"Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help, I'm in the water'" [Archive]

Larry Dighera

April 28th 05, 06:12 PM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:31:38 -0400, "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com>
wrote in >::

>Here's audio of the ATC starting at
>04:45 - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kmke/MKE-App-Apr-26-05-0030.mp3.

What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
didn't he take _command_ of his situation? From the recordings of his
last VHF and cellular transmissions, it was as if he thought
responsibility for his continuation of life rested in the hands of
others; it was as if he wanted someone else to think of a way to save
him.

Had he immediately confessed his low-fuel situation to ATC, requested
dispatch of emergency rescue craft, fashioned some sort of floatation
device (plastic bag, empty bottle, something...), and made some sort
of survival plan, his chances might have been better.

Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.

Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

Larry Dighera

April 28th 05, 06:19 PM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:49:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:00:17 -0700, "Matt Barrow" > wrote in >:
>
>>> 1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that the aircraft didn't suffer from a fuel leak?
>>
>
>Does that make a difference?

A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.

>The pilot chose a route that was intolerant of either.

Perhaps.

I'm sure you have traversed hostile terrain in your Champ at one time
or another.

RomeoMike

April 28th 05, 06:57 PM

Agreed, he did everything wrong, and although he apparently started the
trip with no trepidation (or use of cerebral cortex), maybe it was panic
that in the end froze his trhought processes as he realized that he was
in deep trouble.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:31:38 -0400, "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com>
> wrote in >::
>
>
>>Here's audio of the ATC starting at
>>04:45 - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kmke/MKE-App-Apr-26-05-0030.mp3.
>
>
> What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
> attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
> ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
> ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
> sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.
>
> Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
> contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
> didn't he take _command_ of his situation? From the recordings of his
> last VHF and cellular transmissions, it was as if he thought
> responsibility for his continuation of life rested in the hands of
> others; it was as if he wanted someone else to think of a way to save
> him.
>
> Had he immediately confessed his low-fuel situation to ATC, requested
> dispatch of emergency rescue craft, fashioned some sort of floatation
> device (plastic bag, empty bottle, something...), and made some sort
> of survival plan, his chances might have been better.
>
> Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
> saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.
>
> Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

Chris

April 28th 05, 07:43 PM

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed, he did everything wrong, and although he apparently started the
> trip with no trepidation (or use of cerebral cortex), maybe it was panic
> that in the end froze his trhought processes as he realized that he was in
> deep trouble.
>

And maybe it was the fact that he was only 20 years old.

Peter R.

April 28th 05, 08:08 PM

Larry wrote:

> A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,

> and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.

What's the risk of speculating the cause of an accident in a Usenet
discussion group? If one makes an ass out of one self, a simple change
of the moniker wipes the slate clean.

Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
a flight. Additionally, the fact that the pilot told ATC he was out
of fuel is illuminating (source: LiveATC's archive of the one-sided
transmissions). How would an inexperienced, solo pilot flying at night
correctly and quickly diagnose a fuel leak while still in the descent?

--
Peter

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

April 28th 05, 08:41 PM

Peter R. wrote:
> Ben, would you mind paraphrasing what Mr. Baum said (although I can
> certainly guess)? I have been trying to avoid installing RealPlayer
> software.

You ought to try Real Alternative. It'll allow you to play those .ram files
without all the spyware.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

April 28th 05, 08:51 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Here's just a few:
> 1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
> 2) Water crossing
> 3) No floatation devices

If he had pants on, he had floatation gear. Get someone to show you how to knot
the legs, then inflate the pants by swinging it over your head from above and
behind you to in front of you in one swift movement. The trapped air will then
hold you up for quite a while like water wings.... and they can always be
reinflated ad nauseum.

His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light.... I always carry
a waterproof light with me in my car and when I fly. Always.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

April 28th 05, 08:56 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>> 1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
>
> Do you have evidence that the aircraft didn't suffer from a fuel leak?

Back in my days of flying Apaches, I always worried about that expandable fuel
cap popping loose and allowing the fuel to syphon out into the wind at night
when I'm unlikely to see it.

Folks need to be a little circumspect about what this unfortunate fellow did and
didn't do. None of us were there. And there but for the grace of God....

I did lots of stuff when I was 20 that I wouldn't do today.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Steven P. McNicoll

April 28th 05, 08:56 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> If he had pants on, he had floatation gear. Get someone to show you how
> to knot the legs, then inflate the pants by swinging it over your head
> from above and behind you to in front of you in one swift movement. The
> trapped air will then hold you up for quite a while like water wings....
> and they can always be reinflated ad nauseum.
>
> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light.... I always
> carry a waterproof light with me in my car and when I fly. Always.
>

If he'd only had a light? If he'd only gone around the lake!

Peter R.

April 28th 05, 09:06 PM

Mortimer wrote:

> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light....

A light? As long as we are wishing here, if only he wore a wetsuit and
life preserver equipped with a McMurdo FastFind Plus PLB and a flashing
beacon.

--
Peter

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

April 28th 05, 09:18 PM

Peter R. wrote:
> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light....
>
> A light? As long as we are wishing here, if only he wore a wetsuit and
> life preserver equipped with a McMurdo FastFind Plus PLB and a flashing
> beacon.

My thought was that a light would stand out like a sore thumb five miles from
shore in the dark. Him surviving was a function of time; he could swim. They'd
didn't find him before he ran out of energy and ability to stay afloat.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Skywise

April 28th 05, 09:20 PM

wrote in news:1114695386.459515.53160
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help, I'm in the water'
> A 20-year-old from Springfield who had hoped to swim in the Olympics
> was flying a single-engine plane to his college in Wisconsin late
> Monday night when he ran out of fuel over Lake Michigan.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050427-115912-7691r.htm

Did anyone else notice this line in the story?

"The Coast Guard called off a search for Mr. Leber on
Tuesday afternoon after scouring 1,300 square feet with
one plane, two helicopters and six boats over 16 hours..."

WOW!!! 1300 square foot search area!!! hehehe

Reporters are soooooooooooooo stupid.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Paul kgyy

April 28th 05, 09:28 PM

The water temperature in Lake Michigan is still in the 40s. Lights,
flotation gear, all useless except to help them find your frozen body
unless your flotation device is a raft with a cover.

When I fly east IFR out of Gary airport, ATC usually sends me out 040,
which puts me about 10 miles off shore while still climbing. I always
hope that if a problem develops I'll have time to head for shore.

Morgans

April 28th 05, 09:33 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote

If he'd only had a light.... I always carry
> a waterproof light with me in my car and when I fly. Always.

Even one better, one of those strobes, like joggers use.
--
Jim in NC

Scott D.

April 28th 05, 09:56 PM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:45:40 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>There sure was a lot of irrelevant information requested by the
>sherriff... I don't think that finding out what his name is will be all
>that helpful in getting a rescue underway... just location, plane type
>and color, injuries, and go look for him.
>
You obviously have never worked within the
Fire/Police/Rescue/Ambulance system. Just because the call taker is
asking these questions, does not mean that help is not already on the
way. Once the call taker inputs just a few items into the system
(type of call, location), it is shipped to the dispatcher who is
already making the call over the radio ( the call taker and dispatcher
is not the same person). As more info is gathered, it is transferred
in real time to the dispatcher so they can relay it to the right
parties.

>Is there any good reason to waste time asking for his name and such,
>when other information (like, since the communications was bad, "say
>twice your location") might be more helpful for a quick response?

It would be nice to know the persons name so that they know who they
are looking for and possibly be able to figure out a route which he
took over the water. If you didn't know who he was and possibly where
he was coming from and where he was going, you just opened up a bigger
area to search. Also, there is a standardization in dispatch
procedures in the US that I would say most agencies follow. In
listening to the line of questioning, I would say that they do follow
those procedures. Again help is on the way, and the call taker can
help calm and reassure the person on the other line that help is on
its way. Yes communications was bad so the call taker was a little
bit confused as to what was going on. Unlike here where we knew what
was going on before we even heard the sound bite, the call taker is
being thrown into a situation that he is having to process this
information quickly and determine the correct response.

I see nothing wrong with what the call taker was doing. There has
been no allegation of delay in the system due to the call taker asking
the questions.

>Surely the sherriff has a callback feature that would ring the cellphone
>if contact was lost (which is most likely due to the phone falling into
>the lake)
>
Sometime yes and some time no. Cell phones are different creatures.
There are times, that if your cell phone is from another geographical
location, it will not show up as anything. There are ways of cross
referencing what towers the cell hits and now with GPS on the phones
it is even better, but it is still not fool proof. Also sometimes,
the phone number that comes back on the AniAli is not the correct
number ( it will display the number to the cell provider) so the call
taker has to ask for that number to make sure that it is correct.
Even when you call from your home number they have to make sure that
it is correct including your address even though it is showing them on
the computer what it is.

I am talking from 13 years experience as a police officer/ 5 years as
an EMT, and 3 years as a marine fire fighter. I spent enough time in
dispatch to know how the system works.

Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher's

George L. Bush

April 28th 05, 10:06 PM

The one day search made me think of JFK Jr. An Admiral said at the time
the search and recovery efforts for JFK Jr. where what would be done
for anyone.

Happy Dog

April 28th 05, 10:07 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help, I'm in the water'
> A 20-year-old from Springfield who had hoped to swim in the Olympics
> was flying a single-engine plane to his college in Wisconsin late
> Monday night when he ran out of fuel over Lake Michigan.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050427-115912-7691r.htm

Bad day. Assuming bad planning, idiotic, of course. I often take the risk
of needing to rely on the plane to keep flying for about 5 minutes when
crossing cold water if I've already been in cruise for awhile. The odds of
the engine quitting in that five minutes of an hour plus long flight are
pretty slim and I'm OK with them. On trips across Lake Ontario in the cold
season, I take the extra time to stay within glide distance of shore.
Knowing you are almost 100% dead five or ten minutes before you lose
consciousness, and while you still have a few minutes to talk to people, is
*such* a lousy way to go. Barring ditching next to a ship (a real
possibility) there is little hope if you're more than a hundred metres from
shore. And, for many, even that's pushing it. I used to go to a private
school where we'd run a few miles and then swim about a hundred feet in a
Northern Ontario lake right up until Xmas break. In +4 degree water, even a
hundred feet wears you right down. I really feel for his survivors
(although their religious reasoning on the affair escapes me).

m

Larry Dighera

April 28th 05, 10:31 PM

On 28 Apr 2005 12:08:01 -0700, "Peter R." >
wrote in om>::

>Larry wrote:
>
>> A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
>> and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.
>
>What's the risk of speculating the cause of an accident in a Usenet
>discussion group? If one makes an ass out of one self, a simple change
>of the moniker wipes the slate clean.

That's why I have considerably more respect for those Usenet posters
who provide accurate personal identification information, and shun
those who post anonymously through a mail-to-news gateway.
Accountability fosters respect.

>Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
>towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
>a flight.

No. I didn't know that. Are you able to cite any evidence of that
sort of NTSB bias?

I know the NTSB has found the cause of a military-civil MAC to be the
fault of the glider pilot who had the right-of-way at the time, so
it's possible.*

>Additionally, the fact that the pilot told ATC he was out
>of fuel is illuminating (source: LiveATC's archive of the one-sided
>transmissions).

How is that illuminating?

>How would an inexperienced, solo pilot flying at night
>correctly and quickly diagnose a fuel leak while still in the descent?

If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
NTSB Identification: LAX86MA186A. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 31421.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, April 20, 1986 in WARNER SPRINGS, CA
Aircraft: LTV AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES A7E, registration: USN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

A ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS-4 GLIDER AND AN LTV A7E JET COLLIDED OVER HOT
SPRINGS MTN, NEAR WARNER SPRINGS, CA. THE A7E WAS ATTEMPTING A RAPID
PULL UP AND THE GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING A NOSE DOWN, 30 DEG RIGHT TURN
WHEN THEY COLLIDED. BOTH AIRCRAFT WERE OPERATING UNDER VISUAL FLT
RULES AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. NEITHER PILOT WAS INJURED.
THE GLIDER LEFT WING OUTBD 3 FT SECTION WAS SEVERED. THE A7E NOSE
COWLING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED AND THE ENGINE INGESTED EXTENSIVE
FIBERGLASS MATERIAL. THE COLLISION OCCURRED AS THE A7E WAS EXECUTING A
SOUTHBOUND TURN ON VR 1257 AND WAS WITHIN THE ROUTE WIDTH (4 NM); THE
GLIDER WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN LIFT ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOT SPRINGS MTN
AND WAS WITHIN VR 1257 ROUTE STRUCTURE. THE A7E PLT HAD INFORMED THE
NECESSARY FLT SERV STATIONS THAT THE ROUTE WAS ACTIVE; THE GLIDER PLT
HAD NOT CONTACTED THE FLT SERV STATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE ROUTE WAS
ACTIVE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
CHECKLIST..POOR..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT

Contributing Factors

TERRAIN CONDITION..MOUNTAINOUS/HILLY

Index for Apr1986 | Index of months

Nathan Young

April 28th 05, 10:36 PM

On 28 Apr 2005 13:28:31 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>The water temperature in Lake Michigan is still in the 40s. Lights,
>flotation gear, all useless except to help them find your frozen body
>unless your flotation device is a raft with a cover.
>
>When I fly east IFR out of Gary airport, ATC usually sends me out 040,
>which puts me about 10 miles off shore while still climbing. I always
>hope that if a problem develops I'll have time to head for shore.

Yikes, that is not a good vector. They won't give you vectors towards
Knox? I would think you would be below most of the ORD and MDW
arrival traffic.

Jose

April 28th 05, 11:10 PM

> If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
> indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

Or incorrect leaning, whether pilot error or malfunction.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

April 28th 05, 11:15 PM

> You obviously have never worked within the
> Fire/Police/Rescue/Ambulance system. Just because the call taker is
> asking these questions, does not mean that help is not already on the
> way.

No, I have never worked in that system, or any rescue system for that
matter. Thanks for the info.

What I would have hoped to hear (sitting in my comfortable chair after
considering this on Usenet for a while) are suggestions to grab a
flashlight, or otherwise how to mark the area for search and rescue.
Granted there probably wasn't enough time, as the plane was already
filling with water...

I have read that one can survive being underwater for hours if the water
is cold enough. Perhaps he could have been saved even if things looked
bleak.

I wonder how high he was flying - mild hypoxia from being at 10,500 feet
crossing the lake (for maximum gliding range during the crossing) might
easily impair one's judgement at a critical time, including the time
leading up to the event, (perhaps preventing him from making appropriate
radio calls earlier)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera

April 28th 05, 11:29 PM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:18:46 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote in
>::

>Him surviving was a function of time; he could swim.

Here's a similar but happier story of Cathy Maready's ordeal:

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/marapr04/Survival.htm
http://gosport.pensacolanewsjournal.com/html/2E2EFADC-33B0-4710-9279-F7CF0B5983A5.shtml
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_2_49/ai_115842813

And another in significantly warmer water:
http://www.equipped.com/1199ditch.htm

kontiki

April 29th 05, 12:02 AM

I'm sure his family will now sue Piper Aircraft.... and the owner
of the FBO he rented it from, etc. etc. Same old story.

gatt

April 29th 05, 12:22 AM

"Skywise" > wrote in message

> Reporters are soooooooooooooo stupid.

Careful with the generalizations. Many people say the same thing about
people who fly small airplanes or "jump from perfectly good aircraft."

-c
"If aircraft were perfect, there wouldn't be parachutes."

Skywise

April 29th 05, 12:59 AM

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>
>> Reporters are soooooooooooooo stupid.
>
> Careful with the generalizations. Many people say the same thing about
> people who fly small airplanes or "jump from perfectly good aircraft."
>
> -c
> "If aircraft were perfect, there wouldn't be parachutes."

I can count on one hand the number of reporters I see regularly
that actually seem to know what they are reporting about. If
I think real hard I might need my second hand.

But I won't get into a debate over it here, so this is my final
say on the subject. :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:27 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
> attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
> ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
> ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
> sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.
>
> Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
> contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
> didn't he take _command_ of his situation?
>

Because he was clueless.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:33 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> A difference? It points out that erroneous conclusions are possible,
> and that speculation as to the cause of aircraft mishaps is risky.
>

Whether he was short of fuel due to poor planning or due to a fuel leak is
irrelevant, the end result of fuel starvation over the lake is death.

>
> I'm sure you have traversed hostile terrain in your Champ at one time
> or another.
>

I've never crossed terrain where loss of power meant my death.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:34 AM

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> And maybe it was the fact that he was only 20 years old.
>

Are you saying 20 year olds are stupid?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:36 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
> indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.
>

Not necessarily. It could indicate he was weak on flight planning or proper
use of the mixture control.

A Lieberman

April 29th 05, 04:05 AM

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:12:54 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
> attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
> ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
> ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
> sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Just curious Larry,

You seem to be very hard on this individual. Have you, yourself been
confronted with a real deal emergency while PIC?

I have had (what others called emergencies) 3 situations where I did what I
was trained to do, and that was aviate, navigate and then communicate. I
had a failed vacuum pump during a night flight, partial engine failure
(lost a cylinder in flight) and an electrical fire.

Only in the cylinder failure did I declare an emergency. I posted my
experience to the rec.aviation.student newsgroup under "first emergency
which is archived in Google. I say this, because I always thought I would
be the type to "panic", yet I listened to what my instructor always said,
and that is to aviate (fly the plane), navigate and then communicate.

On the vacuum pump failure and electrical fire, after aviating and
navigating, I advised ATC of my problems.

From what I heard on the tapes, it appeared to me, the pilot was doing what
he was suppose to be doing. Aviate, navigate and then communicate.

Yes, I agree, he made some questionable decisions in the first place, and
even though the outcome came out with the ultimate price, it really seem to
me, that he did do the three golden rules of aviate, navigate and
communicate.

He made a survivable landing in water at night, which in my opinion, seems
like he was aviating the plane. He knew his position, so he was navigating,
and he was communicating, from everything I heard from the tapes on what
seemed to be a very level, professional level.

Monday night quarter backing is great, but when the pressure cooker is on,
we tend to react much differently then the comforts of our homes.

> Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
> saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.
> Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

Only thing I can agree with any of your posts so far.

Allen
(who pretty much had to change his britches after aviating a "3 cylinder
plane" for 20 minutes.

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 04:42 AM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:27:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
>> attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
>> ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
>> ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
>> sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.
>>
>> Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
>> contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
>> didn't he take _command_ of his situation?
>>
>
>Because he was clueless.
>

So his DE was to blame for granting him an airman certificate?

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 04:50 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> That's why I have considerably more respect for those Usenet posters
> who provide accurate personal identification information, and shun
> those who post anonymously through a mail-to-news gateway.
> Accountability fosters respect.

I am not sure if you are making a general comment or are specifically
directing that at me. If the latter, let me assure you that I only post
through Google while I am at my "non-home daytime location." Newsgroup
ports are blocked at that location, yet I still have to get my aviation
newsgroup fix.

Additionally, I stopped posting my last name in the news reader FROM field
years ago after I was on the receiving end of a rather personal attack by a
newsgroup troll. Regulars here know my last name because it is posted in
Jay's Rogue's Gallery. My contributions to this group, which aren't all
that spectacular, do not need a last name attached and if you don't respect
that, then too bad.

>>Seriously, though, you know that past NTSB statistics are slanted
>>towards the scenario of a pilot failing to ensure adequete fuel before
>>a flight.
>
> No. I didn't know that. Are you able to cite any evidence of that
> sort of NTSB bias?

OK, first off, let me apologize for using the word "slanted." I didn't
mean to imply any NTSB wrong-doing. I simply meant that looking over the
accident reports, one can clearly see that there are many, many more GA
aircraft accidents due to improper fuel planning than there are due to a
mechanical fuel loss.

Search the accident archives for "Fuel Exhaustion" and choose those cases
that have a probable cause.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

I queried the last 10 years, then started pulling up every report in the
resulting set to read the probable cause. I hope you can accept 10 years
worth of the NTSB's 35 or so years of online history as a valid statistical
sample. The news media certainly accepts a far lower percentage for their
political polls.

Within the last 10 years, there were 950 probable cause accident reports
returned with those key words in them. A few reports were not at all
related to fuel exhaustion despite being returned, so I subtracted those
out, leaving about 946.

In the reports I read, there were basically three types of fuel exhaustion:
Pilot's failure to properly determine fuel usage for flight, pilot failing
to switch tanks, and mechanical cause. Since we are basically disagreeing
on mechanical versus pilot error, I lumped fuel mismanagement with improper
fuel planning, seeing that these two are pilot error and not mechanical.

After a bit over an hour I counted about 600 or so that listed the pilot's
improper fuel planning (or similar words to that affect). I stopped
counting at that point, seeing that I reached almost 2/3s of all fuel
exhaustion accidents were attributed to a pilot's improper fuel planning.

I encourage you to conduct the same research.

> How is that illuminating?

It is illuminating to me that a low-time pilot was able to communicate to
ATC that he was out of fuel while still in the descent.

In listening to the ATC recording of this accident, the pilot seemed to be
pretty certain that there was no remaining fuel on board. I do not see how
a GA pilot who is confident in his fuel supply (which would be any pilot
who properly planned consumption, fueled the aircraft, then monitored fuel
usage en route) could conclude with enough confidence to broadcast to ATC
that the engine stopped due to fuel exhaustion. There are many other
reasons an engine can stop besides fuel exhaustion.

Look, I am not saying with certainty that this pilot failed to properly
plan fuel consumption. The NTSB will determine the cause. I am merely
stating that the fact that the pilot knew he was out of fuel was
interesting to me and the NTSB accident archives support the probability
that a fuel exhaustion accident is caused by improper planning, not an
unexpected fuel loss.

> If his actual fuel burn exceeded his planned fuel burn, it would
> indicate fuel leaking via one route or another.

