Matthew Rogers
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,325
- Display Name
Display name:
Matt R
Not far from 1N7 it was glass smooth all the way up and down today (8:00-12:00). Guess weather is weird. Who would have thought?
Would you bag this flight?
- Thread starter mryan75
- Start date
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
No turns about a point, but the winds aloft were 90 to the runway. So a rectangular course should have been educational.
Bobanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
Sure. I'm not interested in a p!ssing match, I'm just responding to the original question; my opinion only. I believe that "calm seas do not great sailors make", and I, for one, have welcomed challenging conditions (with one foot on the base). But, for any and all comers, if proficiency is the goal, stick with familiar conditions (wind is weather, too).
benyflyguy
En-Route
The Blairstown side wasn’t too bad. Those trees on final for 25 seem a lot higher then last time I was there lol. I was up from 1-3 pm. It was coming back to KHZL things really got dicy wind wise
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I'm imagining that right now and can't think of a better opportunity to really demonstrate what turns about a point are all about.
I'm not sure a solo student should take that on, but an instructor should welcome the opportunity to show a student why ground reference maneuvers are relevant (particularly rectangular patterns) in strong wind. There's nothing like a slow airplane to make that easy.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm imagining that right now and can't think of a better opportunity to really demonstrate what turns about a point are all about.
I'm not sure a solo student should take that on, but an instructor should welcome the opportunity to show a student why ground reference maneuvers are relevant (particularly rectangular patterns) in strong wind.
Bank 60 on downwind, bank 1 on up wind.
texasclouds
En-Route
Did OP end up sending it?
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
These conditions are not that unusual in CNY. The wind strength is really not that much of a factor. It's the low level turbulence downwind of hills. Around my home field (KVGC) it will just be rough as a cob down low where you are getting mixing with those winds aloft. Down in the Mohawk Valley near KRME, I would be less concerned. You are likely just going to see wildly fluctuating groundspeeds in the flatlands on approach. Mostly it may just be an unpleasant day to fly, bouncing around like a cork in the ocean near terrain.
Haven't read through the entire thread yet, but as it turns out, everyone bagged it yesterday, with the comment "LLWS". I didn't specifically see any reference to that in my checks of the weather, so it may have been a presumption on people's part, but it was clearly the right call.
Weird, I checked airmets and sigmets and didn't see any. But I'm sure you're right.
Where is that image taken from?
Just wanted to mention, I didn't just blindly go through the thread and click "like" on every post. There was really a lot of great information and things for me to mull over. I appreciate everyone who took the time to respond.
A few initial thoughts:
1. 100 of the same hour? Honestly, this is an issue for me. Put of 250 hours I've probably got 80'ish cross-country, 40-50 under the hood and a couple OF hours IMC. But I'm more comfortable near and airport, and preferably my home field, which has a runway the size of JFK. I need to address this. The funny thing is that I'm competent and I know I'm competent. I've handled gusty crosswinds. But I still don't like them. And I do like the comfort of being near an airport. I need to push myself. What I should have done yesterday is bag the flight in the 150 and taken the 180 up. (I have 250 hours in Cherokees and 1.3 in the 150)
2. I clearly need to learn more about whether (and this was wind sheer yesterday, you could see right through it!). I really appreciated the comments on wind shear and light aircraft, and weather in general. I will be going over those comments and doing more to learn about the things some of you have mentioned.
3. I love flying. Aviation is such a fantastic community, with perfect strangers willig to share their knowledge with others.
Thanks again, everyone.
A few initial thoughts:
1. 100 of the same hour? Honestly, this is an issue for me. Put of 250 hours I've probably got 80'ish cross-country, 40-50 under the hood and a couple OF hours IMC. But I'm more comfortable near and airport, and preferably my home field, which has a runway the size of JFK. I need to address this. The funny thing is that I'm competent and I know I'm competent. I've handled gusty crosswinds. But I still don't like them. And I do like the comfort of being near an airport. I need to push myself. What I should have done yesterday is bag the flight in the 150 and taken the 180 up. (I have 250 hours in Cherokees and 1.3 in the 150)
2. I clearly need to learn more about whether (and this was wind sheer yesterday, you could see right through it!). I really appreciated the comments on wind shear and light aircraft, and weather in general. I will be going over those comments and doing more to learn about the things some of you have mentioned.
3. I love flying. Aviation is such a fantastic community, with perfect strangers willig to share their knowledge with others.
Thanks again, everyone.
Tim Taylor
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 38
- Display Name
Display name:
Toolman
Normally, if I am asking myself the question of "should I bag this flight?" the answer is yes.
If there is enough of a concern to raise the question, there is either a misunderstanding of the conditions or a reason for concern.
