Video: Twotter in the snow!!

[mhimhi 5]

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=MUV326GQD8U&fmt=22

[ManuelL 71]

Fantastic video!

I just ordered those sceneries - will be a nice playground for my Twotter.

[Shaun Fletcher 571]

Yes very nice video.

[FSXaddict 18]

Very nice Poppa! As always!

[JamesChams 108]

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=MUV326GQD8U&fmt=22

Mr. mhimhi,

Very well done;

except for a C-152 (or C-172) TOF/flying in falling snow (they're just not Anti-icing equiped ) and no Civil Authority would ever permit operations off a runway covered in several inch's of snow, everything else looked very realistic and the overall video was of a multi-million dollar "Hollywood" quality movie. Bravo! You should post it in the Video Forum.

PS: What is that Scenery Package and is it one of Aerosoft's?

Thank you and I look forward to more...

[carthorse 0]

no Civil Authority would ever permit operations off a runway covered in several inch's of snow

Not necesarily true...I fly commercially into snow as deep as 1 ft with wheels in a cessna 206. The FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless you crash.

Very nice video!

[ManuelL 71]

PS: What is that Scenery Package and is it one of Aerosoft's?

The French altiports from LLH.

[JamesChams 108]

Mr. carthorse,

BUT, C-152's are NOT equipped with anti-icing, BOOTS (Wing de-ice equipment), or any other features (except Pitot Heat) ... So, NOT in a 152; but, maybe in a 206.

Not necesarily true...I fly commercially into snow as deep as 1 ft with wheels in a cessna 206. The FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless you crash...

LEGALLY (for an Airport to be FULL PART 139 Certified), doesn't the runway have to be clear of Snow/Ice under regulations (FAR/AIM) for Part 119, 121, or 135 operations (All types of Commercial operations) carrier to conduct operations? If 1ft of snow was on the runway surface they would ground (halt) all operations at an civil authority airport till the surfaces were plowed. Aircraft Tires are NOT designed to handle that; ski's would have to be added. So, your statement above, is what we offically call in the industry - "Bull Sh@%!"

No offense; but only the Military organisations seem to break those rules because they are equipped and legally able to do so.

PS: Mr. ManuelL thanks for the Scenery Info. Is it ONLY for FS9 or is there an FSX Version?

Love the video though!

[ManuelL 71]

Is it ONLY for FS9 or is there an FSX Version?

It is FSX, there are 3 payware altiports and 2 freeware airports nearby. There are also patches to make them compatible with VFR France Nord. I have two versions of the airports installed the standard one to use with UTX (winter mainly) and the patched one to use with VFR France (you will get both) - this way I can choose in the scenery library if I want to fly with photoscenery or UTX.

[Cris B. 120]

The operations continue at Tungubakkar Iceland every day regardless of the weather or the amount of snow on the runway!

@mhimhi, nice video!

[JamesChams 108]

It is FSX, there are 3 payware altiports and 2 freeware airports nearby. There are also patches to make them compatible with VFR France Nord. I have two versions of the airports installed the standard one to use with UTX (winter mainly) and the patched one to use with VFR France (you will get both) - this way I can choose in the scenery library if I want to fly with photoscenery or UTX.

Thank you Mr. ManuelL!

The operations continue at Tungubakkar Iceland every day regardless of the weather or the amount of snow on the runway!

@mhimhi, nice video!

That's NOT a Paved "RUNWAY" or at a civil authority airport (in above YouTube Video). It's no different then a grass strip on farm field (CLASS G) and then no-one cares if its your own aircraft. But for Civil transportation PART 119, 121, 135 (commercial) operations you CANNOT do that; You should know that Cris B.

PS: C-170 ; weren't we talking about a C-152?

[Cris B. 120]

PS: C-170 ; weren't we talking about a C-152?

James you’re correct we are talking about a 150-152, my bad...

I wouldn’t recommend trying a takeoff like that with a tricycle geared aircraft without skis!

[mhimhi 5]

Thanks to all!!!!!!!

In effect this take off is dangerous, but on fsx we are all brave!!!!!

Yes, this is an llh scenery, and there isn't a clear runaway: or summer or full of snow!!!

Now, i'm waiting for catalina, i need to make a Cat video!!

Thans to all, whit your nice comment!! ;) ;) ;) ;)

[carthorse 0]

Mr. carthorse,

BUT, C-152's are NOT equipped with anti-icing, BOOTS (Wing de-ice equipment), or any other features (except Pitot Heat) ... So, NOT in a 152; but, maybe in a 206.

The C-206 doesn't have any anti-icing either. It's really just an issue of how "sticky" the snow is and how much horsepower your aircraft has to overcome the additional friction. YOu're right that a C-152 wouldn't be the plane of choice with much snow...it would have to be hard packed...or a really long runway.

LEGALLY (for an Airport to be FULL PART 139 Certified), doesn't the runway have to be clear of Snow/Ice under regulations (FAR/AIM) for Part 119, 121, or 135 operations (All types of Commercial operations) carrier to conduct operations? If 1ft of snow was on the runway surface they would ground (halt) all operations at an civil authority airport till the surfaces were plowed. Aircraft Tires are NOT designed to handle that; ski's would have to be added. So, your statement above, is what we offically call in the industry - "Bull Sh@%!"

No offense; but only the Military organisations seem to break those rules because they are equipped and legally able to do so.

