Flying long distances in T effect ( Ground effect. ).

[C.W.E.]

How many pilots here have flown for long distances over water using T effect to extend range?

[PilotDAR]

Are we talkin' ground effect here CWE? Yes, many times crossing Lake Simcoe, bot over the water in the 'boat, and over the ice in various wheel planes. I did notice that it was hard to achieve in the 182 amphib, as I was just not that comfortable getting the floats that close to the water or the ice at cruise speed. Both the 'boat and the 150 will pick up about 5 MPH when cruising in ground effect.

[C.W.E.]

Yes T effect over water is ground effect which is roughly half the wingspan of an airplane.

I used it quite often during long over oceans flying and for the airplane I was flying it was fifty feet above the water and is quite easy flying at that height.

By the way when flying in the ITCZ and penetrating really active frontal thunderstorms I flew in T effect to avoid loss of control in the violent up and down air currents at altitude. Penetration of most frontal storms does not take very long as long as you penetrate perpendicular to the front.

The first time I used that method to fly through the ITCZ with tops over seventy thousand feet was in 1974 between Panama and the coast of Ecuador.

And in T effect it is quite safe.

[Daniel Cooper]

I would not penetrate thunderstorms at 50 feet that's for sure.

[C.W.E.]

I would not penetrate thunderstorms at 50 feet that's for sure.

Why not, please explain why you would not.

By the way I should probably elaborate on this part.

when flying in the ITCZ and penetrating really active frontal thunderstorms I flew in T effect to avoid loss of control in the violent up and down air currents at altitude.

When approaching an active frontal system in the ITCZ at very low altitude you can avoid most of the really bad parts of the front by avoiding the heaviest rain directly under the actual thunderstorm buildups that are occurring.

How much experience do you have flying in the ITCZ ?

[Cliff Jumper]

Shooting three pointers is pretty safe if you're Stephen Curry.

I'll stick to lay ups, thanks.

I suggest everyone else does the same.

[digits_]

So THAT is what AF447 was trying to do! Mystery solved

[Heliian]

I can see this being popular back in the canso days.

There's just way too much risk for me thanks.

[switchflicker]

Where does the T come from when talking about ground effect?

[C.W.E.]

There's just way too much risk for me thanks.

For sure each and every pilot should not attempt to fly in any area of flying they are not comfortable with, that is good decision making on your part.

However in that flying the PBY was something that I had a lot of experience in and long over water flights were part of the type of flying I did when delivering airplanes I never ever started a flight without making sure I was doing it as safely as possible and the simple fact that I never ever damaged an airplane including PBY's are evidence that my risk evaluation was correct.

The PBY is a relatively rare airplane today but there was a time they were used in 705 operations and actually did a good job for the kind of flying they were built to do. Austin Airways used them for many years flying a scheduled airline service from Timmins Ontario to Baffin island in the NWT IFR.

In fact that was where I started flying them in 1968.

Looking back they also allowed me to make relatively good money, a thousand dollars a day may not be a lot to some people but I was satisfied with it.

[Cliff Jumper]

the simple fact that I never ever damaged an airplane including PBY's are evidence that my risk evaluation was correct.

Ah yes, the old "I've been doing this for a million years, and I've never crashed, so it's not risky". That's a fundamental error to be avoided during risk analysis. Can you imagine if we actually managed risk that way? We'd never change anything until someone died.


But, back to the topic on hand,

Cruising at 50 feet anywhere is more risky than cruising at 5000 ft.

Full stop.

Doesn't matter who, what, where or when.

[C.W.E.]

Avcanada is a good way to pass time and I have lots of spare time so I will entertain myself responding to your comments cliff jumper.

Ah yes, the old "I've been doing this for a million years, and I've never crashed, so it's not risky". That's a fundamental error to be avoided during risk analysis. Can you imagine if we actually managed risk that way? We'd never change anything until someone died.

Are you suggesting my risk management was lacking cliff jumper?

If that is true then how did I fly for over half a century for a living accident and regulatory charges free, was it just pure luck?

But, back to the topic on hand,

Cruising at 50 feet anywhere is more risky than cruising at 5000 ft.

Full stop.

Doesn't matter who, what, where or when.

Really?

You think trying to penetrate an active frontal system in the ITCZ in an airplane like a PBY at 5000 feet on instruments is safer than at the surface where the turbulence flattens out and becomes lateral rather than vertical?

And as a bonus you have visual reference with the surface and thus the ability to fly through the less violent rain and turbulence.

We disagree that is obvious, my opinion is based on many years of that kind of flying in the ITCZ where the most violent storms on earth are a common occurrence.

How much experience do you have in that area?

[digits_]

If that is true then how did I fly for over half a century for a living accident and regulatory charges free, was it just pure luck?

Since you admitted in the icing topic that you almost crashed taking off with in a DC3 covered in frost, and since you are now advocating flying under a thunderstorm 50 ft AGL, I'd say luck was a pretty big factor yeah...


... but to be fair, I'm sure it is a big factor for a lot of other pilots as well.

[C.W.E.]

Since you admitted in the icing topic that you almost crashed taking off with in a DC3 covered in frost, and since you are now advocating flying under a thunderstorm 50 ft AGL, I'd say luck was a pretty big factor yeah...

If you read my comments on the DC3 incident I am sure I said it was a very light trace of frost that I thought would not have any affect on flying an empty airplane, I was wrong and learned a good lesson from it.

As to flying under a thunderstorm line at fifty feet above the water what altitude would you fly through the front?

[ant_321]

Since you admitted in the icing topic that you almost crashed taking off with in a DC3 covered in frost, and since you are now advocating flying under a thunderstorm 50 ft AGL, I'd say luck was a pretty big factor yeah...

