Flying over water and mountains

[jayemm]

Up until a few weeks ago I felt confident (not complacent) about flying over water. Whether across the channel (Lydd to L2Q, and IOW to Cherbourg, with life jackets), across the solent or along various coastlines.

I'm a PPL/IMC (SPE), 170 hours over the last 3 years.

3 weeks ago I took a friend for a trip from Blackbushe to Rochester, south and along the coast to Shoreham. My friend is a BA 747 captain and I was interested to know what he thought of my flying. He said "it's fine, you fly like you're driving a car". I probed a little on this, and it turned out he was a tad nervous when I flew along the coast about a quarter of a mile out at 1,000 ft. He's used to four engines and we only had one! He flies a cherokee himself, but is obviously much more cautious about flying over water than me (we had talked earlier about whether I had flown across the channel). Respecting his considerable experience over mine, his approach made me concerned that perhaps I was being a little reckless, even though I was within the rules.

When flying anywhere, I look out for landing spots in case of engine failure, and sometimes conclude, as in the case of flying along the coast, if the engine fails now I'll have to ditch or try to make the beach. If you fly from Welshpool to Caernarvon, the welsh mountains significantly limit where you could land in the event of an engine failure, but many pilots, including me, still do it.

If we followed safety to the extreme, we'd never fly anywhere. An engine failure can happen at any time, but does this mean we should avoid water and mountains completely?

So, to the questions. How do you make judgements about the terrain you fly over and what precautions and contingencies do you take? Have you set a 'time over water' limit? What risks, within the law, have you judged it's safe to take?

[FlyingForFun]

I think this depends what you're used to. Your 747-captain friend isn't used to flying single-engined aircraft over water, and why should he be? Other people do it all the time.

The school I rented from in Phoenix won't let visiting renters take their aircraft cross-country until they've had a "mountain flying checkout", which includes discussions of density altitude, mountain meteorology, need for higher throttle settings at higher altitudes, etc - it was very useful.

After planning the flight, I set off with the instructor. About 1/2 hour into the flight, I mentioned that there wasn't really anywhere to put the plane down if the engine quit. He just shrugged, and said "I'd head towards that road over there, we could probably glide to within a couple of miles from the road, hopefully find somewhere flat enough that we'd be able to get out of the plane and walk to the road for help." Of course, he flies in mountains all the time, and was far more complacent about it than I was. But after a couple of weeks, flying over mountains with nowhere to land didn't bother me either. I did a 200-mile cross country from Phoenix to Grand Canyon, and once I got out of the Phoenix area I only saw 3 good landing sites for the next 150 miles or so (2 airfields and the Interstate) - but if I'd let that bother me, there'd have been very few interesting places I could have flown to.

FFF. .---------

[Aussie Andy]

jayemm - great question, and one I've been thinking about lately as I'm looking forward to my first cross-channel flight when, as part of a group comprising several aircraft, I am planning to go to Barcelona in May. Some in the group intend to take the shorter crossing at Cap Gris Nez, whereas the rest of us feel OK about following the published VFR route from SAM to the Cherbourg peninsular - a much longer crossing.

The way I've been thinking about it is to compare half-an-hour over water with other activities. For example, when people fly single-engine at night, they are taking a similar risk (forced landing in the dark!) for a longer time.

Its a matter of personal choice. I too have come across others - including the manager of our flying club who I believe is himself a BA pilot - who say that they would not personally fly over water single-engine.

I am concerned about the risks of ditching itself - but at the same time reasonably confident that the chances of this happening are slight, and that we have reasonably good SAR services in sourthern England (don't we?) and that I should be able to alert these services via VHF (e.g. Portsmouth Radar) wherever I am over the Channel.

I am looking forward to reading other replies to see how others rationalise this. I'd also like to know if there is a source of information regarding actual incidents / fatalities of cross-channel flying (same for Irish Sea) as this might help illuminate whether we should have genuine concerns, or whether - as I suspect - we are dealing with a slim additional risk (as long as good airmanship is observed) compared to regular VFR operations in the UK.

Cheers all,

Andy

[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: Aussie Andy ]</p>

[Evo7]

I've had a chat with a number of people heading over to France from Goodwood, which is quite a common stop-over en-route, and I'm looking forward to doing it myself at some point.

Attitudes seem to vary greatly from person to person - you'll see some people going as if they were off for circuits, while others go in full immersion suits with liferafts etc. One party of four in immersion suits were heading off in a Warrior on a roasting day last August, and looked more in danger of death from heat exhaustion than anything else. The general view seems to be that problems are unlikely (just like any other half hour in VMC) but that a low-wing retractable-gear aircraft is probably best, assuming you have a choice. Nobody likes the idea of ditching in a fixed-gear aircraft.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Andy:

Good question, however the answer is a little more difficult.

