Missed on Memorial Day weekend

We scheduled a flight up to Hamilton, NY (H30) for the long weekend in N2871R. The weather was warm and moist, and the circulation and instability caused by low pressure descending eastward out of the Great Lakes made the weather analysis complex. However, the satellite showed that the sky cover was mostly broken across all of PA with a few complexes of heavy and severe precip. I decided to delay the flight to let the afternoon convection die down.

The number one rule for safe IFR in areas of thunderstorms is to stay visual with and avoid the weather. Closer to departure time, a narrow complex of thunderstorms stretched from Latrobe past Harrisburg moving east with a large area of convective activity east of Pittsburgh. Our route of flight was over Harrisburg, and the second rule for safe thunderstorm avoidance is to avoid flights cross/through lines of activity. If that is the plan, see rule one above.

We received our clearance out of Leesburg which was immediate right turn off runway 17, direct STILL, radar vectors MRB, HGR v377 HAR and on up through PA, passing over Selinsgove and Williamsport, then up over Binghamton and then destination.

Climbing out of Leesburg just after 8pm we were quickly on our way to HGR; P-40 was expanded, so we got the western routing, but it wasn't too bad. Closer to HGR, we were turned to SCAPE on v377, and then direct HAR. We checked in with HAR approach, and advised we could use some help with the weather. Harrisburg concurred and said that closer to HAR they would probably have to route us east.

It wasn't long after that when HAR recommended a deviation left of course to avoid activity west of victor airway 31. When I asked about direct SEG, we were told that the line of
weather was currently there as well. We could see the weather off our right wing and continued northbound toward clear skies. The late evening sun was still illuminating faint strands of high cirrus ahead - a sign that large weather complexes were not on our route of flight. So far so good.

As we neared Williamsport, the weather to our east was headed away and the light show we got near Selinsgrove came to an end. I asked NY center for a frequency change to talk to Flight Service. I got two responses to the call (Competition at the FSS. ;) ) The weather at IPT was reporting in as 1SM visibility, but from altitude it looked much better than that - the weather from flight service was a few minutes old. Syracuse weather was still overcast at 4000.

As the darkness prevailed, the visibility was decreasing and the gloomy view ahead suggested that we would soon be entering some weather. Binghamton airports started going in and out of view, and the lights below disappeared. IMC. Binghamton approach soon handed us off to Syracuse, and we got ready to shoot the GPS-A into Hamilton (H30).

The approach controller reported twice that moderate precipitation had enveloped the approach area, and I knew pretty well that it was just rain- there was nary a bump since we entered the weather. The rain got very heavy as we descended down to 5000, but did not last long. We crossed the VOR at about 4000 on a descent down to cross hutch at 3500. I stayed higher and then started the descent for the airport. As we got down to 2300' I looked for the airport lights I had turned on. They were already directly below us and I could see ragged looking clouds surrounding the airport.

Knowing that I needed greater than 2SM visibility, not able to determine whether or not I could keep a visual on the airport, and the town lights shrouded in haze to the south, it was an easy decision to avoid the sucker approach and power up for the missed approach. We turned back for HUTCH and called Syracuse approach. When queried for intentions, it was time to head for Syracuse.

We were told to expect the ILS 28, vectors through the approach course for the sequence. Ok. The airplane ahead of us reported ceilings at 850 feet. I picked up the lights at about 900' and the runway at about 800 feet, the ALFS-2 approach lights bright and welcoming. The water covered runway shimmered below and we continued the approach. I can honestly say that it was my best landing ever - there was no thud, whatsoever.

We taxied down to Landmark at about 11 and were glad to see they were still open. Since the rental car companies were well closed, the FBO lent us the crew car overnight and we headed back to Hamilton... through the foggy woods to gram's house.

I got up the next morning to return the crew car promptly and ferry the plane back to Hamilton. I spent the morning working on the airplane, adding oil and gas, and generally getting it re-organized. The slight slant of the ramp had allowed the fuel to migrate to the downhill tank, but that was easily corrected.

The weather finally lifted at about 1 and I logged the GPS-A approach again with the airport coming into view this time in good visibility. I cancelled IFR in the air. Marybeth and the kids were at the park about 1 mile or so from the airport and heard me fly in, so they came over and picked me up. We fueled and secured the aircraft. As we did, the skies cleared from overcast to scattered cumulus.

Hastening their own end

The controversy during the past year or so about the Aviation Trust Fund and the implementation of user fees instead of airline ticket taxes continues to expand. The consequences of this are profound, and in a nutshell, if the proposal by the FAA is adopted, it will lead to the demise of the Air Traffic Control System.

The immediate consequences for general aviation will be diminished safety. Some other consequences, good and bad:

1) The number of GA VFR flights will increase, the number of IFR flights will decrease
2) The economic barriers to entry for ADS-B and other technologies that support in-situ (in cockpit) flight safety will come down.
3) Class E airports will increase in value
4) Congestion at larger airports will become worse to the point where VFR entry will be denied (the airlines will gain a foot hold over their GA competitors to service larger airports exclusively - in some cases this is true already.)

Eventually, GA flight operations will minimize their use of ATC in the NAS. The airlines will be paying less for the system. A gap will develop and there will be funding shortfalls - shortfalls that do not exist today. The airlines will resist any increase to the fees, and lobby for down-sizing the ATC system in favor of technology in the airliner that can provide the same level of safety for the flying public as the ATC system, possibly as proven by GA (true or not, that could be one argument).

On the surface, this would appear to be a pretty good result. Unfortunately, aviation safety is extremely complex. The agenda of the airlines is not safety, it is short-term profitability. They do not foresee the impacts on flight safety that this will have - they just don't see it on the radar as an issue for them. But that is where they are wrong, because the overall incredible level of safety we enjoy today will be lost, perhaps irreparably, and the impact that will have on profitability will be even more significant.