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

[pilotyip]

Does that mean if you have your crash you don't need to worry about it again?

 

[USMCmech]

Show me that math. This is no more certain than the trite, but overused expression respecting gear up landings that "there's thems that has, and thems that will." Hogwash.

It is called "Actuarial Science", the SCIENCE of measuring and quantifying risk. If you spend enough time out doors you WILL be struck by lightning. It is how the insurrance company decides to charge to offest their losses when there is a loss.

Risk is defined as "the proability of collapse (can never be zero) multiplied by the severity of the collapse (can never be zero)".

It is a law of mathamatics that every system will break down eventually back to a "stable" situation. This is called "the sand pile effect". The more complex the system the quicker it will collapse. Most of these "colapses" are small, some are medium, and some are huge.

The Space Shuttle was guaranteed to crash. There was no risk, it was a certianty.

At the begining of the program the risk of a catostropic failure was calculated to be 1/400. In fact the demonstrated risk is actually 1/50.



"Those that have, and those that will" is in fact completely accurate statement.

Don't get me wrong, we should never just give up and wait for the sky to fall. We take every possible step to catch our mistakes before the consequences become severe. The use of before landing checklists will catch our mistakes 99.99999% of the time. But one day if we keep doing this we will forget to lower the gear and will we will foreget to use the checklist.

Again, the focus gets put in the wrong spot. So many are quick to zero in on the concept of engine failure, when instrument failure and single-source instrument power failures are a much bigger hazard that differentiate single engine visual flight from single engine instrument flight.

So what if there are redundant power sources, redundant instrumentation? Does that "eliminate risk"?

Or could the pilot misinterpret all of those perfectly running instruments and fly into a mountian?

How do we "eliminate" that risk?

 

[mtrv]

Again, the focus gets put in the wrong spot. So many are quick to zero in on the concept of engine failure, when instrument failure and single-source instrument power failures are a much bigger hazard that differentiate single engine visual flight from single engine instrument flight. Vacum failures are very common in light airplanes, as are electrical failures...the power sources, and generally the only onbaord power sources, for the aircraft instrumentation, anti-ice, radar, etc. Just as bad as one engine to fail is one system source to fail.

With today's hand-held GPS's, in which some of the popular brands such as the Garmin 296/396/496 have batteries which will last for hours; you've still got the map page, the terrain/obstacle page, possibly the XM Satellite weather page, and your basic six-pac instrument page. At least enough information to stay out of instant disaster, as long as the magneto's do their job.

And, as brought up in previous threads, many of todays newer single engine airplanes will carry a 2nd lower amperage rated alternator that replaces the vacuum pump, as well as a second battery system with dual and switchable electrical busses. And then throw in a handheld GPS & NAV/COMM to the above for the third layer of backup.

 

[Lead Sled]

With today's hand-held GPS's, in which some of the popular brands such as the Garmin 296/396/496 have batteries which will last for hours; you've still got the map page, the terrain/obstacle page, possibly the XM Satellite weather page, and your basic six-pac instrument page. At least enough information to stay out of instant disaster, as long as the magneto's do their job.

And, as brought up in previous threads, many of todays newer single engine airplanes will carry a 2nd lower amperage rated alternator that replaces the vacuum pump, as well as a second battery system with dual and switchable electrical busses. And then throw in a handheld GPS & NAV/COMM to the above for the third layer of backup.

All that's well and good, but you're still exposed. Granted, you've got multiple layers of back up for things, that if they fail, are not inherently critical - at least if they're handled correctly. The problem with singles - piston or turbine - is that when all is said and done you're still betting everything on a single critical component that has no backup. Having a second alternator, dual this, and triple that won't do you one whit of good if your single engine decides to call it day. At that point, your survivability depends upon the decisions that you have made up to that point - if you've decided that it was OK to be flying at night, IFR, over mountainous terrain your odds of surviving will be much less than if it happens in day VFR over "suitable" terrain. You can ignore the dangers, and place your trust in the laws of probability. (After all, they say that nowadays, an engine failure is a “once in a career” occurrence – yeah, right!) But remember, if you choose this path, the danger doesn’t go away, it merely lies in wait.

LS

 

[USMCmech]

The problem with singles - piston or turbine - is that when all is said and done you're still betting everything on a single critical component that has no backup.

That is no different from any twin.

Every airplane has dozens of critical components that have no backup.

A single just has an extra one.

 

[avbug]

It only takes one.

Which is where judgement comes in. Unfortunately, the answer is usually that judgement is the passkey...I accept risk becasue I judge it to be okay...everything is magically blessed to be acceptable becasue of judgement.

