Would you?

That's pathetic...
I mean, I agree. But it's not really a real "private jet" and not necessarily meant to compete with something like a Mustang, Citation, Lear45, etc.. it is meant for somebody who wants to go faster and higher than what they're getting in their SR22 in their own little private spaceship.. and still be able to fit inside of their T hangar. Honestly a brand new Mooney, Cirrus, and Bonanza all have rather pathetic useful loads.. and compared to a TBM the SF50 is a fraction of the cost
 
I notice that the direct rte goes through Warning Area 92. (S of New Orleans) Usually hot above 10K. Get a good brief from FSS. Better yet, get the direct phone # off the chart and call the user at JRB N.O. Its the "Coon A## Militia, LA ANG. Expect F-15s doing ACM. Call sign JAZZ.
We don't go to W-92 - at least not in the last 8 years I've been in the unit. Officially we are the Bayou Militia now (thanks PC police) :(
 
[QUOTE="
statistics are a little dubious with that though. I agree, I'd far rather be in a turbine, but all of the flights are independent events. If a profilactic is 99% effective that does not mean you will have one pregnancy for every 100 intimacies..

And there are a decent amount of failures from the venerable and beloved indestructible pt6 turbines. Everything can break. It is nice to have redundancy for situations like this[/QUOTE]
A turbine powered UH-1 got me home once with two bullets in the compressor section. No indications on the gauges on the 35 min flt.
Had a PT-6 gradually go south on me. Took about 40 min. The A/C had a pair of them. A cowling fastener came loose and the engine processed it. Bent inlet guide vanes. The engine was screaming like a banshee and torque fluctuating big time. Still producing useful power. Good performance for an engine that began life in Canada as an ag irrigation powerplant. I have other examples.
 
I’m with @Tantalum on this. I’d do it in a turbine single - TBM or SF50. and I’d do it in a CAPS equipped acft, with a raft and a PLB.
But alone. And it would have to be MUCH Shorter than staying close to land.
 
Tantalum, you need to discover these
406610-9029.jpg

Cool money furnace!
 
Just thinking. Many turbine engines quit because of issues not related to parts breaking. Examples: A twin turbine A/C looses one in the traffic pattern caused by fuel exhaustion with plenty of fuel in the tanks. Caused by a faulty check valve in the airframe fuel system. A recent incident involving a Cessna jet caused a forced landing when both engines quit. Caused by a ground support worker who found a container of clear liquid and mistook it for PRIST. Poured it into the tanker. The tanker refueled the jet. It was a diesel additive that rapidly clogged the engine fuel filters.
Just saying...
 
Actually looking for someone to explain this to me because my own opinion doesn’t seem to make sense. I would never fly more than gliding distance off shore single engine, yet I fly single engine at night fairly often and feel fine. realistically I think my chances in a ditching (if I had a life raft and such) would be better than trying to pick an off field landing spot at night. Right?
 
I mean.. on a pitch black night you are still more likely to find some ambient city lights.. street lights, a lamp post, some road (look for cars) then you are going to be able to properly judge height and depth perception crashing into the water

In my (not so humble) opinion is an absurd fallacy to think that flying over water is ever equivalently risky as flying over land
 
*and, as many others have pointed out.. if you do survive the crash, you will live longer on land than in water. In Oceanside OKB relatively recently some dude went scud running at night IMC and drilled into the mountain right next to the airport.. he spent something like 9 hours barely conscious and pinned in the wreckage.. ultimately he lived through it. Had he ended up in the water I doubt he would have.
 
