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.
haha not quite
-mini
Icing in the air...
- Thread starter c172captain
- Start date
-mini
It isn't about how "bulletproof" the PT6A is (I've heard that a million times) or how infrequently the engine quits. It's about minimizing risk. To me, a professional pilot minimizes risk as much as possible. That's how you increase safety, which is absolutely the number one priority on my flight deck.You make it sound like we lose an engine every night......anic:. The PT6A series has an In Flight Shutdown rate of 1/every 100K flight hours. I like those odds. Unfortunatly Airnet seems to be on the short end of the stick in that department.
*edit* JFYI all other PT6 engines have an IFSR of 1 per 250K hours.
-mini
mninstructor
Well-Known Member
Best way to minimize risk, stay on the ground.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Safety is measured on an emotional level, and has nothing to do with facts, good or bad. It's like saying something is beautiful, or ugly.
Some pilots are OK with single engine ops over water, some are not. That dosen't make either one a good or a bad pilot. It only shows that one is more comfortable with higher risk than the other. Some pilots fly very low level all day every day, including under powerlines while dusting crops. Some refuse to fly in anything that dosen't have twin turbines inder a IFR flight plan.
I fly a Caravan night IFR all the time, and wouldn't have any problem flying over warm water with the apropriate survival gear. Cold water in the great lakes is another story, that exceeds my risk threshold.
Dose that mean that Mini is a safe pilot, and that I am a reckless one? No, it simpley shows that we have different thresholds of risk.
Some pilots are OK with single engine ops over water, some are not. That dosen't make either one a good or a bad pilot. It only shows that one is more comfortable with higher risk than the other. Some pilots fly very low level all day every day, including under powerlines while dusting crops. Some refuse to fly in anything that dosen't have twin turbines inder a IFR flight plan.
I fly a Caravan night IFR all the time, and wouldn't have any problem flying over warm water with the apropriate survival gear. Cold water in the great lakes is another story, that exceeds my risk threshold.
Dose that mean that Mini is a safe pilot, and that I am a reckless one? No, it simpley shows that we have different thresholds of risk.
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,
.minitour 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
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.
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
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.
If you think a life vest and a signal flare are going to help in January, I've got this bridge......
-mini
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
Psshh everyone knows you'll float into outerspace that high...
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.
Exactly. Even WITH egress training....try surviving the impact. Then getting someone to fish you out before hypothermia sets in. Not lookin good.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.