The End of SEIFR?

[Widow]

Are we gonna rehash this again, Doc? While I will agree that the majority of accidents are due to some human error/complacency ... I do not agree that the accountable human is ALWAYS the pilot. I think we look at it from different angles though, and that is where our disagreement actually comes into play. You believe (and rightly so) that the pilot is the last defense. I think for you, that is where it stops. But many others, including myself, look to the whole chain of events, and like to examine each link to see how it broke and what could have/should have been done to prevent the breakage. You aren't wrong, exactly. But neither are "we".

[Four1oh]

Thanks for calling me an idiot, I can feel the love. On paper, you can glide to either shore, and that's with a wind. I don't know in practice because it never happened.

sweet, what are the chances i'd actually find one of you guys!? haha! You're welcome, btw. I'm not going to pull out the charts again, but I did check back then and there were a couple spots along that route outside your so-called glide ratio, my friend.

I almost forgot, I did talk to an ex-keewatin guy, and was told you weren't supposed to fly direct due to the distance from land issues, taking a more north route, but that it was common practice to do it anyways.

[Doc]

No Widow, I'm not going to rehash anything. I'm on about SEIFR. So, you're on your own. Another time, and place.

[Snowgoose]

Thanks for calling me an idiot, I can feel the love. On paper, you can glide to either shore, and that's with a wind. I don't know in practice because it never happened.

sweet, what are the chances i'd actually find one of you guys!? haha! You're welcome, btw. I'm not going to pull out the charts again, but I did check back then and there were a couple spots along that route outside your so-called glide ratio, my friend.

I almost forgot, I did talk to an ex-keewatin guy, and was told you weren't supposed to fly direct due to the distance from land issues, taking a more north route, but that it was common practice to do it anyways.

Ok, I'll indulge you. The northern route is over YCS. At worst you are about 40nm from shore going the direct route. This drops to about 35 if you take the northern way. Glide from 21000, the lowest altitude you ever cross the water at is 55nm.

I don't go to work planning on dying. If I did, I won't go.

Go ahead and rip these pics to shreds. I'm running out of energy with you naysayers. I doubt I'll answer

Direct Route



Northern Route

[Four1oh]

with your average load, how many miles does it take to get to 21000'? I suspect that's why you have a northern route through Chesterfield. Looks like no more than an extra minute or even 2 minutes on to the flight plan, yet guys are still going direct. Makes no sense to me, but whatever. Have fun with that.

I checked my hi Level chart, and worst case direct, looked like 40 miles to me, with your only option to go north, typically against the wind. So, how much wind will it take before you won't make the shore? It's a moot point really, where you crash up there, you're going to be sitting a long time before help arrives. I hope you're dressed for it.

[Snowgoose]

56 miles at max gross to FL210.

Oh and yes I did dress for it. Thanks for thinking of me. And yes it is moot.

[Snowgoose]

Three cheese KD?? Where? Are my teeth long? Do these jeans make my ass look big?
Sno, funny you should mention bikes. The back seat stays empty.

My biggest problem with SEIFR, I think, is that it's being run the same as multi IFR. I would like to see the industry raise the limits. I wasn't too bad with it till I spent a couple of hours at Thunder Bay, waiting out weather, and watching PC12s blasting off with 100 feet and 3/4 of a mile. That got the "wheels" turning. I feel that's a risk not worth taking. I don't THINK TC will toss out SEIFR, no matter how much I rant about it, but, I would like to see some common sense enter into the equation. Like 800 and 2? Or, whatever, but 0 and a half....that's just stupid. It ain't the same, and it shouldn't pretend to be. And, as long as that's the mind set, I'm against it.
Thoughts?

My thoughts? I'll leave it at this, that's your opinion, neither shared by myself nor a number of people I have flown with.

One question. If you or a family member needs to be medevaced and Air Bravo shows up in a PC-12 with the weather at minimums are you going to turn down the trip?

[Snowgoose]

The dudes who deliver PC-12's from Switzerland carry rafts with them, just in case, you know for safety.

Snowgoose I was trying to answer a question about commercial airline operations carrying passengers, why are you talking such nonesense as the above...for Christ sakes you think I don't know how over ocean ferry pilots live....I have been doing over ocean ferry flying since 1974, what were you flying then?

