ceilings enroute to at least give me a chance to find a place to set her down. Conservative? Yes, but you need to find a comfort level for your risk taking.
 
I anticipate that in the not-too-distant future we will have some kind of augmented reality or similar technology that will allow you to easily "see" the ground beneath the clouds (based on recent satellite or aerial imagery). This might give single engine pilots a bit more comfort in low IFR conditions. Marauder's situation is a scary one when flying single engine.
 
F01LA said:
I anticipate that in the not-too-distant future we will have some kind of augmented reality or similar technology that will allow you to easily "see" the ground beneath the clouds (based on recent satellite or aerial imagery). This might give single engine pilots a bit more comfort in low IFR conditions. Marauder's situation is a scary one when flying single engine.
Click to expand...

It's called Synthetic Vision and exists in the here and now.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It's called Synthetic Vision and exists in the here and now.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "there's a kind of flat area, I'll head there." I mean setting up your approach to a specific field so when you pop out at 300 feet it's there and you land. That requires imagery. Does anyone do that yet?

Bonus: Highlight good fields based on crop type (and time of year), flatness and lack of terraces, landable length into wind, etc.
 
F01LA said:
I'm not talking about "there's a kind of flat area, I'll head there." I mean setting up your approach to a specific field so when you pop out at 300 feet it's there and you land. That requires imagery. Does anyone do that yet?



Bonus: Highlight good fields based on crop type (and time of year), flatness and lack of terraces, landable length into wind, etc.
Click to expand...


That would be Nirvana, wouldn't it? :) Isn't there some car technologies that can see through fog? Thought I saw a commercial on it.

Even with my personal minimum of 1000' enroute, the pucker factor is still there in areas of mountain obscurations. Hey, maybe we just gave someone the idea to start a business for this.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It's called Synthetic Vision and exists in the here and now.
Click to expand...

You're not saying to use your "Synthetic Vision" to land below mins are you?

Honestly Id rather ride a ILS or LPV down to 100' vs relying on that garmin vision.

If it were 1sm and 100 OVC, Id still go if I had a nearby airport that I could get into if I had some abnormality after departure.
 
James331 said:
You're not saying to use your "Synthetic Vision" to land below mins are you?

Honestly Id rather ride a ILS or LPV down to 100' vs relying on that garmin vision.

If it were 1sm and 100 OVC, Id still go if I had a nearby airport that I could get into if I had some abnormality after departure.
Click to expand...

Abso-Friggin-Loutely....in an emergency all bets are off.
 
How reliable do you think your airplane and engine are? How much fuel do you have? And how much risk do you want to take? If it's legal you can always say "I can go". Its up to YOU. Personally, Ive never taken off from somewhere that I couldn't land back at if necessary, and I wouldn't do it now. But that's just me....
 
James331 said:
You're not saying to use your "Synthetic Vision" to land below mins are you?

Honestly Id rather ride a ILS or LPV down to 100' vs relying on that garmin vision.

If it were 1sm and 100 OVC, Id still go if I had a nearby airport that I could get into if I had some abnormality after departure.
Click to expand...

Yes. We're talking emergencies here. Use it to line up with a field, a runway, a road, whatever you can make safely. I don't GAF about proper approach procedures either. 91.3 and here I come. You don't necessarily need SV to do this. An iPad with WAAS GPS and FF could suffice in many places.

Same thing at night. Find me a straight road (common out here in the flat west... not so much in the hills.. hence no night or IMC over the mountains on a single engine) and I will head for that if I must. WAAS accuracy is 1 m (likely better than that of the map!). No reason I can't use it and my ipad to give myself a shot in the dark or the clouds. Flip the lights on at the end and do my best.

But as others have said... why create the chance for that emergency by flying over widespread LIFR?
 
Marauder said:
I took off from an airport one crappy day. Skies were partially obscured 200' in rain and mist. The area was widespread low IFR from the departure airport up to the KELM (Elmira, NY) area. My destination was KBUF (Buffalo, NY) was good VFR. Tops were 6k and I was cruising at 8k enjoying the view.
Click to expand...

Not to hijack this thread and your story, but 200 ovc with tops to 6000 sounds like Mother Nature's scenery at its finest-----easily something that rivals the best sandbars in the Bahamas!!

Do you have any photos from on-top of the deck from that flight???
 
Last edited:
Simple no go for me since I'm not IMC rated.

But even if I were, it'd be a no go with 100' ceiling 200 miles around.

Too risky.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Not to hijack this thread and your story, but 200 ovc with tops to 6000 sounds like Mother Nature's scenery at its finest-----easily something that rivals the best sandbars in the Bahamas!!



Do you have any photos from on-top of the deck from that flight???
Click to expand...


No, that was over 20 years ago. Long before digital cameras made posting pix easy. I'm sure someone has one.

Here are others though.

4c2cf6275e1592c9689c333fb8518253.jpg


ef7cc934c73021d6f96f3bb367aef240.jpg
 
Your question is so totally dependent on experience, and I know you are seeking that knowledge of experience, so here goes ..
At first, after getting my IR, even tho I had about 3000 hours, mostly instructing vfr primary students, I needed 4-500 above mins to go actual .
But, over the years of instructin IFR students, mostly approaches, and a lot of that in military 100'& 1/4, I found that it is very doable to land 0/0 in most training airplanes from an ILS .
If you keep the localizer needle centered, the wheels will straddle the centerline.
If you stay on glideslope, and slow to 1.3 Vso as you approach minimums, you will contact the runway in a slight noseup attitude. It won't be a greaser, but it will be an acceptable thump on centerline.
For that emergency when you have arrived at your alternate with no more fuel, or when the weather is so thunderstormy that you would rather crash on a runway than fly back up into certain death.
But again, takes lots of practice, like the impossible turn.
And both, like anything, take a sincere desire to learn.
 
nosehair said:
Your question is so totally dependent on experience, and I know you are seeking that knowledge of experience, so here goes ..
At first, after getting my IR, even tho I had about 3000 hours, mostly instructing vfr primary students, I needed 4-500 above mins to go actual .
But, over the years of instructin IFR students, mostly approaches, and a lot of that in military 100'& 1/4, I found that it is very doable to land 0/0 in most training airplanes from an ILS .
If you keep the localizer needle centered, the wheels will straddle the centerline.
If you stay on glideslope, and slow to 1.3 Vso as you approach minimums, you will contact the runway in a slight noseup attitude. It won't be a greaser, but it will be an acceptable thump on centerline.
For that emergency when you have arrived at your alternate with no more fuel, or when the weather is so thunderstormy that you would rather crash on a runway than fly back up into certain death.
But again, takes lots of practice, like the impossible turn.
And both, like anything, take a sincere desire to learn.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Forgive me for not reading every response before posting.....

Here is my take on a couple concerns that come to mind..

1) Fuel. Minimums are fine with me with that destination forcast as long as there are a couple decent airports around with similar weather.

2) TO weather. No problem in an airplane with single engine climb performance that keeps you above obstacles and terrain. If in a single, I wouldn't do it unless you were surrounded by 200 miles of flat terrain. Don't get me started about *true* 0/0 TO's. I would dare to say very few here have actually done one, but that's another thread.

Above all, everyone's experience level and comfort level is different. Take those factors into consideration when making your decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top