Hmmm... that's not what I learned during the cross country phase of my
initial training. I was taught that actual fuel burn exceeding planned
fuel burn is attributed to improper leaning or stronger-than-forecasted
headwinds.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 04:53 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> You ought to try Real Alternative. It'll allow you to play those .ram files
> without all the spyware.

Very cool. Thanks!

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dave Stadt

April 29th 05, 04:55 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > Here's just a few:
> > 1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan
side.
> > 2) Water crossing
> > 3) No floatation devices
>
>
>
> If he had pants on, he had floatation gear. Get someone to show you how
to knot
> the legs, then inflate the pants by swinging it over your head from above
and
> behind you to in front of you in one swift movement. The trapped air will
then
> hold you up for quite a while like water wings.... and they can always be
> reinflated ad nauseum.
>
> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light.... I always
carry
> a waterproof light with me in my car and when I fly. Always.

At this time of the year neither would have done much good. He probably had
15 minutes at best.

>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dave Stadt

April 29th 05, 04:58 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> Peter R. wrote:
> > Mortimer wrote:
> >
> >> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light....
> >
> > A light? As long as we are wishing here, if only he wore a wetsuit and
> > life preserver equipped with a McMurdo FastFind Plus PLB and a flashing
> > beacon.
>
>
> My thought was that a light would stand out like a sore thumb five miles
from
> shore in the dark. Him surviving was a function of time; he could swim.

For at best a couple of minutes and probably not even that long. A light
would not necessarialy stand out. Unless you have been there at this time
of the year you have no idea how hostile an environment it is.

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 04:59 AM

Jose > wrote:

> Granted there probably wasn't enough time, as the plane was already
> filling with water...

Furthermore, it appears that the officer at first had a hard time hearing
the pilot and was confused when the pilot stated that he was in "Michigan,
Lake Michigan." It sounded to me like the officer responded by thinking
the pilot was in the state, not in the lake.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dave Stadt

April 29th 05, 05:01 AM

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The water temperature in Lake Michigan is still in the 40s. Lights,
> flotation gear, all useless except to help them find your frozen body
> unless your flotation device is a raft with a cover.

Plus we have had high winds in the area since last weekend. The lake is a
turmoil as a result.

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 05:03 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And maybe it was the fact that he was only 20 years old.
>>
>
> Are you saying 20 year olds are stupid?

A flight instructor with whom I spoke about this accident claims he saw a
Discovery Channel documentary that discussed a theory that the
risk-assessment part of the human brain is not fully developed until about
25 years of age. For what that's worth...

The age of the average participant in the various X-Games sporting events
seems to support this theory.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Chris

April 29th 05, 08:07 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And maybe it was the fact that he was only 20 years old.
>>
>
> Are you saying 20 year olds are stupid?

Less experienced. A 43 year old pilot with 3 years time as a pilot might
behave differently than a 20 year old. perhaps more assertive, able and
PREPARED to 'fess up to a problem.

The thing is that it is easy to generalise. From the various bits I have
read, this young man seemed a nice boy and looked to want to please people.

Maybe that attitude (desperately desired in many young people today) made
him call for help too late.

Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of his
way out of the problem was the other.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 12:08 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So his DE was to blame for granting him an airman certificate?
>

How did you make that leap?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 12:13 PM

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of
> his way out of the problem was the other.

Poor planning is a certainty, there was no proper execution out of this
problem.

Jon Kraus

April 29th 05, 01:00 PM

I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
Following" Maybe they could have got there before the plane sank. I
don't even know if that was a possibility. Just a thought.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of
>>his way out of the problem was the other.
>
>
> Poor planning is a certainty, there was no proper execution out of this
> problem.
>
>

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 01:04 PM

Jon Kraus > wrote:

> I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
> before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
> Following"

That would assume he *knew* he had only 30 minutes of fuel left.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

James Robinson

April 29th 05, 01:42 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Chris" wrote:
> >
> > Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of
> > his way out of the problem was the other.
>
> Poor planning is a certainty, there was no proper execution out of this
> problem.

Given the time of the accident (close to midnight) I'm curious about
where he might have dropped in for fuel along the way at that time of
night. He was visiting near Syracuse, NY, and it looks like about 575
nmi to Watertown, WI, which is near the maximum range of a Piper Archer,
obviously depending on configuration.

Is this perhaps simply a case of get-home-itis, and he pushed things too
far in trying to make his destination non-stop that evening?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 02:00 PM

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
> before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
> Following" Maybe they could have got there before the plane sank. I don't
> even know if that was a possibility. Just a thought.
>

I don't know what his route was, but thirty minutes earlier he was probably
over land east of the lake.

john smith

April 29th 05, 02:10 PM

Jon Kraus wrote:
> I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
> before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
> Following" Maybe they could have got there before the plane sank. I
> don't even know if that was a possibility. Just a thought.

Lake Watch Reporting Progam is available through Flight Service.
Contact FSS prior to going feet wet.
Call FSS every 10 minutes and report as necessary (High and Dry, or Mayday!)
Cancel Lake Watch when feet dry.
With the exception of Western Lake Erie where I can island hop within
gliding distance, I will not cross open water without using this service
or or talking to ATC.

Jay Honeck

April 29th 05, 02:15 PM

>I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes before
>running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight Following"
>Maybe they could have got there before the plane sank.

When I lived in Racine, WI (on the western Lake Michigan shore), there was a
huge outcry when the Coast Guard eliminated the rescue helicopter nearby, in
favor of consolidating all search & rescue operations on the east side of
the lake.

I don't remember all the particulars, but I know that the boaters in our
area were really worried, since it would add 30 (or more) minutes to any
helicopter rescue efforts. (They still had boats on the western shore, of
course.)

In this case, having a closer helicopter probably wouldn't have mattered,
but perhaps if he had followed your plan of action it might have?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
I
> don't even know if that was a possibility. Just a thought.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> '79 Mooney 201
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of
>>>his way out of the problem was the other.
>>
>>
>> Poor planning is a certainty, there was no proper execution out of this
>> problem.
>

Nathan Young

April 29th 05, 02:21 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:04:40 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>> I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
>> before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
>> Following"
>
>That would assume he *knew* he had only 30 minutes of fuel left.

If you listen to the ATC tapes (link posted elsewhere in this thread),
he knew he was low on fuel. He indicates that he had run one tank
dry, and only had 3-6 gallons left in the other tank.

Sure it's armchair QB'ing, but at this point, he should have been
relaying exact position and asking for the USCG chopper/ships to be
rolling.

-Nathan

Nathan Young

April 29th 05, 02:22 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:42:54 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>>
>> "Chris" wrote:
>> >
>> > Its all speculation, the poor planning was one issue, poor execution of
>> > his way out of the problem was the other.
>>
>> Poor planning is a certainty, there was no proper execution out of this
>> problem.
>
>Given the time of the accident (close to midnight) I'm curious about
>where he might have dropped in for fuel along the way at that time of
>night. He was visiting near Syracuse, NY, and it looks like about 575
>nmi to Watertown, WI, which is near the maximum range of a Piper Archer,
>obviously depending on configuration.

A westbound 575 nm is definitely outside the range of an Archer.
Eastbound might be do-able with a strong tailwind.

Nathan Young

April 29th 05, 02:24 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:01:28 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> The water temperature in Lake Michigan is still in the 40s. Lights,
>> flotation gear, all useless except to help them find your frozen body
>> unless your flotation device is a raft with a cover.
>
>Plus we have had high winds in the area since last weekend. The lake is a
>turmoil as a result.

I was downtown on Saturday night. Waves were ~4 feet, with many
crashing onto the lakeshore bike path. I wouldn't go on the beach
that night. I can't imagine being in the middle of the lake in that
situation.

Jay Honeck

April 29th 05, 02:41 PM

> I was downtown on Saturday night. Waves were ~4 feet, with many
> crashing onto the lakeshore bike path. I wouldn't go on the beach
> that night. I can't imagine being in the middle of the lake in that
> situation.

When I was a kid in Racine, WI, we would wait for high-wave days (in summer,
of course!) and go ride them on inner tubes.

Even in the hottest weather, that water would numb you in a matter of
minutes. And the waves could easily top 3 - 4 feet, after a storm.

I'm frankly surprised he survived the ditching, and was able to get out on
the wing and make a phone call. I can't imagine how dark it must have been
five miles from shore, and the terror of known and impending doom.
*shudder*
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:39 PM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lake Watch Reporting Progam is available through Flight Service.
> Contact FSS prior to going feet wet.
> Call FSS every 10 minutes and report as necessary (High and Dry, or
> Mayday!)
> Cancel Lake Watch when feet dry.
> With the exception of Western Lake Erie where I can island hop within
> gliding distance, I will not cross open water without using this service
> or or talking to ATC.
>

It's actually called Lake Reporting Service, one of the Hazardous Area
Reporting Services provided by FSS. The descriptions of them are cleverly
hidden in the AIM in the Air Traffic Control chapter.

I suppose it's better than nothing, but radar coverage over southern Lake
Michigan is good and flight following is definitely superior.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 03:42 PM

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you listen to the ATC tapes (link posted elsewhere in this thread),
> he knew he was low on fuel. He indicates that he had run one tank
> dry, and only had 3-6 gallons left in the other tank.
>

Do you know what his position was when he indicated that?

>
> Sure it's armchair QB'ing, but at this point, he should have been
> relaying exact position and asking for the USCG chopper/ships to be
> rolling.
>

That assumes he was able to determine his exact position. What navigational
capabilities did he have aboard?

Dylan Smith

April 29th 05, 03:45 PM

In article >, Peter R. wrote:
> A flight instructor with whom I spoke about this accident claims he saw a
> Discovery Channel documentary that discussed a theory that the
> risk-assessment part of the human brain is not fully developed until about
> 25 years of age. For what that's worth...

I've got less risk averse as I've got older. I was very timid as an 18
year old. These days I'll take many more personal risks! Then again, my
Dad took up motorcycle racing in his 40s, and now races in the Isle of
Man TT (a very demanding road race). So perhaps there is something
genetic in it.

On the topic of water crossing, I cannot undertake any cross country
flights without crossing (usually around 60nm of) the Irish Sea.
However, for crossing any body of water like this, I want:

1. Fuel. Enough to cross the Irish Sea *and* turn around and get back to
whichever shore I left from plus another 45 minutes. So if Ronaldsway is
fogged in (as it's prone to do) on a return trip from the UK, I can turn
around and land somewhere like Blackpool and have some loitering time.
That is the absolute minimum fuel. Leaving, I prefer to have full tanks.

2. Lifejackets that can be worn whilst PIC. There are lifejackets made
for this purpose.

3. A life raft. The Irish Sea probably isn't as cold as Lake Michigan
due to the Gulf Stream, but it's still cold enough to be a problem
especially in the winter.

4. If it's VMC, keep an eye out for boats, ships and oil platforms. If a
ditching has to be made try and ditch as close to the vessel as
possible. (Small boats are probably the best, if they see you they are
probably the most likely to be able to alter course to pick you up)

Ditching is eminently survivable (although very unpleasant) if you're
prepared. There is a study out there that shows successful egress in the
vast (at least 90%) of ditchings. If you have life jackets and rafts,
you're likely to then last long enough for the lifeboat or helicopter
to arrive. Crossing water is NOT nuts, you just have to first not be in
denial that there is a possibility of Bad Stuff Happening and a need to
ditch, and then be prepared for that eventuality. Virtually every pilot
here does it routinely.

It's interesting to note that the last few planes that have gone down
whilst making the crossing from the Isle of Man have been light twins -
one due to fuel exhaustion (the other two in the last few years were one
due to spatial disorientation in IMC and one due to pilot
incapacitation).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith

April 29th 05, 03:54 PM

In article >, OtisWinslow wrote:
> I'm just dumbfounded that someone would make that flight. What
> a sad deal.

(Note I'm pointing this at the generic 'you', not you in particular)

But it happens. No one goes out knowing they'll have an accident - even
conscientious pilots have losses of judgement. *Never* think 'That could
never happen to me' - once you do, you stop thinking about it until you
realised you hadn't been keeping track of time, and ... was the left
tank really up to the tabs? Always be on guard for dumbass mistakes YOU
might make rather than thinking "I'll never {run out of fuel|VMC into
IMC|forget to put the dipstick back in|forget to do a W&B and find the
plane with an aft CofG only after takeoff}"

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith

April 29th 05, 03:56 PM

In article >, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Whether he was short of fuel due to poor planning or due to a fuel leak is
> irrelevant, the end result of fuel starvation over the lake is death.

No it's not - with proper survival gear, a ditching is eminently
survivable. Crossing the lake WITHOUT it means the result is death.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Matt Barrow

April 29th 05, 04:01 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > Here's just a few:
> > 1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan
side.
> > 2) Water crossing
> > 3) No floatation devices
>
>
>
> If he had pants on, he had floatation gear. Get someone to show you how
to knot
> the legs, then inflate the pants by swinging it over your head from above
and
> behind you to in front of you in one swift movement. The trapped air will
then
> hold you up for quite a while like water wings.... and they can always be
> reinflated ad nauseum.
>
> His biggest risk was hypothermia. If he'd only had a light.... I always
carry
> a waterproof light with me in my car and when I fly. Always.

He was an expert swimmer and it took the search boat how long to reach the
area? In 32 degree water he would have lasted only 30 minutes at best; they
would have found his corpse. As he was very lean, he might have had even
less time.

Has anyone ever seen a small inflatable raft (2-4 person) that would be
small enough to carry onboard an aircraft? I figure it would keep you out of
the water.

Matt Barrow

April 29th 05, 04:07 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...

> Folks need to be a little circumspect about what this unfortunate fellow
did and
> didn't do. None of us were there. And there but for the grace of God....
>
> I did lots of stuff when I was 20 that I wouldn't do today.
>

Anyone have any of those "I Learned About Flying From..." stories?

A year ago, I missed plastering myself all over the landscape but the
dumbest of luck AND timing.

I figure that incident used up all my life's supply of luck, so I don't
count on it anymore.

Anyone want details to hobnob over?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 04:13 PM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Given the time of the accident (close to midnight) I'm curious about
> where he might have dropped in for fuel along the way at that time of
> night. He was visiting near Syracuse, NY, and it looks like about 575
> nmi to Watertown, WI, which is near the maximum range of a Piper Archer,
> obviously depending on configuration.
>

A direct route between Hamilton NY and Watertown WI passes just a few miles
north of Muskegon MI. The FBO would have been closed by the time he was in
the area, but they probably have someone on call for after hours fuel.

Jose

April 29th 05, 04:19 PM

>>Sure it's armchair QB'ing, but at this point, he should have been
>> relaying exact position and asking for the USCG chopper/ships to be
>> rolling.
>
> That assumes he was able to determine his exact position. What navigational
> capabilities did he have aboard?

Seems easier enough to see an airplane in the air with strobes on, going
in a known direction, than to find one ditched at night.

True, we don't even know if he had strobes, but it's a good bet.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 04:20 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> No it's not - with proper survival gear, a ditching is eminently
> survivable. Crossing the lake WITHOUT it means the result is death.
>

Yes, but we know he did not have proper survival gear. You have an odd way
of expressing agreement.

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 04:57 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:01:08 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>In 32 degree water he would have lasted only 30 minutes at best

If the water had been 32 degrees F (instead of 40), he could have
walked to shore. :-)

Gene Seibel

April 29th 05, 05:00 PM

Oh, I've got plenty of those stories. I have one about running out of
fuel. http://pad39a.com/gene/breathe.html Compared to this one it was
a non-event because it was daylight, good weather, and over flat land.
An event many years before taught me to be very leery about combining
weather, night, and hostile terrain. Seperately they can be managable,
even if you do something stupid. Combined they can be deadly, even if
you do everything right.

Not sure how luck works in aviation. I hear that the next ball on a
roulette wheel is just as likely to be black, even if the last 50 have
been red. I am doing my best to keep the necessity for luck out of my
flying equation as much as possible. I have done foolish things that I
will never do again. Nevertheless, those things have contributed to my
education in a poignant way that all my instructors' warnings could not
have done. Fortunately, I have survived the first 28 years of my
education. Some aren't so "lucky".
--
Gene Seibel
Confessions of a Pilot - http://pad39a.com/publishing/
Because I fly, I envy no one.

gatt

April 29th 05, 05:12 PM

> >> Reporters are soooooooooooooo stupid.
> >
> > Careful with the generalizations. Many people say the same thing about
> > people who fly small airplanes or "jump from perfectly good aircraft."

> I can count on one hand the number of reporters I see regularly
> that actually seem to know what they are reporting about.

Let me elaborate:

One guy mistook miles for feet, prompting the generalization: "Reporters
are so stupid."

The other guy vectored himself over hostile terrain and ran out of fuel,
prompting search and rescue crews to risk their own lives trying to fish him
out of the drink. Would it be fair to make the generalization "Pilots are
sooooo stupid?"

The reporter made a typo. The pilot made a compounded series of poor
decisions and died.
Hope that the insurance industry doesn't make the same sorts of
generalizations about general aviation.

-c

OtisWinslow

April 29th 05, 05:22 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, OtisWinslow
> wrote:
> But it happens. No one goes out knowing they'll have an accident - even
> conscientious pilots have losses of judgement.

Over water so cold it's not survivable .. at nite .. no flotation equipment
....
inadequate planning so as to have enough fuel considering the winds aloft?
That's not lack of judgement, that's a major meldown. I don't want it to
sound like I'm crucifying the poor kid .. listening to that tape is just
a heart breaker.

Matt Barrow

April 29th 05, 06:06 PM

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Oh, I've got plenty of those stories. I have one about running out of
> fuel. http://pad39a.com/gene/breathe.html

Funny how those assumptions (fuel quantity) can be SOOO mistaken, huh?

> Compared to this one it was
> a non-event because it was daylight, good weather, and over flat land.
> An event many years before taught me to be very leery about combining
> weather, night, and hostile terrain. Seperately they can be managable,
> even if you do something stupid. Combined they can be deadly, even if
> you do everything right.
> Not sure how luck works in aviation. I hear that the next ball on a
> roulette wheel is just as likely to be black, even if the last 50 have
> been red. I am doing my best to keep the necessity for luck out of my
> flying equation as much as possible. I have done foolish things that I
> will never do again. Nevertheless, those things have contributed to my
> education in a poignant way that all my instructors' warnings could not
> have done. Fortunately, I have survived the first 28 years of my
> education. Some aren't so "lucky".
> --

I've never had an engine failure, never came close to running out of gas.

OTOH, when I "tempted fate" it could only have been luck that kept me from
digging a big crater.

About a year ago (May 7th) I was late getting out of a closing in Lawton,
OK. We should have been done by 2:00 PM but didn't get done until nearly
4:30. It was the Friday before Mother's Day, and I damn sure had to be home
or I'd face some dire consequences.

Well, I smiled nicely and departed the closing with documents in hand and
raced to the Lawton Municipal Airport. By arrangement, my plane was fueled
and ready after a proper pre-flight. I was wheels up by 5:00 and I figured
I'd be home in slightly less than three hours since there was not a headwind
this time, even a slight tail wind from the south. I would even beat the
sunset, thought I know
that area and those mountains intimately.

I climbed out, did a small diversion around the west end of Ft. Sill, then
headed direct VFR to my home in Montrose, CO, flying at 10,500 feet. I
figured to climb to 16,500 just before crossing the front range of the
Rockies. Now, I get up every morning by 5:00AM, so I was hanging on the end
of a twelve hour day. I was heading directly into the setting sun, so I
pulled the Rosen sun visor down as far as it would go. It was rather cold at
that altitude, so I turned up the cabin heat a bit. Maybe I turned it up a
bit too much, because
I'm not sure where it was, but somewhere out over the boring, flatlands of
the Texas Panhandle, I fell asleep.

I was jolted awake some time later (7:06PM by the clock -- maybe 50-60
minutes later) due to some light turbulence. I must have slept well, because
I remember being instantly awake and pretty alert -- naturally, my first
thought was "Where the hell am I?".

The GPS said I was about 170nm from Montrose. I hit the "NRST" button and it
said I was like 15 nm west of KTAD, Perry Stokes Airport near Trinidad, CO.
I took stock of the situation, said "Holy, ****", and set up a climb to the
16,500 foot altitude I had originally planned and popped on the oxygen
system.

If you plot on a map the course I was flying, I was about 40nm from, and on
a direct course for Blanca Peak, a lovely attraction with it's 14, 350 top.
With my adrenaline now racing, I fortunately had about 70 minutes of
daylight left due to my westbound route. I got everything back on course and
to the proper altitude, continued on and landed about 20 minutes before
sunset. I was current for night flying, but that night the coming darkness
just seemed more ominous once I got on the ground andthought about it.

If that turbulence had not awakened my, I would have hit somewhere around
Blanca Peak at the 10,500 foot mark. Later, I plotted my poistion and route
on the sections to set exactly what my situation had been. If not quite
there, Blanca Peak is surrounded by three other peaks that soar above the
14,000 foot mark. If had been more extreme, it might have caused and upset
that I could not have recoverd from coming out of a state of sleep.
Passibly, the sun in my eyes also kicked me a bit.

I was lucky that time. I figure that at the least I made about a few
boneheaded moves/decisions/judgements that evening, not the least of which
as "gethomeitis":
1) Late day, long week, completely pooped.
2) Departing on a three hour flight just about 3 1/2 hours from sunset.
3) Not checking my route more carefully (though in this case it wouldn't
have helped). Those peaks are the tallest terrain in
the area and only a ten mile diversion to the north would have put my on a
much better route as pertains to terrain. I now use this general route and
come over much lower terrain. In daylight, a forced landing would have
numerous options that I wouldn't just a few miles further south.
4) Thinking this was a routine flight (not when mountains and descending
darkness come into play).
5) I should have gotten some coffee to bring along. Coffee does work for me
and doesn't make me jumpy or excitable. Well, not usually!! 6) Thinking a
good pre-flight, weather check and full fuel tanks was adequate. I never
even stopped to think of my physiological condition. 7) I felt "rested"
after my "nap", but I wonder now if I should have landed at Trinidad and
stayed the night. I could have been
home by 7:00AM the next morning. Was I re-tempting "fate"?

I didn't tell my wife what happened until some weeks later, but I came damn
close to having some much more fatal consequences, infinitely worse that
what I would have encountered from my wife if I got home Saturday morning.

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Dylan Smith

April 29th 05, 06:42 PM

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen a small inflatable raft (2-4 person) that would be
> small enough to carry onboard an aircraft? I figure it would keep you out of
> the water.

Yes, we carry them all the time. A friend of mine has a six-person
covered raft. In its container, it's smaller than the bag I carry my
charts and other bits and pieces in (although it's considerably denser!)
I would imagine Sporty's sell them over there - here they are pretty
common as you might expect. The one thing they aren't is cheap.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 06:50 PM

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> A westbound 575 nm is definitely outside the range of an Archer.
> Eastbound might be do-able with a strong tailwind.
>

The 1976 "Flying Annual & Buyer's Guide" gives the range with maximum fuel
of the Archer II as 682 NM at 75% power and 838 NM at 55% power. Range
figures are given with no allowance for taxi, climb to cruising altitude, or
reserve.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 06:59 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the topic of water crossing, I cannot undertake any cross country
> flights without crossing (usually around 60nm of) the Irish Sea.
> However, for crossing any body of water like this, I want:
>
> 1. Fuel. Enough to cross the Irish Sea *and* turn around and get back to
> whichever shore I left from plus another 45 minutes. So if Ronaldsway is
> fogged in (as it's prone to do) on a return trip from the UK, I can turn
> around and land somewhere like Blackpool and have some loitering time.
> That is the absolute minimum fuel. Leaving, I prefer to have full tanks.
>
> 2. Lifejackets that can be worn whilst PIC. There are lifejackets made
> for this purpose.
>
> 3. A life raft. The Irish Sea probably isn't as cold as Lake Michigan
> due to the Gulf Stream, but it's still cold enough to be a problem
> especially in the winter.
>
> 4. If it's VMC, keep an eye out for boats, ships and oil platforms. If a
> ditching has to be made try and ditch as close to the vessel as
> possible. (Small boats are probably the best, if they see you they are
> probably the most likely to be able to alter course to pick you up)
>
> Ditching is eminently survivable (although very unpleasant) if you're
> prepared. There is a study out there that shows successful egress in the
> vast (at least 90%) of ditchings. If you have life jackets and rafts,
> you're likely to then last long enough for the lifeboat or helicopter
> to arrive. Crossing water is NOT nuts, you just have to first not be in
> denial that there is a possibility of Bad Stuff Happening and a need to
> ditch, and then be prepared for that eventuality. Virtually every pilot
> here does it routinely.
>
> It's interesting to note that the last few planes that have gone down
> whilst making the crossing from the Isle of Man have been light twins -
> one due to fuel exhaustion (the other two in the last few years were one
> due to spatial disorientation in IMC and one due to pilot
> incapacitation).
>

If you're operating to or from an island crossing water is unavoidable. But
the pilot in this recent episode could have avoided overwater flight
entirely. The distance between Hamilton and Watertown is 580 miles via
direct. A course north of Lake Erie and south of Lake Michigan would add
about 70 miles, a course south of both lakes would add about 80 miles.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 07:04 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the water had been 32 degrees F (instead of 40), he could have
> walked to shore. :-)
>

If the water had been 32 degrees F instead of 40 it would have been 8
degrees colder, but it still would have been liquid.

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 07:12 PM

Long day, thin air, monotony, warm environment, probably little recent
nourishment, ... You used up one of your priceless luck-cards.

It would be interesting to know your wife's response when you related
this story to her.

Thanks for your candor, and I'm glad you lived to share your story.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:06:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>I damn sure had to be home or I'd face some dire consequences.

A PIC _must_ ignore personal and/or social pressure during flight
planning. It's a difficult lesson to learn, and often difficult and
unpopular to scrub a flight in the face of those who make such demands
of the PIC. (JFK Jr comes to mind.) But the PIC bears the final
responsibility for the safety of the flight and those over whom he
navigates. Only the PIC is informed and competent to make the
go/no-go decision. His fear of retribution is often unfounded, and
those he perceives as demanding the flight proceed are usually
thankful he possesses the self-confidence and professional skills and
attitude to do what is prudent and correct in the face of social
pressure.

During preflight planning, whenever we find ourselves considering the
impact our go/no-go decision may have on passengers, business, or
personal relations, it should send up a red flag.

Trent Moorehead

April 29th 05, 07:13 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> I didn't tell my wife what happened until some weeks later, but I came
damn
> close to having some much more fatal consequences, infinitely worse that
> what I would have encountered from my wife if I got home Saturday morning.

Matt, thanks for posting your experience. You're right, loved ones might get
mad if you don't show on time, but they will get over it. Imagine how long
it would take for them to get over your death.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 07:17 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:04:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>If the water had been 32 degrees F instead of 40 it would have been 8
>degrees colder, but it still would have been liquid.

I thought it was fresh water, not salty. Or are you referring to the
agitation from wind keeping it liquid?

Michael 182

April 29th 05, 07:36 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

<excellent post snipped>

> Matt

Amazing story - you are a lucky man. Personally, I think your biggest
mistake is getting up at 5:30 every morning - it can only lead to bad things
:)

Seriously, I fly out of Longmont, and you've given me a new appreciation of
fatigue when flying home.

Michael

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 07:38 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I thought it was fresh water, not salty.
>

It is. Were you under the impression that fresh water exists only as a
solid at 32F?

>
> Or are you referring to the agitation from wind keeping it liquid?
>

That's part of it. Another part of it is the way ice forms on lakes and how
much ice it takes to support how much weight.

Gene Seibel

April 29th 05, 07:55 PM

That's one I haven't done. Came close to sleeping when Sue was flying
the other day, but even that is difficult for me. That well placed bit
of turbulence was certainly a good thing for you.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Peter R.

April 29th 05, 08:27 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> The distance between Hamilton and Watertown is 580 miles via
> direct. A course north of Lake Erie and south of Lake Michigan would add
> about 70 miles, a course south of both lakes would add about 80 miles.

In addition to the extra 80nm, the last leg northwest direct to Watertown
would require flying over or through Chicago O'Hare's class B airspace.

Could be intimidating for some.

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Montblack

April 29th 05, 08:43 PM

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
[snip]
> If that turbulence had not awakened my, I would have hit somewhere around
> Blanca Peak at the 10,500 foot mark. Later, I plotted my poistion and
> route
> on the sections to set exactly what my situation had been. If not quite
> there, Blanca Peak is surrounded by three other peaks that soar above the
> 14,000 foot mark. If had been more extreme, it might have caused and upset
> that I could not have recoverd from coming out of a state of sleep.
> Passibly, the sun in my eyes also kicked me a bit.

On the plus side, we would have had a lively discussion here on the
newsgroups as to what might have happened. <g>

Glad it worked out for you - understatement!

Have done something similar (years ago in a friend's Geo Metro) - heading
east into the morning sun after an all-night drive ...yawning ...then snow
piling up over the hood. I put it in the grass (deep snow) median between
freeway lanes on I-94 in Wisconsin. 500 more feet and I would have hit
something possibly unsurvivable.

Falling asleep and veering off the shoulder, to the right, would have been
very bad - steep bank. I "tobogganed" that Geo in at the only possible place
on that stretch of road where it wouldn't damage the car, or me. Tow truck
yanked it out and I continued my journey, WIDE AWAKE with a healthy shot of
....Doh!

Sometimes it seems as if luck has some added help, doesn't it?

Montblack

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 09:05 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> In addition to the extra 80nm, the last leg northwest direct to Watertown
> would require flying over or through Chicago O'Hare's class B airspace.
>

Or under it, I believe the lowest shelf along the shoreline is 3000 MSL.

>
> Could be intimidating for some.
>

But far less intimidating than a dip in the lake.

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 10:00 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:38:01 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I thought it was fresh water, not salty.
>>
>
>It is. Were you under the impression that fresh water exists only as a
>solid at 32F?
>

I am aware that super cooled water can remain in the liquid state a
few degrees below 32F.

>>
>> Or are you referring to the agitation from wind keeping it liquid?
>>
>
>That's part of it. Another part of it is the way ice forms on lakes and how
>much ice it takes to support how much weight.
>

Right. My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek correction than a
lesson in physics. But I do appreciate your firsthand information.

What really puzzles me is your complete lack of comment on my views of
Ninja-1's decisions in the November 16, 2000 F-16/Cessna 172 MAC. Did
someone contact you with a warning about participating in that
discussion? Or is your reticence a result of your government
employment or something else?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 10:27 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right. My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek correction than a
> lesson in physics. But I do appreciate your firsthand information.
>

I don't think you're in a position to be teaching any physics!

>
> What really puzzles me is your complete lack of comment on my views of
> Ninja-1's decisions in the November 16, 2000 F-16/Cessna 172 MAC. Did
> someone contact you with a warning about participating in that
> discussion? Or is your reticence a result of your government
> employment or something else?
>

I thought I made my position on that episode quite clear.

Larry Dighera

April 29th 05, 10:37 PM

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:27:27 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Right. My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek correction than a
>> lesson in physics. But I do appreciate your firsthand information.
>>
>
>I don't think you're in a position to be teaching any physics!

Why?

>
>>
>> What really puzzles me is your complete lack of comment on my views of
>> Ninja-1's decisions in the November 16, 2000 F-16/Cessna 172 MAC. Did
>> someone contact you with a warning about participating in that
>> discussion? Or is your reticence a result of your government
>> employment or something else?
>>
>
>I thought I made my position on that episode quite clear.
>

Perhaps I missed your article that contained your position. Are you
able to provide the Message-ID number of it?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 29th 05, 10:45 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why?
>

Because your message showed a poor understanding of it.

>
> Perhaps I missed your article that contained your position. Are you
> able to provide the Message-ID number of it?
>

I don't think you missed them, as I recall you responded to them.

Jon Kraus

April 29th 05, 11:10 PM

Sounds like the grace of God to me... Well placed bit of turbulence my
ass.... Somone was looking out for you...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201

Gene Seibel wrote:
> That's one I haven't done. Came close to sleeping when Sue was flying
> the other day, but even that is difficult for me. That well placed bit
> of turbulence was certainly a good thing for you.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
>

Gene Seibel

April 30th 05, 12:55 AM

Certainly a leading candidate in my book for who placed it there. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 02:32 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> A course north of Lake Erie and south of Lake Michigan would add
> about 70 miles, a course south of both lakes would add about 80 miles.

Weather considerations perhaps? I remember crossing the lake twice because the
area around Chicago was IMC with T-storms for a week.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 02:41 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> I don't know what his route was, but thirty minutes earlier he was probably
> over land east of the lake.