As far as legalities go...i'm not really sure. I fly for a part 135 operation that specializes in off airport landings. So most of our landings in these situations are on 4-wheeler trails, tundra, shore ice, gravel bars, frozen rivers, etc... What you're saying may be true for airport certification, but i've even seen certified airports stay open with over 6" of snow on the runway. They just issued a notam and that was it...no closures. I was flying a cessna 172...it handled the 10" of snow just fine (it was very powdery). The FARs don't seem to be different for Alaska than anywhere else, but as i said before, i think if you have an incident or an Accident they will say "What were you doing flying in those conditions?!"

Cheers

[carthorse 0]

Here's an example. This picture was taken at Bold Airstrip (a13), near anchorage, alaska. This is a cessna 172 with 160 hp lycoming. The main tires are 10.50 x 6. The nose wheel is an 8.50 x 6. The snow was about 4 to 6" and a bit sticky. The runway is 1100ft long. I was carrying 2 people and full fuel.

[JamesChams 108]

Here's an example. This picture was taken at Bold Airstrip (a13), near anchorage, alaska. This is a cessna 172 with 160 hp lycoming. The main tires are 10.50 x 6. The nose wheel is an 8.50 x 6. The snow was about 4 to 6" and a bit sticky. The runway is 1100ft long. I was carrying 2 people and full fuel....

Mr. carthorse,

You can fly your buddies (but NOT commercially; certainly NOT legally) under snowing/icing conditions in a C-172 which is NOT safe or recommended eitherway; but, in Alaska that might be the norm. Moreover, that's NOT the tire spec.'s of the everyday/average C-172 that everyone goes out and buy's/fly's - those tires are designed for traction on the snow and probably unpaved surfaces (which is what you'll obviously use it for). But you wouldn't be wise flying (your C-172) into current snowing conditions with the potential of ice forming on your NON-Anti-Icing Equiped aircraft and do it under PART 135; The FAA would come for your license and that of your FBO's, wheather or not you had an incident because of safety and legality issues for passengers; Right? (Also, who ever insured your FBO & its aircraft wouldn't be too happy about doing it for much longer, knowing that you'll might be walking "that line" too closely).

So, practically you might be getting away with it but, eventually, those choices will catch up to you; "The FAR/AIM is written in Blood" - someone paid for each and every law in it with their deaths.

I'm sure your a very capable pilot; Fly Safe!

[carthorse 0]

Thanks for the reply James,

You are correct, this c172 has been outfitted with modifications that make this sort of operation safer. about 4 years ago, a cessna 172 ended up in the drink 100 yards off shore from this situation. I did not want to repeat that. This flight was part 91. But most of the off airport flying i'm involved with is Commercial. In alaska, the FAA doesn't assess risk for you. There is simply too much of it going on for them to police. They do however, study the "spilled blood" very carefully and try to educate the pilots as to the risks.

I in no way want to advocate high risk flying...or try to say that landing in snow on wheels is safe...it takes a lot of skill and some luck to make sure you know what you are actually landing on before it's too late. Off airport flying is definately risky. THey say it's not "if" but "when" you have an accident. All 3 aircraft I fly commercially off-airport have already been totalled once doing what i'm asked to do at work.

But you wouldn't be wise flying (your C-172) into current snowing conditions with the potential of ice forming on your NON-Anti-Icing Equiped aircraft and do it under PART 135;

I don't expect many to understand what it is like flying in Alaska. There is an age old debate about what constitues "Known Icing". For years pilots have been getting away with saying "it's not known icing until you know you're getting some ice". The rumor is the FAA is adopting a policy that defines known icing by conditions that COULD produce icing. I've flown in a lot of clouds that SHOULD have produced icing and they didn't. But i've also picked up ice where the textbooks said i couldn't. In Alaska, it is difficult to be a commercial operator and not pick up ice. I guarantee you that pilots everywhere in alaska are flying in IFR conditions picking up Ice year round. I'm not saying this is safe or that it is adviseable, but let me at least say this: Just because you are picking up ice, doesn't mean you are in grave danger. Icing has many characteristics that can be pre-determined. The behavior of icing can often be determined. An experienced pilot knows that he can't alwasy predict icing's behavoir and would/should not proceed unless he has several different plans of escape that he can easily execute. Even if this is true, it still has killed a good share of pilots. But interesting enough, most pilots in alaska are killed trying to fly under the weather. They find themselves in low light situations where they impact terrain without even knowing what hit them. My position is this: An IFR flight is safer than a vfr flight in any weather conditions. If you start high, you execute more alternate plans than if you start low (even if low is legal, it's not always the safest, i'd rather encounter ice than scud run through a flat light situation).

The FAA would come for your license and that of your FBO's, wheather or not you had an incident because of safety and legality issues for passengers; Right? (Also, who ever insured your FBO & its aircraft wouldn't be too happy about doing it for much longer, knowing that you'll might be walking "that line" too closely).

The FAA is overworked. They don't have time to police everyone. They do their best and there are a bunch of good guys in Alaska doing their honest best to ensure safety. Some of them have done their time as commercial pilots and they know what is reasonable to ask of a pilot/company.

As for the insurance companies...they know very well what kind of flying Alaskan companies are engaging in. They have statistics that go back years and years to ensure they make money at the end of the day.

Sorry for the long post, but it is an interesting topic to me.

JP

[Snave 466]

Why would the FAA even care..? The video clearly indicates an aircraft operating into an altiport in Europe.

Last time I Looked France was not overseen by the FAA, unless the USA has invaded yet another country unnecessarily..?

And I wonder how many 150/152's are operated under Part 135..?