HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Date: 09 Nov 92 20:07:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Bx8y3G.K30@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol) writes:
>It's really a red herring I think.  What about vfr on top?  What
>about night vfr.  All you do in either of those visual cases is set up
>a glide and hope for the best.

What a coincidence!  This thread seems to be trying to address
a question that only came up in my mind within the last couple of
days.  I just finished reading "A Gift of Wings," the first Richard
Bach book I've read.  (good stuff, by the way).  In a number of
his stories, he mentions that he would _never_ fly at night without
a parachute.  Why?  He figures that at night, he's as good as dead,
because he won't be able to find a good landing spot in the dark.
(He does make exceptions when he's in a well-lit area, and isn't
going too far from known airports).  So, rather than try to put the
plane down, he'll just bail out if the engine quits.

Now, I understand that he wrote all of this over 20 years ago, and
some close to 30 years (or more) ago.  So, a lot of things have
changed: first of all, there's even more industry and well-lit cities
than there had been back then.  Also engines are more reliable, when
they're maintained properly.  But, still...one of the great things
about an airplane is that you can quickly get away from all the industry
and well-lit areas.  And, still...I was taught to always expect the
engine to quit, and have a place to land at all times.  So, even if
engines are more reliable, there's still a non-zero chance of it
quitting.

Personally, I _have_ been in situations where I had no idea where
I'd put the plane if the engine quit.  Never in day VFR, but I've
flown night VFR three times since I got my license (just a couple
of months ago), and despite always having a good idea of where I
was at all times, and being somewhat familiar with airports around
me (mainly due to having used them as checkpoints for other VFR
flights), I wouldn't say that I was able to at all times have a plan
for what to do if the engine quit.  Significant parts of the flights
were conducted over unlit terrain, where even in the moonlight
there was no way to see good places to land.  And of course, I
don't own a parachute.

So, what do other people think about night VFR?  I'm guessing
that most people fly night VFR, and most of those people don't
wear parachutes.  But, for what reasons?  My reason is that I
just hadn't ever thought about it before; I'm not done thinking
about it yet, and am curious to hear other people's thoughts/reactions
about this.

Thanks!
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
From: dls@freedom.genrad.com (Diana L. Carlson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Accident statistics (was Re: Night VFR)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 07:18:32 -0500
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: freedom.genrad.com

We had a CAP meeting last night and our Senior Deputy Commander gave us a
talk on accident statistics, based on a paper on Airplane statistics between
1982-1988 (7 years).  There were an average of 2300 accidents (actually I
think those are 2300 victims) in the statistics.  Some interesting stats 
included:

19% were fatal.
88% of all VFR into IFR accidents were fatal.
49% of Approach accidents were fatal.
9%  of Fuel Exhaustion/Fuel Starvation accidents were fatal.

There were lots more numbers, but these are the only ones I could remember.
There weren't enough handouts to go around, so I didn't get one, although
I can probably borrow one from someone else if you want more data.

These statistics are only for General Aviation.  The stats were broken down
by Single Engine Fixed, Single Engine Retractable, and Twin Engine.  A
significantly HIGHER percentage was on Twins.  Bill hypothesized that this
was due to the likelihood that in some of the lousy weather, only Twin
pilots would be likely to "take a chance", because of their perceived higher
performance equipment (ie, two engines, more sophisticated navigational
equipment, possibly boots and weather radar as well).

Note that a significant portion of the Approach accidents (most of which were
fatal) were from broken minimums.

If these numbers show nothing else, it should show that IF you get into a
VFR into IFR situation AND you have an accident.....it will probably be fatal.

Diana



-- 
->Diana L. (Syriac) Carlson dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: CPT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Visual Apch vs Charted Visual Flight Procedure (was Re: Contact VS Visual)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:45:04 GMT

jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:

>mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:
>>I got an e-mail message asking if radar is required for a visual approach.
>>Having had my face in the regs a lot lately I say, no, what say the net?

>Generally, no.  Some charted visual procedures explicitly require radar.

See AIM section 4 ("ARRIVAL PROCEDURES"), paragraph 384:

 a. CVFPs are charted visual approaches established [...]
 b. These procedures will be used only in a radar environment at airports
    with an operating control tower.
  [...]
 h. CVFPs are not instrument approaches and do not have missed
    approach segments.