If there is enough of a concern to raise the question, there is either a misunderstanding of the conditions or a reason for concern.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Yes, I use that same rule (called the conservative response rule by some instructors.)
Challenged
Pattern Altitude
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I hear this reasoning and don't understand it. It seems to me that the person is replacing a thoughtful process of identifying risk and using risk management with a subjective feeling - and possibly even a superstition.
"Misunderstanding" is just a lack of knowledge and can be converted to understanding by acquiring more information. And in my opinion it's rare (and dangerous) to approach any flight with "NO reason for concern", so as a simple determinant of go/no-go it seems to me to be useless, or at least over-cautious.
Perhaps someone can clarify the strategy for me? I don't argue with being cautious, but I don't understand this method of risk management.
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
I think what people are saying is that if you are faced with an unfamiliar situation that falls outside of your comfort zone, then you should elect to not go. The counter-argument is that you will never learn anything if you always stay inside your comfort zone.
Timbeck2
Final Approach
danhagan
En-Route
You did right ... no second guessing Ryan. Check forecast compared to actual on cancelled flights and you'll find you have a pretty good sense as far as when not to fly ...
I've taken off and had HUGE benign wind shear that didn't even cause much mechanical TB and rode a 50 knot tailwind to SanAntonio with occasional light chop ... also had the reverse when it was supposed to be calm, forcing me to drop passengers at the Class C airport and continue the last 15 miles to my field around the mountain solo ... that was a real rodeo ride ...
Bobanna
Pre-takeoff checklist
The difference is who is choosing the "situation" and the amount of peril associated with it. How dare you compare a "high-performance/ tailwheel
I have no moral or professional obligation to instruct any student in conditions that exceed his/her competence. I try to teach good judgement that doesn't demand superior airmanship to maintain safety. That is my experience and leading credential. How many CFIs do you think have 500 hrs? 1000? Simply imputing that the CFI certificate is a guarantee of a safe outcome may or may not be nonsense; that is mt point. Good ADM demands evaluation of the total environment and its impact on the safety of the flight. Where do we disagree?
'
Bearing in mind, I've never flown anything lighter than a 172 and may not be aware of how limited a 150 is...
High winds aloft to me are a comfort and travel time issue not a safety issue. I've flown in high winds aloft and had very smooth flights before, although down low does imply rougher air than up high. I pretty much ignore turbulence airmets as well- I've found them to be a poor predictor of turbulence. The only thing that would give me pause safety wise is the wind shear just because it's not something I've personally got experience with. I would consult the CFI who I hope to be smarter than I am for that part...
But then there is the comfort issue and how much a rough flight will interfere with the goal of a checkout. That's a more subjective thing I can't really answer for someone else. I think if you have no pressing need and you think it will be just as easy to go another day and be more comfy and have more fun then that's fine too. I am an advocate of going up in rough or difficult conditions with a CFI for certain things like say crosswind practice so you can push your limits with an instructor watching over you and learn what you are comfortable handling.
High winds aloft to me are a comfort and travel time issue not a safety issue. I've flown in high winds aloft and had very smooth flights before, although down low does imply rougher air than up high. I pretty much ignore turbulence airmets as well- I've found them to be a poor predictor of turbulence. The only thing that would give me pause safety wise is the wind shear just because it's not something I've personally got experience with. I would consult the CFI who I hope to be smarter than I am for that part...
But then there is the comfort issue and how much a rough flight will interfere with the goal of a checkout. That's a more subjective thing I can't really answer for someone else. I think if you have no pressing need and you think it will be just as easy to go another day and be more comfy and have more fun then that's fine too. I am an advocate of going up in rough or difficult conditions with a CFI for certain things like say crosswind practice so you can push your limits with an instructor watching over you and learn what you are comfortable handling.
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
What?? This makes no sense to me. I have pilots who come to me specifically to gain exposure in conditions that they feel are beyond their own personal limits, such as cross winds, IMC etc.. as long as it is within my own personal limits. Isn't that what a CFI's job is?? I consider this good judgement for recognizing their deficits and coming to a CFI rather than take chances on their own. We should be promoting this behavior, not admonishing it. And what is this thing about letting every examiner know about your reservations? If you have a safety concern, you can file a report with the FSDO. Bad mouthing to every examiner you know sounds pretty awful.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hmm, with that attitude you mustn't take any students, which is certainly your perogative. For my ir training we flew in a lot of weather that at the time I would not have flown. My cfii was the arbitrator of my safety, his minimums were much lower than mine and he was comfortable in weather I would have never flown in at the time. He wanted me to make the call and give my reasoning for every flight. There were days where I would say today is a no go for me, what do you think. After a while we got on the same page as I figured his mins for a lesson and I was pretty much 100 percent in my picks of go and no go. Before I started my ir I came back from a hiatus and needed training, that instructor took me up on a few mvfr days, so I could have experience with those conditions because forecasts can be inaccurate around here, I learned a lot from him too.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I fly in this kind of stuff more than most because we often "need" to fly in severe clear conditions for some of our photos, and yes, I fly a 150 regularly. It's not always comfortable, but if it's reasonable down low for landing, I would not avoid it. The prettiest of photo days are often like this...