No, he would have been well offshore. The lake is about 80 nm wide at that
point, and that's if you're traveling straight across. The news said he would
have been swimming against a 3 knot headwind, so he was fighting higher winds at
altitude. Unless his Archer could true at least 175 knots, he was over water 30
minutes earlier.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 02:43 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qeBce.119$3h7.117@trndny05...
>
> Weather considerations perhaps? I remember crossing the lake twice because
> the area around Chicago was IMC with T-storms for a week.
>

I don't think so. We had high winds in the region over the weekend but no
significant weather.

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 02:57 AM

James Robinson wrote:
>
> Given the time of the accident (close to midnight) I'm curious about
> where he might have dropped in for fuel along the way at that time of
> night.

Grand Rapids is probably the closest to his route on the east side of the lake.
He would've passed right over Muskegon, but it closes at 9:00.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 03:05 AM

Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)

JK

Gene Seibel wrote:

> Certainly a leading candidate in my book for who placed it there. ;)
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
> Because we fly, we envy no one.
>

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 03:07 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever seen a small inflatable raft (2-4 person) that would be
> small enough to carry onboard an aircraft?

Yep. There are lots of them on the market. In a situation such as this, even the
cheapest stuff sold at the local Sports Authority would've been a life saver.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 03:13 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:0nBce.505$yd1.85@trndny01...
>
> No, he would have been well offshore. The lake is about 80 nm wide at that
> point, and that's if you're traveling straight across. The news said he
> would have been swimming against a 3 knot headwind, so he was fighting
> higher winds at altitude. Unless his Archer could true at least 175 knots,
> he was over water 30 minutes earlier.
>

You might want to run that problem again. On a direct route from Hamilton
NY to Watertown WI the lake is about 68 nm wide, not 80. According to the
NTSB he went down six miles east of the lakeshore, so the dry tanks point
was a few miles further east and dependant on altitude. He probably crossed
about 55-60 miles of the lake. The book cruise speed of the Archer II is
139 ktas but he was probably achieving something a bit less than that. The
winds at altitude are also unknown. He may have been over water 30 minutes
prior to engine stoppage, but he was certainly not well offshore.

Matt Barrow

April 30th 05, 03:19 AM

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like the grace of God to me... Well placed bit of turbulence my
> ass.... Somone was looking out for you...

Maybe...but I was over the eastern slope of the Rockies, so turbulence is
rather common that time of day. Even at 10,500 I was only about 2000 feet
AGL when roused from my slumber.

There are loads of stories about pilots that fell asleep and wound up in
farmers fields. Usually, they were several hundred miles from their
destinations when they ran out of fuel and woke up in time to deadstick it
in.

I also recall pilots that dozed off and flew out over the ocean, only to run
out far from shore. I recall one that woke up when he was maybe 300 miles
out over the Atlantic and when he woke he had enough fuel left for about 100
miles (not sure of the numbers, but a similar ratio). Even though he was in
contact with ATC for quite a few minutes, and they got a good triangulation
on him, they never found the wreckage.

I wonder how many CFIT crashes were pilots falling asleep.

OTOH, our family doctor (Dr. Shad was his name...funny the things you
remember) when I was a kid (maybe 8 or so) had a plane and disappeared over
Lake Michigan near Chicago while returning from somewhere back east. That
was the early 60's.

> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
>
> Gene Seibel wrote:
> > That's one I haven't done. Came close to sleeping when Sue was flying
> > the other day, but even that is difficult for me. That well placed bit
> > of turbulence was certainly a good thing for you.

A "Lifesaver" you could say! :~)

> > --
> > Gene Seibel
> > Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
> > Because I fly, I envy no one.
> >
>
>

Peter R.

April 30th 05, 03:27 AM

Jon Kraus > wrote:

> Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
> religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)

So, who was caring for that 20 year-old who ditched in the lake?

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Matt Barrow

April 30th 05, 03:34 AM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
> > Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
> > religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)
>
> So, who was caring for that 20 year-old who ditched in the lake?

Whoever it was, they musta been on a break!

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 03:37 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> You might want to run that problem again. On a direct route from Hamilton
> NY to Watertown WI the lake is about 68 nm wide, not 80.

I've measured the sectional three times now. He went down just east of
Milwaukee, and I get 81 nm from Milwaukee to the east bank.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 03:43 AM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:CbCce.464$c86.208@trndny09...
>
> I've measured the sectional three times now. He went down just east of
> Milwaukee, and I get 81 nm from Milwaukee to the east bank.
>

On a direct route from Hamilton NY to Watertown WI the lake is 68 nm wide.
Perhaps you're using the statute mile scale.

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 04:00 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> On a direct route from Hamilton NY to Watertown WI the lake is 68 nm wide.
> Perhaps you're using the statute mile scale.

Yep. Wrong scale.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 04:02 AM

Musta been his time I guess... Just because he died doesn't mean he
wasn't card for... Just my .02

Peter R. wrote:
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>
>>Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
>>religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)
>
>
> So, who was caring for that 20 year-old who ditched in the lake?
>

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 04:05 AM

I appreciate you telling the story... I have certainly read several jsut
like yours.. They are make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Thanks for sharing Matt.

Jon Kraus

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sounds like the grace of God to me... Well placed bit of turbulence my
>>ass.... Somone was looking out for you...
>
>
>
> Maybe...but I was over the eastern slope of the Rockies, so turbulence is
> rather common that time of day. Even at 10,500 I was only about 2000 feet
> AGL when roused from my slumber.
>
>
> There are loads of stories about pilots that fell asleep and wound up in
> farmers fields. Usually, they were several hundred miles from their
> destinations when they ran out of fuel and woke up in time to deadstick it
> in.
>
> I also recall pilots that dozed off and flew out over the ocean, only to run
> out far from shore. I recall one that woke up when he was maybe 300 miles
> out over the Atlantic and when he woke he had enough fuel left for about 100
> miles (not sure of the numbers, but a similar ratio). Even though he was in
> contact with ATC for quite a few minutes, and they got a good triangulation
> on him, they never found the wreckage.
>
> I wonder how many CFIT crashes were pilots falling asleep.
>
> OTOH, our family doctor (Dr. Shad was his name...funny the things you
> remember) when I was a kid (maybe 8 or so) had a plane and disappeared over
> Lake Michigan near Chicago while returning from somewhere back east. That
> was the early 60's.
>
>
>
>>Jon Kraus
>>'79 Mooney 201
>>
>>Gene Seibel wrote:
>>
>>>That's one I haven't done. Came close to sleeping when Sue was flying
>>>the other day, but even that is difficult for me. That well placed bit
>>>of turbulence was certainly a good thing for you.
>
>
>
> A "Lifesaver" you could say! :~)
>
>
>
>>>--
>>>Gene Seibel
>>>Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
>>>Because I fly, I envy no one.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 04:08 AM

What makes you think that he wasn't? Just because he died doesn't mean
he wasn't being cared for.. Just my .02 though. YMMV

Jon

Peter R. wrote:

> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>
>>Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
>>religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)
>
>
> So, who was caring for that 20 year-old who ditched in the lake?
>

Jose

April 30th 05, 04:29 AM

> The book cruise speed of the Archer II is
> 139 ktas

I don't even get that in the Dakota. You sure that's not MPH?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Barrow

April 30th 05, 05:00 AM

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate you telling the story... I have certainly read several jsut
> like yours.. They are make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
> Thanks for sharing Matt.
>
> Jon Kraus
>

Glad to share!

What I was hoping to do was encourage others here to tell their stories of
screw-ups and how they managed to survive. Rather like Flying Mag's "I
learned about flying from...".

We hear the reports of accidents, so I thought it might be beneficial to
hear the stories of accidents avoided at the last moment.

In my case, the "punch line" is "Don't fly when fatiqued".

Like I said, I was lucky -- 15 more minutes or so and I would have dug a big
crater. In this case of falling asleep, running out of gas would have been
the least of my worries. I still had probably 40 gallons/2.5 hours of fuel
aboard, so the crater I would have dug would have been accompanied by a big
fire ball.

This was the second time in my life I was "lucky". When I was in my 20's, a
bullet ricochet literally parted my hair. I figure not to tempt the Fates
any further.

Along those line, anoyone got any good ghost stories? :~)

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Sounds like the grace of God to me... Well placed bit of turbulence my
> >>ass.... Somone was looking out for you...
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe...but I was over the eastern slope of the Rockies, so turbulence
is
> > rather common that time of day. Even at 10,500 I was only about 2000
feet
> > AGL when roused from my slumber.
> >

Dave Stadt

April 30th 05, 05:07 AM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Kraus wrote:
> > I wonder what would have happened if he would have called 30 minutes
> > before running out of gas and had the Coast Guard giving him "Flight
> > Following" Maybe they could have got there before the plane sank. I
> > don't even know if that was a possibility. Just a thought.
>
> Lake Watch Reporting Progam is available through Flight Service.
> Contact FSS prior to going feet wet.
> Call FSS every 10 minutes and report as necessary (High and Dry, or
Mayday!)
> Cancel Lake Watch when feet dry.
> With the exception of Western Lake Erie where I can island hop within
> gliding distance, I will not cross open water without using this service
> or or talking to ATC.

In this case it would not have helped. Unfortunately, under the
circumstances, he was dead when the engine quit.

George Patterson

April 30th 05, 06:11 AM

Jose wrote:
>> The book cruise speed of the Archer II is 139 ktas
>
> I don't even get that in the Dakota. You sure that's not MPH?

Clarke lists the Archer II cruise speed as 148 mph, which would be about 128 knots.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Morgans

April 30th 05, 06:25 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> If the water had been 32 degrees F instead of 40 it would have been 8
> degrees colder, but it still would have been liquid.
>
It is arguing nits, but I'll play the game you started.

If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.
The wave action has nothing to do with it.

In reality, lakes do not freeze because of wave action, because it keeps the
deeper warmer water mixed with the water at the surface that is trying to
get frozen because of the colder air. When the water just below the surface
is cold enough that it can't keep the water at the surface warm enough, it
starts to freeze.

Water has the unusual property of getting less dense, when it gets to almost
freezing. That is the only thing that keeps lakes from freezing solid, from
the bottom up. Most things get more dense as they get colder, so the cold
sinks to the bottom of the container, but not water.
--
Jim in NC

Gary Drescher

April 30th 05, 11:59 AM

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Amen brother... I don't believe in coincidences any more nor am I a
> religious zealot... I just KNOW that I am being cared for... :-)

But encountering turbulence sometime during a long flight isn't even a
"coincidence". It would be unusual for that *not* to occur.

--Gary

Darrel Toepfer

April 30th 05, 12:12 PM

Peter R. wrote:

> So, who was caring for that 20 year-old who ditched in the lake?

The ones that got him down: the pilot who was relaying his calls to ATC,
the 911 operator who took his phone call after he ditched and lost
aviation radio contact...

He was calm and collected the entire time, I'd say he knew where he was
going and they were already there with him...

