GA Transportation Myth

[Ted]

Yeah, but I'll be it floats better than the Aztec.

Lance, normally I'd agree with you, but you witnessed Tony's testing of my Aztec as a float plane, so I'm not so sure there.

 

[Anthony]

I saw an Aztec on floats at Osh one year.

 

[One Short]

Here is one, looks like it floats pretty well.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Roselawn was an ATR turboprop with boots, not hot wings. I'm not aware of any ice-accretion accidents occuring in turbofans/turbojets with properly functioning de-ice systms.

Mostly because they spend very little time in icing altitudes, and they still get out of it when they start picking it up.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Mostly because they spend very little time in icing altitudes,

Change "altitudes" to "areas" and I think that is more accurate.

and they still get out of it when they start picking it up.

Well, I think that is more or less by default. Since they are either climbing or descending in the terminal areas, and their cruise altitudes are usually clear of clouds, they don't have to spend much time actually getting out of icing.

When we encounter icing, we don't do anything different, because we aren't there long enough to be that much of an issue.

 

[gismo]

Roselawn was an ATR turboprop with boots, not hot wings. I'm not aware of any ice-accretion accidents occuring in turbofans/turbojets with properly functioning de-ice systms.

I don't know of any such accidents either but my next door neighbor claims that he landed a MD-80 at MSP with so much ice on it that a go-around would have been impossible. I think he said he flew through heavy freezing rain on the approach. If what he said was true (and I don't doubt it is) there would have been an accident if something blocked the runway at exactly the wrong time.

 

[Everskyward]

and they still get out of it when they start picking it up.

I guess it depends what you mean by "start picking it up". Like Greg, we don't do anything different since icing is usually pretty localized in area and altitude and we are not normally in it for that long. In addition, bleed air is a lot more effective than anything on a small airplane at keeping ice away. So if you are suggesting that jets are as limited as smaller piston airplanes by icing conditions then that would be a wrong assumption. Of course you don't want to be flying in severe icing or freezing rain in any airplane, but I would take the 680 or the Lears in weather that I wouldn't dream of taking a FIKI Cirrus, for example. Here is a page from the AFM which talks a little bit about severe icing. Notice how bad it has to be before they call it "severe".

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So if you are suggesting that jets are as limited as smaller piston airplanes by icing conditions then that would be a wrong assumption.

I'm not suggesting that at all - Merely pointing out that there is no "magic bullet" for ice, no matter how capable your airplane is, you don't want to be in it for a long period of time. Those of you flying jets generally aren't in it for long simply because of how high and fast you're going - But I'm guessing that even in the C680 or the B777, if Chicago Approach asked you to hold at 10,000 feet in icing conditions, you'd probably tell 'em to take a hike.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

But I'm guessing that even in the C680 or the B777, if Chicago Approach asked you to hold at 10,000 feet in icing conditions, you'd probably tell 'em to take a hike.

Depends on the icing.

 

[RotorAndWing]

But I'm guessing that even in the C680 or the B777, if Chicago Approach asked you to hold at 10,000 feet in icing conditions, you'd probably tell 'em to take a hike.

Actually no. And yes I've done it many,many times. It's just not that big of a deal in a jet.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm not suggesting that at all - Merely pointing out that there is no "magic bullet" for ice, no matter how capable your airplane is, you don't want to be in it for a long period of time. Those of you flying jets generally aren't in it for long simply because of how high and fast you're going - But I'm guessing that even in the C680 or the B777, if Chicago Approach asked you to hold at 10,000 feet in icing conditions, you'd probably tell 'em to take a hike.

There are icing conditions and there are ICING CONDITIONS. If it wasn't that bad we would hold.

I thought we were comparing the relative utility of GA to airlines and given the same (bad) weather conditions I think airliners and business jets have an advantage. That's not to say that there aren't some conditions where no airplanes should be flying. We try not to fly into thunderstorms either but it's easier to pick your way through them with onboard radar than it is with XM weather or a stormscope.

 

[TMetzinger]

That's my point - operating in a CG Falcon out of Cape Cod, they'd routinely hold in icing that they wouldn't in a C-130. The heated wings are really much better than boots. If it weren't for fluid running out, I think I'd prefer TKS to boots too.

And of course my original point is that ICE is where the jet airliners have an absolute, no-two-ways-about-it advantage over GA piston singles and twins. Other factors are closer.

