LIFR in a Piston Single

[Goose Egg]

All,

This is something that's been on my mind as we have been moving into the ice-free IMC season here in New England. I have noticed that some of my fellow instructors have had no qualms with charging off into actual IMC and flying approaches down to minimums in C-172s. However, after having done that very thing a few times myself have begun to feel a little uneasy with anything below a 1000' and a mile, especially below me enroute. I was curious as to what the 'old salts' of the board would recommend as far as precautions (if any) of flying piston singles in LIFR. I haven't come to any firm conclusions, I'm just trying to gather information.

Understand that this is not an issue of technique. I'm perfectly confident of my instrument skills and quite capable of flying an approach down to minimums or truckin' along in actual IMC as well as supervising students doing the same. This is more of a equipment issue--C-172s are not turbines, and I don't feel like they should be flown like them.


-Goose

Edit: Removed reference to SJS.

 

[pilotguy143]

Who you calling SJS whacked???? just because i've memorized the sytems to the 737,757,767 ERJ, CRJ and am looking at gulfstream, tab express so I "can make the right career choices" and wear my aviators while walking around naked in the mens locker room doesn't make me have SJS (where is the sarcasm tag........)





you are a buffet of manlines

 

[Way2Broke]

What is LIFR? Low IFR?

My suggestion is that you should remember that the airplane does not know it is in the clouds. If you do not trust the equipment that you are flying then don't fly it. If you don't trust yourself, don't go until you you feel comfortable. However, this is something you will have to get over if you plan on flying for a living. Maybe a little night freight in pistons would be a good step for you? It helped me out alot!

 

[Goose Egg]

Maybe a little night freight in pistons would be a good step for you? It helped me out alot!

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

-Goose

 

[pilotguy143]

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. Goose and myself fly C172's that have dual vaccum pumps (plus the electrical 1 for the turn cordinator) Less of a chance of something going wrong. However, I know people who fly planes in hard IMC with less than reliable insturments. When it comes down to it, we all must make the choice what equipment we are comfortable flying with, in what conditions compared to how much risk we are all willing to shell out.

 

[Slice121]

I used to fly intentionally as a young instrument pilot in those conditions in a single engine aircraft. It was good experience and builds confidence. Should you? Depends. How are your instrument skills? Do you trust yourself? Your aircraft? I was in KS at the time so odds were good of surviving an engine failure. If I were surrounded by mtns or wooded areas, I'd probably limit my exposure. Would I do it today? If I needed to do so to get where I wanted to go, probably. For sh!ts and grins, probably not. :beer:

 

[Goose Egg]

If I were surrounded by mtns or wooded areas, I'd probably limit my exposure.

Throw in 40 degree ocean water, and you've described my neck of the woods pretty well.

-Goose

 

[gnx99]

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.

Bingo

 

[Way2Broke]

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

-Goose

To answer your question, yes:
Cherokee 6's
Lances
Arrows

Of course I would have liked to be in a twin the entire time, but I had some dues to pay. Not to mention the fact that I learned alot. People fly hard IFR every day in single engine planes. The safety statistics for such operations are historically good. The biggest killer, of course, is pilot error. People do stupid things, in twins and singles. Don't be that guy or girl.

There are alot of freight companies that start you off in a single before they give you a twin upgrade; for example, flight express and the cessna 210.

 

[Lead Sled]

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

 

[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

 

[Fearless Tower]

I hear ya...although I'm not so sure how well you can identify truly suitable landing sites at night. One advantage of New England, is that if you do lose an engine at 7000, you have a decent chance of finding an airfield within gliding distance, but other than than much of the area outside of the cities is a mixture of trees and fields which at night, you really can't tell the difference until your landing light illuminates the trees in front of you.

 

[Goose Egg]

One advantage of New England, is that if you do lose an engine at 7000, you have a decent chance of finding an airfield within gliding distance, but other than than much of the area outside of the cities is a mixture of trees and fields which at night.

Mostly trees. And I see your point as well. One can never completely escape risk.