I mean.. on a pitch black night you are still more likely to find some ambient city lights.. street lights, a lamp post, some road (look for cars) then you are going to be able to properly judge height and depth perception crashing into the water

In my (not so humble) opinion is an absurd fallacy to think that flying over water is ever equivalently risky as flying over land

That’s fair I just think you know what you’re getting into with water at least and can prepare somewhat well. Ditching in day VFR is obviously dangerous and yes something I personally go to great lengths to ensure I will never do, but also has a sort of surprisingly high survival rate. The idea of an engine out at night just terrified me bc even if you see a road that’s well lit, it’s nearly impossible to see obstacles like power lines
 
That’s fair I just think you know what you’re getting into with water at least and can prepare somewhat well. Ditching in day VFR is obviously dangerous and yes something I personally go to great lengths to ensure I will never do, but also has a sort of surprisingly high survival rate. The idea of an engine out at night just terrified me bc even if you see a road that’s well lit, it’s nearly impossible to see obstacles like power lines
totally valid point, and although the survival rate of twin engine planes that have experienced an engine failure can be dubious, and is highly dependent on the proficiency of the pilot, we definitely do accept a higher risk level flying an airplane with only one engine. And also why, despite the hate it sometimes receives, it brings me great peace of mind knowing I have a parachute
 
realistically I think my chances in a ditching (if I had a life raft and such) would be better than trying to pick an off field landing spot at night. Right?
Depends. On a pitch black night, no moon no stars, no civilization nearby so no lights to speak of then yes, your odds might be lower than ditching in water. But put a moon in the sky and/or fly near civilization and I think your odds are better than water ditching all things being equal. I don't think the odds are attractive in either case, but I think water is worse overall.

Off airport landings whether on water or dry land tend to be rough. Very rough. Hitting your head and losing consciousness isn't a fatal injury. But do it during a water ditching and it likely will be fatal. Can't get out and swim if you ain't awake. If you do stay awake and manage to get out, now you have to get found. Rule number one in off airport landings is stay with the plane to await rescue. Can't stay with the plane when you're floating. So now you're drifting. You can last a few days if you've got a raft AND you can get it out of the plane before it sinks AND you can get yourself inside it. Have you ever practiced any of that? Oh wait, hit your head first, then get out of the sinking plane, then get the raft out and get it deployed and get into it in whatever seas you happen to be in. Do that with no practice and get it right the first time. Yeah, not impossible and people have done it successfully many times. People have also ditched and never made it out of the plane many times. I'll take flying at night vs extended over water any day.
 
Yeah, screw the facts. This is the 2010's it's all about feelings now.
There are facts that show you are as likely to survive crash in water as land? Please do share..

If only this student and the instructor had been aware of said facts: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-missing-plane-catalina-20160531-snap-story.html

PS - there's going to be a huge variable here when attempting to factualize an opinion that overwater flight is no riskier than over land flight.. IE, how do you treat disappearances like the one posted above? But what I can say is.. many people have been found in some state of "living" after having crashed on land, sometimes after spending many hours trapped in wreckage. I'm not aware of anyone (outside of the well publicized Caps pulls in water, there are two big ones that come to mind, here and here) that has been found floating alive in water hours after a crash and rescued

You an mitigate and rationalize your risks as much as possible, but ultimately the facts are if your engine quits over water you are going to be attempting something you've never done before (a ditching) and going to be swimming. The ELT will be useless to you, and your cell phone, assuming you have service, will get wet and die. Even if you were on Flight Following or an IFR plan SAR will be looking for a tiny head bobbing in water. You are proverbially F****** . At least over land (most) people at some point have practiced power off landings and can at least pick a river bank, a meadow, etc., to ditch in.. and that wreckage will be much easier to find.. vs just "he/she/they disappeared"
 
Last edited:
your odds might be lower than ditching in water.
Let's say you survive. On land you have a concussion and broken leg.. but the sun will rise and SAR will, if all goes well, spot wreckage and find you. What will happen if you have to spend 12 hrs treading water with a concussion and broken leg?

Seems like people cherry pick events to rationalize single engine over water flight
 
There are facts that show you are as likely to survive crash in water as land? Please do share..

It's been mentioned and linked to on the board a number of times.
 
Let's say you survive. On land you have a concussion and broken leg.. but the sun will rise and SAR will, if all goes well, spot wreckage and find you. What will happen if you have to spend 12 hrs treading water with a concussion and broken leg?

Seems like people cherry pick events to rationalize single engine over water flight
Slow your roll. I'm on your side on this.
 
These are the last things that I'll say on this topic.
Hold the applause.