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Two sides to this coin. Yes, I like to see students learning from more capable pilots, and I'm typically one that will try to expand the student's envelope of "known" conditions, but if I was taking the job as a insurance evaluation flight vs. a student wanting to learn, then yes, the student's judgment should be on the table. If the OP wants to learn something, but demonstrate reasonable proficiency, that would be a discussion between him and his CFI and if the CFI was comfortable with the attitude, I'd say go for the flight and demonstrate the best judgment you can and see if the CFI can help you know more about the plane's capabilities.
Yeah, one thing my instructor taught me is never second guess a no-go, even if the weather turned out perfect. It's never the wrong choice.
Grum.Man
En-Route
Took the 150 up last night. Winds on the ground were calm to 6 knots, at 3000 ft they were 43 knots. It was a roller coaster ride for sure but easily doable. You get shaken up pretty good but no sustained down drafts to be concerned with.
As an aside, isn't the this your only real job as an instructor? If you never taught a student outside a situation in which they were already competent they wouldn't really get much out of it. "Conditions" in this case being weather, but also skills, like, say, landing an airplane on a short field.
Another aside regarding the instructor bit: I know instructors who go too far (IMHO) in pushing a students' limits. Like taking a primary student on a cross-country, finding a solid layer from 2,000 to 4,000, and going over the top of that to their destination 50 nm away, where it was clear. It turned out fine, but I personally think telling a student with 20 hours that doing something like that is okay because it worked out is really dangerous, given that the student at that point doesn't have the knowledge to understand all the safety factors involved on a flight like that.
To get back to the original question, this older video gives a good idea of what non-convective low-level wind shear (LLWS) is all about - and why it is not dangerous, unlike its convective cousin:
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
That can go both ways. It can also be a good opportunity to teach the real scenario that weather at the destination may be the same as the weather you are overflying. It doesn't have to actually be that way, but enroute the instructor can give the scenario that they are now right over the airport and that the cloud layer is solid undercast for hundreds of miles. What do you do now??????
A well prepared instructor could introduce the student to the value of the instrument rating and demonstrate why it's need in that situation, while emphasizing that flying VFR over the top can be a VERY bad idea for the VFR-only pilot. But I agree with others that an instructor needs to be willing to back up a student in areas where the student is not fully competent. After all, that starts with lesson #1 with a student who has never touched the controls and transitions through skill sets on the way to the check ride.
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Agreed. That is poor instructional strategy. It is different case when a qualified pilot comes to a CFI seeking flight experience in conditions that he currently doesn't feel comfortable in. Your original question was somewhat different in the sense that it was a checkout flight. However, nearly every checkout flight I have done was also an instructional flight. I log it as dual. Why not learn something new when you are paying for a CFI?
Bill Greenwood
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 302
- Display Name
Display name:
Bill Greenwood
I live at 8000 ft. If I knew wind was 35 knots at 10,000 I would probably not fly especially in a small Cessna. Now I live in the middle of 12 and even 14,000 ft mountains. it ,may be different in Florida or Kansas. I would also check pireps with FSS to see what pilots were experiencing and maybe even go the FBO and ask any who have just landed.
danhagan
En-Route
My CFI years ago believed this, and the more hours you had, the later in the day you had to fly (i.e. the new guys got all the morning flights and as you neared PPL, you got the mid afternoon west Texas summer 105* windy days
).CFI said he wanted me to experience high wind, heavy mechanical TB and downdrafts on takeoff with him on board rather than figuring it out after PPL on my own ... I tell him how helpful that was and that things got easier after 150 hours.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Once I figured out how to land, my first instructor would have me land on the crosswind runway all the time. I hated that at first.
Crashnburn
Pattern Altitude
Yeah, there's the old saw about "It's better to be on the ground wanting to be up there, than to be up there, and wanting to be on the ground."
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
I've considered doing this as an exercise with students, but I have reservations. If something goes wrong even, if it has nothing to do with wind, the accident report will begin with "pilot elected to land on cross wind runway even though a better runway was available".
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
We did it generally on about 10 knot days, direct crosswind, it was a great exercise. As long as you aren't stupid about it I don't see a problem.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
How about, "The instructor intentionally 'turned the engine off' to see if the student could land without an airport"???
The NTSB will understand, but the press won't.