LIFR in a Piston Single

[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.