Single Eng. Piston over water

[414Flyer]

One of those "idiot" ferry pilots

http://www.bestaero.com/features/danaher/potm.htm

 

[agpilot34]

"Any pilot that develops a tolerance of comfort for risk is an idiot"

I usually have some respect for what Avbug says, because of his experience level, but this comment really chaps my @ss to no end! I've flown ag for several years, and now fly pipeline patrol. Both jobs have ALOT of inherent risk, because of all the low level flying involved. I spend 95% of my time at or below 250' agl, over alot of terrain that would make an emergency landing difficult at best. Is it risky? Bet your butt it is. Am I "comfortable" with that risk and "tolerant" of it? Sure am. Does that make me an idiot? FAR from it!! I respect the risks that are involved with the type of flying I do. I know every inch of my plane from spinner to tail. I make sure all maintainance is performed to the letter. I thoroughly preflight EVERY day before I go up. Does that mean I will never have an accident? No... like they say, sh!t happens. Machines break, I dont care how good they are. One could just as easily say that Avbug is an idiot for flying those old @ss air tankers. I mean, most of those planes are old, and are performing a job they were NEVER intended to do in the first place, unless you're flying a CL-415 or something along those lines that was purpose built as an air tanker. How about it there, Avbug... you know the risks involved with the type of flying that YOU do, yet you STILL do it. Does that mean that YOU are an idiot? Does that mean that YOU are a cowboy adrenalin junkie pilot? Or does it simply mean that you accept and tolerate a certain amount of risk because it's the kind of flying that you love to do. You need to not make blanket statements like that, there's too many variables. Like I said, I usually agree with alot of what you say, but I've got to call you on this one.

 

[777-2H4]

What do the regs say about private, VFR rated pilots flying across a large body of water such as one of the Great Lakes? The straight across distance of Lake Michigan is about 60 miles. do you need a special rating to do it? or carry special gear for a distance like that?

 

[avbug]

4 jet engines didn't eliminate all risk from TWA 800. 2 turboprops and an amphibious hull didn't save the poor souls from crashing into the ocean in a Chalks Mallard when the wing decided to separate from the fuselage...were the pilots and passengers of those planes all idiots because they didn't eliminate all risks? Or how about Alaska 261? Were those pilots stupid for agreeing to fly an airplane that unbeknownst to them had a messed up jackscrew?

TWA 800 was shot down. Considering that the risk could have been avoided, knowing that a missle had been launched in that area a week previous, and ample intel was available indicating this was a strong possiblity...a hazard became a risk became numerous fatalities, became a coverup of the same. But that's not really the point, and has no bearing on flying a single engine piston airplane over water.

The principle of risk elimination would have taken place before impact of the Chalks aircraft. Finding the corrosion before it resulted in a breakup, for example. Risk elimination....NOT accepting the known risk.

Risk elimination is a goal, a process, a concept. Risk aceptance is knowing heavy air traffic exists, and believing in the "big sky" theory, one launches anyway. One believes it's a calculated risk; calculating statistically, one believes ones self safe enough. Risk elimination is using your noggin to swivel and look for traffic, to ensure that a collision does not occur. It involves utilizing ATC services, TCAS, radio calls, flying in accordance with a clearance, flying under IFR, or any number of other techniques, methods, or ways of eliminating both hazards and risks.

Doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Don't do that.

Risk elimination.

Were the Alaska pilots stupid for flying an aircraft with problems unbeknownst to them? They were stupid for spending a half hour troubleshooting it and destroying the jack screw, which ultimately is what lead to their deminse. Likewise, pilots who all too often bray that poor maintenance doesn't take place at the airline level...after all, it's a major. Nothing like that would ever happen here...or, it's been signed off, so it's no longer my responsibility.

Newsflash; risk elimination and safety is everyone's responsibility. Got a problem? Get on the ground and sort it out. Take it out over the ocean and troubleshoot it until it fails completely? Therein lies a problem. That's a calculated risk. We have a problem, we will stay aloft and troubleshoot, it probably won't get worse. We've calculated it. It will be okay. We will be okay. We're pilots. We're in a jet. What could go wrong. Calculated risks make hazards okay, because we've calculated it's okay to accept them.

