Flying over water

[jrh]

If you can't take paying pax over water without equipment, why would you do so at any point?

This is really poor reasoning. Private pilots can't take paying pax by nature of the certificate they hold, yet they still have the freedom to carry pax. There are numerous differences in the risks allowed between "for hire" operations and private flying. Maintenance inspections, required equipment, allowable weather, training standards, etc.

And as I wrote to ppragman, I'm not disagreeing with the idea of carrying a raft. I'm only pointing out that a person should have good reasons for doing, or not doing, whatever they decide on.

 

[Douglas]

meh,

I don't see the big deal.
I've crossed the lakes many times this summer and fall in a single. Nerves come up a little, the same as they do flying night and flying over IFR in a single. Just don't touch anything while crossing

I don't have anything against being prepared IF something did happen, I think it is a good idea in fact, but that doesn't make you crazy if you elect not to.

IMHO, if you can't stand flying outside of glide range, then you should also have trouble flying on a moonless night or over IFR without a parachute. This might be a incendiary comment, but that is my reasoning and that is why I cross.

 

[Inverted25]

My point was simply that if there is a way to make a flight safer and still be able to due the mission at hand than you should do so. I'm not saying to avoid dangerous situations period. I'm saying if you can make the dangerous situation just alittle safer than you should. Just my opinion though. I have no problem taking calculated risk. It just like flying aerobatics. You have to have a comfort zone. Some like Sean D are comfortable upside down a few feet off the ground at 200 knots. Me I'll stay above 1500 for now. But one day I hope to be that good.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

My point was simply that if there is a way to make a flight safer and still be able to due the mission at hand than you should do so. I'm not saying to avoid dangerous situations period.

Minimizing risk has been a hallmark of avaiation for a long time. Because aviation is something that used to be very dangerous, but we have managed to learn most of those dangers and minmize them.

When you have tools available to you to minimize a large risk (survival gear) at a minimal cost, you should take advantage of them. No matter what the regulations say you have to do.

Flying over water means you should be prepared to ditch in the water. Period.

 

[minitour]

I've crossed lake Michigan (a big part of it) in February with nothing but a life vest.

...in a caravan at 17,000'

-mini

 

[Holocene]

I've crossed lake Michigan (a big part of it) in February with nothing but a life vest.

...in a caravan at 17,000'

:yup:

 

[jrh]

When you have tools available to you to minimize a large risk (survival gear) at a minimal cost, you should take advantage of them. No matter what the regulations say you have to do.

How large of a risk is it, really? Piston engines fail once in every, what, 100,000 hours? I honestly don't know the number. But I know it's large.

How minimal of a cost is it? Beyond monetary cost, too. How about weight and space? Or the time it takes to acquire one? Again, this will vary from person to person and aircraft to aircraft.

Flying over water means you should be prepared to ditch in the water. Period.

Flying over the water means you should have an understanding of the consequences if you need to ditch. Period.

 

[HeyEng]

Shall we all pull them out and throw them on the table and see who's bigger? Holy crap bag man, this is going back and forth and back and forth.

Take a look at the risk(s) involved and determine if you are able to mitigate or accept the risk as it is. This is different for EVERYONE. I take bigger risks when I am by myself and will not take the same risks with passengers on board.

Case closed.

 

[wjmiller3]

How large of a risk is it, really? Piston engines fail once in every, what, 100,000 hours? I honestly don't know the number. But I know it's large.

How minimal of a cost is it? Beyond monetary cost, too. How about weight and space? Or the time it takes to acquire one? Again, this will vary from person to person and aircraft to aircraft.



Flying over the water means you should have an understanding of the consequences if you need to ditch. Period.

All of the points you have tried to make in this thread are moot (in my opinion). You bring up night IFR, mountain flying, low IFR, ect. All of these senerios DO NOT require one very specific, cheap, small peice of equipment that is MANDATORY for your survival if you go down and survive the crash.

If there was one single $15 piece of equipment for increasing my survival rate exponentially for these other senerios, then yes, I would be buying that too, but there is not. If I go down in the mountains, low IFR, ect, and survive the crash, most likely I can survive to see another day. But if I go down in the Great Lakes in November, I am DEAD. These are not the same, so they cannot be compared apples to apples.

I would call not carrying the one and only piece of equipment that will keep you alive after you knowingly fly over a very cold body of water bad decision making.

 

[Realms09]

If you find yourself flying over water with life vests on board, don't mind looking silly, and it doesn't interfere with your flying, you might consider actually wearing the PFD for the over water portion. It could be useful in a region where you are restricted to low altitude (maybe airspace in a terminal environment) and would lack the time or presence of mind to find it and wear it if you had an engine failure.

 

[Douglas]

Shall we all pull them out and throw them on the table and see who's bigger? Holy crap bag man, this is going back and forth and back and forth.

Take a look at the risk(s) involved and determine if you are able to mitigate or accept the risk as it is. This is different for EVERYONE. I take bigger risks when I am by myself and will not take the same risks with passengers on board.

Case closed.

ehhh, don't think this is a wang case, bud.

 

[jrh]

All of the points you have tried to make in this thread are moot (in my opinion). You bring up night IFR, mountain flying, low IFR, ect. All of these senerios DO NOT require one very specific, cheap, small peice of equipment that is MANDATORY for your survival if you go down and survive the crash.

If there was one single $15 piece of equipment for increasing my survival rate exponentially for these other senerios, then yes, I would be buying that too, but there is not. If I go down in the mountains, low IFR, ect, and survive the crash, most likely I can survive to see another day. But if I go down in the Great Lakes in November, I am DEAD. These are not the same, so they cannot be compared apples to apples.

It seems as though you've completely missed my point.

I would call not carrying the one and only piece of equipment that will keep you alive after you knowingly fly over a very cold body of water bad decision making.

Ok, I'll agree to disagree.

 

[BaronPete]

Gah..ditching in trees terrifies me. I realize the low rate of survivability without proper equipment in cold water areas, but trees still just give me the willies.

Today I went on a cross country and it was the first time that a significant portion of it was over forest. I live in the southeast so my typical flight puts me within gliding distance of at least 20 different farm pastures , but while this cross country was still in the southeast, most of it was over dense forest.

I know all the recommendations of stalling into the tree tops and everything, but at only 40 some odd hours I'm still not completely proficient at getting the stall horn blowing EVERY time I land, let alone on the top of trees without power for a go around if I don't like it. ::shudder::

Is it a better idea to try to set it down in a dense area of canopies? or a sparse pine tree type forest? Common sense tells me dense canopies, but I'm still a newb. Thoughts?

 

[killbilly]

Gah..ditching in trees terrifies me. I realize the low rate of survivability without proper equipment in cold water areas, but trees still just give me the willies.

Today I went on a cross country and it was the first time that a significant portion of it was over forest. I live in the southeast so my typical flight puts me within gliding distance of at least 20 different farm pastures , but while this cross country was still in the southeast, most of it was over dense forest.

We're spoiled in this part of Texas. You plan for an emergency landing and you basically just try and pick the field where the furrows line up with the wind. People in western Kansas or eastern Colorado get this, too.

Assuming you're nowhere near the 130 toll road. Because that's the longest damn runway I've ever seen. Very few cars.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

meh,

I don't see the big deal.
I've crossed the lakes many times this summer and fall in a single. Nerves come up a little, the same as they do flying night and flying over IFR in a single. Just don't touch anything while crossing

I don't have anything against being prepared IF something did happen, I think it is a good idea in fact, but that doesn't make you crazy if you elect not to.

You're right, it doesn't make you crazy. But it does make you someone who is willing to accept risks that I am no longer willing to accept. That nerves come up a little thing that you talked about? I think that happens to everyone. And I realized that when it was happening to me, it was my brains way of telling me that I was doing something really stupid. When I was younger I could ignore what it was telling me. But somewhere along the line I lost the ability to ignore it. No more crossings for me.

IMHO, if you can't stand flying outside of glide range, then you should also have trouble flying on a moonless night or over IFR without a parachute. This might be a incendiary comment, but that is my reasoning and that is why I cross.

You're absolutely right. And thats why I don't cross. Its also why mountians, IFR and/or night are off the list in singles.

I think I can best explain it this way. We all know that piston engines rarely fail. When I younger I read the last part of the previous sentence as piston engines rarely fail. Now I read it as piston engines rarely fail. Therefore if I can avoid water, I go around. If have to cross, I take gear.

 

[SteveC]

I did/would cross Lake Michigan in a piston single Part 91 with just life vests on board. I have never carried a raft and doubt if I ever would.

Extenuating circumstances (perpetual low ceilings with lots of ice) dictate that there would be almost no occasion to make that crossing in the winter time though. Different circumstances may require different decisions.

 

[rpfeif]

As a civilian pilot/instructor I never flew over water, flying over Lake Winnebago on the GPS 27 at 2700' into OSK in Feburary was on of the most nerve racking things I have done.