First lets examine an engine failure over the Channel vs. over the mountains.

If you ditch your chances of survival are dependant on two things. One: How close will your rescurers be? Two: Will you survive the landing?

Now with an engine failure over mountains, your chances of surviving the landing will be better as there is always an area where you can wreck the airplane and have a good chance of surviving. For one thing it is easier to breathe hanging from a tree than under water. Your chance of surviving a crash landing in mountains is in direct perportion to your flight planning. For example day vs. night. lots of altitude, good weather, follow roads or railroads whenever possible to name a few.

Risk management is up to the pilot, I do not fly single engine aircraft IFR, I do not fly single airplanes at night and I do not fly single engine airplanes over water beyond gliding distance from land.

Also I do not fly single pilot IFR, I just figure if the airplane has two or more engines and two or more radios it also needs two or more pilots.

Then that is only my personal risk management rules, you are free to form your own limits.

Remember one other factor, when you carry passengers you have a moral obligation not to unduly risk their well being.

Very good question Andy, just thought I would comment.

.................... . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

[Whirlybird]

Good question.

Flying is dangerous, however much we tell non-pilots it isn't. But then, so is driving, and so is getting out of bed in the morning. And whatever you do, life is invariably fatal eventually.

So having got that straight, it's down to personal choice. I fly over water as high as I possibly can. But that didn't stop me flying in a helicopter to France at 1200ft; we couldn't get any higher because of cloud. We wore life jackets, but had no space for a liferaft. I've been meaning to do a ditching course - one of these ones where they drop in a lake or similar in a cockpit so you can try getting out under water etc - but I haven't done it yet. I learned to fly at Welshpool, and remember asking before I went to Caernarfon (my first trip after getting my f/w PPL) what to look out for; I was told in the event of engine failure head for a valley - gives you more time and more options. Everyone's different; when I flew in a heli to Paris, my co-pilot wasn't keen on my flying at 1000ft as it didn't give us a lot of time if we had to auto-rotate, so I flew at 1500. But I'm just back from a quick trip to Florida for Heli-Expo; we got some R44 flying done with an instructor, and flew along the beach at 300 ft, with Palm Bach telling us to keep below 500 ft to be clear of other traffic. No 500 ft rule over there, and most helis fly very low. We also looked for alligators over the swamps at 100 ft, but I'm not sure if that was legal even in the US. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Basically I decide what I want to do, consider safety as far as is possible and practical, but refuse to let it stop me having fun. And if that attitude kills me, well, I don't really fancy living to 100 anyway. :) . I guess someone here will flame me for that, but there it is.

[Fuji Abound]

My feelings are that there are three really dangerous situations when the single fan stops. Fog covering the ground or a very low undercast, night or water. I reckon that is not a bad order. Mountains maybe should come into the list somewhere.

I gather looking at the statistics after the majority of ditchings in the sea the crew successfully exit the aircraft but then perish due to exposure. For me this emphasises the importance of carrying a life raft or maybe wearing an exposure suite. Life jackets simply do not guarantee there will be enough time between ditching and recovery.

The other obvious things to do are to get as high as possible to extend your gliding range and opt for the shortest crossing when this makes sense. Going to L2K from the west for example there are those who coast out at SFD direct and those who route to LYD. Interestingly the latter only adds about 10 minutes to the flight time but at FL55 rarely puts you out of glide distance to the coast, the former leaves you exposed far longer. As others have said though it is horse for courses, and I suppose the old donkey doesn’t know it is over water anyway.

In my own mind I feel going to L2K I take the short crossing because a few more minutes doesn’t really matter and I prefer the scenery anyway but equally I wouldn’t route via LYD for the CI!

[Wrong Stuff]

Whirlybird - having done a ditching course I'd thoroughly recommend it. I learnt a lot - including a healthy fear of unscheduled swims.

Having said that, there's an interesting US website <a href="http://www.equipped.com/ditchtoc.htm" target="_blank">Equipped to Survive</a> which is definitely worth a read for anyone who crosses water on a regular basis. They take a sensible, cautious approach but are still pretty positive about survival rates. To quote...

