Thoughts on single engine ops across Lake Michigan?

dasleben said:
Why should you fly an airplane with pax any differently than the way you fly it by yourself?
Click to expand...

Passenger comfort doesn't come into the equation when there are no passengers, so the 90* intercept angle to join can be a little unnerving for pax in IMC when they throw you to it without adequate room to make it comfortable - do that with freight all the time. The turbulence I'm comfortable flying in/through is a little different than what Sally Jane and Billy Jo are accustomed to, holding my speed high close in to help out ATC then configuring to slow down is uncomfortable to people but is totally safe and boxes don't bitch, an early turnout can be safe (depending on circumstances), but often times with people on board, I'll not do it if they seemed sketched out by little airplanes. There are passes that I won't fly through sometimes if the conditions are right with people due to turbulence where I'm fine flying through it on my own.
 
ppragman said:
Passenger comfort doesn't come into the equation when there are no passengers, so the 90* intercept angle to join can be a little unnerving for pax in IMC when they throw you to it without adequate room to make it comfortable - do that with freight all the time. The turbulence I'm comfortable flying in/through is a little different than what Sally Jane and Billy Jo are accustomed to, holding my speed high close in to help out ATC then configuring to slow down is uncomfortable to people but is totally safe and boxes don't bitch, an early turnout can be safe (depending on circumstances), but often times with people on board, I'll not do it if they seemed sketched out by little airplanes. There are passes that I won't fly through sometimes if the conditions are right with people due to turbulence where I'm fine flying through it on my own.
Click to expand...

Comfort isn't the factor that I'm talking about, nor is it aerobatics/formation related. :)

We're discussing risk. Why would it be appropriate on a normal flight to take on more risk when you're alone (or flying freight) than if you had people onboard?
 
Sometimes I'm even more cautious when I'm flying alone because I want to make sure I get back to my family in the end....

As for going over the lake, I haven't done Lake Michigan, but have Lake Erie. I know not the same, but there is a few minutes depending on altitude. Make sure you are talking to someone for sure.
 
I've crossed Lake Erie at 9,000ft on the way to WV from SE Michigan in a C172 before... We had a Skyhawk with less than 500hrs on it and I knew it was well maintained and had flown it very regularly up to that point. We were fairly close to the water, as well. I also asked CLE_CTR to keep us fairly close to the islands out there and I could've made them at the midpoint. I suppose it wasn't a "true" lake crossing, but it definitely wasn't "over land," either. Like it's been said many times before, it's all about risk management. Don't intentionally stack things against yourself.
 
dasleben said:
Comfort isn't the factor that I'm talking about, nor is it aerobatics/formation related. :)

We're discussing risk. Why would it be appropriate on a normal flight to take on more risk when you're alone (or flying freight) than if you had people onboard?
Click to expand...

That's up to you, and that's not something I can answer for you. Generally speaking though, people tend to take more risks when its just "them" in the seat (and the proverbial school yard filled with nine-year-olds) than when there are people who are relying on them. Have I? Oh hell yeah! But, you live (or I guess in some cases - don't live) and learn. Flying "knowledgeable" passengers around makes it somewhat challenging in Alaska. The, "well, I've seen it way worse than this, you can keep going," that the 50 year old fisherman says can make it markedly more challenging to turn around when you're starting out. You learn how to read people, and after awhile you start sitting those people in the back so they can't pester you when you turn around - same thing goes for pilots.

Generally speaking, I fly the same way pretty much all the time, but I haven't flown a passenger in over a year now, so I almost can't remember what that sort of thing was like. I had a level of risk I would assume on any given flight, in my head it was kind of like a spreadsheet of catastrophe, and once enough of the boxes were ticked (i.e. the hairs on the back of my neck stood up) I'd change plans, change airplanes, change destination, or scrub the flight before I even launched.

