Single Eng. Piston over water

[avbug]

you know, Avbug, there are a lot of people that would say flying tired old airplanes over burning forests ain't exactly the safest thing to do.

A lot of people who wouldn't know what they're talking about because they have no experience in that area. Of course, my airplane is just over a year old, isn't tired, and safety over a forest is what you make it.

Single Engine ops over blue water may not have much margin for error, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should never be done. It is simply a calculated risk.

Calculated risk; the lemmings braying at the moon. It's a calculated risk! It's a calculated risk. Garbage. Take the risk out, show some intelligence, then talk. A hazard exists until you put it in play, then it becomes a risk. It's jerry springer all over. It's okay, I take risks. They're calculated. I did it myself. I used a calculator. Or a pro and con sheet on a napkin at the local diner. Or I flipped a coin...but hey, it's calculated, right? The risks are wrong if they're not calculated. But after you calculate them, they're okay. Good thinking. By the same thinking, next time the chicken coop burns down, make everything safe by dehorning all the cows. The logic is perfect.

We would have been in a world of hurt over 60 years ago if we thought that flying single engine airplanes over water was something that only stupid people do.

We would? Exactly how?

Are you talking about island support during the second world war, or lucky lindy? Lindbergh was a stunt, and far from the first person to cross the ocean...far from the first to cross it, or to cross it in a single engine airplane. But hardly more than a stunt. A big morale booster...but a stunt. Somewhat like Jessica Dubroff, but less tragic.

The primary long range island support wasn't single engine, but the ubiquitous PB4Y-2, which was designed for mast level bombing and close air support, as well as long range support in the pacific...because the single engine equipment didn't have the range. In fact, nothing else did. It had four engines.

Making a comparison between flying fighters during wartime, and a private pilot on a lark in a cessna over blue water is nonsensical, and stupid.

Thats quite a cheap shot therehere Avbug, characterizing considering there are professional ferry pilots who do those flights every day, and they are not trash, far from it.

Some of them are my friends. One of them spent time on an ice berg a few years ago after an engine failure left him stranded.

414Flyer's right...if there weren't pilots willing to do single engine ferry flights, there wouldn't be too many single engine planes in places like Hawaii. Companies like Piper don't exactly box up the parts and ship 'em over for reassembly.

Actually, they can, and do...it's done all the time. Shipping an airplane isn't a bad method of transport. Think about it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Actually, they can, and do...it's done all the time. Shipping an airplane isn't a bad method of transport. Think about it.

There may be some that get crated, but they do ferry alot....look it up.

Oh, I don't think your precious PB4Y had much to do with events like Midway.

You are correct, however that blue water ops in single engine fighters is a whole 'nother thing from some happy go lucky pilot in a single engine GA flight on a joyride over the ocean....but that wasn't the original poster's question to which you made the blanket idiot statement. The original poster didn't offer the circumstances for such a flight, just how willing any of us would be in general. Each individual pilot's comfort level and risk is going to determine the circumstances, if any, that they are willing to undertake that risk. For most of us, myself included, it would take some pretty extreme circumstances to make us consider flying a single engine plane over blue water...but applying a blanket 'idiot' label to anyone who would undertake the venture without considering the reasons or circumstances is, well...ignorant.

 

[sky37d]

How would the respnses change if instead of a single piston it is a single turbine?

If it's a single engine, when it quits you're still going to get wet. Happened to a PC-12, in the pacific.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I pity the fool that pulls the handle too early.

No kidding...got to remember to pull the cord AFTER you exit the aircraft.....and make sure you don't get auto-inflator life vests.....they tend to make egress a little difficult.

 

[USMCmech]

ACalculated risk; the lemmings braying at the moon. It's a calculated risk! It's a calculated risk. Garbage. Take the risk out, show some intelligence, then talk. A hazard exists until you put it in play, then it becomes a risk.

This, ladies and gentelmen is a clasic example of "The Illusion of Control" "the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes of which researchers deem them to have no influence over".

This is a coping mechanisim that many pilots use to rationalize away thier own mortality. "As long as I am a good and careful pilot I will never die in a plane crash". Avbug professes to belive that it is possible to remove ALL risk from flying. Given enough training, excelent maintence, and reliable equipment there should never be another airplane crash ever. If we could just somhow controll EVERY SINGLE VARIBLE asociated with flying an airplane nobody else would die.

Most people who have been flying very long, (including all the airlines, the military, and insurance companies) reject this philosophy, instead embracing "Risk Management". Since some of the fundamental risks associated with propelling human beings throught the air at over 100MPH can never be eliminate, how can we reduce the exposure to these risks as much as humanly possible? Training, experiance, good maintence, modern technology, and more all help reduce the risks but never eliminate it.

The end result is that flying in an airliner higher than Mt Everest, almost at the speed of sound has become one of the safest modes of transportation in the world.

However we can never eliminate ALL risk from flying, there are thousands of scenerios where planes will crash, and people will die, despite anything the pilots do. Anybody who belives otherwise is either completely ignorant of the facts or is deluding themsleves in spite of the facts.

 

[tracearabians]

I agree with Corona ! Depends on where you are flying. I would not want to do it at night just in the rare occasion you did have to ditch!

Just taking a poll of those who would be willing to fly in a single engine piston 100 miles + out over the Ocean. Even with a lift raft and life vests, what do you all think?

 

[tracearabians]

What kind of airplane ?

Just taking a poll of those who would be willing to fly in a single engine piston 100 miles + out over the Ocean. Even with a lift raft and life vests, what do you all think?

 

[414Flyer]

Already been there and done that actually. Had a life vest, life raft, portable ELT, survival suit. Survival suit was worn during the over water legs, North Atlantic is always a wee bit chilly.

