go, no-go decision - only LIFR en route

[dominikos]

This weekend I was flew back from Florida to Texas. Due to fog and low viz ended up leaving 4 hours after planned departure time. But that’s not what my question is about. When making the decision to fly, I kept seeing flight category for airports en route to be LIFR. This gave me a pause as in case of emergency, I would have to do LIFR approach.

The flight conditions were fine, the clouds were from 300 to 2000/3000 ft. I flew at 8,000. But seeing that I have 300 NM of LIFR conditions below me didn’t feel good. The destination was IFR/MVFR and was not a problem.

I ended up doing the flight, finishing with IFR approach to KMEI and staying there overnight due to a moving front.

so, here is a question. With LIFR prevailing for 300NM of flying, did I make a safe decision to execute the flight? In case of mechanical emergency, it would be difficult / impossible to make a safe landing. The question is not about my ability of doing LIFR approach (probably still an issue) but handling emergency. How do you guys make decision in such conditions? Do you plan for worst case scenario (engine out)? One could argue that flying over LIFR conditions is the same level of risk as night flying over forested area such as Florida panhandle. 

appreciate any thoughts and stories on this.

[carusoam]

Great concern…

Some times… you may use the logic to figure out a different plan…  where all the airports with a good approach are….

Or the risk analysis… to figure out if it is worth going, vs. chances of having an engine out…

My biggest surprise for this situation… was an engine challenge right after lift off….  How to get to the nearest airport with an ILS… without an engine…. 
 

1) Do not have an engine out….

Best regards,

-a-

[toto]

Agree with A. It’s pretty unusual for an airplane engine to crap out at cruise, and if you have enough fuel to reach better weather in one direction or another, this doesn’t sound especially risky to me.

It would be far riskier to depart with low ceilings for a 5nm radius around the airport and then fly 300 miles of CAVU than to depart VFR and fly over 300 miles of low ceilings with a conservative approach at the other end.

 

[PeteMc]

LIFR over that large of a range is luckily pretty rare, but not unheard of.  Add to that one that is very high on my list is ice this time of year (even down south where you were).

A lot of it is a personal decision on the risk.  First is how are you... what is your current mental, physical and currency level (actual, not are you good per the Regs).  How's the plane doing... are there ANY concerns?  And what kind of terrain are you flying over... mountains or flat lands where there's a stronger possibility that when you get below that 300' ceiling you'll find a big flat field.  How far apart are the Airports and what kind of Approaches are you going to have if needed along the way.  Do you have synthetic to help?

It's all about the overall fight.  Does it seem like there's a strong probability you'll get to the other end?  Are there options if you have a "glitch" along the way?  If you loose your engine, is there still a chance you'll still live to talk about it? 

Note for a night Off Airport landing in a more rural area.  If you see a light AIM FOR IT.  You have no idea what the terrain is like below you.  But you know that at the light there can either be people OR at least there is a road leading to that light.  Makes it a LOT easier for the rescuers to get to you.

 

[kortopates]

I’ll add that if you have an engine monitor and know how to use it, it’s extremely rare you’ll experience a catastrophic engine failure without plenty of warning. Sure there are exceptions like an oil hose bursting but even then you’ll still get advance warning seeing your oil pressure decay probably minutes before the engine seized. But most failures don’t have to become catastrophic failures by seeing what’s happening on your engine monitor and responding appropriately; including declining oil pressure. Also Altitude = time when you are having most emergencies except for being on fire!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovecornfields]

9 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I’ll add that if you have an engine monitor and know how to use it, it’s extremely rare you’ll experience a catastrophic engine failure without plenty of warning. Sure there are exceptions like an oil hose bursting but even then you’ll still get advance warning seeing your oil pressure decay probably minutes before the engine seized. But most failures don’t have to become catastrophic failures by seeing what’s happening on your engine monitor and responding appropriately; including declining oil pressure. Also Altitude = time when you are having most emergencies except for being on fire!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Paul,

I’m sure you guys at Savvy have engine monitor data on dozens (hundreds?) of catastrophic engine failures. Are there patterns you’ve seen that we would be likely to pick up in real time and we should be looking out for? I know I get that valve analysis every once in a while but I’d be interested in things that would signal something more imminent. Thank you in advance. Always appreciate your insight.

