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

[SeaSpray]

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

My sentiments exactly (emphasis added).


SS

 

[avbug]

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

Ignorance or lack of experience isn't always synonymous with stupidity, but you're right.

 

[NJAFracPilot]

E) No frickin' way!

 

[SkyGirl]

I would never consider filing into hard IMC in my SkyHawk SP even though it is equipped with the Garmin G1000 NAV III glass cockpit.

My instrument qualification is for the time when I inadvertently encounter a JFK, Jr. type situation or when I need to fly VFR-on-Top.


_SkyGirl_

 

[GEXDriver]

So far it looks like about 63% of respondents are in the generally try to avoid it, only if I absolutely have to or No frickin' way camps.

 

[tathepilot]

this past wed, thu & fri

single pilot, single engine imc.
1st leg's @ night. thu & fri w/ice

departure, destination & alternate @ mins.

a/c has 2 alternators, 2 vac pumps, full anti-ice and 1 engine and when i take off, i feel great because i love to fly.. im not a seasoned vet yet, but i have more than a 'little' experience (take it for what its worth)

i try to minimize as much risks as possible, but when push comes to shove, 1 engine is one engine... i dont think having an engine failure in imc will kill me, i believe when the man upstairs pulls my card, that will be when it is my time to go..

minimize risks that whats its about.. and the more we do it, the safer we will all be..

i could have hurt myself the other day.. i could have minimized my risk for this flight by not accepting an a/c out of maint that had 'stiff' pitch control.... i didnt believe it would be a problem, but it was.. (imc)

i chose to depart, but i should not have accepted the a/c. it was my decision which was a bad one... so on this flight i accepted some risk which turned out to be a bad move...

luckily everything turned out ok, and i learned a valuable lesson from this experience.

minimize risk + experience = longer life

 

[Lead Sled]

this past wed, thu & fri

single pilot, single engine imc.
1st leg's @ night. thu & fri w/ice

departure, destination & alternate @ mins.

a/c has 2 alternators, 2 vac pumps and 1 engine

That sounds like the opening statement in an accident investigation.

LS

 

[jaxpilot]

well since I fly C-210's for a check hauler, I would have to say "A".

 

[BenWA]

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.

Reading between the lines, you have never lost an engine at night (which is GOOD!) But I can assure you that you would feel differently had this ever happened to you personally. If you lose an engine--your only engine--at night, are you prepared to deal with it? Think deeply about this. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. It's difficult to say whether you are or not until you are actually faced with the situation. Only then does the truth of how you really feel about it come out of your bones.

A common hazardous attitude recognized by the FAA is "It can't happen to me." Engine failures or fuel exhaustion happen all the time in GA. Remember that this sort of event doesn't know and doesn't care whether it's day, night, 500 and 2 or, 50000 and 100. It can (and does) happen anytime.

 

[unreal]

Reading between the lines, you have never lost an engine at night (which is GOOD!) But I can assure you that you would feel differently had this ever happened to you personally. If you lose an engine--your only engine--at night, are you prepared to deal with it? Think deeply about this. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. It's difficult to say whether you are or not until you are actually faced with the situation. Only then does the truth of how you really feel about it come out of your bones.

A common hazardous attitude recognized by the FAA is "It can't happen to me." Engine failures or fuel exhaustion happen all the time in GA. Remember that this sort of event doesn't know and doesn't care whether it's day, night, 500 and 2 or, 50000 and 100. It can (and does) happen anytime.

Keep in mind that I never said that it couldn't happen to me. It certainly could, and I had a scare a couple weeks back with a misfiring engine at altitude during a night XC. Definitely learned something from that, and the thought of having to put down at night was very real in my mind at that point (maintenance said it was temporary fouling, but d*mn if that doesn't get your attention!).

But, does that mean that I'm going to quit flying night VMC in a single-engine airplane? No, not at all. It simply means that I'll ensure that I take more precaution in where I fly, and make sure to stick to it.

 

[Lead Sled]

But, does that mean that I'm going to quit flying night VMC in a single-engine airplane? No, not at all. It simply means that I'll ensure that I take more precaution in where I fly, and make sure to stick to it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here; but just what precautions does one take to make night SE XC flying safe? I'd like to hear everyone's answers and reasoning.

LS

 

[BenWA]

Depending on where you do most of your flying, finding a suitable place to make a forced landing during daylight--even on the clearest of days--can be a serious undertaking (e.g., the hilly, forested terrain in the less-inhabited parts of the PNW). I can assure you that it doesn't get any easier at night.

If you insist on flying your Skyhawk at night, rule number one should be to never, ever fly beyond gliding distance of an airport (with lights), ever. In some places, airports are sparse enough that they would require an altitude greater than the airplane's service ceiling to satisfy the aforementioned rule. Otherwise, your options are slim.

Where I do most of my flying, ditching in the water along the shoreline of Puget Sound is about as good as it gets for night forced landings if you are outside gliding range of an airport. Swimming off shore in my jeans after dark, choking on avgas in the water isn't my idea of a good time, and I don't ever intend to schedule it into my evening plans.

 

[Lead Sled]

Depending on where you do most of your flying, finding a suitable place to make a forced landing during daylight--even on the clearest of days--can be a serious undertaking (e.g., the hilly, forested terrain in the less-inhabited parts of the PNW). I can assure you that it doesn't get any easier at night.

If you insist on flying your Skyhawk at night, rule number one should be to never, ever fly beyond gliding distance of an airport (with lights), ever. In some places, airports are sparse enough that they would require an altitude greater than the airplane's service ceiling to satisfy the aforementioned rule. Otherwise, your options are slim.

Where I do most of my flying, ditching in the water along the shoreline of Puget Sound is about as good as it gets for night forced landings if you are outside gliding range of an airport. Swimming off shore in my jeans after dark, choking on avgas in the water isn't my idea of a good time, and I don't ever intend to schedule it into my evening plans.

Evidently you haven't heard of the off-airport night landing method that I was taught...

When you lose your engine at night over unknown terrain you turn off all of your lights until just prior to impact. At that point, you turn on your landing lights. If you like what you see, leave them on. If you don't like what you see you simply turn them off. No one has ever provided me with a better solution to the problem.

LS

 

[unreal]

If you insist on flying your Skyhawk at night, rule number one should be to never, ever fly beyond gliding distance of an airport (with lights), ever. In some places, airports are sparse enough that they would require an altitude greater than the airplane's service ceiling to satisfy the aforementioned rule. Otherwise, your options are slim.

Well, I don't insist on flying my Skyhawk at night. They insist that I fly their Skyhawk at night.

Really, it's just like the FEX guys. I don't have much of a choice in the matter a good bit of the time, and even then, some units need to be completed at night (night XC training for my Private student). I know that's a cop-out reasoning, but in order to not be flying SE pistons at night, I'd have to quit my job. I'd quit if I felt that my safety was in jeopardy, but we fly SE pistons every night and not one has gone down in the years we've been doing it due to a mechanical problem. I trust maintenance here quite a bit, and I'm very familiar with the terrain on any of the XC routes I teach on.

 

[tathepilot]

If you insist on flying your Skyhawk at night, rule number one should be to never, ever fly beyond gliding distance of an airport (with lights), ever.

i mean really are you serious..!!! you do know driving is more dangerous than flying.. so in that case why don't you walk to work..

 

[tathepilot]

Evidently you haven't heard of the off-airport night landing method that I was taught...

When you lose your engine at night over unknown terrain you turn off all of your lights until just prior to impact. At that point, you turn on your landing lights. If you like what you see, leave them on. If you don't like what you see you simply turn them off. No one has ever provided me with a better solution to the problem.

LS

yes, ive heard of this method! works well

 

[BenWA]

i mean really are you serious..!!! you do know driving is more dangerous than flying.. so in that case why don't you walk to work..

Actually, the stats indicate that you are 7-8 times more likely to have a fatal accident flying in a small GA airplane than you are driving/riding in a car.

It's the professional air carriers that have the better safety record.

Sometimes I do walk to work.

 

[Way2Broke]

Actually, the stats indicate that you are 7-8 times more likely to have a fatal accident flying in a small GA airplane than you are driving/riding in a car.

It's the professional air carriers that have the better safety record.

Sometimes I do walk to work.

Where did you get those stats?

 

[tathepilot]

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

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

 

[avbug]

.... but that is only in the ga category

Seeing as the topic is light single engine piston powered airplanes, that ought to do.

 

[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.