Dylan Smith

April 30th 05, 01:06 PM

In article >, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> In this case it would not have helped. Unfortunately, under the
> circumstances, he was dead when the engine quit.

Even if the lake hadn't been so cold, he would be pretty much stuffed. 3
foot waves don't sound a lot, but when you're swimming only your head is
out. At night he could have had absolutely no idea which direction he
should swim unless he could astronavigate (which I suspect he couldn't).
There would be more chances of swimming in the wrong direction instead
of the most direct route to the shore if there's nothing to guide you.
The waves would have completely blocked his view of the land most of the
time, especially as he'd probably go under each wave regardless of how
strong a swimmer he was.

Even in daylight it would be difficult enough, but at least then you
could get an idea of which way to swim from the position of the sun
assuming it wasn't overcast.

The only thing he did right was not to panic, but unfortunately it
didn't help.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 01:08 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't even get that in the Dakota. You sure that's not MPH?
>

All my performance figures came from the 1976 Flying Annual & Buyers Guide,
it gives a cruise speed at 75% power of 139 knots. I'm familiar with the
Archer II, I know it won't go that fast. That's why I pointed out it was a
book figure and that he was achieving a somewhat lower speed.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 01:09 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is arguing nits, but I'll play the game you started.
>
> If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
> giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.
> The wave action has nothing to do with it.
>

So in other words, the physical state of water is a function of temperature
alone?

Dylan Smith

April 30th 05, 01:10 PM

In article >, Jon Kraus wrote:
> Musta been his time I guess... Just because he died doesn't mean he
> wasn't card for... Just my .02

The only person who ultimately directly cares for us when we are solo in
an aircraft is ourselves. No one else. You are the captain of your own
soul as well as your aircraft.
You are the only person looking after yourself in that situation;
remember that. If you expect some divine being to care for you, I think
you're just looking for a grid reference.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Matt Whiting

April 30th 05, 01:11 PM

Morgans wrote:

> Water has the unusual property of getting less dense, when it gets
to almost
> freezing. That is the only thing that keeps lakes from freezing solid, from
> the bottom up. Most things get more dense as they get colder, so the cold
> sinks to the bottom of the container, but not water.

No, that isn't the only thing. The ground stays warmer than the air
during the winter, so water would still freeze from the top down even if
the density didn't change during the phase change.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 01:14 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even if the lake hadn't been so cold, he would be pretty much stuffed. 3
> foot waves don't sound a lot, but when you're swimming only your head is
> out. At night he could have had absolutely no idea which direction he
> should swim unless he could astronavigate (which I suspect he couldn't).
> There would be more chances of swimming in the wrong direction instead
> of the most direct route to the shore if there's nothing to guide you.
> The waves would have completely blocked his view of the land most of the
> time, especially as he'd probably go under each wave regardless of how
> strong a swimmer he was.
>

The lights of the city should be visible.

Jon Kraus

April 30th 05, 01:44 PM

I'll play along even though my most harrowing aviation faux paux is
nothing compared to that of others.

I was a brand new solo pilot in the practice area trying to run through
all the maneuvers. My least favorite being the dreaded departure stall.
"Oh well" I thought let's get this over with. I set up full throttle,
point the nose up and started losing airspeed. As I got the stall speed
I remember thinking "If I don't keep the ball centered I will have
problems" and as soon as that thought was complete in my head it
happened. The wing snapped over and my windscreen was full of the ground
below. I remember thinking "so this is how I am going to die huh.." I
was strangely calm and thinking clearly. I saw the airspeed in the
yellow and heading up. I grabbed the throttle and pulled it to idle. The
nose immediately "popped" up, I leveled the wings, gently brought the
nose to the horizon and flew away.

I told myself "well Jon that is enough practicing for one day" :-) and
I went back to my home airport. The thing that was interesting was that
there was no panic at all. If anything I was angry that I let myself get
into this situation.

I realize now that I was in a spiral dive and not a spin. To this day I
still don't care for departure stalls.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Matt Barrow wrote:

<<< snip >>>
>
> Along those line, anoyone got any good ghost stories? :~)
>
>
>
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like the grace of God to me... Well placed bit of turbulence my
>>>>ass.... Somone was looking out for you...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe...but I was over the eastern slope of the Rockies, so turbulence
>
> is
>
>>>rather common that time of day. Even at 10,500 I was only about 2000
>
> feet
>
>>>AGL when roused from my slumber.
>>>
>
>
>

Dylan Smith

April 30th 05, 01:48 PM

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> The lights of the city should be visible.

If it was dead calm, yes - but when your eyes are perhaps 4 inches above
the water in the trough of a 3-foot wave, and perhaps a couple of inches
below the water at the crest of the 3 foot wave, and the city lights are
6 miles away, there's a good chance you'll never even see them.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Peter R.

April 30th 05, 01:59 PM

Dylan Smith > wrote:

> If it was dead calm, yes - but when your eyes are perhaps 4 inches above
> the water in the trough of a 3-foot wave, and perhaps a couple of inches
> below the water at the crest of the 3 foot wave, and the city lights are
> 6 miles away, there's a good chance you'll never even see them.

How about the reflection of the city lights off the bases of the clouds?

--
Peter

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jeff Shirton

April 30th 05, 02:21 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
> giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.

Sorry, but wrong.

You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is 32",
and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid "frozen".

However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32", which
means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
and becomes water (at that temp.)

But wait... This means that I'm trying to say that water can be both
solid *and* liquid at 32 F? Yes, definitely. It's a trick chemists use
all the time, as a mixture of ice and water will maintain a constant
temp. (of 32, both the ice and the water) until all of the ice melts.

Let me explain this way.

You have a body of water at 32.2 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
it cools to WATER at 32.1 F.

You have a body of water at 32.1 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
it cools to WATER at 32.0 F.

You have a body of water at 32.0 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
it cools to ICE at 32.0 F. The heat lost to change a substance
from liquid at the freezing point to solid AT THE SAME TEMP
is called the "latent heat of fusion". But the point is that during
the change of state, the temperature does not change. The temperature
remains the same.

That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
"instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.

> The wave action has nothing to do with it.

Actually, wave action is kinetic energy. And so a body of
water with wave action will contain more energy than a
stagnant body of water, and so more energy will be needed
to be lost for it to freeze.

> Jim in NC

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. — William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 02:37 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it was dead calm, yes - but when your eyes are perhaps 4 inches above
> the water in the trough of a 3-foot wave, and perhaps a couple of inches
> below the water at the crest of the 3 foot wave, and the city lights are
> 6 miles away, there's a good chance you'll never even see them.
>

How high would a light have to be to be visible from the lake surface? If
he swam towards shore he'd have been swimming toward an antenna farm, some
of those towers are over 1200 AGL. City lights also tend to illuminate the
bottoms of clouds and produce a glow from particulates in the air.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 02:43 PM

"Jeff Shirton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, but wrong.
>
> You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is
> 32",
> and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid "frozen".
>
> However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32", which
> means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
> and becomes water (at that temp.)
>
> But wait... This means that I'm trying to say that water can be both
> solid *and* liquid at 32 F? Yes, definitely. It's a trick chemists use
> all the time, as a mixture of ice and water will maintain a constant
> temp. (of 32, both the ice and the water) until all of the ice melts.
>

You'll also find water vapor at 32F.

>
> Let me explain this way.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.2 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to WATER at 32.1 F.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.1 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to WATER at 32.0 F.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.0 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to ICE at 32.0 F. The heat lost to change a substance
> from liquid at the freezing point to solid AT THE SAME TEMP
> is called the "latent heat of fusion". But the point is that during
> the change of state, the temperature does not change. The temperature
> remains the same.
>
> That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
> "instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
> until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
> than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.
>

Ahh, brings me back to my thermodynamics studies.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 30th 05, 03:17 PM

"Jeff Shirton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Um, you mean there's "humidity"? <g>
>
> And of course, my entire explanation assumes standard pressure.
> And pilots *should* know that pressure is variable, correct?
>

Correct.

Larry Dighera

April 30th 05, 04:16 PM

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:10:57 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>::

>The only person who ultimately directly cares for us when we are solo in
>an aircraft is ourselves. No one else. You are the captain of your own
>soul as well as your aircraft.
>You are the only person looking after yourself in that situation;
>remember that. If you expect some divine being to care for you, I think
>you're just looking for a grid reference.

I couldn't agree more. Here are the words of a survivor of a seven
hour swim in 59 degree water after ditching:

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/marapr04/Survival.htm
Without a flight plan, without radio contact, and without a
flotation device, Maready started swimming west, using Orion's
Belt to guide her toward shore. The weight of her wet clothes felt
as if they were pulling her under. Deciding to swim to shore
rather than drown, Maready removed her shoes, her clothes, and
even her wris****ch, which she could feel creating drag against
the 59-degree-Atlantic current. It was 2200, and the tide was not
in her favor. Her two-mile swim to land now had tripled against
the outgoing tide. In the darkness, she barely saw her hands in
front of her face. Thoughts of South Carolina's coast being second
in the number of shark attacks only to Florida did not comfort
her, and hypothermia was beginning to attack her body.

"Gradually, my body began to shiver. As the shivers worsened, I
noticed my hands were becoming gnarled and stiff. I made myself
keep moving, forced myself to keep up the swimming movements, but,
even as I continued, I could feel my toes crossing, my feet
arching and cramping into grotesque, fixed positions. It was my
body, and what was happening to it terrified me."

Cathy Maready couldn't stop the thoughts of death from entering
her mind, but she refused to give up the will-to-live.

"I thought it might be nice if I spent a little bit of the time I
had left to say goodbye to my family and loved ones. I believe
most people in survival situations would tend to cherish these
times. For me, it was time well spent. As I was saying my
good-byes, the water around me began to warm. My whole world began
to seem warmer. It was invigorating just to think about my loved
ones. I gained new energy, and my arms began to move again, very
slowly, but still moving."

As Maready kept swimming, hallucinations of search boats, rescue
helicopters, and sea monsters started to replace the darkness and
silence of the night. She was exhausted but continued swimming,
with the hallucinations beckoning her to stop. She wanted to stop
and yell for help, but the mere thought of stopping made Maready
feel as if she would sink like a stone. She decided the next time
she would stop swimming was when someone pulled her out of the
water or when her feet touched the sand.

With what she describes as angels pulling her arms forward through
the water and a renewed faith in her heart, Maready eventually
reached shore, a grueling seven and a half hours after the crash.

"Finally, even as I mentally was preparing myself for death, I
felt it. My knees were hitting a sand bar. I knew what it was, but
I was too numb to stand. Almost ready to cry, knowing how close
the shore was, I was forced to swim around the sand bar, out into
deeper water, to reach dry land. Agonizingly, I kept going. My
faith was pushing me; it was pulling me, carrying me to shore. It
was daybreak before I made the beach. I still can hear the oyster
shells cracking under my weight. I still can see the blood flowing
from my cuts, but, at the time, I was too numb to feel a thing."

Maready was found staggering along the beach, suffering from shock
and severe hypothermia. She spent the next three days in intensive
care. When she recovered, specialists were called to review, in
amazement, her medical charts. Chemicals in her body had built up
so high from exertion they literally were off the scale. Three
days later, she was released from the hospital.

http://gosport.pensacolanewsjournal.com/html/2E2EFADC-33B0-4710-9279-F7CF0B5983A5.shtml
"There's just this will that we all have within us, we just go, we
just do what we've gotta do," Maready said with quiet conviction.

Maready said she kept swimming until she started feeling
disconnected from her body. "My head didn't feel like it was
attached anymore. It's a strange feeling, but I could actually
feel my body shutting down. I could feel myself dying."

That's when Maready decided she should start saying goodbye to
everybody. Suddenly her knee hit a sandbar. After swimming in the
cold water of the Atlantic Ocean for seven hours, Maready was too
weak to stand. Her ordeal was nearly over, but if she couldn't
pull herself out of the water, she would risk drowning.

Matt Whiting

April 30th 05, 05:52 PM

Jeff Shirton wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
>>giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.
>
>
> Sorry, but wrong.
>
> You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is 32",
> and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid "frozen".
>
> However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32", which
> means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
> and becomes water (at that temp.)
>
> But wait... This means that I'm trying to say that water can be both
> solid *and* liquid at 32 F? Yes, definitely. It's a trick chemists use
> all the time, as a mixture of ice and water will maintain a constant
> temp. (of 32, both the ice and the water) until all of the ice melts.
>
> Let me explain this way.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.2 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to WATER at 32.1 F.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.1 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to WATER at 32.0 F.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.0 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to ICE at 32.0 F. The heat lost to change a substance
> from liquid at the freezing point to solid AT THE SAME TEMP
> is called the "latent heat of fusion". But the point is that during
> the change of state, the temperature does not change. The temperature
> remains the same.
>
> That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
> "instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
> until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
> than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.
>
>
>>The wave action has nothing to do with it.
>
>
> Actually, wave action is kinetic energy. And so a body of
> water with wave action will contain more energy than a
> stagnant body of water, and so more energy will be needed
> to be lost for it to freeze.

And, to top it all off, I believe that 32F is the freezing point of pure
water. Almost anything added to water can affect the freezing point.
Just how clean is Lake MI anyway? :-)

Matt

Rich Lemert

April 30th 05, 06:42 PM

Morgans wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
>
>>If the water had been 32 degrees F instead of 40 it would have been 8
>>degrees colder, but it still would have been liquid.
>>
>
> It is arguing nits, but I'll play the game you started.
>
> If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
> giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.
> The wave action has nothing to do with it.

Actually, if the water was at 32 degrees, it _could_ be a giant ice
cube, it _could_ be all liquid, or it could be any combination of solid
and liquid in between. The phase transition is not instantaneous - you
still have a lot of energy to remove from the water at 32 degrees in
order to change it to ice.

Rich Lemert

Happy Dog

April 30th 05, 07:36 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message

> Even if the lake hadn't been so cold, he would be pretty much stuffed. 3
> foot waves don't sound a lot, but when you're swimming only your head is
> out. At night he could have had absolutely no idea which direction he
> should swim unless he could astronavigate (which I suspect he couldn't).
> There would be more chances of swimming in the wrong direction instead
> of the most direct route to the shore if there's nothing to guide you.
> The waves would have completely blocked his view of the land most of the
> time, especially as he'd probably go under each wave regardless of how
> strong a swimmer he was.

It's not that bad. You go up and down with the waves. As long as there's
some lights on the shore and no fog, you can navigate. Been out in it
plenty of times.

moo

George Patterson

May 1st 05, 12:42 AM

Dylan Smith wrote:
> In article t>,
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>The lights of the city should be visible.
>
>
> If it was dead calm, yes - but when your eyes are perhaps 4 inches above
> the water in the trough of a 3-foot wave, and perhaps a couple of inches
> below the water at the crest of the 3 foot wave, and the city lights are
> 6 miles away, there's a good chance you'll never even see them.

No, you'll get a glow known as "light pollution" from a city the size of
Milwaukee. The sky in that direction would be distinctly lighter.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Morgans

May 1st 05, 03:42 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It is arguing nits, but I'll play the game you started.
> >
> > If the water of the lake was all indeed at 32 degrees, it would all be a
> > giant ice cube. If it were all at 32.1 degrees, it would all be liquid.
> > The wave action has nothing to do with it.
> >
>
> So in other words, the physical state of water is a function of
temperature
> alone?

Zactly. Waves stir the water, and bring up the warmer water to the surface,
if there is warm enough water down there to keep it from freezing. There is
ultimate proof that waves are not enough, because some winters, the Great
Lakes still freeze over. I'll bet there were waves, when it started to
freeze. The air was cold enough to get the surface temperature down to
32.0, or lower. Period.

Same principle with some boats at marinas that stay in the water all winter.
They put an air bubble pump with the hose under the boat, to keep the water
circulating. It works pretty well.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

May 1st 05, 03:56 AM

"Jeff Shirton" > wrote
>
> Sorry, but wrong.
>
> You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is
32",
> and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid "frozen".
>
> However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32", which
> means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
> and becomes water (at that temp.)

True. It actually needs to get sligtly below 32.0 to freeze.

>
> But wait... This means that I'm trying to say that water can be both
> solid *and* liquid at 32 F? Yes, definitely. It's a trick chemists use
> all the time, as a mixture of ice and water will maintain a constant
> temp. (of 32, both the ice and the water) until all of the ice melts.
>
> You have a body of water at 32.0 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
> it cools to ICE at 32.0 F. The heat lost to change a substance
> from liquid at the freezing point to solid AT THE SAME TEMP
> is called the "latent heat of fusion". But the point is that during
> the change of state, the temperature does not change. The temperature
> remains the same.
>
> That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
> "instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
> until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
> than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.

True, but that has nothing to do with the water temperature. It takes
longer, but that was not part of the arguement. We were dealing with temp
only, not how long it takes, or how much energy has to change hands.

> Actually, wave action is kinetic energy. And so a body of
> water with wave action will contain more energy than a
> stagnant body of water, and so more energy will be needed
> to be lost for it to freeze.

The amount of kinetic energy in the waves, again is not the issue. Not
time, only temperature. When it goes below freezing, it freezes. I don't
give a rat's a** how much energy has to change hands to get to the
temperature. All we were talking about was the final result; measure the
temperature. The end observation is all we were talking about.

Besides, the amount of kinetic energy in waves compared to the energy
exchange to freeze water is negligible. It could be argued that the waves
actually help the water to cool more rapidly, due to the spray evaporating,
and cooling the water by changing states from liquid to vapor.
--
Jim in NC

Jeff Shirton

May 1st 05, 04:49 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

>> You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is
>> 32", and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid
>> "frozen".
>>
>> However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32",
>> which
>> means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
>> and becomes water (at that temp.)
>
> True. It actually needs to get sligtly below 32.0 to freeze.

Sorry, but wrong again.

It will completely freeze *before* going below 32 degrees.

Where do you get your "information" from, anyway?

>> That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
>> "instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
>> until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
>> than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.
>
> True, but that has nothing to do with the water temperature.

Certainly it does.

Change of state doesn't happen until the water is reduced
to 32 degrees.

And then lowering of ice temperature below 32 degrees
doesn't happen until all the surrrounding water (in contact
with the ice) has solidified.

> The amount of kinetic energy in the waves, again is not the issue. Not
> time, only temperature. When it goes below freezing, it freezes.

Wrong again.

When it goes below freezing, it is already *frozen*.

> I don't give a rat's a** how much energy has to change
> hands to get to the temperature.

When one must resort to vulgar language, it is an admission
that you have already lost the argument. You have already
demonstrated your lack of knowledge in this area, I'm afraid
at this point you will need to support your novel ideas with
actual evidence before they will be believed.

> Besides, the amount of kinetic energy in waves compared
> to the energy exchange to freeze water is negligible.

And the latent energy of fusion needed to transform the
liquid water to solid ice is anything *but* "negligible",
and no temperature change happens until the change of
state is complete. That's what you don't seem to understand.

At the melting/freezing point, the energy change ceases to
change the temperature, and *instead* goes towards changing
the state of the water.

And as others have noted, the fact that the lake isn't pure
water throws the "32 degrees" number right out the window.
I don't know where you're getting this "32.1 degrees" or
"slightly below 32 degrees" numbers, but you seem to be
making them up out of thin air.

You might want to review some high school or college
physics textbooks, or else review the following:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22warming+curve%22+water&btnG=Search&meta=http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~kps/HM/LectureNotes/he2004_heat2.ppt#267,17,Water: Warming Curveetc.> Jim in NC--Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dotca<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below and smite thee. — William KershnerChallenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

Happy Dog

May 1st 05, 12:41 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in
> "Jeff Shirton" > wrote
>>
>> Sorry, but wrong.
>>
>> You seem to be basing your argument on "the freezing point of water is
> 32",
>> and assuming that this means that any H2O at 32 will be solid "frozen".
>>
>> However, it is equally true that "the melting point of water is 32",
>> which
>> means that when solid water gets to 32 degrees, it melts (at that temp.)
>> and becomes water (at that temp.)
>
> True. It actually needs to get sligtly below 32.0 to freeze.
>>
>> But wait... This means that I'm trying to say that water can be both
>> solid *and* liquid at 32 F? Yes, definitely. It's a trick chemists use
>> all the time, as a mixture of ice and water will maintain a constant
>> temp. (of 32, both the ice and the water) until all of the ice melts.
>>
>> You have a body of water at 32.0 F. If you remove sufficient heat,
>> it cools to ICE at 32.0 F. The heat lost to change a substance
>> from liquid at the freezing point to solid AT THE SAME TEMP
>> is called the "latent heat of fusion". But the point is that during
>> the change of state, the temperature does not change. The temperature
>> remains the same.
>>
>> That is to say, once water reaches the freezing point, it doesn't
>> "instantly" change to ice. More heat is needed to be released
>> until it to solidify, and the latent heat of fusion is *much* more
>> than the heat needed to be lost to reduce temp.
>
> True, but that has nothing to do with the water temperature. It takes
> longer, but that was not part of the arguement. We were dealing with temp
> only, not how long it takes, or how much energy has to change hands.
>
>> Actually, wave action is kinetic energy. And so a body of
>> water with wave action will contain more energy than a
>> stagnant body of water, and so more energy will be needed
>> to be lost for it to freeze.
>
> The amount of kinetic energy in the waves, again is not the issue. Not
> time, only temperature. When it goes below freezing, it freezes. I don't
> give a rat's a** how much energy has to change hands to get to the
> temperature. All we were talking about was the final result; measure the
> temperature. The end observation is all we were talking about.
>
> Besides, the amount of kinetic energy in waves compared to the energy
> exchange to freeze water is negligible. It could be argued that the waves
> actually help the water to cool more rapidly, due to the spray
> evaporating,
> and cooling the water by changing states from liquid to vapor.
> --
Eloquently written. And wrong. Latent heat is your considerate friend.

Revelation through xposting...

moo