I'm mostly used to being an editor and bringing the best out of knowledge that others have submitted, but this article is something I've completely pulled out of my ass, so I'd appreciate a review. It's born of the "Boiling a Frog" thread. Please feel free to suggest corrections, additions, changes before I promote it. Thanks!

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... fire-smoke

Looks good to me, Zzz. This is the second week with 1/2 mile vis at the house, so it seems apt!

Good. My only critique would be that it's maybe a little long winded? Not that I could do better.

gbflyer wrote:Good. My only critique would be that it's maybe a little long winded? Not that I could do better.

I'm a windbag so it comes with the territory... But do you mean there's too much hashing on the same topic? Or the sentences are too long?

My experience flying in smoke is actually pretty limited, but I have observed and learned some things. My question is: Will this article actually help anyone? Or is it just obvious stuff?

Change log:

09.07.2017 - Added resources section
08.16.2017 - Initial format article

.

.

I can't offer any editing suggestions--if it's too long winded, I wouldn't know, as I tend to do that, too--this post will probably prove that.

As for its usefulness to others, yes, it should be, especially to VFR-only pilots or those with relatively limited/rusty instrument skills or flying airplanes that aren't IFR equipped.

Like many, I've curtailed my flying a bit due to smoke, though we certainly don't have the issues on Colorado's Front Range that you out in the PNW have. On Labor Day morning, I checked local airports and found that the vis was only about 1/2 a mile. But it improved throughout the morning, and by 2:30, both GXY and FNL AWOSs were saying 4 miles. So I decided to go up, with no plans to go anywhere--a little landing practice wouldn't hurt.

Guesstimating visibility while on the ground is pretty hard to do, at least for me, unless I can compare it to some obstacle or terrain feature a known distance away. So I wasn't really sure of the visibility until I was in the air. GXY's 35 is 10,000' long. As I climbed through about 4-500' with about 8000' of the runway ahead of me, I could see past the end of the runway, but 2 1/2 miles past? I didn't think so. I turned crosswind after passing the end of the runway, and looking back toward the approach end of 35, I could just see the highway that is south of the airport--my assessment was that vis was 3 miles, not 4 miles. Other than the runway beside me and the hangars and ANG base at the south end, there wasn't much to see--the town was invisible, the mountains to the west were invisible, there was no horizon. I sure wasn't going to fly anywhere, without filing.

Meanwhile the wind increased and changed direction so that it was quartering off the runway, and it became very gusty. Sure, I can handle that, but the fun went out of it, so I decided to call it a day after only 2 landings. These days I fly for fun, not to prove anything.

As I put the airplane away, I realized that I was breathing pretty hard, and my eyes were very uncomfortable. There's no reason for me to be breathing hard under normal situations, as the electric tug does all the work--I just have to guide it. When I looked in the car's mirror, my eyes looked like they felt. I didn't think to check my pulse-ox; now I wish I had, just to see what the smoke was doing to that.

Overall, I'd have to say that flying in the smoky conditions of Monday wasn't pleasant. My best guess is that a VFR pilot would have found it even more unpleasant, even dangerous. There wasn't any visible horizon any direction, and outside of the airport environment, it would have been difficult to find recognizable checkpoints--electronic navigation would have been necessary. Out of years of habit, I scan the instruments whether it's VMC or IMC and I'm instrument current, so the lack of a horizon wasn't a problem for me. I wasn't going anywhere; if I'd wanted to, I would have filed.

So your article has a lot of merit, especially for VFR-only pilots and those whose airplanes are only VFR.

Cary

I'm located about 90-miles north of the arctic circle. I flew home (north) from my camp two weeks ago, 110-miles through some heavy smoke from BC wild fires. It was bad. I could get reasonable horizontal vis if I was down around 100-feet AGL, any higher and the "slant visibility" went to about half a mile. The higher I went, the greater the downward viewing angle to see the ground.

"It looks okay" when you're on the ground looking horizontally but that's deceiving.

It was good Zane. All true.

Since I fly for fun, and 1-2 miles in smoke is not fun, I'm saving a ton of money on airplane gas. I'm going out to was the ash off my truck and go bowling with some friends.

Cheers...Rob

Consider that smokey areas, when entered from clear air, will be hazy at the outskirts and gradually worsen at an unknown rate, and often at ann unknown directional vector.

Good stuff Z. I noticed one typo in the sentence above in your Closing Remarks. "... and often at ann unknown....

glacier wrote:ok, read the article.

No, not obvious stuff, yes it can help people.

I thought it a bit wordy too, but it'd be hard to change that because of the style (which is good). Maybe a few bullets at the start with the take home points could help those with limited attention spans or who may just want the tips without the story.

That is helpful, thank you.

I added a paragraph in the Low Visibility Flying section about slowing down when it gets hairy and decisions need to be made. I think CAVU suggested that.

I'll add some topical bullet points in the intro paragraph.

SkySteve wrote:Good stuff Z. I noticed one typo in the sentence above in your Closing Remarks. "... and often at ann unknown....

Good eye. Fixed.

I have flown in smoke that was not too bad. Had a god horizon so no prob. If slowly degraded and after what seems like a long time I was hard IFR could not see the ground or the sky. I was able to climb above it. Bad thing about smoke is it just creeps up on you.

Now as far as the frog goes. At age 11 is when I heard the boiling frog story. It was in church and had something to getting used to sin ever so slowly. Well at the first opportunity I tried to boil a live frog. As the water warmed up I think he enjoyed the experience. After a while he jumped right out of the pot. Maybe there was a Darwin effect here as all the dumb frogs had already been boiled to death.

Tim

qmdv wrote: I tried to boil a live frog. As the water warmed up I think he enjoyed the experience. After a while he jumped right out of the pot.

I LOL'd. I never thought to actually try it. I wonder who did to get that parable.

Zzz wrote:

qmdv wrote: I tried to boil a live frog. As the water warmed up I think he enjoyed the experience. After a while he jumped right out of the pot.

I LOL'd. I never thought to actually try it. I wonder who did to get that parable.

Well I was only 11 and had an inquiring mind. Only tried it once so I never actually thought that I was a frog boiling expert. But to this day when in situation as church, politics, college or any other place somebody roles out the boiled frog story I always ask if they ever tried boiling a frog. Never have met anybody that tells the story as if they are experts that has actually tried it.


Tim

Looks good Zane.

Here are some resources, including a fantastic smoke forecast model:

Alaska Air Quality Predictive Services: https://fire.ak.blm.gov/predsvcs/airquality.php

USFS Smoke Forecast Models: https://www.airfire.org/data/bluesky-daily/

We're still pretty smokey here, but it looks like heavy humidty:

Prosaria wrote:Looks good Zane.

Here are some resources, including a fantastic smoke forecast model:

Alaska Air Quality Predictive Services: https://fire.ak.blm.gov/predsvcs/airquality.php

USFS Smoke Forecast Models: https://www.airfire.org/data/bluesky-daily/

Great finds! Added to resources section of article.

Zane,

Some good thoughts in your article. I would add another point. When one finds him or herself in smoke, and as that smoke thickens, there is often temptation to climb, intending to "top out" of the smoke and cruise along in clear air. After all, you can look out the top of your windscreen, and clearly see that inviting blue sky above. Surely it's not much higher, right?

I've gone for that bait on more than one occasion. In one case, I did wind up on top....at 12,500 feet. Terrain heights in the area ran between 500 and 1000 feet.

In a few other cases, I got to oxygen altitudes with absolutely no lessening of the density of the smoke. And, to complicate matters, I could no longer see the ground at all.....so true IMC.....all while trying to reach that very inviting blue sky above, which turned out to be just a little higher. No matter how high I flew. It's an interesting optical illusion.

Next time you're flying in smoke, look up.....you'll be convinced the top of the stuff is "right there".

MTV

+1

mtv wrote:Zane,

Some good thoughts in your article. I would add another point. When one finds him or herself in smoke, and as that smoke thickens, there is often temptation to climb, intending to "top out" of the smoke and cruise along in clear air. After all, you can look out the top of your windscreen, and clearly see that inviting blue sky above. Surely it's not much higher, right?

I've gone for that bait on more than one occasion. In one case, I did wind up on top....at 12,500 feet. Terrain heights in the area ran between 500 and 1000 feet.

In a few other cases, I got to oxygen altitudes with absolutely no lessening of the density of the smoke. And, to complicate matters, I could no longer see the ground at all.....so true IMC.....all while trying to reach that very inviting blue sky above, which turned out to be just a little higher. No matter how high I flew. It's an interesting optical illusion.

Next time you're flying in smoke, look up.....you'll be convinced the top of the stuff is "right there".

MTV

mtv wrote:Zane,

Some good thoughts in your article. I would add another point. When one finds him or herself in smoke, and as that smoke thickens, there is often temptation to climb, intending to "top out" of the smoke and cruise along in clear air. After all, you can look out the top of your windscreen, and clearly see that inviting blue sky above. Surely it's not much higher, right?

I've gone for that bait on more than one occasion. In one case, I did wind up on top....at 12,500 feet. Terrain heights in the area ran between 500 and 1000 feet.

In a few other cases, I got to oxygen altitudes with absolutely no lessening of the density of the smoke. And, to complicate matters, I could no longer see the ground at all.....so true IMC.....all while trying to reach that very inviting blue sky above, which turned out to be just a little higher. No matter how high I flew. It's an interesting optical illusion.

Next time you're flying in smoke, look up.....you'll be convinced the top of the stuff is "right there".

MTV

Excellent point. I did almost the same thing once. Happened to look down and see the ground looking a little grainy and I wasn't above the smoke yet. Came right back down and had to get a special VFR arrival into the PAFA class D.

It's deceptive, to be sure.