Informal poll for the IR's: do you fly single piston in IMC?

[Way2Broke]

Mod Input:
I added a actual poll to this thread. If you would like to vote please do.

 

[BenWA]

I believe that this horse is neither dead nor tired (incidentally, why would anyone want to bludgeon a horse to death?). I think that has been clearly indicated from the breadth of beliefs that have been posted here thus far. This horse is alive and well. Unfortunately, it's manure often stinks.

My ulterior motive (or my goal, anyway) was to post a poll and accumulate a reasonably representative sample of votes, and then open a discussion about the results, and about the potential risks involved in flying single piston in IMC relative to larger aircraft with redundant systems. (Unfortunately, I think the discussion evolved a bit more rapidly than I had initially hoped, sort of went ass-over-teakettle ).

Any case, I feel that it is an important subject to debate, especially because it seems to be something that is seldom discussed. You never see a chapter of an instrument text book that hammers home the potential dangers of flying a small simple airplane in the clouds. Neither do you ever see a Sporty's video on the subject. It's an afterthought in GA training, and I believe that most GA pilots out there crank through an instrument program without ever giving the risks they are taking a gram of serious consideration. After all, flying in the clouds is too fun and too challenging to be busy worrying about worst-case scenarios. Their instructors ostensibly spend maybe a few hours (at most) hiding a couple of the gauges with post-its during the student's training, and then send him off for his checkride. If he is lucky his examiner covered up the instruments for another 10 minutes of partial panel experience during the checkride. Big whoop.

Flying your Skyhawk into the clouds is your own business, and nobody can stop you from going there if conditions are legal and the flight is conducted legally in an airworthy aircraft. All anybody can do--in this forum or anywhere else--is encourage you to step back and think about things from another perspective and, as avbug put it, draw your own conclusions.

 

[agpilot34]

I start getting quite a bit of single engine IFR time this time of year in the Skylane out on my pipeline patrol routes, especially down in South Texas. Shot several approaches last week because the weather closed up. Week before that I ended up filing IFR all the way back home to Oklahoma, and was in IMC for quite a bit of that flight. Do I feel it was safe? yes, otherwise I wouldnt have done it. Is single engine IFR flying something I would want to do on a daily basis? Definitely not. When I did my instrument training, my instructor hammered the crap out of partial panel flying, and I know I can do it with no problem if need be. I know I have good instrument flying skills, and I know my aircraft is kept in tip top condition. Still, I wouldnt do it on a daily basis, because there's just too much there that "can" happen. I've had two total electrical failures and one engine failure in all my hours of flying, and thankfully, they've all been in day VFR conditions. I'm sure there's guys out there that have lots of time in single engine IFR ops that have never had a problem... YET.

 

[avbug]

Do I feel it was safe? yes, otherwise I wouldnt have done it. Is single engine IFR flying something I would want to do on a daily basis? Definitely not...Still, I wouldnt do it on a daily basis, because there's just too much there that "can" happen. I've had two total electrical failures and one engine failure in all my hours of flying, and thankfully, they've all been in day VFR conditions.

This is the conundrum...you feel it's safe, but wouldn't do it daily, as you feel it's not safe. You know what can happen, but justify it some of the time...perhaps with the idea that it won't happen to you. Perhaps with the idea that little exposure isn't so bad, it probably won't happen to you right then...you're willing to accept a little risk, or some risk, but not risk all the time. You feel as though you're managing your risk.

Much like Russian Roulette...you might have a problem, but it's only one of six chambers, and probably only one is loaded. What are the odds...

Which is the essence of flying a limited-equipped single engine piston engine airplane in the clouds and weather...it's gambling.

 

[agpilot34]

It's not a question of justifying it. It's simply part of the job I "choose" to do. Risk is an inherent part of the type of flying I do. I accept that level of risk and have no problem with it. If that makes me a crazy outlaw pilot, so be it. That's a whole different discussion (one we've had also) in and of itself. The amount of IFR flying I do single engine is vastly different from what some freight pilot out there in a 210 every night is doing. I'm not denying at all that single engine IFR ops are much riskier than other IFR ops. That's where, in my opinion, the judgement and common sense come into play. Is the job you are doing worth the gamble you take if you are having to do it IFR in a single? And you are absolutely right, it is a gamble.

 

[ackattacker]

It's an interesting thing to go back and look on. When I was CFI'ing I flew IMC all the time in a single, and didn't think anything of it. Now that I've gotten a little more seasoning I wouldn't consider anything resembling "hard" IMC in any sort of piston single. Hell I'd think long and hard just going at night. The irony of it all is that of course now with a little more seasoning I would probably actually be safer than I was...

But of course part of the seasoning is realizing that it's not pilot skills that keep you safe it's pilot judgment. And good judgment says don't risk your life to a piston engine. It will eventually quit on you.

