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

[mzaharis]

actually benwa is correct.... but that is only in the ga category

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

Here's a similar analysis . . .

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety

This brings up an inevitable question for those who would not fly single engine in IMC - most people get their instrument rating before their multi, and it seems that many non-military professional pilots spend time flying IMC single engine piston before their careers progress to a point where they fly multiengine aircraft. So, does that mean that a pilot must take a risk early on in their career that, in retrospect, might not be a worthwhile one? How many of you flew single engined aircraft in IMC before you decided the risk wasn't worth it? If you had it to do over again, with the knowledge and wisdom you've accumulated, what would you have done differently?

 

[avbug]

Again, most pilots who feel single engine piston airplane instrument flight is okay, are too inexperienced to know better.

Personally, I didn't spend a lot of time in singles flying in the soup...I sat it out, went around, went under, or scrubbed the flights. Just like I do today.

Experience from early on, including an engine failure in a Cessna 182 IMC, has been a great teacher that this isn't the way to go...you hear about been-there-done-that-got-the-tee-shirt...some of us who counsel the less experienced in these matters are tee-shirt holders and have good reason for saying what we do.

 

[tathepilot]

Again, most pilots who feel single engine piston airplane instrument flight is okay, are too inexperienced to know better.

Experience from early on, including an engine failure in a Cessna 182 IMC, has been a great teacher that this isn't the way to go...

i would have to disagree on this one.., because i know very experienced pilots, one comes to mind, an examiener that encourages people to fly single engine imc.. and he prob has more experience than you

(let me put on my helmet)

your engine failure in the 182 has probably just scared you, thats why you wont fly single engine imc..
a great teacher? why did you survive this engine failure? luck? was the weather @ minimums? instead of saying don't do it maybe there was a lesson to be learned? an out?
don't fly is probably the worst advice one can give..

maybe some better advice would be, dont fly imc single unless you can breakout at xxxx feet or some other wisdom that you like to spew....

'im taking this part from another post'
if ga pilots were trained up to the standards of the airline people, would ga aircraft be 7 to 11 times more likely to kill you than driving??

probably not.. so what im getting at is this.. if you have a highly trained ga pilot that flies single engine imc than the likely hood of him/her dieing in a crash would be less because one would have to wait for his engine to fail to be considered a statistic.. (according to some here)

pilot error, that is why people die.

 

[tathepilot]

2001 accident stats

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/2001_GA_Annual_Review_Data.xls

in 2001 there were 57 fatal accidents in imc. there were 1750 accidents total in 2001, but we are only concerned with fatal imc accidents (57), more specifically single engine.(36)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
36 (fatal)involved single engine aircraft. 35 were from pilot error.
2 crashes (fatal) were undetermined, of the 2 undetermined 1 was single engine

out of the 36 fatal accidents involving single engine aircraft 1 (one) fatality was from possible loss of engine, the pilot from that aircraft
survived long enough to give a statement which was:
'The single engine airplane impacted terrain, 3 miles from the runway, while on final approach during hours of darkness. The pilot was executing a localizer instrument landing approach and the reported weather conditions at the airport were below minimums for the approach. The pilot, who died 25 days after the accident, told early responders "I lost my engine." A postcrash fire destroyed the cockpit area and inboard wings of the airplane and a large area of surrounding vegetation. Fueling records and a fuel consumption calculation showed that the airplane should have had sufficient fuel on board for about 3 hours more flying. The engine was peripherally involved in the fire and was subsequently run on an engine stand satisfactorily..

p.s i have a long layover

 

[tathepilot]

its funny.. on theses boards, you have these loud mouth know-it-all's but when a good point to argue comes up, they remain silent!! hahaha

 

[VNugget]

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/2001_GA_Annual_Review_Data.xls

The pilot was executing a localizer instrument landing approach and the reported weather conditions at the airport were below minimums for the approach. The pilot, who died 25 days after the accident, told early responders "I lost my engine."

So you gave us the scenario, but what's the point you're making? If the weather was above minimums, or he had diverted to his alternate, the engine wouldn't have quit?