If you read my comments on the DC3 incident I am sure I said it was a very light trace of frost that I thought would not have any affect on flying an empty airplane, I was wrong and learned a good lesson from it.

As to flying under a thunderstorm line at fifty feet above the water what altitude would you fly through the front?

Most people would say no altitude. Either go around it or stay home.

[Meatservo]

If that is true then how did I fly for over half a century for a living accident and regulatory charges free, was it just pure luck?

Since you admitted in the icing topic that you almost crashed taking off with in a DC3 covered in frost, and since you are now advocating flying under a thunderstorm 50 ft AGL, I'd say luck was a pretty big factor yeah...


... but to be fair, I'm sure it is a big factor for a lot of other pilots as well.

There are two of you guys in this silly disagreement, and only one of you has any experience in heavy flying-boats that go 90 knots and cross oceans, including the frontal systems of the doldrums. I'm guessing that ain't you, digits.

As for you, Ant you do understand he's talking about a region of the ocean that's probably beyond the point of no return for a piston-driven boat? Believe it or not, a lot of aviators in the round-engine era operated on the "no return" side for much of their careers.

I have never had to cross an ocean in an old boat, either, but just from flying other old, slow machines, I can tell you that I'd rather fly between the rain shafts and maintain visual contact with the surface than get torn apart trying to penetrate a front in the intertropical convergence zone at 5000'.

Navigating oceans is not the same as flying over them in a jet. Long distance ferrying in unpressurized piston-driven boats meant you were as much a navigator and a sailor as an aviator. Young people who operate aeroplanes in this day and age can rarely be labelled "any of the above". Your criticism of .'s experience is naive and misplaced.

[digits_]

Since you admitted in the icing topic that you almost crashed taking off with in a DC3 covered in frost, and since you are now advocating flying under a thunderstorm 50 ft AGL, I'd say luck was a pretty big factor yeah...

If you read my comments on the DC3 incident I am sure I said it was a very light trace of frost that I thought would not have any affect on flying an empty airplane, I was wrong and learned a good lesson from it.

Absolutely, but you wrote yourself that you were very close to crashing the airplane. If the plane won't fly, then no superhuman flying skills are going to save you. You can't brag about your risk management skills and your succesful 50 year flying career, if at the same time that career could have been over after XX (5? 10? 15?) years because you almost crashed and only survived by sheer luck.

I'd wager that most pilots have had very close calls at some point in their career. The difference is, they don't go bragging about their accident free career, because they realize they've come close a couple of times, and some degree of humility would be appropriate.

[digits_]

There are two of you guys in this silly disagreement, and only one of you has any experience in heavy flying-boats that go 90 knots and cross oceans, including the frontal systems of the doldrums. I'm guessing that ain't you, digits.

As for you, Ant you do understand he's talking about a region of the ocean that's probably beyond the point of no return for a piston-driven boat? Believe it or not, a lot of aviators in the round-engine era operated on the "no return" side for much of their careers.

I have never had to cross an ocean in an old boat, either, but just from flying other old, slow machines, I can tell you that I'd rather fly between the rain shafts and maintain visual contact with the surface than get torn apart trying to penetrate a front in the intertropical convergence zone at 5000'.

Navigating oceans is not the same as flying over them in a jet. Long distance ferrying in unpressurized piston-driven boats meant you were as much a navigator and a sailor as an aviator. Young people who operate aeroplanes in this day and age can rarely be labelled "any of the above". Your criticism of .'s experience is naive and misplaced.

Sure, nothing wrong with flying between the thunderstorms under the cloud layers to find the worst areas and avoid them. I wouldn't do it at 50 feet though. And here's the thing: if you ferry those planes, and you have to resort to this 50 ft AGL flying to survive, can you really claim that your superior judgement and flying skills are the reason you survived? Or could it be that you were bloody lucky at that point that nothing bad happened?

[C.W.E.]

There are two of you guys in this silly disagreement, and only one of you has any experience in heavy flying-boats that go 90 knots and cross oceans, including the frontal systems of the doldrums. I'm guessing that ain't you, digits.

As for you, Ant you do understand he's talking about a region of the ocean that's probably beyond the point of no return for a piston-driven boat? Believe it or not, a lot of aviators in the round-engine era operated on the "no return" side for much of their careers.

I have never had to cross an ocean in an old boat, either, but just from flying other old, slow machines, I can tell you that I'd rather fly between the rain shafts and maintain visual contact with the surface than get torn apart trying to penetrate a front in the intertropical convergence zone at 5000'.

Navigating oceans is not the same as flying over them in a jet. Long distance ferrying in unpressurized piston-driven boats meant you were as much a navigator and a sailor as an aviator. Young people who operate aeroplanes in this day and age can rarely be labelled "any of the above". Your criticism of .'s experience is naive and misplaced.

Your comments are so appreciated meatservo you will never know, what you described is 100% accurate.

Sometimes I really wonder why I keep posting here and have to put up with negative comments from people who obviously have no clue about the subject they are commenting on.

So it is nice to have a professional pilot jump in and back me up.

Thanks!

. E.

[C.W.E.]

Sure, nothing wrong with flying between the thunderstorms under the cloud layers to find the worst areas and avoid them. I wouldn't do it at 50 feet though. And here's the thing: if you ferry those planes, and you have to resort to this 50 ft AGL flying to survive, can you really claim that your superior judgement and flying skills are the reason you survived? Or could it be that you were bloody lucky at that point that nothing bad happened?

This thread was started to point out the advantages of flying in ground effect over the ocean to increase range and one of the obvious added advantages is increased safety when penetrating active weather fronts.

Digits your comments are insulting, however based on your apparent ignorance of the subject I will not bother replying to anything you post here from now on.