Single engine IFR

[USMCmech]

Obiously flying in the clouds with only one engine has it's risks, but is it unsafe? Same goes for over water, over rough terain, at night.


My view is "it depends".

There are plenty of aircraft flying around that are borderline unsafe for day VFR, and many of those meet the legal requirements to fly IFR if they wish.

OTOH there are plenty of singles which are well maintained and have redunant systems flown by skilled pilots who know what they are doing. I don't see any problem flying these planes.


First off lets talk about the engine which is the only thing seperating you from a very bad situation. In my experiance the engine is actually one of the most robust parts of the plane. Sudden total engine failure not due to fuel exaustion/starvation or carb ice, are extreamly rare (they do happen however). If you are flying along and your engine "just quits all of a sudden" it's probably the fault of the dummy behind the wheel. Most often the engine will suffer some sort of partial failure and continue making some power, while giving you time to get to a landing site.



Much more common are system failures were the vacume pump or alternator decide to quit. This is were most singles show their disadvantage. Most only have one vacum pump and the alternator is only backed up by a battery that will run most essential items for only 30 minutes. Thats IF and only IF you catch the failure right away. If you are not alert you can slowly drain the battery untill the lights start diming, then you are back in the 1920s.

Of the two I consider an electrical faiure much more dangerous in the clouds, all your radios, transponder, CDIs, RMI, turn cordinator, HSI, and lights, are now running on a very short clock depending on how good you battery is.

A vacum failure will also really put you up a smelly creek with only a small paddle. Unless you regually pratice useing the TC as your primary reference you will really struggle to keep the plane right side up.

Guess which one the FAA thinks you should train for?


Most important of all, the pilot. Most singles which are flown IFR are done so by "weekend wariors" like myself. Unless you regulary practice IFR skills disapear fast. Currently I havent been IFR current for a couple of years. Therfore I don't consider myself IFR capable. If I find myself in the clouds I'm going to find my way out FAST! The writting on my pilots liscense won't help me fly the plane. Many others flying IFR only when required have skills which are not as up to date as they should be. The requirements for flying aproaches within the last 6 months help, but since many of those are under the hood, they still don't fully prepare you for the real thing.

I think putting all your faith in any airplane single or twin is less than wise. Anything man made can and will fail eventually. Even airliners have hundreds of items where a single failure could be disastrous.

However I think pilots spend far to much time talking about equipment instead of looking in the mirror. Most crashes happen because the pilot flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground. Loss of controll, fuel exaustion, CFIT, are all pilot error wehre the plane held up it's part of the bargin, but the pilot didn't.

 

[minitour]

Obiously flying in the clouds with only one engine has it's risks, but is it unsafe? Same goes for over water, over rough terain, at night.

I think of the stuff you mentioned, I'd pick IFR over flying over water (even though I've been across the great lakes a few times...not fun) and flying over water over flying over rough terrain at night...

I don't find IFR in a single much more dangerous than IFR in a light piston twin. At least if I lose an engine, I know I'm not gonna Vmc myself in a single .

-mini

 

[JimG]

Obiously flying in the clouds with only one engine has it's risks, but is it unsafe? Same goes for over water, over rough terain, at night.

I dunno...That smooth running Continental that never hiccuped in the 1000 hours I had in my Bonanza over flat land during day VFR just never ran right over water, or at night....I was constantly tweaking that mixture and throttle the whole time.

I've never flown over dark, unpopulated, rough terrain in a single, nor would I fly in IMC at night either....regardless of how many engines I have.

Even though the 340 is more complex to fly....I do feel safer in her while in clouds, or at night than I did in the M35. Some of it's altitude differences and some of it is system redundancy.

 

[GravityHater]

There is a continuum of risk from 'no risk' to 'you're probably gonna die', so no one can say 'this' is risky but 'that' is not.

To clarify:

Lowest risk
1watching TV on your sofa
2taking a bath
3the sidewalk on mainstreet
4driving
5hiking up a mountain
6motorcycling
7parachuting
8base jumping
9shooting up heroin
10russian roulette
Highest risk
don't nitpick my order, try to concentrate only on the gist of my thought.
.
Everyone, by virtue of being an individual, has their personal level of acceptable risk. My mother would never went past #3, bless her soul.
I know guys who are bored with life unless they are up near #8.

Those of us in flying are the same, we have our own personal risk levels. No one can say you are 'wrong' or label you as 'unsafe' because you won't fly single engine imc, or night mountain flying, or ultralight across the pacific. All they can say is 'your risk tolerance is higher than mine'.

 

[OrcasC180]

Personally, I am OK flying single-engine IFR with a couple of caveats:

1) I don't like the idea of flying in IMC (or even marginal VFR) at night. My personal limits for flying my single-engine plane at night is that it has to be very good VMC conditions. I have encountered unforecast marginal conditions enroute at night before and made the choice to land rather than press on and I would make the same choice again.

2) I've tried to reduce the risk of a vacuum failure or electrical failure in two ways -- I have an STEC-30 autopilot (electrically driven and integrated with the turn coordinator) to reduce the pilot load on flying partial panel after a vacuum failure. In the case of electrical failure, I carry a handheld nav/com radio and a handheld GPS with a bag full of spare batteries as well as keeping current on hand flying without the autopilot. I know it's not perfect, but with good preflight knowledge of where the nearest VFR conditions are, I feel it's adequate.

3) My thinking is that if I lose my engine in IMC, I'm going to glide to an airport if it's in range. If not, I'm going to trim full aft for the slowest speed possible and if/when I break out of the clouds, aim for the softest spot possible. In other words, I'm going to fly the plane all the way to the crash site.

One more thought about night flying... I no longer fly with passengers at night after a local pilot I know went down in the water after dark near the island I live on and, due to the darkness, was not able to get one of his twin daughters out of the plane before it sank. I'm confident that I can get myself out of a dark airplane, but I'm not comfortable being responsible for getting others out in the dark. I think that would be my rule in a light-twin as well.

-DJ

 

[GravityHater]

I was thinking of writing a list of "aviation risk factors" from low to high, but the combinations and permutations gets into the hundreds.

So whether or not the risk is too high for me really depends on a subjective evaluation (I'm not big into those risk evaluators that assign numbers to each thing).
I fly night hard imc single piston. But I would really have to look at the situation to fly the same in mountains. Over water, I would prefer to minimize the amount of single engine time if its a piston. Turbine? Let's go!

We all use our experience, our listening to accident reports, our training to decide for ourselves what is riskier for us, on each flight.

The only question that I have is... are we weighing each thing properly? Do we each really know how risky each thing is? Many times we guess at the risk for each factor, and that results in overcautiousness or unreasonable boldness.

day/night
vmc/imc lite/hard imc/lifr
single/twin
piston/turbine
nonKI/FIKI
single vac/electircal systems or redundant systems
flat land/mountains
land/water
surface temps: desert/nominal/arctic
remote areas/farmland/populated areas
pilot very current/weekend warrier
flight plan filed or no flight plan filed. (Doh, how did that get in there?)

 

[USMCmech]

Lowest risk
1watching TV on your sofa
2taking a bath
3the sidewalk on mainstreet
4driving
5hiking up a mountain

Actually, sitting on your sofa will most likely lead to heart disease and a massive heart attack.

People commonly slip and fall in the tub breaking their hip, and a few drownings

Pedestrians are hit by cars all the time

Driving a car kills thousands every year in the USA (and is gradually poulting our planet possibly killing us all)

You can only live for three hours in the wild without adequate shelter or three days without water, don't forget lions or bears who can EAT you!



Now, that was the safe half of the list.

Nobody gets out of this game alive.

 

[OrcasC180]

The only thing worse than death is living in fear of dying.

 

[TrafficInSight]

That's why I plan to do my instrument rating in a 747-400


or better yet, a B-52.