 

[ackattacker]

Examining the accident statistics for fatal single-engine IMC engine failures is not very valid... there are too many variables.

Better to put it this way... on average, piston engine powerplants in air carrier use average 0.2 inflight failures per 1000 flight hours (one failure every 5000 hours). You can be sure that the failure rate in GA is much higher.

So if you fly 2500 hours in a piston single you have at least a 50% chance that your engine will quit inflight. And that assumes that your maintenance is up to air carrier standards.

Too me that is just not acceptable. I am not willing to play Russian Roulette with my life or the lives of other people. If I'm flying an airplane with only one engine then there always has to be an acceptable plan of action for when the engine quits. Period. And that includes turboprop singles, which have much better reliability (1 shutdown every 25,000 hours).

mzaharis brings up a very interesting point. It does seem that as civilian pilots we do go through a phase early on in our careers with a lot more risk. Of course the risk of engine failure early on is overshadowed by the risk of inexperience and general pilot error. But whatever the cause the statistics do show that it is risky. It's easy to peer down from the multiengine turbine perch and say those GA guys are dangerous. But most of us went through it ourselves. I don't know the answer. But honestly I do think there has to be a better way. It seems to be an issue no one really wants to confront.

And I think manufacturers of general aviation aircraft are themselves very guilty. You see small single-engine aircraft marketed with advanced glass cockpits and marketed almost as mini-airliners, including weeping wings and so on, and advanced avionics that can get you in very low on a GPS approach. They're basically encouraging people to hop into their Cirrus or Mooney and fly straight through all kinds of weather and shoot approaches to mins, with minimal training. All the high tech gizmos are supposed to keep to safe. But they conveniently leave out what happens when the big fan stops spinning...

 

[avbug]

36 (fatal)involved single engine aircraft. 35 were from pilot error.
2 crashes (fatal) were undetermined, of the 2 undetermined 1 was single engine

Brilliant...if no one dies, then it must be okay!

How many vacum pump failures, how many instrument failures? How many cirrus rained down when pilots lost control and deployed the parachute...merely because a failure does not occcur you think that this represents safety? How many radio failures, how many cases of disorientation? How many losses of control? How many system failures?

Statistics are meaningless, and can be used in various shades to mean nearly anything...but attempting to suggest that single engine piston engine IMC is safe because you haven't found evidence of many deaths is ridiculous. Much the same logic as putting a gun to someone's head, pressing the trigger, and when nothing happens walking away with a shrug and a "That was no big deal."

I'd say you don't have enough time on your hands at all if that sort of flawed logic is the best you can acomplish.

 

[mtrv]

And I think manufacturers of general aviation aircraft are themselves very guilty. You see small single-engine aircraft marketed with advanced glass cockpits and marketed almost as mini-airliners, including weeping wings and so on, and advanced avionics that can get you in very low on a GPS approach. They're basically encouraging people to hop into their Cirrus or Mooney and fly straight through all kinds of weather and shoot approaches to mins, with minimal training. All the high tech gizmos are supposed to keep to safe. But they conveniently leave out what happens when the big fan stops spinning...

And in the meantime, those full size, but less equipped airliners are still flying into terrain with all two, three, or four engines operating, because they don't have the on-board situational awareness that the new Cirrus or Mooney has.

Statistics work both ways.

 

[mtrv]

how many cases of disorientation?

For commercial airlines? Still too many!

But once commercial airliners are equipped with advanced glass, that we see in GA today, I can see the odds decreasing.

 

[tathepilot]

Brilliant...if no one dies, then it must be okay!

How many vacum pump failures, how many instrument failures? How many cirrus rained down when pilots lost control and deployed the parachute...merely because a failure does not occcur you think that this represents safety? How many radio failures, how many cases of disorientation? How many losses of control? How many system failures?

Statistics are meaningless, and can be used in various shades to mean nearly anything...but attempting to suggest that single engine piston engine IMC is safe because you haven't found evidence of many deaths is ridiculous. Much the same logic as putting a gun to someone's head, pressing the trigger, and when nothing happens walking away with a shrug and a "That was no big deal."



