would you fly across Lake MI in a 172 (80nm)

Morne said:
So just to be clear...if I take off in my 182 from a 5000'+ field then I will cross the lake safely?:wink2:

Of course I jest, but I NEVER operate out of a field where I could not abort the take-off.

A twin of any flavor would certainly help over the lake with improved glide slope, even if SE ceiling were a lot lower than cruise.
Click to expand...


Now there's a guy who understands risk management. It appears you like options. There are many many pilots who do take off very short runways and there's nothing wrong with that...but they're betting with their lives (often) that the engine wont quit at just that wrong moment and that's like crossing the lake. You're betting with your life the engine won't quit. I'm not saying that's right or wrong either...just a personal choice is all.
 
Captain said:
Okay. I can't think of one thing I've posted on this or other threads here that are factually inaccurate.

Well, there was that one thread where I was mocking the idea that Alternates are required because of 'lost comms'...but that was satire, and the only instance.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the reversing course on the runway = using the reverse high speed?
 
rainsux said:
Mike,

I fly SAR for USCG AUXAIR, in Michigan. Helos are not "based" at Muskegon
or Chicago. Best case, they are TDY or AOG.

If you are planning to live; then your survival plan needs to allow for helos
coming from TVC or MTC. Both are lengthy transits in a H65.

I'm based at PTK in H15. Stop by sometime ...
Click to expand...

The above, plus this quote of Lance's--"Unfortunately the consequences are very high and your chances for survival if you do go down in the lake are nearly as slim," is why I would never do it.
 
High enough and direction dependent, I might.

I HAVE done the IFR "shark" route (V268 over MANTA) in a single at 17,000 from DC area to Boston area. I did that with reasonable risk calculation, appropriate winds, etc. on a very clear day. On other days, I've chosen the inland route over the mid-Hudson valley.

So, under the right conditions, I would choose to go over the lake. Any hint of doubt or any concern, and I'll go around.
 
wsuffa said:
Any hint of doubt or any concern, and I'll go around.
Click to expand...

Maybe that explains it. My doubts and concerns first occur during the flight
-planning phase, which might be the reason I always go around rather than over.
 
Captain said:
Now there's a guy who understands risk management. It appears you like options. There are many many pilots who do take off very short runways and there's nothing wrong with that...but they're betting with their lives (often) that the engine wont quit at just that wrong moment and that's like crossing the lake. You're betting with your life the engine won't quit. I'm not saying that's right or wrong either...just a personal choice is all.
Click to expand...
I bet with my life that the engine won't quit every time I take off from home base (KVLL), and from my frequent dinner stop 3DA. If it does quit during the time when I'm from 100 to about 500 AGL leaving either field, I don't have very many options.

The risk involved in flying over Lake MI a few times a decade is almost negligibly small compared to the rest of the risk I already accept every time I decide to go flying. I do take steps to minimize that additional risk. I cross at the narrowest point that's not too far out of my way and I get as high as weather conditions allow. But considering that I already accept over an hour of exposure to risk of engine failure on takeoff every year, cumulatively (say 30 seconds per takeoff, 150 risky takeoffs/year minimum), plus maybe 15 hours/year night, it seems kind of silly to go an hour out of my way to avoid, on average, another 5 minutes per year.
 
Count me in as one who thinks that the additional "risks" in this scenario are incalculable and easily lost in the background noise of the total risk assumed every time I rotate from an airfield that isn't located smack dab in the middle of hundreds of square miles of flat and laser-leveled hay fields.

Any advantage to using a different category or class of aircraft or a different strategy to mitigate the risk of flying over cold water should also carry forward to your normal flying over almost any other terrain except for the wheat belt or some salt flat. Thus, again, the risk is almost the same IMO.

Or more plainly stated: I believe that your risk of losing your engine or experiencing some other flight-terminating mechanical emergency over the Great Lakes and then being severely injured or dying in the subsquent meeting with the surface is roughly the same as almost anywhere else. Both are so small as to be laughable (well, maybe not laughable but you know what I mean) and at least with cold water ditching you have the ability to prepare in advance and have what you need to mitigate the consequences (I suppose you can over woods or urban sprawl too - wear a parachute!)

I see a lot of photos of float planes smashed in the trees around here. More of those than reports of wheel planes lost in the water.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Maybe that explains it. My doubts and concerns first occur during the flight
-planning phase, which might be the reason I always go around rather than over.
Click to expand...

I'm not ever going to question or criticize any pilot who makes the decision to go around rather than over based on his/her personal risk assessment.

To me, it's all part of an overall risk assessment that includes winds, plane performance/condition/recent maintenance, fuel, flight altitude, weather, pilot, reliability, alternatives, proximity of (potential) rescue boats, risk tolerance, etc.

It's the same process I'd use deciding whether to fly over mountains, fly at night, or fly in hard IFR conditions. Frankly, there are some IFR conditions that I'd rank as more risky than a long overwater flight.

That said, each pilot has to evaluate the risk on their own. I'll not question the decision of a pilot to *not* fly or *not* fly a given route based on their risk assessment.
 
Last edited:
Nor do I think flying over the lake is an automatic death sentence. But I'm one who makes sure the water temp of the shower is fully warmed before I step in.

wsuffa said:
I'm not ever going to question or criticize any pilot who makes the decision to go around rather than over based on his/her personal risk assessment.

To me, it's all part of an overall risk assessment that includes winds, plane performance/condition/recent maintenance, fuel, flight altitude, weather, pilot, reliability, alternatives, proximity of (potential) rescue boats, risk tolerance, etc.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Nor do I think flying over the lake is an automatic death sentence. But I'm one who makes sure the water temp of the shower is fully warmed before I step in.
Click to expand...

Having camped at places with no hot showers, that seems like a mighty reasonable course of action. :D
 
Flying over the lake is no more a 'death sentence' than flying a part 23 aircraft with only ground roll and a cliff (or big obstacle) behind the departure, or flying over KY, or CO mountains, or, any mountains, or 2,500 over cities at night...or 2,500 ever more than a 9 iron from an airport..

All these things happen. I would like to think the pilots think about the risk. There is no rational reason the risk of a lake crossing should outweigh those other life threatening risks. Death is death and death don't care if it's a crater in the rockies, a corpse in a lake, or s scud runner wrapped in a radio tower. It's all the same to death.

Pilots simply need to categorize and asses risk. Only go where your comfort level takes you, don't end up somewhere you aren't comfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top