Everyone's dead, but he, it was calculated. Risk elimination says don't take that chance; get on the ground and let a mechanic figure it out, while lots of live people sit around and complain about the delay. Not much calculation in that, though. Where's the fun?

One could just as easily say that Avbug is an idiot for flying those old @ss air tankers. I mean, most of those planes are old, and are performing a job they were NEVER intended to do in the first place, unless you're flying a CL-415 or something along those lines that was purpose built as an air tanker. How about it there, Avbug... you know the risks involved with the type of flying that YOU do, yet you STILL do it. Does that mean that YOU are an idiot?

You recall that old saw about keeping your mouth shut and appearing a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt? You just removed all doubt, but heck, it's a free country, right?

Old air tankers? Mine is a year old. It's fairly new. Gets considerably more maintenance than any airliner, and is flown by far more qualified personnel...we're mechanics, too. We don't just squawk in ignorance; we know the airplane inside and out. It was designed as an air tanker, and is the most commonly used air tanker throughout the world. I start the season training on line. I fly missions under supervision in government run training programs. I attend seminars. I train receive company and industry training. And then I go to work. We receive daily briefings including training eveyr morning. We fly with supervision on the ground, in flight, over the fire. We are constantly on flight following. We travel with loaders, mechanics, and ample oversight, as well as a full semi full of spares, tools, and equipment. We clean the airplane by hand eveyr day, and literally run our fingers over every rivet, inspecting the aircraft closer than anything you will ever see.

Before starting a drop other aircraft go into the drop site and inspect it for hazards, check the flight conditions, determine outs. Overhead, aircraft look for hazards, direct traffic, ensure that our drop line is clear of personnel, other fire aircraft, etc. We are tracked second by second using tracking equipment and software from a dispatch center, both locally, and at the national headquarters.

We have set proceedures and safety procedures, we are inspected and watched, constantly.

Old aircraft? Nope. Danger? Nope. Hazards become risks when they're put in play. We don't put them in play. We find other ways, we open the back door. We don't fly up canyons. We're professionals doing a dedicated job for which we are certified, in aircraft that are closely inspected and maintained. As the slogan goes, it's not an emergency, it's our job.

And you're attempting to twist that to compare it with a single engine piston light airplane on an extended overwater operation? Interesting logic...but then your comments show you haven't read the thread very carefully.

While you're opening your mouth regarding things you know nothing about...do a little more research regarding the CL-415 and it's operational history...and regarding other aircraft which were specifically designed for low level application of materials that are in the fire service. You'll quickly learn that you should have done a little more studying before posting.

How about it there, Avbug... you know the risks involved with the type of flying that YOU do, yet you STILL do it. Does that mean that YOU are an idiot? Does that mean that YOU are a cowboy adrenalin junkie pilot? Or does it simply mean that you accept and tolerate a certain amount of risk because it's the kind of flying that you love to do. You need to not make blanket statements like that, there's too many variables. Like I said, I usually agree with alot of what you say, but I've got to call you on this one.

No, you haven't "got to call me on this one," you need to do a little more research. Cowboy junkie pilot? You can do better than that. Try "professional." I don't tolerate risk, and I don't accept risk because I like it. I don't like risk, I don't accept the unacceptable under the justification that it's okay because "I like it." I suppose you imagine that flying fire is an adrenaline-filled event because you saw the movie Always...again, learn your material, then speak.

The risks associated with firefighting? Boredom is the chief one. It's a potential, really. A hazard. It becomes a risk if one allows it to be so, but I never allow myself to be bored. Everything else that follows is always a constant process of asking what might become a risk, and eliminating the risk. Bang my head in turbulence in the cockpit? All the time. That's a hazard that would be a risk, but I wear an HGU-55P kevlar helmet and the risk is eliminated. Crosswind too strong on landing? I could groundloop. I go somewhere else, go around, do somthing. Eliminate the risk. That's a hazard until I try to make the landing, then it's a risk. Why take the risk? Recognize it for what it is, eliminate the risk.

An attitude toward safety. You fight it; so many of you do. You hear about the poor maintenance practices that are rampant at so many airlines, and bury your head, turn the other way, and become victims such as the aforementioned Alaska Airlines incident (a result of crew action, and pencil whipped maintenance), the Colgan Air BE-1900 misrigging, or the Valuejet crash. Bristle all you want at the idea that safety really is possible; it's only yourself and your passengers whom you hurt and ultimately kill.

