LIFR in a Piston Single

[LarryinTN]

I did it a few times when I was building time and working on ratings but wouldn't do it today. Modern engines are very reliable but there is still the possibility that one will fail and, if it does, I want to have enough time in visual conditions to setup some kind of landing that I'll have a good chance of surviving.

 

[iflyjets4food]

It all depends on how badly you need the instrument time. Personally, after I reached 100 IFR time (that is combined actual and simulated) I stopped taking that risk because it just wasn't worth it. Granted, in 1300+ hours of single-engine time I never had an engine quit, but it just takes one. Before I had that time, I still didn't like to go below a 500' ceiling (but I'd do it if I had to). Of course, all of this is just me. You have to decide what that extra hour of actual is worth to you.

 

[Way2Broke]

I think that what you will end up finding, as this thread evolves, is the the older more experienced pilots will tend to discourage the practice while the younger less experienced types will find nothing wrong with it.

'Sled

I think that you may find that many of the younger pilots had very little choice in the matter. Expecially those of us entering the job market around the 2001/2002 time frame. I agree with what you said, but I think there are other ways to look at it in certain cases.

My concern in this case was never so much with the engine quitting (That threat is just as much a reality VFR as it is IFR), as much as the lack of redundancy in systems. AKA: Alt failure, Vac failure

What if you are in a single engine advanced glass cockpit type aircraft? Does that make a difference or is it all based on the fact you only have one engine out there? Any Cirrus guys out there care to chime in?

 

[threegreen]

I did it to work my way up. Now that I don't have to, you can count me out!

But even then there were days that I could have gone but didn't... i.e. private pilot wants to do maneuvers, it's clear on top but bases are 200 and a half over a dense city. No thanks, and definately not for 10 bucks an hour!

 

[BoilerUP]

Two days after my IRA checkride, I blasted off in a rental Cherokee to build IMC experience. It was layered aloft (at 4000 I was IMC between layers) and I ended up shooting a VOR approach to minimums because the LOC went OTS after I took off. My instructor claimed I was nuts; I felt then and still feel now my level of proficiency on proper IFR procedures was never higher. It wasn't low IMC (3sm/700') but it was a learning experience that I have never forgotten. I have recommended to many pilots (including former students) do the same to build their confidence and proficiency.

As an instructor I often had business professionals who owned planes as students and they would go up on IMC days to practice approaches. Not one had ever done any approach to minimums, ever. I did a VOR approach with a gentleman that owned an Arrow IV and he decided to go missed because he didn't see the airport. It was his first 'actual' miss, and was a huge learning experience for him, dusting off those primary IFR skills. We followed with an ILS to 400' and during the debrief he expressed increased confidence in his abilities. He'd never had an instructor do that with him, and it gained me a regular customer

Modern piston singles are safer than the vast majority of piston twins out there. And lets be honest with ourselves - if you were in a twin and lost an engine as you pushed up the power on a missed, how confident are you that you could maintain proper control of the plane? There is a reason accident statistics are higher in twins than singles...and they have everything to do with the pilot, not the equipment.

 

[PA-44Typed]

........yahoo and 30 secs later.........


http://www.forward-vision.net/

 

[nwa_contrails]

really though... Goose brings up a good point. I personally believe that there is no right or wrong answer to this question, it has much more to do with risk manegment and comfort /trust with the aircraft systems.

Well said. Sometimes while doing exactly what you speak of (single LIFR) I've found myself thinking of that nasty what-ifs...not fun. You just need to have faith in what you fly and if you don't, adjust your personal mins accordingly.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Did you ever do it in a piston single? A piston twin is a completely different story.

-Goose

Goose, not trying to be a smart a$. here, but as I see it your concern is not being able to pick out a suitable landing area if the engine quits and you don't break out of the clouds until you are a few hundred feet above the ground...so, with that logic, do you not fly at night in singles?

 

[sleddriver71]

originally posted by BoilerUP,

"Modern piston singles are safer than the vast majority of piston twins out there. And lets be honest with ourselves - if you were in a twin and lost an engine as you pushed up the power on a missed, how confident are you that you could maintain proper control of the plane? There is a reason accident statistics are higher in twins than singles...and they have everything to do with the pilot, not the equipment."

Modern piston singles are definately not safer than any well maintained piston twin. I am so sick of hearing people point to statistics and conclude that singles are safer than twins. No they are not. You even say at the end of your post that the safety of the airplane has "everything to do with the pilot, not the equipment." If a pilot is trained properly in a twin, it's just not something to panic about or even get too worked up when one of your engines quit in a multi. It happened to me climbing out at night in IMC, the procedures should be so engraved in your brain that you don't think about it, you just respond. In my case, mixtures, props, throttles, flaps, gear, flaps, identify, verify, feather. It doesn't matter if it's day or night, VMC or IMC, the twin is without question a safer machine than a single. It's the pilots responsibility to know the systems and to have emergency procedures memorized for the particular aircraft whether that be the single or multi. As strongly as I feel about that (twins are safer than singles), I would not hesitate to operate a single engine in LIFR, that's how I learned it. I did my instrument training in C-152's. It's the pilots responsibility to know what condition the aircraft he or she flies is in.

 

[Goose Egg]

...so, with that logic, do you not fly at night in singles?

I fly singles at night. Like I mentioned before, I am gathering information so that I can come to my own conclusions, so I have yet to come up with any hard-and-fast rules for myself. However, I don't see how Low IFR and Night VFR are even comparable. If my only engine failed at 7000' AGL in hard IMC with 200' cielings and 1/2 mile vis. below me, who know's what I'll hit on the way down--I'll probably wind up in the trees, or flying into the side of a mountain. If I have an engine failure at 7000' at night in VMC, I'll possibly be able to identify landing sites, be able to stay right side up because after my engine driven gyros lose power--I'll still have somewhat of a visual reference, and may even be able to make it back to an airport. Sure, it's not as good as VFR day, but you still have a lot more options than hard IMC and low cielings.

A more apt comparison would be over-water operations outside of gliding distance of solid earth in a piston single, which I won't do. Maybe if I had a survival suit or moved away from the North Atlantic, I'd change my thought process.

-Goose