Now with a little bit of water survival training (just enough to keep me alive, not claiming Bear Grylls knowledge) I realize how tough it would be to survive after a ditching.

1. Staying afloat with cloths on is tough and it sucks. We had to stay afloat for seven minutes (two minutes tread/five minutes deadman float) with flight suits, gloves, boots, and survival vest and it sucked. Doing that for real and staying calm would be tough.

2. Trying to swim for shore is not feasible, its hard to gauge a distant from the water and you'll probably just tire yourself out and become more useless.

3. According to the instructors, the number one thing that recusers see that helps identify sole survivors bobbing in the water is our helmets. They are covered in white reflective tape. It is strikingly different from the water and is the first thing they see from a distance. Signal mirrors are also excellent/cheap signaling devices to get someones attention at a distance.

4. Our vests in primary contain: pen flares, signal mirror, radio, dye marker, strobe, combo flare/smoke signal. After survival training it sounds like your best signaling device is to use the radio, then use the mirror and strobe at night for distance aircraft/ships, as the rescuers get in closer, use the flares, dye marker, and flare/smoke to guide them in.

After water survival training and now flying with the gear on I feel slightly more comfortable over the water. But it is still really tough. For other GA civilian pilots I would say they should recieve some sort of survival training and prepare some kind of kit that can be quickly grabbed and used (I would say a vest is the best option over water). Just my .02

 

[minitour]

Here's the problems I see with being beyond gliding distance.

1) You need to survive the ditching. Good luck.

2) You're going to have to get out of the plane, which may be dark, is probably wet/cold and may be (probably if it's a fixed gear single) inverted.

3) Now you've got to try to stay afloat. I can float pretty well and I'm a pretty good swimmer for a fat man, but I don't think I could tread water for an hour. Just ain't gonna happen.

4) Get into the raft if you have one. Those things flip over pretty easily.

5) Survive hypothermia. Even in the summer, Lake Erie and Lake Michigan are cold. So is the Atlantic...especially up here in the northern part. I'd assume the Pacific to be the same way. The Gulf of Mexico may be warm (along with the southern Atlantic/Pacific) but then you need to...

6) ...not get eaten. Sharks and jelly fish. Yay.

...I think I'll stay within gliding distance and take my chances. Even if I ended up short and ditched 50-100 yards or so from the shore, if I were able to survive the ditching and egress I'm confident I could swim 500' or so and get to dry land.

Simple solution? Stay within gliding distance in singles. Go high or go around.

-mini

 

[wjmiller3]

Gah..ditching in trees terrifies me. I realize the low rate of survivability without proper equipment in cold water areas, but trees still just give me the willies.

Today I went on a cross country and it was the first time that a significant portion of it was over forest. I live in the southeast so my typical flight puts me within gliding distance of at least 20 different farm pastures , but while this cross country was still in the southeast, most of it was over dense forest.

I know all the recommendations of stalling into the tree tops and everything, but at only 40 some odd hours I'm still not completely proficient at getting the stall horn blowing EVERY time I land, let alone on the top of trees without power for a go around if I don't like it. ::shudder::

Is it a better idea to try to set it down in a dense area of canopies? or a sparse pine tree type forest? Common sense tells me dense canopies, but I'm still a newb. Thoughts?

I think the same thing when I am flying over an area with no option for a nice off airport landing. Once you get a ways northeast of Houston it turns into nothing but forest. I am always trying to keep an eye out for a road just in case!

 

[Joe Gremlin]

Here's the thing that I didn't really consider when I was younger. We all know when we saddle up in a piston single that there is a slight chance of an engine failure. We also know that if the engine should fail, there is a chance that we may not survive the off airport landing. But we're taught to prepare for that off airport landing from very early in our primary training and if we hang around the airport long enough, we'll probably meet someone who has experience such an off airport landing and walked away without a scratch.

All of that tends to make us feel very safe about getting into a piston single. But the thing that I never once considered the few times I flew over Lake Michigan and Lake Erie is that an engine failure there, however unlikely, would be the equivalent of a death sentence for killing the Governor's daughter. IOW, a death sentence with very little chance of the Governor calling at the last minute to give you a pardon.

If the motor quits, you're going in the water. And if you go in the water in the middle of any of the great lakes without survival gear, you're dead regardless of the time of year.

But lest this turn into a flame war, I respect the choice of those who accept the risk and cross without gear. And I expect them respect my choice not to.