 

[SCCutler]

Mari, weather that has you "picking your way through" has me stuck on the ground at my point of departure.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Mari, weather that has you "picking your way through" has me stuck on the ground at my point of departure.

Exactly.

 

[Trapper John]

I thought we were comparing the relative utility of GA to airlines and given the same (bad) weather conditions I think airliners and business jets have an advantage. That's not to say that there aren't some conditions where no airplanes should be flying. We try not to fly into thunderstorms either but it's easier to pick your way through them with onboard radar than it is with XM weather or a stormscope.

Yes, and the advantage of jets extends to better trained pilots, a second crewmember and better systems redundancy. There's a reason airlines and business jets have a much better safety record than the rest of GA, and it's not just deice hardware...


Trapper John

 

[wabower]

In the midwest/southwest where I have flown airplanes for many years, the answer to question regarding the reliable transportation value of light airplanes (less than 12,500#) is yes. Obsessing over icing conditions or two engines or whatever is an easy trap to fall into, but I've been doing it long enough to know that on the days I can't fly most of them can't fly either. There are some days I can't fly, but they are a tiny percentage of the days I can fly. Our weather problems more normally involve convective activity, and if the north-south line is moving east across Louisiana, you aren't going to get into Destin no matter what you're flying that day. You aren't going to get out of Destin westbound either, and the RJ's sitting over at DFW or Eglin are nailed to the ground just as firmly as my airplane is locked in the hangar.

A major element we are ignoring is the ability go go when and where you want to go. I got an email on Wednesday that a HS friend and classmate is very ill, and that yesterday was the best time to see him. In order to make it work, I needed to meet another friend in Elk City, OK at 0830 local on Saturday morning, but I was tied up finishing an appraisal in Dallas until late Friday night. Bottom line is that I left Dallas early yesterday morning, was back home before dark last night. Try that on a carrier.

Yes, and the advantage of jets extends to better trained pilots, a second crewmember and better systems redundancy. There's a reason airlines and business jets have a much better safety record than the rest of GA, and it's not just deice hardware...


Trapper John

 

[gismo]

Yes, and the advantage of jets extends to better trained pilots, a second crewmember and better systems redundancy. There's a reason airlines and business jets have a much better safety record than the rest of GA, and it's not just deice hardware...


Trapper John

First let me say that I agree that there's weather I wouldn't consider flying in that the airlines get through all the time. And the second pilot plus more extensive training regime has to be a significant safety factor over SPIFR in the typical owner flown piston airplane. Another factor is the selection of airports the airlines fly to, especially the major carriers. All these things make airline flying safer than flying your own plane but the latter can be made safe enough if you want to, it's almost all up to the pilot.

But the real reason I find personal air travel more practical (most of the time) than airline flying comes down to the ability to bring along what I want and to travel pretty much when and where I want even when the occasional delay for weather is factored in. IOW it seems to me that the lesser weather capabilities of the kinds of airplanes I can afford to fly are more than offset by the greater freedom from advanced planning and strict schedules. This is likely in no small part due to my "spur of the moment" scheduling tendencies.

 

[Trapper John]

I don't disagree at all with you or Wayne, but I suspect the two of you are the exception, rather than the rule when it comes to experience and judgement, as opposed to the guy with a few hundred hours that buys a FIKI single (or twin for that matter) and says, "See, I can go anywhere, anytime, just like the airlines."


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

I don't disagree at all with you or Wayne, but I suspect the two of you are the exception, rather than the rule when it comes to experience and judgement, as opposed to the guy with a few hundred hours that buys a FIKI single (or twin for that matter) and says, "See, I can go anywhere, anytime, just like the airlines."

The person who says that is not only ignorant for thinking he can go anywhere anytime, but also ignorant for thinking the airlines can go anywhere, anytime.

 

[wabower]

The carriers and some private airplanes have significant resources (and limitations) that we don't have. Their internal SOP's, dispatch and meteorlogical staff, FAR limitations (can't start an approach when WX below miniumums) and many other built-in safeguards provide a significant cushion against WTF? events that are a daily part of GA life.

Knowing that 80% of the accidents are due to pilot screwups is the spur I use to try to outsmart my temptations to screw it up. For example, I always take a RON bag on day trips. Haven't had to use it much in 40 years, but knowing it's there takes the pressure off of getting home. If I have an important meeting on Monday, I try to be there in plenty of time, figure out alternatives, and do the homework in advance so I know that if I can't fly where I want to go that I can rent a car at an alternative destination. IOW, I know that I'm the potential weak link in the chain, and even though I've been doing it for a while, I could still fall into the trap.

There are days that planes can't fly, there are days the trains and busses don't run, some when the semi's are all piled up on the interstate and some when you can't get out of your driveway and there are no cabs.

 

[Trapper John]

The person who says that is not only ignorant for thinking he can go anywhere anytime, but also ignorant for thinking the airlines can go anywhere, anytime.

True, and what you're saying really does support the article/op-ed piece referenced in the OP. But that's not how GA has been sold over the years, it's been presented as a substitute, or even a superior replacement for airline travel.


Trapper John

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Wow. The second thread I have started that went over 100 posts.

For those who have airplanes that are properly equipped, and the training to use them, GA flying CAN be a reliable source of transportation.

Having said that, in my case, I don't have the plane that is properly equipped. Therefore, I am somewhat limited in using my plane for effective transportation. I am usually in a position where I MUST be back home at a certain time. I find myself using other forms of transportation. I think that most non instrument rated Private Pilots are also in the same boat.

 

[TMetzinger]

... I find myself using other forms of transportation. I think that most non instrument rated Private Pilots are also in the same boat.

Absolutely. Without an instrument rating and proficiency, GA flying is on an "as-possible" basis. Adding the rating/proficiency greatly increases the utility, and it can be further enhanced by better aircraft. Then you can start adding safety to that utility by adding more engines, more crew, more aircraft capabilities until you run out of budget.

But even with the best of everything, you still can't always be sure you'll get somewhere on time - stuff happens. So you make plans to minimize the likelihood or the impact of those occurences.

 

[Ted]

Instrument rating, proficiency, radar, and FIKI... that's pretty much your minimum to get good reliability out of it. At least, that's what I've found. If you have just an instrument rating and proficiency, that will get you a long way on the eastern part of the US during certain months, but other months you're left on the ground.

In my short 400 hours of flying, I've been able to get by without radar and FIKI through some situations where it sure would've been nice to have, but I've also had to cancel flights due to a lack of FIKI. I never had exposure to situations where I needed radar and didn't have it, but now I have it, and have a lot of situations where if I didn't have it, I would likely have to cancel flights. The other factor is that the amount of flying I've been doing has increased significantly (175 hours this year so far). I have had situations where I made flights with FIKI that I wouldn't have had I not had it... no ice accumulation yet.

Having things like pressurization (or at least turbos to make altitude feasible) would help with some things for sure, but turbos with no FIKI might let me get above icing layers that I wouldn't want to try to get through, catch 22.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Instrument rating, proficiency, radar, and FIKI... that's pretty much your minimum to get good reliability out of it. At least, that's what I've found. If you have just an instrument rating and proficiency, that will get you a long way on the eastern part of the US during certain months, but other months you're left on the ground.

I wouldn't say it's "months" you're left on the ground - Certain days you're left on the ground, sure, and those days are more likely to happen in certain months, but it's not like you're grounded for months. Of course, you know that. I'm just clarifying.

I never had exposure to situations where I needed radar and didn't have it

Nor have I, but damn it's been awfully nice to have a couple of times! And I mean XM datalink, not actual radar. I generally don't need to go picking through things like that. I guess my missions just aren't that important - And I've learned to live without having it, which means not flying (or getting on the ground) when you NEED it.

Another thing: Radar doesn't show anything until there's actual precip. I flew into a building T-storm once that had no precip, but it put me into an uncontrolled climb.

 

[ghayes]

I'll argue that. Hey buddy's Cigarette boat costs him more than my Aztec costs me (near as I can tell) and has virtually zero useful function. Plus it gets 1 mpg instead of my Aztec's 8.5 mpg.

I think this guy would argue the cost of this hobbie: http://www.johntravoltashouse.com/

And even less extreme examples would be owners of toys like VLJ's, PC-12's, or better yet, look around the tarmac at Reno Air Races ;-)

 

[Ted]

Gary, now you're just getting into the world of the ridiculous. Come on, how many of us would buy a 707? Most of us would get something far more practical and affordable - like a 727.

Obviously you can spend as much as you want, but my point is that for those of us who spend significantly less, it still can be practical. Affordable is relative.

