Single Engine Hard IFR

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:04 pm

Hey, I have a great idea; why don't we all just stop flying aeroplanes...that will solve everything. I hear meow mix is on sale today.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Sure. That's the answer.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:13 pm

As I've said before, you don't have a choice as to where you are when your engine fails.

Campanola · Post by **Campanola** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:14 pm

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

I heard that the FAA is about to certifiy boobs for SEIFR. So it will be balls or boobs. Single ball or boob operation will not be autorised because of the lack of redondancy.

Red Line · Post by **Red Line** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:27 pm

cpl_atc wrote:
Doc wrote:Even a ceiling of a few hundred feet would give you some hope...but at 100 overcast....? No Hope at all.
An extra couple hundred feet in anything but the prairies makes no difference if you're going down. Even a couple thousand feet makes virtually no difference.

There's extra risk flying single engine, and I think whether you're IFR or VFR is irrelevant if the flight is taking place over inhospitable terrain.

Ok, so let's say on departure you notice abnormal engine indications. Your engine has not failed. Yet. But it's the only engine you have. Would the most prudent action not be to turn around and land? Oh wait a minute, the weather is below the lowest usable approach. Nearest suitable airport is 40 minutes away. Just only if the ceiling was 100 ft higher, chances of a positive outcome would be just that much better.

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:43 pm

I am very scared of flying right now; you guys (and Widow) have opened my mind to the truths of life in the air. After all this time, I never realized the truth. I will live in fear from now on; it is, according to you, the only way to fly. Meow. I wonder if a single engine fighter pilot has the same concern? No? He must not care because he/she has no pax on board.

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

Little kitties make this sound..meow

wingspan · Post by **wingspan** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:50 pm

haha you guys crack me up

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:53 pm

I don't have a problem with commerical single engine VFR ops. I think there is a reasonable level of safety there. (If the rules are indeed followed)

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:03 pm

I am very scared of flying right now; you guys (and Widow) have opened my mind to the truths of life in the air. After all this time, I never realized the truth.

On the other hand now that you have ten years experience maybe you will get over the fear of flying as you gain more experience?

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:14 pm

That's right, Cat.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:17 pm

That's right, Cat.

Good there is nothing like learning to improve on our perspective of things.

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

That's right, Cat

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:46 pm

Clunckdriver, you have my respect because more than most (on this forum) you deserve respect due to experience, and you actually know what you are talking about. However, it's up to us to inform "Joe Public" that they may be potentially flying in a glider; however unlikey. I think you are making it sound wayyyyy more unsafe than it actually is. Flying S/E IFR today is assuredly much more safe in the year 2007, than it has ever been in the past. If you want to comment on S/E IFR, obviously you must have experience in the field...it isn't really that bad.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:52 pm

Facsimile is the most sincere form of flattery

I believe the word is " imitation " is the most sincere form of flattery.

By the way I have done some single engine IFR but only because the other one was feathered.

Cat " Meow "

1/2pV2aCL · Post by **1/2pV2aCL** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:03 pm

Yo Cat, you also forgot:copy, duplicate, reproduction, replica, likeness, double. It was an attempt at a compliment; obviously unsuccussful. Meow.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:05 pm

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:46 pm

nough of this crap....back to the 'In Response to Racist Posts...'
thread for me.

Expat · Post by **Expat** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:08 pm

If I was a Joe paying pax, I would feel better knowing that a Pratt single has a reliability greater than twice the piston engines. So Navahos, move over...
As far as Lucas electrics are concerned, it is a joke amongst us people who owned MGs or Jaguars...

Another note. You do not need 100 VV, but twenty only to see the runway...

RatherBeFlying · Post by **RatherBeFlying** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:23 pm

As I recall, one PC-12 became a glider over Newfie, as well as a B-767 and an A-330 (Gimli and Azores).

NO fatalities.

2R · Post by 2R » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:10 pm

Lucas ,Lord of darkness
Early attempts at energy saving by turning off lights .However ther went out at the most unpredictable times usually on a winding country road at night this prevented the lucas systems of non-llumination from becoming popular.
That is why the first thing most guys did when driving a lucas equiped car was to fit Cibe lights on it to keep it on the road at night .

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:22 pm

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.

How many passengers did Lindbergh have with him?

Pie Lot · Post by **Pie Lot** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:18 pm

I dont think all pilots today are without tools. Even at 100ft in YQT we could glide back on a LOC, beacon OBS for awareness. Glide speed is so slow as long as we didnt hit a building we could put it down other places.

This post was edited as it was a personal attack.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:43 pm

Well, as a passenger, I would never get on a single engine a/c if it wasn't VFR and that goes for Caravans and PC12s. I also wouldn't get on a 'Jo if it wasn't VFR. In IFR, the smallest I would likely ride in would be a BE20, but even that would probably be at gunpoint and I'd be in the right seat.

So bite me.

Isn't there a rule about crossing water in a wheeled a/c about having to be high enough if the engine quits to crash on the beach?

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:47 pm

Someone care to share with me what the CARS say about taking off below landing wx limits? I can understand a multi-engine aircraft establishing a take-off alternate, but how does a SEIFR machine legally take off without the ability to return? I don't follow the CARS, therefore have no clue really - they don't apply...

Back on page one or two of this diatribe someone mentioned taking off in a twin at MTOW and not being in much better of a position than a single losing a fan. Do you guys really take-off knowing that you can't meet basic IFR climb gradients on one engine? The Buff has serious issues meeting 200'/nm in a basic SAR weight - we get very constructive when having to leave IFR in the rocks.

Single Engine Hard IFR

Re: Single Engine Hard IFR