Airplane missing over lake michigan .

Weekend Warrior said:
An old thread, I know...

Some time ago they found the plane and the passenger, but the pilot has yet to be found.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything on that link about finding either of the occupants?

In any case, that's the sad (and scary) part about these accidents. The ditchings are nearly always survivable unless the pilot really screws up the "landing". They often don't find the occupants because they get out of the plane uninjured and swim for it, and then get hypothermia and die some distance from the plane in a most unpleasant fashion.
 
Recently a Bo went down on the warmer part of the Atlantic (or perhaps the Gulf) don’t recall exactly. Even though they were in warm water the pilot was extremely hypothermic after about 40 minutes. And that was in warm water. Unless you have an immersion suit and a raft, you’ve no chance against Lake Michigan. None at all.

Doesn’t mean I won’t fly over it. I will do what I can to minimize my wet footprint, I’m with Ed. I didn’t start flying airplanes because it was safe.
 
steingar said:
Recently a Bo went down on the warmer part of the Atlantic (or perhaps the Gulf) don’t recall exactly. Even though they were in warm water the pilot was extremely hypothermic after about 40 minutes. And that was in warm water. Unless you have an immersion suit and a raft, you’ve no chance against Lake Michigan. None at all.
Click to expand...

I think you're thinking of the one where they were on camera and the guy was taking video in the ocean, right?

That wasn't very warm either... It was off of Half Moon Bay, CA in the Pacific. In fact, it looks like that area is maybe just a hair colder than Lake Michigan right now. Of course, Lake Michigan is just about at its warmest right now too... In either case, not a place I want to be!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Ditch next to a boat
Click to expand...
Well yeah... but if you're far from either shore when the engine quits and don't have enough altitude, your chances of being able to do that are pretty small.

I usually choose ~10,000 when crossing LM... which MIGHT be high enough to get me close enough to shore to have a good chance of ditching near a boat if my engine quits at the midpoint. Depending on the winds, it might not be.
 
True enough, guys. Just wanted to point out the one possible way out. (it has happened)
Just like looking for a field to land in over land - I am always looking for a ship or watercraft of any size to set down next to in the wild hope it would help.
When I flew the 100 mi across the Gulf of California, there were a few boats within reach.

Oh, if anyone is interested the NOAA has a map showing surface temps of water, I studied it the two times I crossed water single engine; the GofC was usually 72F.
Then you can refer to they hypothermia charts to see how long you have!
 
azure said:
I usually choose ~10,000 when crossing LM... which MIGHT be high enough to get me close enough to shore to have a good chance of ditching near a boat if my engine quits at the midpoint. Depending on the winds, it might not be.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Depends what your glide ratio is and where you cross, but we frequently get GETCH LYSTR SUDDS coming back into Milwaukee, and the lake is 67nm across at that point, so we need to be at about 15,200 at the midpoint to have gliding distance to shore - In the TBM, which has a stellar 14:1 glide ratio. With a more standard GA glide ratio of 9:1, you would need to be at FL232 to have gliding range to shore for the whole crossing.

If you cross MTW-MBL farther north, the lake is "only" 44nm across, and you would "only" need to be at 15,450 feet.

The slippery Mooney has an 11.2:1 glide ratio, so 12,600 will do it MTW-MBL, but down at the lower part of the lake near where I live and fly from, it's FL188... So I don't do it. I either cross farther north (FAH-HIC or MTW-MBL), go down the lakeshore past Chicago before turning east if it's VFR, or take the T265 route around Chicago.
 
steingar said:
Good luck with that. I’ve never seen a boat of any size anywhere near on any of my crossings.
Click to expand...
One saving grace of the "shark route" (over MANTA intersection) is that it is over the ship routes taken in and out of NY Harbor. Most times when you get the IFR route, you'll see ships within ditching range. At 15,000 I calculated my "away from land" glide time to be on the order of 10 minutes. I was willing to take the risk.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Doubtful. Depends what your glide ratio is and where you cross, but we frequently get GETCH LYSTR SUDDS coming back into Milwaukee, and the lake is 67nm across at that point, so we need to be at about 15,200 at the midpoint to have gliding distance to shore - In the TBM, which has a stellar 14:1 glide ratio. With a more standard GA glide ratio of 9:1, you would need to be at FL232 to have gliding range to shore for the whole crossing.