 

[Lead Sled]

I've noticed one thing over the years when it comes to single-engine IFR and single-engine night x-c flying - it seems that your comfort level with it is inversely proportional to the amount of experience you have. (Notice that I didn't say flight time.) There was a time in my life when I wouldn't have given much thought to flying single-engine IFR day or night. That was a long time ago. Now days, I'll let the eager, young time-builders have all of that time. About the only SE IFR I'm up to is during the day, enroute, with a solid VFR conditions underneath me.

I know that you can quote statistics all day long but, never the less, you'll have a hard time finding many highly experienced pilots willing to bet their fanny on a single engine (piston or turbine) when it come to heavy IFR or night x-c.

'Sled

 

[FN FAL]

Go look at the numbers...when twins crash in an engine failure related accident, everybody dies, every time.

 

[Lead Sled]

Go look at the numbers...when twins crash in an engine failure related accident, everybody dies, every time.

I don't doubt that. I've lost my share of friends in twins. The trick is flying an appropriate twin in an appropriate manor.

'Sled

 

[avbug]

Go look at the numbers...when twins crash in an engine failure related accident, everybody dies, every time.

There are no such numbers...it's a myth. It's a myth that's largely perpetuated by a campaign by Richard Collins quite some time ago to publicise the need for more training in light twins. It got blown out of proportion a long time ago, and it's just not true.

Some aircraft have been made into excellent single engine IFR platforms...the Caravan, the PC-12, and so on. Aircraft with extremely reliable, redundant systems, generally flown by very well trained pilots with advanced experience...very different from cloud busting in dad's cessna 150.

I'm with Sled on this one...generally the advocates for single pilot single piston IFR are inexperienced pilots who haven't the background to know better.

Justification. Narcotic of the soul.

 

[FN FAL]

There are no such numbers...it's a myth.

You need to smoke some more crack. First of all, there are no single piston planes certified for IFR.

I'm with Sled on this one...generally the advocates for single pilot single piston IFR are inexperienced pilots who haven't the background to know better.

 

[USMCmech]

Some aircraft have been made into excellent single engine IFR platforms...the Caravan, the PC-12, and so on.

OK hold the phone.

On the other thread you said you would never fly IFR in a single, now you say that it's OK. What's the real story?

 

[FN FAL]

OK hold the phone.

On the other thread you said you would never fly IFR in a single, now you say that it's OK. What's the real story?

I think he forgot to sign out >>>>>it's probably some guy named Bruce just typing stuff randomly under his screen name.

:laugh:

 

[avbug]

You need to smoke some more crack. First of all, there are no single piston planes certified for IFR.

First you quote false stats, and then come up with a crack like that? No piston single airplanes certified for IFR? Really? You sure about that?

I think we've found our pilot imposter...a whole lot of single engine piston airplanes are certificated for IFR flight, and are legal for IFR flight...hence the topic of this thread. How can you not know that?

As for the personal comments...those are beneath even you. Not by much, but still beneath even your low standard.

On the other thread you said you would never fly IFR in a single, now you say that it's OK. What's the real story?

Do you see me flying a single engine airplane IFR? You do not. There is no inconsistency in this; I said I don't, and go figure...I don't.

Additionally, I never said "it's okay." Don't put words in my mouth.

I also specifically pointed to the Cessna 150 in the thread to which you refer, and if you'll go back and read, I addressed the danger of flying single pilot IFR in an ill equipped light single piston airplane with no auto flight control system, poor nav and radios, failure-prone systems, being flown by inexperienced personnel. Again, no inconsistency. I addressed that point here in noting system redundancy in more advanced singles such as the Caravan and PC-12, as well as greater aggregate pilot experience, typical frequent advanced training, etc.

Hardly a way to substantiate a love for flying the Cessna 150 in the soup.

 

[NoPax]

Totally agree with the comment made about low time inexperienced pilots that don't know any better, with the exception of the many Caravan drivers that have oodles of experience.

I used to fly a 152 in the soup and had many, many problems. It was in my flight instructing days, and in that Cessna 152, I lost the vacuum instruments twice, and electrical once in IMC.