 

[USMCmech]

This is the conundrum...you feel it's safe, but wouldn't do it daily, as you feel it's not safe.

There is no such thing as "Safe". Launching into the air in an aluminum can is deffinately not "Safe" under any conditions.

There is only an accepable level of risk, or an unaccepable level of risk.

Day VFR = low level of risk.

Night IFR in a single = higher level of risk.

Night IFR in a twin = moderate level of risk.

Which would I prefer to do? IFR in a twin. It offers the most bennefit for the least amount of risk. However, the risks of a well equiped, well maintained single are not excessive in my opinion.


As I tell any prospective student, flying is as "safe" or as "unsafe" as the pilot makes it

 

[avbug]

It's not a question of justifying it. It's simply part of the job I "choose" to do.

That would be justification. (and in case you haven't heard me say it before...justification is the narcotic of the soul...and based upon your response, you are another addict).

Risk is an inherent part of the type of flying I do. I accept that level of risk and have no problem with it. If that makes me a crazy outlaw pilot, so be it.

"I do usafe things, I'm okay with that. I'm a professional who does unsafe things, and who is okay with doing unsafe things. I accept risk. I am unwilling to find ways to eliminate risk, so I accept it. I'm perfectly fine with the concept of being a crazy pilot, an outlaw, and therefore one who does not see fit to act in accordance with regulation or the law (being the definition of an outlaw, of course)."

Is that a professional creed of yours, or just the way you prefer to see yourself? Do you find this a more romantic view of life?

The amount of IFR flying I do single engine is vastly different from what some freight pilot out there in a 210 every night is doing.

Stealing is okay so long as you don't steal as much as other people do. Driving drunk is okay so long as you don't drive as drunk as others. Taking drugs is okay so long as you don't take as much as other addicts. And engaging in flying behaviors that you know and admit are risky and therefore unsafe (nothing risky is safe) are perfectly fine so long as you don't do it as much as other people do. With that logic, one should feel free to kill so long as mass murders are out there who make one's own acts see like a miniscle meaningless event. Talk about justification!! It's okay to do something you see as risky and dangerous, so long as others do it more than you. Very interesting.

I'm not denying at all that single engine IFR ops are much riskier than other IFR ops.

No, you're not, but you are justifying engaging in such operations, have no problem calling yourself a "crazy outlaw" for doing it, or jusifying doing it. The confusion for me is that you recognize the act as risky and even dangerous...but you're not only willing to do it, but proud to thump your chest and pronounce your willingness to do it.

That's where, in my opinion, the judgement and common sense come into play. Is the job you are doing worth the gamble you take if you are having to do it IFR in a single? And you are absolutely right, it is a gamble.

Worth the gamble? Ladies and gentlemen, we will be departing shortly. Captain Oveure is presently flipping a coin to determine our fuel load for the trip to London tonight. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for flying with us, we know you had many choices, and we're glad you have decided to gamble on us. Many of you wil be pleased to know this fine evening that we have excellent odds of making it across the ocean, and God willing, we stand a pretty decent chance of finding London by morning. As a special point of interest, Captain Oveure has made this trip so many times that he finds it boring, and tonight had added something special. He has personally disabled all our onboard navigation devices in order to make finding England more challenging, more of a gamble. We thank you for betting on us, and wish you the best of luck in your journey tonight. Ladies and gentlement, please remember to place your bets regarding the successful outcome of this flight before the cabin door closes, we strongly suggest you wear your seatbelts and pad yourself generously, and locate the nearest fire extinguisher, remembering that it may be behind you or under your seat. Thank you for trying Roulette Airways.

Gambling on the outcome of the flight is such a professional act, how can one have anything less than the utmost of respect for your viewpoint regarding this high moral standard that you have chosen? I, for one, am quite impressed.

There is no such thing as "Safe". Launching into the air in an aluminum can is deffinately not "Safe" under any conditions...

As I tell any prospective student, flying is as "safe" or as "unsafe" as the pilot makes it.

Aaaaah...so which is it again? No such thing as safe, under no conditions is launching into the air safe...but your students are lead to believe that it's as safe as the pilot make it. But because it is never safe, the pilot can never make it safe, and because it is as safe as the pilot makes it, it is the pilots fault that the flight is never safe. Truly bewildering logic.

Taking it a step further, of course, if flying is never safe...then there can be no regulations or limits on what we can do...because we can never make it safe. No point wearing helmets, seat belts, maintaining altitude, talking on the radio, using a transponder, calculating fuel burn, designating an alternate, knowing takeoff or landing performance, conducing preventative maintenance, or refraining from flying in poor conditions...after all, it's never safe.

Again we see that proponents of single engine piston IFR continue to be the inexperienced pilots who have yet to see the light. Give it a little time.

