Flying over water

R

rajsingh

New Member
I wanted to know the regulations over flying over water in a single engine aircraft without any life jackets or rafts for a private flight. Is this legal or one must carry life jackets or rafts if they'll be far from land and won't make it if the engine quits. Of course I do understand this isn't safe, especially in cold water, but is it legal?

I wanted to cut across Lake Ontario from Niagara Falls to Toronto City Centre Airport (Toronto Island Airport) instead of following the shoreline.
 
It's totally legal for a private flight to have no flotation equipment. I flew straight over lake Michigan 2 weeks ago with nothing. It was a nerve wracking experience the first time, a little less so the second time. Just remember that you probably have 10 minutes to live once you go down, if you make it to the water. And they won't be sending boats. A heli will take probably more than 10 minutes to get to you. Would I cross lake Michigan again with no flotation? Yes
 
You guys are crazy.... You can rent a raft for $15.....$15. As you are gliding down into freezing water knowing if you survive te crash you will freeze to death in a couple minutes, you will think..... "Man that $15 doesnt sound so bad right now." Do you guys have kids or a wife?
 
rajsingh said:
I wanted to know the regulations over flying over water in a single engine aircraft without any life jackets or rafts for a private flight.
Click to expand...

You don't need one. However, be prepared to swim for a while if you don't have one and the engine fails.

Yes, the odds of an engine failure are small, but over cold water, I'd pack one just in case.

I've gone over the Chesapeake Bay in the summer without one but that's over water that people swim in when it's summertime.
 
I treat over-water ops similar to mountain flying.

There are times in mountain flying where one has to accept that in the event of an engine failure, the chance of survival is near zero. This would be things like single engine IFR or night over rugged terrain. Some pilots are fine with such flying, some won't even consider it.

The same can be said for over-water flying. Minimize the risk by going high, going across the smallest stretch possible, etc., but understand if your engine lets go and you have no flotation equipment, you'll probably die.

If you're ok with that, go for it. If not, get a raft/life vests. It's all risk management.
 
Dont be stupid take floation devices! We fly across lake michigan going to Oshkosh every year and we always fly over the shortest path and high enough that we can make it back to shore or damn close if the engine quits and we carry a full size life raft with us. Theres no point in taking un needed risk. That just shows poor judgement.
 
Jbroz04 said:
Theres no point in taking un needed risk. That just shows poor judgement.
Click to expand...

Reference my post above about risk management.

*Flying* could be considered an "unneeded" risk, but we still fly. There is no way to make this activity foolproof. The real question is how much risk one is willing to accept. Apparently this is an area you're willing to accept very little risk in. However, I wouldn't consider it poor judgement if another pilot saw it differently.
 
I always thought of renting an airplane as operating it "for hire," which would require flotation and pyrotechnics under 91.205, but I can't find any definitions that support that. Anyone care to comment?
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
I always thought of renting an airplane as operating it "for hire," which would require flotation and pyrotechnics under 91.205, but I can't find any definitions that support that. Anyone care to comment?
Click to expand...

Renting an airplane is not for hire.
 
I've crossed Lake Michigan in a Bonanza a few times. Mind you, it wasn't fall/winter, it was mid summer, but we still took a raft and life jackets.

RD
 
I take my personal safety pretty seriously. Flying over water without appropriate survival equipment is just plain stupid.

Even with life vests (which I think you should keep in an aircraft at all times anyway), you have bigger problems when you are in the water. If it is colder than 70 degrees or so, you are eventually going to freeze to death. If it is warmer than that, sharks will eventually find you. Either way, you are better off in a raft.

The odds of you being found in the water wearing just a lifevest are not that great. Your best strategy is to put down near a ship. They will come to your aid. Over water, altitude is your friend. Keep a lookout for ships, and ideally be within gliding distance of one at all times. If you are putting it in the drink, your better strategy may be to put down in front of a ship near you, rather than gliding towards shore.

Dye markers, strobes, a raft, a PLB and waterproof radio on 121.5 are all things I want if flying over water. These are all things I have on a boat, and it doesn't sink if the engine dies.

Flying over remote areas, a firearm is also a good idea too. Particularly in Canada and Alaska.
 
jrh said:
I treat over-water ops similar to mountain flying.

There are times in mountain flying where one has to accept that in the event of an engine failure, the chance of survival is near zero. This would be things like single engine IFR or night over rugged terrain. Some pilots are fine with such flying, some won't even consider it.

The same can be said for over-water flying. Minimize the risk by going high, going across the smallest stretch possible, etc., but understand if your engine lets go and you have no flotation equipment, you'll probably die.

If you're ok with that, go for it. If not, get a raft/life vests. It's all risk management.
Click to expand...

