Minimum fuel

Morgans wrote:
Surfers wear wetsuits in 70 deg. water. It's cold enough to produce
hypothermia in 6-12 hours of exposure.

Something has gotten lost in the translation, I think.

The water temp of 70 degrees is at 30 feet of depth. At the surface, it is
much warmer. It does indeed get very warm at the surface, at the beaches.


Surface water is probably much warmer but any water less than body temperature
will eventually draw off heat. Back in my young and stupid days, I used to
scuba dive in rock quarries. The surface temp would typically be about 80-85
degrees in the summer, quite comfortable in just a swimsuit. Once you dropped
below the thermocline, the water temperature would drop a good 35 degrees in the
span of just a couple of feet's worth of depth. 45 degree water is damned cold
even in a wetsuit with full hood and gloves. 85 degrees is damned hot in a
wetsuit with full hood and gloves.

Thermoclines in those quarries were usually in the 15-25 foot range in the
summertime. Of course in the winter, there is no thermocline... it's cold from
top to bottom.

Water temps in the ocean off the NC coast are similar at the surface but they
don't have a thermocline until maybe 80 feet or so. Even then the temp doesn't
drop more than maybe 10 degrees or so.

70 degree water is rather bracing but feels good when the air is hot and humid.
However, you can't handle it for more than an hour or so without getting
chilled.

Now, how far were they going to have to swim in Lake Erie?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
m...
[...]
Now, how far were they going to have to swim in Lake Erie?

Depends on where they crash. But even if they swam 30 feet below the
surface, in the 70 degree water, according to Dan they'd have 6-12 hours to
get wherever they were going.

I don't know about you, but *I* can't hold my breath that long.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Surface water is probably much warmer but any water less than body
temperature will eventually draw off heat.

The rule I learned was 50/50/50 -- 50 minutes in 50 degree water means a
50% chance of survival.

Interesting post Denny. I'm with you and always want to land with an
hour's gas in my tanks. If that keeps me on the ground such that I've
missed an open window getting somewhere before weather moves in, I
really don't care.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

Denny wrote:
What didn't agree was my pucker factor... Amazing what your nervous
system can do when it wants your attention... In spite of my
intellectual knowledge that I had 15 minutes until landing with 60
minutes of fuel on board, my parasympathetic nervous system threw a
tantrum...

Excellent post.... thanks. Funny thing about how one's mind works,
isn't it?

For years I used to routinely take off with a *maximum* of one hour of
fuel (1/4 tanks) for aerobatic practice. While this might sound like a
bad idea, actually it's much safer for the airframe, I'd be up high,
only a mile or two from the field, and 20-30 minutes was usually all my
inner ear could take. This didn't bother my internal 'fuel alarm' at
all.

There were times in that same airplane, however, when I'd be goin'
someplace and launch with full fuel. If I let the fuel gauges get down
to 1/4 tanks while cross country, I'd start getting very, very anxious
and that not-so-much-fun-anymore feeling would really grab hold. I too
have landed 15 minutes out for gas when I knew that there were still 60
minutes in the tanks.

Go figure.

-Dave Russell

Roy,

If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.


Good advice, IMHO. However, don't make it much more than that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.

Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
be treated differently from breaking an FAR.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.

Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
be treated differently from breaking an FAR.

Jose

Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

I see your point. However, the question is whether setting a
conservative (fuel) minimum and then deciding for this flight to exceed
it, remaining within FAA rules, does not make one unsafe. Becoming a
test pilot by exceeding aircraft (weight) limitations is more likely to,
IMHO. But each case is different. One can make personal minima as
stringent as one wants (two hour fuel reserve, for example), but the FAA
and the aircraft manufacturers probably do not (the manufacturers want
to market the aircraft's capability, after all)

Not all that is illegal is safe, and not all that is legal is unsafe.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Jose wrote:


If you really are committed to breaking a rule, I'd rather take on an
extra 30 minutes of fuel and take off overgross.

Those are different kinds of rules. Breaking a personal minimum should
be treated differently from breaking an FAR.

Jose


Would you rather be legal and dangerous or illegal and safe? Your choice.

What is wrong with legal and safe?

Matt