I think that the original poster was asking about visual approaches, not
charted visual flight procedures (CVFPs).  See AIM paragraph 383; the
only mention of radar is that radar service is automatically terminated
when you are told to change to the advisory frequency at an uncontrolled
airport.

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen)
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Keywords: IFR, night
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 04:32:33 GMT

I had a night IFR experience also.  It was while I was a student pilot on
my night cross-country.  I had my instructor with me, so everything was
cool.  Anyway, the trip involved a leg to the south along the chicago
skyline with no moon.  At about Meigs, I made a 180 to the left (out
towards the water) to continue back to the north.  For about 15 seconds I
was IFR.  No visual references at all.  It was really spooky, but not
alarming.  This was probably because my instr. was with me...who knows.  
 
--
            __|__          Darin Petersen - PP-ASEL
     ________(*)________  Maverick@buhub.bradley.edu
            o/ \o    
            
              
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:06:46 GMT

In article <120.185.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>JH> .How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
>  > .single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

<stuff deleted>

>I personally have not had any more qualms about SE IFR than about SE
>night, or SE almost anything else.  I _WILL NOT_ fly SE over water
>beyond glide range, but that's my personal limit.

Here Here!  I have only crossed Lake Michigan once, and that was in a twin.  
If you go down in Lake Michigan, you have to realize that that water is COLD 
in addition to being wet.  In the winter, your life expectancy from exposure 
ALONE is less than five minutes!!!  Even in the Spring/Fall you may only have
30 minutes or so.

I recall an accident where a business jet unsuccessfully attempted an aborted
takeoff from Meigs field during the winter months - I believe everyone aboard
died of exposure before they could be rescued.

Bottom Line:  If you have to ditch anywhere in the Great Lakes during the  
winter months, you are most likely dead.  If you do fly single engine over water
you should have the appropriate survival equipment on board.  

I went through ejection seat survival training at NAS Pensacola FL  Feb. '84.
Part of the training was a simulated parachute landing in the water (outdoors). 
We had wet-suits underneath our flight gear, but our hands were exposed.  We
got into a parachute harness and rode down a wire into the water. 

All we had to do then was release the koch fittings of the harness and climb
into our liferaft.  No problem, right?  You guessed it!  Even in the mere
seconds I had been in the water, my hands were so cold I couldn't FEEL anything!
I couldn't see what I was doing because my Personal Floatation Device (PFD) was
in the way.  It took me awhile, but I finally did what was necessary and got
the koch fittings to release.  

I should also point out that getting out of any aircraft that has ditched can
be almost impossible.  The Dilbert Dunker and the Helo Dunker are difficult 
enough under ideal conditions, and inspire much more respect for the water 
than confidence that emergency egress will be possible under all circumstances.  
							John
-- 
Standard Disclaimer:  These are my comments, and not necessarily my employer's.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
John L. Bishop, Tech. Manager, Intergraph Corp.     bishop@jlb911.b17a.ingr.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:12:08 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Night VFR

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.ifr: 12-Nov-92 Re: Night VFR by Kerry
Kurasaki@Ingres.CO 
> >The single greatest risk of night VFR is inadvertently flying into
> >clouds.  On moonless nights or nights with a high overcast you simply
> >cannot see some forms of clouds, and stumbling into them is a remarkable
> >sensory experience--much spookier than IMC encounters during the daytime.

I'm aware of several FBO's that won't allow rentals to be flown at night
by non-IFR rated pilots. Seems they share the concern.  

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: mjoseph@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Joseph)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Summary: Over water might be worse.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:48:28 GMT

In article <barnett.721097547@convex.convex.com> barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>
>>How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
>>single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?
>
>Personally, I have no problem.  I have never flown over "rugged"
>terrain, but I have crossed Lake Michigan several times at 10,000
>feet, which results in 10 minutes or so in the middle that I can't
>glide to either side.
>

I'm sure I felt more apprehensive about single engine flight while over
the lake than I ever recall feeling in IMC.  On my most recent IFR flight 
into Meigs (CGX - a little peninsula of an airport on Chicago's lakefront) 
I was vectored to follow traffic on a long left base to 18.  Chicago
Approach already had me at ~2000' to keep me out of the way of Midway
arrivals, and here I am heading out at a right angle to the beach.
I figured (wrong!) that they wouldn't keep me heading east for too long, 
but my traffic was evidently farther out than I thought.  Ever hear
of the "auto-rough" setting that engines have while flying low over
water?  As I approached the point where I would no longer be able to glide
back to the break-water, I just insisted that I needed a course to 
parallel the shoreline rather than continuing east.  ATC complied
with my request.  Whew!  I really didn't like that feeling.