 

[avbug]

Which is what perplexes me to no end. He is obviously aware of the risks, and yet implies that he has "eliminated" all risk in his flying.

I made no such assertion. Learn to take responsibility for your own statements, rather than attempting to put words in my mouth to make your point.

Honest question for Avbug, not intended as a flame.

Do you belive that you could ever be the cause of an airplane crash?

I know I could. I make mistakes all the time, both turning wrenches, and as PIC. I tell my students about my screwups all the time, so they can learn from my mistakes.

Do you accept your mistakes, or do you try within your sphere of control, with all your ability, to eliminate those mistakes?

Do you merely accept the fact that mistakes will happen and throw up your hands? Calculate the percentage of times that a mistake might occur, or do you find ways to eliminate the mistakes?

Let me give you a maintenance example. I hear a lot of mechanics who believe leaving a tool in an engine or airframe is a calculated risk. They strongly urge their counterparts to refrain from marking their tools. Don't leave your name on your tools; it could come back to haunt you. That's assumption of risk, assumption of error. It does nothing to eliminate the risk; it assumes leaving tools in aircraft will continue to happen, and finds a way to keep from getting caught. Idiotic.

I am very concerned regarding FOD and tool control. My boxes are shadowed. Each shadow is labled. Each tool is marked and labled. Each tool that comes out of the box goes on a control sheet, each must be checked back into the box and off the sheet before th aircraft can be released. If I am in a shop and someone borrows my tool where it can't be accounted for, nothing gets released or flies until that tool is found. Control, risk elimination. More effort, not as easy...but anything less would be foolishness, dangerous, a "calculated risk," and idiotic.

This is the process of risk elimination. Do you open critical areas with pens in your pocket that could fall out and fall into the work, or do you remove them? I remove them. Risk elimination. I don't calculate that the chances are unlikely that the pens might fall out; I merely eliminate the hazard, which cannot then be put in play, and therefore eliminate a risk.

Embracing risk is a dangerous attitude. It's foolish. It's no different than beating one's chest and loudly proclaiming "I am a dangerous man!" Foolishness.

Dude, are you for real? Does that mean every time I take off I'm an idiot?

Apparently so. Your words, not mine.

USMC Mech asked if I believe I could ever be the cause of a crash. I work veyr hard to find hazards that might lead to that eventuality, and to eliminate them before they become risks. I don't accept the risks and manage them in the hope of a safe outcome. I don't like games of chance. I don't predict the future. I believe speculation is the hallmark unintelligence. This is aviation. We don't guess. I don't guess I'll cause a crash, yet I cannot tell you what tomorrow brings.

I can tell you this. I have no fear of death. I have a great fear of pain. But my greatest fear in this life is that after my death, someone might say "it was his fault." I don't care about the mugger who shoots me in the back of the head during a street crime. I don't care about the semi truck that flattens me when it's brakes fail at an inopportune time. What I do care about are the problems which may arise, for which I am accountable. Could I control it or prevent it, and did I fail in that duty?

Such a poor epitaph for another to say "he knew the risks, and he did it anyway." "It's okay, it was a calculated risk." "He calculated wrong." "he thought he could make it." "He thought it was worth the risk." "He said it was his life and he was willing to accept the risk." "He gambled, and lost." "Too bad he didn't risk just his own life, but those of his passengers, and those poor people on the ground." "I trusted him with my equipment, he risked it all, and lost." "I hope the loss was worth the risk."

Is the loss worth your risk?

Do you put Russian roulette, in the same classification , as single engine flight over water? I do not. I consider the act of Russian roulette as stupidity and idiotic, as there is an automatic, for sure, one in six chance of instant death.

The odds of failure in a single engine aircraft over a body of water one hundred miles wide, don't come close to one in six, let alone having an automatic for sure, 16.66% chance of doom.

Russian roulette places a 1 in six chance of taking that bullet. Or one in five if we use my Ruger SP101. Flight over the water, consdering only the possibility of an engine failure, is one out of two. Either it will fail, or it won't. At any given moment in time. Check your math.

