Flying single engine over open water?

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I was curious as to what the real world pilot community thinks about the
wisdom of flying single engine reciprocals large expanses of water on a
regular basis. Is this one of those "get a hundred different answers"
things or is there a common consensus?

At first I thought, you're just asking to get killed... but then I began to
consider are you that much better off over land if you loose the engine? If
you are over a city with houses, trees and power lines, you might have been
better off over water where you could at least pancake it in.

Is the final answer, "Flying is a risky business anyway, being over water
can be just as dangerous as being over land so what's the difference."


Dallas
30 answers Last reply
More about flying single engine open water
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:

    > Is the final answer, "Flying is a risky business anyway, being over water
    > can be just as dangerous as being over land so what's the difference."

    No. There are two times when flying over water can be significantly more
    dangerous than over land: At night over a very large body of water and
    anytime day or night over water with a temperature below 60 degrees F or
    so.

    There are inherent risks in flying, but a safe flight is about risk
    mitigation. Proper planning, recurring training, route selection, weather
    avoidance, routine and preventative maintenance, etc. all help to the pilot
    to place the odds in his/her favor.

    IMO, a pilot who takes along a life raft, signaling equipment, a personal
    locator beacon, and life vests when flying over a large body of water (one
    hundred nautical miles or more) is mitigating this risk well.

    In fact, I have read of many flights to/from the Bahamas and the Florida
    coast. While I am sure that there are some who have the "it won't happen
    to me" attitude, there are many who prepare as above.

    --
    Peter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:

    > IMO, a pilot who takes along a life raft, signaling equipment, a personal
    > locator beacon, and life vests when flying over a large body of water (one
    > hundred nautical miles or more) is mitigating this risk well.

    I forgot to mention that somewhere I read that only 5% or so of all
    NTSB-reported accidents are related to maintenance issues. Of those, 1/2
    or so are due to fuel exhaustion/starvation. Therefore, take away poor
    fuel planning and management from the equation, and the percentage of
    maintenance issues falls to a pretty low number.

    Of course, there is the caveat that engine failures that end in a safe
    on-airport landing are not reported, so there is no way to know how many
    maintenance issues there are. One fact is for sure, if every single engine
    failure that happened during the year happened while the aircraft were over
    a large body of water, they all would be reportable accidents (unless the
    aircraft had floats).

    My point is that a properly maintained engine can be quite reliable, enough
    so that along with the safety devices I mentioned in the other post (and
    perhaps a few more), I would not have reservations about flying over water.
    But that's just me.


    --
    Peter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas wrote:

    > As a follow up, if you were flying from Mississippi to Tampa, would you go
    > directly across the Gulf or take the longer route and hug the coastline?

    This topic came up in the piloting newsgroup a couple of months ago.
    Someone was looking to ferry an aircraft that he had just bought but
    knew too little from Miami to California. In his post he mentioned
    overflying the Gulf to cut the corner.

    I pulled out my flight planning software and compared the two routes:
    One route direct from Miami to New Orleans over the Gulf and the other
    route flew up the state of Florida and then over to NO, all over land.
    The difference in time? Only about 50 minutes between the two routes.

    In my opinion, a 50 minute time savings is not worth the risk of
    overflying the Gulf. Now, flying to Bahamas is a bit of a different
    animal, since there are no over-land options. In this case, if I were
    confident in my aircraft's maintenance and had the right safety
    equipment, I would make the trip.

    Recall the accident a few months ago where a 20 yr-old ran out of fuel
    over Lake Michigan and safely ditched it in the lake, only to drown
    after being overtaken by the 45 degree water temperature. Night time
    + over water + a very poor fuel plan + no safety equipment = *no*
    options.

    I also calculated that route to remain over land by flying south first,
    then up to Wisconsin (the pilot's destination). The difference in time
    between the direct, over-water route and a over-land route? About 40
    minutes. A very tragic end to a flight that was attempting to save
    less than one hour.

    --
    Peter
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Beech45Whiskey"
    > I would not have reservations about flying over water.

    As a follow up, if you were flying from Mississippi to Tampa, would you go
    directly across the Gulf or take the longer route and hug the coastline?