Judgement is knowing when to say no, when to say yes, and how to tell the difference, whereas justification is better known as the narcotic of the soul. As I have stated many times before, I certainly see a lot of addicts out there.

 

[GVFlyer]

NO!

I do not.

I agree. I have a little over 100 hours of actual instrument in single-engine turbines, but I don't do that anymore.

It's all a risk management process and it's more risk than I am willing to accept.

I use sports psychology and positive imagery in much of what I do - forming a positive mental image of the desired outcome of the activity I'm engaged in. It just doesn't work in this case. I just keep seeing myself with no seat, in an engine-out glide in the clouds wondering what I'm going to see when I break out, if I break out, and all the while thinking what an incredible idiot I am.


GV

 

[G21Agoose]

I agree. I have a little over 100 hours of actual instrument in single-engine turbines, but I don't do that anymore.

It's all a risk management process and it's more risk than I am willing to accept.

I use sports psychology and positive imagery in much of what I do - forming a positive mental image of the desired outcome of the activity I'm engaged in. It just doesn't work in this case. I just keep seeing myself with no seat, in an engine-out glide in the clouds wondering what I'm going to see when I break out, if I break out, and all the while thinking what an incredible idiot I am.


GV

Chicken! A single engine turbine is much more reliable than a GMT Master II. Or should we start another thread?

 

[pilotyip]

We can eliminate all risk by not flying. Navy used to do that after a rash of accidents, they would have a safety standdown where the whole Navy would not fly for a couple days. It sure cut down on the accidents

 

[avbug]

It is called "Actuarial Science", the SCIENCE of measuring and quantifying risk. If you spend enough time out doors you WILL be struck by lightning. It is how the insurrance company decides to charge to offest their losses when there is a loss.

Again, show me the math. It cannot be done. You cannot do it. Such ridiculous stupidity. Cavemen braying at the moon here...we cannot eliminate risk! It cannot be done! It cannot be done!

The risk of a lightening strike is inevitable, is it? Hogwash. Show me the math, scientist. Show me the math.

You can certainly say one might get struck by lightening, and there are ways to prevent it, avoid it, eliminate that "risk."

The fear that wells up in you at the concept of risk elimination is a sad reflection on your own willingness to accept the risk, to take chance, to justify! Justification, the narcotic of the soul, and your soul loves it, drinks it in, cannot live without it. Must accept risk! Must! Cannot live without it! Cannot make it go away! No! Will not! Cannot! Love risk! Embrace risk!

The inevitability cry; it's inevitable. We'll all die somehow, might as well die doing something we love! We'll all get struck by lightening, we'll all crash eventually, we'll all have a gear failure at some point...yada, yada. It's science! We must embrace it! Every airplane in the world will eventually crash! It's inevitable! Because it's inevitable, then we might as well do it; there's no escaping it! We'll just hope it doesn't happen to us!

What a fatalistic, suicidal, asinine outlook on life.

I like to tell individuals to think of an engine failure in terms of inevitability. Does this mean that the individual will have an engine failure? Of course not. But I like to stress the mindset to prepare for it, which is part of risk elimination. But to take that into your fatalistic world, we ought not fly, because not only is the engine failure inevitable, but so is the crash. It is not. You may put away your slide rule or calculator and relax, math boy. Theory falls short in the face of reality, where our eventual death is certainly inevitable, but crashing an airplane or the need to take a risk (and the gauranteed outcome thereof) is not.

Insurance is based on gambling. Casinos run on gambling. Horse races are based on gambling. We do not base our flying on gambling. Risk should not be a part of our decision process, because we focus on what we should not. We fly considering potentials, and solving the problems as we go. Every moment, every breath brings a new soloution. Engine quits, I go here, now here, now here, now here, now here...We keep a full instrument scan in order to be prepared for the failure of an instrument by cross referencing other instruments. We carry fuel reserves and frequently check what we have with what we expect. We forecast the weather, then check it enroute, monitor it against what we see on radar, or XM-whatever, enroute, and continually revise our decision process. We are constantly on the lookout for risk, we find it, we eliminate it by doing something else, making decisions that take the risk out, opening an escape path such that the risk is no longer a hazard...we eliminate that risk by any infinite potential number of means, to ensure the safe outcome of the flight.

That's our job. Embracing risk is a failure at our job.

Yesterday I made a decision to abort my assignment and land at an interim location. Conditions changed. A dust storm brought visibility down, we experienced an onboard gear problem, Other aircraft going missed put us back down the line and threatened our fuel reserves if we remained, so I made a decision to terminate early and recovered at a different field. No different than any one else would have done.

