Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Piper down in Lake Michigan

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
cforst513 said:
so everywhere i look, i see that the search and recovery efforts have been called off. have they resumed yet or will the aircraft forever be at the bottom of the lake and the poor guy's body never found?

The aircraft will likely be found within a year. The body, it's only time until the body washed up on shore.:(
 
I hope he was talking on 121.5 before he landed. I would think that talking on 121.5 would be more prudent then calling 911 after landing in the lake.
 
I'm just curious as to how many of you with more experience than myself think it is an acceptable risk to cross Lake Michigan in a single. Especially at night, especially in cold water conditions.

When I was getting my private, my CFI hammered on the idea of not flying beyond glide distance from shore over water that you can't survive swimming through. I took that lesson at face value and would teach the same. I'm kind of surprised that someone would plan this flight in a single at night, without as much as a flotation device. Maybe I have a very sheltered view, that's why I'm asking the question.

I mean no disrespect to this pilot, and my sympathy goes to him and to his family. I just think that this situation is an example of a risk that can and should be avoided. With all of the factors beyond your control that can bite you, why take this kind of risk?

So, the question is, would you have planned this flight? Where does this fall on the manageable risk scale?
 
redshirt said:
I'm just curious as to how many of you with more experience than myself think it is an acceptable risk to cross Lake Michigan in a single. Especially at night, especially in cold water conditions.

So, the question is, would you have planned this flight? Where does this fall on the manageable risk scale?

Not a chance in hell. I would have rather flown over Gary.
 
It is very sad. I am surprised the airplane didn't float, especially if the tanks were dry, but no telling what condition it was in structurally. From his call though, the aircraft sounded like it was fairly intact, as he survived the landing with no reports of injuries. Moot points I guess, but odd.


I'll admit to flying over Lake Michigan twice - back and forth to OSH in a 172 from YIP. We had life jackets but no raft, and I flew at around 8000 feet if I remember right, which was high enough that we were only out of gliding distance of either coast for a couple miles in the middle. Also, it was daylight, clear, we were IFR, and trust me, we were looking like crazy for ships to glide towards when we were approaching that gap.

I wonder how many times he had done this before? Did he carry the survival equipment the first few times, then stopped bringing it because nothing ever happened?

No, not to beat on this poor soul, but I don't think I would have flown this trip.

RIP brother.
 
I used to fly (rent) out of PlaneMasters at Dupage 20 years ago, they had so many planes that you could take one for the weekend, cross lake Michigan, hang out for a few days and return it with 3 hrs on the hobbs. No minimums. So being poor and ignorant in my young flying trips, I would go straight across in the summer to our cottage near AZO, I did this until the Chief CFI with a billion hrs pointed out that by flying within gliding distance of the shore AROUND the lake only cost me a a tenth or two on the Hobbs.


After doing the math, I never did it again.

I will cut across it if I am in Northern Wisconsin in the dead of summer at 10k or above with a raft and PFD, but no-way at any other time.

I feel bad that he made a judgement call that cost his life.

If every time I made a bad call and it killed me, I would have died a thousand deaths by now. I think it was just his time to go no matter what he would have done.

Ever notice on the news when a bus goes over a cliff it's always a church bus?

Seeing it from another angle, isn't always the super rich mean heartless bastard that lives forever?

I think once you are saved and at peace with God he snuffs you out, it gets you thinking doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more, TD, on the number of times I could have bought it. I can't help but feel thankful that I'm still here.


This young pilot who died in the lake is indeed serving God, by serving as a beacon to all of us. Hopefully, someone who would have attempted a similar flight won't now because of him.
 
cforst513 said:
user997, if you click the original link, you can find a link on the webpage where they have stills of a news broadcast. the news broadcast had a transcript of the conversation, and this person was referring to the stills of those transcripts. :)
Danka sir... I must've missed those that video link when I pulled up the orignal article. Good to know everyone's sane! :)
 
Single over Lake MI...done it lots of times, but I don't feel comfortable with the concept now. Maybe in a Pilatus PC-XII, TBM-700 or a Caravan, as high as I can fly it. Hopefully with a real life boat and real life vests on board.

Food for thought on the twins v. single thing and flying across lake MI. What are the memory items for smoke or fire in the cabin? Let me guess, turn off the master and start an emergency descent at VNE? Try that one in the middle of Lake MI, some winter night...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X11010&ntsbno=CHI98FA349&akey=1

Above is a link to an NTSB report of a state owned plane that crashed due to a fire caused by an improperly installed pneumatic door seal. Had this flight been over the middle of Lake MI and the pilot followed the memory items for cabin fire/smoke...they would have died anyway.

The Beech 58 Pilot's operating manual, under Section III, Emergency Procedures, states, under ELECTRICAL SMOKE OR FIRE, that the Battery and Alternator Switches are to be selected in the OFF position. Also, the operating manual indicates the emergency descent procedure stipulates the landing gear to be DOWN and the flaps be at APPROACH (15 degrees).

