You can do " WHAT " from 100 feet???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.
Single Engine Hard IFR
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I just wanted to make a comment about this "unsuspecting pax" everyone keeps referring to, specifically in Northern Ontario and Manitoba where probably the majority of PC12's are flying.
I would hazard a guess that:
a. They probably have more "air time" than a lot of the pilots flying the airplane, they have been flying in and out of their homes since birth. Which leads into my next point.
b. Most, if not all can subtract 1 from 1 and realize that if the engine quits that they are going down. In fact I personally think they are very much aware of that which they are undertaking when they board the aircraft.
Personally, after making the jump to the 1900 with TCAS and seeing within the first two days how many yahoo's were in close proximity that did not make or answer radio calls (including one TA/RA within a minute of making a traffic advisory), I was way more concerned about those times I had to jump back into the -12 for the occasional trip.
I know that all of the guys that I was flying with were very cognizant of their surroundings when the weather was lower, and ALWAYS thought of the what-ifs. Like for an IFR departure having the approach for the opposite runway loaded in the GPS with the runway waypoint as the active fix in case an immediate return was necessary.
Also, if we were to lose the engine below 500', it wouldn't make one lick of difference if it were VFR or IFR, put 'er down straight ahead with full flaps and minor deviations. Stall speed with full flaps is less than 70 knots, by the way if you didn't know.
Would I personally fly a -12 in mountainous areas...nope. Turned down a job on a single-turbine out of Fort St. John. But when you look at the topography of Northern Ontario, I think it is very survivable in -12. Very small trees(especially further north), lots of lakes, not too many hills, etc.
I would hazard a guess that:
a. They probably have more "air time" than a lot of the pilots flying the airplane, they have been flying in and out of their homes since birth. Which leads into my next point.
b. Most, if not all can subtract 1 from 1 and realize that if the engine quits that they are going down. In fact I personally think they are very much aware of that which they are undertaking when they board the aircraft.
Personally, after making the jump to the 1900 with TCAS and seeing within the first two days how many yahoo's were in close proximity that did not make or answer radio calls (including one TA/RA within a minute of making a traffic advisory), I was way more concerned about those times I had to jump back into the -12 for the occasional trip.
I know that all of the guys that I was flying with were very cognizant of their surroundings when the weather was lower, and ALWAYS thought of the what-ifs. Like for an IFR departure having the approach for the opposite runway loaded in the GPS with the runway waypoint as the active fix in case an immediate return was necessary.
Also, if we were to lose the engine below 500', it wouldn't make one lick of difference if it were VFR or IFR, put 'er down straight ahead with full flaps and minor deviations. Stall speed with full flaps is less than 70 knots, by the way if you didn't know.
Would I personally fly a -12 in mountainous areas...nope. Turned down a job on a single-turbine out of Fort St. John. But when you look at the topography of Northern Ontario, I think it is very survivable in -12. Very small trees(especially further north), lots of lakes, not too many hills, etc.
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
P8, I think that people will get onto any aircraft that the pilot gets into. That's why we have to be so much more careful when we have a pax in our care. Sometimes, you just have to say 'no.'
(Closest I have ever come to a mid-air was in Foreskin John - be careful out there).
I had an RA at FL240 over Le Bourget - sent a BAE146 into a screaming spiral with a full load of pax when Paris descended us onto them - TCAS has its uses.
(Closest I have ever come to a mid-air was in Foreskin John - be careful out there).
I had an RA at FL240 over Le Bourget - sent a BAE146 into a screaming spiral with a full load of pax when Paris descended us onto them - TCAS has its uses.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Cat Driver wrote:You can do " WHAT " from 100 feet???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.
I didn't mean we could glide back if the engine quit at 100 ft. I meant if the ceiling was 100ft we have the ability to glide back on the LOC from several miles out. Minimums dont really apply if you are gliding back. Missing isnt really an option
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Then it will work in the airplane.But yes, it works in the SIM
Todays sims are marvelous devices.....
