How many engine failures have you experienced?

[Arnold]

The light twin I truly enjoyed flying the most was the Cessna 303, but they are somewhat rare and pricey, most have known Ice equip and certification. I've flown several hundred hours each in Twinkies, Aztecs, Senecas, Seminoles, Navajos. I like all airplanes and fly what I can afford. Right now that is a DA-20 rental once a month, in two more years there will be no more full time day care bills, perhaps I can fly again then. A short break until college expenses start again around 2020.

Here's the thing, my only engine failures have been in a twin engine turbo prop and the reason was crappy maintenance, when well maintained I've not had any serious problems with either twin or single, piston or turbine.

Engine Failures ( I have 7000+ hrs but I stopped counting about 12 years ago), 2 shutdowns after oil left engine, same poorly maintained airplane two Allison B17-250C engines (think Bell Jet Ranger engine turned upside down). 1 over the Holland / German border, low IFR all over, light weight so no problem staying level at a 6000'. I flew to somewhat better weather shot ILS to Rotterdam 400/1, 2nd failure about one week later, same aircraft different engine, well over max gross (ferry fuel, ships spares, copilot), over the North Sea, drifted down to 2000' before able to maintain altitude if not turning, NDB approach into Stauning Denmark ceiling was around 1000' vis was good. The first one I could almost certainly executed a missed, the second one it was out of the question.

 

[gprellwitz]

Two engine failures on a Cessna 404, one after takeoff when the turbo charger exploded on the left engine, aircraft was at gross, came around and landed. Same Cessna 404 a month later lost the right engine in cruise when oil pressure went to zero. (this C404 was purchased from Barron Thomas with "fresh" overhauled engines btw).

Where the horror stories of some airplanes come from is when someone acquires a plane that has had neglected maintenance, then the new owner gets hit with some staggering expense. This can happen with any airplane. The trick here is to be very selective in what you buy.

Hmmmm....

 

[sba55]

It should be better during the winter. I know that 1900fpm climb that I got in the 182 (a 1971 model with plenty of bumps and bruises) on a cold day is way better than anything in the book.

You missed my point. Yes, it's better on a cold day. Density altitude is not the only issue here. You're lucky if you get the tested SE ceiling on a very cold day in an old airplane.

During the summer, well... Remember that the service ceiling is a *density* altitude. So yes, if you're taking off from an airport with a density altitude of 3800 feet in the summer, yes, your Seminole is practically a single, only it'll have a better glide ratio.

Yes, that's what I said. It's not about taking off, it's about having a negative SE ceiling.

 

[wabower]

The guru's who have flown and taught the airplanes constantly harp on the tender nature of the gear. Watching them come through the shop for the service bulletin on the actuators has been all the proof I need.

1956 thru 1964 had overwing exhaust, though some have been converted to underwing. 1965 thru end of production (310R) had underwing but if not properly maintained and inspected could have problems with aft spar corrosion.

The "somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear system" is a myth. Properly maintained there are no issues. The key here is "proper maintenance".

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You missed my point. Yes, it's better on a cold day. Density altitude is not the only issue here. You're lucky if you get the tested SE ceiling on a very cold day in an old airplane.

You missed my point - Even on a nearly 40-year-old airplane, in the winter (well, the kind of winters we get here), you can expect *much better than book performance* as tested on a standard day.

 

[gismo]

1956 thru 1964 had overwing exhaust, though some have been converted to underwing. 1965 thru end of production (310R) had underwing but if not properly maintained and inspected could have problems with aft spar corrosion.

I understand (I think). As long as the owner stays on top of any corrosion associated with the exhaust the problems should be minimized if not eliminated. I only mentioned this because this is something that most types don't have any issues like that and a corroded spar can be awfully expensive to fix.

The "somewhat fragile and complicated landing gear system" is a myth. Properly maintained there are no issues. The key here is "proper maintenance".