You're correct, Russian roulette has nothing to do with guts. Anything with a built in chance of total failure and bad odds, is just stupidity.

Much like extended overwater flight in a piston single engine land airplane.

 

[414Flyer]

Russian roulette places a 1 in six chance of taking that bullet. Or one in five if we use my Ruger SP101. Flight over the water, consdering only the possibility of an engine failure, is one out of two. Either it will fail, or it won't. At any given moment in time. Check your math.

No,thats incorrect, you need to check your math and knowledge of statistics. There is not a one out of two chance you will lose an engine on an overwater flight. You are mixing the number of options, with random probability.

We have both been in the cockpits of large airtankers. Those also have had a high statistical fatality rate. The fatality rates for both airtanker flying, and long haul ferry flying are very similar.

Its ignorant to call professional ferry pilots as "idiots" because of the risk, yet participate in other kinds of flying that are just as risky statistically

 

[Fearless Tower]

You recall that old saw about keeping your mouth shut and appearing a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt? You just removed all doubt, but heck, it's a free country, right?

Wow, avbug, as a relatively new member to the Flightinfo forums, I had heard that you have quite a reputation, but dang....you really ARE a piece of work......for a person who is so stuck on himself, you really should listen to your own advice once in a while.

The sad reality is that you opened your mouth and issued an absurd comment/blanket statement and several of us have attempted to assist you in pulling your foot out of your mouth. Instead, you insisted on proving to us that you could indeed fit the other foot in as well. BZ to you!

I do sincerely hope you don't fly retractable gear airplanes, because according to your logic, the only way to eliminate the risk of a landing gear malfunction or forgetting to lower the wheels is to fly fixed gear....looks like it's 208 Caravans for you...oh, wait...they're singles...guess you best look into Twin Otters.

buh bye!

 

[PimpJuice]

" TWA 800 was shot down"

You just lost every ounce of credibility with that. That statement alone negate's anything sensible you may have written after.

 

[agpilot34]

Actually Avbug, I know quite a bit about aerial firefighting ops, and NONE of it came from a movie. Never wasted my time to see the flick you refer to. I'm also aware of the operational record of the CL-415, I was merely using it as an example of a purpose built tanker aircraft as opposed to those that have been converted to tankers, like most of the heavy tanker fleet. I"m assuming that since you talked about groundlooping being a "risk", you fly an AT-802? Last time I checked that's a single engine turbine. Risk is risk, doesnt matter whether you're flying tankers over a fire, ag aircraft uinder wires in a field, pipeline patrol, or a single over the water, whatever... you can train to handle it, plan to avoid it, doesnt change the fact it's there. To simply say that anyone who accepts risk and gets comfortable with it is an idiot... that's an uneducated and ignorant statement in itself. But hey, you seem to be the expert on risk management and the rest of us are just "idiots", so I digress.

 

[minitour]

TWA 800 was shot down.

Wow. I didn't know that...

-mini

 

[USMCmech]

Avbug, you never answered my question.

Could you ever be the cause of an airplane crash? Yes or No?

Let me give you a maintenance example. I hear a lot of mechanics who believe leaving a tool in an engine or airframe is a calculated risk. They strongly urge their counterparts to refrain from marking their tools. Don't leave your name on your tools; it could come back to haunt you. That's assumption of risk, assumption of error. It does nothing to eliminate the risk; it assumes leaving tools in aircraft will continue to happen, and finds a way to keep from getting caught. Idiotic.

I am very concerned regarding FOD and tool control. My boxes are shadowed. Each shadow is labled. Each tool is marked and labled. Each tool that comes out of the box goes on a control sheet, each must be checked back into the box and off the sheet before th aircraft can be released. If I am in a shop and someone borrows my tool where it can't be accounted for, nothing gets released or flies until that tool is found. Control, risk elimination. More effort, not as easy...but anything less would be foolishness, dangerous, a "calculated risk," and idiotic.

This is the process of risk elimination. Do you open critical areas with pens in your pocket that could fall out and fall into the work, or do you remove them? I remove them. Risk elimination. I don't calculate that the chances are unlikely that the pens might fall out; I merely eliminate the hazard, which cannot then be put in play, and therefore eliminate a risk.

