Single Engine Hard IFR

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:04 am

Not trying to mix it up here ,but what was the weather during that nav air mu-2 crash last year?

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:23 am

Cat,

For a second I thought the post about having balls it was you...Wingspan has the same kitty throwing punches..
So you guys think ferries over the Atlantic and over the caribbean/Amazon on a single engine are a no no?
That is the way it's done regardless... I'd like to think I carry everything I might need in the event. I don't consider myself as having more balls than anyone else or being crazy. Try to wait for good weather mind you ..

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:28 am

ferry? do whatever the hell you want if you're ferrying as far as i'm concerned. Are you carrying paying passengers? no.

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:33 am

Sorry I missed the paying passengers issue. Unless I bring back a illegals in the hopper, that is not an issue for me.

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:48 am

I'm glad Charles Lindbergh wan't a pussy like DOC. I wonder if "Lucky Lindy" was as concerned as you DOC, flying over the atlantic in a single engine aircraft, IFR...without forward visual reference (due to the opacity of the windscreen). Do you think he was concerned what happened at 100' after T/O? I find it amusing that pilots in the 1920's had more jewels than present day aviators. Sad really.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:03 am

So you guys think ferries over the Atlantic and over the caribbean/Amazon on a single engine are a no no?

Let me answer this in a context that even the less experienced among us can understand.

Ferry flights come under a different set of regulations and require a different approach in the decision making department.

I have ferried two single engine airplanes at the same time on long distance ferry flights, we do this legally with over gross ferry permits.

We also carry the required emergency gear and knowingly accept the risk involved in doubling the risk factor by flying two single engine airplanes at the same time.

I do not think of myself or my crew members as " Having balls " we are working pilots who assess risk and mitigate risk as much as possible on these flights.

There is a big difference between pilots accepting risk flying crew only relatively high risk flights and flying the paying public on same.

Red Line · Post by **Red Line** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:09 am

Campanola wrote:PS: Once again same question, is there an Ops Spec authorizing takeoff below the landing minimum for a PC12 (OVC001)? Thanks

To the best of my knowledge, the rules for 703 takeoff alternates are no different for single-engine aircraft. That is, assume normal cruise, alternate doesn't have to be within gliding distance.

That being said, if I'm flying a single-engine aircraft I'd at least like to have the OPTION of making an immediate return if the engine shows signs of acting up. (We're not talking complete engine FAILURE as some people are thinking; I'm just talking like low fuel pressure or prop underspeed or anything like that.) Taking off when the weather is below the lowest approach minimums and the nearest suitable airport is 40 minutes away just doesn't make much sense.

Just my opinion.

Red

Campanola · Post by **Campanola** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:11 am

I think we are talking about comercial flights. So it's not about pilots and their jewels, but about passengers paying for a safe flight.

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:11 am

Exactly, I just missed the part of carrying pax. Different ball game.
I apologize.

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:18 am

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:24 am

1/2pV2aCL wrote:I'm glad Charles Lindbergh wan't a pussy like DOC. I wonder if "Lucky Lindy" was as concerned as you DOC, flying over the atlantic in a single engine aircraft, IFR...without forward visual reference (due to the opacity of the windscreen). Do you think he was concerned what happened at 100' after T/O? I find it amusing that pilots in the 1920's had more jewels than present day aviators. Sad really.

Did 'ol Lucky do it with paying pax? Nope, just fame and wealth.. Different altogether.

Campanola · Post by **Campanola** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:32 am

Red Line wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the rules for 703 takeoff alternates are no different for single-engine aircraft. That is, assume normal cruise...

Ok I see. 703 is 60 minutes with all engines operative and 705 is 60 minutes (or 120 min ETOPS) with one engine inop. So a PC12 is 703 and may have an Op Spec for an alternate at 60 min with the engine running normally. Right?

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:45 am

Ya, flyinphil, Lindbergh had nothing to do with shaping present day aviation...idiot. Grow some balls, my family might fly with you one day (I hope to god you are an F/O if that happens). I've been flying S/E IFR from many years, and my pax have zero problem with it. Oddly enough, I've never have a problem at 100', or at any altitude, in a single engine Pratt (and piston) after many thousands of hours. And if I did, I would deal with it, instead of being frightened, as you clearly are. Pax (it's your job to inform them), as well as pilots, are fully aware of potential "risks" of any flight, single or multi. Find another occupation if you are a puss. I here producing boxes is very safe. Like I said before...meow.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:03 pm

Clunkster: "made by Lucas"" I dont suppose there are alot on this forum that would appreciate the meaning of that......