In the meantime, seeing as flying is so unsafe, perhaps you should seek something else to do until this wave of fatalism passes. It's for your good and mine.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Every time I see threads like this I wonder how many multi pilots are launching into IMC with a false sense of security provided by a second, third or fourth engine.

While my profile obviously indicates a single engine flyer (don't have my multi yet, but intend to) I am by no means defending single engine IMC....just concerned that some people might be thinking that by having multiple engines, redundant systems...etc means that they don't have to worry about the same issues that single engine pilots are faced with. With a properly trained pilot, multi-engine is unquestionably safer, but it is by no means accident proof.

Here's a King Air that despite having two engines and redundant systems not to mention the fact that after a loss of A/C power, the istrumentation on the copilot's side was still working. Yet it still managed to get itself into a graveyard spiral:

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR03-01.pdf

Here's a 727 that lost one of three engines, then all electrical power (the board was still unsure why....but it happened) and subsequently lost control in IMC:

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR70-06.pdf

Stuff can happen.

As soon as you start thinking it can never happen to you, that's when you start becoming a menace to yourself and others.

 

[avbug]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that it can't happen to you...the topic of the thread is who flies single engine piston airplanes in instrument conditions.

If one does elect to compare the choice of flying with a single engine, single vacum source, single electrical source, limited or no deice, and other issues that have been discussed, one is certainly taking chances. At a minimum, a multi engine airplane with multiple sources for instrument power, greater performance, more electrical sources, often better intrumentation, etc...one is certainly with more options in the event of any single failure. Even in a light twin.

A single engine pilot with one engine loss has one choice and is limited to the engine-out glide range. The multi engine airplane with one engine out has much more to work with. Additional challenges, to be sure, but even if the aircraft is a light Part 23 twin that cannot maintain altitude on one engine, the drift down still offers more capability than no engine at all.

The single engine pilot with a sole engine driven vacum or electrical source is out of luck when that one source fails...a common occurence for many light aircraft alternators and carbon vane dry vacum pumps. The multi pilot has redundancy which does not directly or immediately impact the flight to the degree that the single is impacted. And so on.

Operations IMC without radar are an invitation to embedded convective activity, even in times of the year not normally associated with convective activity. Active weather such as may be associated with a cold front, for example, can be embedded, and it's only a matter of time before you find yourself sharing the same airspace as something you don't like, if you bumble around without seeing the precip with radar.

This thread isn't about multi engine airplanes, turbine powered airplanes, or powered parachutes, for that matter...but about the wisdom of flying piston powered single engine light airplanes in instrument meteorological conditions.

Too often the thinking engaged by those who say yes (just a little too quickly) is only about an engine failure...when the hazards one turns into risks by undertaking the flight are far beyond the scope of a simple engine failure...and even then the issues associated with systems loss inclusive of the engine failure are seldom considered or discussed.

 

[A Squared]

(incidentally, why would anyone want to bludgeon a horse to death?).

Because they have a big stick, there's a horse hanging around, and they want the exercise.

 

[nosehair]

Because they have a big stick, there's a horse hanging around, and they want the exercise.

Best response of the day !

Here's how I see it:

If you want to be 100% safe, Don't fly.

If you are willing to take a little risk, fly only when there are no clouds anywhere in the sky.

If you want to take some more risk, fly when there are a few clouds in the sky.

If you are willing to take some more risk, fly when there are some more clouds in the sky....

...and so on....

You are the one who asseses the risk and makes the call. Use the information here and everywhere you can find information to help with the management of the risk, but you are taking a risk everytime you fly; single, multi, VFR, IFR, it's all about the risk.

 

[JAFI]

I believe that this horse is neither dead nor tired (incidentally, why would anyone want to bludgeon a horse to death?).

I always thought the phrase "like beating a dead horse" was a worthless act. Let's see what the internet search function turns up.

Acording to Wikipedia: "Rather, "beating a dead horse" is about the futility of one's complaints or actions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

If you read this site enough, topics seem to return on some cycle of time. Maybe it is when a new group of students get to that part of their text book or the homework assignment they do not want to spend any time on.

I agree with Nosehair. It is about risk, and how much you care to accept (the risk). Of course you can eat tofu burgers all your life to avoid the risk (of what ever vegertarians are concerned about) and get killed in a car accident by a drunk driver.

I think the key is understanding the risk and the results if/when Murphy's Law happens.

JAFI

 

[avbug]

It is not about the risk. It's about finding and eliminating the risk. A risk is only a hazard until you put it in play. Either don't put it in play, or open the door such that the risk is no longer a risk. Seek and eliminate hazards every second of every flight. Risk elimination isn't a one time effort; it's a process that never ends. Just like looking for traffic.