We had a gear problem, considering the outcomes, it might have threatened a directional control problem. The destination, very close to the point where I terminated, had 44 knot crosswinds. Visibility was very low in sand and dust. We had explosives on board, and full fuel right to our landing weight. An inexperienced pilot was supposed to be making the landing for currency, and I nixed that, too. Various other factors, while not necessary to cause me to divert, also applied.

I elected not to take the risk. I went to a location with known support, much better winds, a full ILS, better surrounding terrain, better visibility. I elected to perform the landing. I looked at each risk factor, each potential, and eliminated it. You like to cry loudly that one can't eliminate risk. I'm not concerned about feeding the world; just myself and those around me. One belly at a time. One risk at a time. Eliminate all the risk in the world? Busy. Dealing with this...this hazard, don't want it to be a risk...one risk at a time. Risk elimination. It's a mindset, a practice, a way of life.

Failure to practice it delivers one to your god of science; failure to practice risk elimination may well put one into the realm of the inevitable; eventually you're going to succomb to those risks, so long as you accept and embrace them.

There is no natural order to risk elimination; it's an active process in which you constantly change the future by preventing things from happening by being proactive, careful, and alert. Walking through life with your eyes closed, moaning about the inevitable, is not risk elimiantion; it's being part of the food chain, and one might say, you become your own just deserts.

 

[agpilot34]

Wednesday afternoon, I lost a fellow pipeline patrol pilot over in Arkansas when their 182 went down near Batesville, AR. I didnt know the man personally, but in a fairly close knit small profession, it still hits close to home. Just initially looking at the conditions, I am pretty sure we'll end up finding out that they pushed the weather risk TOO far, and used some really poor judgement. The weather here that day was around 300' and anywhere from 1/2 to 1 1/2 mi. visibility, and I am told it was about the same over in that part of the world. Absolutely no reason in the world to be out trying to get down the pipeline in conditions like that. They were enroute from Jolliet, IL back to Barr Air Patrols' base in Mesquite, TX, and never arrived. They were found Thursday some time about a mile from the Batesville, AR airport down in the timber. Dont know at this point whether they were still on line, or were attempting to get into Batesville. I know that Avbug and I have disagreed in the beginning of this thread, but after going back and reading his posts, and having him explain his position a bit further, it turns out he and I share the same view, just a different way of exlaining it. He knows what he's talking about, friends. I had my first night time electrical failure a couple of weeks ago, and although it happened in night VFR conditions and I landed without incident, I can definitely see how things could have been much worse had there been a few more risks involved.

 

[USMCmech]

Again, show me the math.

I did, it's a very simple formula,

Risk = (probability of an accident) X (losses per accident)

None of these variables can ever be zero

The risk of a lightening strike is inevitable, is it? Hogwash. Show me the math, scientist. Show me the math.

The odds of an average person living in the USA being struck by lightning once in his lifetime has been estimated to be 1:280,000

"Eliminate the risk of being struck by lighting by staying inside your car or a building durring tunderstorms." Nice try. Lighting can injure you inside, and it can happen far away or even without any thunderstorm.

Roy Sulivan has the record for being the human who has been struck by lightning the most times. He did everything possible to eliminate the risk of beig struck by lighting, but it still happened. Two of his hits were while he was inside a car, and two were inside buildings, supposedly "safe" areas.

Must accept risk! Must! Cannot live without it! Cannot make it go away! No! Will not! Cannot! Love risk! Embrace risk!

This is called human nature, ALL humans love taking risks, for without it there can be no rewards.

If you reject this notion, how did you get your job? You embraced a risk of rejection becase of the reward.

I like to tell individuals to think of an engine failure in terms of inevitability. Does this mean that the individual will have an engine failure? Of course not. But I like to stress the mindset to prepare for it, which is part of risk elimination. But to take that into your fatalistic world, we ought not fly, because not only is the engine failure inevitable, but so is the crash

Exactly,

There is always a given probablility of an engine failure durring any flight, therefore you should take steps to mimize the damage that coud do = less risk.

But, you have not reduced risk to zero, you have not "elimnated" it.

Carry a second engine and you double the probability, but you drasticly lower the losses of that event = less risk which is good thing.



You seem to belive that I run around telling people to take foolish risks, because crashes are inevitable, I don't. I take every possible step you have described to eliminate risk in my flying and I demand my students do the same. Risk in anything we do should never be just accepted, it should be understood, studied, and minimized.

Life is too precious to waste by taking foolish risks. However it is also too precious to waste by not taking any risks.

