Over water flights and crash statistics

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,869
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
So a few things led to this post. First I was speaking with EdFred who came to visit last weekend and we were discussing flights over lake Michigan. Like the high wing vs. low wing debate there are a lot of passionate feelings about flying over colder water. Granted a ditching in the middle of lake Michigan is going to be cold and survive-ability may be more challenging.

But as I said to Ed, we are pilots we live by numbers, airspeeds, stall speeds, clean and dirty, over the fence speeds, W&B, DA, etc. Every July folks from East of the Mississippi ask to Osh bound pilot "Are you going over or around the lake?"

Why don't we just analyze the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the great lakes, The Pacific flight to Catalina etc. The must be a way to analyze the NTSBs records for flights over a specific body of water say lake Michigan that have failed due to engine issues and compare them to flights over that given body of water over a specific time period. In 12 years of flying I have heard of 3 perhaps 4 crashes in Lake Michigan, One was the college kid who ran out of fuel a couple of miles off the Milwaukee Shoreline, One was a Biz Jet carrying a medical crew and I think organs from WI to MI, One was a cub flying along the Chicago shoreline coming back from Osh and I think there was a cessna that had a problem and turned back and ditched a few miles of the MI shoreline. Has anyone done an analysis of engine failures over water in relation to the number of flights over that body of water in a given time and then compared it to engine failures in general? I have to belive the stats are out there.

Certainly spatial disorientation over large bodies of water may be more likely to occur in certain climatological conditions but thats more of a pilot error issue.
 
have gone over the lake aprox. fourteen times ,never had a problem. Both single and small twin.
 
I think the problem you may find with getting these numbers for a crossing like Catalina is that most of them are VFR and rarely on a flight plan. How do you get a total number when so many of the flights aren't recorded by anyone but the pilot?
 
StinkBug said:
I think the problem you may find with getting these numbers for a crossing like Catalina is that most of them are VFR and rarely on a flight plan. How do you get a total number when so many of the flights aren't recorded by anyone but the pilot?
Click to expand...

Just count the number of planes on any given day at Catalina. They had to come from the mainland? Good point though. As a VFR, well, fellow, I use FF and look for the nearest sailboat.
 
AdamZ said:
Why don't we just analyze the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the great lakes, The Pacific flight to Catalina etc.
Click to expand...

Statistics don't matter if you are the statistic.
 
I don't understand why you would need to know the number of flights over water for your purposes (unless you think the odds of an engine failure are higher over water).

Why would the probability of an engine failure in any given flight hour not be sufficient? Are you thinking that statistic is hard to obtain, since if it results in a safe landing it won't be in the database?
 
You lose whatever safety you gain by being able to do an emergency landing. Any landing in the lake is likely to be fatal unless you land next to a boat and good luck with that. OTOH, if you don't lose an engine, it wont matter. I did it and flew high enough to have a lot of glide. They used to say the Coast Guard was 100% on rescues. All fatalities. Even if you do make it, sort of takes the enjoyment out of it, unless that is, you LIKE the excitement. Then again, you can say, well if its twice as far to go around, twice as much risk that way. Hard to know really. If you want to be safest, go up to 14k and go direct. After all, the engine isn't any more likely to fail over water than it is any where else, is it??

Hope that helps :)
 
I'm not nearly as current and qualified at swimming as I am at walking. I'll go around.
 
I was a great swimmer once - the Coast Guard even paid me to do it in all sorts of cold and unpleasant situations (wishing I was at AirSta Barbers Point every minute of it). I'm still a good swimmer. But I will go high or go around. The most I'll accept when solo in a single over swimmable water is 10 minutes being out of glide range of land. With others on board I want +3 miles, meaning I want to be able to reach the shore and keep gliding for 3 miles. This is often the same as going over land the whole way.
 
AdamZ said:
So a few things led to this post. First I was speaking with EdFred who came to visit last weekend and we were discussing flights over lake Michigan. Like the high wing vs. low wing debate there are a lot of passionate feelings about flying over colder water. Granted a ditching in the middle of lake Michigan is going to be cold and survive-ability may be more challenging.

But as I said to Ed, we are pilots we live by numbers, airspeeds, stall speeds, clean and dirty, over the fence speeds, W&B, DA, etc. Every July folks from East of the Mississippi ask to Osh bound pilot "Are you going over or around the lake?"