The more you practice the better you get..and the more confidence you will have.....if and when it all goes to hell it is amazing how calmly one performs once you know you can do it.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
As an old but not a bold pilot, I can speak from personel experience. I flew single engine IFR for some 3700 hours over 9 years in two different airplanes. A Cessna turbo 206 and a normal exasperated cessna 206 and I flew them IFR a lot. Being private, we were allowed. And I flew them without a problem. I hedged my bet by meticulous maintenance, careful flight planning, a lot of caution and staying in the prairies. It can be done safely. I would not depart in 100VV, nor would I venture into known ice. If I enountered ice, I would get out of it. That is the flight planning part. My passengers owned the airplane, were pilots themselves, understood the risks and accepted them. If I was IFR and the engine quit, I had a plan and that was to glide at minimum speed and land in whatever was below me. If it was at night, I would turn on the landing lights. If the terrain below proved hostile, I would turn the landing light off. By regulation and certification, all certified single engined airplanes have a Vso of 61 Kts. or less and experience has proven that a properly executed forced landing at that low speed has a high survival rate. Airplanes have been ditched in the ocean, in forests, in the jungle, on the prairies and in my opinion, like Cat would say, a whorehouse is far more dangerous. I got in my car the other day and was bombing down a two lane highway @ 100 KPH, feeling quite safe because I was driving carefully at the legal speed limit. I met a huge big Kenworth, weighing around 120,000 lbs Gross and this big truck, travelling at a legal 100 KPH passed within 3 feet of me. I did not think a thing about it because what we were doing was legal. If that truck driver fell asleep and drifted into my lane and we hit head on, do you think I would survive? Yet we do this sort of thing on a daily basis. A person cannot be 100% safe. If you want to be 100% safe, stay in bed, but come to think of it, I will bet more people die in bed than die in single engine IFR airplanes. You may live a long life, but why? Would I do it again today after 18 years in Navajos and turbine twins? Not without ice protection but yes I would, in a heartbeat.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
READ THIS!
I believe that this debate is not being properly analyzed by most pilots that have responded here. I do not believe this should be an issue of singles vs. twins, Navajo vs. PC12 vs. King Air etc… Let’s face it, nobody likes to admit to any fault the aircraft they are currently flying may have. Chances are most pilots will feel offended by any “my aircraft is better than yours” type comments. Because most pilots here are reacting with emotion instead of logic, the issue is being overlooked. Instead of looking at things from the singles vs. twins perspective, maybe we should focus more of our attention on the risk factor involved based on the type of operation conducted by the specific operator. Some types of operations may present a low risk factor; some may present an extremely high level of risk. One method that could be utilized would be a grading system that would serve the purpose of informing the flight crew and general public using the service of the risk factor involved in that particular type of operation (consider not only aircraft type but region of operation, type of operation, airports served, types of approaches controlled/uncontrolled etc…). Similar to the CFIT checklist grading system currently employed by the Flight Safety Foundation, a similar system could exist not only to inform pilots of the level of risk they are exposing themselves to on a regular basis as part of their job but also to inform the general public. A good example of this would be; a particular commercial operation has been assessed a 1, which would represent the lowest possible risk factor, or, a particular operation is assessed a 10, which would represent the highest risk factor level possible. Let’s face it, most passengers don’t want to just suck it up, grow “balls” and become pioneers of aviation by having enough guts to just do it like the old days. Most passengers think that the flight or aircraft they are embarking on is as safe as that 767 that brought them from Montreal to Toronto. The fact is that depending on factors mentioned earlier, a particular flight might have a different risk factor number, it might be less or it might be higher. This method would serve not only to constantly remind the crew of the type of mission they have accepted, but also to inform the general public of what they are getting into. By utilizing a grading system everyone onboard can individually decide whether the level of risk is acceptable or not.