 

[minitour]

Insurance is based on gambling.

No. Insurance is based on the law of large numbers. They know they'll have X losses and pay Y dollars in claims. They also know you and I will continue to pay our premium as well as everyone else in the "pool" and that offsets the losses.

It's not gambling in the least.

-mini

 

[Fearless Tower]

No. Insurance is based on the law of large numbers. They know they'll have X losses and pay Y dollars in claims. They also know you and I will continue to pay our premium as well as everyone else in the "pool" and that offsets the losses.

It's not gambling in the least.

-mini

I'd disagree...insurance is indeed gambling....very calculated gambling on the part of the insurance companies, but gambling nonetheless. Insurance companies do lose once in a while (for example, recent extreme hurricane damage payouts).

 

[mamba20]

dont be a *************************, if there is no ice, no storms and you have decent wx for approaches then why not go?

 

[agpilot34]

Yeah, THERE'S an intelligent statement.

 

[GEXDriver]

dont be a *************************, if there is no ice, no storms and you have decent wx for approaches then why not go?

It is clear that you have totally missed the point of this thread.

 

[Muddauber]

No, won't do it. We did it in fighters just long enough to get VMC and we had a bang seat.


Muddy

 

[FrozenPilot]

Thank you USMCmech for a post that makes sense without twisting around the facts or another's words. avbug must have been an opinion journalist in another life.

 

[avbug]

No twisting necessary. No mathematical formula exists, even given the assumptions provided in the foregoing theoretical attempt, to prove inevitability, or demonstrate that risk is inevitable.

Acceptance of risk, and therefore gambling in aviation, remains a foolish and asinine endevor for which no justification may be found legitimate.

 

[FrozenPilot]

avbug, i understand the point you're getting across through several of your posts, but you've been splitting hairs over definitions of key points as your acceptance of risk and risk elimination.

But what do I gain by telling the board know-it-all on everything aviation that what everyone is saying is really the same thing?

 

[Lead Sled]

No twisting necessary. No mathematical formula exists, even given the assumptions provided in the foregoing theoretical attempt, to prove inevitability, or demonstrate that risk is inevitable.

Acceptance of risk, and therefore gambling in aviation, remains a foolish and asinine endevor for which no justification may be found legitimate.

Are you saying that you have eliminated all risk from the flying you do and that there's absolutely no chance that you will ever have an accident?

 

[USMCmech]

I'd disagree...insurance is indeed gambling....very calculated gambling on the part of the insurance companies, but gambling nonetheless. Insurance companies do lose once in a while (for example, recent extreme hurricane damage payouts).

100% accurate. Anything we do in life is a gamble, nothing is risk free.

Insurance companies have figured the odds so overwhelmingly in their favor that they are "safe" investments, yet they can and do lose on ocasion.

The insurance companies have spent millions of dollars researching their "bets". The hundreds of people who develop this data have the best perspective on how "safe" or "risk free" any given activity is.

They have conclusivly proven that overall twins do not have abetter safety record than high performance singels. In fact, the safest aircraft is the C-172. A single with only basic instrumentation, few reduntancies, and useually flown by lower time pilots. Larger more capable airplanes are "safer" but pilots use them to performe fights with more risks. The result is that twins crash more often than singles per flight hour flown.

In my opinion the bigest safety factor is not the number of engines, it is the number of crew. Every light aircraft (single or twin) has a very large and unreliable "single point of failure" sitting in the left seat. 95% of the time this is the "defect" that leads to a crash, not any peice of metal.

I don't challange anybody who feels that flying a single IFR is unsafe. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I would prefer to fly in a twin if I had the money to do so, but I do not feel that the lack of an extra engine creates an unaceptable risk.



Where I disagree with Avbug is his mocking of risk management which is a proven psychological concept embraced by the military, airlines, enginering, basicly all sectors of industry,ect. Instead he holds to his theory of "risk elimiation".

We all pratice risk management every day, wether we realize it or not. We weigh risks vs rewards in every diecision we make, from what to eat, to takeing off in an airplane.


Anyone who studies the risk involved in aviation, should see the obvious fact that something can alyways go wrong. It is possible to be a "safe" pilot and take every precaution to eliminate risks, yet something completly out of your controll can affect you in an averse way.

The risk of flying in general aviation are comprable to riding a motorcycle. You can wear a helmet, protective clothing, ride dfensively, and everything else to be a safe rider.

None of it matters when Auntie Ethell who can barely see over the steering wheel hits you at 35mph.