1.Thats a fair sized over water leg. And you're not planning a land fall at Merida to shave off 50 miles?
2.Are you going to get some water survival training?
3. Will you rent some Mae Wests, rafts, etc?

I once watched some water survival training in a lake. Four people in a raft declined to get out of the raft and into the water for the "rescue". The helo tried to hover over the raft. The raft reacted like a ping pong ball attacked by a leaf blower. The helo hovered higher. Still higher. The military Breeze Rescue hoist only has 256 feet of useful cable and it was eventually all paid out. It was painful to watch. The safety boat went out and towed them in.
 
If this cut your fuel cost and travel times by over half and it was sky clear all the way there, would you in your plane?

No. (I have a Mooney Ovation, which would happily go 700 miles nonstop and have three hours of fuel remaining when I got there.)

To get this anywhere close to my personal risk profile, the amount of money I would have to spend on survival equipment would eat up any difference in fuel and then some, and the amount of time I'd have to spend planning would more than eat up the difference in travel time. Plus, I've found some excellent adventures at the places I've stopped on the way to somewhere else. Who knows that I might discover near the Gulf coast of Mexico? If nothing else, I could visit @rwellner98 at his pad in Mexico on the way! :D

Do you think a light twin at gross would have any different outcome if it lost an engine?

Yes. And if you're at gross, you just took off.

The twin isn't necessarily the magic bullet - You'll need to calculate how far you can go with the extra drag and lost power of single-engine flight, and consider failure modes that may keep you from using all of the fuel you have on board - I'd love to hear whether @James_Dean would have done it in his 310 (or the Conquest, for that matter). So it's not something where you can just launch without thinking about it simply because you have an extra engine.

Man you guys are so cautious about flying over water in a single engine. If you don't trust your plane, why get into it? Given a properly maintained plane, flown often and a pilot with the necessary skills and emergency supplies, a twin is no better than a single.

A twin is absolutely better than a single. With a single, you're going in the water right now, cursing your awesome mechanic and all the dollars you spent on the fancy factory reman engine that just failed the whole way down. Well maintained is certainly necessary for this kind of trip, but well-maintained stuff still fails.

Also, it's not so much about the chances of something happening as it is about what happens afterwards in the event something DOES happen. About 13 years ago, a plane that I had logged some time in went into Lake Michigan, about 5 miles off shore. ATC had gotten a hold of the Coast Guard and they were in the water before the plane went in, the pilot was a competitive swimmer, he ditched successfully (they know because he was able to call 911 from his cell phone and talk to them for a few minutes before the plane sank) and he did not make it.

As a result, I have a protocol that I created for myself when flying over Lake Michigan. Yes, that is something I do in my airplane. But I won't even fly my plane over the widest part of the lake, and that's only 70nm, not 700.

No difference flying over all that water then flying over mountains or flatland or desert, etc. Engine fails you're going to put it down. With the proper equipment you should be fine. It's about preparation.

It's still not the same. Even if you have a raft with all the survival gear and food, you have a finite quantity of time for someone to find you. If you have all the survival gear (which is less, IMO!) on land, you have a chance to make use of the local flora and fauna to create an indefinite supply of shelter and food.

Lindbergh did it way back then without all the fancy gadgets folks put in their planes today.

And they called him "Lucky Lindy" for a reason. Many others attempted the same and perished.

I would in one of the planes I'm flying(CAPS with enough fuel for this range given some tailwind). Only alone though. Wouldn't want to take my family with me. It's not so much for safety reasons as proper equipment and CAPS will not make it too dangerous. Honestly, CAPS would be my preference to 2nd engine as 1 engine failure is not the only thing that can go wrong. But if something were to happen, that's a lot of hours of "i told you so" and "I'm never flying with you again" :)

CAPS/BRS doesn't give you much. The plane is still going in the water, and at that point you're in the same pickle you would be without CAPS.

