Icing in the air...

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by minitour

I wouldn't go single engine over water if I wasn't a floater either. It's not some badge of honor like you're making it out to be. I'll leave it at that.
-mini

Nope just your job. I'm more curious about the single engine in IMC part?
Personal minimums have no business when you're getting paid.....just my opinion.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Nope just your job. I'm more curious about the single engine in IMC part?
Personal minimums have no business when you're getting paid.....just my opinion.

1. My job isn't as important as my life. I'll keep avoiding over-water ops in singles.

2. It's my belief that singles shouldn't be flown IFR. Believe what you want...that's mine. One too many problems in singles to be comfortable doing it anymore. Anyway, do I? Sure. Down to minimums? Hey, like you said...I'm getting paid for it so yeah, if I have to.

Does that mean I'll tool along for 3 hours in IMC when I can top it or get under it? No.

So, like I said,

Originally Posted by minitour

not flying it IMC when I don't have to

.

3. I'd agree with the personal minimums thing to an extent. Some things aren't negotiable (over water in a single for me).

-mini

[Ian J]

I think the real questions are (since you're getting paid for it):

1) Are you on time?
2) Are you costing the company extra money in fuel?

If the answers are yes and no, it really doesn't matter what you do.

If not, it might be beneficial to take a run that only flies multis.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by Ian J

I think the real questions are (since you're getting paid for it):

1) Are you on time?
2) Are you costing the company extra money in fuel?

If the answers are yes and no, it really doesn't matter what you do.

If not, it might be beneficial to take a run that only flies multis.

Of course, if the plane goes down in the drink then the answer to both is "no"........but the fuel saved doesn't really matter then, does it?

But I'd agree with those two questions. If you're having a hard time being on time, it's time to look at alternatives.

-mini

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by minitour

Of course, if the plane goes down in the drink then the answer to both is "no"........but the fuel saved doesn't really matter then, does it?

But I'd agree with those two questions. If you're having a hard time being on time, it's time to look at alternatives.

-mini

You could "if" a whole lot of scenarios with any type of airplane.

I dunno man - I certainly respect you attitude of safety, and support a PIC's decision in respect to safety. However, if I were the CP I would tell you face to face that it is your job to fly across that lake in IMC in a Caravan. It's not a thunderstorm - it's not severe icing.

Then again, I might then tell the CP I'd be happy to do it given the appropriate survival gear.

And I think I remember from indoc something about being to check out some sort of survival gear from ops? Might be remembering that wrong - not sure.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by Ian J

And I think I remember from indoc something about being to check out some sort of survival gear from ops? Might be remembering that wrong - not sure.

If you think a life vest and a signal flare are going to help in January, I've got this bridge......

-mini

[Ian J]

No I don't. I'm not familiar with what gear they have.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by Ian J

No I don't. I'm not familiar with what gear they have.

Even if there's good survival suits, now assume you survive the ditching...and egress......that's a big assumption.

Easier and safer to just go around (which sometimes sucks when it's clear over the lake but snowing and icy over the land).

-mini

[ackeight]

Originally Posted by minitour

1. My job isn't as important as my life. I'll keep avoiding over-water ops in singles.

2. It's my belief that singles shouldn't be flown IFR. Believe what you want...that's mine. One too many problems in singles to be comfortable doing it anymore. Anyway, do I? Sure. Down to minimums? Hey, like you said...I'm getting paid for it so yeah, if I have to.

Does that mean I'll tool along for 3 hours in IMC when I can top it or get under it? No.

So, like I said, .

3. I'd agree with the personal minimums thing to an extent. Some things aren't negotiable (over water in a single for me).

-mini

What does it matter whether your ontop, in, or under? It's not like your going to fall out of the sky unless your VFR. All that matters is find an airport that you can land at if the rare (extreme) case of engine failure occurs. Why would you fly under a layer if it only gives you 3K AGL when you can fly in the clouds at 10K? That is 7K of "buffer" for you to glide to an airport.

Going back to the water ditching conversations. I would think it would be be rare to be able to swim away from a water landing in the Van. With those wonderful pegs sticking out, your going from whatever G.S. your doing to 0 in a flash. No matter what temperature the water is it's hard to breath under it. Water landings are successfull in the Caravan every once and awhile, and only guaranteed with floats.


Don't get me wrong Mini, I totally respect your opinions and am not trying to raz you or anything. Just trying to have a professional conversation.

[Ian J]

Without egress training you probably wouldn't even make it out of the plane.

If you crashed in some mountains, you'd probably be dead.

If you lost your engine on takeoff from BKL you'd be dead.

If you were the poor Castle Air pilot with our rider on board out of LCK, you'd be dead.

Ah - forget it. I'm not trying to change your mind about it, brother. I don't care what you do - I'm just a peter-pilot here like you.

[mikecweb]

Just curious when/if you get to the jet will you fly above FL400? How bout going up to FL450?

[ackeight]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Just curious when/if you get to the jet will you fly above FL400? How bout going up to FL450?

Psshh everyone knows you'll float into outerspace that high...