All well and good, I do the same things to try and prevent ever destorying a plane with a 3$ socket. To not take those simple steps would definately be idiotic.


However could there ever be a scenerio where you did leave a tool in an airplane causeing it to crash?



Since you skydive I would like to know how you eliminate the risk of your parachutes malfunctoning?

Since I have personally seen video tape of a "double malfunction" (which miracoulsy didn't kill the jumper) I would like this information before I take up skydiveing.

TSO'd rig,

Properly packed reserve,

AAD,

properly trained and experianced jumper,

Yes to all of the above, yet it still happened.

1 in 1000 chance of your primary chute malfunctioning, multiplied by a 1 in 10,000 chance of you reserve malfunctioning. You have a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of having BOTH certified, well maintained, paracutes not stoping your fall.

The simple fact is that jumping out of a plane wearing a parachute IS a game of russian roulete, only you have 10,000,000 empty chambers, and one live.


Calculating risk is actually a science, a realatively precise one too. It's called actuarieal science, the science of measureing and quantifying risk. I just gave a crude example above. Since insurance companies are in the buisnes of covering risk, they have a pretty good idea about what the risks in any given activity are.

FYI everybody, General Aviation is ranked closely to riding motorcycles on their scale of risk.

 

[QueensPilot]

Avbug:
Is it overwater flight? Or extended overwater flight? There are a lot of singles crossing the Long Island Sound from Long Island to Connecticut. You don't consider this idiotic, do you?

 

[minitour]

Avbug:
Is it overwater flight? Or extended overwater flight? There are a lot of singles crossing the Long Island Sound from Long Island to Connecticut. You don't consider this idiotic, do you?

It seems though it's just single engine flight...period.

-mini

 

[USMCmech]

What do the regs say about private, VFR rated pilots flying across a large body of water such as one of the Great Lakes? The straight across distance of Lake Michigan is about 60 miles. do you need a special rating to do it? or carry special gear for a distance like that?

For pt 91 operations, there are no regulations whatsoever beyond those covering normal X-country flight.

No requirements for lifejackets, flight plans, ect.

 

[U of I Tweak]

Well I'm glad Avbug thinks he's figured it out and has eliminated all risks he'll ever have to deal with while flying.

Although if you read just a couple of his examples, you wonder how he can fly at all. First we look at his statement that if he flies a single engine airplane, he always flies where there is an emergency landing site. I think that's admirable and a great way to limit risk. However, when it comes to takeoff, there is almost always a point where if the engine quits, there are no good options. Look at Palwaukee....congested city off the end of every runway. If you don't have enough altitude to turn back, you're not going to find a good place to land. I reduce the risk by climbing at Vx until I reach an altitude where I can turn back....but that doesn't completely eliminate it. The only way I can do that is to not take off.

Once in the air he mentions the fact of heavy traffic. One can just use the "big sky" theory or "calculate the risk and accept it," or do what he does. Using all the tools available to him, including visual scanning, radio calls, ATC and TCAS, he has eliminated the risk of being in a mid-air collision. Ignoring for the time being that he has repeatedly condemed relying on radios and such for use in collision avoidance, even using all of these tools does not eliminate the risk of a mid-air. Not everyone uses their radio, or has a transponder for TCAS to pick up and ATC is not infallable. Our eyes aren't suited for the task of picking up traffic. Eyes detect movement, an airplane on a collision course doesn't appear to move making it very difficult to detect. Again, using all the tools available to you to reduce the risk is great, but you're wrong if you think that you have completely eliminated the risk of a collision.

I don't see what the huge problem is with using the term 'calculated risk,' but whether you calculate the risk or don't, it doesn't change the fact that it is there. Every time you get into any airplane, the risk of an accident, injury or death exists. To think that you have removed all risk is asinine, but if it makes you happy then go for it. Just don't condem other people for acknowledging that various types of flying have risks that can't be eliminated, and yet they choose to do it anyway.

 

[H.Agenda]

I cant believe this thread has gone on as long as it has..

Avbug has eloquently provided a rational, deductive thought process on risk that I think any sane pilot would have a hard time arguing with.


and single engine over water flights.. I wouldnt want to make a career out of that.

 

[mtrv]

I cant believe this thread has gone on as long as it has..

Avbug has eloquently provided a rational, deductive thought process on risk that I think any sane pilot would have a hard time arguing with.

Some statements are rational, and some are on the deceptive side, using the statistical numbers game. Anyone with at least a half a set of brains, is well aware, that numbers can be played in many ways, to make a convincing statement. Even if it's a bunch on nonsense balony. And here is such a statement:

Russian roulette places a 1 in six chance of taking that bullet. Or one in five if we use my Ruger SP101. Flight over the water, consdering only the possibility of an engine failure, is one out of two. Either it will fail, or it won't. At any given moment in time. Check your math.

If it becomes a 50/50 chance of engine failure over a body of water, then the same would apply to over land, conjested cities, etc. Just imagine every second aircraft flown, having an engine failure in flight! It just doesn't happen.

But even the one in six for Russian Roulette, is a numbers game. One or two people spinning a six shot cylinder could technically survive for years, even if they tried the scenario several times a day, and had a lot of luck in their favor.

Increase those two people to six, and the chance of a bullet in the head is guaranteed for one unlucky soul.

Do one in every six flights of the same single engine aircraft result in failure? Of course not! Would anyone care to fly any single engine airplane that had odds of 50/50 or one in six? Of course not! Are we flying six different aircraft where a mechanic has loosend the oil pan screw on one particular plane? Again, the answer is no.

Avbug is just playing a numbers game, that even himself can't really believe in!

P.S. If Avbug just happened to be flying that single engine turbine aerial tanker last week, that dropped it's load with precision along the side of the highway (might have been the freeway), then good job!

 

[sky37d]

What do the regs say about private, VFR rated pilots flying across a large body of water such as one of the Great Lakes? The straight across distance of Lake Michigan is about 60 miles. do you need a special rating to do it? or carry special gear for a distance like that?

There is lake crossing reporting service, required for single engine VFR aircraft. No special rating. Also, all the SE people I know who do that go as high as they can, in the hope that if something does go wrong they can get close to shore, if not land.

Unfortunately, most do not wear survival suits, because:
a. they will make it.
b. or, land close to a fishing boat and only spend 15 seconds in the water.
c. or, are totally unaware of the survival time, and hypothermia onset, in 60 degree water.
d. or, know the coast guard is standing by with helicopters that can pull them out in a couple of minutes.

 

[Lead Sled]

For what it's worth, here's my take on it...
As a professional, I go to great lengths to take as much risk as possible out of any type of flying that I do. Would I personally fly myself over a bunch of water in a single? I don't think that I could say definately yes or no, because it would depend upon many factors. I am not suicidal and I've been in this business long enough to have had a few engine failures in singles, twins, and even a couple in jets. If you loose an engine in a single - out over open water - the result, at best, isn't going to be very pretty. Under the best of circumstances, it isn't an operation to be taken lightly and you certainly need to be prepared and on your "A game". I think Clint Eastwood said it best when he asked the question: "Are ya feeling lucky, Punk? ...Well are ya?"

'Sled

 

[777-2H4]

Ah, that does make sense to get as much altitude as possible so you have more glide time if the engine goes.

There was a story last year of a guy in a Piper flying from Michigan to Wisconsin and he ran out of gas and had to ditch just 5 miles offshore from Milwaukee. he had called MKE approach already....in fact he also called 911 from his cellphone before he went down. he was able to climb out of the plane before it sank and still have the 911 dispatcher. THEN he made a dumb move. since he was a competitive swimmer in college he thought he could swim to shore in frigid water (last fall). Well, I never heard whether they found his body.

Pilot error in miscalculating fuel needs, AND no survival gear was on the plane.

There is lake crossing reporting service, required for single engine VFR aircraft. No special rating. Also, all the SE people I know who do that go as high as they can, in the hope that if something does go wrong they can get close to shore, if not land.

Unfortunately, most do not wear survival suits, because:
a. they will make it.
b. or, land close to a fishing boat and only spend 15 seconds in the water.
c. or, are totally unaware of the survival time, and hypothermia onset, in 60 degree water.
d. or, know the coast guard is standing by with helicopters that can pull them out in a couple of minutes.