[Marauder]

I’m one of those guys who did experience a mechanical issue while over LIFR. I had an engine analyzer (one of the original Insight GEMs). It did give me a warning - about 2 minutes before the issue physically became apparent and certainly not enough time to do anything about it.

That event changed my thoughts about flying extended distances over low conditions in a single engine aircraft. I’ll still fly over short distances of LIFR but I want the majority of the route to be at least 1,000 AGL and preferably without mountain obscurations.

You can help mitigate the risks by doing as much as you can to make sure the aircraft is mechanically sound. And don’t forget the pilot needs to be in top working condition as well…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[hais]

A mechanical issue is one risk factor. Your health is the other. 

I once made a go decision, LIFR. I took off quite healthy, and had a rapidly progressing viral infection. I was impaired enough that I wasn't in a position to read the approach plates for an emergency landing..had to fly on for 2 hours while impaired.. 

So now I add the following question to my risk analysis: what if I need to land immediately while impaired? 

Someone should remind Garmin to please let that auto land trickle down...

[hais]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

Hi Paul,

I’m sure you guys at Savvy have engine monitor data on dozens (hundreds?) of catastrophic engine failures. Are there patterns you’ve seen that we would be likely to pick up in real time and we should be looking out for? I know I get that valve analysis every once in a while but I’d be interested in things that would signal something more imminent. Thank you in advance. Always appreciate your insight.

On the way there .... I wish what they know now would find it's way into the next generation of engine analyzers for on-board warning 

https://youtu.be/blJhSQQNfn0

[dominikos]

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

Great concern…

Some times… you may use the logic to figure out a different plan…  where all the airports with a good approach are….

Or the risk analysis… to figure out if it is worth going, vs. chances of having an engine out…

My biggest surprise for this situation… was an engine challenge right after lift off….  How to get to the nearest airport with an ILS… without an engine…. 
 

1) Do not have an engine out….

Best regards,

-a-

That’s why I delayed departure by 4 hours. There was no way I would be able to get back to the field. I only took off after Tampa went IFR which was a short hop from my departure airport and I could see tower at the end of the runway.

[Fly Boomer]

8 hours ago, kortopates said:

Also Altitude = time when you are having most emergencies except for being on fire!

I like altitude too and, when I plan a flight, I'll pick a route that takes me over the most airports, but even in the high teens or low 20s, it's hard to make it between some airports -- at least here in the Midwest.

[201er]

It’s not too much different than flying at night, over mountains, or over water. Yet the vast majority of aviation accidents happen in day VMC. 

You are more likely to have an accident at departure or destination so put greater focus on those.

Stay proficient, take good care of the airplane, and carry lots of fuel. You can mitigate more risk by not fooling around, staying strictly legal, not going below minimums, avoiding stalls, and carrying enough fuel than worrying about what’s underneath you.

[aviatoreb]

Many are saying that the probability of an engine issue in cruise are lower so the worry of LIFR enroute is low.  Perhaps.

But I have had exactly one issue in my flying career and it was exactly that - I had a complete engine failure at altitude enroute, but with altitude and VMC in my favor I made an uneventful dead stick landing at a runway that was maybe 15 miles from my location of failure.  Even before that issue I would cancel a flight if it was LIFR enroute, but now, even more so.

Edited November 30, 2022 by aviatoreb

[GeeBee]

Consider this. Would you do the same mission in a light twin no questions asked? If you lost an engine, are you going to do an approach to minimums on one engine? Would you be able to go around in the event of a missed approach? Really? Would you be able? Now consider that your risk of engine failure in the light twin is twice as high. So you are more likely to do that approach to minimums. Now compare the risks. If you say, "Yes I would do it in a light twin" then you should do it in a single too.