The loss of electrical was more interesting than the no-vacuum flying - which had become routine. My student and I were returning from a long cross country with unforecast marine layer in the South Bay. After loosing electrical, I decided to take her over the ocean so I'd not hit anything, then descend to VMC (about 800') and limp back to an uncontrolled field. And there it sat until it was fixed.

I'm not against single-pilot IFR with no auto-pilot, if it's within your limitations, if its beyond what you can do, or think you can do, there are plenty of instructors out there willing to lend a hand.

 

[Moonfly201]

I'm not against single-pilot IFR with no auto-pilot, if it's within your limitations, if its beyond what you can do, or think you can do, there are plenty of instructors out there willing to lend a hand.

The no auto-pilot, ill-equipped crowd of single pilot IMC flyers are better than me. IMO a wing-leveler should be considered as minimum equipment before any true nasty weather flying is conducted.

Punching buttons on the GPS, writing down amended clearances, reading approach plates ... normal stuff. Hard to do while keeping the wings level when hand flying. Especially in turbulence.

 

[rubicon789]

I guess freight dog's shouldn't step in here:nuts: :nuts:. Last Time I checked 1/2 mile vis was VFR.:laugh:

 

[SteveC]

First of all, there are no single piston planes certified for IFR.

No piston single airplanes certified for IFR? Really? You sure about that?

Ah, he's yanking your chain. "Single Piston Planes" is not the same as "Single Engine Piston Planes". Not very many "single piston" planes out flying at all these days, much less IFR.

 

[FN FAL]

Ah, he's yanking your chain. "Single Piston Planes" is not the same as "Single Engine Piston Planes". Not very many "single piston" planes out flying at all these days, much less IFR.

What's your baggage? Husqvarna makes em, I see them for sale on ebay all the time! When you fly them you gotta log it in the two-stroke IFR column, but it's all good!

:laugh::beer:

 

[Geronimo4497]

Along the lines of what Avbug said: Training, Training, Training. Is there more risk involved flying night IFR in a PC-12 vs. a Cessna 300/400 series? It all depends on who is behind the wheel and how good/frequent their training is, IMHO. Personally, I always fly at the highest practical altitude for that particular leg. New York airspace can be, ahem, interesting on some crapy days, however. I think it is just another one of those managed risks that we have to deal with in life.

 

[FN FAL]

First you quote false stats, and then come up with a crack like that?

Let's work on the Bridge One Arrival to the correlation first...

...I didn't quote anything, much less any statistics. I used the same trick that MADD and the NHTSA use to manipulate people into thinking that there is a pandemic of drunk drivers running amok killing and maiming people in accidents. In addition, it makes perfect sense that I can get away with saying that all VMC rollovers end in 100% fatalities, because they usually do...regardless of what actually caused them. Carefully read what I posted...

when twins crash in an engine failure related accident, everybody dies, every time.

Here's the Bridge One Arrival to the correlation...

NMA's challenge to MADD

by Eric Peters</EM>
How many people would you guess are killed each year in the United States by drunk drivers? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the figure is roughly 18,000 annually (17,970 in 2002). That's about 42 percent of all highway fatalities -- and works out to a drunk driving death "every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day," every day of the year, as a NHTSA radio ad put it. That's a lot of drunk driving -- even in a nation of 280 million people. But is it an accurate portrayal?

According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), the numbers trotted out by NHTSA are wildly exaggerated -- puffed up by including deaths where alcohol was not the cause but merely present. In some cases, the driver may not have been drinking at all -- as when an inebriated pedestrian strays into a busy street and is struck by a vehicle. NHTSA defines (and lists) such a fatality as "alcohol related" -- but that’s not the same thing as caused by drunk driving.

Similarly, an inebriated passenger riding home in a car that happens to be struck by another car running a red light is not the victim of drunk driving -- although NHTSA lumps such fatalities in with all the rest as "alcohol-related." That, in turn, morphs into "drunk driving" -- but it's specious to lump the two together.

