very long XC advice

[TXaviator]

ok so i have like 15+ hrs to make up at the end of 323.

have a friend to visit in traverse city MI (KTVC)

some quick planning gets me there in about 5.5 hrs (plus time spent refueling at KASX).

i have heard/known other students go to kansas city, chicago, etc, which are similar distances.

whats the best way to approach dispatch to get this to happen (in a warrior)?

any tips? #was going to try and go saturday-sunday.....


as
da
sda
sdas
.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }

[stuckingfk]

I'm not sure if they'll let you cross Lake Michigan. I've flown to TVC before and it's definitely a cool place, but it was done in a turbine aircraft.

I'd recommend anywhere in Wisconsin, or Chicago would be nice also. There isn't many cool places within a short distance from GFK.

[XcalibeR]

I flew a warrior GFK-MHK-STP-GFK over spring break last year. If you want to go somewhere long/overnight like that, your best bet would be to talk to your lead or course manager (Josh Debevec or Jeff Palmer for 323). They'll be able to fill you in on all the details. Most likely, you'll have to talk to Leo too to make sure there's a plane available.

[taildragger173]

Talk to Leo.

[airplanerik]

Definitely hit up TVC if you can. I flew a 150 in there this summer, good times. I don't think they'll let you cross Lake Michigan, but you could always fly there via the U.P. I planned a cross country down to Chicago once, so it is definitely doable, you just gotta find the right people...and get it approved and stuff.

[UAL747400]

If you still have some time to make up after you do that long XC, I highly recommend heading over to Sky Harbor airport in Duluth(however you spell it). Very cool place as well.

[JaceTheAce]

Sorry, UND Bubble® won't let you.

[Screaming_Emu]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

as
da
sda
sdas
.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }

See, that's exactly what I was saying...but nobody would listen!

[Snickersnwa]

Originally Posted by UAL747400

If you still have some time to make up after you do that long XC, I highly recommend heading over to Sky Harbor airport in Duluth(however you spell it). Very cool place as well.

Last I heard that airport is notam’d closed during night hours, but UND’ers are still flying there during the day with prior approval.

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by airplanerik

Definitely hit up TVC if you can. I flew a 150 in there this summer, good times. I don't think they'll let you cross Lake Michigan, but you could always fly there via the U.P. I planned a cross country down to Chicago once, so it is definitely doable, you just gotta find the right people...and get it approved and stuff.

yeah this advice lines up with what i am hearing. good stuff.

going to try and track down the course lead and go through them first, then leo once its all approved (hopefully)

and yes, flying over lake michigan would probably a) not be approved and b) not be wise going out farther than perfect glide distance anyway...

i was planning a little dog-leg up the U.P. then over...

we'll see!

just trying to find something interesting to kill 12+ hours.

[airplanerik]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

yeah this advice lines up with what i am hearing. good stuff.

going to try and track down the course lead and go through them first, then leo once its all approved (hopefully)

and yes, flying over lake michigan would probably a) not be approved and b) not be wise going out farther than perfect glide distance anyway...

i was planning a little dog-leg up the U.P. then over...

we'll see!

just trying to find something interesting to kill 12+ hours.

The thing is, you have to get the entire thing approved the day-of by the manager on duty as well. The more you do to show them you are prepared to make the flight, the better. Plan it out extremely thoroughly... by this I mean doing stuff like print out all of the airport information from AirNav of the places you plan on stopping, buy all the sectionals/afd's (so they can look it all over easily and make sure it has the required mx, rwy length, etc.) I also believe you have to call UND when you reach your destination if you are staying overnight, and call in the morning when you are going to leave so you can be "re-dispatched" from TVC or wherever. It is a lot of hassle, too much in my opinion, but yeah, just talk to the right people and go WAY overboard when planning it all out.

Leo will probably have more trouble with it than anybody. His main concern with me was what would have to be done if something broke on the plane far away from UND. I think he said something like, I would have to pay for a flight instructor to come down there and pick up the broken plane once it was fixed or something.

[XcalibeR]

Originally Posted by airplanerik

The thing is, you have to get the entire thing approved the day-of by the manager on duty as well. The more you do to show them you are prepared to make the flight, the better. Plan it out extremely thoroughly... by this I mean doing stuff like print out all of the airport information from AirNav of the places you plan on stopping, buy all the sectionals/afd's (so they can look it all over easily and make sure it has the required mx, rwy length, etc.) I also believe you have to call UND when you reach your destination if you are staying overnight, and call in the morning when you are going to leave so you can be "re-dispatched" from TVC or wherever. It is a lot of hassle, too much in my opinion, but yeah, just talk to the right people and go WAY overboard when planning it all out.

Leo will probably have more trouble with it than anybody. His main concern with me was what would have to be done if something broke on the plane far away from UND. I think he said something like, I would have to pay for a flight instructor to come down there and pick up the broken plane once it was fixed or something.

Yeah, that was pretty much my experience too. It's a lot of hassle beforehand, but once you get dispatched, it's just fun from there on out

[UAL747400]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

and yes, flying over lake michigan would probably a) not be approved and b) not be wise going out farther than perfect glide distance anyway...