 

[avbug]

Are you saying that you have eliminated all risk from the flying you do and that there's absolutely no chance that you will ever have an accident?

That's really irrelevant and unimportant.

What is important is a refusal to embrace risk. Risk management, by it's very nature, embraces risk as inevitable and acceptable. If you're going to manage it, you've accepted it. Accepting risk isn't acceptable; spending every waking moment of your life dedicating yourself to the effort of finding risk and eliminating it is acceptable. It's professional. It's necessary.

The horse is beat dead. Read the posts given. I'm tired or preaching to those who are so horrified at the idea of a better way, and so fearful of rejecting risk. If you embarace risk, love risk, then take it. Taking a risk is an idiotic act, but have at it. What I have to say has already been said.

 

[pilotyip]

You can not avoid risk, it is always there, you do everthing possible to reduce risk. But there is risk in eating Breakfast if someone poisoned it at the factory. The crew who ate 300 morning Doves at LRP on 9-1-05 and flamed out both engines at 50' then it into the ground did everything reasonable to reduce risk. The Feds said basically it was an act of God and nothing could have been done to prevent the accident short of not flying.

 

[Tracom]

Original point

Don't want to rehash the argument on the definition of risk, but am interested in the original question.

I fly piston singles in IMC if:

Day (don't fly piston singles at night VMC or IMC)
No convection
No icing
1000' ceilings (to find a landing spot in case of engine failure (I fly in flat areas))
VFR divert

ORM for these flights:

Plenty of fuel and divert planning
Lots of instrument time and reccurent training for partial panel
Electric autopilot and wing leveler if I have a vac failure

Not interested in replies from those who argue absolutes (because absolutes are easy to argue, "If you disagree w/ me, you're dumb"). But interested in a reasonable discussion on how others ORM these flights. With my matrix, I calculate my risk over a day VFR flight as marginal at best. (Don't start w/ the ELIMINATE risk speech, your definition is not the one I was taught year in and year out at annual CRM/ORM lectures).

Any circumstances worse than the ones above, and I won't go in a piston single.

 

[U of I Tweak]

One might well notice that the willingness in this regard generally equates to experience. Inexperienced pilots often reply that they will, experienced pilots often reply that they will not, generally speaking.

Why do you suppose that is?

Obviously because we're too stupid to know any better? [/sarcasm]

 

[unreal]

Day (don't fly piston singles at night VMC or IMC)

Why not night VMC? I can understand not wanting to fly a piston single in night IMC, but night VMC when done correctly is pretty safe. Where I work, instructors are broken up into day and night shifts, and I happen to work the night. That means that I'm out there almost every night putzing around in a C172, and I don't really have a big say in the matter.

Dangerous? Not in my mind. Yes, there's more risk in it than flying day VFR, but when done correctly and with good preflight planning, I firmly believe that it can be carried out safely. I teach a lot of instruments (go figure), and the lessons can be tailored to stay over lit and/or familiar terrain. As far as cross countries are concerned, there are specific routes that I'll avoid at night in favor of more friendly terrain. One routing we typically get while flying IFR north of Phoenix takes us right over a mountain range lengthwise. There's about a 40 mile stretch where you'd be hard pressed to survive if you were to go down at night. That is definitely a route best left for the day.

 

[Tracom]

Why not night VMC?

Good post.

Agree with most of your post. I fly my cherokee for recreation only and almost exclusively cross country. So I'm not familiar enough with the terrain that I would be over most of the time to have any level of confidence should my engine quit. Also, a lot of DARK spots around here that would make finding a suitible forced landing spot sketchy at best even on a clear night.

So in short, I agree that if done smartly, you can mitigate the risk factors. For me there just isn't any priority on the flights to make the planning worth wild or to justify the risk increase (as small as it may be) just to get a $100 hamburger.

 

[unreal]

Good post.

Agree with most of your post. I fly my cherokee for recreation only and almost exclusively cross country. So I'm not familiar enough with the terrain that I would be over most of the time to have any level of confidence should my engine quit. Also, a lot of DARK spots around here that would make finding a suitible forced landing spot sketchy at best even on a clear night.

So in short, I agree that if done smartly, you can mitigate the risk factors. For me there just isn't any priority on the flights to make the planning worth wild or to justify the risk increase (as small as it may be) just to get a $100 hamburger.

I understand completely. I probably wouldn't do it either if it was in my own airplane and there wasn't a real reason to do it. I know what you mean about the dark spots as well. There's a whole lot of nothing here in northern AZ, even to the point where you can lose all horizon reference on a moonless night if you're facing away from lights. That can get a little disconcerting for sure!