Non-certified aircraft and known ice?

[FN FAL]

FN - that's fine, I totally understand the concept of backups...I'm just wondering what happens when someone does start tumbling during the freefall, etc.

-mini

You do the same as you would in an airplane, you regain control by flying flying your body. If you can't, due to lack of skill or injury, you still have options available to you.

If you suffer a broken arm during a skydive, you still have the option of regaining stability by compensating with your other "control surfaces" and if that isn't looking too positive in the outcome department, you can pull your main or reserve with the available hand. Some people will have the luxury of an automatic deployment device on their reserve.

 

[minitour]

You do the same as you would in an airplane, you regain control by flying flying your body. If you can't, due to lack of skill or injury, you still have options available to you.

If you suffer a broken arm during a skydive, you still have the option of regaining stability by compensating with your other "control surfaces" and if that isn't looking too positive in the outcome department, you can pull your main or reserve with the available hand. Some people will have the luxury of an automatic deployment device on their reserve.

Cool...so you have a plan in case of (what I would deem) an emergency.

...just like if my gyros go down, my plan is partial panel to the nearest suitable airport...even in a Single. I'd hope most pilots of single engine aircraft would do something similar...at least have a plan.

-mini

 

[Say Again Over]

A single parachute system, such as one used for base jumping, might be a better correlation to a single engine aircraft.

Let's see, single parachute failure: splat, single engine aircraft operation the same???? What are you thinking?

 

[minitour]

Let's see, single parachute failure: splat, single engine aircraft operation the same???? What are you thinking?

Of course, when you lose an engine in a single, you're just a heavy inefficient(sp) glider...so if it's still that dangerous, we need to ground all the gliders too.

-mini

 

[mtrv]

A backup generator attached to a vacum pump pad?

Yup. The "lower" amperage (25 amps) alternator bolts directly to the pad, and replaces the vacuum pump for an all electric system, as an essential buss backup.

Few single engine light piston driven airplanes have any redundancy at all.

However, a hand-held battery driven GPS such as a Garmin 296/396 offers loads of information that mimics a glass panel setup to a degree. Considering the engine is still running despite a loss of the electrical system, with it's own magneto's, we still have a reasonable amount of redundancy through the use of hand-held GPS's and radios. There are numerous accounts of where a simple hand-held GPS has saved someones bacon in IMC conditions.

edit: I know you know all this, as I've read your postings for years. You just don't seem to want to say it.

First of all, we don't do things in aviation based on "hope," and second, the Cirrus doesn't have a very enviable record, thus far.

Sure we do! I'd bet every time you rotate, you're thinking, I hope the engine doesn't die! And this applies to all singles, and many twins!

 

[FN FAL]

Let's see, single parachute failure: splat, single engine aircraft operation the same???? What are you thinking?

What are you thinking?

A plane has wheels, a base jumper's wheels are on his car. Silly you.

 

[Say Again Over]

Thanks for clearing that up, what was I thinking.

 

[avbug]

Of course, when you lose an engine in a single, you're just a heavy inefficient(sp) glider...so if it's still that dangerous, we need to ground all the gliders too.

You see a lot of instrument rated gliders, do you? Sailplanes certificated for and intended for use in instrument conditions? Ever wonder why there's an instrument rating for rotorcraft, and one for airplanes...but not for gliders? Again, very poor comparison, hardly apples to apples, and serves only to cloud the issue.

There are numerous accounts of where a simple hand-held GPS has saved someones bacon in IMC conditions.

There are a few cases, and only with respect to navigational ability...that handheld doesn't keep you upright, and doesn't even give you a heading...a course, perhaps, a direction to go...but little else. It does nothing for orientation in the axes.

Sure we do! I'd bet every time you rotate, you're thinking, I hope the engine doesn't die! And this applies to all singles, and many twins!

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm thinking of exactly what I will do when it DOES fail, because it's been planned, calculated, and I'm prepared for it. If I have to hope and guess, then I'm grounded, because I'm not going. What an utterly unprofessional concept, hoping that everything is okay. Flying is not a game of chance, nor should it be treated as such.

...just like if my gyros go down, my plan is partial panel to the nearest suitable airport...even in a Single.

Your backup, your plan, is that when things come apart you'll limp along in an unfamiliar emergency condition and hope you make it? You spend a lot of time flying partial panel in real world conditions? Everybody has done it for a few hours in training, often with a hood...but how often after that...and not on a nice calm day with an instructor sitting nearby, but in real, embedded, instrument weather? Lots of bravado about "all I need is needle, ball, and airspeed," but that's been claptrap since the 30's. Attitude instrumentation has been standard in cockpits for a great many decades, not as a matter of frivolity or luxurious excess.

Let's see, single parachute failure: splat, single engine aircraft operation the same????

No...working parachute systems and sport parachute systems use single parachutes...dual parachute systems are standard for civil and military applications (excepting some very specialized uses). Single parachute failure, it can quite possibly be cleared. If unable, reserve parachute use. If you're trying to make a comparison to base jumping...that might be more on par with single engine IFR...or more on par with instrument aerobatics.

I don't fly single engine IMC, nor do I base jump. Those who elect to do so may well be of the same mindset.

 

[mtrv]

ability...that handheld doesn't keep you upright, and doesn't even give you a heading...a course, perhaps, a direction to go...but little else. It does nothing for orientation in the axes.

Oh boy, it's time to update GPS's. A Garmin 296, along with numerous others, have a panel page that duplicates the basic six steam gauges. Surprisingly, combined with WAAS, these computerized gauges do a good job. I know, as I have a 296. With a moving map, a heading is of little use, compared to the "track". The Garmin 396, as well as others, also throw in up-linked satellite weather, that's very beneficial. Everyone I know, that has weather features, no longer cares to fly cross-country without it.

