Lake Michigan - Would you cross it in a single?

[MooneyDriver78]

Fly higher, for me I cross it at 10.5 and was only out of glide distance for less than 5 minutes…for a 3 hour trip my luck would have to be really bad to have an engine out during that 5 minutes.

 

[mandm]

Let’s say Lake Michigan is 65 miles across. At 7000’ with sea level approx 700’ let’s say 6000’ = 1 SM with a glide ratio of 9:1 you might 9 miles. 65 - 18 = 47 miles stretch not within glide distance. That’s about 20-30 minutes.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

At 7000’

If you have the skills to do it on instruments on a hazy summer day.

The problem is that if you plan on LDM (Ludington) to MTW Manitowac and the lake is hazy when you get there your options are to cross at a couple hundred feet or turn left and detour a couple hundred miles.

Years ago, talking to one of the airport geezers, he had come back to Detroit from Oshkosh over the lake. It was hazy so he went to needle, ball, and airspeed (Not IFR, 30's/40's vintage panel). Said it seemed like he had been flying for a long while and should have seen land so he looked up at the magnetic compass and realized that he had drifted on to a heading of south and was flying the length of the lake...

 

[Wagondriver]

We pretty much don't fly mountains at night. Part of that is that there is no ground reference on a night with no moon, the other part is that an engine failure is pretty close to a death sentence. Over the lake? Maybe, I'd probably be uncomfortable but do it anyway.

 

[Hangontight]

Couple of thoughts on this:
1.) I think wearing an inflatable vest is a much better plan than a raft. Once you hit the water (and possibly flip), getting that raft out of the plane and inflated could prove to be very difficult. Not saying it is impossible, just saying that the logistics of that could prove difficult depending on what happens upon hitting the water.
2.) I would feel better in late summer or early fall. Warmer water will buy you time.
3.) Bring a Garmin InReach or other PLB. I would not rely on an ELT
4.) I like my chances at 6-7000 over Lake Michigan in the summer way better then my chances at 2000' over the Chicago Metropolitan area....just sayin'
5.) If it's in the direction of your destination, consider crossing near where the Milwaukee to Muskegon ferry runs. Just gives a little more safety factor in the event you need to ditch.
6.) Probably my largest determining factor: Is it my airplane that I know the maintenance history or is it someone else's or a rental which I don't know much about...

In short, yes I would go in my own plane. I plan to this summer.

 

[NoHeat]

Couple of thoughts on this:
1.) I think wearing an inflatable vest is a much better plan than a raft.

We’re talking about Lake Michigan. It’s very cold water.

Drowning isn’t the biggest risk - it’s hypothermia. Your vest will just keep you afloat while you die anyway in maybe an hour.

 

[Hangontight]

We’re talking about Lake Michigan. It’s very cold water.

Drowning isn’t the biggest risk - it’s hypothermia. Your vest will just keep you afloat while you die anyway in maybe an hour.

I completely agree that hypothermia is the main risk. My point is just that I think a life raft could prove to be difficult to deploy. If it were an option, I'd have both. If I was going to choose between the 2, I'd take a vest. I think it boils down to time of year and water temperate. In late August that lake water can feel like warm bath water for the first 3 feet. In early June you'd freeze in 20 minutes.

 

[PaulS]

Let’s say Lake Michigan is 65 miles across. At 7000’ with sea level approx 700’ let’s say 6000’ = 1 SM with a glide ratio of 9:1 you might 9 miles. 65 - 18 = 47 miles stretch not within glide distance. That’s about 20-30 minutes.

I did this to and from Oshkosh. I felt a little uneasy while over the lake, mainly because I didn't see any boats as I was over the lake. I flew west relatively low, like 4,500 feet. It was hazy and smoky that day, about 5 miles vis, so I was mostly instruments even though vmc conditions over. On the way back I got a little smarter and climbed to 13,500 feet. I had life vests and an airframe parachute. I figured about a 5 or 10 mile stretch not being able to reach the shore when I did it. A couple minutes at 180 knots. But if you have to ditch into that lake I think it would be dangerous. Will probably just go around next time. It didn't really add a significant amount of time to the trip IIRC.

 

[simtech]

We did it in a warrior leaving OSH one year. We had life vest and always had a look out for ships.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

These should make you feel better.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Lakes-Triangle-Jay-Gourley/dp/197968829X
https://www.cgll.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/what-is-the-gl-triangle.pdf

 

[fasteddie]

My plan was 1 mile in front of the mid lake ore carrier.