I fly in the mountains every day, and honestly, they're totally different. The mountains always give you some options. As long as you don't pass the point of no return, you have something different you can do. Even if your options are stall it into the trees, or stall it into that ravine. Crossing the water is a different animal. If you're beyond power off glide distance and you lose a motor, if you're not flying in the bahamas, you're dead. Pure and simple. Don't cross the water with out at least a life jacket so they can recover your body, and do everything within your power to keep from being beyond gliding distance.
 
don't you need flotation gear if you are carrying passengers? I would imagine if you knew you were taking a route over a lot of open water that a life jacket and a flare would be in a bag in the passenger seat. The cold thing is a harder one to deal with unless you have a raft, and if it's in the back seat of a 152 or 172, what are the odds that when the engine quits and you are in instant ABCD mode and you are trying you hardest to put it down soft a'la Hudson style, you are going to be able to reach back and lift that heavy sucker over the seats and take it out with you.
 
ppragman said:
Crossing the water is a different animal. If you're beyond power off glide distance and you lose a motor, if you're not flying in the bahamas, you're dead. Pure and simple.
Click to expand...

I know someone that survived going down in the North Atlantic, it is possible. The two in the back seat didn't make it out. This was 10 years ago. He lived, but I don't remember ever seeing him around the airport again after that.

People have been living after putting single engine planes down in the ocean for more than 75 years. But like ppragman said, a lifevest is only going to help find your remains in cold water. Survival gear will seem like the cheapest thing in the world if you ever need it.

A dye marker is about $8, and is a million times easier to spot from the air. Flying grids looking for lifevests takes days.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I know someone that survived going down in the North Atlantic, it is possible. The two in the back seat didn't make it out. This was 10 years ago. He lived, but I don't remember ever seeing him around the airport again after that.

People have been living after putting single engine planes down in the ocean for more than 75 years. But like ppragman said, a lifevest is only going to help find your remains in cold water. Survival gear will seem like the cheapest thing in the world if you ever need it.

A dye marker is about $8, and is a million times easier to spot from the air. Flying grids looking for lifevests takes days.
Click to expand...

Lucky SOB. There are a couple who have gone down in the drink around here and make it, but most just dissappear. If I was doing any extended overwater ops, I'd be having myself a beacon, a raft and a dye marker. I think if I went down in the drink around these parts, I'd move to Arizona, and only fly there.
 
As folks have already stated, in cold water a PFD is only good for keeping your corpse afloat after you expire. A raft, PFD, and good signaling methods are essential for cold water survival. I kept a charged marine VHF (with spare batteries), die markers, and flares with my over cold water survival gear.

As an example as to how difficult it is to find a person in a PFD, we lost a guy here a couple of weeks ago when his skiff overturned during a relatively short bay crossing. They knew where and when he departed and where he was bound for, but the search didn't actually start for several hours after he went in the water. The coastguard had a helicopter and Falcon working a very small bay, and while they found the skiff that night, his corpse was not located until it washed up on shore a few days later (still with the PFD on).
 
I think it would take an extraordinary lack of imagination to do this. Of course, I have had engine problems before so that may skew my view of this issue.

One of the things I like about flying is that I (did) constantly measure each flight against my last - how did I do? What can I improve? What did I learn? Flying is one of those things that you can constantly improve on and learn from. That is actually one of the big attractions for me. So, I always tried to do things as a professional would and to those standards. If you can't take paying pax over water without equipment, why would you do so at any point?
 
ppragman said:
I fly in the mountains every day, and honestly, they're totally different. The mountains always give you some options. As long as you don't pass the point of no return, you have something different you can do. Even if your options are stall it into the trees, or stall it into that ravine. Crossing the water is a different animal. If you're beyond power off glide distance and you lose a motor, if you're not flying in the bahamas, you're dead. Pure and simple. Don't cross the water with out at least a life jacket so they can recover your body, and do everything within your power to keep from being beyond gliding distance.
Click to expand...

Maybe the examples I gave weren't perfect analogies, but my point still stands--there are times in flying that would equate to near certain death in the event of an engine failure, yet reasonable pilots still choose to put themselves in those spots.

How about low IFR, like flying over regions with 0/0 weather at the surface? How about mountains *at night*? I'm sure you could come up with more.

And by the way, I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that life rafts are essential for crossing water. I would do the same, myself. I'm only disagreeing with the folks throwing around words like "crazy," "stupid," and "poor judgement," if a pilot decides not to carry a raft.

The key here is to understand exactly what one is up against. Then, weigh those choices against the chance of an engine failure. I'll decide for myself and let rajsingh decide for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top