In the time since the last PC-12 crash an A340 and B777 have crashed with all the engines and automation in the world (there's probably more but these were big stories). My point is what is an even level of safety.

If single engine aircraft are so safe how come there are non flying passengers across the ocean, when they start doing that that will mean something.

You used to have a flight school, right? Don't you need night cross country to get a night rating? Everyone I ever met did that in a single

I was trying to respond in a professional manner Snowgoose and explain my thoughts on SEIFR carrying passengers...WTF does that last comment have to do with this subject?

So I will try and answer you...yes I did my night flying in a single engine airplane to get the night rating...in 1954...what were you flying then?

'74 I was a load in my dad's short, since you wanted to know

Large single engine airplanes aren't practical from a design standpoint. Cheaper on maintenance I would bet, but you are never going to see one. Turbo-props aren't fast enough to make the trip to Europe make sense. A 777 with a 160,000 pound trust engine in the tail is not practical from a number of stand points. Plus I don't like open ocean with 1 motor either.


You said you won't fly single engine night x-country.

I do not fly single engine airplanes at night X/Country.

Yet, you owned a school (which I assumed took in revenue) which operated single engine night x-country. Pots and Kettles there Cat

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think you know mine.

[CID]

Large single engine airplanes aren't practical from a design standpoint. Cheaper on maintenance I would bet, but you are never going to see one. Turbo-props aren't fast enough to make the trip to Europe make sense. A 777 with a 160,000 pound trust engine in the tail is not practical from a number of stand points. Plus I don't like open ocean with 1 motor either.

You'd never get it certified. Transport category airplanes are required to have at least 2 engines. That's because of the overall level of safety required that you could never achieve with a single engine.

[Snowgoose]

Large single engine airplanes aren't practical from a design standpoint. Cheaper on maintenance I would bet, but you are never going to see one. Turbo-props aren't fast enough to make the trip to Europe make sense. A 777 with a 160,000 pound trust engine in the tail is not practical from a number of stand points. Plus I don't like open ocean with 1 motor either.

You'd never get it certified. Transport category airplanes are required to have at least 2 engines. That's because of the overall level of safety required that you could never achieve with a single engine.

Crazier things have happened .....

[Cat Driver]

Yet, you owned a school (which I assumed took in revenue) which operated single engine night x-country. Pots and Kettles there Cat

Thank you for bringing up that issue Snowgoose, because that was one of the many reasons I finally sold the school, the idiotic lack of consistency in TC's rules. They mandate single engine night cross country out here in the mountainous areas for the flight school students and instructors. Yet using the same airplane under the charter rules with the same pilot night charters with passengers is forbidden.

Another bit of stupidity that was ignored is the regulation about single engine wheel airplanes flying beyond gliding distance of land......it is done here on a regular basis and no one is ever charged.

One day one of TC's knuckle draggers was going through one of my training airplanes and wanted to know where the life preservers were. I told him there were none, he said I had to have them because I was operating on an island....go figure....anyhow I told him to send me a letter authorizing my airplanes to operate beyond gliding distance of land and never heard from him again.

Snogoose, you and I can disagree on many things about how to operate airplanes but in the final analysis I hope you live as long as I have and at the end of your career have as many hours in aircraft without ever having filled out an insurance claim like I have managed to do.

And that Snowgoose is the real test of airmanship.

[Four1oh]

56 miles at max gross to FL210.

Oh and yes I did dress for it. Thanks for thinking of me. And yes it is moot.

And what's the effect of headwind on your 56 mile glide?

I also seem to recall your boys wearing a tie, light jacket, and dress shoes... but I'll admit I could be wrong on that one.

[Snowgoose]

56 miles at max gross to FL210.

Oh and yes I did dress for it. Thanks for thinking of me. And yes it is moot.

And what's the effect of headwind on your 56 mile glide?

I also seem to recall your boys wearing a tie, light jacket, and dress shoes... but I'll admit I could be wrong on that one.

Glide to land is the requirement not back to the departure airport.

Light jacket and dress shoes in -40 in the arctic? Do you think before you type?

Where do you think I got my namesake?