[quote]Paul Bertorelli has conducted a review of NTSB accident records in his accompanying Aviation Safety article, "Ditching Myths Torpedoed!". His bottom line on general aviation ditchings: "Although survival rates vary by time of year and water-body type, the overall general aviation ditching survival rate is 88 percent." Moreover, Bertorelli's analysis concludes that "...the successful egress rate is 92 percent, meaning that in more than nine out of 10 cases, at least some of the occupants got out of the airplane and ultimately survived the experience."<hr></blockquote>

I guess anyone based in the UK has to take that with a pinch of salt cos the English Channel's rather nippier than many of the bodies of water in the US. Nevertheless, the conclusion they reach is that ditching may actually be safer than landing in the mountains, rather than the other way round.

Whatever your perception of acceptable risk, there's some very good information on that site which is well worth looking over.

[skywatcher]

When flying over water or land you need to think about and be prepared incase something goes wrong. Dressing properly in case you happen to be unlucky and have to force land in the mountains. It may take some time for the SAR guys to get to you. You need to know what to do and what not to do. There was an article in pilot recently about a single that had a problem in the mountains it is definately worth a read. . .Likewise if you are flying over water ie to France if you have the luxury of being able to get hold of an immersion suit then use it. It may look silly waddling around, but the Channel is cold and your survival time is very low without one. I have done survival courses and the facts speak for themselves. This is one area you don't want to leave to chance. A little effort and thought could save your life or those of your pax.

[jayemm]

Some stimulating replies here, which suggest it's a question of personal risk assessment and judgement by the pilot.

Cat Driver's point:

[quote] I do not fly single engine aircraft IFR, I do not fly single airplanes at night and I do not fly single engine airplanes over water beyond gliding distance from land.. . <hr></blockquote>

would put me off, although it probably reflects my 747 pilot's views. I thought I read in Pilot or Flyer a 6 months ago that statistically, twins are proving less reliable than singles, or maybe I misunderstood this?

ALSO:

Would like to hear how we could get hold of stats on channel ditchings.

[Whirlybird]

I posted at the same time as Cat Driver, and after I read his post I started thinking. The 747 pilot originally mentioned and Cat Driver probably both have far more flying experience than the rest of us (read Cat Driver's profile, but I happen to know he does anyway). Maybe we should be listening. Most people think, deep down, that accidents only happen to other people. Hmmm...I don't take back what I said previously, but I'm not so sure any more.

[CBG]

Very good stuff said up there. Seen from my side of the Channel and given the number of G reg aircrafts on the Brest, Deauville and Lille frequencies over the last week end, it looks like this is going to be another year full of Channel crossings and that't just great. When I (reluctantly) moved to LFPD from Blackbushe last year, out of about 20 a/c on this little French airfield, 15 were G regs! (that was the annual British Jodel club freindly invasion).

I hope the ongoing concerns about flying over water won't deter anyone flying singles from coming over our way.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Jayemm, Whirly and all:

When discussing safety issues be it flying or casual / recreational sex we must weigh the danger in relation to the pleasure.

It would be foolish to think that we as human animals will not expose ourselves to danger in our quest for pleasure so what we must strive for is " RISK MANAGEMENT "

There is also that nagging fear of statistics that must be added to the equasion when making decisions regarding flying. For instance I have flown in high risk areas for many years such as crop dusting fixed and rotary wing seven years, firebombing fifteen years, airshow circuit on and off for more years than I care to remember. Now when I make my decisions I must factor in statistics because sooner or later something will go horribly wrong so I now factor that in and try to keep dumb decisions to a minimum.

Maybe you guys and gals can give me some advice?

I must ferry a Cat from North Weald to Virginia Beach Virginia as soon as the North Atlantic weather warms up in the spring. The price of fuel is very high in Narsarsuaq Greenland, to save money should I take on extra fuel in Keflavik Iceland and by pass Narsarsuaq and fly direct Goose Bay?

There is no problem getting an over weight ferry permit should I decide to save the money, however for a period of time during the start of the trip the airplane will not be able to maintain altitude and should we lose an engine it will drift down with a forced landing at sea.

So there is a risk management decision, remember I will he flying two single engine airplanes in one due to twice the chance of an engine failure for the first few hours.

How about helping me out here and give me some good advice?

...................

Here is a hint: . . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

[Aussie Andy]

Cat Driver you should get in touch with John Templeton Smith. He has a column in UK's Pilot magazine these days all about his experiences as a ferry pilot. In fact the current issue article entitled Wild Geese is about Iceland. I suppose you could get hold of him via the magazine email [email protected]

Andy

[skywatcher]

Cat Driver is correct it is all about risk assessment. What are the chances of an engine failure flying across the channel? Who knows but it would be prudent to be prepared in case that should happen. Fly the shortest route possible. Fly as high as possible/allowed. Have the equipment needed to spend time in the water/mountains to be alive when SAR get to you. Having 2/4 engines is great but we have to operate with one. Therefore we must weigh up the risks and decide if we go or not. I do fly single engine IFR and at night. The planning is more involved and get outs are thought out more carefully. Prepare well and have fun.