    Dallas
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas wrote:

    > The descent half of the crossing was designed to keep you at an altitude
    > that would always allow you to glide to Catalina. This required a circling
    > descent once over the island to kill off the excess altitude. Flying the
    > plan this way gave you only a 15 mile section of the flight that was out of
    > glide distance to land.

    When I visited my father in Palm Springs, California, a couple of years
    ago, I rented a C172S from an FBO there at PSP and took my father for a
    site seeing trip through the VFR corridor over San Diego and then out
    to Catalina Island. I flew over the water at an altitude where the
    shore was definitely out of glide range, as it would have been very
    impractical and perhaps impossible to get the C172 to an altitude where
    there was a shoreline within gliding distance.

    Instead, had the engine failed my emergency plan was to pick one of the
    very numerous boats and circle it at best glide until ditching in the
    75 degree F water.

    --
    Peter
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas wrote:

    > "Beech45Whiskey"
    >
    >>I would not have reservations about flying over water.
    >
    >
    > As a follow up, if you were flying from Mississippi to Tampa, would you go
    > directly across the Gulf or take the longer route and hug the coastline?
    >
    >
    > Dallas
    >
    >

    I was always a coast watching kind of guy. For anyone not wanting to
    read about Desert Storm, click NEXT now.

    Otherwise, scroll down.


    When we got the mission to get ourselves and our aircraft (OH-58D's)
    from Stuttgart Germany to Saudi Arabia we initially planned the flight
    across the Med. I would have to look but I think we figured if we
    re-fueled at LUGA, on some tiny island, we could make Egypt if we were
    lucky and had no headwind. The actual show-stopper was not the Med, but
    that broad expanse of a desert we would have to cross to get to anywhere
    civilized. Turns out we could have done it and stopped half way across.
    That's where we ended up anyway.

    But NOOO We had to fly to Rotterdam, a military airfield there, then
    fly the aircraft to the docks and put them on a RORO. (Roll-on Roll-off
    ship) The Dutch were very helpful in every way. We were there during
    Thanksgiving and they set up a Turkey dinner that I'll never forget.
    Have some pictures, gotta find them.

    I remember taking off from the airfield and flying down the beach to the
    Docks. Someone had built a sign on the beach in big letters saying

    GO AMERICA

    That made all of us feel great. Now no one likes us, but it was great
    then. :)

    We were taken to Saudi in a chartered aircraft and of course arrived
    there before the aircraft with no supplys or even bedding. You should
    have seen 200 people trying to sleep on a concrete floor in a big empty
    warehouse with just a sleeping bag. I was one of the lucky ones, I got
    a space by the wall and after scrounging a bunch of cardboard, made a
    slightly softer bed than the cement most everyone was sleeping on.

    But I wish we could have made that flight across the Med.

    --

    boB,
    SAG 70

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

    To reply privately, get rid of PuPPYmillS
    akita_77PuPPYmillS@yahoo.com
    (akita_77-note the underscore)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Flying from carriers makes you feel safer over water than over land. I
    always felt that should we ditch in the water, a ship would rescue us,
    whereas over the desert there was little hope. I have flown a lot over sea
    in single engine aircraft, the Fairey Firefly, without much worry. But the
    longest flight (in three stages) I ever made, was in a Firefly in Australia
    from Nowra, south of Sydney, to Darwin, about 2000 miles. Three of us were
    in company and the centre of Australia was as flat and featureless as the
    Sahara. I was definitely more nervous than flying over the sea!

    Cheers
    Quilljar


    Try 'Living With Technology' magazine it feels safer
    http://www.livtech.co.uk
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1bs8592wgfpkw.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
    > Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> IMO, a pilot who takes along a life raft, signaling equipment, a personal
    >> locator beacon, and life vests when flying over a large body of water
    >> (one
    >> hundred nautical miles or more) is mitigating this risk well.
    >
    > I forgot to mention that somewhere I read that only 5% or so of all
    > NTSB-reported accidents are related to maintenance issues. Of those, 1/2
    > or so are due to fuel exhaustion/starvation. Therefore, take away poor
    > fuel planning and management from the equation, and the percentage of
    > maintenance issues falls to a pretty low number.
    >
    > Of course, there is the caveat that engine failures that end in a safe
    > on-airport landing are not reported, so there is no way to know how many
    > maintenance issues there are. One fact is for sure, if every single
    > engine
    > failure that happened during the year happened while the aircraft were
    > over
    > a large body of water, they all would be reportable accidents (unless the
    > aircraft had floats).
    >
    > My point is that a properly maintained engine can be quite reliable,
    > enough
    > so that along with the safety devices I mentioned in the other post (and
    > perhaps a few more), I would not have reservations about flying over
    > water.
    > But that's just me.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter

    Good replies Peter. I dont recall where I got this from, maybe my
    instructor, but there is a phenomenon when flying over water especially low,
    whereby it seems to act as a magnet and pulls the plane down. Of course its
    the pilot that is doing it but there seems to be something going on that
    causes this. In my real life flying I did do some 100 feet above water
    flying and I can tell you it feels weird...definitely not the same as over
    land

    I also did flights form Miami to Key West and followed the keys down which
    made me feel more secure. But on one trip back I decided to go direct to the
    Dolphin VOR and it took me over water, with no land in sight. Quite a
    different feeling and one better be paying attention to the navs.

    But to the OP question long trips over water in a single engine can be
    dangerous but risk reduced if all required emergency gear like raft etc etc.
    is on board and of course proper planning and filing of a flight plan.

    Bill
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    William wrote:
    > did do some 100 feet above water flying and I can tell you it feels
    > weird...definitely not the same as over land
    >


    As a crewmember flying back seat in anti-sub trackers (S2F) in the USN, if
    we ever had to bail out over open water (fat chance since most of our flying
    was LOW and slow) we were told to not even think about hitting the fast
    release on the chute harness until your feet were in the water, as they had
    instances where peoples persception of height was off so much that they'd
    decide to seperate from the chute before they got entangled in the water
    with it, and thinking they were ten feet up, hit the release 50-100 feet
    up.......

    Cheers'n Beers.. [_])
    Don
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I used to fly single engine in the Chicago Area and when going to Michigan,
    we always hugged the shoreline despite the increased traffic using that
    route. Once got my courage up and flew across from the Green Bay Peninsula
    to the Traverse Bay Peninsula but that was after I climbed to 7000 to make
    sure I had power off glide to land for the whole trip. I was always told by
    my instructor that with fixed gear singles, your chances are pretty poor
    hitting water, even if search and rescue is one the way before you hit.
    They tend to catch the legs, flip, crumple then sink rapidly. Always felt I
    would be able to set it down on a stretch of beach more easily since there
    is plenty of that along the South End of Lake Michigan.

    John

    "William" <alone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:%8cwe.388$ho.354@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1bs8592wgfpkw.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
    > > Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> IMO, a pilot who takes along a life raft, signaling equipment, a
    personal
    > >> locator beacon, and life vests when flying over a large body of water
    > >> (one
    > >> hundred nautical miles or more) is mitigating this risk well.
    > >
    > > I forgot to mention that somewhere I read that only 5% or so of all
    > > NTSB-reported accidents are related to maintenance issues. Of those,
    1/2
    > > or so are due to fuel exhaustion/starvation. Therefore, take away poor
    > > fuel planning and management from the equation, and the percentage of
    > > maintenance issues falls to a pretty low number.
    > >
    > > Of course, there is the caveat that engine failures that end in a safe
    > > on-airport landing are not reported, so there is no way to know how many
    > > maintenance issues there are. One fact is for sure, if every single
    > > engine
    > > failure that happened during the year happened while the aircraft were
    > > over
    > > a large body of water, they all would be reportable accidents (unless
    the
    > > aircraft had floats).
    > >
    > > My point is that a properly maintained engine can be quite reliable,
    > > enough
    > > so that along with the safety devices I mentioned in the other post (and
    > > perhaps a few more), I would not have reservations about flying over
    > > water.
    > > But that's just me.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Peter
    >
    > Good replies Peter. I dont recall where I got this from, maybe my
    > instructor, but there is a phenomenon when flying over water especially
    low,
    > whereby it seems to act as a magnet and pulls the plane down. Of course
    its
    > the pilot that is doing it but there seems to be something going on that
    > causes this. In my real life flying I did do some 100 feet above water
    > flying and I can tell you it feels weird...definitely not the same as over
    > land
    >
    > I also did flights form Miami to Key West and followed the keys down which
    > made me feel more secure. But on one trip back I decided to go direct to
    the
    > Dolphin VOR and it took me over water, with no land in sight. Quite a
    > different feeling and one better be paying attention to the navs.
    >
    > But to the OP question long trips over water in a single engine can be
    > dangerous but risk reduced if all required emergency gear like raft etc
    etc.
    > is on board and of course proper planning and filing of a flight plan.
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas,