Flyin Phil, the sanctamonious wrote

Never mind warning passengers about the aircraft, warn them about the crew!

Just to clarify, did you mean warn them about the big balls or the fact the crew was drunk?

I think a few people who jump on some of these statements need to develop a sense of humor and see them for what they are.

Besides, why let fear and common sense hold you back.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:06 pm

Well they don't have to get on if they don't want......

Well that's the point really. Widow can speak to this issue. I think the public has a certain expectation that as consumers there's a certain level of safety implied when you pay to get on an airplane.

In my opinion, commercial SEIFR requires a leap of faith in the engine that many in the "biz" think is too risky. How is the consumer expected to make an educated choice?

Red Line · Post by **Red Line** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:12 pm

Campanola wrote:Ok I see. 703 is 60 minutes with all engines operative and 705 is 60 minutes (or 120 min ETOPS) with one engine inop. So a PC12 is 703 and may have an Op Spec for an alternate at 60 min with the engine running normally. Right?

I believe that's correct.

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:25 pm

1/2pV2aCL wrote:Ya, flyinphil, Lindbergh had nothing to do with shaping present day aviation...idiot. Grow some balls, my family might fly with you one day (I hope to god you are an F/O if that happens). I've been flying S/E IFR from many years, and my pax have zero problem with it. Oddly enough, I've never have a problem at 100', or at any altitude, in a single engine Pratt (and piston) after many thousands of hours. And if I did, I would deal with it, instead of being frightened, as you clearly are. Pax (it's your job to inform them), as well as pilots, are fully aware of potential "risks" of any flight, single or multi. Find another occupation if you are a puss. I here producing boxes is very safe. Like I said before...meow.

WOW, 1/2 theIQof FKNCabbage, I just bet you are a true gift to the occupation!

There is a huge difference to an exploratory flight and safe reliable public transportation. I can assure you your family will never fly with me. If they do with you, I'll send some flowers. Nobody here is frightened, just managing risk which is something you obviously know nothing about. I state your comment on "Lindy" is a poor one and that makes me a "puss"? I "here" spelling and basic literacy are very safe as well. You would be well advised to give it a try.

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:32 pm

trey kule wrote:Clunkster: "made by Lucas"" I dont suppose there are alot on this forum that would appreciate the meaning of that......

Flyin Phil, the sanctamonious wrote
Never mind warning passengers about the aircraft, warn them about the crew!
Just to clarify, did you mean warn them about the big balls or the fact the crew was drunk?

I think a few people who jump on some of these statements need to develop a sense of humor and see them for what they are.

Besides, why let fear and common sense hold you back.

Are you suggesting that the "big balls" theory should replace common sense and risk management Mr Kule? Nothing sanctamonious about my comment at all. I think you also jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Maybe if I throw a few of these

at the end of comments you will be a little more informed?

Happy?

BTW, why would people not have heard of the most unreliable electrical components ever made? Or were you justifying your superior life experience...

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:40 pm

nacho wrote:Cat,

For a second I thought the post about having balls it was you...Wingspan has the same kitty throwing punches.. ..

Me too I vote Winspan needs a new avitar, Cat clearly had it first, I think Joe animated it for you didnt he?

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:44 pm

Nice retort, flyinffill, commenting on spelling. You are still a little kitty. Meow.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:52 pm

Me too I vote Winspan needs a new avitar, Cat clearly had it first, I think Joe animated it for you didnt he?

Copying me might be the desire to be like me...

...But in this case I doubt it because I use common sense and experience when I examine a risk factor before flight...not " balls ."

Furthermore it excludes a lot of female pilots here who by accident of birth don't have balls, I also believe in equality.

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:56 pm

Facsimile is the most sincere form of flattery

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:57 pm

Cat,
I think your kitty should me copyright protected. He is showing some balls with is punch trhowing ..

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:59 pm

CID wrote:
Well they don't have to get on if they don't want......
Well that's the point really. Widow can speak to this issue. I think the public has a certain expectation that as consumers there's a certain level of safety implied when you pay to get on an airplane.

They don't always have a "choice" ... in that if you are on your way to work, and you don't go because you have concerns about the safety of the flight ... you face the same potential retribution as the pilot who makes the same decision. You, as the passenger, may not have the knowledge to make a "safe" choice.

There are some amongst my contacts who believe it is wrong to carry any passengers in any single engine a/c.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:01 pm

Naw... he just may still be a little upset because I said turbines were for sissies and real pilots fly big radial's....

Maybe he took it literally?