would you fly across Lake MI in a 172 (80nm)

To me the risk is summed up when you purchase / rent a plane. If you 'always' want an out then a part 25 multi engine is your answer. Balanced fields and all the other regs ensure you always have an 'out'

If you're going to fly a part 23 SE airplane then you have by definition accepted that you are okay with certain phases of flight being fatal if the engine stops. You know that going in and as a pilot you should understand and accept that risk.

Engines today are more reliable than ever and that risk is as low as its ever been. But don't kid yourself, if you fly a SE aircraft there are moments of flight where you can lose an engine and not survive, no matter how proficient you are.

Crossing a big lake? That's just a prolonged exposure to a risk you've already signed up for.
 
Why do you think this is a part 23 vs. part 25 issue?

Captain said:
To me the risk is summed up when you purchase / rent a plane. If you 'always' want an out then a part 25 multi engine is your answer. Balanced fields and all the other regs ensure you always have an 'out'

If you're going to fly a part 23 SE airplane then you have by definition accepted that you are okay with certain phases of flight being fatal if the engine stops. You know that going in and as a pilot you should understand and accept that risk.

Engines today are more reliable than ever and that risk is as low as its ever been. But don't kid yourself, if you fly a SE aircraft there are moments of flight where you can lose an engine and not survive, no matter how proficient you are.

Crossing a big lake? That's just a prolonged exposure to a risk you've already signed up for.
Click to expand...
 
Why do you think it's not? I had a pretty in depth post and made several points supporting my claim. How about you post your opposition position instead.
 
Last edited:
Because you're wrong. Performance is dependent on many factors other than certification paperwork. Some part 23 airplanes are identical to their part 25 counterparts.

Captain said:
Why do you think it's not? I had a pretty in depth post and made several points supporting my claim. How about you post your opposition position instead.
Click to expand...
 
Because I'm wrong? No, I am not wrong. 'some 23 aircraft are identical to their part 25 counterparts'? So what?

If a B747 were operated under part 23 regs (they can't be but let's pretend) it would require ground roll only and not a balanced field. That's less safe and would set up an opportunity to have a moment in flight where an engine failure would be fatal.

That is fact. YOU describe your opposition. When I go on and on for paragraphs only to be countered by you saying, " but why" is not fair. You post a position. It's easy to say, "no" to others while offering nothing.
 
Nope, not playing your game. Go troll somebody else. I'm done and gone.

Captain said:
Because I'm wrong? No, I am not wrong. 'some 23 aircraft are identical to their part 25 counterparts'? So what?

If a B747 were operated under part 23 regs (they can't be but let's pretend) it would require ground roll only and not a balanced field. That's less safe and would set up an opportunity to have a moment in flight where an engine failure would be fatal.

That is fact. YOU describe your opposition. When I go on and on for paragraphs only to be countered by you saying, " but why" is not fair. You post a position. It's easy to say, "no" to others while offering nothing.
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
Day VMC, Day IMC, Night VMC, Night IMC. January - December, solo, with passengers, with GPS, without GPS, with life jackets, without life jackets, 1500' off the surface, 12,000' off the surface. Done em all in SEL, and will continue to do it. If I wanted to go around, I would drive.
Click to expand...
Welcome back, Ed! You've been missed!
 
wabower said:
Nope, not playing your game. Go troll somebody else. I'm done and gone.
Click to expand...

Seriously?!

I make a well founded case. YOU troll along and say, "umph, you're wrong. Tell us why." to which I say I have already made my point.

Somehow that makes me a troll? Really? Am I on camera? Is this bizarro land?. My 23 vs 25 thing was pretty well described. If you have a specific question then please ask. I submit you might be the 'troll' looking for me to engage.
 
By the way, the part 23 verses part 25 analogy to risk assessment is a pretty thought prevoking discussion. Nowhere near 'troll' material.
 
My plane was certified under neither part 23 nor 25, so I'm pretty much guaranteed never to have an engine failure over Lake Michigan.
 
Captain said:
Because I'm wrong? No, I am not wrong. 'some 23 aircraft are identical to their part 25 counterparts'? So what?
Click to expand...

If that is the case then the rate of engine failure should be almost identical, meaning, neither one is a better choice. But since you have chosen the handle of "Captain" I will blindly agree with everything you ever say on here, because you are....a captain.
 
EdFred said:
If that is the case then the rate of engine failure should be almost identical, meaning, neither one is a better choice. The part of certification has little to do with engines and more to do with certification rules. 23 requires ground roll only. Part 25 requires a balanced field and that is the basis I based my risk assessment on.But since you have chosen the handle of "Captain" I will blindly agree with everything you ever say on here, because you are....a captain.
Click to expand...

Good plan.
 
Captain said:
Good plan.
Click to expand...

I will look for a balanced field that affects my flying over water located somewhere on Lake Michigan next time I cross it. Where is the fulcrum point at on this balanced field? Perhaps it is halfway between the sum of the runway numbers?

I don't know what in the blue hell ground roll has to do with crossing the lake.
 
Those that have not the knowledge resort to jokes. That's okay, it's not their fault.

A balanced field is a part 25 aircraft certification requirement. Planes over 12,500 and jets (most) fall into this category of certification. To be certified under part 25 an aircraft must have a balanced field. That is to say accelerate stop and accelerate go are equal or less than available field length.

A part 23 aircraft can take off and rotate and just barely clear the runway lights at the end. A part 25 aircraft needs more protection. It must be able to accelerate to decision speed (V1) and be able to stop OR continue. In a part 23 aircraft decision speed is rotation and if that is at the end of the runway then when the engine quits there you are going into the weeds. Not so much with part 25 aircraft. If they abort at V1 they are guaranteed to have enough runway to stop.

My point in comparing a lake crossing to part 23 is risk. Every single light GA pilot assumes part 23 risk when they yell, "clear prop!"...weather they realise it or not. Engine fails just before rotation on that 1700 foot strip and you're going in the weeds.

Rotate in LAX and that engine quits at 800' and you're landing off airport. (near certain death). That was LAX! Imagine MYF or 07FA. Point is, part 25 aircraft operate with a philophsy that an engine can quit at any time during the entire flight and the safety of flight is assured. That's what the paying public pays for.

You, however, do not have that luxury if you fly a part 23 airplane. If the engine quits just after takeoff and there is nothing but buildings or a cliff (KTEX) then you are going to die and thats a fact the FAA is okay with.

Think about it. Here is the FAA priority for protecting people...

FIRST: they really hate it when people on the ground die. People on the ground did nothing to assume ANY risk.

SECOND: they hate it when paying passengers die. Paying passengers did assume some risk, but they expect to get from A to B alive. Our nation air transportation system depends on that belief.

THIRD: they dislike it when private pilots kill themselves. Pilots know the risks and assume all of it. But if you slam into a mountain and kill just yourself they arn't going to lose much sleep.

So, part 23, private plane, non jet, private pilot (and guests if any)...FAA not so concerned about your survival. You assume the most risk.

Want to take off with just ground roll? FARs allow that. Want to fly SE across lake Michagan? You can do that too. The risk is yours.

That's how the aircraft certification parts tie in to the risk management of crossing a lake.
 
Last edited:
And for those of us that don't fly part 23 planes???

And your whole start/stop distance analogy appears to be nothing more than you showing everyone how impressive you think you are are at jerking yourself off. You know what's amazing....they have start stop distances for twins that AREN"T part 25 certified. Amazing.

How a plane was certified has 0 to do with crossing the lake.
 
Last edited:
BTW, notice the hierarchy of the FAA hate list. 1st Hate, 2nd Hate, 3rd Dislike.

That's a fact of aviation I'd recommend all here take to heart.
 
EdFred said:
And for those of us that don't fly part 23 planes???

And your whole start/stop distance analogy appears to be nothing more than you showing everyone how impressive you think you are are at jerking yourself off.

How a plane was certified has 0 to do with crossing the lake.
Click to expand...


Then keep a balanced field like the FARs and your ops pec require.
 
Captain said:
Then keep a balanced field like the FARs and your ops pec require.
Click to expand...

Are ops pecs similar to ops abs, and ops traps?

You know, if you wanted to lend any weight to your arguments, you wouldn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
 
EdFred said:
And for those of us that don't fly part 23 planes???

And your whole start/stop distance analogy appears to be nothing more than you showing everyone how impressive you think you are are at jerking yourself off. You know what's amazing....they have start stop distances for twins that AREN"T part 25 certified. Amazing.

How a plane was certified has 0 to do with crossing the lake.
Click to expand...


I'm not 'jer..pleasuring myself?'. It's simply the facts. Believe what you like. I could care less. Your just an Internet goob to me and I'm an Internet goob to you.

Fly safe
 
Captain said:
I'm not 'jer..pleasuring myself?'. It's simply the facts. Believe what you like. I could care less. Your just an Internet goob to me and I'm an Internet goob to you.

Fly safe
Click to expand...

You could care less? how much less could you care? 10%? 50%? I always love it when I can care less. Actually, I'm not just some guy on the internet. I've met, probably over 100 members from here, host a fly in, and attend at least one other board fly-in each year.
 
EdFred said:
You could care less? how much less could you care? 10%? 50%? I always love it when I can care less. Actually, I'm not just some guy on the internet. I've met, probably over 100 members from here, host a fly in, and attend at least one other board fly-in each year.
Click to expand...



Well then you are truly spectacular. I bow to your presence.
 
EdFred said:
Are ops pecs similar to ops abs, and ops traps?

You know, if you wanted to lend any weight to your arguments, you wouldn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
Click to expand...

I must have missed your name in your very welcoming introduction. Was that Doritos or Mr. Doritos? Maybe just "SmellThese".

Somehow I think you're trying to tank my post with silliness. Say, are you one of those 'trolls' I've heard about recently? In case you are I think I'm done.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Because I'm wrong? No, I am not wrong. 'some 23 aircraft are identical to their part 25 counterparts'? So what?

If a B747 were operated under part 23 regs (they can't be but let's pretend) it would require ground roll only and not a balanced field. That's less safe and would set up an opportunity to have a moment in flight where an engine failure would be fatal.

That is fact. YOU describe your opposition. When I go on and on for paragraphs only to be countered by you saying, " but why" is not fair. You post a position. It's easy to say, "no" to others while offering nothing.
Click to expand...

No aircraft can be operated under Part 23 regulations because Part 23 does not address the operation of aircraft, it sets airworthiness standards.
 
roncachamp said:
No aircraft can be operated under Part 23 regulations because Part 23 does not address the operation of aircraft, it sets airworthiness standards.
Click to expand...


This thread isn't about aircraft certification. It's about flying over a lake.

I was simply making the point that part 23 certified aircraft require ground roll only to be legal to take off. A part 25 aircraft needs a balanced field. The reason I bring that up is risk. A pilot in a part 23 certified aircraft (SE GA plane, like say a C-172) can take off with only ground roll. The engine can quit and the pilot will die. That is a risk every pilot of a part 23 certified aircraft lives with.

If you're willing to risk your life (albeit a low risk) on takeoff then perhaps you're willing to extend that risk (same low risk) a tad and fly over a lake.


edit to add quote.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
This thread isn't about aircraft certification. It's about flying over a lake.

I was simply making the point that part 23 certified aircraft require ground roll only to be legal to take off. A part 25 aircraft needs a balanced field. The reason I bring that up is risk. A pilot in a part 23 certified aircraft (SE GA plane, like say a C-172) can take off with only ground roll. The engine can quit and the pilot will die. That is a risk every pilot of a part 23 certified aircraft lives with.

If you're willing to risk your life (albeit a low risk) on takeoff then perhaps you're willing to extend that risk (same low risk) a tad and fly over a lake.


edit to add quote.
Click to expand...

*cough* AA191 *cough*
 
Skylane81E said:
What makes a 74 any better for crossing the lake than a "lesser" multi?
Click to expand...

Well,,, there is that pesky Kalitta 747 that lost a motor, and I mean completely LOST the motor over the lake a few years back.. I beleive they even had a bounty out on it for who ever could find it and get it off the lake bottom..

Now back to your regular scheduled program..:idea:
 
The stupidest thing about this whole start stop distance parallel, is that it could all be applied to GA planes, and it would just add another 2 pages to the POH/AFM of prohibitions. Which would still have 0 to do with crossing the lake or not.
 
Captain said:
This thread isn't about aircraft certification. It's about flying over a lake.
Click to expand...

It was you that brought Part 23 into the discussion. Apparently you weren't aware that Part 23 was concerned with aircraft certification at that time.
 