I flew down the shore of lake michigan a couple times around chicago. I was pretty uneasy about it. Mayor daley(dip####), still had the 5 mile radius no-fly thing up around downtown one of the times and I couldn't get high enough and stay out of the class B airspace to feel comfortable that I could glide to shore.

[airplanerik]

Originally Posted by UAL747400

I flew down the shore of lake michigan a couple times around chicago. I was pretty uneasy about it. Mayor daley(dip####), still had the 5 mile radius no-fly thing up around downtown one of the times and I couldn't get high enough and stay out of the class B airspace to feel comfortable that I could glide to shore.

Not that there is really even a place to put a plane down safely along the shore around Chicago... I might actually opt for the water instead of trying to squeeze it into some congested area -- after I heard a story from some guy who ditched in the North Atlantic in a 172, and said was no big deal! He said he would have been perfectly fine, even if he didn't have a seatbelt on... This is completely opposite of what I would have thought a water landing would be like.

[JaceTheAce]

I'm so glad I'm out of that babysitting environment.

[UAL747400]

Originally Posted by airplanerik

Not that there is really even a place to put a plane down safely along the shore around Chicago... I might actually opt for the water instead of trying to squeeze it into some congested area -- after I heard a story from some guy who ditched in the North Atlantic in a 172, and said was no big deal! He said he would have been perfectly fine, even if he didn't have a seatbelt on... This is completely opposite of what I would have thought a water landing would be like.

True enough. I've heard both good and bad about water landings though. Fixed gear airplanes, which is what I was flying, always seem to be the ones in the bad stories.

[Ian J]

Interesting article on that subject by Barry Schiff:

Another subject of controversy is the relative seaworthiness of high-wing versus low-wing airplanes and fixed gear versus retractable gear. Most pilots contend that the ideal airplane for ditching is a low-wing aircraft with landing gear retracted. Statistics, however, do not substantiate this. Aircraft geometry and landing gear configuration do not appear to affect survivability appreciably.


Although low-wing aircraft do offer superior planing and buoyancy (especially with empty fuel tanks), they should not be landed in water with flaps fully extended because this can cause pronounced nose-down pitching and make the aircraft behave like a submarine. Also, flaps hanging from a tow wing may be torn away during touchdown, which might create gaping holes in the wings and have a disastrous effect on buoyancy. Consequently, low-wing airplanes typically land faster, increasing the probability of damage and injury.


Since the flaps of high-wing aircraft are less susceptible to water damage, they should be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce impact speed.


Another significant disadvantage of a low-wing configuration is that it is easier to dig a wingtip into a rolling sea during initial touchdown. This can result in a lethal cartwheel. Also, the ailerons on high-wing airplanes are most effective in maintaining lateral control because they are kept "high and dry" throughout most of the landing rollout.


The Coast Guard does recommend that a ditching be made with the landing gear retracted, but this should not be construed to mean that retractable-gear aircraft are more suitable for ditching than fixed-gear aircraft. Just the opposite may be true. Of the 104 ditchings made in U.S. waters during a recent three-year period, half were made in retractable-gear aircraft, yet these accounted for two-thirds of the fatalities that occurred during splashdown. This apparent paradox, however, does not suggest extending the gear for a ditching. What the statistics probably indicate is that, since retractables generally have higher stall speeds than fixed-gear aircraft, they usually are landed somewhat faster and subjected to greater deceleration forces.


Landing with the gear down can result in violent, destructive impact forces. The wheels should be kept in their wells, particularly when ditching high-performance aircraft. When touching down with a smooth belly, however, the aircraft tends to skip just the way a flat, spinning rock can when tossed toward a deep puddle at an acute angle. This initial touchdown generally is quite mild. But hang on; the second impact is likely to be much more severe, especially as the elevator loses effectiveness (because of airspeed decay) and the nose begins to dig in. Depending on many factors, this may even cause the aircraft to submerge. But, do not fret; it should bob to the surface quickly and provide sufficient time for evacuation before sinking.


Those who have ditched slow, fixed-gear aircraft, however, report that the main gear digging in during initial impact prevents the aircraft from skipping and subsequently striking the water in a stalled, nose-low attitude. The aircraft simply decelerates rapidly with the nose burrowing only slightly. Fixed-gear proponents claim this is safer than risking the secondary, nose-low impact frequently associated with retractables.

Whole article here: http://www.equipped.com/bschiff-ditching.htm

[airplanerik]

Interesting stuff!

[UAL747400]

Very interesting. The articles I've read concerning retractable vs. fixed said pretty much exactly that. The retractables weren't desirable because of their higher landing speeds, and the fixed gear airplanes usually had worse structural damage from the wheels being torn off and subsequently sinking faster.

Never thought of flaps in low wing airplanes before. Makes sense though.

[airplanerik]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

yeah this advice lines up with what i am hearing. good stuff.

going to try and track down the course lead and go through them first, then leo once its all approved (hopefully)

and yes, flying over lake michigan would probably a) not be approved and b) not be wise going out farther than perfect glide distance anyway...

i was planning a little dog-leg up the U.P. then over...

we'll see!

just trying to find something interesting to kill 12+ hours.

So did you end up going?!?!