Mark

-- 
Mark Joseph             University of Illinois / Speech & Hearing Science
Technical Support Mgr.  901 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820
m-joseph@uiuc.edu       (217)244-2569   FAX:(217)244-2235
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:12:31 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

   I have the following question for the netters.ifr:

   How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
   single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

   Thank you.

By single-engine IMC, I assume you mean that there are IMC conditions
at ground level. It all comes down to percieved risk. I don't think it
is unnerving at all.

Looking at the statistics, I am satisfied that engine failure is not a
major problem for IFR flights. Apart from engine failure because of
fuel starvation, but in that case two engines doesn't help.

I am, however, slightly more wary about take-offs in low visibility /
low cloudbase situations. On the other hand, this doesn't happen
often, so I am prepared to accept that additional risk those few
times.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:03:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.133428.15234@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
>
>The single greatest risk of night VFR is inadvertently flying into
>clouds.  On moonless nights or nights with a high overcast you simply
>cannot see some forms of clouds, and stumbling into them is a remarkable
>sensory experience--much spookier than IMC encounters during the daytime.
>Suddenly all ground and sky references are gone, replaced by bizarre 
>ghostly reflections of nav lights and/or strobes (it will only take you
>a second to decide to turn those strobes off!) and if you are flying
>a strutted Cessna, you'll get that eery hollow howl that brand C planes
>make inside of clouds.  (Why is it that Cessnas howl and moan inside of
>clouds?)  
>

Indeed, I've had sustained IFR flights between layers at night popping
in and out of clouds.  I logged all of it IFR since there was no visual
horizon on those moonless nights and all you had to trust were your flight
instruments.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: I have a goal, now I'm on my way...
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:53:44 GMT

I hope y'all don't mind what may seem as a frivolous posting, but I
just have to share this with a group that will *understand*.

Nothing motivates me more than having an attainable goal in sight.
Now I have not just one, but two goals to help encourage me on my
way to an instrument ticket.

My 10th college reunion is next fall, and my goal is to fly myself
from Chicago to Houston for the reunion.  I told my wife this, and
she thought that was a pretty neat idea.  In fact, she wants to come
with.  Then I said "it'd be alot more realizable if I had the instrument
rating by then."  Much to my surprise, she said "go for it!"  (I think
I finally wore her down :-)

But last week I discovered that next summer's Usenix conference is 
going to be in Cincinnati.  Hey, now that's not that far at all!
So now my goal is to fly myself to Summer Usenix on an IFR flight plan.
I called a club instructor last night and we are starting tonight!
Twice a week with breaks for conferences and the holidays, and I think
it's doable.  Wish me success.

		Bill LeFebvre
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:36:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Single Engine IFR/Night VFR
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

In article <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu>,
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>I have the following question for the netters.ifr:
>
>How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
>single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?
>

I don't have a problem with single engine IFR as long as it is equipped
properly, maintained well, and I'm ready.  I will ask the same questions
whether the airplane has one or two fans.

And in article <73741@hydra.gatech.EDU>, randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T.
Abler) adds:
>
>A slight twist on the original question: how do the pilots rated
>for both single & multi engine feel about single engine IMC?  Is it
>based on the redundancy of two engines, or on the additional capabilities
>and equipment that are typical in many twin engine planes. 

As I said above, I ask the same questions before the flight regardless of the
type of airplane.  My airplane is really no better equipped than a high end
single, like a T210.  The Baron does, however, have two vacuum pumps and
alternators which makes for more peace of mind.  The second engine most
certainly adds to that comfort, but I have never cancelled an IFR flight just
because I was going to fly a single.  In fact, there have been a few (granted,
*very* few) times when I wished I was in a single rather than the twin I
happened to be flying at the time, like when the de-ice or oxygen didn't work.

The question any pilot has to ask before any flight is, "Are the risks worth
it?"  If the answer is yes, then go.  Single engine IFR is probably a little
more risky than in a twin, but I've decided that the additional risk is
acceptable.

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan)
Subject: Re: Visual Apch vs Charted Visual Flight Procedure (was Re: Contact VS Visual)
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:34:01 GMT

In <1992Nov6.005735.22311@adobe.com> mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:

>Where and at what altitudes is there no radar coverage
>available???