If you cross MTW-MBL farther north, the lake is "only" 44nm across, and you would "only" need to be at 15,450 feet.
Click to expand...

I think you meant LDM (actually Big Sable Pt.) not MBL? Yes, I was thinking of LDM-MTW, and a 10:1 glide ratio (though I doubt my plane actually gets that). I was also not requiring glide all the way to shore, but only to within 5 nm of shore, which is about where you start finding pleasure boats during summer months. With those parameters, 10,500 is (theoretically) good enough with no wind.

But the devil is in the details... if you're flying into a headwind, is it better to make a 180 or keep going straight? How much altitude do you lose turning around? How does actual weight affect glide ratio? Also depends on the day, whether many pleasure boats are out. Too many parameters. I agree it's doubtful, but probably not quite as bad as you say.
 
azure said:
I think you meant LDM (actually Big Sable Pt.) not MBL?
Click to expand...

No, I meant MBL because I'm generally filing and I use the VORs to do so. But yes, in an emergency I'm heading for Big Sable if I'm going for the eastern shore.

Yes, I was thinking of LDM-MTW, and a 10:1 glide ratio (though I doubt my plane actually gets that). I was also not requiring glide all the way to shore, but only to within 5 nm of shore, which is about where you start finding pleasure boats during summer months. With those parameters, 10,500 is (theoretically) good enough with no wind.
Click to expand...

The guy who died of exposure after ditching the plane I had flown went in 5 miles off shore. Hence, I'm a glide-until-I-can-take-care-of-myself kind of guy. And that means getting very close to shore.

But the devil is in the details... if you're flying into a headwind, is it better to make a 180 or keep going straight? How much altitude do you lose turning around? How does actual weight affect glide ratio?
Click to expand...

Wind helps you, if you know what you're doing. It changes your turn-back point - Let's say the wind at all altitudes is 30 knots out of the west, and your descent rate is 1000 fpm after power loss. 30 knots = 1/2 mile per minute, and if you started at 10,500 you'll be in the water in about 10 minutes. That means your turn-back point is 5 miles west of the actual midpoint. But, if you're heading east and you're at the midpoint with a tailwind, fly your minimum sink speed instead of Vg (it'll be a little bit slower, probably by 5-10 knots or so, and somewhere near where you end up with full nose up trim) and you'll be exposing yourself to that tailwind for a greater amount of time. If the winds are more than a few knots, your glide will be better.

Likewise, if you're flying into a headwind but you've passed your turn-back point, increasing your airspeed above Vg will get you a better glide ratio relative to the ground than Vg. It's not linear, but the rule of thumb I've heard is to fly Vg + half the headwind component.

I've always figured that if I need to do the 180, that I should be able to use kinetic energy to do so, basically completing the turn by the time my speed is down to Vg. Definitely need to flight-test that assumption though.

Weight does not affect glide ratio. It does affect Vg. Like most airspeeds, multiply published Vg in CAS by sqrt(actual weight/max gross weight) to get actual Vg CAS for your weight. Lighter weights mean lower airspeed for best glide, but also lower descent rate, and the glide ratio remains unchanged. This is why the people who race gliders use water ballast: They go faster but have the same glide ratio.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't see anything on that link about finding either of the occupants?

In any case, that's the sad (and scary) part about these accidents. The ditchings are nearly always survivable unless the pilot really screws up the "landing". They often don't find the occupants because they get out of the plane uninjured and swim for it, and then get hypothermia and die some distance from the plane in a most unpleasant fashion.
Click to expand...
Oops sorry. People mentioned it in the comments, with links.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, I meant MBL because I'm generally filing and I use the VORs to do so. But yes, in an emergency I'm heading for Big Sable if I'm going for the eastern shore.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I might do the same today, but I've only done this before I was rated, hence the 10,500.

The guy who died of exposure after ditching the plane I had flown went in 5 miles off shore. Hence, I'm a glide-until-I-can-take-care-of-myself kind of guy. And that means getting very close to shore.
Click to expand...