['India-Mike]

A great thread - Cat Driver has nothing but spot-on contributions to make (sounds like from the experience). Here in Scotland one doesn't have to go too far from Prestwick, Glasgow or Cumbernauld before the forced-landing choice is mountains or water, with nothing in between.

I went on an RAF Kinloss PPL survival course a couple of years ago (written-up by James Allan for Pilot), where the bottom-line advice was, if the options were ditch close to a beach or crumple the aeroplane on a cliff-edge, then go for the latter. Having been in Scottish coastal waters in summer, I think I'd try for a mountainside or cliff-top every time.

Go for a water survival time of a couple of hours, max, then see how far offshore you could ditch before a Sea King could get to you (say 90 knots against a prevailing Westerly, plus scramble time). I've done it for the West of Scotland and I think that any further west than Arran or north of Islay means that the only use for a lifejacket will be for the rescue guys to find something to give to my wife for burial!

Be interesting to find out what any RAF/RN/Coastguard crews think.

I also recollect a letter in Pilot from an RN SAR pilot who said that the Coastguard have a VHF frequency, which might be useful, but I can't remember what it was - I suppose one day I really should get round to 'phoning them...

[Tinstaafl]

The joke about lifejackets here (Shetlands) is that they'll keep you afloat so you can breathe while you freeze to death.

[Avoiding Action]

India-Mike,

&gt;&gt;I've done it for the West of Scotland and I think that any further west than Arran or north of Islay means that the only use for a lifejacket will be for the rescue guys to find something to give to my wife for burial! &lt;&lt;

I'm sure the Coastguard helo crew at Stornaway might have something to say about that!. . :)

['India-Mike]

Avoiding Action

You're quite right - I'd forgotten about that aircraft. I suppose I'm fixed into a mindset where it'd be an RN SeaKing from Prestwick that would come to get me from a Glasgow/Prestwick/Cumbernauld to Mull/Islay/Ireland type of trip.

I've never thought about requiring the services of the Stornoway aircraft, since I rarely go north of Oban. Bet it's important to those who fly from Inverness or Wick though.

[jayemm]

Whirlybird said:

[quote] The 747 pilot originally mentioned and Cat Driver probably both have far more flying experience than the rest of us ..... Maybe we should be listening. <hr></blockquote>

is the original thought that made me start the thread. If experienced guys take this approach, maybe I should be much more cautious. However, my 747 friend also told me that during training with an instructor, he experienced an engine-failure. They restarted and landed safely.

But, maybe it's a simple case of "Once bitten". Has Cat Driver had an experience, or are you just very experienced and professionally cautious?

[Wrong Stuff]

Or is is just that pro pilots fly, say, 10 times the number of hours we do so they must be 10 times more cautious to reduce their risks down to the same level?

[FlyingForFun]

Or could it be that many of the people on this forum are more experienced than the 747-drivers at flying single-engined aircraft, in which case they're better able to assess the risks than the 747-drivers?

(I'm not including myself in that category, btw.)

*Puts flack-jacket on in preparation for abuse*

FFF. .--------

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Flyingforfun:

One need never have flown a single engine airplane to make the observation that single engine airplanes have engine failures far more frequently than one may realize.

Where the decision making process really counts is identifying the possibility of an engine failure and the possibility of ditching in the channel.

Good planning will include a life raft and survival suits for all on board, this will greatly increase your chance of survival. It is also wise to receive briefings on ditching procedures on the open sea, it is extreemly important to know wind wave and swell identification and how best to land on same.

When flying over open bodies of water such as the English channel you should keep in mind that your best chance of early rescue will be by the boats that are usually near your track. If you ditch ahead of a boat the chances are very good they will see you and pick you up.

One other comment it is unlikely you will be having many sexual thoughts in that cold water while you await rescue. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

................. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

[mad_jock]

I dive alot around scotland and the water temp is anywhere between 6 degs and 12 on the surface.

I wouldn't now fly in a single over water from PIK unless i had my dry suit on. A m8 had a zip burst in the clyde and we dragged him out after 10 mins and he spent the next 3 days in hospital and still wasn't right after 2 weeks, and that was with a neoprene dry suit on.

MJ