By equating "alcohol-related" with "drunk driving," NMA argues, NHTSA deliberately distorts the extent of the problem with impaired motorists, creating an impression of widespread boozing and driving that isn't factually supportable -- but which is used with great effectiveness for propaganda purposes by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to further what has become a crusade, not merely against drunk driving, but against drinking -- period.

To back this assertion up, NMA has announced it will award $20,000 to the first person who can substantiate the claim by NHTSA that 17,970 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2002. The contest is being held in cooperation with two other groups -- getMADD.com and RIDL -- who also take issue with NHTSA’s figures and with increasingly radical anti-drinking groups such as MADD, whom they believe have taken a legitimate issue and run amok with it.

Going after dangerous drunks has, they argue, become a neo-prohibitionist crusade that is seeking to continuously "define drunkenness down" -- even to the point of absurdity, putting responsible Americans who drink socially in the same category as the small minority of irresponsible people who drink to excess and then get behind the wheel of a car.

As evidence of this, NMA and others opposed to MADD point out that the group seeks the adoption of maximum allowable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level significantly lower than the current .08 percent BAC that defines "drunk driving" in most states -- .06 or even .04 BAC, a level that can be reached after as little as a single drink over dinner.

Former MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee has argued publicly that "many people are dangerously impaired at even .05 BAC" -- a level that can be reached after a little more than one beer on an empty stomach. If BAC laws are lowered beyond .06, as MADD continues to press for, it will mean that anyone who has had even one drink will be in peril of arrest for "drunk driving." But there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that such a person is impaired -- let alone "drunk."

The NMA contest should settle this debate clearly. If NHTSA and MADD are right and nearly 20,000 Americans are indeed killed each year by drunk drivers, it ought to be easy enough to back up. But if NMA is right and the NHTSA claim can’t be supported with verifiable scientific data -- for example, case by case evidence that each fatality was caused by a driver with at least a .08 BAC level -- then we know the statistics have been jiggled with to further a political agenda.

Here are the contest's four rules:

1. Twenty thousand dollars will be paid to the first person who can document that 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or other drugs in 2002.
2. The definition of "impaired" is the NHTSA definition stated on the NHTSA web site: "Impaired driving can be defined as a reduction in the performance of critical driving tasks due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs," substituting the words "is defined" for "can be defined" in their definition.
3. "Proof" of this claim must include verifiable data that clearly proves 17,970 persons were killed by drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs.
4. The names, facts and figures must be from a recognized source.

It's as simple -- or as hard -- as that. Either we've got a real problem that needs to be dealt with, or we've got an increasingly politicized government agency aiding a latter-day witch hunt.
To learn more, or submit an entry, check out the National Motorists Association at www.motorists.org

Eric Peters, a member of the National Motorists Association, is a nationally-syndicated automotive columnist. He has also written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, the Detroit Free Press, and the Washington Times.

 

[Vector4fun]

I think there's a lot of shades of grey here. My C-172 has only one engine, alternator and battery, but it does have a Precise Flight backup vacuum system. I'd be comfortable using it for IFR to climb above an overcast to VFR, or for making an approach in similar situations. I absolutely don't want to hand fly in IMC single pilot without an autopilot for hours. Did that at age 19-20, too cautious, lazy, or whatever you want to call it, to do so now. Yet the ability to file an OTP flight plan, for example, gives me an option to go at times I wouldn't if I was strictly VFR. Note, I'm not talking about flying in 400X1/2, but maybe 1200x5 WX.

Still, it's interesting what some folks feel is an acceptable risk, and others don't. I don't want to jump out of an airplane in flight unless it's on fire or un-flyable. I'm sure it can be a safe sport done right, I just don't have any desire. I used to ride a motorcycle to work on nice days when I was young. After several near misses in traffic, and a trip through a front yard to miss your typical blind, blue-haired old lady in a Caprice, I quit riding it, and eventually sold it. No way I'd ride one now in today's traffic. Interestingly, I was talking to a cop the other day who'd left the motorcylcle patrol. He said he'd averaged two serious accidents a year over 2 1/2 years, and had two stays in the hospital. I also haven't the urge to get legally drunk and blast off across the lake at 50 mph in a bass boat or pwc. But lots of folks think it "good family fun" I guess. They still show up in the news way too often around here.