 

[avbug]

Each individual pilot's comfort level and risk is going to determine the circumstances, if any, that they are willing to undertake that risk. For most of us, myself included, it would take some pretty extreme circumstances to make us consider flying a single engine plane over blue water...but applying a blanket 'idiot' label to anyone who would undertake the venture without considering the reasons or circumstances is, well...ignorant.

Of course. Pilots who fly over water in single engine piston light airplanes are, for the most part, idiots. As are pilots who profess a willingness to undertake and accept risk. Both ignorant, and stupid. Any pilot that develops a tolerance or comfort for risk is an idiot.

Most people who have been flying very long, (including all the airlines, the military, and insurance companies) reject this philosophy, instead embracing "Risk Management".

No, pilots who live in dreamworlds and suppose themselves to be masters of safety believe in risk management. Those of us who live in the real world believe in risk elimination. Hazards exist which become risks when put in play. Don't put them in play, don't create risks. Where risks exist, eliminate them by opening the back door. A single engine airplane may experience an engine failure. A hazard. One elects to fly it. A risk. One keeps a landing space beneath one's flight path at all times, and frequently trains to recognize and handle a power failure. Risk handled; the risk must exist as the result of an existing hazard, but with provision, the engine failure is no longer a hazard, and therefore, no longer a risk.

Risk management assumes that risks will occur, that we shall accept those risks, and that we will apply our useage and exposure of those risks in some sort of heirarchy that prioritizes how much acceptance we are willing to take.

Risk elimination stipulates that risk is unaceptable, and must be eliminated and or mitigated such that it no longer poses a threat. We don't accept and manage it, we don't accept it at all. The concept that a pilot has become informed and therefore has accepted a calculated risk is a cop-out; it's an assumption based on arrogance and foolishness, to say nothing of rampant ignorance. One is fooling one's self, as if labling the risk "calculated" has in any way mitigated it.

One who says "I'm willing to accept that level of risk" also says "this is my level of stupidity." That, mate, is the illousion of control.

This is a coping mechanisim that many pilots use to rationalize away thier own mortality. "As long as I am a good and careful pilot I will never die in a plane crash". Avbug professes to belive that it is possible to remove ALL risk from flying. Given enough training, excelent maintence, and reliable equipment there should never be another airplane crash ever. If we could just somhow controll EVERY SINGLE VARIBLE asociated with flying an airplane nobody else would die.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Acceptance or risk, even to couch it in politically correct terms such as "risk management," is not acceptable. Again, acceptance is not acceptable.

I said nothing about who lives or dies. That topic is quite irrelevant. I said nothing about one being careful and therefore not dying. Those are your words; don't ascribe them to me.

The pilot who flies over water in his 172...several posters have suggested he carry water survival gear. Fair enough, and a very good idea. He won't last long without it. How are his swimming skills? Does he have the ability to treat water for an extended time? Does he understand survival? Can he right an inverted raft? Does he understand the hazard of drinking salt water? Does he understand hypothermia? Can he use a signal mirror? has a filed a flight plan? Has he undertaken underwater egress training, or does he have any experience finding his way out of wreckage or even a box in the water blinfolded, or in the dark? Is he really prepared?

Survival equipment is little good if one doesn't know how to use it, or can't use it. Understanding when to inflate a mae west, for example, is a life or death decision, as is understanding how to flood a cabin to afford egress. Has the 172 pilot undertaken a study of the waters over which he will be flying? Does he understand the currents, depth, frequency of travel of waterborne vessles in the area? Does he know the current water temperatures, and has he considered his survival times? Or did the pilot merely jump in the airplane and go fly?

If your goal is survival, then the outcome may certainly be doable. But if your goal is to exercise good judgement and proper airmanship, then avoiding the situation where a test of your survival skills may be required, is the order of the day. Be careful of scars earned in battles in which you should never have fought; these are not marks of honor, but signposts on your forhead which over time spell out the word s t u p i d. Like playing the kids game of hangman, quit early before that word is spelled out for the world to see.

Setting a lifelong goal of risk elimination isn't arrogant, nor is it the impossible dream. It's a way of life. The private pilot buzzes his friends, justifying it as both fun, and a part of somethin he does every day; after all, he flies low to land, he's low for the takeoff, therefore buzzing is practice for something he does every day. After all, he says, he's wiling to accept that level of risk; it's all about managing. it's okay. It's a calculated risk.

Two years ago a man told me that one afternoon. The next afternoon, the aftermath was being picked out of a tree, piece by piece. He calculated his risk, he managed it, and it destroyed him.

But at least it was a "calculated risk."

Tell me; what happens when you "calculate" wrong?

 

[mtrv]

Of course. Pilots who fly over water in single engine piston light airplanes are, for the most part, idiots. As are pilots who profess a willingness to undertake and accept risk. Both ignorant, and stupid. Any pilot that develops a tolerance or comfort for risk is an idiot.

You've previously stated in another thread, that you're not comfortable flying over mountains in a single engine aircraft without plenty of highways underneath.

I can therefor assume, that back country flight is out of your comfort level. Along with rock climbing, river running, base jumping, bungee jumping, and most likely aerobatics.

But let's don't go down the path of trying to convince us mortals, that everyone who is involved in these activities must be an idiot. Perhaps they're just a bit more adventurous and willing to accept that higher level of calculated risk.

And BTW, you won't see me spending the night strapped to a shear rock cliff, a thousand feet up. It's out of my comfort level. However, I have no meaningful right to call those who do, idiots. Maybe I just don't have the guts for it; or perhaps no real desire. Looks like you don't have the guts or desire for single engine ferrying flights over water either. Stop making excuses.