 

[bullwinkle]

I don't think he's wrong, but I don't think $100k+ LSAs are the answer either. The 1,320 lb LSA weight limit is dumb, but if they'd raise it to include C-140s, C-150s, C-152s, Cherokee 140s, etc., the entry price would drop to around $25k which is down around the price of a dressed up Harley, decent fishing boat and the other things that are competing for peoples recreational dollars.

Plus, people are balling up LSAs at twice the rate of other GA planes, and it's not just inexperienced sport pilots doing it. Sturdy old trainers like I listed above would be safer, I'd bet.


Trapper John

This is exactly what I've been saying for a long time. The 1320lb limit is arbitrary. Any limit would be arbitrary, but some make more sense than others. Allow weight/stall limits that includes trainers like the 150/152 and Grumman AA1 series, and then you REALLY have a sport ticket that allows easy entry to aviation, and probably have the same or better safety than they currently are getting.

 

[bullwinkle]

Got a source for this? The 1320 is an ICAO thing, not really FAA. As to the rest...

What does the ICAO have to do with anything? My SP license specifically says on the back:

DOES NOT MEET ICAO REQUIREMENTS

If they are going to allow pilots to not meet those requirements and fly within the USA, then who cares if their airplanes meet the rules? The FAA chose to pick 1320lb/600kg to match the advanced microlight class in Europe, but they could have just as easily picked 3000lb if they wanted. Since the pilots can't fly outside the USA anyway, it doesn't matter if their planes are legal to do so or not...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

This is exactly what I've been saying for a long time. The 1320lb limit is arbitrary. Any limit would be arbitrary, but some make more sense than others.

Doesn't anyone remember WHY the 1320 lb limit was set??? Remember what the significance is of the 1320 figure is?

 

[dmccormack]

This is exactly what I've been saying for a long time. The 1320lb limit is arbitrary. Any limit would be arbitrary, but some make more sense than others. Allow weight/stall limits that includes trainers like the 150/152 and Grumman AA1 series, and then you REALLY have a sport ticket that allows easy entry to aviation, and probably have the same or better safety than they currently are getting.

I agree -- but who was pressuring the FAA for this limit? LSA manufacturers? Who?

 

[mikea]

Doesn't anyone remember WHY the 1320 lb limit was set??? Remember what the significance is of the 1320 figure is?

It's the cut off for a Cessna 150/152?

 

[Trapper John]

Doesn't anyone remember WHY the 1320 lb limit was set??? Remember what the significance is of the 1320 figure is?

I have read the 1,320 lb number came from Europe, some kind of 600 kg sport limit there. Convert kg to lb, voila, work's done...


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

It's the cut off for a Cessna 150/152?

The old 150 I used to fly had a gross of 1,600 lb, so I would say probably not.


Trapper John

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It's the cut off for a Cessna 150/152?

Nope.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I have read the 1,320 lb number came from Europe, some kind of 600 kg sport limit there. Convert kg to lb, voila, work's done...


Trapper John

Exactly. So the number isn't as arbitrary as some people want to make it seem. IIRC, there was some debate when the limit was made whether or not to make it such that the Cessna 150/152s would be covered.

 

[SCCutler]

Exactly. So the number isn't as arbitrary as some people want to make it seem. IIRC, there was some debate when the limit was made whether or not to make it such that the Cessna 150/152s would be covered.

Next thing you know, they're gonna make us start saying, "Line up and wait" instead of "Position and hold." Is sovereignty worth nothing anymore?

---

Icing is much less an issue here than it would be for all you northern states; but I do think in-cockpit WX is turning into a must-have for me, to maintain reasonable dispatch reliability.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Next thing you know, they're gonna make us start saying, "Line up and wait" instead of "Position and hold." Is sovereignty worth nothing anymore?

Well, what does it say about you when you are the ONLY one doing something a certain way and EVERYONE else is doing it differently/

 

[Trapper John]

Exactly. So the number isn't as arbitrary as some people want to make it seem. IIRC, there was some debate when the limit was made whether or not to make it such that the Cessna 150/152s would be covered.

It seems to me to be more of a case of plagiarism yielding the easiest result, rather than really looking at the situation and coming up with a solution that works for the U.S., but I don't pretend to know the history.


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Well, what does it say about you when you are the ONLY one doing something a certain way and EVERYONE else is doing it differently/

Clearly that we're doing it right, and everyone else is screwed up.