And in my case, the 296 also supplies the output, to keep my auto-pilot "upright".

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm thinking of exactly what I will do when it DOES fail, because it's been planned, calculated, and I'm prepared for it. If I have to hope and guess, then I'm grounded, because I'm not going. What an utterly unprofessional concept, hoping that everything is okay. Flying is not a game of chance, nor should it be treated as such.

I think you're just trying to piss me off, but I'm too old
Do you really think I'd not care about the aircraft's condition, and then just hope? Not hardly! That would be "utterly unprofessional"! Besides, I do own a Lyc, but would still "hope" it does not fail. I once flew a Piper Arrow, that suffered a catastrophic engine failure at night, in California. Four we're killed, and the engine failure had nothing to do with it's maintanance. I've since, hoped that it does'nt happen to me, yet I do also, plan for failure. If you're NOT hoping, everything is okay, then why are you planning for FAILURE?

If I were to minimize all risk's, I'd just stay ground bound, or no single engine mountainous flight. But I prefer the risk.

 

[avbug]

Do you really think I'd not care about the aircraft's condition, and then just hope? ... If I were to minimize all risk's, I'd just stay ground bound, or no single engine mountainous flight. But I prefer the risk.

Perhaps you should stay on the ground.

You're dangerous.

 

[FN FAL]

If I were to minimize all risk's, I'd just stay ground bound...

Except for astronauts and people that have heart attacks on an airliner, almost everybody dies with their ass firmly planted on Terra Firma.

So, how does staying "ground bound" minimize all risks?

 

[mcjohn]

Perhaps you should stay on the ground.

You're dangerous.

I knew it! I knew the Top Gun quote was coming....GO ICEMAN!

 

[mtrv]

Perhaps you should stay on the ground.

You're dangerous.

So, what you're saying, is that because I choose to fly single engine aircraft over mountainous areas, in the daytime------ I'm dangerous. Please Explain???

And here is what's a bit sad. 90% of the time, I agree with you. Now, you're just trying to make it a pissing match, which I'm also good at. But, seeing as how you appear to be on a real low today, I'll let it go.

edit: Nevermind, I won't let it go. Over time, you've been the pronounced aviation expert on this forum. And then I come along and mention vacuum pad driven alternators and GPS panel pages which you were not aware of. Instead of " I didn't know that", your only comeback is "your dangerous". Quite a pathetic responce isn't it?

 

[avbug]

I'm dangerous. Please Explain???

I once flew a Piper Arrow, that suffered a catastrophic engine failure at night, in California. Four we're killed...But I prefer the risk.

Seems self-explainatory to me.

 

[mtrv]

Seems self-explainatory to me.

Real cute, leave out a few sentences and then add the last quote. You're sinking to a new level today. I just never go that low.

edit: perhaps I should explain. The Arrow held four. Four were killed. I wasn't there.

 

[avbug]

This better?

I once flew a Piper Arrow, that suffered a catastrophic engine failure at night, in California. Four we're killed, and the engine failure had nothing to do with it's maintanance. I've since, hoped that it does'nt happen to me, yet I do also, plan for failure. If you're NOT hoping, everything is okay, then why are you planning for FAILURE?

If I were to minimize all risk's, I'd just stay ground bound, or no single engine mountainous flight. But I prefer the risk.

Seems self-explainatory.

Apparently that four died didn't sink in...didn't seem as personal because you weren't with them? You still prefer the risk. You still hope nothing goes wrong, but you prefer the risk.

Would five have made a bigger impression? Six? If you were with them would it have made a bigger impression? Perhaps with more than 500 hours of experience it might start sinking in...if you weren't in that vulnerable range of the 500 hour invincibility mark...would that make a difference?

Probably not. You prefer the risk.

 

[icefr8dawg]

to answer your orig question

Every piston single with TKS kicks butt compared to booted twins when talking ice here. Does ATC care....no I've flown mooney's, bonanza's and every little twin out there and there's simply no comparison, it just works better. But, it does run out with varying degrees of time. One of the systems relys on the prop slinging ice juice over the cowl and onto the windshield which, interestingly works better than the measley glass plates you see on twins. Safe, yes Legal, no. Best to not get cought...

Additionally, loose an engine in anything short of a King Air or MU-2 in ice and it gets interesting no matter what.

 

[mtrv]

Perhaps with more than 500 hours of experience it might start sinking in...if you weren't in that vulnerable range of the 500 hour invincibility mark...would that make a difference?

Probably not. You prefer the risk.

My "risk" is single engine over mountainous areas in daylight conditions. I've said nothing more, nothing less.

I don't need talk of invincibility. I've had good friends and associates die in small aircraft accidents. I've seen a Baron go up in flames a few hundred yards of my home, the aftermath of a homebuilt crash on the other side of my fence, and the results of rather new Commander 114 with an on-board engine compartment fire, hit a home foundation across the street before my home was completed. I guess, this is one of those living next to an airport hazards.

You might even recongnize several of these accidents, since they're close to home.

 

[avbug]

Boy,oh boy, my risky friend. You've got airplanes raining down all around you. For a guy that loves risk so much, you must be thrilled.

You note you've got five hundred hours on your little bio, and you've flown airplanes that killed four people, had aircraft rain down on fire on three sides of your house, and had numerous friends killed in all manner of light craft.

But you prefer risk.

You really ought to take up needle point, or something.

With blunted needles. Rubber ones. In a room full of soft furniture. Non-flammable furniture. And for heaven's sake, move somewhere safer, before one finally comes through your living room window. Good luck with that.

 

[Lead Sled]

Why is it that it's pretty much only the comparatively inexperienced pilots out there that condone the practice of single-engine IFR or night X-C flying?

'Sled