Single engine IFR

[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.

 

[FN FAL]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/T/TXDE10211051935.html?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Death is where you find it, doesn't matter how many engines you have.

 

[Geronimo4497]

Well, at least they did not burn to death. Man, thats got to be an awful way to go. R.I.P.

 

[rubicon789]

$$$4nothin- Cool an ex starchecker, it's kind of funny listening to all this huh? I agree with the statement

STOP BEING PANSY ASSES:crying: , 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.

:laugh: :laugh:
It's easy for us to say now, huh?:nuts:

However, not too fond of the BoSox thing in your sig:uzi: "Insert Manny's Pic Here":laugh: Go Yankees.... Safe flyin where are you now?