I have the chance to fly from Madison, Wi (MSN) to Providence, Ri (PVD) in
July and was wondering about the most favoured route. I will be flying IFR

The most direct seems to be straight across Lake Michigan, north of Detroit
through Lower Ontario in Canada, Buffalo, Albany and then down to PVD. The
aircraft would be a P28-181.

My main questions are:

1) Do many of you guys fly across Lake M? This would only be 90nm coast to
coast and can be no worse than crossing the English Channel from Southampton
to Jersey in a Pa17

2) Overflying Canada is no problem I take it other than an ATC spell with
Toronto Center?

3) Fuel stops at RNP and Hamilton (H30).

The early stop at RNP is to fuel up before going into Canadian airspace and
to get over the excitement of the water crossing. No doubt wanting to
dispose of some more water.

Or would people advise taking the long route south through Indiana and Ohio?

Thoughts appreciated

Chris

Chris,
Last summer, with much preparation and some trepidation, we flew
across Lake Michigan on our way from New York to northerm Minnesota.
We both wore life jackets with our 7mil wetsuits tuck between the seats
for easy retrieval! Departing from Muskegon airport (right next to the
lake), we circled to climb up to 8500' before crossing the lake. The
ATC certainly kept an eye on us, they gave us a call halfway asking
whether we had the shoreline in sight. It took something like 30
minutes to cross the lake in our C177B. On the way back, with
ceilings below 3000', we opted for the long way around the lake through
Chicago area and got sent over a portion of the lake to stay out of
heavies' paths.
Hai Longworth

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Chris,
> Last summer, with much preparation and some trepidation, we flew
> across Lake Michigan on our way from New York to northerm Minnesota.
> We both wore life jackets with our 7mil wetsuits tuck between the seats
> for easy retrieval! Departing from Muskegon airport (right next to the
> lake), we circled to climb up to 8500' before crossing the lake. The
> ATC certainly kept an eye on us, they gave us a call halfway asking
> whether we had the shoreline in sight. It took something like 30
> minutes to cross the lake in our C177B. On the way back, with
> ceilings below 3000', we opted for the long way around the lake through
> Chicago area and got sent over a portion of the lake to stay out of
> heavies' paths.
> Hai Longworth

I had thought about the life jacket but not the immersion suit. Mind you I
would not fancy trying to struggle into a wetsuit either when the plane is
on the water or it is coming down. Crossing the English Channel we wear the
survival suit along with the life jacket when crossing the widest bit or fly
high enough crossing the narrowest bit knowing you can make it to either
shore.

Chris

If it were me, I'd fly east to the lake and then fly VFR along the
shoreline of Lake Michigan below Chicago's class B airspace. You'd get
a great view of Chicago skyline and could stay within gliding distance
of shore, I believe (never actually have done it, but I'd like to).

Crossing Lake Michigan in a single engine landplane, generally if you
have to ask, don't do it. If everything goes ok, all you will be is
nervous. If you engine quits, you will be in the lake, though I suppose
in July you have a chance, there will be all those boats. Lots of
people have done it though. I crossed it once in my landplane but it
was up by Beaver Island, not so far. I went VFR and got flight
following.. Flight went ok. It was April. I didn't have to ask, though.
It was only slightly nerve wracking. Not as bad on the nerves as
getting ice but worse than moderate turbulence.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:53:25 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>I have the chance to fly from Madison, Wi (MSN) to Providence, Ri (PVD) in
>July and was wondering about the most favoured route. I will be flying IFR

Sounds like a fun trip.

>1) Do many of you guys fly across Lake M? This would only be 90nm coast to
>coast and can be no worse than crossing the English Channel from Southampton
>to Jersey in a Pa17

I live in Chicago and never fly across the lake in a single. If
something goes wrong, options are too limited for my liking. Even if
the ditching goes well, hypothermia is a major concern (yes, even in
summer). In the winter, you will perish unless you are wearing a
survival suit.

Fortunately for us near Chicago - you really don't save that much time
crossing the lake. From Madison, the picture is a little worse, but in
proportion to the trip size, not bad... I ran the numbers for your
trip, assuming a 120kt cruise and no-winds.

Across Lake Michigan & Erie (Direct) 799nm, 6:36
Around the lake(s) (JOTv, CGTv, DJBv). 867nm, 7:13

So no-winds, it is about 40 minutes faster to cut the lakes.

>2) Overflying Canada is no problem I take it other than an ATC spell with
>Toronto Center?

You need to be on a flightplan to cross the border. The IFR
flightplan will cover that.

>3) Fuel stops at RNP and Hamilton (H30).

On the way out, you will probably only need 1 fuel stop. Fly up high
and enjoy the ride. Even going around the lakes, it is feasible for
this to be a 6:00 flight with a good tailwind. Of course on the way
home, you will need 2 fuel stops.

I would use airnav.com to plan the flight for the cheapest fuel.

-Nathan

On 21 Feb 2005 16:49:18 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

>If it were me, I'd fly east to the lake and then fly VFR along the
>shoreline of Lake Michigan below Chicago's class B airspace. You'd get
>a great view of Chicago skyline and could stay within gliding distance
>of shore, I believe (never actually have done it, but I'd like to).

Yes, you can stay within gliding distance. ORD B is 3000ft MSL
(roughly 1/2 mile AGL) for most of the lakeshore, so you can certainly
glide a few miles.

>Crossing Lake Michigan in a single engine landplane, generally if you
>have to ask, don't do it. If everything goes ok, all you will be is
>nervous. If you engine quits, you will be in the lake, though I suppose
>in July you have a chance, there will be all those boats.

I have crossed in a twin (summer) and thought the boat traffic was
sparse, especially in the middle, which is where you would need it.

-Nathan

No you don't. I fly from Columbus OH to Marysville MI, crossing Lake
Erie, Ontario and Lake St Clair, VFR without talking to anyone.

Nathan Young wrote:
> You need to be on a flightplan to cross the border. The IFR
> flightplan will cover that.

OK - I'll bite. How do you get around this?

§ 91.707 Flights between Mexico or Canada and the United States.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate a civil
aircraft between Mexico or Canada and the United States without filing
an IFR or VFR flight plan, as appropriate.

Further, I believe Canada's version of the FAA (NavCanada?) requires
VFR flightplans for VFR flights not in the locale of the originating
airport.


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:13:15 GMT, Eric Rood > wrote:

>No you don't. I fly from Columbus OH to Marysville MI, crossing Lake
>Erie, Ontario and Lake St Clair, VFR without talking to anyone.
>
>Nathan Young wrote:
>> You need to be on a flightplan to cross the border. The IFR
>> flightplan will cover that.

Chris,
I have been across Lake Michigan several times in two different
airplanes. One was a PA28-180. It is not a problem if you fly 8500 to
10500. There is a narrow window where you cannot reach land if the
engine quit. The good news is it is going to take you nearly 20 minutes
until you are wet. You need to pay attention to the winds. The turn
around point is not necessarily in the middle. Lake reporting service is
helpful as well. they keep close tabs on you if you are not going IFR. i
have also flown the length of Lake Huron in a Maule. Take care of the
engine and it will take care of you.
Michelle

Chris wrote:

>I have the chance to fly from Madison, Wi (MSN) to Providence, Ri (PVD) in
>July and was wondering about the most favoured route. I will be flying IFR
>
>The most direct seems to be straight across Lake Michigan, north of Detroit
>through Lower Ontario in Canada, Buffalo, Albany and then down to PVD. The
>aircraft would be a P28-181.
>
>My main questions are:
>
>1) Do many of you guys fly across Lake M? This would only be 90nm coast to
>coast and can be no worse than crossing the English Channel from Southampton
>to Jersey in a Pa17
>
>2) Overflying Canada is no problem I take it other than an ATC spell with
>Toronto Center?
>
>3) Fuel stops at RNP and Hamilton (H30).
>
>The early stop at RNP is to fuel up before going into Canadian airspace and
>to get over the excitement of the water crossing. No doubt wanting to
>dispose of some more water.
>
>Or would people advise taking the long route south through Indiana and Ohio?
>
>Thoughts appreciated
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>

I am not landing in Canada. Additionally, I am not using Canadian ATC
nor NavCanada, so I don't incur the quarterly fee.

Nathan Young wrote:
> OK - I'll bite. How do you get around this?
> § 91.707 Flights between Mexico or Canada and the United States.
> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate a civil
> aircraft between Mexico or Canada and the United States without filing
> an IFR or VFR flight plan, as appropriate.
> Further, I believe Canada's version of the FAA (NavCanada?) requires
> VFR flightplans for VFR flights not in the locale of the originating
> airport.