If it's in the direction of your destination, consider crossing near where the Milwaukee to Muskegon ferry runs. Just gives a little more safety factor in the event you need to ditch.

We did it in a warrior leaving OSH one year. We had life vest and always had a look out for ships.

Been spending a good bit of time at the beach on the North side of Chicago the past couple years. A couple things:

• Lake Michigan takes a long time to warm up, and a long time to cool down. Later summer / early fall is definitely the warmest time to be in the water.
• There is just not a lot of marine traffic in the middle of the lake. After watching some large ships off in the distance, I downloaded one of the marine tracking apps (like FlightRadar24, but for boats). Out in the middle of the lake, there are only the very occasional ore carriers and barge/tugboat combos. An occasional sailboat. For the most part though, it's a lot of empty water. I wouldn't count on being able to find a ship for a rescue.
• The Coast Guard operates helos (MH-60 Jayhawks) out of Traverse City MI and Muskegon MI on the East side of the lake, and Waukegan IL on the West Side. I believe Traverse City is the full-time base, and then Muskegon and Waukegan are only there seasonally. Good to keep in mind where rescue is coming from, should you go for an unscheduled swim.

 

[cessna182b]

We’re talking about Lake Michigan. It’s very cold water.

Drowning isn’t the biggest risk - it’s hypothermia. Your vest will just keep you afloat while you die anyway in maybe an hour.

I did the first half of my PPL training on the East shore of Lake Michigan - long ago. In those days the standing joke around there went something like this:

Pilot to Controller: My engine just quit over the middle of Lake Michigan! - What shall I do?

Controller to Pilot: Repeat after me: "Our Father Who Art in Heaven...."

No doubt still true today.

OTOH, from where I was based (more or less across from Chicago), going around the South end was not much of a detour when headed West.

Dave

 

[masloki]

A Bonanza went down 4 miles from shore and was largely intact. I recall they reported the emergency and gave their location to ATC. Pilot and passenger appeared to have exited the plane after the plane landed on the water and before it sank. Only one man was found, drowned.
https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3044960001

 

[Pi1otguy]

Mostly nope. More so than the glide distance is the habit of water to generate different weather not adequately reported in the nearby METARs.

 

[EdFred]

I'm guessing I've crossed in more times than anyone else on the board. Every single time in a single. Every month of the year. At night. In IMC. At 10000 AGL. At 500AGL. And never have I had a life raft on board. Engine doesn't know it's over water. If you trust it over land but not over water, what kind of clap trap are you flying?

 

[EdFred]

Let’s say Lake Michigan is 65 miles across. At 7000’ with sea level approx 700’ let’s say 6000’ = 1 SM with a glide ratio of 9:1 you might 9 miles. 65 - 18 = 47 miles stretch not within glide distance. That’s about 20-30 minutes.

46nm from LDN to MTW-ish

 

[EdFred]

It still somewhat shocks me every time I’m over Lake Michigan and realize you can’t see land in any direction, even on the severe clear type days.

Then it ain't that clear. If it's not hazy you can always see the other shoreline at altitude.

 

[mandm]

Then it ain't that clear. If it's not hazy you can always see the other shoreline at altitude.

I’ve never seen Michigan from Chicago over the lake.

 

[EdFred]

I’ve never seen Michigan from Chicago over the lake.

Then you weren't high enough or it wasnt clear enough. At 8,500 you should be able to see around 100nm, and it's 72nm from South Haven to Waukegan.

 

[Salty]

I'm guessing I've crossed in more times than anyone else on the board. Every single time in a single. Every month of the year. At night. In IMC. At 10000 AGL. At 500AGL. And never have I had a life raft on board. Engine doesn't know it's over water. If you trust it over land but not over water, what kind of clap trap are you flying?

I trust riding my bicycle on my residential street. My bicycle doesn’t know it’s on the interstate, but I’m still not going to ride it there.

 

[EdFred]

I trust riding my bicycle on my residential street. My bicycle doesn’t know it’s on the interstate, but I’m still not going to ride it there.

So the air is different above water? Got it.

You know that isn't a valid comparison.

 

[Salty]

So the air is different above water? Got it.

You know that isn't a valid comparison.