In fact, I'm not sure if I'd pop the chute if I had one, if I know I'm for sure going into water. You come down pretty freaking hard even on land, where you have the landing gear absorbing most of the shock of the landing. The Cessna test pilot who rode one of the Skycatchers down under the chute had some broken bones and dislocated ribs, and again, that was on land! The guy who rode his Cirrus into the Potomac after experiencing a seizure had a couple of crushed vertebrae. Etc etc... Meanwhile, the record for plain old ditchings, where you "land" the plane on the water, is very good.

One of the most prominent CAPS pulls was off the coast of Hawaii. Pilot encountered some sort of fuel system problem trying to ferry the SR22 from Tracy, California. Ditched a couple hundred miles short of his destination and was picked up by a cruise ship tender. Coast Guard C130 caught the whole thing on video.


Wow. That guy was super lucky - Not only that he went in relatively uninjured, but that the USCG was already there before he went in and a cruise ship picked him up about a half hour later.

I'm surprised by how fast the plane went in, though - One minute flat from initial impact until it rolled over and went down. I guess he didn't have as much air in his tanks as some other ditchings. ;)

I'd do it single engine, in a Pilatus PC-12, a TBM 700 through 950, or an F-16.

I fly a TBM 900 for work. I'd at least start to think about it, but I'm not sure I would do it even with that... And we already own the raft and throw it in back for our overwater legs (mostly Lake Michigan). You're still in a massive area of the planet, and you are tiny. And oceans have currents that move you from where you initially activated your PLB... Etc.

All I know is that dying alone in the middle of the Gulf is not how I want to go.
 
Yes. And if you're at gross, you just took off.

The twin isn't necessarily the magic bullet - You'll need to calculate how far you can go with the extra drag and lost power of single-engine flight, and consider failure modes that may keep you from using all of the fuel you have on board - I'd love to hear whether @James_Dean would have done it in his 310 (or the Conquest, for that matter). So it's not something where you can just launch without thinking about it simply because you have an extra engine.


All I know is that dying alone in the middle of the Gulf is not how I want to go.

First gut reaction is no on the 310 and yes on the Conquest. Fuel specifics get worse on the 310 due to how hard you’ll be pushing that good engine. Also a good chance that some fuel got stuck in the Aux tank on the bad side.
 
No. (I have a Mooney Ovation, which would happily go 700 miles nonstop and have three hours of fuel remaining when I got there.)

To get this anywhere close to my personal risk profile, the amount of money I would have to spend on survival equipment would eat up any difference in fuel and then some, and the amount of time I'd have to spend planning would more than eat up the difference in travel time. Plus, I've found some excellent adventures at the places I've stopped on the way to somewhere else. Who knows that I might discover near the Gulf coast of Mexico? If nothing else, I could visit @rwellner98 at his pad in Mexico on the way! :D



Yes. And if you're at gross, you just took off.

The twin isn't necessarily the magic bullet - You'll need to calculate how far you can go with the extra drag and lost power of single-engine flight, and consider failure modes that may keep you from using all of the fuel you have on board - I'd love to hear whether @James_Dean would have done it in his 310 (or the Conquest, for that matter). So it's not something where you can just launch without thinking about it simply because you have an extra engine.



A twin is absolutely better than a single. With a single, you're going in the water right now, cursing your awesome mechanic and all the dollars you spent on the fancy factory reman engine that just failed the whole way down. Well maintained is certainly necessary for this kind of trip, but well-maintained stuff still fails.

Also, it's not so much about the chances of something happening as it is about what happens afterwards in the event something DOES happen. About 13 years ago, a plane that I had logged some time in went into Lake Michigan, about 5 miles off shore. ATC had gotten a hold of the Coast Guard and they were in the water before the plane went in, the pilot was a competitive swimmer, he ditched successfully (they know because he was able to call 911 from his cell phone and talk to them for a few minutes before the plane sank) and he did not make it.

As a result, I have a protocol that I created for myself when flying over Lake Michigan. Yes, that is something I do in my airplane. But I won't even fly my plane over the widest part of the lake, and that's only 70nm, not 700.