Also though, the level of risk assumed varies per the type of operation your conducting. Flying "bush Alaska," or even South East Alaska, is simply inherently more dangerous than flying in Tulsa (statistics show this). Same with flying freight over flying passenger service (generally speaking). Ultimately, its up to the individual to self-asses and determine the level of risk their willing to accept on a given day. The caution I show varies with how I feel too. If I feel like crap, or am tired, or any of the other myriad of human factors. For example, its not uncommon for operators to fly into and out of Skagway when the winds are gusting in excess of 50kts with sustained winds above 30. I may do this on the first flight of the day, with a good nights sleep behind me and a full belly and an airplane at MGTOW- I won't do this if I'm sick, distracted, tired, with a lightly loaded airplane, etc.

Regardless, there's no one "cure-all" standard for safety, and some people include whether or not they have passengers into that equation - generally I don't unless I'm doing low level work, or formation or something to that effect - in which case pax don't generally go - but that logic isn't something you can super impose on others because our value systems aren't all congruent. In short, its a complicated ethical issue that will vary from person to person. Personally, it might depend. Flying someone who fully understands the risks, knows what they're getting into, and is briefed of the consequences of what happens if things don't go according to plan? Then I might make a trip across the lake, or in crummy weather, etc. whereas I might not with someone who thinks riding in a 172 is just as safe as riding in a 737.
 
dasleben said:
Comfort isn't the factor that I'm talking about, nor is it aerobatics/formation related. :)

We're discussing risk. Why would it be appropriate on a normal flight to take on more risk when you're alone (or flying freight) than if you had people onboard?
Click to expand...

For me it would because I would only kill myself and not X more innocent passengers.
 
BajtheJino said:
I would do it. With loved ones. The airplane doesn't know its over water. Also, if you don't trust the engine over water why would you trust it over land? Are we all Sky God enough to survive a forced landing? Some do, quite a few don't. So I say again if you don't trust your equipment why are you flying it in the first place?
Click to expand...

I'll take my chances landing a fixed single in an empty field, rather than a cold, empty lake. After going through the METS, it made me even less comfortable flying over water, knowing how slim a chance I may have to get out. I'll do the crossing in a turbine, but I've had enough issues with piston singles that I'll make sure I'm within gliding distance at all times.
 
I fly all over this part of the south pacific, single engine, some legs are 150NM and at times I`m as low as 500 feet to stay out of the clouds. In the C206 I have to be at 40K feet to make it to the shore if the engine goes in the middle...As somebody else said 90% of the other places most peoples fly over are about as dangerous.
 
dasleben said:
We're discussing risk. Why would it be appropriate on a normal flight to take on more risk when you're alone (or flying freight) than if you had people onboard?
Click to expand...

The same reason the FAA doesn't allow student pilots to carry passengers. Student pilots flying solo can be a risky proposition, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Yet it's risky enough that passengers shouldn't be exposed to the risk.

Maintenance ferry flights are another good example. When was the last time you saw a special flight permit that allowed the carriage of passengers? Does that mean it's irresponsible to operate on such a permit?

A third example is that you'll never see anybody joyriding in a Pitts during an air show performance. Yet the show still goes on. Are those pilots being irresponsible?

Finally, to use a non-flying example, in the world of skydiving, it's considered a taboo event to allow a minor to jump. This is because most leaders in the skydiving world agree that minors aren't capable of fully understanding the life and death consequences of the activity they're wanting to undertake. To tie that concept back to flying, I don't see anything wrong with saying, "I, as a pilot, understand the elevated risk and am willing to accept it. But these passengers, who don't understand the possible outcomes, deserve an added level of protection."

And by the way--I actually agree with you in my own flying. The older and more experienced I get, the more conservative I get. I generally fly the same way no matter if I have pax or not. But I still see the other side of the coin and don't necessarily think less of a pilot for making their decisions differently.
 
jrh said:
The same reason the FAA doesn't allow student pilots to carry passengers. Student pilots flying solo can be a risky proposition, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Yet it's risky enough that passengers shouldn't be exposed to the risk.

Maintenance ferry flights are another good example. When was the last time you saw a special flight permit that allowed the carriage of passengers? Does that mean it's irresponsible to operate on such a permit?

A third example is that you'll never see anybody joyriding in a Pitts during an air show performance. Yet the show still goes on. Are those pilots being irresponsible?