I believe that this debate is not being properly analyzed by most pilots that have responded here. I do not believe this should be an issue of singles vs. twins, Navajo vs. PC12 vs. King Air etc… Let’s face it, nobody likes to admit to any fault the aircraft they are currently flying may have. Chances are most pilots will feel offended by any “my aircraft is better than yours” type comments. Because most pilots here are reacting with emotion instead of logic, the issue is being overlooked. Instead of looking at things from the singles vs. twins perspective, maybe we should focus more of our attention on the risk factor involved based on the type of operation conducted by the specific operator. Some types of operations may present a low risk factor; some may present an extremely high level of risk. One method that could be utilized would be a grading system that would serve the purpose of informing the flight crew and general public using the service of the risk factor involved in that particular type of operation (consider not only aircraft type but region of operation, type of operation, airports served, types of approaches controlled/uncontrolled etc…). Similar to the CFIT checklist grading system currently employed by the Flight Safety Foundation, a similar system could exist not only to inform pilots of the level of risk they are exposing themselves to on a regular basis as part of their job but also to inform the general public. A good example of this would be; a particular commercial operation has been assessed a 1, which would represent the lowest possible risk factor, or, a particular operation is assessed a 10, which would represent the highest risk factor level possible. Let’s face it, most passengers don’t want to just suck it up, grow “balls” and become pioneers of aviation by having enough guts to just do it like the old days. Most passengers think that the flight or aircraft they are embarking on is as safe as that 767 that brought them from Montreal to Toronto. The fact is that depending on factors mentioned earlier, a particular flight might have a different risk factor number, it might be less or it might be higher. This method would serve not only to constantly remind the crew of the type of mission they have accepted, but also to inform the general public of what they are getting into. By utilizing a grading system everyone onboard can individually decide whether the level of risk is acceptable or not.
Anybody have any thoughts on a commercial air taxi aircraft going VFR OTT over mountains in single engine airplanes. Such as the Sonic Blue Caravan a few years ago between CYAZ and CAT4. I feel really bad for all the passengers on board, especially the ones who survived but lost family members in the crash. It all seems like a gamble too me. You lose an engine, you cross your fingers as you descend through IMC in hopes that you don't crash into a mountain on the way down (unless of course you have some sort of terrain feature on your GPS)... but even with it, who really knows. In this case, the pilot almost got lucky, as he poped out of the soup by a logging road.
This has been a great thread so far, i've really enjoy all the comments about PDM and assesing the risks involved with SEIFR. Definatly makes me think next time i blast off in the 172 IFR.
This has been a great thread so far, i've really enjoy all the comments about PDM and assesing the risks involved with SEIFR. Definatly makes me think next time i blast off in the 172 IFR.
GF.
-
sprucemonkey
- Rank 8
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm
So, if you were visual and you noticed a cliff in front of you and a school yard with a large field to the left, you'd still elect to proceed straight ahead?Also, if we were to lose the engine below 500', it wouldn't make one lick of difference if it were VFR or IFR, put 'er down straight ahead with full flaps and minor deviations. Stall speed with full flaps is less than 70 knots, by the way if you didn't know.
Good post A300, As is evident, some of the responders here are obviously incapable of determining risk on their own.A300 wrote:READ THIS!
I believe that this debate is not being properly analyzed by most pilots that have responded here. I do not believe this should be an issue of singles vs. twins, Navajo vs. PC12 vs. King Air etc… Let’s face it, nobody likes to admit to any fault the aircraft they are currently flying may have. Chances are most pilots will feel offended by any “my aircraft is better than yours” type comments. Because most pilots here are reacting with emotion instead of logic, the issue is being overlooked. Instead of looking at things from the singles vs. twins perspective, maybe we should focus more of our attention on the risk factor involved based on the type of operation conducted by the specific operator. Some types of operations may present a low risk factor; some may present an extremely high level of risk. One method that could be utilized would be a grading system that would serve the purpose of informing the flight crew and general public using the service of the risk factor involved in that particular type of operation (consider not only aircraft type but region of operation, type of operation, airports served, types of approaches controlled/uncontrolled etc…). Similar to the CFIT checklist grading system currently employed by the Flight Safety Foundation, a similar system could exist not only to inform pilots of the level of risk they are exposing themselves to on a regular basis as part of their job but also to inform the general public. A good example of this would be; a particular commercial operation has been assessed a 1, which would represent the lowest possible risk factor, or, a particular operation is assessed a 10, which would represent the highest risk factor level possible. Let’s face it, most passengers don’t want to just suck it up, grow “balls” and become pioneers of aviation by having enough guts to just do it like the old days. Most passengers think that the flight or aircraft they are embarking on is as safe as that 767 that brought them from Montreal to Toronto. The fact is that depending on factors mentioned earlier, a particular flight might have a different risk factor number, it might be less or it might be higher. This method would serve not only to constantly remind the crew of the type of mission they have accepted, but also to inform the general public of what they are getting into. By utilizing a grading system everyone onboard can individually decide whether the level of risk is acceptable or not.
