Thoughts on single engine ops across Lake Michigan?

ozziecat35

ozziecat35

4 out of 5 great lakes prefer Michigan.
Probably a newer 172 or a older Beech Sierra, from the Western Chicago suburbs to near Gaylord, MI. Roughly 2 hrs 15 minutes at 110 knots over the ground, versus hugging the coast around the southern tip of Lake Michigan then up Western Michigan. I'd file IFR, so really I guess it's just being high enough by the time I get to the halfway point across the lake.

What would factor into your decision making process for route planning?
 
If you feel comfortable, go for it. If you are going to be on pins and needles the whole time, simply go around.
I've crossed them all in a single piston save for Lake Superior. It's not my favorite thing to do, but I figure it is a lot like flying a single engine over Low-IFR or moonless rocky terrain. There might be 50 ways to leave your lover but there are three ways to kiss your butt good bye in a single without having much of a fighting chance. haha.
 
Douglas said:
If you feel comfortable, go for it. If you are going to be on pins and needles the whole time, simply go around.
I've crossed them all in a single piston save for Lake Superior. It's not my favorite thing to do, but I figure it is a lot like flying a single engine over Low-IFR or moonless rocky terrain. There might be 50 ways to leave your lover but there are three ways to kiss your butt good bye in a single without having much of a fighting chance. haha.
Click to expand...

This. It's all about what level of risk one is comfortable taking.
 
I've done it in a 172N and just got really high so I would feel comfortable. Really, its not the wisest decision but Douglas is right that there are plenty of other ways to kiss your butt goodbye. I would definitely not do it at night though because that really kills your chances of survival (not that they are that great if you crash in the middle of the lake anyways). The other thing is that a lot of fbo's will not let you take their single engine plane across. Make sure to take life vests for your passengers.
 
ozziecat35 said:
What would factor into your decision making process for route planning?
Click to expand...

I would do a calculation something like this. Take my height plus the height of a crushed Cessna 172 subtract a foot, and if that number is smaller than the depth of Lake Michigan, I'd go around the side.
 
If the thought of being over water away from gliding distance to land doesn't scare you, go for it. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable with it seeing as I can't swim, I know, pathetic. But it's just routine flight, the engine is no more likely to quit over lake Michigan than it is over farmland in Iowa.
 
I've done it plenty of times in a se airplane. Like others said it's all about the risk you're comfortable with.

Me I see it as routine. Others here have their panties in a bunch just thinking about it.
 
More likely to go: Solo, early day, CAVU, summer or early fall, strong westerly winds aloft, known aircraft with no squawks.
Less likely to go: Small children aboard, dusk or evening, low vis or IMC, winter or spring, strong easterly winds aloft, unknown aircraft from flight school or marginal operator.

Before deciding, read about the young guy who ditched seven miles off the Milwaukee shoreline in April 2005. He survived the crash and called 911 as the plane sank in the 43-degree water, but they never found his body: http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/chi05fa180.html

I've crossed Lake Michigan a bunch of times in light twins, and EVERY TIME one of the engines goes into auto-rough midway across.
 
Threads like this amaze me. I want everyone to remember back when they were either a CFI flying above a layer of LIFR, or over a densly pouplated city, preatty much anywhere other than open farm land or right next to an airport. Your chances of survival in those situations were for the most part far worse than flying over a big giant lake with the proper tools. Try setting an airplane down over LA with an engine failure. Or over the Sespe's, or near Kernville, or over the Everglades, or in Lake Ponchatrain. I could go on and on.

Just do it. But be smart about it. Take the right gear with you, and have a good time.
 
ChasenSFO said:
If the thought of being over water away from gliding distance to land doesn't scare you, go for it. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable with it seeing as I can't swim, I know, pathetic. But it's just routine flight, the engine is no more likely to quit over lake Michigan than it is over farmland in Iowa.
Click to expand...
The difference being you'll stay dry if you land in Iowa and you may even be able to use the airplane again.

Go around.
 
ChasenSFO said:
If the thought of being over water away from gliding distance to land doesn't scare you, go for it. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable with it seeing as I can't swim, I know, pathetic. But it's just routine flight, the engine is no more likely to quit over lake Michigan than it is over farmland in Iowa.
Click to expand...

It really wouldn't matter that you can't swim. This time of year the water is rather warm(68F), but most of the year it's too cold to swim much of any distance... even 68 is pretty cold water to be swimming in.

Personally, if I knew the airplane, and clear vis I'd go. As said, no worse than mountains at night.. or really anywhere but farmland at night.
 
WWLD

What would Lindbergh do? There's a story, true or not, I don't know, that he was asked if he worried about his engine quitting. His reponse was "Do I worry about my heart stopping?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top