Why don't we just analyze the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the great lakes, The Pacific flight to Catalina etc. The must be a way to analyze the NTSBs records for flights over a specific body of water say lake Michigan that have failed due to engine issues and compare them to flights over that given body of water over a specific time period. In 12 years of flying I have heard of 3 perhaps 4 crashes in Lake Michigan, One was the college kid who ran out of fuel a couple of miles off the Milwaukee Shoreline, One was a Biz Jet carrying a medical crew and I think organs from WI to MI, One was a cub flying along the Chicago shoreline coming back from Osh and I think there was a cessna that had a problem and turned back and ditched a few miles of the MI shoreline. Has anyone done an analysis of engine failures over water in relation to the number of flights over that body of water in a given time and then compared it to engine failures in general? I have to belive the stats are out there.

Certainly spatial disorientation over large bodies of water may be more likely to occur in certain climatological conditions but thats more of a pilot error issue.
Click to expand...
This one didn't have anything to do with an engine failure, and the fact that they crashed into the lake didn't really have any bearing on the survivability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq6DSR667Gg
 
Don't sweat it, you're way more likley to die of a obesity related death, or changing lanes or in a intersection.

Know your glide ratios, carry a raft or life preserver if you're going beyond you glide to land distance.
 
James331 said:
Don't sweat it, you're way more likley to die of a obesity related death, or changing lanes or in a intersection.

Know your glide ratios, carry a raft or life preserver if you're going beyond you glide to land distance.
Click to expand...
And even more generally, don't spend a significant fraction of your total flight time in "red zone" situations where engine out would mean certain death.

I think I've accrued more "red zone" time flying over 500 hours out of KVLL than in the dozen or so 15 minute overwater flights I've made.
 
vfrfellow said:
Just count the number of planes on any given day at Catalina. They had to come from the mainland? Good point though. As a VFR, well, fellow, I use FF and look for the nearest sailboat.
Click to expand...

Well if one were to sit there and actually count planes every day you could do that, but being a private uncontrolled field I doubt any official source would have the data available to study. The conservancy would have it, since they collect fees on every plane that lands, but since they are a private entity it's up to them if they wanna compile and share the numbers or not.

There are some trips where you dont really have the option to go around, any Island qualifies here. Catalina is 30 miles off shore. For most GA aircraft to glide 15 miles you'd need to be at least 10000', and unfortunately most of the planes going there dont have the climb performance to get to 10k before hitting the halfway point. That means when you leave to come home you either have to circle up, or just climb halfway home and realize that you might spend 5min or so in the "danger zone".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGFnQB_IQIQ
 
AdamZ said:
So a few things led to this post. First I was speaking with EdFred who came to visit last weekend and we were discussing flights over lake Michigan. Like the high wing vs. low wing debate there are a lot of passionate feelings about flying over colder water. Granted a ditching in the middle of lake Michigan is going to be cold and survive-ability may be more challenging.

But as I said to Ed, we are pilots we live by numbers, airspeeds, stall speeds, clean and dirty, over the fence speeds, W&B, DA, etc. Every July folks from East of the Mississippi ask to Osh bound pilot "Are you going over or around the lake?"

Why don't we just analyze the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the great lakes, The Pacific flight to Catalina etc. The must be a way to analyze the NTSBs records for flights over a specific body of water say lake Michigan that have failed due to engine issues and compare them to flights over that given body of water over a specific time period. In 12 years of flying I have heard of 3 perhaps 4 crashes in Lake Michigan, One was the college kid who ran out of fuel a couple of miles off the Milwaukee Shoreline, One was a Biz Jet carrying a medical crew and I think organs from WI to MI, One was a cub flying along the Chicago shoreline coming back from Osh and I think there was a cessna that had a problem and turned back and ditched a few miles of the MI shoreline. Has anyone done an analysis of engine failures over water in relation to the number of flights over that body of water in a given time and then compared it to engine failures in general? I have to belive the stats are out there.

Certainly spatial disorientation over large bodies of water may be more likely to occur in certain climatological conditions but thats more of a pilot error issue.
Click to expand...

Check the water temps for the Great Lakes and for Catalina....you will find your answers there. Based on if you had to ditch.

Ditching in water is very survivable....if rescue finds you quickly.

If rescue doesn't find you quickly....wouldnt you rather have had CFIT?
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Check the water temps for the Great Lakes and for Catalina....you will find your answers there. Based on if you had to ditch.

Ditching in water is very survivable....if rescue finds you quickly.

If rescue doesn't find you quickly....wouldnt you rather have had CFIT?
Click to expand...

No I understand your point and those of others very well, Ditching in Lake Michigan or any of the others is certainly more life threatening than having and engine out over Iowa corn fields or the Bonneville Salt Flats. There are certainly other nasty places to put down such as the jagged peaks in West Virgina, Florida everglades and the granite out in the western states.

The risk comes only after the "What If?" I'm not trying to justify anything just trying to figure out if there is an actual way to measure the actual risk. I suspect there is as actuary's do it for insurance companies every day.

People have died on roller coasters but millions still ride them every year. I'm also not suggesting that we avoid risk, again I just want to see if it can be measured. My dad a retired physician used to say a given procedure may have only a 1000th of one percent mortality rate but if your that 1000th of the one percent that risk is too high. Just trying to see if I can put the risk into perspective thats all.
 
I have done a little bit of all the above when dealing with Lake Michigan. I evaluate each flight individually. The particulars of each flight may include the crossing point/distance, weather and winds, who is onboard, time of year, etc..

In general the more 'VIPs' the less inclined I am to go across longer stretches of water. I also submit, the Chicago lakefront doesn't offer to many ideal landing sites from 2000' above the ground/water. The beach is usually crowded on warmer days.

Odds are the initial water splash would be survivable, 80%+. It's the cold water and staying afloat after the plane sinks one has to worry about. Often times there is a freighter towards the middle. My plan was to splash <1 mile in front of them.

I don't think one really needs absolutes, always yeah or nay. It can depend, 11,500' with a 40 kit tailwind over a narrower part can be a better option than 2000' AGL along the Chicago lakefront.
 
Adam what it really comes down to is risk tolerance and planning for contingencies.

If you look at how airlines do it, over water is considered an additional risk. There are no airports to land at over water, hence the ETOPS regulations.

Being Part 91, we're less regulated as to what we must think is safe. Obviously an engine is no more likely to fail over water than over land, but in a piston single that means you're going down and likely in the water, unless you're really high.

As pilots we are about numbers, but we're also about contingency plans, risk management, and "what ifs." Under Part 91 we're afforded the luxury of deciding which risk we're most comfortable taking.

In the twin it gets interesting. I'd actually prefer over water to some over land flights, but I still don't have a place to land if I need to get on the ground right now.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
Why don't we just analyze the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the great lakes, The Pacific flight to Catalina etc. The must be a way to analyze the NTSBs records for flights over a specific body of water say lake Michigan that have failed due to engine issues and compare them to flights over that given body of water over a specific time period. In 12 years of flying I have heard of 3 perhaps 4 crashes in Lake Michigan, One was the college kid who ran out of fuel a couple of miles off the Milwaukee Shoreline, One was a Biz Jet carrying a medical crew and I think organs from WI to MI, One was a cub flying along the Chicago shoreline coming back from Osh and I think there was a cessna that had a problem and turned back and ditched a few miles of the MI shoreline. Has anyone done an analysis of engine failures over water in relation to the number of flights over that body of water in a given time and then compared it to engine failures in general? I have to belive the stats are out there.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe the stats are out there? Where might there be reliable data on the numbers of flights over significant bodies of water such as the Great Lakes to begin this analysis? Nobody's counting this traffic, there's no way to count it.
 
c5595c4866ee5299a73052d3fb457b10.jpg


I found a very large body of water that more of us are willing to fly over. ;)
 
I don't see a "body of water" anywhere, just a thin layer of solid water flakes.
 
It would seem to me that the more important question is what is the survivabilty delta between a forced landing over a large body of water and land. I am not sure how easy it would be to amass that data, but I suspect land would probably be more survivable, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a chance of landing at an airport on land, not too many carriers operating in the Great Lakes.

I have gone over the narrow part of Lake Michigan in the summer at 12,000 feet, but most of the time I am: "Unable direct over Lake."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top