motoadve wrote:Here is a very nasty example of the risk when flying single engine IFR no matter how good you are,loosing your engine in IMC would be terrible.
There is no-one to blame in this accident, just terrible luck.


http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Po ... 354566.php

This was right in my next of the woods... Damn close to where I fly. Bummer.

LiveATC recording of the accident. Emergency starts at 9:50.

[url]KBOS-App-South-Jun-28-2015-2130Z.mp3[/url]

Sudden catastrophic engine failure over densely developed area in low IMC with family on board is one of the worst nightmares. One of the reasons I went with the Cirrus. I used to fly with a wife, two kids, and a small dog. All the way from the SW to New England with them. This scenario would have been a chute pull and we would have been staying in a hotel that night, allowing the wine to soothe the jitters of an avoided catastrophe.

Condolences to the loved ones.

Pierre

This is my thought on the topic. Based on your documented progression over the last couple years, I have to assume that you will practice in a controlled environment until you are proficient at single pilot IFR, backcountry flying, or underwater basket weaving. Thus, I have no doubt that you will have an aircraft that is equipped for the task and be trained.

I see the risks of single-pilot IFR as more strategic or operational risks, while backcountry flying as tactical. By that, I mean that flying IFR involves hazards that manifest themselves based on decisions you've made much earlier in the flight. The sequence of events that leads to disaster is a much longer highway with lots of exits that sometimes are hard to identify. For instance, the case study recently published of a Doctor crashing near Dover AFB. He struggled for almost two hours with his equipment and the weather before running out of gas in about the same place he had been two hours prior. Looking farther out for all the factors that will affect the successful or unsuccessful outcome of the flight is essential.

Backcountry flying is more a series of unlinked tactical decisions. You get to the mountains and the winds are too high --> divert away from the mountains. Make a couple passes of the intended area and determine if you can land --> land or don't land. Problems happen on the landing or baulked landing in the tactical environment.

Thus, I think neither is more dangerous than the other as long as you are proficient, equipped correctly (and understand how to use the equipment), and understand where, how, and what the hazards are for the flight. I don't fly long legs of IFR where I'm assured to be in the clouds. That's just too tiring and I'd rather have a beer. I will and have travelled very long distanced single-pilot IFR, even when the destination is IMC/IFR. I damn sure have a plan B and C (similar to GUMP's discussion of backcountry flying I've seen in other threads). The key is to continue to determine what the environment is surrounding all those plans.

Just my take as someone who is much more experienced in IFR/IMC with my single-engine airplane than I am in the backcountry.

Brett

Brett,

The contact tactical situation is always fluid. IFR in military helicopters, we have two pilots. And you guys now have a fancy autopilot system.

Contact,

I was only speaking from the fixed wing side. I wish I was in one of the new fancy helicopters with autopilot. Alas, I was still flying the early model UH with analog gauges. Won't touch one of those for a while now either.

Brett

Brett,

Still, it is nice to have another pilot concur on where we are and what we are doing. And it is nice to be able to shoot the approach at forty knots, especially with a helicopter that only has two and a half hours of fuel.

Jim

Contact, concur.