I'd say you don't have enough time on your hands at all if that sort of flawed logic is the best you can acomplish.

we are talking about single engine imc.. 'engine failures' is the topic.. statistics are meaningless? are you serious.. where do we get our accident data from? statistics, right? if people aren't dead from doing something repeatedly than that must mean something... there are just as many accidents from multi-pilots killing them selves for other reasons, too..(imc) so maybe you should say, don't fly multi's alone unless you have 2k hours..? single engine anything does have some risk, but i believe you are mistaken to say not to fly imc single..

putting a gun to ones head is a bad comparison because a gun is made to kill, you tool..

flawed logic? you sir have the flawed logic... airplane vs gun.. i believe your engine failure scared the crap out of you, thats all....

 

[tathepilot]

So you gave us the scenario, but what's the point you're making? If the weather was above minimums, or he had diverted to his alternate, the engine wouldn't have quit?

if the weather was at or above minimums, maybe, just maybe when he supposedly lost his engine, he would have had 10 seconds to avoid what ever he hit, so that is the point..

 

[avbug]

i believe your engine failure scared the crap out of you, thats all....

From your posts your lack of experience is clear, such that you can't really intelligently discuss that which you don't know...but until you've experienced these things, you truly won't appreciate how you'll react. Or how it will make you feel. Does an engine failure get your attention? Yes. Is a forced landing something that will stand out in your mind? You betcha. Ever had one? Clearly not.

We do not base our decisions in flying on statistics. We do not state that "it hasn't hurt anyone yet, so it must be okay." We are not that stupid.

We do not assume that because only few people have died, an act is okay. You make that assumption, and it is an idiotic assumption. We are not that stupid. Don't be like that.

Statistics regarding the number of persons who have died is irrelevant. If you take a chance and don't die from it, you have still taken a chance. That you did not die is not particularly important, if you have done something stupid. We are aviators; we eliminate risk. We plan, we counsel, we calculate, we preflight. We apply backups. We know exactly what we are going to do when we have an engine failure, an instrument failure, a component failure. We ensure that we have extra instruments, engines, power sources, and a place to land where applicable.

Again, the experience pilots will generally always anwer that single engine piston instrument flight is unwise, and unwarranted, whereas young, inexperienced pilots who don't know better will respond with affirmtions and blindness. Would an engine failure or forced landing scare you? It had better.

My own experiences on the matter go beyond one or two isolated incidents, and you could say that all of them, over many years, have certainly contributed to my own viewpoints. My experience (not my guesswork) has taught me some very important lessons. Among them are the stupidity and foolishness of single engine piston instrument flight, night cross country flight, and continued flight into icing conditions.

putting a gun to ones head is a bad comparison because a gun is made to kill, you tool..

My, what a mature thing to say. When you grow up, you may come to appreciate that an irresponsible act is an irresponsible act. Placing a gun to someone's head is a foolish act, much like flying into intrument conditions in a single engine piston powered airplane. You assert that merely because few people die from it, that it's an okay thing to do. Therein lies the point the analogy. You do a stupid thing, yet justify it becuase nobody got hurt. Much the same as putting a gun to a person's head and pressing the trigger...and when it doesn't go off, you're justified, because nobody died. it's still a foolish act, still just as dangerous, and the fact that nobody died is irrelevant. Do it a hundred times and have no deaths, you have a statistic before you that show that 100% of the time nobody has died. It's still a stupid, foolish thing to do. The statistic is meaningless.

We do not need accident data to know that something is unwise. We need not run out of fuel repeatedly, or fly into brick walls, to know this is a deeply stupid, idiotic act. If not a soul in a hundred years flies into a brick wall, we still know it is an unwise act, despite any fatality record that might confirm it for us. The lack of statistics showing that flying into a brick wall is fatal, doesn't change the fact that it's a dangerous, foolish thing to do.

A brick wall isn't made to kill. But it can. A cloud isn't made to kill. But it can. A firearm isn't made to kill. But it can. Flight into instrument conditions in a single engine piston engine airplane may not be rife with statistics showing loss of life...but it can certainly get you there. Once is enough.

