CMTowner
Line Up and Wait
I would make the crossing without hesitation.
Little planes over big water… would you do it?
- Thread starter Coloradokevin
- Start date
azure
Final Approach
Lake St. Clair isn't as cold in July-August as the middle of Lake Michigan. And there is a lot more boat traffic out there in summer than in the middle of Lake Michigan (or Huron or Superior for that matter).
midwestpa24
Final Approach
I have two issues with crossing the Lakes.
1. The Great Lakes are still cold enough even in summer time that they would still be considered a cold water rescue. Hypothermia will set in very quickly once immersed, we are talking minutes not hours. Do not underestimate how quickly being immersed in cold water will lower your body temperature. This is coming from someone trained in cold water rescues.
2. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the possible loss of horizon references depending on altitude and visibility. Many accidents have occured over large lakes where the pilot simply became disoriented due to the water reflecting the sky and losing the horizon. I would not attempt based on this unless IFR proficient.
1. The Great Lakes are still cold enough even in summer time that they would still be considered a cold water rescue. Hypothermia will set in very quickly once immersed, we are talking minutes not hours. Do not underestimate how quickly being immersed in cold water will lower your body temperature. This is coming from someone trained in cold water rescues.
2. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the possible loss of horizon references depending on altitude and visibility. Many accidents have occured over large lakes where the pilot simply became disoriented due to the water reflecting the sky and losing the horizon. I would not attempt based on this unless IFR proficient.
Shepherd
Final Approach
I do it multiple times a year, in a LSA, most of the time.
It's not that big of a deal.
It's not that big of a deal.
azure
Final Approach
I would say that you should be instrument proficient, which is not necessarily the same thing as being IFR proficient. The latter implies the former, but not vice-versa. It is possible to be instrument proficient without even being instrument rated.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
If anyone wants to see what they are flying over or if just curious, there are many maps out there showing current surface temps
Great Lakes, a bit nippy
My crossing
Golfo de México
Great Lakes, a bit nippy
My crossing
Golfo de México
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I also studied charts like this when I crossed:
https:/
https:/
Coloradokevin
Pre-takeoff checklist
There's nothing B.S. about it, nor is it an issue of misplaced bravado. An engine failure on a single is always going to be a big deal, but bodies of water are hardly the worst possible option if the engine decides to go to lunch on you.
I also grew up on Lake Erie's south shore, and did my initial flight training in central Ohio. I can think of a lot of places I would be more worried about an engine loss than Lake Erie in the summer. While I can't speak for all of the great lakes on this subject, I know for a fact that Lake Erie is warm enough for swimming in the summer, and it also has quite a bit of large ship (lake freighter) traffic. That gives you a really strong shot at surviving a ditching in that pond during the warmer months. As a bonus, there is no aquatic wildlife to eat you in that lake.
On the other hand, while I was working on my Instrument Rating I ended up in IMC over the lower Appalachian Mountains on one flight… sure wouldn't have wanted to lose an engine there. I currently fly in the Denver area, and I can say that I'd rather lose an engine over Lake Erie than downtown Denver, or the mountains that sit just a few miles from downtown.
Everyone here realizes that aviation is a calculated risk, and I doubt any of us would ever leave the ground if we definitively knew that our engine would fail on that flight. As such, we all put a certain amount of faith in that "corn popper", even if we don't want to admit it. If I could choose an ideal place for an engine failure it would be within gliding distance to a large runway with nobody on it. My next choice would probably be over the farm fields of the great plains. But, after those options I'd probably take a lake landing before a forest, mountains, or a city.
I've seen that series of photos before, and they are quite impressive. I've also driven out to Cedar Point when waves were crashing over the rocks onto the roads. There are times when waves could be completely unsurvivable on the great lakes, even in the big boats (Edmund Fitzgerald). But, we used to take an old 13 foot boat with an outboard motor out there in calm weather when I was a child.
So, maybe in addition to the concerns for water temperature, we ought to also include the risk of overflying the water during times when small craft advisories are in place for boating… that's certainly an issue worth looking at.