I agree that "proper maintenance" is key but I still believe that the system is overly complicated compared to a Baron with lots of hoses, o-rings, and valves that need attention periodically and I suspect that even "proper maintenance" of this system has some noticeable cost. That said, it's probably not much worse than the gear system on a C-210 so I shouldn't say it's a twin related issue. I was also under the impression that nosegear failures were fairly common with 310s although nothing I know of says they weren't related to poor maintenance. And the Beeches have had some similar problems when the Heim joints aren't adequately lubricated, something that can be overlooked by a mechanic that's not very familiar with Barons and Bonanzas. This failure has occurred often enough that some folks are recommending periodic replacement of perfectly good ones.

 

[sba55]

You missed my point - Even on a nearly 40-year-old airplane, in the winter (well, the kind of winters we get here), you can expect *much better than book performance* as tested on a standard day.

No, you can't. Try it, and let me know how it works out for you with an old airframe and old engines.

You're a know it all who doesn't know how to learn. Join my ignore list.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, you can't. Try it, and let me know how it works out for you with an old airframe and old engines.

I have flown a 1977 model Seneca II with over 12,000 hours on it that still got book performance in cruise speed, climb rate with both engines and OEI, and takeoff distance - it was cold, but the book corrected for the cold. So, in the case of an older book that doesn't have atmospheric corrections on the performance tables it is quite possible for an airplane to BEAT "book" numbers on a cold day, since the book numbers are based on a standard day.

And yes, it surprised the hell out of me too, that a 12,000-hour airframe would still be able to get even close to book numbers, much less match them... But it did.

Oh, and there was that lovely 1971 182 I mentioned in the previous post, too...

You're a know it all who doesn't know how to learn. Join my ignore list.

I'm telling you things that I've seen with my own eyes and actually experienced, and YOU'RE calling ME a know-it-all? Did it ever occur that YOU might not know it all yourself?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I agree that "proper maintenance" is key but I still believe that the system is overly complicated compared to a Baron with lots of hoses, o-rings, and valves that need attention periodically and I suspect that even "proper maintenance" of this system has some noticeable cost. .

The C310's landing gear system is all push rods connected to an electric motor. No "O" rings, hoses or valves, pure mechanical. The nose gear problems are all attributed to the push rod under the pilot's feet that is in an area that can be difficult to inspect, hence some mechanics tend to ignore it (against the MM inspection) and this is where the failure occurs.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You're a know it all who doesn't know how to learn.

Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

shoot the 421 at gross climbed about the same as a 150 with BOTH engines running.

Wow, I've didn't even know there was twin engine 150...

 

[Ted]

You missed my point. Yes, it's better on a cold day. Density altitude is not the only issue here. You're lucky if you get the tested SE ceiling on a very cold day in an old airplane.

And you're basing this on your thousands of hours worth of experience you don't have in the various multi-engine aircraft that you haven't flown, right? Since you ignore the numbers I've actually gone out and flown, that's about the only conclusion I can come to.

You're a know it all who doesn't know how to learn. Join my ignore list.

Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[kthompson2k]

Thank goodness there is someone out there soaking up all the engine failures so the rest of us don't have to deal with it.

That is what I was thinking!

 

[gismo]

The C310's landing gear system is all push rods connected to an electric motor. No "O" rings, hoses or valves, pure mechanical. The nose gear problems are all attributed to the push rod under the pilot's feet that is in an area that can be difficult to inspect, hence some mechanics tend to ignore it (against the MM inspection) and this is where the failure occurs.

Wow, I sure had that wrong. I could swear the 310's gear was hydraulic and similar to the 210 but I must just be remembering seeing the 210 system. Interestingly the Baron/Bonanza gear has a very similar issue with a rod end under the cockpit floor that some mechanics (fortunately not mine) fail to lube or inspect and when that gets dry enough it breaks leaving the nose gear hanging loose.

FWIW, I've always coveted 310s ever since I saw Sky King's second airplane but I've only gotten to fly one once.