    I have a friend who has a Centurion 210 from Bankstown (Sydney) down to
    King Island off the coast of Tasmania about three times a week, bringing
    back
    lobster. That's the beauty of a 210 with no seats you can squeeze in about
    500kg
    of freight. Early starts & late finishes means flying in darkness over large
    expanse
    off the Tasman Sea. Mind you he's got over 30 years experience & has been
    doing the run for a long time - so there aren't too many surprises.

    He does his own maintenance (is licensed with CASA), so he knows his
    aircraft &
    has regular oil analysis to check for wear, etc. He avoids poor weather
    areas, plans
    well with alternates, when taking off his tanks are completely topped off &
    knows
    exactly what fuel he has onboard, monitors flow rates & on return can tell
    you exactly
    how many litres he used on his return.

    That with all his safety gear it makes for good reliable flying. I think the
    determining
    factor is knowledge, experience, confidence in your equipment & good
    planning.

    Trent Le-Merton

    "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1bs8592wgfpkw.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
    > Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> IMO, a pilot who takes along a life raft, signaling equipment, a personal
    >> locator beacon, and life vests when flying over a large body of water
    >> (one
    >> hundred nautical miles or more) is mitigating this risk well.
    >
    > I forgot to mention that somewhere I read that only 5% or so of all
    > NTSB-reported accidents are related to maintenance issues. Of those, 1/2
    > or so are due to fuel exhaustion/starvation. Therefore, take away poor
    > fuel planning and management from the equation, and the percentage of
    > maintenance issues falls to a pretty low number.
    >
    > Of course, there is the caveat that engine failures that end in a safe
    > on-airport landing are not reported, so there is no way to know how many
    > maintenance issues there are. One fact is for sure, if every single
    > engine
    > failure that happened during the year happened while the aircraft were
    > over
    > a large body of water, they all would be reportable accidents (unless the
    > aircraft had floats).
    >
    > My point is that a properly maintained engine can be quite reliable,
    > enough
    > so that along with the safety devices I mentioned in the other post (and
    > perhaps a few more), I would not have reservations about flying over
    > water.
    > But that's just me.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Beech45Whiskey"
    > Now, flying to Bahamas is a bit of a different
    > animal, since there are no over-land options.

    I recall reading a flight plan from LA to Catalina that was based on the
    calculated glide distance of the aircraft. Basically, design a climb rate
    that could be translated into a glide that would get you back to shore if
    you had to turn around.

    The descent half of the crossing was designed to keep you at an altitude
    that would always allow you to glide to Catalina. This required a circling
    descent once over the island to kill off the excess altitude. Flying the
    plan this way gave you only a 15 mile section of the flight that was out of
    glide distance to land.

    I thought it was pretty cleaver flight planning.


    Dallas
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    >>Is the final answer, "Flying is a risky business anyway, being over water
    >>can be just as dangerous as being over land so what's >>the difference."

    Good topic Dally. I have also wondered this, not so much single engine but
    especially flying in an old 737.. 3 hours across the Tasman Sea like I have
    recently. I have wondered whether the move from 4 engine Jumbos to 2
    engines for economic long hauls makes the journey less safe. ???

    Butts
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "donbutts" <remove.donneybutts@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >... I have wondered whether the move from 4 engine Jumbos to 2
    >engines for economic long hauls makes the journey less safe. ???
    >
    >Butts
    >

    Check out ETOPS. Maybe that will answer your questions.

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/etops.html

    -=tom=-
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    John Jung-Zimmerman wrote:

    > I used to fly single engine in the Chicago Area and when going to Michigan,
    > we always hugged the shoreline despite the increased traffic using that
    > route. Once got my courage up and flew across from the Green Bay Peninsula
    > to the Traverse Bay Peninsula but that was after I climbed to 7000 to make
    > sure I had power off glide to land for the whole trip. I was always told by
    > my instructor that with fixed gear singles, your chances are pretty poor
    > hitting water, even if search and rescue is one the way before you hit.
    > They tend to catch the legs, flip, crumple then sink rapidly. Always felt I
    > would be able to set it down on a stretch of beach more easily since there
    > is plenty of that along the South End of Lake Michigan.
    >
    > John

    I may have mentioned this before. When stationed at Ft Eustis I was the
    only pilot rated in the OH-6 so it was given to me to make sure it was
    flown at least a few hours a month. Operations got a request for support
    in looking for a Navy raft, dark blue and with secret gear aboard lost
    somewhere off the coast near Virginia Beach. They never said how they
    lost it. So operations tasked me to do a search. My question of "why
    does the Coast Guard with all their multi-engine helicopters need me"
    got me the Cav Salute. (Shrugging shoulders) So, taking one of the
    OH-6's I signed out my water wings, got an Observer, and headed out over
    the Atlantic. It didn't take long for me to realize a dark blue raft in
    a dark blue ocean was going to be difficult, if not impossible, to find.
    And there I was, almost out of sight of land, with a single engine
    aircraft that received minimal maintenance, and with radios that
    sometimes got as loud squelch that intermittently drowned out commo,
    AND, there were probably sharks, or at least a giant squid, circling in
    the water below me. So I did the search, on a heading of 265 degrees and
    scooted back home.


    --

    boB,
    SAG 70

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

    To reply privately, get rid of PuPPYmillS
    akita_77PuPPYmillS@yahoo.com
    (akita_77-note the underscore)
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Dallas,
    My brother in law just bought a half share in a V35a (this exact
    plane N221AB was actually modeled for FS98, by the way).
    He flys from Lansing Mi to Marquette Mi often. In more basic singles
    he said he would hug the shoreline for the crossing of Lake Michigan.
    The V35 Bonanza cruises at 160 kts at 5500 ft. He now flys in a straight
    line. "I'm crossing Lake Michigan in just 15 minutes!".


    To change topics (slightly), I read about Lindbergs grandson flying
    solo in a single accross the Atlantic. He took a school in water
    evacuation. They teach you to stay belted until the cabin is flooded.
    Very often, it is dark in the cockpit. If you are floating underwater
    you may not know if the plane is upright or not.

    Cheers,
    Bruce F


    Dallas wrote:

    > I was curious as to what the real world pilot community thinks about the
    > wisdom of flying single engine reciprocals large expanses of water on a
    > regular basis. Is this one of those "get a hundred different answers"
    > things or is there a common consensus?
    >
    > At first I thought, you're just asking to get killed... but then I began to
    > consider are you that much better off over land if you loose the engine? If
    > you are over a city with houses, trees and power lines, you might have been
    > better off over water where you could at least pancake it in.
    >
    > Is the final answer, "Flying is a risky business anyway, being over water
    > can be just as dangerous as being over land so what's the difference."
    >
    >
    > Dallas
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Thanks Tom.. it boils down to the new maintenance checks and procedures
    which makes the ETOPS aircraft a very safe option. Then again non ETOPS
    aircraft can apply the same procedures which would make a modern say tri
    engine jet a safer option at the point of no return. ??

    Butts


    "Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:n923c19finkrs2bchbcig56h5bjananoj5@4ax.com...
    > "donbutts" <remove.donneybutts@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>... I have wondered whether the move from 4 engine Jumbos to 2
    >>engines for economic long hauls makes the journey less safe. ???
    >>
    >>Butts
    >>
    >
    > Check out ETOPS. Maybe that will answer your questions.
    >
    > http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/etops.html
    >
    > -=tom=-
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I have two perspectives on this issue.

    First, is a single engine airplane designed to land on water? I think the
    reason that so many engine-out events for singles over land have a happy
    ending is that most single engine airplanes land pretty well on a dirt road,
    pavement, or firm grass. Since many such surfaces exist over most land, and
    since the airplane is designed to land on such surfaces, you more often than
    not manage to land. I'm willing to bet that most fatalities in engine-out
    accidents are probably related to pilots who panic and stall the airplane
    and not to the landing itself.

    To contrast, most single engine airplanes don't land well on water. Some
    part of the airplane can catch in the water and send the airplane tumbling,
    or it can just do a violent flop, and if the impact forces don't knock you
    out, the disorientation of being upside down in a sinking plane will surely
    test your abilities. And how exactly do you practice for such a landing?
    You can't do it in a real airplane, and does anyone believe that FS2004 is
    correctly simulating a water landing? NOT. It's probably very
    aircraft-design specific on top of not being well simulated. If you can't
    practice or plan for it, you probably won't do it well.

    Second, do you know how to survive in a hostile marine environment and then
    help searchers to find you? It is amazing to me that you read about
    incredibly skilled pilots who do a perfect water landing, only to then die
    within 30 minutes because of hypothermia. They planned perfectly to take
    care of the airplane, but didn't have even a shallow understanding of what
    it takes for a human being to sustain in such conditions. Do you have the
    correct kind of wetsuit? Do you have a plan for putting it on in 10 foot
    swell? Don't even talk to me about liferafts, because most of the ones you
    can get into a small plane are a joke. You will be wet even inside the
    raft, and exposure to wind and cold air will kill you. How will you get
    fresh water? Do you have a speargun or method to fish? How are you going
    to signal to search planes? As a windsurfer I was once involved in guiding
    a rescue helicopter over a downed sailor. The Coast Guard literally
    floated 100 feet above this guy for 10 minutes, and they could not see him.
    And that was with me putting the helicopter right over him. The breaking
    swell just hid everything around it. Now imagine instead an aircraft
    trying to search a 10K square mile area flying over you at 150 kias.
    Unless you know how to prepare for this, you are not going to be seen. (As
    an aside here, the best $100 you will ever spend is on a coast-guard
    approved waterproof (not water resistant) strobe light that you strap onto
    the collar of your lifevest. Even with a blazing sun, the flash of
    pulsating light from these can be clearly seen from peripheral vision of a
    pilot, and it will guide him to your vicinity very effectively. I even
    take this hiking with me...they have many uses.)

    So, personally, I would not be wild about flying over anything with a single
    engine piston airplane that I could not safely land and survive on, and that
    includes vast expanses of mountains, wilderness, or water. If you have to
    do it on a daily basis, then at very least invest very substantial time in
    planning for the event so that you have at least some chance of surviving
    it.

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes AT earthbroadcast.com


    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:Ga0we.167$8f7.79@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > I was curious as to what the real world pilot community thinks about the
    > wisdom of flying single engine reciprocals large expanses of water on a
    > regular basis. Is this one of those "get a hundred different answers"
    > things or is there a common consensus?
    >
    > At first I thought, you're just asking to get killed... but then I began
    to
    > consider are you that much better off over land if you loose the engine?
    If
    > you are over a city with houses, trees and power lines, you might have
    been
    > better off over water where you could at least pancake it in.
    >
    > Is the final answer, "Flying is a risky business anyway, being over water
    > can be just as dangerous as being over land so what's the difference."
    >
    >
    > Dallas
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will"
    > Second, do you know how to survive in a hostile marine environment and
    then
    > help searchers to find you?

    A lot of good points.... enough to scare someone into following the
    coastlines.

    Dallas
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will"
    > As a windsurfer I was once involved in guiding
    > a rescue helicopter over a downed sailor.

    Where was that? Do you still windsurf?

    Dallas
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    That was near the San Mateo bridge in the San Francisco Bay, sailing near
    3rd Avenue, a pretty well-known spot here. I found the guy with binoculars
    then called into the Coast Guard, who then started relaying my instructions
    by radio to the pilot. They finally did get him out of there.