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:13:15 GMT, Eric Rood > wrote:
>>No you don't. I fly from Columbus OH to Marysville MI, crossing Lake
>>Erie, Ontario and Lake St Clair, VFR without talking to anyone.

>>Nathan Young wrote:
>>>You need to be on a flightplan to cross the border. The IFR
>>>flightplan will cover that.

It depends on what airplane you are flying.
The slower the airplane, the longer the "point-of-no-return" zone in the
middle of the lake.
Are you flying into a headwind or tailwind?
Calculate your glide distance and airspeed to determine where you can
and cannot make it from.

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> It depends on what airplane you are flying.
> The slower the airplane, the longer the "point-of-no-return" zone in the
> middle of the lake.
> Are you flying into a headwind or tailwind?
> Calculate your glide distance and airspeed to determine where you can and
> cannot make it from.

I will be in a Pa28-181 and I suspect flying west to east there might be a
tail wind as the norm but will just depend on the weather. In my OP I did
say the trip was in July.

Flying over long stretches of water does not bother me that much as it has
to be done in the UK if you want to go anywhere interesting (besides which
with AVGAS at $7.50 a gallon some routings are just not worth it).

My philosophy is that an airplane engine does not know whether it is over
land or water and as long as you can fly high enough then the margin of
safety increases.

It is why learning to trim the plane for best glide is a really useful
exercise and so important as is the ignoring the temptation to stretch the
glide out. Its worth studying the L/D diagrams to convince yourself that
it does not work.

Chris

> What possible difference could it make whether you have a tailwind or
> headwind en route?

Imagine one slightly less than your cruise speed. It pushes your point
of no return way out there. With a supersonic tailwind, the point of no
return could easily be before you even hit the lake.

While such extreme conditions are not likely, they do illustrate that
wind will make a difference, and it's worth figuring out how much
difference it will make, depending on speed and altitude.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Imagine one slightly less than your cruise speed.

I was talking here, of course, about a headwind. :)

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:44:57 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> What possible difference could it make whether you have a tailwind or
>> headwind en route?
>
>Imagine one slightly less than your cruise speed. It pushes your point
>of no return way out there. With a supersonic tailwind, the point of no
>return could easily be before you even hit the lake.
>

Obviously, your point of "no return" comes sooner. At the same time,
the "point of making the opposite shore" comes earlier, so the risk is
essentially the same. The "window in which you are screwed" stays the
same, it just moves to a different place.



>While such extreme conditions are not likely, they do illustrate that
>wind will make a difference, and it's worth figuring out how much
>difference it will make, depending on speed and altitude.
>
>Jose


Wind only makes a difference in the direction you will turn, if and
when the worst happens. The risk is determined by the (a) gliding
capabilities of the aircraft, (b) your altitude, (c) the quality of
your planning for the occasion and (d) your skills in flying your new
glider.

> Obviously, your point of "no return" comes sooner. At the same time,
> the "point of making the opposite shore" comes earlier, so the risk is
> essentially the same. The "window in which you are screwed" stays the
> same, it just moves to a different place.

That's not the way I see it. With a =headwind= close to your cruise
speed, when you turn around you will be rushed home but if you continue
forward you will take almost forever to get across. So, the point of no
return is farther from your starting point. (you cover more distance
going back in the time it takes you to descend). The reverse is true
with a riproaring =tailwind=. If your tailwind is equal to your cruise
speed, the point of no return is right over your starting point. Faster
than your cruise speed, there is no point of no return - you'd never
make it back.

You are correct that the time to descend will be the same no matter what
the head or tail winds are. However, I do not agree that the time spent
in pucker factor territory is the same. Consider a tailwind that is
half the speed of light. You will be over your destination almost as
soon as you took off, and you won't have time to pucker, let alone make
a standard rate U-turn. With a headwind that is almost equal to your
cruise speed, you will remain in the pucker region almost forever,
assuming you can even get there before running out of fuel.

As to the position (on the ground) of this region, it may well stay the
same size. After all, it's just you flying through still air while the
earth moves underneath you at constant speed. It is good for flight
planning purposes to know (on the map) where you are screwed if the
pilot's cooling fan stops working, but the risk is proportional to time,
not distance. If the winds carry you over the terrible maw of death
quickly, you are less likely to fall into it.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:34:24 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>As to the position (on the ground) of this region, it may well stay the
>same size. After all, it's just you flying through still air while the
>earth moves underneath you at constant speed. It is good for flight
>planning purposes to know (on the map) where you are screwed if the
>pilot's cooling fan stops working, but the risk is proportional to time,
>not distance. If the winds carry you over the terrible maw of death
>quickly, you are less likely to fall into it.

Well, this is like saying that I reduce my chances of having any kind
of aircraft accident by flying less.

Nevertheless, a gliding radius is a gliding radius, and that radius is
moving along with the winds. When the engine quits, whether that wind
a moment ago was a tailwind or a headwind is irrelevant. If you don't
know where the edge of the radius is going to end up at the time you
reach the surface, that surface might be water, not land, when you get
there.

So you may be correct to say that short (tailwind) trips are less
hazardous than long (headwind) trips. Once the engine stops, however,
your chances of reaching land are proportional to your altitude and
L/D of your aircraft, and your flying skills, and knowledge of those
winds. You might be better off gliding straight ahead into a
headwind, or turning to a tailwind, or vice versa.

It would be good to have that figured out ahead of time.

> Well, this is like saying that I reduce my chances of having any kind
> of aircraft accident by flying less.

That's not what I had in mind. I was addressing the size of the pucker
area in more appropriate terms (minutes), and saying that that size does
depend on winds.

> whether that wind
> a moment ago was a tailwind or a headwind is irrelevant

.... true but what is relevant (and related) is whether it will continue
to be a headwind or tailwind. Granted the winds change with altitude as
you descend.

> if you don't
> know where the edge of the radius is going to end up at the time you
> reach the surface, that surface might be water, not land, when you get
> there.

True. (actually it might be water even if you do know... but presumably
you'd be more likely to turn in the right direction!)

> Once the engine stops, however,
> your chances of reaching land are proportional to [the situation]

Yes. I was addressing flight planning, and your contention that the
area of no (good) options is independent of winds. I claim that the
area location =is= dependent on winds, and the area's size in minutes is
also dependent on winds. The first is useful for flight planning (draw
a line on the chart) and the second is useful for a go/no-go decision.
One might be comfortable with a fifteen minute no-option time, but not
with a forty-five minute no-option time.

> It would be good to have that figured out ahead of time.

Yep.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:23:35 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>
>Yes. I was addressing flight planning, and your contention that the
>area of no (good) options is independent of winds. I claim that the
>area location =is= dependent on winds, and the area's size in minutes is
>also dependent on winds. The first is useful for flight planning (draw
>a line on the chart) and the second is useful for a go/no-go decision.
>One might be comfortable with a fifteen minute no-option time, but not
>with a forty-five minute no-option time


The area in square miles that is available to you to glide to at any
given moment is independent of winds. It is an inverted cone around
your aircraft. The geographic center of this cone will be downwind of
the aircraft, but its area does not change. You can glide to the edge
of that cone, period. You can get farther in one direction (downwind)
than another, but that's merely a tradeoff, and you might not
necessarily strive for the furthest possible point (especially if it's
under water.)

The cone will move faster,as the aircraft moves faster over the
ground, so the cone will be completely surrounded by water (the "no
good option" time) for a shorter period, the greater the
groundspeed..

I don't know what you mean when you say the "area's size in minutes
is dependent on winds". One can only alter the distance one can
glide by using winds, by gliding in one direction or another. One
cannot alter the size of the area. What one gains in one direction,
he gives up in the other.

Can you guys continue this discussion in another thread and leave this one
to deal with the original post.

Chris
> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:23:35 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes. I was addressing flight planning, and your contention that the
>>area of no (good) options is independent of winds. I claim that the
>>area location =is= dependent on winds, and the area's size in minutes is
>>also dependent on winds. The first is useful for flight planning (draw
>>a line on the chart) and the second is useful for a go/no-go decision.
>>One might be comfortable with a fifteen minute no-option time, but not
>>with a forty-five minute no-option time
>
>
> The area in square miles that is available to you to glide to at any
> given moment is independent of winds. It is an inverted cone around
> your aircraft. The geographic center of this cone will be downwind of
> the aircraft, but its area does not change. You can glide to the edge
> of that cone, period. You can get farther in one direction (downwind)
> than another, but that's merely a tradeoff, and you might not
> necessarily strive for the furthest possible point (especially if it's
> under water.)
>
> The cone will move faster,as the aircraft moves faster over the
> ground, so the cone will be completely surrounded by water (the "no
> good option" time) for a shorter period, the greater the
> groundspeed..
>
> I don't know what you mean when you say the "area's size in minutes
> is dependent on winds". One can only alter the distance one can
> glide by using winds, by gliding in one direction or another. One
> cannot alter the size of the area. What one gains in one direction,
> he gives up in the other.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeee.