 

[JAFI]

Avbug, I agree with some qualification. My thoughts:

A hole in a street is a hazard. We can drive down the street and avoid the hazard (the hole) to minimize the risk to the car. Or the inexperienced driver can drive too fast because many inexperenced drivers do not understand or foolishly accept the risk of driving too fast. An inexperienced (or IMHO a foolish) pilot can launch on a day filled with thunderstorms above his ability, knowledge, or in an aircraft not equiped with radar.

The question is how close can you get to "be safe". Unfortunally many pilots let their inexperience, desire to build flight time, or over inflated ego override the concern for the risk. Sometimes they run into trouble, sometimes not.

I guess to goes back to the old saying:

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.....

Or My favorate: It is better to be down here wishing you were up there than to be up there wishing you were down here.

Either way, Be safe.

JAFI

 

[BenWA]

Or My favorate: It is better to be down here wishing you were up there than to be up there wishing you were down here.

I like that one, I like that one.

 

[Lead Sled]

Avbug, I agree with some qualification. My thoughts:

A hole in a street is a hazard. We can drive down the street and avoid the hazard (the hole) to minimize the risk to the car. Or the inexperienced driver can drive too fast because many inexperienced drivers do not understand or foolishly accept the risk of driving too fast. An inexperienced (or IMHO a foolish) pilot can launch on a day filled with thunderstorms above his ability, knowledge, or in an aircraft not equipped with radar.

The question is how close can you get to "be safe". Unfortunately many pilots let their inexperience, desire to build flight time, or over inflated ego override the concern for the risk. Sometimes they run into trouble, sometimes not.

I guess to goes back to the old saying:

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.....

Or My favorite: It is better to be down here wishing you were up there than to be up there wishing you were down here.

Either way, Be safe.

JAFI

In most cases, the bigger, the more "complex" the airplane, the easier they are to fly. The most demanding airplanes that most people will ever fly are light, piston-powered singles and twins. On paper, they are very capable machines; but at the same time, it’s all too easy to get in way over your head in them. In Part 25 transport category aircraft, you not only have all of the various systems and “backups”, but if you fly them buy the book, you also have built in performance guarantees.

The problem is that many relatively inexperienced pilots operate their aircraft in a way that that leaves them “exposed”. Lets assume that they have flown their SE airplane for hundreds of hours in "hard IFR" conditions and have never had a problem – does this mean that the operation is safe or are they merely lucky? What do you think? You can fail to plan for your eventual engine failure and place your trust in the laws of probability. But remember, if you choose this path, the danger doesn't’t go away, it merely lies in wait and when the inevitable occurs, the laws of physics (and gravity) take precedence. Like the guy said when St. Peter met him at the Pearly Gates, “It never killed me before!”

Personally, I believe that flying is essentially an exercise in “risk management” – you accept reasonable risks and try to eliminate or, at least, minimize the rest. Can you make flying totally risk free? Of course not, no more than you can make any other activity that we do risk free. However, if you go about it properly, flying is as about as benign an activity as you can possibly do. I have a framed photo of an old biplane hung up in the limbs of a tree. (You’ve probably seen the one I’m talking about, they’re in just about every pilot shop in the country.) The photo’s caption reads, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” I agree with that statement.

There is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a “green” instrument pilot out in the weather. Passing a written and taking a checkride no more makes you an instrument pilot than buying a piano would make you a concert pianist. We all start out “green”, but as we gain more experience, hopefully, we become “seasoned”. That’s what experience does for you, you don’t manipulate the controls “better”, you just fly “smarter”. I think that this might explain why most of the old farts on this board tend to feel the flying is single in hard IFR isn't a particularly smart thing to do, while the less experienced types don't see anything particularly wrong with it.

LS

 

[avbug]

Can you make flying totally risk free?

One can certainly try with all one's might. I submit that when one stops trying with all ones might, every conscious moment, one is in a boatload of trouble.

That's bad.

 

[JAFI]

One can certainly try with all one's might. I submit that when one stops trying with all ones might, every conscious moment, one is in a boatload of trouble.

That's bad.

No argument there.

Maybe we should have a poll and ask "How many of your co-workers/friends have you buried when they:

1. Did not manage risk well.
2. Single engine IFR accident.
3. Multi-engine accident.
4. Automobile accident.

If nothing else to drive home the points we all have made. Just a thought.

JAFI

 

[mikecweb]

I took some risks tonight walking down the street with a black jacket on. I probably should have put a reflective vest on.
For the record I fly single pilot single-engine turbine IFR at night. Do I think I'm a daredevil? No. Do I think its stupid? No. Do I think there are risks? Yes. I risk my life taking a shower or eating meat or walking across the street without a reflective vest.
Also if you think I believe I have eliminated risk by flying a turbine single vs. a piston single your wrong.