PDA

View Full Version : FAA regulations for over water operations



cpthayes
05-05-2005, 12:07 AM
I know that FAR 91.509 states that you can not operate over water without floatation devices and so forth. Is there an FAR that regulates single engine operations over water? Or are there no regulations that would deny a single engine aircraft operations past power off gliding distance from the shore?

cpthayes
05-05-2005, 12:07 AM
I know that FAR 91.509 states that you can not operate over water without floatation devices and so forth. Is there an FAR that regulates single engine operations over water? Or are there no regulations that would deny a single engine aircraft operations past power off gliding distance from the shore?

Jeff S KDTW
05-05-2005, 12:23 AM
First, remember that 91.509 only applies to large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K. It doesn't apply to me flying my single engine over water.

Furthermore, there is no reg for Part 91 operations that restricts me from going farther out from shore than I can glide power-off.

Jeff S KDTW
05-05-2005, 12:23 AM
First, remember that 91.509 only applies to large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K. It doesn't apply to me flying my single engine over water.

Furthermore, there is no reg for Part 91 operations that restricts me from going farther out from shore than I can glide power-off.

Atwoo155
05-05-2005, 12:38 AM
91.509 says
91.509
a)No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 NM from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equiped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupantof the airplane.

Atwoo155
05-05-2005, 12:38 AM
91.509 says
91.509
a)No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 NM from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equiped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupantof the airplane.

Jeff S KDTW
05-05-2005, 12:20 PM
Read the beginning of the Section.

Jeff S KDTW
05-05-2005, 12:20 PM
Read the beginning of the Section.

zaxxon
05-10-2005, 10:21 AM
Para. (a) states 50 nautical miles for an airplane. It does not reference the number or type of engines.

Unless your a shark proof excelent swimmer IMO I would have a raft as well as a flotation device if it is ocean water your talking about. If it is inland water it can be very cold in a short period of time. :) Lots of places rent the equipment and it is not very large or heavey.

zaxxon
05-10-2005, 10:21 AM
Para. (a) states 50 nautical miles for an airplane. It does not reference the number or type of engines.

Unless your a shark proof excelent swimmer IMO I would have a raft as well as a flotation device if it is ocean water your talking about. If it is inland water it can be very cold in a short period of time. :) Lots of places rent the equipment and it is not very large or heavey.

zaxxon
05-10-2005, 10:44 AM
Jeff S is correct and I stand corrected :) It is in subpart F and does apply to Large and turbine powered airplanes. However the FAA and safety are not neccessarily related so IMO I would opt for the floatation devices and a raft if your going a long distance off shore or a short distance if you can't swim.

zaxxon
05-10-2005, 10:44 AM
Jeff S is correct and I stand corrected :) It is in subpart F and does apply to Large and turbine powered airplanes. However the FAA and safety are not neccessarily related so IMO I would opt for the floatation devices and a raft if your going a long distance off shore or a short distance if you can't swim.

fsnormster
05-10-2005, 12:13 PM
I don't think that FAA reg has changed much in the past years. I know
that when I was ferrying airplanes in the real world, I never had any
problems flying single-engine planes over the waters.

I flew my own Piper Cherokee from Teterboro, New Jersey, home to Rio
de Janeiro, where I lived and worked at the time. That trip had a lot
of over-water flying.

Later on while I was working for Mooney International, I flew a few
flights from Kerrville, Texas (Mooney's factory) to Geneva and to
Auckland, New Zealand.

Of course, those planes were flown on the FAA's Form 337 which was a
"license" to deliberately overload the fuel requirements and take off
over Max gross takeoff weight. I recall that the flight to Geneva
Switzerland had one leg of sixteen hours between Gander and Santa
Maria.

As far as I know, that reg has not changed.

fsnormster
05-10-2005, 12:13 PM
I don't think that FAA reg has changed much in the past years. I know
that when I was ferrying airplanes in the real world, I never had any
problems flying single-engine planes over the waters.

I flew my own Piper Cherokee from Teterboro, New Jersey, home to Rio
de Janeiro, where I lived and worked at the time. That trip had a lot
of over-water flying.

Later on while I was working for Mooney International, I flew a few
flights from Kerrville, Texas (Mooney's factory) to Geneva and to
Auckland, New Zealand.

Of course, those planes were flown on the FAA's Form 337 which was a
"license" to deliberately overload the fuel requirements and take off
over Max gross takeoff weight. I recall that the flight to Geneva
Switzerland had one leg of sixteen hours between Gander and Santa
Maria.

As far as I know, that reg has not changed.

Jeff S KDTW
05-10-2005, 12:21 PM
>Lots of places rent the equipment and
>it is not very large or heavey.

I've never found a place that rents rafts for aviation purposes--can you provide some places.

In my experience, rafts are quite heavy when were talking about single-engine aircraft with useful loads (after full fuel) of only 400-550 lbs.

I suppose it is all relative.

Living in Michigan, we are often faced with over-water flights--if you want to go East, West, or North, you're pretty much going over water.

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665084.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665085.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665086.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665087.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665088.jpg

Jeff S KDTW
05-10-2005, 12:21 PM
>Lots of places rent the equipment and
>it is not very large or heavey.

I've never found a place that rents rafts for aviation purposes--can you provide some places.

In my experience, rafts are quite heavy when were talking about single-engine aircraft with useful loads (after full fuel) of only 400-550 lbs.

I suppose it is all relative.

Living in Michigan, we are often faced with over-water flights--if you want to go East, West, or North, you're pretty much going over water.

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665084.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665085.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665086.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665087.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jlsphoto/image/42665088.jpg

flyinggriffin
05-10-2005, 03:32 PM
When flying over water in a light GA plane, you would be advised to use life vests rather than a raft. Most GA planes are not built to get a raft in our out with ease on the ramp, let alone in a pitching sea while taking on water. This assumes the bird has not flipped and is going down fast.

Where I work, we have life vests and raft training for the F/A. I was thinking the other day while packing a ton of the overage ones away, what the chances of a jetliner ditching slow enough in a calm enough sea not to tear itself apart. I keep thinking of the video of the hijacked plane that ran out of fuel and crashed off a beach while trying to ditch. A 737 would not hit the waves at the same speed as a Cessna or Beech. The energy involved is a whole lot more.

flyinggriffin
05-10-2005, 03:32 PM
When flying over water in a light GA plane, you would be advised to use life vests rather than a raft. Most GA planes are not built to get a raft in our out with ease on the ramp, let alone in a pitching sea while taking on water. This assumes the bird has not flipped and is going down fast.

Where I work, we have life vests and raft training for the F/A. I was thinking the other day while packing a ton of the overage ones away, what the chances of a jetliner ditching slow enough in a calm enough sea not to tear itself apart. I keep thinking of the video of the hijacked plane that ran out of fuel and crashed off a beach while trying to ditch. A 737 would not hit the waves at the same speed as a Cessna or Beech. The energy involved is a whole lot more.

zaxxon
05-11-2005, 09:27 AM
I don't know of any places in MI. I was thinking more of a Bahamas, Caymon Islands, or Mexico trip. Your right you have some very big water up there in MI. Nice photo's. Flying Floats in LA I have seen more than one none float aircraft in the water and depending on the circumstances they can float long enough to get a four man raft out and inflated if you had one on board. Most don't as land is usually not that far away on inland water in LA. :) Snakes and gators are another story. I too would definitely recomend a personal floatation device for single engine light aircraft at the very least. I use to wear mine all the time after having a close friend drown because he always carried his in the seat back and was not able to get to it. Being upside down can be very disorenting. Being under water does not help.
When it comes to weight 40 to 50 pounds and fairly compact in size for rafts. I would agree that in a small single the fuel might be more important than the raft. I would recomend a personal strobe and flare gun so rescue could find you faster. Sticking to the flight plan is also a good idea. :) When I was in LA we had two four man rafts for the citation which we rented out to the locals if we were not using them. It more than offset the cost of the yearly upkeep of the raft and was inexpensive to them.

zaxxon
05-11-2005, 09:27 AM
I don't know of any places in MI. I was thinking more of a Bahamas, Caymon Islands, or Mexico trip. Your right you have some very big water up there in MI. Nice photo's. Flying Floats in LA I have seen more than one none float aircraft in the water and depending on the circumstances they can float long enough to get a four man raft out and inflated if you had one on board. Most don't as land is usually not that far away on inland water in LA. :) Snakes and gators are another story. I too would definitely recomend a personal floatation device for single engine light aircraft at the very least. I use to wear mine all the time after having a close friend drown because he always carried his in the seat back and was not able to get to it. Being upside down can be very disorenting. Being under water does not help.
When it comes to weight 40 to 50 pounds and fairly compact in size for rafts. I would agree that in a small single the fuel might be more important than the raft. I would recomend a personal strobe and flare gun so rescue could find you faster. Sticking to the flight plan is also a good idea. :) When I was in LA we had two four man rafts for the citation which we rented out to the locals if we were not using them. It more than offset the cost of the yearly upkeep of the raft and was inexpensive to them.

rlogue
05-17-2005, 12:12 AM
A useless interesting fact ....