Agreed that ideally, you want to get as close to shore as possible. But the discussion was about whether you can ditch near a boat. If you can get to within 5 miles of the shore, you have a chance, otherwise you don't. And whether you can do it or not depends on many details that are largely outside your control. That was my original point, in effect that it is a BAD idea to count on being able to but that you MIGHT be able to without having to fly at altitudes above the service ceiling of most small planes. I'm not sure why we're arguing about this, we seem to be in basic agreement. ;)


Wind helps you, if you know what you're doing. It changes your turn-back point - Let's say the wind at all altitudes is 30 knots out of the west, and your descent rate is 1000 fpm after power loss. 30 knots = 1/2 mile per minute, and if you started at 10,500 you'll be in the water in about 10 minutes. That means your turn-back point is 5 miles west of the actual midpoint.
Click to expand...

Agreed if you lose no altitude in the 180. If you lose 1000 in the 180, then your turn back point is somewhat closer to the midpoint, and depends on Vg -- if your Vg is 60 kts, closer to 4 miles, and the higher it is the further east.

But, if you're heading east and you're at the midpoint with a tailwind, fly your minimum sink speed instead of Vg (it'll be a little bit slower, probably by 5-10 knots or so, and somewhere near where you end up with full nose up trim) and you'll be exposing yourself to that tailwind for a greater amount of time. If the winds are more than a few knots, your glide will be better.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the minimum sink speed is for my airplane - don't recall ever seeing one in the POH. Even Vg isn't labeled as such, it is just given as the speed to fly in case of engine loss. It is not stated, but I've always assumed that to be at max gross, and requiring adjustment depending on actual weight.

Likewise, if you're flying into a headwind but you've passed your turn-back point, increasing your airspeed above Vg will get you a better glide ratio relative to the ground than Vg. It's not linear, but the rule of thumb I've heard is to fly Vg + half the headwind component.
Click to expand...

This is something I'd like to see a reference for. While I've read something like that before, I have no idea where it comes from.

I've always figured that if I need to do the 180, that I should be able to use kinetic energy to do so, basically completing the turn by the time my speed is down to Vg. Definitely need to flight-test that assumption though.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like the parameters for the impossible turn. And just like those parameters, it also depends on how much time you lose to the "shock factor".

Weight does not affect glide ratio. It does affect Vg. Like most airspeeds, multiply published Vg in CAS by sqrt(actual weight/max gross weight) to get actual Vg CAS for your weight. Lighter weights mean lower airspeed for best glide, but also lower descent rate, and the glide ratio remains unchanged. This is why the people who race gliders use water ballast: They go faster but have the same glide ratio.
Click to expand...

Ok - I wasn't sure whether it affected the ratio as well as Vg.
 
azure said:
I have no idea what the minimum sink speed is for my airplane - don't recall ever seeing one in the POH. Even Vg isn't labeled as such, it is just given as the speed to fly in case of engine loss. It is not stated, but I've always assumed that to be at max gross, and requiring adjustment depending on actual weight.
Click to expand...

Sadly, minimum sink isn't published. At least, I've never seen it. It's probably worth doing some testing to determine it, but admittedly I haven't done so either... If I'm ever in that situation and don't know it, I'll trim full nose up and aim for 5-10 knots below Vg.

This is something I'd like to see a reference for. While I've read something like that before, I have no idea where it comes from.
Click to expand...

It's easiest if you use an extreme example to illustrate. My Vg is 90 knots. If I'm crossing the lake westbound and the winds aloft at all altitudes are out of the west at 90 knots, my turnback point will be *on* the western shore, and if I were to lose the engine there while facing into the wind, I would descend at zero groundspeed and land on the beach. However, if I pushed the nose over and went at a faster airspeed, I would make westward progress.

If you really want to get technical (and I like to), the best thing to do to really know the speed to fly would be to do some actual engine-out testing at various airspeeds but consistent weight and plot a polar curve, shifting the origin to account for headwind/tailwind. If you're an uber-technical glider pilot and you have a variometer in your airplane, you could also adjust the origin in the vertical axis to account for rising and sinking air. ;)

I do plan to do some of this testing after we have a G3X installed in the Mooney, because I want to have the actual data logged. It'll be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top