No, the environment BELOW the aircraft is different. To ignore that is kinda silly. I'm not saying nobody should fly over cold water, but I am saying it's an increased risk.

 

[Skinnybird]

I trust riding my bicycle on my residential street. My bicycle doesn’t know it’s on the interstate, but I’m still not going to ride it there.

This analogy better fits: "would you fly into congested airspace NORDO?" Because it is other users rather than the physical environment that concerns you.

 

[EdFred]

No, the environment BELOW the aircraft is different. To ignore that is kinda silly. I'm not saying nobody should fly over cold water, but I am saying it's an increased risk.

This analogy better fits: "would you fly into congested airspace NORDO?" Because it is other users rather than the physical environment that concerns you.

Yeah, what he said.
Many people won't fly at night in a single, but will fly over the same route during the day. The environment below is exactly the same. Engine doesn't know it's at night. Engine doesn't know it's over water. Does sunlight help an engine run better? Does land below help an engine run better?

 

[Salty]

So you ignore the additional risk imposed by the environment you can't control. That's your choice. If your engine never fails, it won't matter. If it does, it might.

 

[EdFred]

So you ignore the additional risk imposed by the environment you can't control. That's your choice. If your engine never fails, it won't matter. If it does, it might.

That is correct. If it's my time, it's my time whether it be an engine out, or a coronary, or a drunk driver. I don't worry about what I can't control, and don't change my decisions because of it. I do give passengers the option about crossing. I would say it's 85/15 on wanting to go across vs going around. They ask the same question - what kinds of POS are you flying if you're worried about the engine quitting over the span of 15 minutes.

I'll also be headed to Florida next week. I'm not going around the Apps.

 

[Skinnybird]

46nm from LDN to MTW-ish

Each 1000' alt is 9000' of glide distance at 9:1, and a really conservative 1.5 nmi for my big wing. 46 nmi /2 = 23 nmi ('cause engine failure before halfway means turning back-- unless you went to X State instead of the U of X ) 23 / 1.5 = 15,333' with zero "gap." At 10,500' the gap is 7.5 nmi on either side of the middle point. With an optimistic glide ratio of 12:1 the gap is non-existent at 11,500 foot, and 2 nmi on either side of the midpoint at 10,500 foot.

 

[EdFred]

Each 1000' alt is 9000' of glide distance at 9:1, and a really conservative 1.5 nmi for my big wing. 46 nmi /2 = 23 nmi ('cause engine failure before halfway means turning back-- unless you went to X State instead of the U of X ) 23 / 1.5 = 15,333' with zero "gap." At 10,500' the gap is 7.5 nmi on either side of the middle point. With an optimistic glide ratio of 12:1 the gap is non-existent at 11,500 foot, and 2 nmi on either side of the midpoint at 10,500 foot.

Yeah, I've done the math a few times. 10:1, 150kts my wet footprint at 8500 is about 7.5 minutes no wind. Of course there was the time the winds were screaming I actually had a 0 time wet footprint at 11500.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Does land below help an engine run better?

You've clearly never felt the "auto-rough" feature on all singles I've flown. As your outs diminish the engine sure seems to run rougher ...

 

[Salty]

Yeah, I've done the math a few times. 10:1, 150kts my wet footprint at 8500 is about 7.5 minutes no wind. Of course there was the time the winds were screaming I actually had a 0 time wet footprint at 11500.

I must be missing something. How does wind change the "wet footprint"? Seems to me it would be irrelevant.

In a tailwind, wouldn't your reduced ability to glide back to shore behind you just mean the "wet" part starts sooner at the same amount that it ends sooner? And vice-versa for a headwind?

The glide ring is the same size, it only moves with the wind relative to the aircraft.

 

[EdFred]

I must be missing something. How does wind change the "wet footprint"? Seems to me it would be irrelevant.

In a tailwind, wouldn't your reduced ability to glide back to shore behind you just mean the "wet" part starts sooner at the same amount that it ends sooner? And vice-versa for a headwind?

The glide ring is the same size, it only moves with the wind relative to the aircraft.

The glide ring doesn't stay the same size. Glide time is the same time, but the glide ratio changes.

 

[Salty]

The glide ring doesn't stay the same size. Glide time is the same time, but the distances change.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Can you give me more? The distance changes to the minus one direction and an equal amount to the plus in the other. The ring is the same size.