Who and how many died isn't the gold standard for safety. We don't base safety on waiting until enough people die, to do something properly. We prevent it by doing something else.

 

[avbug]

For commercial airlines? Still too many!

But once commercial airliners are equipped with advanced glass, that we see in GA today, I can see the odds decreasing.

This quote deserves a separate response. First, neither my comments nor the purpose of the thread touched on commercial operations. Second, your comment wasn't qualified by an explaination of what you presume to be "to many" commercial disorientation experiences. Third, few airliner accidents or incidents have ever been attributable to a loss of control due to instrument failure or simple disorientation. Fourth, many airline aircraft today use glass cockpits...irrelevant to the discussion. Fifth, adding a so-called glass cockpit to a single engine piston powered airplane doesn't eliminate either disorientation or the risks of flying a single engine piston powered airplane into instrument conditions.

You're really going to compare a triple gyro redundant reversionary advanced Honeywell or Collins system found in many not-so-advanced turbine airplanes to your garmin wonderbox in a Cessna or Cirrus? You think that makes everything okay?

Write again a thousand hours, or two or three thousand hours, and tell me you still feel the same. Once again, the difference in the viewpoints is largely one of experience; those without experience very much feel in favor of stupid acts...they don't know better...those with experience tend to be somewhat wiser and more conservative. The inexperienced may be forgiven for their ignorance, though given time, they may not survive it.

 

[tathepilot]

From your posts your lack of experience is clear, such that you can't really intelligently discuss that which you don't know...but until you've experienced these things, you truly won't appreciate how you'll react. Or how it will make you feel. Does an engine failure get your attention? Yes. Is a forced landing something that will stand out in your mind? You betcha. Ever had one? Clearly not.

We do not base our decisions in flying on statistics. We do not state that "it hasn't hurt anyone yet, so it must be okay." We are not that stupid.

We do not assume that because only few people have died, an act is okay. You make that assumption, and it is an idiotic assumption. We are not that stupid. Don't be like that.

Statistics regarding the number of persons who have died is irrelevant. If you take a chance and don't die from it, you have still taken a chance. That you did not die is not particularly important, if you have done something stupid. We are aviators; we eliminate risk. We plan, we counsel, we calculate, we preflight. We apply backups. We know exactly what we are going to do when we have an engine failure, an instrument failure, a component failure. We ensure that we have extra instruments, engines, power sources, and a place to land where applicable.

Again, the experience pilots will generally always anwer that single engine piston instrument flight is unwise, and unwarranted, whereas young, inexperienced pilots who don't know better will respond with affirmtions and blindness. Would an engine failure or forced landing scare you? It had better.

My own experiences on the matter go beyond one or two isolated incidents, and you could say that all of them, over many years, have certainly contributed to my own viewpoints. My experience (not my guesswork) has taught me some very important lessons. Among them are the stupidity and foolishness of single engine piston instrument flight, night cross country flight, and continued flight into icing conditions.



My, what a mature thing to say. When you grow up, you may come to appreciate that an irresponsible act is an irresponsible act. Placing a gun to someone's head is a foolish act, much like flying into intrument conditions in a single engine piston powered airplane. You assert that merely because few people die from it, that it's an okay thing to do. Therein lies the point the analogy. You do a stupid thing, yet justify it becuase nobody got hurt. Much the same as putting a gun to a person's head and pressing the trigger...and when it doesn't go off, you're justified, because nobody died. it's still a foolish act, still just as dangerous, and the fact that nobody died is irrelevant. Do it a hundred times and have no deaths, you have a statistic before you that show that 100% of the time nobody has died. It's still a stupid, foolish thing to do. The statistic is meaningless.

We do not need accident data to know that something is unwise. We need not run out of fuel repeatedly, or fly into brick walls, to know this is a deeply stupid, idiotic act. If not a soul in a hundred years flies into a brick wall, we still know it is an unwise act, despite any fatality record that might confirm it for us. The lack of statistics showing that flying into a brick wall is fatal, doesn't change the fact that it's a dangerous, foolish thing to do.

A brick wall isn't made to kill. But it can. A cloud isn't made to kill. But it can. A firearm isn't made to kill. But it can. Flight into instrument conditions in a single engine piston engine airplane may not be rife with statistics showing loss of life...but it can certainly get you there. Once is enough.

Who and how many died isn't the gold standard for safety. We don't base safety on waiting until enough people die, to do something properly. We prevent it by doing something else.

you can call me inexperienced, that is ok.. but you don't know me, and you don't know the experience that i have.. there were things that i did, 10 years ago that i wont do today, because of that experience factor... insight, lessons learned... just because i fly single engine equip right now, u call me inexperienced.. ive flown turbine equip single pilot, so i believe im not this out of school type that you make me out to be...

im sorry but no matter how much experience is gained, i wont believe flying single engine imc is a bad thing..

an engine failure does stand out in my mind..
and i have had a forced landing (thanks CTL).
and i have had more that two incidents flying as well in my lifetime... you call me young but you dont know who the hell you are talking too..


bull*hit statistics do count.. engines are reliable, but they do fail... if people aren't dyeing than that must tell you something.. you say generally people with more experience say seimc is bad, but you said it 'generally' so it is not everyone...flying seimc is a risk that i take, and am willing to take.. flying single engine imc is not stupid.. what about seimc with a 1000' ceiling or 2000' or 500' or 200' each has its own level of risk... is it all bad?? if you loose your engine, deal with it... we are pilots, that is what we are trained to do...

you say: Who and how many died isn't the gold standard for safety.
im sorry my friend but you are 100% dead wrong.

what about the guy from FLX that lost his engine and the weather was 500-700' ovc... he is just lucky right? no, he is a pilot, and pilots are trained to deal with emergencies... and he survived..

ill reinterate how u say stats are irrelevant but they are anything but that... stats are whats telling us about what is going on out there.. you say seimc is a foolish, stupid thing to do... you say inexperienced people fly seimc... but as a pilot that is currently flying seimc, i plan i calculate, i preflight right? as you put it... but oh, the one thing that i forgot is that i have one engine... so when my engine dies im screwed right??

bull********************

 

[tathepilot]

And I think manufacturers of general aviation aircraft are themselves very guilty. You see small single-engine aircraft marketed with advanced glass cockpits and marketed almost as mini-airliners, including weeping wings and so on, and advanced avionics that can get you in very low on a GPS approach. They're basically encouraging people to hop into their Cirrus or Mooney and fly straight through all kinds of weather and shoot approaches to mins, with minimal training. All the high tech gizmos are supposed to keep to safe. But they conveniently leave out what happens when the big fan stops spinning...

I dont believe it is the manufacturers fault for marketing and producing these a/c with all this sophisticated equip.. that is what they are there for, producing the best of the best..

it is the pilots fault for flying these a/c into conditions beyond their experience level that gets them killed..

 

[mtrv]

Write again a thousand hours, or two or three thousand hours, and tell me you still feel the same. Once again, the difference in the viewpoints is largely one of experience; those without experience very much feel in favor of stupid acts...they don't know better...those with experience tend to be somewhat wiser and more conservative. The inexperienced may be forgiven for their ignorance, though given time, they may not survive it.

Many of my viewpoints regarding glass panels and high tech , are far from just being my own. This is a regular subject within the experimental aircraft forums, which is made up from a large sector of active and retired commercial pilots as well as military, in addition to GA only pilots.

I'll say this up front. There are high time commercial pilots who refuse to fly single engine back country. There are high time commercial pilots who refuse to fly any serious types of aerobatics. They just don't feel comfortable with the idea. And at the same time, many others do one or the other, or both frequently. I'm at the age of most retires, and know many of their thoughts on this subject.

Makes me wonder, as to which type, post here regularly.

 

[ackattacker]

For commercial airlines? Still too many!

But once commercial airliners are equipped with advanced glass, that we see in GA today, I can see the odds decreasing.

This quote says it all... you clearly are lacking some basic understanding of the way things are. You seem to think that state of the art safety technology flows from GA up to the airlines. Perhaps you should come to my next 6 month recurrent training and tell me about how I'd me much safer if we installed Garmin G1000 flight decks. Or maybe you should let Boeing know about this great idea. Wow. Where do you think glass cockpits come from? How about EGPWS? TCAS? You think Cirrus *invented* this stuff?

Come to think of it you're right... those airlines really need some help to overcome the rash of spatial disorientation from those steam guages. While you're at it maybe you could solve the stall/spin on base to final that's currently plaguing the industry so bad.

 

[avbug]

you say: Who and how many died isn't the gold standard for safety.
im sorry my friend but you are 100% dead wrong.

I suppose you might call that a statement of irony.

ill reinterate how u say stats are irrelevant but they are anything but that... stats are whats telling us about what is going on out there.. you say seimc is a foolish, stupid thing to do... you say inexperienced people fly seimc... but as a pilot that is currently flying seimc, i plan i calculate, i preflight right? as you put it... but oh, the one thing that i forgot is that i have one engine... so when my engine dies im screwed right??

You do know that your messages are very difficult to read, don't you? Typing lessons, perhaps even some basic language lessons might be in order. Never the less...

Yes, you are "screwed." Particularly when that engine failure occurs in instrument conditions. Likewise you are also "screwed" when you lose your sole vacum source, when you lose your sole electrical source, or when you begin to accumulate ice, or any combination of these...along with typical turbulence that accompanies a lot of weather. Do you have difficulty interpreting your airborne weather radar in your single engine piston engine airplane?

You really should read back over the rest of the thread, rather than stammering through tired old arguements that have no merit.

Now, as for statistics...as statistics are not kept on the number of component failures that have occured over a given year...vacum pump failures, electrical failures, instrument failures, radio failures...and yes, engine failures. These are not reported...and many don't need to legally be reported. Certainly aircraft accidents get reported, but many other things which may easily have become accidents but for whatever reason did not, go unreported. Accordingly, statistics attempting to show whatever it is you're attempting to show, are meaningless...because a great dealof what is important is undeclared. But of course...you know that.

.. just because i fly single engine equip right now, u call me inexperienced..

Actually, no. I have no idea what kind of equipment you fly. I don't really care, as it's not important, nor is it relevant to this conversation. Your attitude is what betrays you as inexperienced. Your total hours are also irrelevant, as they have little if anything to do with experience...your manner of language, your approach, your attitude, and your understanding speak loudly of inexperience, and that much you do a poor job of hiding. Seeing as you brought it up.

ive flown turbine equip single pilot, so i believe im not this out of school type that you make me out to be...

I said nothing of the kind, and really don't care...as it's entirely irrelevant and unimportant, particularly to this discussion.

if people aren't dyeing than that must tell you something..

Yes, it tells me they're still alive. People can be stupid and live, you know. Your posts prove that much.

what about the guy from FLX that lost his engine and the weather was 500-700' ovc... he is just lucky right? no, he is a pilot, and pilots are trained to deal with emergencies... and he survived..

Why don't you tell us all about him?

... insight, lessons learned...

Perhaps. Apparently just not very well.

 

[Tracom]

Wow, for a while, we almost had a valuable, interesting discussion on SE IMC. Thankfully, we have returned to an ego contest.

Most folks are aguing from a standpoint of absolutes...SE IMC = Bad, or not. The reality is that flying of any kind w/o options is bad. If you are on one motor with low weather, you are rapidly running out of options should your motor quit...not good.

However, if you are at 8k' IMC w/ backup intsruments, and the ceilings at 3k', and the motor quits, you have lots of options.

So, while arguing absolutes makes for some interesting bravado, I don't see it as incredibly useful. Sorry, avbug, but still don't buy the whole "eliminate" risk thing...If I could eliminate risk, I would just eliminate the risk of my engine quitting and fly to mins all the time.

Sorry to the thread on that one, don't want to rehash the Clintonian, "that depends on what the definition of "is" is" arguement.

My previous posts on the thread mentioned how I try to keep options open, and I am generally interested in others thoughts along the same line.