Breaking out at 1000 feet offers a lot more options than 100 feet does. I dont know why that isn't obvious to some.CID wrote:So, if you were visual and you noticed a cliff in front of you and a school yard with a large field to the left, you'd still elect to proceed straight ahead?Also, if we were to lose the engine below 500', it wouldn't make one lick of difference if it were VFR or IFR, put 'er down straight ahead with full flaps and minor deviations. Stall speed with full flaps is less than 70 knots, by the way if you didn't know.
That is absolute rubbish CPL. Just a few seconds can avoid a building, a tree, a power line, a poulated area like a school yard and put you in an empty field, a roadway, or even into a lake or a stand of trees. Have flown a lifetime of CATII approaches ie: 100ft agl, I can assure you the outcome due to absence of adequate visual reference will be quite different.cpl_atc wrote:Let me choose any spot at random in NWO and we'll have the 100 vs. 1000 feet contest. In both cases you're going to end up in a) rocks, b) trees, or c) water. The extra 40 seconds afforded by having another 900 feet underneath you isn't going to make much difference at all.flyinphil wrote:Breaking out at 1000 feet offers a lot more options than 100 feet does. I dont know why that isn't obvious to some.CID wrote: So, if you were visual and you noticed a cliff in front of you and a school yard with a large field to the left, you'd still elect to proceed straight ahead?
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
A300
Your risk factor assessment idea, like many ideas, has merit.
However, I have observed that pilots, to a degree depending on their experience level, automatically decide risk factors. Sometimes, it is subconscious. I cannot remember seeing someone, with more cojones than sense, blasting off into the face of extreme challenge. I do remember one pilot who, bored out of his gourd at not flying, took on a flight which put him into a cliff face. This however was not a gamble, it was done in ignorance of the topography along his route.
My point (finally!) is that under your idea, would we see the risk assessment of a commercial flight posted at the gate for the benefit of passengers i.e
Superair Flight 2345 Winnipeg to Toronto. This flight has been assessed as a risk of 6 due to low time pilots, 8 MEL items, thunderstorms, navaid unserviceabilities enroute.
Passengers without the backbone to board this flight can book a later flight at an additional cost of $40.
To me, it is ludicrous to involve passengers in any kind of informational dialogue concerning how safe the flight is. If I am putting my ass in it, then I expect the aircraft to arrive.
The only time I ever involved passengers in the conduct of a flight was to give them a percentage chance of arrival due to weather, and ensure they would pay if we tried and failed to see destination.
Your risk factor assessment idea, like many ideas, has merit.
However, I have observed that pilots, to a degree depending on their experience level, automatically decide risk factors. Sometimes, it is subconscious. I cannot remember seeing someone, with more cojones than sense, blasting off into the face of extreme challenge. I do remember one pilot who, bored out of his gourd at not flying, took on a flight which put him into a cliff face. This however was not a gamble, it was done in ignorance of the topography along his route.
My point (finally!) is that under your idea, would we see the risk assessment of a commercial flight posted at the gate for the benefit of passengers i.e
Superair Flight 2345 Winnipeg to Toronto. This flight has been assessed as a risk of 6 due to low time pilots, 8 MEL items, thunderstorms, navaid unserviceabilities enroute.
Passengers without the backbone to board this flight can book a later flight at an additional cost of $40.
To me, it is ludicrous to involve passengers in any kind of informational dialogue concerning how safe the flight is. If I am putting my ass in it, then I expect the aircraft to arrive.
The only time I ever involved passengers in the conduct of a flight was to give them a percentage chance of arrival due to weather, and ensure they would pay if we tried and failed to see destination.
First of all below 500' it's straight ahead with minor deviations so as to not stall spin and most assuredly die.CID wrote:So, if you were visual and you noticed a cliff in front of you and a school yard with a large field to the left, you'd still elect to proceed straight ahead?Also, if we were to lose the engine below 500', it wouldn't make one lick of difference if it were VFR or IFR, put 'er down straight ahead with full flaps and minor deviations. Stall speed with full flaps is less than 70 knots, by the way if you didn't know.
Second of all, like I said, I was always very cognizant of where I was and what the terrain was like. I never took off in a place with cliffs ahead of me or ball parks for that matter. I was very familiar with the area because I spent many years there.
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Je me give a shite pas where you are. It doesn't change anything. You stand a much better chance from a higher altitude. Why do you think non precision minimums are higher than those of ILS and CDA approaches?cpl_atc wrote:Re-read my post. I said NWO, as in wildnerness, which is where the debate was headed a few pages ago. There are (virtually) no power lines, there are no school yards, and almost no roads out there. When you have 50 miles of rocks, trees, and lakes in every direction, the extra 40 seconds is not going to make a material difference on where you come back to earth.flyinphil wrote:That is absolute rubbish CPL. Just a few seconds can avoid a building, a tree, a power line, a poulated area like a school yard and put you in an empty field, a roadway, or even into a lake or a stand of trees. Have flown a lifetime of CATII approaches ie: 100ft agl, I can assure you the outcome due to absence of adequate visual reference will be quite different.cpl_atc wrote:Let me choose any spot at random in NWO and we'll have the 100 vs. 1000 feet contest. In both cases you're going to end up in a) rocks, b) trees, or c) water. The extra 40 seconds afforded by having another 900 feet underneath you isn't going to make much difference at all.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I can't speak for you but I have yet to fly any small light airplane such as those being discussed here that I could not turn in any direction I wanted within reason after an engine failure without stalling it. How close to the stall speed are you flying at 500 feet?First of all below 500' it's straight ahead with minor deviations so as to not stall spin and most assuredly die.
Obviously there is need for some airplane handling courses for a lot of pilots , judging by what I'm reading here.
Then again maybe I'm not reading this right......
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Roadtrippin'
- Rank 0
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:55 am
- Location: Everchanging, Canada
Cat,
I do think you might be misunderstanding the "no turns below 5oo' " that Cap'nP8 is talking about. In the PC-12 I flew the procedure was that if we had an engine failure/fire below 500' we were to land ahead turning only to avoid obstacles.
This was briefed on every takeoff because when the only engine you have goes out soon after departure the natural instinct of most pilots would be to steep turn back for the field. In the -12 we practice emergency returns all the time and as a company decided that 500' was the lowest altitude at gross weight that we could have a really good chance of making the runway. Below that altitude you'r much better off "landing straight ahead" simply meaning not attempting a turn back for the field.
I do think you might be misunderstanding the "no turns below 5oo' " that Cap'nP8 is talking about. In the PC-12 I flew the procedure was that if we had an engine failure/fire below 500' we were to land ahead turning only to avoid obstacles.
This was briefed on every takeoff because when the only engine you have goes out soon after departure the natural instinct of most pilots would be to steep turn back for the field. In the -12 we practice emergency returns all the time and as a company decided that 500' was the lowest altitude at gross weight that we could have a really good chance of making the runway. Below that altitude you'r much better off "landing straight ahead" simply meaning not attempting a turn back for the field.
So, most of you feel that it's safe to depart at 100 and 1/2 in a single full of passengers? Some of you feel you could even pull off a 180, and glide in on the LOC? Some of you feel there is no difference between 100 feet, and 500 or 600 feet? Some of you must feel, that after an engine problem occurs, a circling approach at 100 and 1/2 would be easy? And some feel, that because you "glide" in the SIM, it would be no big deal in real life with a cabin full of screaming passengers?
ARE YOU ALL NUTS???
CID feels there should be no single engine IFR with passengers at all? With the prevailing attitude displayed here, I tend to agree with him.
Some of you feel, that when I post questions like this, it's a good excuse to take shots at me on a personal level? It's just "food for thought", but then, alas, you would have to be capable of thinking.
Endless, thinks that because some airplanes do not meet balanced field, it's Okay for PC12's to depart with no way of surviving a catastrophic failure? They're "apples and oranges" there, endless.
My feelings are we need higher departure limits for single engine aircraft.
ARE YOU ALL NUTS???
CID feels there should be no single engine IFR with passengers at all? With the prevailing attitude displayed here, I tend to agree with him.
Some of you feel, that when I post questions like this, it's a good excuse to take shots at me on a personal level? It's just "food for thought", but then, alas, you would have to be capable of thinking.
Endless, thinks that because some airplanes do not meet balanced field, it's Okay for PC12's to depart with no way of surviving a catastrophic failure? They're "apples and oranges" there, endless.
My feelings are we need higher departure limits for single engine aircraft.