[ilovecornfields]

7 hours ago, hais said:

On the way there .... I wish what they know now would find it's way into the next generation of engine analyzers for on-board warning 

https://youtu.be/blJhSQQNfn0

That video is 1:26. Any chance of getting the TL:DR? Having it in real time as part of the engine analyzer would be ideal.

[jlunseth]

When making these decisions don't forget to look left, right and at your six. We tend to get fixated on the conditions going forward when a 90 degree diversion or even more is available to get out. Once upon a time I was flying home to KFCM from a destination down south somewhere, I think southern MO. I was on the back side of a large storm front that was moving eastward. The front extended  from well down in MO all the way to MN. On the back side was not too bad, but there started to be some build-up without Tstorm activity (that was all well to the east). At first I just increased my altitude - until I got up to 21 or 22k and really did not have the capacity to go much higher (service ceiling is 24k and CA is 22,5). It appeared that going north as I had been, the cloud tops were just going to increase in height and I would reach a point where I would be boxed in, they were growing both in front and in back. What to do? Just then I happened to dip through the top of one and although it was mid-summer the temps at altitude were freezing, so in that short dip I got hit with ice. I radio'd ATC and asked for an immediate 90 degree diversion to Des Moines, which was about 60 mile away, but west was the one direction where the cloud tops were not growing. Landed at Des Moines, re-thought the whole thing, and took a different although longer route home. 

I guess LIFR does not worry me that much, although I certainly respect Marauder's story and experience. When overflying LIFR I like to be high up where I have choices about how to get down. I don't see LIFR as much different from over-mountain, over water, or night flight. They are all a little more risky in a single than at least some multi-engines. But like the icing story above, if I am going to do something like that I try to always set myself up with an out. ATC will give you that 90 to go 60 miles to the west if you ask. Don't let fear of what ATC might say stop you, they are there to help and always will.

[A64Pilot]

If your questioning whether you should or not, the answer is always no. It’s always better to be sitting in the Motel thinking I should have gone than to be trying an ILS in a 100 + 1/4 or even worse letting down hard IFR wondering when ground impact will come.

Having said that people who fly over big nasty mountains, glaciers, extended over cold water etc can wait forever it’s not going to get better.

I can’t think of a single mechanical failure that an engine analyzer could give you enough warning to fly an hour to a suitable approach or VFR weather.

I cant really think of a failure that it can give advance warning the ships gauges can’t. Sure if you lose a cylinder the monitor can tell you which one, but that doesn’t help, a rough running engine best course of action is get down now.

This is why people buy twins and I guess a Cirrus.

Came home one day to find this across the street from my house picture taken from my front porch, a well equipped C-210 even had Radar left Fl, and was headed home up North, made it to about Albany Ga when the crankshaft broke, Wx was I’d guess about 200 Overcast, was trying for the Airport, came up about 3 miles short, you can’t see it but the wings and elevator were heavily damaged going through an Oak tree, the small field they made was pure luck, it was maybe 300 yards long and 50 yards wide. You can see he didn’t even have time to get flaps. They were hurt pretty bad but I think both survived, blood all over the inside of the aircraft.

 

Sh** happens, best if it happens when you can pick a spot to land, but I admit I’ve flown a lot of hard IFR and my number never came up.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Consider this. Would you do the same mission in a light twin no questions asked? If you lost an engine, are you going to do an approach to minimums on one engine? Would you be able to go around in the event of a missed approach? Really? Would you be able? Now consider that your risk of engine failure in the light twin is twice as high. So you are more likely to do that approach to minimums. Now compare the risks. If you say, "Yes I would do it in a light twin" then you should do it in a single too.

I agree and stats back us up, your more likely to die in a twin engine failure than a single, that’s because sometimes loss of control follows the engine failure and those often aren’t survivable.

But twin owners disagree vehemently, that’s the other guy, they have the skills to cope.

[A64Pilot]

I’ve had one complete single engine failure, was able to get it down to a little airport that had no approach. VFR of course, zero warning everything was fine then suddenly Pop the gas generator rotor blew. We took it apart and put it on a truck.