Well, from flying through it a couple of times, there's an area of no
(or at least very unreliable) radar coverage between the Akron (AKO)
VOR and the Hayes Center (HCT) and McCook (MCK) VORs about 100 miles
east of Denver below about 12,000 MSL.  I'm almost always asked to
report crossing the Akron VOR (westbound), but they pick me up before
I get there usually.  At 11,000 (eastbound), they sometimes can pick
me up but even if they lose me they assure me the next sector will
pick me up and don't ask for reports (and they always give me "RADAR
CONTACT" before I reach a reporting point anyway).  I've run into
another area in the vicinity of the Scottsbluff (BFF) VOR, but I'm not
sure it wasn't just a weak transponder up there (haven't tried it in
the plane with the more reliable transponder yet).

That's my whole experience with being out of radar coverage.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Bryan       | e-mail: bryan@intellistor.com
Intellistor         | UUCP:   ...!csn!arrayb!bryan
Longmont, CO        | USPS:   2402 Clover Basin Drive, 80503
(303) 682-6527      | PP-ASEL/IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:00:11 GMT
Reply-To: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Organization: National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

In article <73741@hydra.gatech.EDU>, randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T.
Abler) writes:
>...

>for both single & multi engine feel about single engine IMC?  Is it
>based on the redundancy of two engines, or on the additional
>capabilities
>and equipment that are typical in many twin engine planes. 

I don't feel any difference, but then I've never had a vacuum failure in
flight, or engine failure other than on final.  Feelings aside, I
believe the twin is safer if I'm current based on the redundancy of
engines AND other equipment.

I have flown occaisionally IFR and VFR over lake Michigan and Huron, and
over areas of 0/0 single engine.  Since I rent, I did check out the
aircraft a couple of days before the flights.  I think my risk was less
than when I downhill ski or boardsail.  There is a difference though. 
Skiing or boardsailing, if I get hurt its because of my lack of skill or
judgement.  In anycase I'm in control of my destiny.  But once I've
decided  to venture over rugged terain or fly single engine IFR/VFR
in/over 0/0 it becomes a matter of chance in which I have little control
over the outcome.  I think we all feel better driving a car than being a
passenger.  I feel more concerned with non-pilot passengers.  How to
give them a sense of the risk involved without scaring them unduly, so
that they can make an informed choice?

	John
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: deanl@ecn.purdue.edu (Loren P Dean)
Subject: Re: Visual Apch vs Charted Visual Flight Procedure (was Re: Contact VS Visual)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:20:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.173401.28220@intellistor.com>, bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan) writes:
|> In <1992Nov6.005735.22311@adobe.com> mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:
|> 
|> >Where and at what altitudes is there no radar coverage
|> >available???
|> 
|> Well, from flying through it a couple of times, there's an area of no
|> (or at least very unreliable) radar coverage between the Akron (AKO)
|> VOR and the Hayes Center (HCT) and McCook (MCK) VORs about 100 miles
|> east of Denver below about 12,000 MSL..........

Another area of non-radar coverage is Lafayette, IN (LAF) from surface
to (I believe) 5000 ft.  It makes it very interesting while practicing 
approaches to hear a transient aircraft call up that has never been in
a non-radar environment before because they usually expect vectors to 
the final approach course.  Instead they usually get put in the hold,
followed by the full approach. Position reports are also required.

|> That's my whole experience with being out of radar coverage.

Loren
-- 
Loren P. Dean                          deanl@ecn.purdue.edu
Graduate Student                       
School of Aeronautics & Astronautics   Phone: Home   (317) 497-1498
Purdue University                             Campus (317) 494-9410
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Single Engine IFR
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

JH> .How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
  > .single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

Flying anything under any circumstances is a matter of risk management.
You evaluate how YOU feel about the risks and make a decision.

I personally have not had any more qualms about SE IFR than about SE
night, or SE almost anything else.  I _WILL NOT_ fly SE over water
beyond glide range, but that's my personal limit.  We don't have
Rockies-style "rugged terrain", but I fly over the Appalachians without
hesitation.

I also fly planes that are very reliable, and are meticulously
maintained.  My flight planning tends to be on the conservative side.
I will fly something other than the shortest route if it gives me more
options for landing points.  I flight plan to maximize my options
rather than to minimize my fuel consumption.

Even when in hard IMC, I fly with a sectional open to the route.

If I were unsure of my abilities, or the equipment reliablility, my
  decisions would change.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com