do u fly single engine ifr?

Question

do you fly in actual imc under ifr rules in a single engine airplane? I talked to some and there is disagreement regarding the safety of doing so.

Answer 1

I'm with Jimmbo. Generally, I avoid hard IMC like the plague in a single. It has more to do with a lack of redundant systems than it does anything else. I have lost full electrical power due to alternator failures, including once at night with battery only lasting a few minutes before the avionics and panel lights went black. I have also dealt with cockpit fires, instrument failures, engine failures, engine fires, and a host of other problems that I would not want to have to face in IMC in an airplane that lacks backup systems.



You'll notice that, generally speaking, most high-time professional airline pilots refuse to fly single engine IMC whereas many lower-time pilots don't seem to have a problem with it. That ought to tell you something.

Answer 2

It depends on what you mean by "actual IMC." IMC comes in many flavors.



Filing IFR just so that you can fly in a straight line without dodging clouds doesn't seem too unsafe to me, even with only one engine. Sometimes it's IMC only from a regulatory standpoint. There's not much risk to that.



On the other hand, hard IMC with practically no visibility between the surface and your service ceiling is risky business. I don't consider that suitable flying weather for a small aircraft with a single reciprocating engine, even though it might be perfectly legal. In particular, I prefer to have VMC plentiful enough near the surface to allow an emergency landing in VFR conditions. At altitude it doesn't really matter what the visibility is, but if you lose the engine and have to descend, it's reassuring to know that you'll break out of the clouds in time to fly towards a suitable landing spot (which may not be one that can accommodate IFR). Of course, you can't guarantee that the air below you is clear once you are in the clouds, but you can plan in advance so as to greatly increase the chances of this being the case for your flight. If it's not the case, well, you just don't go.



Things get more complicated if you are also flying over mountains, bodies of water, etc. I just pile the risks on one side of the balance, and if it tips away from the huge advantage of IFR, the flight is postponed or canceled. This applies to multiengine flight, too, except that multiple engines usually go on the IFR side of the balance (unless the engine-out ceiling is too low for terrain, in which case you're actually worse off than you'd be with one engine).

Answer 3

It is kind of funny to see how experience changes peoples oppinions.



Personally, I don't fly much single engine IFR because of where I live and what I fly. It is usually either ice or thunderstorms around here, maybe 10 good IFR flying days a year, but that is not the case in a most places.



It is an issue of comfort, I have never had any kind of serious issue that has put me in a position to make a forced landing, because of that I am not too opposed to flying in the soup. I just don't enjoy it.



You're asking "is it safe?" The answer is no. Flying isn't safe. Driving isn't safe, Living isn't safe. We do all those things anyways because the risks are acceptable, and we usually do things to minimize the risks. If I'm in a position where I need to fly in some bad weather, a few things have to happen or I just won't do it. I want some recent experience, a few landings, approaches, some navigation work, how much in what amount of time is dependant on the situation, ovbiously never less than what the FAA requires, but it does depend on a lot of things. There are some aiplanes that I would refuse to fly. Maybe not a particular type, but there could just be 5 182's around I could take but there are 2 of them I would just refuse to fly in bad weather for whatever reasons. And the weather can't be too bad, I still want to be able to get down and not have to fly an approach to minimums. If that is the case there better be a close alternate with better weather.



As long as I'm not going out of my comfort zone I'll do it (that goes for anything), everyone has a different level of comfort. Some peoples level of comfort can put them into a dangerous situation, my level of comfort has done it to me before, and then my level of comfort changed.

Answer 4

When I was flying single engine airplanes, I would fly actual IMC on a limited basis, and only with VFR weather (either a good ceiling and visibility below, or clear air somewhere nearby, usually within a half hour.



While an engine failure is an issue, it is a far less frequent problem than a component or system failure. More than a second powerplant, multiengine airplanes provide critical redundant systems that allow me to be comfortable in "hard IFR" conditions.



I have had several alternators or regulators fail, two while in IMC in single engine airplanes. I plan for the battery to be good with minimal draw for about a half hour...

Answer 5

I'll bet the argument had to do with, in the event of an engine failure, would you be able to successfully accomplish a forced approach under IFR conditions?



I guess there's a question with a pilot's trust in the reliability of the aircraft. Traditionally, turbines tend to be far more reliable than piston engines. I know of a few companies running single-engine turbine aircraft in IFR conditions (I applied for jobs at each).



In training I never thought twice about single-engine IFR in IMC conditions, and have flown that on several occasions. It wasn't until after my training unit suffered two engine failures (due to the exact same cause) that many students and instructors began to refuse taking the plane in IMC conditions. Fortunately we discovered what was going on with the engines, and resolved the issue, but the mistrust still lingers. Some people still refuse to take the plane for safety reasons.



However, it is not illegal.

Answer 6

What you are essentially looking for is a 4 seat airplane under $60k that meets your performance criteria when it is at maximim gross weight. To fit that profile you're more or less looking at purchasing something 30 - 50 years old with more than 200hp. There a lot of options but the 1960's vintage Cessna 182 and Cherokee 235 offer about the most bang for the buck, don't have parts availability problems, any A&P can work on them, they are relatively low maintenance and the insurance won't kill you. Since you're not looking at hard IFR capability, go for low engine and propeller time with the overhaul performed by a reputable engine shop over a plane with a higher time engine and a lot of newer avionics. It's a buyers market so take advantage before the economy turns around.

Answer 7

Yes, I have and I do sometimes. I prefer a twin but singles don't create any issues if properly equipped. I have a good friend with a P210, dual vacuums, dual alternators, full dual GPS systems, fully coupled auto pilot, full weather avoidance systems, even TCAS, and full pressurization. he flys many miles ever year in IFR. I would say that particular aircraft is as safe as most twins in IFR! Most engines when properly maintained, aren't an issue.

Answer 8

Yep, actual IFR, and about 15% of my logged time is single engine night. Never gave it a second thought. I've had my certificate more than 20 years, I've never had an in-flight engine problem, other than a vacuum pump failure.

Answer 9

Single engine IFR? Yes! It fits ny navigation skills I Follow the Roads. Been I.F.R since 1956.

Answer 10

Yes, I do so about 2-3 times a week, more or less depending on the weather. In a Cessna 172R.

Answer 11

IT IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE IF THE SHIP IS WELL MAINTAINED AND YOUR SKILLS ARE GOOD.



SOME PILOTS WILL ONLY FLY WITH A MINIMUM ENROUTE CEILING (SAY 1000 FEET) JUST IN CASE THERE IS AN ENGINE FAILURE. THIS WAY THERE WILL BE TIME AFTER DESCENDING BELOW THE CLOUDS TO MAKE A SAFE OFF-AIRPORT LANDING. THE HIGHER THE STALL SPEED, THE HIGHER THE REQUIRED CEILING (IN MY OPINION) FOR MARGIN OF SAFETY.



LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, GOOD JUDGEMENT, TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT MAKE IT VERY SAFE...

Answer 12

Yup. Been doing it for over 30 years to boot.

Answer 13

I probably wouldnt... if i did, would need highish minimas