Statistics I've seen quoted say I'm taking an equivalent risk flying my Cessna, but I don't buy it. I've seen how other people maintain their aircraft, and I know how I maintain mine. I most often fly where pastures are numerous and flat, and I avoid night flight most times. If I can't park a Cessna 172 in an 80 acre pasture in daylight, I deserve my fate...

 

[FN FAL]

First you quote false stats, and then come up with a crack like that?

I think he forgot to sign out >>>>>it's probably some guy named Bruce just typing stuff randomly under his screen name.

As for the personal comments...those are beneath even you. Not by much, but still beneath even your low standard.

Actually, I wasn't attacking you personally. It just appeared that someone had been able to post under your screen name, so I made a logical deduction that maybe you stepped into a convenient place to make a few posts and forgot to log out, allowing some joker named Bruce to post under your account.

Personally, that wasn't a crack on you at all...I thought I was letting you off the hook. I still love ya man!
:beer:

 

[Lead Sled]

I'd be comfortable using it for IFR to climb above an overcast to VFR, or for making an approach in similar situations. I absolutely don't want to hand fly in IMC single pilot without an autopilot for hours. Did that at age 19-20, too cautious, lazy, or whatever you want to call it, to do so now. Yet the ability to file an OTP flight plan, for example, gives me an option to go at times I wouldn't if I was strictly VFR. Note, I'm not talking about flying in 400X1/2, but maybe 1200x5 WX...

Isn't this exactly what I said and what Avbug agreed with? The position that I have come to adopt is that I try not to operate in an area where the loss of any single item would cause me to "break a sweat". I've had enough engine failures (piston) and precautionalry shutdowns (turbine) to know that if you do this long enough, it will happen to you. If you've adopted the philosophy that single-engine night, IFR, is OK and that particular evening your trusty Continental, Lycoming or PT-6 decides that it's going to pack it in for the day you stand about a 99% chance of making the front page of the local newpaper - and I don't care how good you are or how much training you've had. You low-time freight guys crack me up, but you also prove my point. But, we were all in that position once and you have to do what you have to do.

'Sled

 

[Icelandair]

Don't show this thread to all the flight instructors at my alma mater that get giddy at the chance to go up into IMC in their single engine planes. Even 200 and 1/2 they would be up there doing approaches. Of course it is a little bit more acceptable risk because there is no terrain within 1000 miles, and nothing but farm fields to fall down in should the engine quit. You would probably have to work harder to actually hit something than to just let it fall there.

 

[$$$4nothin]

Rubicons Avatar

Rubicon I love your avatar. Theres nothing better than seeing airplanes you have flown in the past on someones avatar. Back to the point though. I flew light to medium twins in the worst weater imaginable, over some very rough terrain, had 2 engine failures in a year and a half doing it as well. I still got in a piston single a week ago and flew it from MASS to Florida. STOP BEING PANSY ASSES, grow a set, and live life like today is your last. who knows it might be. On the other hand don't forget to save for retirement because chances are you will live to 90. Just my $.02

 

[NoPax]

Freight Dogs, like many other professional aviators, get to fly in what ever weather gets thrown at them when its their time to fly. There is an understanding that, unless the weather is atrocious - freezing rain, drizzle or fog, >level 4 TS over the airport with a FC or two, the pilot will get the job done.

When it comes down to recreational flying the conservative views expressed on this board are welcome, and the posters should be around for a while to continue to contribute to the board - unless they get killed driving to work by a MADD drunk driver.

Seriously though, any IFR pilot should be able to fly an approach to 1 mile vis, if you aren't doing this at least once every 3 months you should get recurrent training. If you limit yourself to 1800' 5 miles everytime, your brain isn't trained to fly down to 500 1/2, because you breathe a sigh of relief and immediately relax when you still have the approach to fly.

Personally I cringe when I hear a private pilot calling center panicked due to the situation they've found themselves in - its not something I like hearing at all, because there is little or nothing I can do.