 

[SkyHog]

I'm telling you things that I've seen with my own eyes and actually experienced, and YOU'RE calling ME a know-it-all? Did it ever occur that YOU might not know it all yourself?

There you go again Kent.

Stop knowing everything.

 

[jesse]

I've flown some airplanes that do what the book says and some airplanes that don't. With the airplanes that did -- you would be able to beat the testing done under standard conditions under more ideal conditions.

Standard conditions aren't the most ideal -- they're standard. That said, I do agree, that "standard conditions" are better than most of the conditions we operate in. But you have to test somewhere.

 

[tonycondon]

Wow, I sure had that wrong. I could swear the 310's gear was hydraulic and similar to the 210 but I must just be remembering seeing the 210 system. Interestingly the Baron/Bonanza gear has a very similar issue with a rod end under the cockpit floor that some mechanics (fortunately not mine) fail to lube or inspect and when that gets dry enough it breaks leaving the nose gear hanging loose.

FWIW, I've always coveted 310s ever since I saw Sky King's second airplane but I've only gotten to fly one once.

in general with twin cessnas, if it has tip tanks it has mechanical landing gear. They did go to a hydraulic gear in the "C" models of the 402 and 421 at least, when they also went to wet wing fuel tanks.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There you go again Kent.

Stop knowing everything.

Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black?

I sure hope I don't come across as a know-it-all on PoA. I've tried to soak up as much knowledge as possible here, on the old AOPA "yellow board," and from trying to make every hour count by doing a diverse range of things. I've done every rating I have with a different CFI to get different perspectives on things. I do a lot of "real" flying - I'll have ATP minimums for everything but total time by the time I reach half of the required total time (within the next few months). In fact, all I need is a few hours of cross country. Look at my map below, and you'll see that my cross country is literally cross country!

Anyway... I don't know it all. I try to share the things I think I know, and if someone with a different experience shares something different, great! We all learn. I also will challenge people on things that I think I know, because I'm big on the "why" aspect of everything. I'm never satisfied with the "this is how it is" answer, I want to know Why? That helps me to understand things better, and retain them better as well. I hope those challenges don't come across as arrogance.

 

[Ted]

Kent, Felix calling someone a know-it-all who doesn't want to learn is just humorous, regardless of who it is. I've yet to see him admit he's wrong on anything. Just be warned, he's not joking when he says you're on his ignore list. You can be sitting next to him in a van and he'll pretend you're not there. Ask me how I know.

(by the way, I don't think you're a know-it-all)

 

[steingar]

Kent, you've called me a bad pilot in the past for disagreeing with you, therefore from my perspective this is the pot calling the kettle black, to at least a small extent. Felix did likewise, thus you two are to some extent birds of a feather. There is nothing wrong with people disagreeing on matters of fact. Sometimes one is wrong, sometimes the other sometimes it depends on point of view. Saying "a twin's gear is dependable/undepandable" is a value judgement. Moreover, different people can have vastly different experience. Thus, in my book no one is really wrong.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, you've called me a bad pilot in the past for disagreeing with you, therefore from my perspective this is the pot calling the kettle black, to at least a small extent.

Huh??? Where'd I do that?

I hope you're not confusing me with Ken_ who is no longer here...

Moreover, different people can have vastly different experience. Thus, in my book no one is really wrong.

To a point. Sometimes there are things that are posted that are blatantly wrong - But something like landing gear maintenance is certainly an area in which different people can have vastly different experiences.

 

[steingar]

Huh??? Where'd I do that?

This is you:

Your head-in-the-sand approach, and unwillingness to learn, leads me to the conclusion that YOU are the least safe pilot in this thread.

And that's Felix:

You're concerned about safety, yet you fail to recognize that you're creating the danger yourself as evidenced in this thread. Sad.Felix

This is in a thread where Dave Siciliano was complaining about a VFR aircraft that appeared directly under him on approach to an airport in San Diego. It was somewhat heated, as it sounded like Dave was berating another pilot for flying legally. It was argued that VFR pilots should still know IFR approaches in case an IFR arrival shares their airspace. I argued that midairs are rare, and VFR pilots have much more salient things to brush up on to ensure safety, like simulated engine failures.