Somewhere in Iowa, coming home from exhibiting the airplane at Oshkosh, airport was behind me.

 

 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Consider this. Would you do the same mission in a light twin no questions asked? . . . . If you say, "Yes I would do it in a light twin" then you should do it in a single too.

Not a valid consideration for the majority of pilots who are not multi rated. I can't male any flight in a twin of any size or weight, regardless ofwhat the weather may or may not be. . . . .

But I do know people who wo t fly at night or over mountains without a second, operational engine. Who needs statistics or data when you have feelings?

[ilovecornfields]

28 minutes ago, Hank said:

Who needs statistics or data when you have feelings?

Well, that’s basically the current state of events in a nutshell. 

[GeeBee]

You have to consider the totality of the situation and what risks are present. Would you fly over an area of below minimum airports where if one tank did not draw you could not exit the area to suitable airports on the remaining tank? Probably not. What about electrical, if your alternator throws craps can you make an approach to minimums before the battery is gone? Me, I got two alternators and two batteries so that is not a consideration, as long as the function of the standby is verified. What about O2 range if you need it? A whole lot of variables which come into play to give one pat answer.

Back in my ETOPS days I know of pilots who would not accept a North Atlantic route without a mid-ocean alternate. They would would take the Victor routes, but that presents its own risks as well.  Of course their toe would draw circles in the sand when you asked about how they fly HNL.

Point is you can never eliminate all risk, flying itself is a risk, but it is how you mitigate foreseeable risks that you can do something about. 

[Utah20Gflyer]

My first thought reading your experience is it is about the same as night cross countries.  I try not to fly cross country at night but if I have a compelling reason I will do it.  Ultimately the extra risk is minimal but if you can fly during the day or not LIFR then I think that's a better idea but if minimum risk was really the highest priority we would fly commercial instead of general aviation. 

[cliffy]

When I got my Mooney (25 yrs ago) I did a study of all night fatal accidents. There were (IIRC) 42 in a 10 yr period of time.

ALL but 2 were from running into a mountain (CFIT at night) SO is night flying more dangerous than day time for the risk of mechanical failures?

Is the risk any greater flying over LIFR areas? 

On the other hand what is your risk tolerance if the crap really hits the fan?

What and where are your "OUTS" every step of the way  ALWAYS leave yourself an OUT! 

What are your single point of failure issues on your airplane? 1 gen/1 battery?  1 vacuum pump? 1 horizon? O2? Avionics condition? 

In my case I've done all the CAT IIIs I ever care to do, CAT Is (200/ 1/2) don't bother me in the least even in the Mooney BUT I don't NEED to do them any more so I am day VFR only by choice.

If you have never been to the edge and know it - you have no idea where the edge is. 

You are not a safe pilot until you are tempered and- You're not tempered - Until you do something in an airplane that scares the living crap out of you and you know YOU did it to yourself!  Flying takes on an entirely different perspective after that. 

At my "age" and experience level my risk tolerance is very adverse to any unnecessary actions,  I'm in this for fun not work now.

If I wanted and had a twin with any reasonable SE ceiling I'd have a different outlook as I have confidence in my SE capability after 50+ years of multi flying. 

But don't need a twin for what I do now.

To each their own. You pays yur' money and yuzz takes yur chances     Everyone has their own risk tolerance' 

[Schllc]

Hard to answer that question without understanding all the circumstances for each flight. 
Mountains, nighttime, populated areas, water, familiarity with the area, currency, reason for low ifr and other weather conditions, etc. 

I tend to avoid the multiplier factors, and gauge the risk of the one or two I consider mitigated risks. 
example, I fly from south Florida to Louisiana regularly.
Low ifr over half of that route, with  plenty or fuel reserve, daytime flight, over a very familiar route, when I am current, would be an acceptable risk for me.  If I added the possibility of encroaching into night flight, marginal range because of load, or possibility of icing, on top of those conditions, I’d probably reschedule. 
I have always thought that this was the genesis of personal minimums.

Make the rules when you don’t have anything riding on them, and then adhere to your minimums.