[Raydar]

I didn't go through all seven pages so i don't know if this was brought up but after reading the first couple of posts i felt i needed to clarify CTV's/media report that the PT6 didn't meet requirements for 7 of ten years. For those who have read the TSB report recently released then you know that it was Sonic Blue, not P&W, who were responsible for not meeting requirements for engine certification. Among other missteps by the company they failed to keep accurate records for recording engine performance/usage as required by TC. Certainly single engine IFR is more dangerous when compared to MEIFR however when you have a company like SonicBlue who cut corners whereever possible it hardly seems fair to blame the engine or TC. By the way the GPS in the plane was 7 years out of date just to show you how the company felt about meeting TC requirments. Should TC revise the standards for SEIFR? Absolutely, especially in mountainous regions. The FAA requires ground detection equipment on all SEIFR a/c and in the Sonic Blue crash this certainly would have helped. Simulating a forced landing IFR at flight safety would also be a step in the right direction. It is sad that it always takes an accident for change to come about but hopefully TC can get it right and also step up the policing of operators who cut corners and put people's lives in jeparody.

[Doc]

Hey Sno......can you actually post without quoting several other's posts along with your own. Not stirring it up....just wondering.

[The Hammer]

snow goose

Congratulations, you've now have glided back to land but it's -40C, blowing like it almost always is up there and and 1/4 in BS. It takes your company a couple of hours to figure out your missing, never mind to organize a search party. You last a day because of your jacket but your pax freeze quickly, all of this only 20 miles from town but because it's blowing, no one can find you.

Their doing it with 2 engine planes right now, and I bet there making money too.

[Four1oh]

56 miles at max gross to FL210.

Oh and yes I did dress for it. Thanks for thinking of me. And yes it is moot.

And what's the effect of headwind on your 56 mile glide?

I also seem to recall your boys wearing a tie, light jacket, and dress shoes... but I'll admit I could be wrong on that one.

Glide to land is the requirement not back to the departure airport.

Light jacket and dress shoes in -40 in the arctic? Do you think before you type?

Where do you think I got my namesake?

You seem confused so I'll be more specific. The winds are usually going to be in your face on that route to make land, since you are heading north or north-west to get there. I am wondering how much wind it would take to erode 16 miles off your perfectly executed glide with a 90-120 degree turn.
As for your attire, I seem to recall a pc-12 and guys with light jackets and ties... maybe I'm thinking of another operator. Like I said, I'm not sure if it was you guys.

[Snowgoose]

Hey Sno......can you actually post without quoting several other's posts along with your own. Not stirring it up....just wondering.

Editing all the quote code is kind of a pain and plus helps prove my point, but if you like sure.

Plus you didn't answer my question Doc

[Snowgoose]

snow goose

Congratulations, you've now have glided back to land but it's -40C, blowing like it almost always is up there and and 1/4 in BS. It takes your company a couple of hours to figure out your missing, never mind to organize a search party. You last a day because of your jacket but your pax freeze quickly, all of this only 20 miles from town but because it's blowing, no one can find you.

Their doing it with 2 engine planes right now, and I bet there making money too.

Anyone who flies up there has survival gear. The odds of a multi engine plane and single engine plane going down are almost statistically identical. Who cares which plane you are in when you go down, that's outside the argument of SEIFR? Plus with a load of Inuit I am pretty sure they can show you a thing or two about surviving in the arctic.

IIRC The reason they have 1900's doing it now is political and not safety. Plus they can carry more pax and freight. I remember demand increasing when I left a few years ago. And if they weren't making money rest assured the shareholders wouldn't have it.

[Snowgoose]

You seem confused so I'll be more specific. The winds are usually going to be in your face on that route to make land, since you are heading north or north-west to get there. I am wondering how much wind it would take to erode 16 miles off your perfectly executed glide with a 90-120 degree turn.
As for your attire, I seem to recall a pc-12 and guys with light jackets and ties... maybe I'm thinking of another operator. Like I said, I'm not sure if it was you guys.

Not sure how I'm confused? At 56 miles out of Rankin, it looks like you are still over land just crossing the short line. And since you are so concerned about specifics why don't you calculate it. 114kts is glide. From FL210 you have 24 mins and 55nm until you are back on Terra Firma. Everything in that region is at sea level or close to it. You have 3 known points in your database (YRT behind you, YCS to the north west and YZS to north east. You know that 60nm out of Rankin you are over land and 105 nm from Coral you are over land again. That leaves you about 85nm over water with the furthest shoreline to the north-north-west 40nm at the worst point. You have a GPS to tell you what you are grounding. You have a VSI to tell you how fast you are descending. Come on buddy, impress me. Fronts don't roll through the arctic, at least not often. When the winds are howling it's usually due to a Low and when they come to town so does the blowing snow and <1/2 vis. Then it's coffee time at the Sugar Rush.