Finally, to use a non-flying example, in the world of skydiving, it's considered a taboo event to allow a minor to jump. This is because most leaders in the skydiving world agree that minors aren't capable of fully understanding the life and death consequences of the activity they're wanting to undertake. To tie that concept back to flying, I don't see anything wrong with saying, "I, as a pilot, understand the elevated risk and am willing to accept it. But these passengers, who don't understand the possible outcomes, deserve an added level of protection."

And by the way--I actually agree with you in my own flying. The older and more experienced I get, the more conservative I get. I generally fly the same way no matter if I have pax or not. But I still see the other side of the coin and don't necessarily think less of a pilot for making their decisions differently.
Click to expand...

Excellent and articulate post. I feel your post has more to do with ethics than risk management and it seems the topics are being confused.

Risk management is the black and white survey of data and the decision, based on your experience, on whether to accept a certain amount of risk.

Ethics would be whether you would expose someone without your depth of knowledge to those risks.

Thanks for the post.
 
ozziecat35 said:
Ha, didn't mean to cause such a stir...really posed it to start a conversation. To be honest, my mind was already made up...I only have 125 TT, in a rented aircraft that I have no history with, with my wife and 2 year old daughter...not much of a decision to be made. Still an interesting thought if I were solo or with another pilot just going out to smash bugs...If I were by myself, I'd do it in a heartbeat...I've taken a 152 over the Grand Canyon at 11,500 which could be considered a bit crazy too.
Click to expand...

Good decision. I agree with jtrain and the others to do what you are comfortable with. I've crossed back and forth in a single engine floatplane twice, from TVC to Wisconsin. We crossed early in the morning, in summer, when the seas were calm. On the way back the first time, we felt more comfortable island hopping at altitude from Pt. du Barques to Gull, High, Beaver I., then south via N. and S. Fox Island.

Last week I did a practice ASR approach to Muskegon, and got a vector that would have taken us beyond gliding distance and I declined it, for one thing it's our school's policy, but even if it wasn't, I wouldn't feel comfortable. I think that flying within your limits is the way to go. A former Navy F-14 pilot and current airline pilot once told me, "If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt."

From W. Chicago to Gaylord you would only save, what, about 30 minutes direct. Besides, there's a lot more to look at along the coast from Benton Harbor up to Benzie County:)
 
buzzin77 said:
Good decision. I agree with jtrain and the others to do what you are comfortable with. I've crossed back and forth in a single engine floatplane twice, from TVC to Wisconsin. We crossed early in the morning, in summer, when the seas were calm. On the way back the first time, we felt more comfortable island hopping at altitude from Pt. du Barques to Gull, High, Beaver I., then south via N. and S. Fox Island.

Last week I did a practice ASR approach to Muskegon, and got a vector that would have taken us beyond gliding distance and I declined it, for one thing it's our school's policy, but even if it wasn't, I wouldn't feel comfortable. I think that flying within your limits is the way to go. A former Navy F-14 pilot and current airline pilot once told me, "If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt."

From W. Chicago to Gaylord you would only save, what, about 30 minutes direct. Besides, there's a lot more to look at along the coast from Benton Harbor up to Benzie County:)
Click to expand...

Why would you be afraid of losing an engine if you had a floatplane?
 
Small floatplanes don't like waves. A general rule is to avoid landing on water with waves greater than half the thickness of the float or 10% the length of the float. Conditions that would be fine for a small craft can be too rough for a floatplane. Then, you need to wait to get rescued, and it's not going to be fun. When the seas are rough, it's better to be able to land in a protected cove or harbor than in the middle of the lake. Better to beach and tie up, or anchor, than to be adrift.
 
I cross the lake twice a year going to Oshkosh.

To each their own. Some people won't fly if there's a 5k ft overcast layer, everyone has their own limitations.
 
I used to fly off the SW corner of Florida, after fueling up in Naples, all the way down to Key West. Straight shot south, 110mi open water crossing.

However, I knew the aircraft, flew on good weather days, max altitude with O2, life raft and floatation devices on board, back up radio, etc. Never felt unsafe, never felt irresponsible. Never had an issue, and always prepared for if I did.

My $.02 YMMV
 
Remember July 23rd 2010 when an single engine Cessna 206 crashed into Lake Michigan trying to cross with 5 aboard, 1 made it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top