    Unfortunately, windsurfing takes enormous amounts of time, which I have
    precious little of these days. I would do it more if I could just show up
    someplace and grab an available rig. But the ritual of spending one hour to
    load my car, one hour to drive, one hour to rig, one hour to wait for wind,
    two hours to sail, one hour to dry, one hour to drive back, and two hours to
    clean and dry everything off...well, it's more than I can spare the time
    for. It's a lot of fun although it's incredibly frustrating at first until
    you develop the basic skills. And even then it is frustrating because the
    weather changes enough to require a different size sail or board frequently.

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes AT earthbroadcast.com


    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:kQKwe.1140$8f7.266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Will"
    > > As a windsurfer I was once involved in guiding
    > > a rescue helicopter over a downed sailor.
    >
    > Where was that? Do you still windsurf?
    >
    > Dallas
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will"
    > That was near the San Mateo bridge in the San Francisco Bay, sailing near
    > 3rd Avenue, a pretty well-known spot here.

    I didn't know you were a windsurfer... I thought all you Bay area guys
    sailed Crissy.

    Your bitching really pisses me off. :-) If I could get half your wind I'd
    be a happy camper...

    It blows here in the winter but stops just as the water warms up. If we
    want to sail in the summer, we have to buy tickets to Maui. But, I
    shouldn't be too jealous - I guess your water never warms up. :-)


    Dallas
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Will <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:

    > Don't even talk to me about liferafts, because most of the ones you
    > can get into a small plane are a joke. You will be wet even inside the
    > raft, and exposure to wind and cold air will kill you. How will you get
    > fresh water? Do you have a speargun or method to fish? How are you going
    > to signal to search planes?

    Life rafts that answer every question above are available to the pilot.

    Go here:

    http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=3568

    then read the copy and click on the "Additional Pictures" tab in the middle
    of the page to see the unit and all of its accessories.

    As far as being located, waterproof "personal locator beacons with GPS
    units" are now available to the pilot as well. I fly with one of these
    because they are just as valuable over land as they are over water.

    These units, which are about the size of a small, handheld GPS, will
    broadcast an emergency transmission to a network of satellites that, in
    turn, will start a search and rescue process immediately.

    Go here to read about it:

    http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/?Menu=17&Page=/Contents/ListProducts.asp&ID=1026

    I also carry a survival kit that fits into a large pocket of my pants.
    This kit includes a whistle (for use during a land emergency) and a signal
    mirror (for either).


    --
    Peter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    The GPS locator you mentioned is quite cool. It also broadcasts
    a signal on aviation and maritime frequencies, which helps
    rescuers determine if they are getting closer to you or moving
    away.

    Add a few strobe lights to your kit (don't forget to check
    batteries periodically:

    http://www.sailgb.com/c/lifejacket_lights_spares_rescue_lights/

    The strobes are much much more effective than mirrors, not to
    mention more useful at night.

    A thick wetsuit is not that heavy and greatly improves your
    chances when the liferaft either punctures or fills with water.
    If you don't want that expense, there are cheap heavy plastic
    bags fashioned in a body shape that will still greatly improve
    your chances during long exposure periods in a raft, and these
    are cheap:

    http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=120592&catalogId=10001&classNum=774&subdeptNum=52&storeNum=8

    Finally, a good solar still for drinking water is a must:

    http://www.sailgb.com/p/aquamate_solar_still/

    It also helps to have a good supply of waterproof plastic water
    containers (e.g., Nalgene) to store excess water to keep you
    going on days with no sun.

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com


    "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1hpx3saszt5m9.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
    > Life rafts that answer every question above are available to
    the pilot.
    >
    > Go here:
    >
    > http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=3568
    >
    > then read the copy and click on the "Additional Pictures" tab
    in the middle
    > of the page to see the unit and all of its accessories.
    >
    > As far as being located, waterproof "personal locator beacons
    with GPS
    > units" are now available to the pilot as well. I fly with one
    of these
    > because they are just as valuable over land as they are over
    water.
    >
    > These units, which are about the size of a small, handheld GPS,
    will
    > broadcast an emergency transmission to a network of satellites
    that, in
    > turn, will start a search and rescue process immediately.
    >
    > Go here to read about it:
    >
    >
    http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/?Menu=17&Page=/Contents/ListProducts.asp&ID=1026
    >
    > I also carry a survival kit that fits into a large pocket of my
    pants.
    > This kit includes a whistle (for use during a land emergency)
    and a signal
    > mirror (for either).
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Will <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:

    > Add a few strobe lights to your kit (don't forget to check
    > batteries periodically:
    >
    > http://www.sailgb.com/c/lifejacket_lights_spares_rescue_lights/
    >
    > The strobes are much much more effective than mirrors, not to
    > mention more useful at night.