I used some over the top verbiage, most saliently asking what moron thought GA was safe. I stand by that assertion, by the way. I however, did not name anyone specifically in that rant, it was more rhetorical.

 

[azure]

If I may insert an on-topic post...

At just under 500 hours I've had a number of failures: hydraulic system (pumped gear down manually), HSI went out crossing Lake Michigan in VFR IMC, had a starter go bad at a remote field, vacuum pump failed recently on a rental 172 (a non-event), and I was a passenger witness to a com radio short that caused a bit of a smoke smell in the cockpit. I also had a momentary engine hiccup in a 172 the one and only time I took my Mom up as a passenger.

But so far, no loss of power or engine out. Knocking on wood.

 

[gismo]

If I may insert an on-topic post...

At just under 500 hours I've had a number of failures: hydraulic system (pumped gear down manually), HSI went out crossing Lake Michigan in VFR IMC, had a starter go bad at a remote field, vacuum pump failed recently on a rental 172 (a non-event), and I was a passenger witness to a com radio short that caused a bit of a smoke smell in the cockpit. I also had a momentary engine hiccup in a 172 the one and only time I took my Mom up as a passenger.

But so far, no loss of power or engine out. Knocking on wood.

Answering the title question for myself, the only "engine failure" I've everr had was really a pilot failure. I had switched to a tank I thought had plenty of fuel (the gauge said so) but it was empty or at least not supplying fuel because the vent had iced over (I'd been experiencing trace icing for an hour or more). The failure was resolved by switching to a different tank (1 of 5) and the only thing that makes this so easily remembered is that it occurred as I was about to descend on an IFR approach in a snowstorm.

But my mother has had two failures. One back in 1942 when a spark plug was ejected from the engine and the other in 1978 when the camshaft broke on a nearly new 172 (with the infamous 'H' series engine). On the first she put the plane down in a farmer's field and ended up tipping over onto the nose. On the second she was able to nurse the plane to an airport as it was still producing just enough power to remain airborne.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Huh??? Where'd I do that?

This is you:

Your head-in-the-sand approach, and unwillingness to learn, leads me to the conclusion that YOU are the least safe pilot in this thread.

I didn't call you a *bad* pilot, I called you the least safe pilot in that thread. You may still be in the top 100 pilots of all time, for all I know.

I stand by my statement that on that particular topic, you had a head-in-the-sand approach, and I still do not understand why you reject knowledge simply because it has something to do with IFR. I try to learn about flying that I don't do, simply because it *does* impact the flying that I do! For example, on the OSH NOTAM, *I* am only going to fly the Fisk VFR approach, most likely - but I read the helicopter, ultralight, jet/warbird, and IFR arrival procedures and the departure procedures as well, because I want to know where that traffic is going to be. It's clear to me that way too many people do not do such things and do not have the same understanding of the intricate puzzle that is the Airventure airspace - They're the ones I see blasting off runway 27 in an unrestricted climb and blowing right through the path of the arrivals. Someday, there's gonna be a big smoking hole in the ground near the railroad tracks just west of Wittman Regional, and I am not going to be in it because I took the extra time to understand the other pieces of the puzzle.

I guess my attitude is that I will never know everything there is to know about aviation, but that should not stop me from trying to learn everything possible - Knowledge is power, and, in the case of aviation, safety. Maybe that's also why you feel GA is unsafe.

I guess I also don't know how this makes ME come across as a know-it-all - I'm trying to learn. You weren't... I don't mean to be a dick, I just can't fathom how a pilot, especially an educator such as yourself, does not care to learn something that can affect them in the sky.

 

[steingar]

I didn't call you a *bad* pilot, I called you the least safe pilot in that thread. You may still be in the top 100 pilots of all time, for all I know.

I stand by my statement that on that particular topic, you had a head-in-the-sand approach, and I still do not understand why you reject knowledge simply because it has something to do with IFR. I try to learn about flying that I don't do, simply because it *does* impact the flying that I do! For example, on the OSH NOTAM, *I* am only going to fly the Fisk VFR approach, most likely - but I read the helicopter, ultralight, jet/warbird, and IFR arrival procedures and the departure procedures as well, because I want to know where that traffic is going to be. It's clear to me that way too many people do not do such things and do not have the same understanding of the intricate puzzle that is the Airventure airspace - They're the ones I see blasting off runway 27 in an unrestricted climb and blowing right through the path of the arrivals. Someday, there's gonna be a big smoking hole in the ground near the railroad tracks just west of Wittman Regional, and I am not going to be in it because I took the extra time to understand the other pieces of the puzzle.

I guess my attitude is that I will never know everything there is to know about aviation, but that should not stop me from trying to learn everything possible - Knowledge is power, and, in the case of aviation, safety. Maybe that's also why you feel GA is unsafe.

I guess I also don't know how this makes ME come across as a know-it-all - I'm trying to learn. You weren't... I don't mean to be a dick, I just can't fathom how a pilot, especially an educator such as yourself, does not care to learn something that can affect them in the sky.

I have never had my "head in the sand". What we had (and will continue to have) is a difference of opinion. The nut is only so big, and you can only know so much. My nut is probably far smaller than yours, since my aviation knowledge has to share the space with a boatload of molecular genetics and embryology. I imagine there are many people in the same boat as me, since most of us are amateur hobbyists. Most of us can't know everything, because we have other very important things to do.

I think you would agree it is pointless for you, living in the midwest, to brief in detail the flight regimen around Mt. McKinley, unless you had active plans to go there. That nut would be better served by your attention to detail for the Oshkosh NOTAM, for example, since one hopes you might pop in, given your proximity. I felt (and feel) that a VFR pilot learning IFR approaches with no plan to get the rating falls under the same rubric; I don't do patterns 500 feet under a cloud deck, that isn't VFR. I prefer to concentrate on other aspects, like engine out emergencies and how to handle them, or thunderstorm avoidance, or maintenance, or other things that are likely to affect me.

You can't provide any facts to say one or the other one of us is correct. That is an honest to gosh difference of opinion between two educated people. It happens all the time. The line between healthy argument and dikheadedhood comes when you will not acknowledge another line of reasoning or commence name calling ("unsafe pilot", which translates into "bad pilot" for most of us, comes to mind). Insisting that you have to be right and no other opinion is valid because someone continues to disagree with you causes you to be perceived like a know-it-all. Calling another something bad because they disagree with you makes you sound like a jerk. "You" is of course reflexive; I have no doubt I have been guilty of both offenses more than once. You did ask, and I have attempted to explain.

 

[gismo]

I didn't call you a *bad* pilot, I called you the least safe pilot in that thread. You may still be in the top 100 pilots of all time, for all I know.

Kent FWIW, I interpreted your "least safe pilot" pretty much the same way as Steingar did, it read like a significant put down. You may not have meant it that way but it was pretty strong (and the "head in the sand" comment didn't soften it much<g>).

I stand by my statement that on that particular topic, you had a head-in-the-sand approach, and I still do not understand why you reject knowledge simply because it has something to do with IFR. I try to learn about flying that I don't do, simply because it *does* impact the flying that I do!

I'm with you on the "learn all you can" but I don't agree that we should expect others to go out of their way to do the same, particularly WRT VFR only pilots and IFR specific information. Many VFR pilots are so because they just don't want to have anything to do with the more rigid structure of IFR and would rather enjoy the "freedom" of VFR and that "freedom" often includes a deliberate avoidance of "IFR stuff". I think it's best to leave them with the "to each his own" on this. Preaching that VFR pilots should understand what IFR pilots are doing will generally come across to many VFR pilots as something along the line of "I'm a better pilot than you so stay out of my way". I'm certain you don't mean that at all but your message WILL be received in that light by many. I'd turn your thinking around to something like "I know that there will be plenty of VFR only pilots out there (or even some IFR ones who are thinking in a VFR frame of mind at the moment) who won't know what I'm doing so I'll have to accomodate them as best as I can. Now some VFR folks are also like you and are happy to learn what they can about IFR traffic and procedures, just to fit in better and for those folks your original message will have some benefit. Just don't expect every "safe" pilot to react and/or feel the same way.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm with you on the "learn all you can" but I don't agree that we should expect others to go out of their way to do the same, particularly WRT VFR only pilots and IFR specific information. Many VFR pilots are so because they just don't want to have anything to do with the more rigid structure of IFR and would rather enjoy the "freedom" of VFR and that "freedom" often includes a deliberate avoidance of "IFR stuff". I think it's best to leave them with the "to each his own" on this. Preaching that VFR pilots should understand what IFR pilots are doing will generally come across to many VFR pilots as something along the line of "I'm a better pilot than you so stay out of my way".

+1. This is the same type argument we had on the other thread about pilots being required to know advanced math.

 

[gprellwitz]

+1. This is the same type argument we had on the other thread about pilots being required to know advanced math.

I didn't think that argument was about whether they should be required to know advanced math; rather whether there was any applicability or usefulness of advanced math to being a pilot.

In both advanced math and knowledge of IFR rules & procedures, the extra knowledge shouldn't hurt and may help, so having it should be encouraged.

 

[dsmith8304]

Being new to the site and the original poster, I would like to thank everyone for their experience and advice.

BTW, the obvious problem with this "show of hands: who's had an engine failure?" thing is that the respondents aren't likely to be a good, random sample, as you're far more likely to respond if your answer is "yes", and far more likely to remain quiet if your answer is "no", thus giving a false impression that everybody has had an engine failure.
-harry

That was my thought, too. If engine failures are any sort of problem, they would be more likely to be exposed here. Instead, they appear to be rare, and excellent maintenance further reduces the risk. Partial loss of power seems more likely, and even it is rare.

My mission exposes the airplane to winter travel in/out of Chicago, night cross country, and icing exacerbated by lake effect moisture. (A CFII shuttled my Diamond DA40 in January from Chicago Executive to Waukegan, a 15 minute trip. Skies were 1500 feet overcast, so he decided to file IFR. ATC put him in the clouds at 3000. He picked up over an inch of clear ice.)

Anti-ice capability in a single is uncommon, but a quick search turns up a few 1980's aircraft (Bonanza A36 with boots, Cessna Centurion 210 with boots), Piper Malibu (80's, 90's, 00's), Cirrus SR-22, and an occasional Columbia 400 (now Cessna). Did I miss any?

Anti-ice is not necessarily FIKI capability. Is anti-ice sufficient?

Thanks, Dan

 

[Ted]

Anti-ice is not necessarily FIKI capability. Is anti-ice sufficient?

As an engineer, the answer to me is "It depends." If the components are the same as on a FIKI installation but the plane simply hasn't gone through the certification process, then to me it's sufficient. If the equipment is actually less capable, then the question becomes what are its capabilities, and are those sufficient for you?

 

[Everskyward]

In both advanced math and knowledge of IFR rules & procedures, the extra knowledge shouldn't hurt and may help, so having it should be encouraged.

Encouragement is one thing. Implying someone has their "head in the sand" is another. Yes, I know that you weren't the one that wrote that.

 

[dmccormack]

Encouragement is one thing.

Hmmm...

Do we have any data that suggests that lack of IFR knowledge by VFR pilots (other than VFR Pilot into IMC) has any impact on the accident rate?

The same goes for advanced math, GPS approaches, the history of aviation, fluid dynamics, and underwater basketweaving.

Nice to know -- may be helpful to the VFR pilot -- should not be required.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What we had (and will continue to have) is a difference of opinion. The nut is only so big, and you can only know so much. My nut is probably far smaller than yours, since my aviation knowledge has to share the space with a boatload of molecular genetics and embryology. I imagine there are many people in the same boat as me, since most of us are amateur hobbyists. Most of us can't know everything, because we have other very important things to do.

I think you would agree it is pointless for you, living in the midwest, to brief in detail the flight regimen around Mt. McKinley, unless you had active plans to go there. That nut would be better served by your attention to detail for the Oshkosh NOTAM, for example, since one hopes you might pop in, given your proximity. I felt (and feel) that a VFR pilot learning IFR approaches with no plan to get the rating falls under the same rubric; I don't do patterns 500 feet under a cloud deck, that isn't VFR. I prefer to concentrate on other aspects, like engine out emergencies and how to handle them, or thunderstorm avoidance, or maintenance, or other things that are likely to affect me.

You can't provide any facts to say one or the other one of us is correct. That is an honest to gosh difference of opinion between two educated people. It happens all the time.

Okay, I can buy all that... Good explanation. The McKinley analogy isn't the best, though - I've never flown within a thousand miles of it, yet you fly within 500 feet of IFR traffic corridors on every flight.

I'm also not suggesting that you should go and learn to *fly* the approaches - Merely take a quick look at the PDF's that are available online, especially for your home airport or other airports you frequent, and have a clue what they look like, and maybe the names of the FAF's at most... Maybe even make a small single-page diagram that shows where they are in relation to the airport. Actually, come to think of it, that last thing would be a GREAT idea for the FAA to do, so that when we fly VFR into another airport it would be easy to familiarize ourselves, as I think knowing every FAF for an airport you don't regularly go into is definitely overkill. It'd help, but not enough to make it worthwhile for us all to individually go through that kind of planning.

My apologies for the "bad pilot" perception. I think that those of us on this board are collectively among the best pilots out there, simply because we are here learning (hopefully). I'd still fly with you, if that's any indication.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent FWIW, I interpreted your "least safe pilot" pretty much the same way as Steingar did, it read like a significant put down. You may not have meant it that way but it was pretty strong (and the "head in the sand" comment didn't soften it much<g>).

Well... I guess not. And maybe his comments were not the way I read them - The "screw you IFR guys" thing. There are FAR too many pilots who are, shall we say, VFR extremists. As soon as anything IFR-related comes up, they stick their fingers in their ears and go running away screaming "lalalalalala". Even when I was a VFR pilot, I tried to learn enough about IFR things to be able to have a clue what was going on, since we're all sharing the same airspace. I also didn't want to turn into one of the cranky old guys who sit in the FBO bitching about the IFR traffic because they don't understand them.

I'm with you on the "learn all you can" but I don't agree that we should expect others to go out of their way to do the same, particularly WRT VFR only pilots and IFR specific information. Many VFR pilots are so because they just don't want to have anything to do with the more rigid structure of IFR and would rather enjoy the "freedom" of VFR and that "freedom" often includes a deliberate avoidance of "IFR stuff". I think it's best to leave them with the "to each his own" on this. Preaching that VFR pilots should understand what IFR pilots are doing will generally come across to many VFR pilots as something along the line of "I'm a better pilot than you so stay out of my way". I'm certain you don't mean that at all but your message WILL be received in that light by many. I'd turn your thinking around to something like "I know that there will be plenty of VFR only pilots out there (or even some IFR ones who are thinking in a VFR frame of mind at the moment) who won't know what I'm doing so I'll have to accomodate them as best as I can.

I do think that way - And I'm in a VFR frame of mind more often than not - But I'm also not one to trust that the other guy is going to get/stay out of my way, whether I'm IFR or VFR. Obviously, anyone who's in the sky "knows" VFR, so maybe it seems unfair somehow to hope that the VFR-only guys will learn a couple of IFR-related details, but really, a lot of IFR pilots seem to be absolutely terrible at looking out the window. Knowing where they're gonna be is a very important piece of information.

I don't think IFR or VFR means anything about who's a better pilot, though I agree that a lot of VFR pilots take it that way - probably because as soon as anyone finds out you're a pilot, they ask "are you instrument rated?" even if they're non-pilots. (The next question: "Do you have your jet rating?" )

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Anti-ice capability in a single is uncommon, but a quick search turns up a few 1980's aircraft (Bonanza A36 with boots, Cessna Centurion 210 with boots), Piper Malibu (80's, 90's, 00's), Cirrus SR-22, and an occasional Columbia 400 (now Cessna). Did I miss any?

Anti-ice is not necessarily FIKI capability. Is anti-ice sufficient?

Not if you want to be able to depart on more flights.

The way I look at it, anti-ice on a C400 or Cirrus would make me comfortable operating EXACTLY the way I do in a completely UNPROTECTED 182. The 182's big fat wing will carry a load of ice and not be too fussy - The same cannot be said for the skinny laminar-flow wings on the composite speedbirds. So, I would depart into clouds in the winter if there was no icing forecast, with outs of course. Were I flying a completely unprotected C400/SR22, I'd stay the heck out of the clouds during the winter except maybe an obviously-thin layer well above ground level.

If you want to be able to safely launch on more flights than you do now, get FIKI, or at least the equivalent. By equivalent, I mean that on the airplanes certified before FIKI was in the certification standards (CAR 3 certified airplanes for example), an airplane that has the same level of protection: Boots on the wings, horizontal and vertical tail boots, heated or alcohol props and windscreen, heated stall warning and pitot. Also, make sure there's nothing else that will be affected by ice such as your fuel tank vents.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't think IFR or VFR means anything about who's a better pilot, though I agree that a lot of VFR pilots take it that way - probably because as soon as anyone finds out you're a pilot, they ask "are you instrument rated?" even if they're non-pilots. (The next question: "Do you have your jet rating?" )

Hmmm...

I think that anyone that can competently drive and talk on a cell phone has the wherewithal to be a Private Pilot.

The requirements climb a bit for IFR.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hmmm...

Do we have any data that suggests that lack of IFR knowledge by VFR pilots (other than VFR Pilot into IMC) has any impact on the accident rate?

The same goes for advanced math, GPS approaches, the history of aviation, fluid dynamics, and underwater basketweaving.

Nice to know -- may be helpful to the VFR pilot -- should not be required.

I don't think anyone ever said it should be required. I do think pilots should *want* to learn enough to know where other traffic will be. It's part of the proverbial bag of experience.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't think anyone ever said it should be required. I do think pilots should *want* to learn enough to know where other traffic will be. It's part of the proverbial bag of experience.

Well....

I think those of us who are info-spoges have to be aware that not everyone shares the desire to "know all I can."

When I was a young Armor platoon leader, I read Rommel, Guderian, narratives of great tank battles -- the works.

My fellow LTs were more interested more immediate concerns.

Were they less effective leaders? Less competent tank commanders? Less safe? Less in any way?

Nah.

Sure, I've read AFNA -- but I've flown with superior pilots who could give a rat's rear end about Bernoulli.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hmmm...

I think that anyone that can competently drive and talk on a cell phone has the wherewithal to be a Private Pilot.

The requirements climb a bit for IFR.

But just because someone is not instrument rated does NOT mean that they aren't just as good or better than someone who is. Take, for example, someone who always wanted to fly airshows, so they got their private and a VFR-only commercial. They fly like Patty Wagstaff, but they're not instrument rated. They're probably also WAY better pilots than your run-of-the-mill instrument pilot!

Another example would be Alaskan bush pilots. They don't even have the option of going IFR most of the time, so I'd imagine that there are plenty of them who aren't instrument rated. They're also some of the best pilots in existence.