 

[EdFred]

You've clearly never felt the "auto-rough" feature on all singles I've flown. As your outs diminish the engine sure seems to run rougher ...

ANR headset!

Although my one in flight "holy crap" moment did happen over Lake Michigan. I was riding along and there was this super loud buzzing sound. I start trouble shooting everything and then look on the seat next to me. single sheet of paper on a notepad got sucked through the door seal and was buzzing in the wind. Pulled it back in, and the noise stopped.

 

[EdFred]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Can you give me more? The distance changes to the minus one direction and an equal amount to the plus in the other. The ring is the same size.

The distances don't change an equal amount when you change your descent rate though. Best glide isn't always best glide. It is a calculus problem, and not just a simple addition/subtraction.

 

[PaulS]

I trust riding my bicycle on my residential street. My bicycle doesn’t know it’s on the interstate, but I’m still not going to ride it there.

I feel the risk of riding my bicycle on the road is about the same as flying a small airplane. Not relevant to this little side show, but I felt like saying that.

 

[Salty]

The distances don't change an equal amount when you change your descent rate though. Best glide isn't always best glide. It is a calculus problem, and not just a simple addition/subtraction.

You've still given me nothing but your word to expand my knowledge and understanding of the subject. I remain unconvinced that "scary calculus" that you won't explain in any meaningful way addresses my lack of understanding. I'm sincerely looking to understand more, but you're giving me nothing useful to go on.

 

[EdFred]

You've still given me nothing but your word to expand my knowledge and understanding of the subject. I remain unconvinced that "scary calculus" that you won't explain in any meaningful way addresses my lack of understanding. I'm sincerely looking to understand more, but you're giving me nothing useful to go on.

Say my best glide speed gives me a descent rate of 1000fpm and that's a 90kt air speed. At 10k feet AGL, that's 10 minutes of glide time which gets me 15nm before I crash and burn with no wind.

Tossing in a 60kt tailwind from 10k feet (and for simplicity say the winds don't change to 10k to 0) that gets me 150kts at 10 minutes which gets me 25nm of glide. Going the opposite way that's a 30kts which gets me 5nm, Yes if I keep my best glide descent rate it's always going to be a 30nm ring.

However, say I give up 15kts of airspeed to get a 700fpm descent. That gets me 14 minutes of glide time. 14 minutes with a 60kt tail wind (135 GS) gives me 32nm of glide. But I can still keep my 1000 fpm into the wind and still get 5nm.

The numbers will vary from plane to plane. But minimum sink rate might be a consideration depending on the plane and wind.

 

[Salty]

Say my best glide speed gives me a descent rate of 1000fpm and that's a 90kt air speed. At 10k feet AGL, that's 10 minutes of glide time which gets me 15nm before I crash and burn with no wind.

Tossing in a 60kt tailwind from 10k feet (and for simplicity say the winds don't change to 10k to 0) that gets me 150kts at 10 minutes which gets me 25nm of glide. Going the opposite way that's a 30kts which gets me 5nm, Yes if I keep my best glide descent rate it's always going to be a 30nm ring.

However, say I give up 15kts of airspeed to get a 700fpm descent. That gets me 14 minutes of glide time. 14 minutes with a 60kt tail wind (135 GS) gives me 32nm of glide. But I can still keep my 1000 fpm into the wind and still get 5nm.

The numbers will vary from plane to plane. But minimum sink rate might be a consideration depending on the plane and wind.

I think you can boil down what you just said with the simple statement that with enough of a tailwind and altitude, minimum sink might get you further than best glide. That's hurting my head, it kind of sounds plausible, but I don't really understand the whole equation yet. Thanks for providing more explanation.

 

[EdFred]

I think you can boil down what you just said with the simple statement that with enough of a tailwind and altitude, minimum sink might get you further than best glide. That's hurting my head, it kind of sounds plausible, but I don't really understand the whole equation yet. Thanks for providing more explanation.

Pretty much. And it is going to vary aircraft to aircraft.

 

[Country Flier]

I'm guessing I've crossed in more times than anyone else on the board. Every single time in a single. Every month of the year. At night. In IMC. At 10000 AGL. At 500AGL. And never have I had a life raft on board. Engine doesn't know it's over water. If you trust it over land but not over water, what kind of clap trap are you flying?

EdFred at a typical post: