would you fly across Lake MI in a 172 (80nm)

Badger

Badger

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
2,137
Display Name
Display name:
Badger
would you fly across Lake MI in a 172 (70nm)

When I did my PP oral, the examiner asked me this question, and I replied "no, I'd go south via Indiana".

But that was based on a 4500' above msl, etc. I've since talked with several pilots and they would do it, trying to get over 10,000', etc.

It seems like a roll of the dice, if you have an emergency in the middle somewhere, you are likely going to die in the cold water. Even with best glide, there is plenty of space in the middle with no way to reach land.

Going around is closer to 200nm.
 
Last edited:
Well, it depends on a lot, not saying I wouldn't, but I'd need to be getting paid for it or a weather system that made going south more hazardous than going over.

Questions of these type are why I buy twins.
 
I wouldn't. It's that one time your engine quits that's gonna kill you. It's not hypothetical to me either as I fly between TWM & ASX every once in a while.
 
I would, and have done it before. My last trip to Oshkosh, I had planned to go under the Chicago Bravo, but storms forced me north of my course. I wound up going right over lake Michigan. I hadn't planned on it, so I didn't have any flotation gear. In thinking about it, I realized the no one would get to me before I froze to death, so I might as well just drown. Then I though, blunt force trauma beats drowning. Such are the thoughts of one in such a situation.

Had a great flight, and the sight of Lake Michigan after a storm, with the air clear as can be, is one I'll take to my grave. And yes, I'd do it again. Airplane engines don't break that often, and usually without notice. But if it does, well, sometimes your number is just up.
 
It's a very personal risk-assessment question; probably need a poll to get an idea of what people generally feel.
I have done Lk Huron and other bodies of water, but I have also gone around too.
Many, many people do/have done - and no problem; but there have been several ditchings too, not all successful.
 
Badger said:
When I did my PP oral, the examiner asked me this question, and I replied "no, I'd go south via Indiana".

But that was based on a 4500' above msl, etc. I've since talked with several pilots and they would do it, trying to get over 10,000', etc.

It seems like a roll of the dice, if you have an emergency in the middle somewhere, you are likely going to die in the cold water. Even with best glide, there is plenty of space in the middle with no way to reach land.

Going around is closer to 200nm.
Click to expand...

I would. How many GA fatalities do you see related to ditching? Make sure you bring life vests and if your budget allows it, a raft.

Ryan
 
With altitude sure, Done it in my 182, would do it agian.

I have also crossed it low in the dark. That I will NEVER do again.
 
probably depends on the situation and what variables i could control.

in 1939 Ted Bellak flew across the lake in his Minimoa sailplane. Of course it glides a lot better than a 172 and he took a tow to 16,500 ft...
 
I've done it twice, both times as a right seater well actually I've done it 3 times ( one time was round trip) The first time was in an Arrow at 10,500 and I think 9500 or 11500 on the return, The last time I did it it was at 14 or 16K in a Trinnie. This summer I'll head to osh in an Archer but will go south of the lake.
 
I did it at about 10.5 both times, but that matters little. My Cherokee has the glide ratio of a pachyderm.
 
Fly the route so you are travelling over the routes and the times that the ferries are that go between MI and WI. That way if you ditch, there "should" be a boat somewhat close by.
 
Skylane81E said:
Better than nothing, keeps you alive while hypothermic and lengthens the window for rescue to arrive.
Click to expand...

I had this conversation with myself on the way over. Yeah, no one is going to get to you before you freeze to death unless you ditch next to a boat. Not unless you're wearing a survival suit, and I'm fresh out of those. There wasn't a single boat in sight on my way over except near Chicago. Not one. I eventually decided that if it came to it, I'd unhook my seat belt and nose it in. Like a said, blunt force trauma trumps freezing to death trumps drowning.
 
The odds of a problem that requires ditching happening in the middle of the lake are remote, but remote is more than impossible.

Interesting idea to go over ferry route and to carry a raft.
 
Yeah, I guess Lake Michigan is more heavily populated, but i don't expect to be rescued flying over Lake Superior.

I remember a few years back some young guy in a small plane went down 20 miles east of MKE. He died.
 
MSPAviator said:
Life vest wouldn't do anything. You'd die of hypothermia.
Click to expand...

Life vest will still help you survive and greatly open your available window of rescue. They will also allow you to prolong your time prior to hypothermia by nearly 1000% by not having to flail and circulate cold water around you you can float in the H.E.L.P. position retaining the warmed water within your clothes.
 
http://www.life-raft.com/60389/7279...on/Revere-Aero-Compact-Aviation-Liferaft.html

I'm going to be flying semi-regularly across 50nm of Lake Superior beginning in May, albeit mostly in a Cessna 206 run by a part 135 air carrier. I would suspect they are required in their approved OpSpecs to carry something similar to the above, in addition to personal flotation devices (life vests) for passengers; also it has floats attached to the bottom of the aircraft :) (which are only useful to a point out in open water :nono:)

If I were doing it in my personal airplane even only occasionally, I would spring for the above. If only once or twice I would still do it, but mitigate my risk as much as possible by hugging shorelines until the last minute and climbing to altitude if possbile.
 
Last edited:
jtheune said:
Given that we are talking about summertime ( Flying to oshkosh ) in July the average water temp at Buffalo is ~70 degrees the survival time is more then 2 hours. Seems like your going to have enough time for rescue assuming someone knows your down
http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/laketemps/lktemp.html
Click to expand...
Buffalo is on Lake Erie, not Michigan. I would expect the northern half of Lake Michigan to be mid 50's or so once you get away from the shoreline.
 
steingar said:
I had this conversation with myself on the way over. Yeah, no one is going to get to you before you freeze to death unless you ditch next to a boat. Not unless you're wearing a survival suit, and I'm fresh out of those. There wasn't a single boat in sight on my way over except near Chicago. Not one. I eventually decided that if it came to it, I'd unhook my seat belt and nose it in. Like a said, blunt force trauma trumps freezing to death trumps drowning.
Click to expand...