A Hawker 700A is not approved for "ditching" in the water because there are no emergency exits that would be above what they figure the water line to be if it were floating. (like it would float)

flyboy208
05-20-2005, 02:43 AM
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/40307ced4475a10b.jpg

Interesting thread.......... Back in 1997 I flew a C-172 from Atlanta to Ft. Lauderdale with a stop in Jacksonville for fuel. I was filed IFR the whole way and ATC vectored me about 5 miles offshore in a cruising altitude of 7000 feet. If my engine quit at any time during my "Over water" transition I would be in serious trouble. There's something about ditching in a fixed wing aircraft that does not appeal to me - especially in my situation without a life raft or and flotation devices. Would not want to do the equation of fixed gear meeting waves at 55 knots! Happily the flight went fine, but emergency procedures were on my mind, and I was not shy in voicing my concerns to ATC which gladly got me to a much safer "offshore" distance of 1 NM from the beach! Never pause when it comes to you and your PAX personal safety!

Jeff S KDTW
05-20-2005, 10:32 AM
>Interesting thread.......... Back in 1997 I flew a C-172 from
>Atlanta to Ft. Lauderdale with a stop in Jacksonville for
>fuel. I was filed IFR the whole way and ATC vectored me about
>5 miles offshore in a cruising altitude of 7000 feet. If my
>engine quit at any time during my "Over water" transition I
>would be in serious trouble.

FB, I don't know if I would have said "serious trouble". As you know, the 172 has a 9:1 glide ratio. In that area, you were close to 7000 AGL, so you could have glided 63,000 ft horizontally (or about 12 SM) to the beach.


>There's something about ditching
>in a fixed wing aircraft that does not appeal to me -

Fixed wing?? Or, do you mean fixed gear?
>especially in my situation without a life raft or and
>flotation devices. Would not want to do the equation of fixed
>gear meeting waves at 55 knots!

I hope you wouldn't be touching down at 55 knots. Remember the full flap stall speed is around 44kts in a 172. No need to put it down on the water at 55...hold it off to 44'ish.

flyboy208
05-21-2005, 02:08 AM
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/40307ced4475a10b.jpg

I stand corrected Jeff! I did mean "fixed gear" not "fixed wing" - my Helicopter lingo sometimes get's the better of me. Been a long time since I have flown a 172, so my numbers are way off. Keep in mind during our flight there were 3 souls onboard with alot of baggage and it was as I remember, a very hot day. At the time I was still a Student and my 2 pax were my CFI - A Kingair guy, and the other one a Lear 24/25 Captain and they were concerned as well.
Anyhow, I guess we were within limits of operation, but being so heavy - with mostly full tanks after our Jacksonville refueling - we were very happy with the request to ATC for a closer to shore vector.

Great pics by the way Jeff!:-)

P3_Super_Bee
05-29-2005, 04:50 AM
I think there is something in the FARs about commercial single engine aircraft ops. I read somewhere, have to find it, Pacific Wings in Hawaii is operating under some sort of wavier, to operate C208's. It has something to do with distance from shore limits, man need to find that. Its been a while though.

EDIT: Sorry its not in Hawaii they have the problem. Its in the Samoa Islands. Where last year they(Pacific Wings) was trying to open operations. They were seeking an FAA exemption to fly a route between Pago Pago and Apia which is only a 70 mile trip but parts of the trip are out of gliding range of a C208, and the FAA doesn't normally alllow such flights(commercially). Now that I think of it not sure what a C208 gliding range is so there might be a couple of spots in Hawaii where an exemption is needed as well...
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/06/21/daily47.html

http://hometown.aol.com/p3superb/images/sign_name_lg.jpg

microdude
01-06-2007, 11:23 AM
If you fly over water with a single engine, your a jackass! That is one of the three no nos of flying. or i guess you could, but you might end up dead.



:+

Tom

FearlessTower
01-06-2007, 11:47 AM
Hmmmm, ya know, when I think of Charles Lindbergh, the last thing that comes to mind is a 'jackass'.