[minitour]

Originally Posted by ackeight

What does it matter whether your ontop, in, or under?...

...Water landings are successfull in the Caravan every once and awhile, and only guaranteed with floats.


Don't get me wrong Mini, I totally respect your opinions and am not trying to raz you or anything. Just trying to have a professional conversation.

I'd rather be under, obviously...I just prefer to see what I'm hitting. If I can't be under (it very well could be 200-1/2 everywhere) then I want to be on top to buy some time until I can get to some place suitable.

Even with floats, open water can have some pretty large swells. Good luck.

Hey, no offense taken. Even razzing isn't a big deal because no one but me is going to change my feelings on single engine over water. It's just a non-negotiable. More than happy to discuss it though.

Originally Posted by Ian J

Without egress training you probably wouldn't even make it out of the plane.

Exactly. Even WITH egress training....try surviving the impact. Then getting someone to fish you out before hypothermia sets in. Not lookin good.

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Just curious when/if you get to the jet will you fly above FL400? How bout going up to FL450?

Without knowing anything about the lear or it's limitations (and having not reviewed the 135 regs on O2 in pressurized aircraft in a long while) I'd have to say yes. That would imply that it's legal, within limitations, O2 is used as appropriate (that means when it's needed to be legal and/or safe, which ever comes first).

What does that have to do with the caravan?

-mini

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by Ian J

You could "if" a whole lot of scenarios with any type of airplane.

I dunno man - I certainly respect you attitude of safety, and support a PIC's decision in respect to safety. However, if I were the CP I would tell you face to face that it is your job to fly ..... IMC in a Caravan.

I'm of the same opinion.

First off, if you want an objective evaluation of which activity is more risky, you need only ask an insurance company for a quote. Regardless of your gut feeling, the insurance underwriters have VERY CAREFULLY evaluated which activity causes them to pay money more often. Actuarial science has conclusively shown that pilots in light twins die far more often than singles. Having seen the reliablity of the PT-6 and the redundant systems in the Van, I belive it to be MORE reliable than a piston twin.


Wether or not you feel safe flying IFR in a single is your call. However if you take a job flying singles for a 135 IFR company, then you don't have the right to complain that you are not comfortable with it.

Being a comercial pilot is all about fmaking a flight even though you are "not completely comfortable". Flying in the middle of our comfort zones is what private pilots get to do. When we take money to fly, we obligate ourselves to meet the demands of others. If you honestly do not feel that a flight can be safely made, then don't fly it. However, you must also accept the consequnces that may arrise.


I wasn't comfortable flying through moderate turbulance into OKC last week, in fact it was freaking scary, but that's my job.

[mikecweb]

Once again, when your getting paid to fly the only limitations are the ones in the AFM and the FARs.
Saying that being in a single engine is a limitation is rediculous.

At the end of the day Mini you'll do what you want. If flying in the flight levels in the caravan to avoid IMC gives you the warm and fuzzies so be it. All I'm saying is if you sacrafice deadlines of the run you are floating or the runs that connect with your run, you are not doing your job. Your job isn't to be comfortable. Your job isn't to set personal minimums. If it becomes a trend you'll be called out on it. I just don't want to read a thread in 4 months when you quit and call the company dangerous because they made you flying IMC in a single-engine airplane.

It's not about medals or big balls, it's about your job. Some do it and some make excuses.

[OldTownPilot]

Part of my three hours of "instrument flying" for my PPL was in IMC (for .2 with a CFII). In a 172 too. Reckless? I don't think so. I fly around Maine, therefore I fly over water. Does it bother me? not really. There is a runway at BHB that if I lose an engine at 100', I'm in for a swim. Do I not use it, because it puts me over water? heck no.

If something were to go wrong with the powerplant, I'd rather be at 10k in IMC than 4k in the clear. I'll be in the clear at 4k anyways, and I pissed away 6k "so I could see what I'd hit"? I'll see it anyways 10 miles further along when I break out.

And this is from someone that doesn't get paid to fly.

[ljg]

I was suprised about ditching until I read up on it. Most folks live through the ditching procedure. We have a van pilot out in TEB who ditched in front of Coney Island (NOT in an Airnet airplane - banner towing). You should talk to him if you have the opportunity-it's an interesting story but basically he felt that the actual ditch itself was not a difficult deal.

Lake Michigan is a different story. I don't fault you for being safe - but taking a Van into the 20's probably ticks off Chicago Center like no other. There's arrivals all night over BEARZ HALIE and PAPPI intersections, and RNAV departures out to PETTY. Climbing your slow-azz Caravan through the mid-altitudes probably really causes a headache, and slugging it in the 20's causing them to route and separate traffic around you. But they'll accommodate you because you're shouting "Safety".

I really applaud you thinking critically about being safe and being on time. Your priorities are spot on, but you have to draw a line in the sand. You won't see me doing 40 on the New Jersey turnpike because it's safer to drive more slowly.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by ljg

I was suprised about ditching until I read up on it. Most folks live through the ditching procedure.

Out of curiousity - where did you read about it? The reason I ask is because I was fed opposite info in my Army ditching course.

[ljg]

Originally Posted by Ian J

Out of curiousity - where did you read about it? The reason I ask is because I was fed opposite info in my Army ditching course.

The ASF, and during a recent CFI renewal, but here's another link from the AOPA:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/inflight9907.html

Bottom line

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. Most of those fatalities happened in open-ocean, cold-water environments.

[Ian J]

Thanks!

Come to think of it, in my course they were probably only using military ditching stats.

[ackeight]

Originally Posted by ljg

The ASF, and during a recent CFI renewal, but here's another link from the AOPA:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/inflight9907.html

Bottom line

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. Most of those fatalities happened in open-ocean, cold-water environments.

I would like to know how many of those ditchings were fixed gear versus retract. I'm not saying it's a done deal if you are ditching in a fixed, I've met a guy who ditched in the Gulf of Mexico in a Caravan, but I'm sure there are some more serious injuries.

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by ackeight

I would like to know how many of those ditchings were fixed gear versus retract.

According to the stuff I've read, fixed gear dosen't make much of a difference. The gear cuts into the water providing a more gradual deceleration. There is a higher probability of fliping, but it generally happens slowly enough that there is no serious injuries.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Once again, when your getting paid to fly the only limitations are the ones in the AFM and the FARs.
Saying that being in a single engine is a limitation is rediculous.

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to it. Have enough problems in single engine airplanes and your opinion may change.

At the end of the day Mini you'll do what you want. If flying in the flight levels in the caravan to avoid IMC gives you the warm and fuzzies so be it.

Nah, I wouldn't take it that far. Of the risks I'm willing to accept, flying a single engine airplane in actual is one of them unless I have a viable alternate course of action. I'll change altitude by a few thousand feet, sure. But to change a cruising altitude from say 6 to 24k seems a little on the extreme end. I sure as hell would go to 20 to avoid icing though.

All I'm saying is if you sacrafice deadlines of the run you are floating or the runs that connect with your run, you are not doing your job. Your job isn't to be comfortable. Your job isn't to set personal minimums. If it becomes a trend you'll be called out on it.

And that's fair enough. I don't think IMC is a reasonable excuse for getting a re-route or getting an altitude with perhaps unfavorable winds. Avoiding over-water flight in single engine airplanes, I believe that's a reason to get a re-route.

I just don't want to read a thread in 4 months when you quit and call the company dangerous because they made you flying IMC in a single-engine airplane.

I would never claim such a thing. It is one of the risks I'm willing to accept unless I can avoid it (reasonably). I'm not going to go down over TN and come up through the Virginias to get to LCK on a flight from CPS to avoid IMC. Ice...probably not. Depends on how much $ the extra gas would cost over a possible in-flight divert and de-ice. Certainly not because every airport from MO to OH is 200-1/2...you can always get a route that keeps you within decent ILS range in that part of the country.

It's not about medals or big balls, it's about your job. Some do it and some make excuses.

Your job is to get stuff from A to B safely and legally and at the very least, in a reasonable amount of time with respect to the "deadlines". I don't feel flying over large bodies of water beyond power off gliding distance in a single engine airplane is as safe as it can be. It's not something I'm willing to compromise. Some are and that's fine.

The company is more than welcome to assign me to runs that never go near water. If they do, I'll either climb so to stay within gliding distance, or go around. That's part of my responsibility as PIC to myself, the company (it's their asset - the airplane) and the customer (it's their product).

I can live with you thinking I'm making an excuse about it.

-mini

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by minitour

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to it. Have enough problems in single engine airplanes and your opinion may change.


Nah, I wouldn't take it that far. Of the risks I'm willing to accept, flying a single engine airplane in actual is one of them unless I have a viable alternate course of action. I'll change altitude by a few thousand feet, sure. But to change a cruising altitude from say 6 to 24k seems a little on the extreme end. I sure as hell would go to 20 to avoid icing though.


And that's fair enough. I don't think IMC is a reasonable excuse for getting a re-route or getting an altitude with perhaps unfavorable winds. Avoiding over-water flight in single engine airplanes, I believe that's a reason to get a re-route.


I would never claim such a thing. It is one of the risks I'm willing to accept unless I can avoid it (reasonably). I'm not going to go down over TN and come up through the Virginias to get to LCK on a flight from CPS to avoid IMC. Ice...probably not. Depends on how much $ the extra gas would cost over a possible in-flight divert and de-ice. Certainly not because every airport from MO to OH is 200-1/2...you can always get a route that keeps you within decent ILS range in that part of the country.


Your job is to get stuff from A to B safely and legally and at the very least, in a reasonable amount of time with respect to the "deadlines". I don't feel flying over large bodies of water beyond power off gliding distance in a single engine airplane is as safe as it can be. It's not something I'm willing to compromise. Some are and that's fine.

The company is more than welcome to assign me to runs that never go near water. If they do, I'll either climb so to stay within gliding distance, or go around. That's part of my responsibility as PIC to myself, the company (it's their asset - the airplane) and the customer (it's their product).

I can live with you thinking I'm making an excuse about it.

-mini

At least you have it all figured out.

[minitour]

*removed*