    I agree about the strobes and it is certainly better at night, but the
    mirror only weighs an ounce or two and doesn't require batteries. :)
    There is no detriment in carrying one. A strobe is something on my short
    list, however.


    --
    Peter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I guess I could use it for shaving in any case. :)

    A mirror only works from certain angles. If the sun is behind
    you then your mirror looks like any other reflection off a wave
    surface. For a mirror to work, you need to be aware of the
    rescuer's presence. A ship that is only visible by binoculars
    on the horizon is going to pass unnoticed to you. A strobe
    works all the time and at very considerable distances. One
    thing I would love to get but have not located yet: a strobe
    that flashes out a slow continuous S-0-S morse code. Someone
    who was not a rescuer looking for a lost party could see your
    strobe and think it is just a beacon on a buoy.

    And, yes, if you want to keep a strobe going for 30 days, you are
    going to need a lot of batteries.

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com


    "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:12jexy3x7like.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
    > > Add a few strobe lights to your kit (don't forget to check
    > > batteries periodically:
    > >
    > >
    http://www.sailgb.com/c/lifejacket_lights_spares_rescue_lights/
    > >
    > > The strobes are much much more effective than mirrors, not to
    > > mention more useful at night.
    >
    > I agree about the strobes and it is certainly better at night,
    but the
    > mirror only weighs an ounce or two and doesn't require
    batteries. :)
    > There is no detriment in carrying one. A strobe is something
    on my short
    > list, however.
    >
    > --
    > Peter
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Dallas"
    > If I could get half your wind I'd
    > be a happy camper...

    Will,
    Whoa.. I take that back. I was just looking at the wind archives for SF and
    kept coming up with about 10-15 mph for Apr May Jun. Is that right?


    Dallas
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    During Spring the wind is usually stronger on the coast, so look
    at Pillar Point Harbor, Half Moon Bay, etc. During Summer, the
    coast shuts down and the Bay itself is on. The typical pattern
    is for wind to start up around 1p and go until 8p. You have to
    find a location where the mountains to the West expose a gap,
    otherwise you are in a wind shadow. There are many good places
    near the San Francisco airport, such as 3rd Ave, where the
    typical afternoon breeze is 15 to 25 knots near the shore, and
    out in the shipping channel it jumps up to 20 to 30 knots.
    Additionally, the edge of the wind shifts eastward and for maybe
    two days out of seven, the wind is found inland along the Delta
    at places such as Rio Vista.

    For $7.95 for one month, you can get Internet access to some
    pretty extensive wind graphs at iwindsurf.com:
    http://www.iwindsurf.com/services.iws

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com


    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:GI4xe.12507$hK3.3362@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > If I could get half your wind I'd
    > > be a happy camper...
    >
    > Will,
    > Whoa.. I take that back. I was just looking at the wind
    archives for SF and
    > kept coming up with about 10-15 mph for Apr May Jun. Is that
    right?
    >
    > Dallas
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will"
    > typical afternoon breeze is 15 to 25 knots near the shore

    Ok... that's more like it. All the magazines make a big deal out of the
    Bay and I was surprised to see the actual numbers so low... but those
    weather stations were all on land or piers.

    A couple of our locals stopped by to sail the Bay (Chrisy) on the way to the
    Gorge one summer and loved it. I'd love to jump the wake of a frieghter.
    :-)


    Dallas
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Bruce Freeburger <USENETsnowmobiles@unleasheddogsBIKESonTV.com> wrote:

    > My brother in law just bought a half share in a V35a (this exact
    > plane N221AB was actually modeled for FS98, by the way).

    Hey, congratulations to your brother-in-law. Nice airplane he has there!

    --
    Peter


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ask a new question

Read More

Engine Microsoft Video Games