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

[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!