Last edited:
Coloradokevin
Pre-takeoff checklist
Of course, the lakes are quite a bit warmer in July, and arguably quite survivable in those temperatures. I think that's where it comes down to the debate over water temperature. If you go down in the great lakes in January, you're going to be in a bad way, and if you want ANY hope of survival you had better be in a full-fledged immersion suit at the time. If you go down in Lake Erie on a hot day in July, ten miles from shore, it might not be that big of a deal. I sure wouldn't want to go in the drink today, based on your temperature chart!
http://assets.climatecentral.org/im..._greatlakestempanalysis_1050_820_s_c1_c_c.jpg
dtuuri
Final Approach
Warm? As I recall my mother used to call us out of the water when our lips turned blue and our teeth were chattering. As for freighters, for the past two years I've lived almost exclusively six houses back from the shore. I can see the lake from my front yard. Hardly ever see a freighter anymore. Just mentioned it to a friend two days ago, "Where'd they all go?"
Pond, huh? It's 55 miles across where I live, a whole lot farther lengthwise. How do you plan to survive? Bring a life raft? Ever seen one? Do you keep current certified life vests in your plane? The lake has a funny way of getting bigger and bigger as you descend out of altitude--it seems like you're getting farther from land than nearer.
dtuuri
tawood
En-Route
Ummm no! At least not in the aircraft that I've done it in.
I flew over Lake Michigan once, and once only, in my 20's, while in a C150. I flew to 10,500 feet, and started westbound over Holland, Michigan, heading towards Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I assumed, without doing the math, that at 10,500 feet I would be within gliding distance of shore for most of my flight. After 10 minutes heading west, I started to lose slight of land in all directions, and THEN I did the math: at 10,500 feet, the vast majority of your trip is not within gliding distance (over 50 NM of it, actually), when the lake is 80 NM across.
I flew for waaaaaaay longer than I was comfortable before seeing land, and I've never done that again.
Coloradokevin
Pre-takeoff checklist
You can probably save on a bit of the snark, as most of the answers to your questions were already contained in my other posts. Clearly Lake Erie isn't a pond. I grew up three miles from there, as I stated above, and boated on it as a kid on a very regular basis. People also refer to the ocean in terms of "crossing the pond", though I'm sure they are ALL well aware of the fact that it isn't like the local drainage basin where they feed ducks behind their house.
In summer Lake Erie is plenty warm enough to survive in the water for quite a while (again, summer temperature chart I posted above). Do I carry life vests now? Or a life raft? Of course not, I live in Colorado these days. But, a life vest would be on my list of "required" equipment if I was going to cross the great lakes (as I already mentioned above), along with a PLB, and some other equipment (some of which I already carry for flights out here).
Anyway, you care correct in recognizing that Lake Erie is in fact about 50 miles across at its widest point. I've been way out in that lake before, and I'm not disputing those facts. But, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily a reckless idea to consider a crossing. There is risk in flying, period. Managing these risks is part of the discussion. But, I am fully aware of how big the great lakes are, and I'm fully aware of what it feels like to be in 40 degree water, and I'm fully aware that surviving in such water would not be possible without some specialized survival equipment. But, again, the water isn't 40 degrees on that lake in the middle of summer.
I will concede that I haven't been to that lake in about 3 years now. So, maybe the freighter traffic has died off. But, historically there was a LOT of it out there, and you know that's the case if you live near the lake.
Coloradokevin
Pre-takeoff checklist
Okay, let me elaborate on my math here:
Measuring crossing distances of Lake Michigan show distances of roughly 50-75NM from airport to airport, if the lake is crossed in the middle. If we average those distances we can say that the lake is 62.5 NM across. If you lost your engine at the exact mid-point of that lake (using the averages mentioned), that would leave you approximately 31.25 miles from the nearest shore. According to the POH, the lowly little Cessna 152 can glide approximately 19 NM with an engine failure at 12,000 feet. So, take that 31.25 NM, and subtract the 19NM you can glide. That leaves you with 12.25 NM short of making the shore, in either direction, should you lose your engine exactly at the midpoint. So, if we figure our time exposure to being out of gliding distance, we need to consider that exposure in both directions (ex: the time we are beyond 19NM from the shore on the outbound and inbound legs). So, we are basically exposed to a situation where we are beyond gliding distance for 24.5 NM of our trip across this 62.5 NM wide lake. If our 12,000 foot cruise speed was 100 knots, that leaves us with an exposure to being out of gliding distance for approximately 14.67 minutes.