N801BH said:
Yup... and you can find a sandbar to crash on thats 6" deep..


Welcome to POA too...:yesnod::yesnod:
Click to expand...

LOL, you ditch there you better be able to run in that 6" of water and silt beneath because you've turned from "PIC, Master of the skies" to "swamp snack":rofl::rofl::rofl: That's why most locals follow the islands so they can get on the road before something eats them.
 
roncachamp said:
It was you that brought Part 23 into the discussion. Apparently you weren't aware that Part 23 was concerned with aircraft certification at that time.
Click to expand...

I only brought that in to compare risk. This whole thread is about the 'risk' of crossing the lake in a single engine aircraft. The only reason I see a connection between part 23 is that risk equation.

Part 25 requires a balanced field. Part 23 requires ground roll only. Ergo, if you fly a part 23 aircraft and takeoff with just ground roll you are assuming a certain level of risk that is higher than if you operated a part 25 certified aircraft.

I'm simply comparing that increase in risk to the increased risk of crossing the lake single engine.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. Does this stuff not make sense? It seems pretty straight forward to me...
 
Captain said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. Does this stuff not make sense? It seems pretty straight forward to me...
Click to expand...

I've noticed from your input in this and other threads that nonsense seems pretty straight forward to you. If you are truly sincere with what you post then you are one dim bulb. But I think you're just a troll and the best way to deal with trolls is to ingore them.
 
Henning said:
LOL, you ditch there you better be able to run in that 6" of water and silt beneath because you've turned from "PIC, Master of the skies" to "swamp snack":rofl::rofl::rofl: That's why most locals follow the islands so they can get on the road before something eats them.
Click to expand...

Swamp Snack...:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Absolutely classic....:yesnod::yesnod: I am going to quote you on that for the rest of my life..:D.

Ps... my comment was in regard to flying across the Fla straights to Key West, not over the 10,000 islands and Chocoloskee area..
 
roncachamp said:
I've noticed from your input in this and other threads that nonsense seems pretty straight forward to you. If you are truly sincere with what you post then you are one dim bulb. But I think you're just a troll and the best way to deal with trolls is to ingore them.
Click to expand...


Okay. I can't think of one thing I've posted on this or other threads here that are factually inaccurate.

Well, there was that one thread where I was mocking the idea that Alternates are required because of 'lost comms'...but that was satire, and the only instance.
 
I wonder what the chances are of getting a raft out and inflated after a water ditching? Conversely, I wonder how many water ditches have resulted in a loss of life that had a raft that was never deployed?

I like the raft idea in theory, but from a practical standpoint, it seems like a long shot. If ditching in the water, is it still recommended to open the door prior to "landing"? If so does anyone know how many minutes before an aircraft like a 172 would be submerged?

I'm thinking a high wing would sink relatively quickly until the wings are at water level, then there would be a short pause (maybe a few minutes) until it completely submerges.

EDIT: I found some stats from 1999 (AOPA article)
This may all sound absolutely dreadful, but statistics show that most ditchings are successful. By one count, 88 percent of all ditchings were survived. Other statistics show a 92-percent successful egress rate. A recent search of NTSB data from 1983 to 1999 shows that there were 143 ditchings on record, and that only 20 of them involved fatalities.
 
Last edited:
My sister's ex father in law went down in a chopper in Lake Michigan, they were picked up in 40 minutes.
 
Captain said:
I only brought that in to compare risk. This whole thread is about the 'risk' of crossing the lake in a single engine aircraft. The only reason I see a connection between part 23 is that risk equation.

Part 25 requires a balanced field. Part 23 requires ground roll only. Ergo, if you fly a part 23 aircraft and takeoff with just ground roll you are assuming a certain level of risk that is higher than if you operated a part 25 certified aircraft.

I'm simply comparing that increase in risk to the increased risk of crossing the lake single engine.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. Does this stuff not make sense? It seems pretty straight forward to me...
Click to expand...

So just to be clear...if I take off in my 182 from a 5000'+ field then I will cross the lake safely?:wink2:

Of course I jest, but I NEVER operate out of a field where I could not abort the take-off.

A twin of any flavor would certainly help over the lake with improved glide slope, even if SE ceiling were a lot lower than cruise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top