Non-certified aircraft and known ice?

[Cat Driver]

Yes we carry lots of survival stuff including rafts and survival suits as well as backup portable GPS and a Sat phone to name some.

As to flying a twin, that can vary from the 777 under ETOPS to small single engine twins that are minimal in single engine performance.

What we fly will fly on one and for a very long way, a single engine will not get you far if it quits.

As to most ferry pilots preferring a light single over a twin, O.K. I have not found that to be true, yeh I have met a few including the guy I mentioned in my last post however as I have stated we all decide what we feel best with.

By the way just for couriousity "say again over" how many single engine over ocean flights have you done ferrying an airplane?

Cat D.

 

[mcjohn]

Nice addition to your post there Hand Commander. It is a very personal thing and people should respect that.

Cat Driver, You hiring? I could really use a job. Seriously.

 

[PCL_128]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Of course flying a single-engine airplane in solid IMC is dangerous and stupid. To all that disagree, answer me this one question: what are you going to do when your one and only engine fails? Are you just going to pitch for Vg and hope like heck that when you pop out of the clouds at 200 AGL that a runway, road, or large field will be right there? Sorry, not very smart.

 

[Hand Commander]

Sorry, not very smart.

Yes! Yes! Thank you for another perfect addition to the disclaimer. Now we just need to get these "crazy stupid bastards" to write it up:

http://www.airlife.org/html/about.html

http://www.kenmoreair.com/sub_content.php?content_type=23

http://www.flightexpress.com/flight_express_fleet_cessna_210.htm

http://empireairlines.com/index.asp?PageId=976

http://www.caravanshares.com/

 

[FN FAL]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Of course flying a single-engine airplane in solid IMC is dangerous and stupid. To all that disagree, answer me this one question: what are you going to do when your one and only engine fails? Are you just going to pitch for Vg and hope like heck that when you pop out of the clouds at 200 AGL that a runway, road, or large field will be right there? Sorry, not very smart.

Probably more sedate than riding a vmc rollover.

 

[USMCmech]

To all that disagree, answer me this one question: what are you going to do when your one and only engine fails?

The same thing you will do when your one and only wing spar cracks, or your one and only avionics master shorts out, or your one and only heater fuel line breaks. Even in the most up to date twin (or airliner for that matter) there are plenty of single points of failure that can kill you.

Don't think stress cracks can hide for years as they grow to a point where the wing falls off, think again. Dual alternators and batteries don't mean squat if the switch on the pannel breaks. That extra engine isn't going to do any good if the fuel line leading to the heater starts leaking fuel and finds a spark.

In 10 years of turning wrenches I have seen those examples plus a lot more. The handfull of broken engines I have fixed were not well maintained and had given warning signs for days before throwing in the towel.

I will not fly IMC at all in any airplane if I am not satisfied it is in an airworthy condition. However anybody who thinks that havving an extra engine or a turbine, will keep them safe is kidding themselves. There are hundreds of ways for an airplane to kill you that you can't controll.

Alaska air MD80, elevator jackscrew stripped

United 232 engine blew apart (nobody would have seen that one comming)

TWA 800 fuel tank explosion

Valujet DC-9 cargo fire

All of these disasters were not preventable by the pilots no matter how safe or profesional they were. Every time you get into an airplane you are putting your faith in the belief that a whole lot of people did their job corectly.

As I have said before, any flight in any airplane involves some amount of risk. Single engine IFR obviously has more risk than VFR. How much risk you are willing to assume is an individual decision based on multiple factors that change on every flight.

Anybody who says that they won't fly single engine IMC, good for you, you have made a good decision based on your accepable level of risk. Each individual must make their own call.

 

[JAFI]

...a good decision based on your accepable level of risk. Each individual must make their own call.

USMC, summed it up nicely. As Lead Sled pointed out, why is it many of the "Senior" pilots avoid SE night/IMC/over water? Are there some valid experiences that others may want to listen to?

JAFI

 

[mcjohn]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Of course flying a single-engine airplane in solid IMC is dangerous and stupid. To all that disagree, answer me this one question: what are you going to do when your one and only engine fails? Are you just going to pitch for Vg and hope like heck that when you pop out of the clouds at 200 AGL that a runway, road, or large field will be right there? Sorry, not very smart.

So much more complicated than that. The few times I flew single IMC I definitly though hard about the ceilings all along the route and imagined where I'd head in case of failure while keeping an eye on the sectional in my lap. 200agl is a little low for me and I probably would not have gone if that were the case.

You folks need to chill out with over using the word "stupid". It's so cliche for cocky pilots to throw that work around so often.

Beautiful post there USMCmech!

 

[PCL_128]

You folks need to chill out with over using the word "stupid". It's so cliche for cocky pilots to throw that work around so often.

I find it interesting that a 400 hr CFI is telling an extremely experienced pilot like avbug that he is "cocky" when he's the one telling you to be more safe. The cocky attitude seems to be coming from the low-time pilots that think they are invincible and will never have to deal with this emergency stuff. Maybe it would be wise for you to take the advice of the more experienced pilots. As someone else pointed out, take a look at the profiles of the posters in this thread. The guys telling you not to do this are the ones with years of experience and thousands of hours. The guys saying that it's perfectly OK to be flying single-engine IMC are the ones with a few hundred hours and have probably never dealt with an in-flight emergency. That should tell you something. Learn from those that have been there before you. It might save your life someday.

 

[AC560]

Why anyone who flies GA would want to fly around IFR in a single or twin is beyond me. I have a full left panel which is all electric with an HSI, a full right panel all vacuum with an HSI, 2 NAV radios and a self contained Narco head with G/S all rigged to separate antennas, 2 vacuum pumps, 2 generators, a very large battery, autopilot, 2 comms/portable comm., GPS in the panel and in my flight bag, and 2 engines in a plane that actually has good single engine performance. I have an IFR rating for insurance which is occasionally used to climb out or into some very light IFR conditions. Flying IFR single pilot in any aircraft even with an autopilot is hard when you don’t have a problem. Toss in a clearance change at an unfamiliar airport, engine failure, instrument failure, etc. when you maybe get 5hrs a year at best of real IFR time and you are setting yourself and your passengers up for a problem. Then again maybe I am just a lousy pilot, but at least I am a living lousy pilot.

 

[mcjohn]

PCL 128 ,with all due respect, I was thinking about your post at the time, not avbugs anymore. I can respect what you just stated and I agree in some regards. I take all the advice I can get! My point is more about the annoying cliche of throwing the word "stupid" around so much by so many cocky pilots. You seem to be struck by me saying "cocky" while I only have 400 hrs. Well don't discount you're own wiseness and experience by using the word "stupid" so loosely.
p.s. - We're all a little cocky, were pilots!

 

[Say Again Over]

No light aircraft ferry experience here, the opinion was from an article that I can't quote, just remember statistics pointing to more reliability from the SE aircraft.

 

[PCL_128]

p.s. - We're all a little cocky, were pilots!

No argument there.