On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:57:05 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>Can you guys continue this discussion in another thread and leave this one
>to deal with the original post.
>
>Chris
> wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:23:35 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes. I was addressing flight planning, and your contention that the
>>>area of no (good) options is independent of winds. I claim that the
>>>area location =is= dependent on winds, and the area's size in minutes is
>>>also dependent on winds. The first is useful for flight planning (draw
>>>a line on the chart) and the second is useful for a go/no-go decision.
>>>One might be comfortable with a fifteen minute no-option time, but not
>>>with a forty-five minute no-option time
>>
>>
>> The area in square miles that is available to you to glide to at any
>> given moment is independent of winds. It is an inverted cone around
>> your aircraft. The geographic center of this cone will be downwind of
>> the aircraft, but its area does not change. You can glide to the edge
>> of that cone, period. You can get farther in one direction (downwind)
>> than another, but that's merely a tradeoff, and you might not
>> necessarily strive for the furthest possible point (especially if it's
>> under water.)
>>
>> The cone will move faster,as the aircraft moves faster over the
>> ground, so the cone will be completely surrounded by water (the "no
>> good option" time) for a shorter period, the greater the
>> groundspeed..
>>
>> I don't know what you mean when you say the "area's size in minutes
>> is dependent on winds". One can only alter the distance one can
>> glide by using winds, by gliding in one direction or another. One
>> cannot alter the size of the area. What one gains in one direction,
>> he gives up in the other.
>

Chris wrote:
> Can you guys continue this discussion in another thread and leave this one
> to deal with the original post.

Well, hey, this is usenet after all, plus I thought your questions had been
pretty well addressed, as usenet questions/answers go.

But OK, I can answer one of your original questions. I have flown across L.
Michigan several times going and coming from Oshkosh, in a PA28-180 and a M20J.

You're going to find some people who say it's no problem, and some people who
say they'd never do such a foolish thing. Everybody has their own limits to the
amount of risk they're willing to assume.

Sorry, I can't answer any of your other questions.

Now addressing the drifted thread...

> wrote:

<snip>

> The cone will move faster,as the aircraft moves faster over the
> ground, so the cone will be completely surrounded by water (the "no
> good option" time) for a shorter period, the greater the
> groundspeed..
>
> I don't know what you mean when you say the "area's size in minutes
> is dependent on winds". One can only alter the distance one can
> glide by using winds, by gliding in one direction or another. One
> cannot alter the size of the area. What one gains in one direction,
> he gives up in the other.

cfeyeeye, what teacherjh means is exactly what you said in the first paragraph I
quoted above. You are just talking past one another talking about different
areas. You are describing the size of the circle once the fan quits. Teacherjh
is describing the size of the no-good-option time.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:23:35 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
> The area in square miles that is available to you to glide to at any
> given moment is independent of winds. It is an inverted cone around
> your aircraft. The geographic center of this cone will be downwind of
> the aircraft, but its area does not change. You can glide to the edge
> of that cone, period. You can get farther in one direction (downwind)
> than another, but that's merely a tradeoff, and you might not
> necessarily strive for the furthest possible point (especially if it's
> under water.)
>
> ...One can only alter the distance one can
> glide by using winds, by gliding in one direction or another. One
> cannot alter the size of the area. What one gains in one direction,
> he gives up in the other.

You're presuming the same glide speed in all cases, aren't you? But in the
presence of wind, you can increase the glide area by diving faster than
best-glide speed if you're heading upwind, and slowing toward best-endurance
speed if you're heading downwind. (In the absence of wind, flying faster or
slower than best-glide speed can only decrease the glide area.)

Also, it's worth mentioning that the foregoing all assumes level terrain.
The presence of wind can change the available glide area--even for a fixed
glide speed--if the terrain is uneven (though that's obviously inapplicable
to a lake).

--Gary

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:34:21 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>You're presuming the same glide speed in all cases, aren't you? But in the
>presence of wind, you can increase the glide area by diving faster than
>best-glide speed if you're heading upwind, and slowing toward best-endurance
>speed if you're heading downwind. (In the absence of wind, flying faster or
>slower than best-glide speed can only decrease the glide area.)


True enough, as any glider pilot knows.

But it seemed to unnecessarily complicate the issue, and mostly
irrelevant to what we were discussing.