B47
"I'm fascinated by a decision to fly a single engine piston over a murderously cold sea."
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt etc. It was a chance I was prepared to take after weighing up the risks. I fully accepted that, if the engine stopped, the chances of survival were virtually nil. Until the rules changed, many of the older ferry pilots didn't even carry a life-raft. They thought the chances of ditching, launching the life-raft and being able to climb into it in the North Atlantic were so remote that it was a waste of weight. They preferred to utilise the available weight carrying extra fuel.
Of course there are risks flying s/e over a hostile cold sea for long distances, but it's a personal decision everyone has to make for themselves. In my case, the opportunity to ferry an aircraft from Thruxton to Texas was irresistable.
Would I make the same decision again?
Yes, definitely. The excitement (and some last minute misgivings) when setting off; flying low-level over the Greenland ice-cap; flying over icebergs on the approach to Narsassuaq; the 'Is that land, or cloud, in the distance? approaching Canada; 'It's land!'; the "Made it!" elation on landing safely at Goose Bay.
The same flight's been done by thousands of times, ferry pilots do it several times a year, it's no special achievement - but it's special to me, and I'll have those memories for ever.
Would I do it again?
Well, I've done it now so, maybe not. But, who knows?
Come to think of it, that was in a fixed-wing. If I was offered such a flight in a helicopter with a professional pilot .......... yes, I'd jump at it.
"I repeat, my caution over always avoiding hostile terrain with a single engine can't apply to you pros"
It does apply equally to professionals, many of whom fly s/e helicopters. Generalisations are always dangerous, but I think professionals are generally much more safety-conscious than PPLs. I'm only a PPL but I've been lucky to fly quite often with professionals, and never fail to learn something from them. They know more than we do, they know enough to see potential hazards we might not think about. They are conscious of the risks associated with engine failure - even when flying twins.
A year or so ago, I flew a twin with an experienced ATPL/TRE/IRE (and occasional contributor to Rotorheads) who, after a briefing, kindly allowed me to take off. As we climbed away en route, a voice from the back saying:
"Typical single-engine pilot's take-off" caused much mirth amongst the three ATPLs on board. I realised the laughter was at my expense, but I didn't understand why. It wasn't my best departure, but it was my first effort in a new type etc.
The explanation:
"Twin engine pilots take-off expecting one engine to fail; single-engine pilots always assume it won't!"
Oh well, another lesson learned from the professionals. :o