Anyone who wears a light jacket in the winter (or spring or fall) in the arctic I doubt was anyone I ever worked with. Keewatin would help you buy a snowgoose when you started. Standing outside pristing would teach you in a damn hurry to get good boots and long johns. So the dudes you saw were either there in summer or retarded. I know Perimeter wears shirts and ties but I am pretty sure they dress warmly underneath, would someone from the green machine like to confirm? And that has nothing to do with SEIFR. If you crash in any airplane and don't have survival gear, that's your problem.

Like I said before and will say again. No one goes to work to kill themselves. I am not sure how getting rid of SEIFR or upping departure minimums is going to save lives. Re-examining the icing certification of Caravan's might. I've landing at 200 and 1/2 in the sim returning from an engine failure at 700'. Ya, not the real thing but it goes to show you that it can be done safely even if it's as statistically as likely as winning the lottery.

Anyone else want to split some hairs?

[Doc]

I just had a chat with a group of professionals, who "used" to fly on PC12's quite regularly. I asked them how they liked the PC12. To a person, they had nothing but good things to say about it. They liked it way better than Bearskin's Metros. Nice seats. Not as loud. The usual. I asked them how many engines the PC12 had. To a person, they stated the PC12 had two engines. I told them a PC12 had only one engine. There was a stunned silence. They asked me what happens if the engine dies. I told them that would be highly unlikely. They wanted to know, "what if"? I told them the crews had been trained to glide to the nearest airport, or to a suitable landing sight. They are still in shock. One of the women got on the phone to her company right then and there and raised Hell. I don't know how they thought the PC12 had two engines? Somehow, these folks (all of whom have university degrees, and make way more than we do)were under the impression that every airplane owned by an "airline" has more than one engine.
I am NOT making this up. Maybe we should make this kind of thing public knowledge?

[Four1oh]

I once had a member of the public ask me if the C206 had 2 engines... as she was climbing on board... She was looking for reassurance that her C206 on floats, day vfr, was safe by having 2 engines. This is who we're dealing with here.

[CD]

Speaking of gliding distances and shorelines, here is an interesting CAT decision from a few years ago regarding just that very thing. Sometimes, things aren't always as they seem...

Landplane – Flight Over Water – Gliding Distance from Shore

It is alleged that the offender, who was transporting passengers, seemed to have flown over water beyond the gliding distance from the shore. The Minister levied a monetary penalty of $1,250.

The Tribunal cancelled the monetary penalty because the evidence presented did not support the offence charged.

Full decision and discussion here...

[Four1oh]

Not sure how I'm confused? At 56 miles out of Rankin, it looks like you are still over land just crossing the short line. And since you are so concerned about specifics why don't you calculate it. 114kts is glide. From FL210 you have 24 mins and 55nm until you are back on Terra Firma. Everything in that region is at sea level or close to it. You have 3 known points in your database (YRT behind you, YCS to the north west and YZS to north east. You know that 60nm out of Rankin you are over land and 105 nm from Coral you are over land again. That leaves you about 85nm over water with the furthest shoreline to the north-north-west 40nm at the worst point. You have a GPS to tell you what you are grounding. You have a VSI to tell you how fast you are descending. Come on buddy, impress me. Fronts don't roll through the arctic, at least not often. When the winds are howling it's usually due to a Low and when they come to town so does the blowing snow and <1/2 vis. Then it's coffee time at the Sugar Rush.

I suspect there's a very accurate chart in the POH that'll give you that answer with out pulling out the whiz wheel and a calculator. After all you'd have a constantly changing TAS due to altitude, which I don't feel like figuring out for the sake of this argument. The fact that you don't know what your critical winds are is what's really illuminating. If it were my ass on the line, you can be sure that I'd know exactly what I could get away with using the direct route.

[Doc]

So? It can glide to shore. BFD! In that neighborhood? Okay, you've made it to shore? It's your move.