-Goose

 

[8inMan]

I used to fly piston singles at night in low IFR quite a bit at a previous job. At first it didn't seem like a big deal, but the more I did it, the more uneasy I felt. For me I think it was the idea of the law of averages that made me nervous. The more I did it, the more of a chance for a failure of some sort, engine or otherwise. Sure enough, I eventually had a vacuum pump failure with no standby. Fortunately the wx wasn't very low and I continued to my destination using the turn coordinator. One of my fellow pilots at that company lost a vacuum pump while I was there and had to do an approach to near minimums with just the turn coordinator. I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore. Now I fly an airplane with two turbine engines. I'm more comfortable flying at night and in low IFR with this airplane, but I still feel far from invinceable. Just like was mentioned already, it all comes down to risk management. All flying involves risk. Some flying, much more than others. The important thing is to know what the risks are and be prepared as much as possible when something does go wrong.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

I agree with a sentiment that's been mentioned a few times on here... I don't worry so much about the engine, I'm more concerned with one alternator and one vacuum pump. Those two things alone would concern me. Most higher-performance single have built in redundancy with those systems that would make it more palatable (sp) for me to tackle LIFR - single engine.

 

[VNugget]

I agree with a sentiment that's been mentioned a few times on here... I don't worry so much about the engine, I'm more concerned with one alternator and one vacuum pump. Those two things alone would concern me.

Can you please expand on that? I've heard it from others too, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Without vacuum or electric, the plane flies just fine and you have options open. Without engine power, your ass is toast and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

Obviously I'm not yet qualified to make blanket statements about this topic, but I just can't help but surmise that without a healthy ceiling, I'd rather lose my vac pump or alternator than my engine, 10 times out of 10.

So... set me straight if I'm wrong.

 

[timeoff]

In my opinion, an alternator and vacuum pump are parts that are expected to wear and fail or go bad over time and odds are they will quit in flight. Not having a redundant system or backup leaves many pilots that fly these planes in LIFR to feel that it is just a matter of time before it is "their" turn.

Engines on the other hand "in theory" can run indefinitely when properly maintained. Poor maint, abuse and defective parts account for a large majority of engine failures.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

I agree with you. The plane will fly just fine on the "backups" as long as your are proficient. But if you are not proficient on "partial panel" and the ceilings are really low, the plane will fly just fine as you get disoriented and fly it into the ground. And once again, I'll fly an airplane that has the basic TOMATOFLAMES all day long in VFR. But low IFR is a whole new ball game. And to make it a long ways in your career, it all depends on risk management. For me personally, I don't take low-performance single engine (no redundant systems) into low IFR.

 

[sleddriver71]

I agree with you. The plane will fly just fine on the "backups" as long as your are proficient. But if you are not proficient on "partial panel" and the ceilings are really low, the plane will fly just fine as you get disoriented and fly it into the ground. And once again, I'll fly an airplane that has the basic TOMATOFLAMES all day long in VFR. But low IFR is a whole new ball game. And to make it a long ways in your career, it all depends on risk management. For me personally, I don't take low-performance single engine (no redundant systems) into low IFR.

Why would you be flying in IMC conditions and not be proficient at partial panel? That shouldn't even be considered a risk. That's like saying it's a high risk flying a retractable gear airplane because you're not proficient at using the checklist and have a hard time remembering to put the gear down. These things are basic knowledge every pilot should have.

 

[FN FAL]

... you really can't tell the difference until your landing light illuminates the trees in front of you.

Which makes the "Off" feature of the switch, a nice thing.

 

[BoilerUP]

Why would you be flying in IMC conditions and not be proficient at partial panel? That shouldn't even be considered a risk. That's like saying it's a high risk flying a retractable gear airplane because you're not proficient at using the checklist and have a hard time remembering to put the gear down. These things are basic knowledge every pilot should have.

How proficient are you at parallel parking? Probably not very much unless you happen to do it on a regular basis.

During primary instrument training PP is drilled into you and becomes almost second nature. However it is entirely unrealistic to expect someone to retain the razor edge on their PP skills if they don't routinely 1. experience or 2. practice such things. It shouldn't be "hard" for an instrument proficient pilot to keep wings level using a TC, but once adrenaline and/or panic kicks in during an emergency it can be difficult to revert to unused skills.

Having "Basic knowledge every pilot should have" is not the same as maintaining partial panel skills that atrophy after disuse.