It's still not the same. Even if you have a raft with all the survival gear and food, you have a finite quantity of time for someone to find you. If you have all the survival gear (which is less, IMO!) on land, you have a chance to make use of the local flora and fauna to create an indefinite supply of shelter and food.



And they called him "Lucky Lindy" for a reason. Many others attempted the same and perished.



CAPS/BRS doesn't give you much. The plane is still going in the water, and at that point you're in the same pickle you would be without CAPS.

In fact, I'm not sure if I'd pop the chute if I had one, if I know I'm for sure going into water. You come down pretty freaking hard even on land, where you have the landing gear absorbing most of the shock of the landing. The Cessna test pilot who rode one of the Skycatchers down under the chute had some broken bones and dislocated ribs, and again, that was on land! The guy who rode his Cirrus into the Potomac after experiencing a seizure had a couple of crushed vertebrae. Etc etc... Meanwhile, the record for plain old ditchings, where you "land" the plane on the water, is very good.



Wow. That guy was super lucky - Not only that he went in relatively uninjured, but that the USCG was already there before he went in and a cruise ship picked him up about a half hour later.

I'm surprised by how fast the plane went in, though - One minute flat from initial impact until it rolled over and went down. I guess he didn't have as much air in his tanks as some other ditchings. ;)



I fly a TBM 900 for work. I'd at least start to think about it, but I'm not sure I would do it even with that... And we already own the raft and throw it in back for our overwater legs (mostly Lake Michigan). You're still in a massive area of the planet, and you are tiny. And oceans have currents that move you from where you initially activated your PLB... Etc.

All I know is that dying alone in the middle of the Gulf is not how I want to go.


Cirrus site lists all CAPS events. There are 7 water “landings”. In 6 of them, no injuries(many multiple people). 1 event has severe injury (solo pilot) with low altitude activation. I’ll take these odds. CAVU, Raft, provisions, and sat phone/gps locator makes floating in warm Caribbean for a rescue a non event imho.
 
I'm surprised by how fast the plane went in, though - One minute flat from initial impact until it rolled over and went down.

That's interesting -- I remember that story but I didn't remember that detail of it. To me, that just reinforces my initial "no" answer in my single, though I do have the fuel for it.

Ok, you're in the water -- you have 60 seconds to get oriented, get out, and get your raft out (at a minimum). More if you're lucky... but what you gotta ask yourself is, do you feel lucky? Do ya? :) (How do you even practice for that realistically?)

But your other point is totally where I'm at also; the time and money I would spend on the appropriate gear and training would absolutely pay for the longer (and maybe more fun) route over land anyway. If I had some reason to do this leg every week? That might be different. Once? Nope.

Someone mentioned @Katamarino earlier in the thread... did you read the amount of prep and planning that went into that trip?? Kudos to him in that context, but for this? Nope.
 
Cirrus site lists all CAPS events. There are 7 water “landings”. In 6 of them, no injuries(many multiple people). 1 event has severe injury (solo pilot) with low altitude activation. I’ll take these odds. CAVU, Raft, provisions, and sat phone/gps locator makes floating in warm Caribbean for a rescue a non event imho.

6/7 is probably worse odds than plain old ditchings. Of course, nobody's keeping the data on those, so who knows. But if I have a flyable airplane, I'm using it.

In terms of the aftermath... Too may single points of failure. Your PLB was manufactured with a bad battery and doesn't put out enough signal to reach the satellites? You're dead. You catch the raft on something pulling it out the door in your semi-paniced state and rip it? You're dead. Provisions get knocked overboard? Well, maybe you're not dead.

Sorry, for a mission that can still be completed without the risk, I don't see a point in doing it direct.

But your other point is totally where I'm at also; the time and money I would spend on the appropriate gear and training would absolutely pay for the longer (and maybe more fun) route over land anyway. If I had some reason to do this leg every week? That might be different. Once? Nope.

Someone mentioned @Katamarino earlier in the thread... did you read the amount of prep and planning that went into that trip?? Kudos to him in that context, but for this? Nope.

Yep... But if I need to do this on a regular basis, I'm going to get a more appropriate airplane for the mission.