Interesting, even durring my scud run I almost always had a boat in sight.
 
Lake Michigan can be COLD in the summer time. I have been in the water when if felt like a bath tube, it was so warm. But that's unusual. Seemed like most of the time I lived there (in Muskegon, MI), it felt so cold, it sucks the air right out of your lungs. But I only spent two summers there.
 
Badger said:
When I did my PP oral, the examiner asked me this question, and I replied "no, I'd go south via Indiana".

But that was based on a 4500' above msl, etc. I've since talked with several pilots and they would do it, trying to get over 10,000', etc.

It seems like a roll of the dice, if you have an emergency in the middle somewhere, you are likely going to die in the cold water. Even with best glide, there is plenty of space in the middle with no way to reach land.

Going around is closer to 200nm.
Click to expand...

So going around means you fly more and removes some risk. Assuming you like to fly, what's the downside in going around the lake?

Your title states 80 NM, I assume that's 80 NM over water. While you can have a route over Lake Michigan that long, and even longer, there is no route that puts you more than 35 NM from land.
 
Done that. In a 152 and near perfect crossing conditions... Shortest route, high ceiling, good viz, warmest water temp. Would do it again.
 
n12365 said:
I would. How many GA fatalities do you see related to ditching?
Click to expand...

Not many. Perhaps that's because most people choose to go around the lake.

Make sure you bring life vests and if your budget allows it, a raft.
Click to expand...

Life vests are a good idea, they'll make it more likely your loved ones will have a body to bury. If you want to survive, get a raft. Buy it with the money you saved by not going around the lake.
 
No for me, also. I will not fly across Lake Okeechobee here in FL and I follow US-1 when I fly to the Keys. If I had a raft, then OK, but I do not pack a raft.

edit: re the Keys thing, big part of the fun of flying to the Keys is the sightseeing and we stay low for that. re the lakes, yes I would overfly if I were confident that I could glide to the shoreline with a good 2 - 3000 feet to reach a place to set down. That is hard enough in a 172 with Lake O, forget Lake M.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Your title states 80 NM, I assume that's 80 NM over water. While you can have a route over Lake Michigan that long, and even longer, there is no route that puts you more than 35 NM from land.
Click to expand...

yes, you are correct, it's more like 72nm.
 
roncachamp said:
Life vests are a good idea, they'll make it more likely your loved ones will have a body to bury. If you want to survive, get a raft. Buy it with the money you saved by not going around the lake.
Click to expand...

Raft is no sure bet. Try pulling it out of an inverted sinking aircraft you just escaped after crashing in freezing cold water. The closest thing to a sure bet is a survival suit.

I'd fly it again, but I hold no illusions about survivability if I had to ditch.
 
roncachamp said:
So going around means you fly more and removes some risk. Assuming you like to fly, what's the downside in going around the lake?
Click to expand...

Lets see. First, while I love flying, after about 3 hours or so I've often had enough. Moreover, if you're trying to make the show at Oshkosh, that half hour you save going over can mean the difference between making it to the show or trying to find somewhere else for the night.

Second, going around for yours truly usually means going under the Chicago Bravo, which can be hot and very, very full of airplanes.

Third going over can give you wonderful tail winds if you're headed Eastbound. Thus you actually save quite a bit of time going over. Last time I went over I made it home in one gulp. I go around Chicago I usually need a fuel stop.

Fourth, it is rather fun thumbing my nose at O'Hare. Probably lots of other really good reasons to go over as well. We fly airplanes, and like to go where we will.

But I will never underestimate the danger.
 
IMO one of the big plusses to flying in this area vs driving is being able to go straight over the water to places like Mackinac Island, Beaver Island, Cleveland, Put-in Bay, or Wisconsin. I've flown over three of the Great Lakes now: Michigan, Erie, and Huron. I wouldn't do it except in a well-maintained airplane, and I'll still choose my crossing route and altitude to minimize my time out of glide distance to shore. But I've done it, and I'll probably do it again. I will also fly at night in a (well-maintained) single. My chances are MUCH greater of getting killed due to an engine out on a night takeoff from VLL, than from ditching because the engine stops somewhere over Lake Michigan.

Afterthought: someone else mentioned the 80 nm in the thread title... what's that about? There is definitely nowhere in Lake Michigan that you're 40nm from the closest shore, so it should be possible to shorten that crossing.
 
flying over water is no more dangerous than IFR at night or VFR at night for that matter.
 
I changed thread title to read 70 nm.

There will still be significant distance in the middle out of land reach via glide
 
I've done it, twice, and only days after getting my cert (though I was NOT sitting left seat, on the first crossing, I actually flew the plane myself the whole way across and logged it)!

Lake Michigan is pretty.
 
Badger said:
I changed thread title to read 70 nm.

There will still be significant distance in the middle out of land reach via glide
Click to expand...

And yes, there were times the pilot told me we were out of glide distance. Going back across, at night, when there were some clouds was a bit scary. We were not in the clouds, though. I got scared when I lost sight of the moon altogether.
 
The presence of water doesn't bother me, but the temperature would. I don't know the area, but if it was relatively warm in the summer, I would. My solo XC for my PP cert had two significant legs, 30 and 80 NM, over water (CKH VORTAC to MKK; LNY to JRF) at about 3,500'. I've also had ditching and water survival training, so I'd feel comfortable if I was alone with a life vest, thick trash bag, and a PLB.

Edit for spelling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top