Single over water?

My farthest flown to date is from TOA to AVX but I have no issues with going farther. The occasion just has not arose yet. I plan to fly across the Lake Michigan sometime in the near future. Still that is not all that far. An aircraft is no more likely to suffer an engine failure over water than over any other type of terrain. As long as you are prepared with survival gear and make the call as soon as you know you will splash, your survival chances are pretty good.
 
I flew over the Gulf of Alaska and Prudhoe Bay under 500' ceilings. It was uncomfortable but it makes a good story.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
I've fly regularly from SFO to HKG in a 777. It's a twin. It's a 7,000 mile leg over water.



That's 3,500 miles per engine.
Click to expand...


Pretty much this. If it doesn't have a dozen flight attendants in it, I don't want to be flying it over large bodies of water.
 
Dead Stick said:
Chances are that you'll never have a problem. But a wise pilot always leaves himself an out. It you do this long enough you will eventually roll snake eyes so to speak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's about like rolling all ones using 100 dice. I'm ok with that. Everyone is going to die from something. But at my funeral, please don't say "Well, he died doing what he loved to do"...what treading water in a 50 degree lake?
 
Then there was this guy, who had to plant a Baron in the Gulf because the heater made a bonfire in the nose (was never proven, but I'm calling it anyways, the accident pilot seems to think so).

http://www.csobeech.com/ditch-bag.html

His admission the upgrade to a second engine made him inclined to stop carrying a raft on board or choosing inflatable horsecollar-style PFDs, which could be compact and comfortable enough to be continually worn in-flight, is a hell of a supporting argument for the existence of risk compensation. It also reinforces the notion that accessories are the weak link, not the power generating portions of a piston engine. Also, I found it interesting the 406 didn't do jack for them installed in the airframe, which also supports my choice in doing without the expense of an airframe mounted 406, choosing a much cheaper 406 PLB to do the SAR beacon work for me.

This accident has always stuck in my mind because it reinforces my own approach to flying risks, in that I view the weather, impact, egress mechanics (pax count) and post-egress survival scenario as a more pressing criteria in choosing to fly the route than engine count. In light of this case study, engine count no longer enters my matrix for overwater or night flight.

Lastly, what's up with these gas heaters in piston twins. The whole thing seems a bit sketchy.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Lastly, what's up with these gas heaters in piston twins. The whole thing seems a bit sketchy.
Click to expand...

In a single, your heat source (the engine) is located a foot or so away and directly in front of the cabin, so the heat coming off the engine doesn't have far to travel.

In twins, the engines are located a couple feet out on either side and in colder temperatures, I suspect the heat loss by the time it got to the cabin would be significant.

So they came up with the independent heater.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Lastly, what's up with these gas heaters in piston twins. The whole thing seems a bit sketchy.
Click to expand...
That's an easy thing for a mexican to say. Up here we tend to get cold the much of the year.

To turn your comment around, what's up with tapping a source of deadly carbon monoxide for heat, with the poison separated from the people by a single piece of flimsy, vibrating sheet metal? Sounds kind of sketchy to me.
 
bflynn said:
Yeah, but it's about like rolling all ones using 100 dice. I'm ok with that. Everyone is going to die from something. But at my funeral, please don't say "Well, he died doing what he loved to do"...what treading water in a 50 degree lake?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's just like rolling 100 dice. Keep telling yourself that if that's what it takes for you to rationalize a decision like that. Don't you find it interesting that the guys with 5,000+ hours in their logbooks are the ones that wouldn't fly a single over water while it's mainly the low time (<2,000 hrs) pilots, who have never had an engine failure (yet), that would have no problem with it? Why do you think that is?
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
That's an easy thing for a mexican to say. Up here we tend to get cold the much of the year.

To turn your comment around, what's up with tapping a source of deadly carbon monoxide for heat, with the poison separated from the people by a single piece of flimsy, vibrating sheet metal? Sounds kind of sketchy to me.
Click to expand...

Well they are only 3 miles away across that river, next time I see a mexican I'll be sure to ask.

I agree with your point about heat shrouds in singles. Is carbon monoxide of similar concern on these gas setups? From the Baron accident it appears proximity of baggage to the heater was a factor. I just wonder if you twin drivers lose sleep over that thing catching on fire by inherent design or is it something that's easy to maintain and diagnose?
 
hindsight2020 said:
I just wonder if you twin drivers lose sleep over that thing catching on fire by inherent design or is it something that's easy to maintain and diagnose?
Click to expand...
I don't lose sleep.....but I also don't skimp on heater maintenance.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Well they are only 3 miles away across that river, next time I see a mexican I'll be sure to ask.

I agree with your point about heat shrouds in singles. Is carbon monoxide of similar concern on these gas setups? From the Baron accident it appears proximity of baggage to the heater was a factor. I just wonder if you twin drivers lose sleep over that thing catching on fire by inherent design or is it something that's easy to maintain and diagnose?
Click to expand...
no, i don's lose any sleep over safety, the problem with them is keeping the fire lit, not putting it out. People neglect them, then the spouse and kids get cold, then the family doesn't want to get in the plane anymore. That's why I spend the time and money to keep them in good shape.
 
I ferried cropdusters from S FL to South America back in the 1980's.

Followed the island chain down, but still several long over water stretches.

carribean-map.gif


Wore a life jacket and had a raft. Still, a calculated risk for which I was well paid.

I think this was taken at an airport on the north coast of the Dominican Republic:

11739550305_e52d6d4a4f.jpg


Probably Puerto Plata.
 
Last edited:
Done it many times over Lake Michigan (maybe over a hundred, I'd have to look at the logbook), anywhere from under 1500MSL to 11,500MSL. I think I've only taken life jackets twice, and I've crossed it just about every month of the year. If it's my time to go, it's my time to go. Northern Wisconsin and Michigan are more treacherous, and I spend way more time over that terrain than I do Lake Michigan.
 
EdFred said:
...If it's my time to go, it's my time to go...
Click to expand...
When it's my time to go I want to go peacefully in my sleep, like my grandpa... Not crying and screaming like the passengers in his airplane.

When it's your time to go I hope you don't have friends or family with you. :lol:
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
The last one seems to apply here:

They call them "Hazardous Attitudes" for a reason.
Click to expand...

Not the case at all. The 10 minutes (or less) of wet footprint isn't a worry for me. If my engine happens to quit in that 10 minutes, it's my time. I'll make the call on 1.5 and give them my coordinates and course, but other than that there's not much to do once the restart procedures are exhausted. Either side of that 10 minutes, I glide to shore, and put it down. If it happens in that small window out of the entire day (0.6%) it's my time.

Every day we leave the house, and even days we don't, it could be our time. There's no sense in worrying about it. If someone wants to live life worrying about every little thing, is that really living?
 
Last edited:
702f4dd22e5800eaf4036b5eb7393743.jpg


Any questions? Fly good, meticulously maintained equipment, carry safety equipment and prepare by planning everything that can go wrong. This was in my m20j


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
Not the case at all. The 10 minutes (or less) of wet footprint isn't a worry for me. If my engine happens to quit in that 10 minutes, it's my time. I'll make the call on 1.5 and give them my coordinates and course, but other than that there's not much to do once the restart procedures are exhausted. Either side of that 10 minutes, I glide to shore, and put it down. If it happens in that small window out of the entire day (0.6%) it's my time.

Every day we leave the house, and even days we don't, it could be our time. There's no sense in worrying about it. If someone wants to live life worrying about every little thing, is that really living?
Click to expand...

Concur. Mitigate to your comfort level, then fly worry free. I mean, it's not a bad chart, and not the worst safety "comeback" I've heard. But some of the rest of the safety-babble is just noise. Elevating the trivial to the essential, playing stump-the-dummy over obscure nonsense, and getting wrapped around the axle on "legal" vs "safe". . .rant complete. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top