I'd say that my guesstimate wasn't too bad on that one. Now, obviously the situation would be different when we factor in winds, and whether or not you were willing to climb to 12,000 feet to do the crossing. It would also be different if we were flying something faster than the 2-seat trainer we just discussed, or an aircraft with a significantly different glide ratio.
But, when it is all said and done, a rough estimate is that you have 15 minutes of exposure to a situation where an engine failure would guarantee a ditching in the lake.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I would manage the risk by not flying beyond power off gliding distance of shore in a single. Those who do so without survival equipment aren't "managing risk", they're "trusting to luck". Even still, life rafts are cumbersome, might not make it out of the plane before it sinks and life vests are supposed to be inspected and certified and what might be suitable for a river or stream isn't good for off-shore use. Rental planes may not have them available due to lack of demand. It takes an effort to be equipped properly.
One thing about water temperature--I can't stand the room temperature much below 70°, being immersed in water that cold would be unbearable. Just reaching into an ice-cold tank to fetch a beer can from the bottom caused my arm muscles to lose effect and be unable to grip the can once when I was attending a beer bust in the Air Force. I don't care what that chart says is "survivable", I demand a higher quality of survivability.
dtuuri
Last edited:
NoHeat
Final Approach
As a whole, posts that say "I do it all the time" give the reader what's called "survivorship bias." You don't read counterpoint posts by those who died doing it, because they can't post. Just the posts of those who have survived so far.
Reminds me of riding motorcycles without helmets. You see a lot of people posting on bike forums: "I've been doing it for years and look, I am still here, it hasn't killed me." The reader of such a bike forum sees exactly the same survivorship bias as the reader of this forum.
Reminds me of riding motorcycles without helmets. You see a lot of people posting on bike forums: "I've been doing it for years and look, I am still here, it hasn't killed me." The reader of such a bike forum sees exactly the same survivorship bias as the reader of this forum.
bikert
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Display Name
Display name:
bikert
Well... Now that you bring up riding motorcycles without helmets... You can't make blanket statements about the risk factors without taking into account the type of riding that is being done. Yes, if you have a 20 year old on a crotch rocket doing wheelies down the highway in traffic, riding without a helmet is not a good idea. The guy riding a harley on a Sunday on a quiet road it is quite different. Both situtions have a rider without a helmet with two very different risk factors.
It is the same with flying.
If you have an individual who is flying a well maintained plane and has carefully evaluated the risks and determined they are satisfied with those risk factors, I personally don't see any issue with them flying over big water.
azure
Final Approach
Well yes, they're trusting to luck. And anyone who flies out of KVLL is also trusting to luck, as engine failure on takeoff is highly likely to result in an accident causing at least severe injury, the Cherokee pilot who managed to put down in the Walmart parking lot a few years back notwithstanding. Anyone who flies in VT is trusting to luck for similar reasons, unless they only fly in the Champlain valley or never leave the pattern. I would argue that flying involves a certain amount of trusting to luck - how much trusting one is comfortable with, and under what circumstances, is entirely an individual thing.
In the case of flying over open water, you're not comfortable with it at all and need to be within gliding distance of land at all times. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that those who are willing to tolerate some degree of risk of ending up in the drink are somehow reckless, as you seem to be implying. As long as they aren't fooling themselves regarding the chances of survival, they may simply have a higher risk tolerance than you do.
azure
Final Approach
Yes, MTW --> LDM is the narrow point where it's possible for a NA single to eliminate the wet footprint. I've never been high enough to completely eliminate it, but at 10,500 it's down to about 10 minutes in a Cardinal RG, which I find acceptable as long as I don't do it too often.
Another possible crossing route without a wet footprint is over Beaver Island. I haven't calculated exactly how high you would need to go, and of course it depends on the airplane (and the winds), but in a Cardinal it is probably around 9000 feet.
dtuuri
Final Approach
"Survivor bias"... I like that a lot. I wish the dead could vote in this poll.
dtuuri
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
How would you calculate it? Wind increases with altitude, changes direction too. You'd have to have a pretty sophisticated algorithm to figure it out and where do you get the real-time data to make it reliable? Best you can do, IMO, is guess at the time you're at risk. If you become a glider, though, flipping a coin might be the only chance you have to head in the right direction.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
This reminds me of a guy I gave an intro flight to years ago. He went on to become a CFI and was taking a trip south over West Virginia in a student's plane. Lost the engine on takeoff, IIRC, and landed in a rocky stream rather than crash into the trees. Unfortunately, he drowned.
dtuuri
bikert
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Display Name
Display name:
bikert
Got the NTSB link?
Took a CAP 172 about 70 miles off-shore, from Atlantic City, early spring, at night. 5000' . . .Wind was off-shore, so the ride back was loooong. Hind-sight, I wouldn't do that one again; last minute substituion put us in a tired airplane very near TBO, bad turn coordinator, crappy panel lights.
But otherwise, in a maintained airplane, sure, let's go fly!
But otherwise, in a maintained airplane, sure, let's go fly!
azure
Final Approach
All such calculations either make assumptions about the wind, or neglect it completely. I disagree, though, that flipping a coin is as good as an educated guess when it comes to deciding which direction to try to make it to shore. Winds aloft forecasts aren't guaranteed, but they're certainly better than random chance, and many days they're accurate enough for that purpose.
azure
Final Approach
Not sure if you're familiar with the area around VLL. It's suburban, with no open areas large enough to land safely in. Think residential neighborhoods, industrial strips, streets. Local lore says to land on the railroad tracks about a mile west of the field, but that only works from downwind on 9 (the runway would of course be a better choice) or if taking off on 27, and I wouldn't be at all confident of being able to walk away. In a fixed gear plane you would likely flip; in my RG if I decided that was my best option, I'd land gear up.
drotto
Cleared for Takeoff
The often unsung benefit of a RG plane. The ability to ditch with a much lower chance of doing somersaults.
DieHardFlyer
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 10
- Display Name
Display name:
DieHardFlyer
By its nature, flying is all about managing risk…because risk pervades the flying environment. Tolerance for risk varies considerably from person to person. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable taking certain risks then don’t take them…nothing wrong with that. When it comes to flying over cold water without the requisite safety equipment, the data clearly show that ditching in such conditions is a “low probability” ”high severity” risk. Many single engine airplanes do in fact fly over water, and ditching is statistically infrequent. So we each make our call on such matters. That’s what it means to be PIC!!
If the “high severity” aspect gives anyone pause, lest we forget that flying airplanes is inherently the same type of risk…i.e., “low probability” “high severity” risk of injury/death. While its perfectly normal to accept/reject different activities even though they are in a similar (objective) risk category, let’s not allow those personal choices to skew our understanding of the risk landscape.
I’m reading numerous examples of people engaging in risk subjectification, which is counterproductive. What do I mean? Let’s say that I determine I’m not going to participate in a certain activity because I perceive it to be “unwarranted” based on my personal risk/reward metrics. We all form a risk/reward scale that we base decisions on. The subjectification happens when I take the extra step (often subconsciously) from viewing the activity as too risky “for ME” to perceiving it as too risky for ANYONE. Once this leap has been made its very easy to perceive those that assume risk beyond what I’m comfortable taking as exercising bad judgment, or acting in an unsafe/foolish manner. Haven’t we all encountered this point of view in our journeys? Certain personality types (e.g., the Mother Hen syndrome) that seem particularly comfortable telling others the error of their ways? So when I read folks stating as fact that choosing to fly over cold water is not “managing risk” but rather “trusting to luck” I know the clucking has begun.
Every pilot has received the legally required education and testing with respect to the risks associated with flying in order to earn their license. Like it or not, THAT is the legal metric. Now we all know that just like every person that gets a driver’s license isn’t the wisest or most competent driver, so too is it with pilots. That’s life in the imperfect and risky world we live in. Personally, I won’t join the clucking in an attempt to cast a negative light on someone’s judgment because they choose to take risks that I won’t.
If the “high severity” aspect gives anyone pause, lest we forget that flying airplanes is inherently the same type of risk…i.e., “low probability” “high severity” risk of injury/death. While its perfectly normal to accept/reject different activities even though they are in a similar (objective) risk category, let’s not allow those personal choices to skew our understanding of the risk landscape.
I’m reading numerous examples of people engaging in risk subjectification, which is counterproductive. What do I mean? Let’s say that I determine I’m not going to participate in a certain activity because I perceive it to be “unwarranted” based on my personal risk/reward metrics. We all form a risk/reward scale that we base decisions on. The subjectification happens when I take the extra step (often subconsciously) from viewing the activity as too risky “for ME” to perceiving it as too risky for ANYONE. Once this leap has been made its very easy to perceive those that assume risk beyond what I’m comfortable taking as exercising bad judgment, or acting in an unsafe/foolish manner. Haven’t we all encountered this point of view in our journeys? Certain personality types (e.g., the Mother Hen syndrome) that seem particularly comfortable telling others the error of their ways? So when I read folks stating as fact that choosing to fly over cold water is not “managing risk” but rather “trusting to luck” I know the clucking has begun.
Every pilot has received the legally required education and testing with respect to the risks associated with flying in order to earn their license. Like it or not, THAT is the legal metric. Now we all know that just like every person that gets a driver’s license isn’t the wisest or most competent driver, so too is it with pilots. That’s life in the imperfect and risky world we live in. Personally, I won’t join the clucking in an attempt to cast a negative light on someone’s judgment because they choose to take risks that I won’t.
dtuuri
Final Approach
No, but if you can point me to a database where I can search for the accident by his name I'll post it.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Let me get this straight, you're not "clucking" in your own right? ROTFLMAO!
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
BTDT in a Citation II. Nice little airport. You could always land on a factory roof.
dtuuri
azure
Final Approach
Uh-huh. In a helicopter, you mean.BTDT in a Citation II. Nice little airport. You could always land on a factory roof.
dtuuri
edo2000
Pre-takeoff checklist
Everyone's risk management process is different. You could also argue that if we never fly GA aircraft our survivability for GA mishaps is nearly 100% (.. if one doesn't crash on our house).
I agree that flying offshore in a single, especially in cold water areas is concerning, but as coloradokevin says, there are ways to manage the risk. On a VFR day, those 12-15 minutes of exposure are mitigated, as he mentioned, by the fact you could quite possibly glide very close to a ship or other watercraft. Also, you will have lots of time for Mayday calls, you could carry a personal locator beacon, etc.
I did commercial fish reconnaissance flying (fish spotting) for 15 years in Alaska. Cold water, low altitude, 8-9 hours per day during fishing season, often a long way offshore. Only about 1/2 of the time I was flying a float plane. Even when on floats, the bulk of the time sea conditions were too rough to land with destroying the airplane. I wore a survival/exposure suit over the lower half of my body(very sweaty), and had a locator.
I would not fly offshore with passengers without a complete discussion of the risks, but in my opinion, an engine failure in well maintained GA aircraft in the time window that coloradokevin describes is a very remote possibility.
Having said that, we had an incident near Anchorage 10-15 years ago. Two guys in a C180 were flying across Knik Arm, back to Anchorage, under low ceilings in the winter. They lost an engine (not sure why... hopefully not fuel exhaustion or carb ice) anyway, they got a Mayday call out as they were gliding down from 1200 ft. There was an Air Nat'l Guard C-130 flying on a training mission (very lucky). The Guard flight came back and asked the Cessna 180 to key its mic as much as possible during the descent. They got a location fix on the 180 and vectored a Pavehawk helo from a nearby base. when the helo picked up the two men, the aircraft had already disappeared and they were clinging to a small raft of ice. They were immobilized by hypothermia, unable to help the rescuers at all. They survived and made the evening news. Odds are they should have died.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,703
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
Mine does. It knows when it's over the mountains too. The engine starts running a little rough.
JHW
En-Route
Yes, i have ferried plenty of light planes fom florida to south africa via brazil. And no, i won't fly my family across lake michigan, we go around.
Stewartb
Final Approach
I cross Knik Arm at 1200' after every departure from Hood. I always feel more at ease when the tide's out. Crossing Iliamna Lake on floats or wheels I lean toward one shore or the other. Especially on hazy days when you can't see land from the middle. It's lonely out there. I lost a friend last year when his engine-out glide from altitude failed to reach a Prince William Sound island target. That'll increase my safety margin and keep me closer to terra firma. It's all just talk until it gets real.
fiveoboy01
Pattern Altitude
Always activates at the most opportune time.