Also, I say this despite thinking that it'd be fun to cross the Atlantic in my airplane someday (via Goose Bay, Greenland, Iceland). But that's not a mission that can be done without crossing water.
 
6/7 is probably worse odds than plain old ditchings. Of course, nobody's keeping the data on those, so who knows. But if I have a flyable airplane, I'm using it.

In terms of the aftermath... Too may single points of failure. Your PLB was manufactured with a bad battery and doesn't put out enough signal to reach the satellites? You're dead. You catch the raft on something pulling it out the door in your semi-paniced state and rip it? You're dead. Provisions get knocked overboard? Well, maybe you're not dead.

Sorry, for a mission that can still be completed without the risk, I don't see a point in doing it direct.
.

Did you see where I said the injury was with a low altitude activation? All activations within the envelope produced no injuries. Hell, you can get the raft on the wing before you splash if you want. You can probably get yourself on the wing and dive in as well(probably not the best plan, but you could). Everyone has different risk tolerance. I respect yours, but for me(alone) this would not be a big deal. With others on board, they would have to have a good understanding of the risk involved(not necessarily of death, but a major rescue situation).
 
6/7 is probably worse odds than plain old ditchings
PS, I agree with you fully on this topic. One thing is though I think I'd be in the pull the chute camp verse ditch camp assuming I was within the envelope of safe parachute deployment. Unfortunately low-altitude caps deployment usually don't go well since the first phase of the parachute activation involves a pretty severe nose down pitch

but assuming I have pulled the chute with plenty of altitude this will give me time to open the door, get the life raft ready, and prepare myself, something I wouldn't really be able to do if I'm trying to glide a plane
 
I wouldn't really be able to do if I'm trying to glide a plane

Why not? I've trimmed forward, unbuckled the seat belt and grabbed something I needed out of the baggage area before a couple of times. Have none of you guys been in a high stress situation before?
 
First gut reaction is no on the 310 and yes on the Conquest. Fuel specifics get worse on the 310 due to how hard you’ll be pushing that good engine. Also a good chance that some fuel got stuck in the Aux tank on the bad side.

Thinking about worst case for the Conquest-

For that flight I’m not departing with less than 1800 lbs of fuel. By the 350 mile point I’ll have consumed 840 lbs leaving 960. I’d normally be FL240 - FL280 on a flight like this so that will be the assumption here. I’d get it cleaned up and would set max torque on the good side and I’d stay as high as possible while maintaining no less than 150kias. I’d take the drift down in altitude that would result. Would be burning 250 lbs/hr. I’d throw the oxygen mask on just in case anything happened to the good engine. When I reached an altitude where I could keep 150 kias without descending I’d pull the power back to 1000 lbs on the good side and keep drifting down until I’m at 8k-10k. At 10k and 1000lbs I’m running 250 lbs/hr doing around 175ktas. All useable fuel is available in this scenario and should land with well more than an hour reserve.

Would probably be a little sweaty on landing, but should be no big deal.
 
Cirrus site lists all CAPS events. There are 7 water “landings”. In 6 of them, no injuries(many multiple people). 1 event has severe injury (solo pilot) with low altitude activation. I’ll take these odds. CAVU, Raft, provisions, and sat phone/gps locator makes floating in warm Caribbean for a rescue a non event imho.

Well if that's YOUR definition of a "non-event" so be it. :rofl:
Count me out.
 
With Katamarino levels of preparation I’m game. A group of people took my club’s A36 around the world and did a 10 hour leg direct from Japan to Alaska. Makes it seem not so impossible with the right preparation.
 
Man you guys are so cautious about flying over water in a single engine. If you don't trust your plane, why get into it? Given a properly maintained plane, flown often and a pilot with the necessary skills and emergency supplies, a twin is no better than a single.
Twins double your chances of an engine failure.
 
I’m taking a liking to Searey amphibious planes so maybe the journey would work in that since you could land on the water as needed.
 
I’m taking a liking to Searey amphibious planes so maybe the journey would work in that since you could land on the water as needed.
Does the Searey have the range for that kind flight?
 
Back
Top