A Beech 58 flight training simulator was used with a State of Wisconsin Party Representative to the investigation, acting as pilot-in-command, who executed the emergency descent procedure in the Beech 58 Pilot's Operating Handbook. The emergency procedure states the landing gear to be down and the flaps to be at 15 degrees. An emergency descent from an altitude of 8,000 feet msl was performed in the simulator and a descent rate of approximately 6,200 feet per minute was obtained. A simulated off airport landing was completed in approximately 02:15 minutes.
 
I flew over the lake this past summer in a C172. Although it was a tad bit scary I think it was a risk I would take again. I had full fuel, life jackets, the water would be semi-warm, it was vfr and I was on an ifr flight plan. If something were to happen I could have let ATC know right away and the CG would have sent not long after. Gliding from 8000 would take pleanty of time... who knows CG might be within miles when I landed.
 
flyboyzz1 said:
I flew over the lake this past summer in a C172. Although it was a tad bit scary I think it was a risk I would take again. I had full fuel, life jackets, the water would be semi-warm, it was vfr and I was on an ifr flight plan. If something were to happen I could have let ATC know right away and the CG would have sent not long after. Gliding from 8000 would take pleanty of time... who knows CG might be within miles when I landed.
Here's some food for thought.

I was taking off in a cherry lease back C-182 out of a metro airport and was flying just under 20 minutes back to home base. After departure, the engine developed a roughness that I couldn't trouble shoot and my position was just on the outskirts of the built up urban area by this airport.

I decided not to turn back and risk having an engine quit over a well populated city and continued on to my destination. Mixture, mags, throttle changes, carb heat on/off, what ever...the roughness wouldn't go away and there was no loss of oil pressure or high oil temp. Memory told me that the plane had gone into the shop recently for a new engine mount and a cylinder. My brain was wondering..."am I losing a blade tip?"

My entire route back to home base was over gentle rolling farm land, so I just assessed off airport landing spots and kept moving on. There were so many suitable landing areas, I joked to myself that I was going to look for the place that didn't have empty budweiser cans in the garbage and land there. Can't stand bud.

When I landed at home base, I pulled the throttle back in the flare and the engine quit. The plane had to be towed off the runway, it wouldn't re-start.

The culprit? The crossover tube for the intake manifold had broken a piece off and it fell out the bottom of the cowling, presumably...hopefully, on the hood of some knob's Jaguar.

I'm sure the plane would have kept running, but I don't think I would like to be flying at night, over mountainous terrain or a large body of cold water when that happened.
 
I cross mighty michigan every night. I was getting into MKE that night at 0625Z and the cc helicopter was still not there. It hadnt arrived for another 10 to 15 mins after I landed.
 
Same thing happened almost 10 years ago...

Last time this happened,it was at night,in IMC,in another single engine piper.I think the pilot died upon impact on this one though.Still,i wouldnt cross the lake on the hottest VFR day without a life raft/PFD.In fact,im not sure i would even want to do that.The water in Lake Michigan is ALLWAYS cold.A/C was found in 192 feet of water 2 months later.Check out the full narrative on this one....

NTSB Identification: CHI96FA113 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, January 17, 1996 in MILWAUKEE, WI
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/19/1996
Aircraft: Piper PA-32, registration: N3326Q
Injuries: 1 Fatal. The pilot was flying at night, over Lake Michigan, in IFR conditions when he informed Milwaukee Approach that the engine had quit. He was 20 miles northeast of Milwaukee. He was able to glide about 12 miles before impacting the water. The body of the pilot and airplane were recovered about two months after the accident. Examination of the engine driven fuel pump revealed that a 3/4 inch rubber washer was restricting the fuel flow through the outflow valve of the pump. Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93-11-11 states that the remanufactured fuel pump was to be replaced before the next flight in order 'to prevent disruption of fuel flow to the engine, which can result in a loss of engine power.' The AD had not been complied with.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

Inadequate maintenance and inspection in that the Airworthiness Directive which applied to the fuel pump had not been complied with. A factor was the pilot was unable to reach land. Full narrative available Index for Jan1996 | Index of months
 
Last edited:
It is tragic and I am truly saddened by the loss of such a young pilot. However, I think it could have been avoided. The pilot reportedly only had about 150 hours under his belt. He was not instrument rated. As a longtime boater on Lake Michigan, I can tell you that on a cloudy night (which on Monday it was), Lake Michigan can be total blackness with no horizon to speak of. IMO, he shouldn't have even been making that flight as a VFR pilot. And, if he truly did run out of fuel and it wasn't a malfunction in the plane, then I would say here is a classic case of over-confidence.


Very sad, he was so young. May God rest his soul.
 
I do recall that at least the ground level winds that day were quote strong out of the west and I can only guess that the upper-level winds were even stronger and relatviely out of the same direction. That meant he would have had a strong headwind to work against, which would have contributed to him underestimating the fuel necessary if the winds were stronger than expected.

We'll see what the report has to say and let's hope we all learn from this.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom