David Megginson <da...@megginson.com> writes: >Q. Is a typical (possibly self-insured) 250 hour pilot with 25 hours > ME time safer in a twin or a single?
I started flying my Aztec with fewer total hours. The Aztec has pulled my butt out of the fire a few times. If I could do it over, I'd do it again (except I'd probably buy a plane that is already in flying condition...).
>My guess is that the simpler the plane, the less there is for an >inexperienced pilot to screw up;
Definitely. Although my reason for the initial post was certainly not to attempt to claim "twins are safer than singles," (a *really* dumb thing to discuss) one thing I discovered was that if you treat an Aztec like a Cherokee 140 (Load it light. Stay out of treacherous terrain.), it's fairly easy to stay out of trouble.
>the more complex the plane, the more >options are available for an experienced (and skilled) pilot.
Yes, and if you can use your initial hours avoiding the urge to fully exploit the capabilities of a twin (by pushing into higher risk situations), you can avoid the need to use those options.
One way I did that was by having a "single-engine only" restriction on my Instrument. It did put me into some really crappy situations a few times (due to my decisions, of course), but the Aztec always came through for me.
Is there supposed to be a connection between being insured by an insurance company and safety? <<
I think he's playing to the willingness of an insured pilot to let the insurance company pay the prang. This may encourage a different decision by the pilot.
Jose
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
Ryan Ferguson <r...@fergworld.com> writes: >Kyler Laird wrote: >> Exactly. That's what I set out to discover. That's what >> I discovered. That's what I shared. >You shared that information and targeted the results toward "people who make >broad claims that I have shown aren't true," (your words). It definitely >comes across as "evidence" rather than scenario-specific and mostly >non-relevant (albeit interesting) information.
It was sufficient evidence to dispute the claims.
>I could probably do >everything you did in a number of lightly loaded twins - not that I'd ever >dream of actually flying them in the manner in which you described - but it >really means nothing.
You don't think it means something if you can do what others claim can't be done?!
>Kyler, I'm sorry, but that is not at all how you summed up your first post. >You wrote: >"So...next time someone gives you the old "the second engine is >to take you to the scene of the crash" crap, you'll have a bit >more perspective on what that second engine can buy you."
Yes, I stand by that. The second engine can buy you the ability to do what I did. I certainly could not have cut one engine and continued to fly around like I did in a single.
Also, I have flown around on one engine (planned and unplanned) quite a bit lately and have not had any difficulty avoiding a crash.
>I don't see qualifications about Aztecs and loading configurations in that >sentence.
Yeah, so? It only takes one example to disprove the claims. I happened to use an Aztec. Big deal.
>> >For one to make >> >any assumptions at all as a result of what you announced to the group >> >would be a mistake.
>> For one to assume that I was trying to make more of it than >> I was would be a mistake. >What assumptions do you want your audience to make?
That I did what I did. It was a narrative.
>> Doesn't apply to you? Fine. Just don't be one of the >> people making _broad_ claims that I have shown aren't true. >What have you proven as untrue?
I've listed that elsewhere in the thread. Please get back to me if you really don't understand.
Kyler Laird wrote: > Yeah, so? It only takes one example to disprove the claims. > I happened to use an Aztec. Big deal.
You used a very capable, lightly loaded twin. That is a big deal.
> >What have you proven as untrue?
> I've listed that elsewhere in the thread. Please get back to > me if you really don't understand.
I'm getting back to you, Kyler. I reiterate - what have you proven as untrue? You told some stories about some single engine flying you did. (Sorry that I used the word 'brag' earlier - it was not intended as an insult.) I do not see specific mention of exactly what you've proven as untrue anywhere in this thread. My point, and I've seen it made by a couple of others participating in this discussion, is that your scenario is so specific that you didn't prove or disprove a darn thing.
I'm not intentionally trying to be coy, or pedantic. The reason I used the example of my friend conducting the single-engine performance takeoff research was to illustrate the depth and breadth of data needed to even make a partially substantive statement about engine-out operations and their related safety factors in light twins -- and their work is type-specific only. There are no general conclusions to be drawn from your experience, except perhaps that you're a skilled Aztec pilot and you've managed to do things in your twin that lead you to believe you have a safety margin that single-engine drivers don't have under certain conditions.
The point which I believe you wanted your audience to take from your post was, "Multi-engine airplanes have a much bigger margin of safety over singles than you ever guessed! Not only can I keep flying with one feathered, I can fly a complete pattern including a a touch and go! Take that, you single-engine suckers!" Aviation can be a dangerous business, and as a result professional pilots and instructors alike are expected to perform to an exacting level of precision. As far as I'm concerned, that includes knowledge as well as performance. Simply put, your statements lack that precision. Leading pilots to believe they can achieve that sort of performance as a general rule from a light twin is inaccurate and irresponsible. It's not even remotely realistic for a vast number of aircraft under a wide variety of conditions.
Well, Kyler, while I appreciate your anecdotal evidence, I think I will stick with Dick Taylor, Barry Schiff, Bill Kershner, the late Les Berven, Paul Craig, Chris Anderson, and others who have written on multiengine flight.
Reminds me of a story. Richard Aarons wrote an article for Business and Commercial Aviation magazine which the FAA reprinted as "Always Leave Yourself an Out." In it, he asserted that Vmc is lower with the gear down, and ASA's Michael Hayes bit on this and included it in his MEL Oral Exam Guide. I took exception to this, and inquired of the FAA Small Aircraft Directory in Kansas City. In their reply (which I furnished to Mike) they stated that the manufacturer does not test for this and that even if one did, it would be model-dependent. In short, they said that it is not possible to make a statement about the relationship between gear position and Vmc because it would vary between models.
I contacted Dick Aarons, and he told me that that portion of his article was based on conversations with factory test pilots...no testing was done. Anecdotal evidence, of course. So I'm happy for you but I will continue to educate potential multiengine pilots based on what has been learned in controlled tests.
Bob Gardner
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
> This morning I left (fully fueled) early and hopped over to San > Carlos. I spent the day biking around with a trailer full of > fur before heading home. After all of the biking, I was fairly > relaxed and inclined to just taxi to the hangar and unpack. > Instead, I thought it was time to try some engine out work for > a "typical mission."
> I've been hearing all sorts of garbage about how "no light twin > can blah blah blah" or "the second engine is only to take you to > the scene of the accident" on a bunch of rec.aviation newsgroups. > (There really is no point in including r.a.h. though...) I also > hear all about how "book numbers are only for factory-fresh > airplanes". So...I tried some maneuvers in my oil-splattered > 1966 Turbo Aztec (with the turbos off). I was loaded with two > dogs, a bike, trailer and misc. gear - typical for my flights > these days. (It also happens to be about what you *might* be > able to squeeze in to a largish piston single.)
> So what did I do? Well, I found that I can accelerate to Vmc, > pull the right engine, rotate, fly around the pattern and land.
> I also found that I can land, put the flaps up, climb to 300', > cut one engine, wait (while the realization that I lost an > engine sinks in), cut the other engine, land without incident > (no, really...it's *not* at all difficult), and then run up > both engines and still take off.
> I even tried some variations like landing fast and clean, only > running up the left engine, and taking off (leaving the right > engine at idle for the whole pattern).
> At no time did I raise the gear, feather a prop, or use > especially good techniques. Nor did I ever feel frightened by > the lack of performance.
> This was after sunset but there was still light in the sky until > I put it away. (I was hoping to catch the guys at the FBO.) I > did not turn on the runway lights until I needed to find the > taxiway after my final landing.
> So...next time someone gives you the old "the second engine is > to take you to the scene of the crash" crap, you'll have a bit > more perspective on what that second engine can buy you.
"Mike Rapoport" <rapop...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > Q. Is a typical (possibly self-insured) 250 hour pilot with 25 hours > > ME time safer in a twin or a single? > Is there supposed to be a connection between being insured by an insurance > company and safety?
No -- I just wasn't sure whether a 250 hour pilot with 25 hours ME time would be able to get insurance for a twin, and was worried about being flamed. Oh well.
Ryan Ferguson <r...@fergworld.com> writes: >> Yeah, so? It only takes one example to disprove the claims. >> I happened to use an Aztec. Big deal. >You used a very capable, lightly loaded twin. That is a big deal.
Still sufficient. It's a "light twin."
>> >What have you proven as untrue?
>> I've listed that elsewhere in the thread. Please get back to >> me if you really don't understand. >I'm getting back to you, Kyler. I reiterate - what have you proven as untrue?
[abbreviated repost] 1. Aborting a takeoff at 300' does not necessarily result in landing "in the next township". (Dennis O'Conner)
2. It is not true that any light twin "is exposed for a period after rotation. It is off the ground, but until the airplane accelerates or the gear comes up or both, an engine failure means an immediate landing." (crwdo...@hotmail.com/Michael)
3. The second engine is not "just to take you to the scene of the crash after the first one dies." (lots of boneheads)
>You told some stories about some single engine flying you did. (Sorry that I >used the word 'brag' earlier - it was not intended as an insult.)
Thank you. I did not take it as an insult, but as a diversion from the intended path.
>I do not see >specific mention of exactly what you've proven as untrue anywhere in this >thread. My point, and I've seen it made by a couple of others participating in >this discussion, is that your scenario is so specific that you didn't prove or >disprove a darn thing.
Do you still want to assert that I can't abort a landing at 300' and land straight ahead on the departure runway? Care to say that there's always a time when I can't continue flight if an engine goes upon departure? Claim that losing one engine results in a crash?
>I'm not intentionally trying to be coy, or pedantic. The reason I used the >example of my friend conducting the single-engine performance takeoff research >was to illustrate the depth and breadth of data needed to even make a partially >substantive statement about engine-out operations and their related safety >factors in light twins -- and their work is type-specific only.
And that's *way* more than I want to bite off.
>There are no >general conclusions to be drawn from your experience, except perhaps that you're >a skilled Aztec pilot and you've managed to do things in your twin that lead you >to believe you have a safety margin that single-engine drivers don't have under >certain conditions.
I'm reluctant to go along with all of that, but yes I do feel a lot better being in my Aztec (than in a single) for the flights I make.
>The point which I believe you wanted your audience to take from your post was, >"Multi-engine airplanes have a much bigger margin of safety over singles than you >ever guessed!
Good grief, no.
> Not only can I keep flying with one feathered, I can fly a >complete pattern including a a touch and go!
I can do that *without* feathering.
>Simply put, your statements lack that precision.
The things I did went so far beyond what was claimed to be impossible that precision is hardly necessary.
> Leading pilots to >believe they can achieve that sort of performance as a general rule from a light >twin is inaccurate and irresponsible.
It's completely reasonable to expect that a skilled pilot could do better than I did in the same situation.
Any pilot who uses my narrative to "believe they can achieve that sort of performance as a general rule from a light twin" is an idiot. What's next? If I post my fuel consumption rate, you're going to call it irresponsible for me to lead everyone to assume they should use 30GPH for their flight planning?
> It's not even remotely realistic for a >vast number of aircraft under a wide variety of conditions.
Yes, I have no disagreement with that, thus I make no claims for "a wide variety of conditions."
It sounds like there's a problem with logic here. Quick tutorial...
If someone claims that no dogs can talk, and a single Portuguese Water Dog comes forward to refute it in a public speech, *that* is sufficient. It doesn't matter that there aren't a lot of PWDs around, nor that *you* don't have a talking PWD, nor that the speech isn't particularly well written. It also doesn't mean that you should expect to always be able to talk to a PWD, or that you will be able to have a conversation with your Golden Retriever. It just means that the original claim is false.
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@attbi.com> writes: >Well, Kyler, while I appreciate your anecdotal evidence, I think I will >stick with Dick Taylor, Barry Schiff, Bill Kershner, the late Les Berven, >Paul Craig, Chris Anderson, and others who have written on multiengine >flight.
So...they claim something that the experience I related disproved?
>So I'm happy for you but I will continue to >educate potential multiengine pilots based on what has been learned in >controlled tests.
You "educate potential multiengine pilots" with lies? And you're proud of it?
***You "educate potential multiengine pilots" with lies? And you're proud of it?***
Kyler,
Congratulations, you have made the ranks of amateur test pilots. Your inexperience in light twins continues only by the graces of Edward Stinson and William Piper who gave the Aztec such mild manners that even braggarts and fools like you can live through their immaturity.
You owe Bob Gardner an apology. His entire life has been dedicated to the education of today's generation of professional pilots.
> This morning I left (fully fueled) early and hopped over to San > Carlos. I spent the day biking around with a trailer full of > fur before heading home. After all of the biking, I was fairly > relaxed and inclined to just taxi to the hangar and unpack. > Instead, I thought it was time to try some engine out work for > a "typical mission."
"> To convince me that a twin is safer, I want the following. Take off on one
> engine (either one). Then start the other engine. Shut the one you took off > on down. Then do an instrument approach and go missed. All at gross weight.
Any number of twins can do this. It all depends when you shutdown the engines. If you say that the takeoff has to be with one shutdown from the start than even airliners and corporate jets will fail. Do it as the wheels lift off and I can do this in my 340.
I've been trying to figure out a response to your post. Bob and others have tried to convince you that perhaps your 'test' may not have been the brightest thing to do, yet you ignore their sound advice.
I'm going to ask you a favor. If you do decide to do this again for whatever reason, please hop over the hill to Byron or better yet, Castle with its huge runway. I really don't want you to crash, but if you do, I'd much rather it be into a deserted hill or valley than into the crowded area along Hwy 101, thereby increasing our insurance rates, and helping people close down our Bay Area airports - we have enough opposition as it is.
If you cannot fathom that failing an engine just above Vmc before rotating and continuing the take-off is a bad idea, then at least show foresight in the consequences. Pretending your aircraft has no Vsse just because one is not published (1966 model) is simply beyond belief.
> To convince me that a twin is safer, I want the following. Take off on one > engine (either one). Then start the other engine. Shut the one you took off > on down. Then do an instrument approach and go missed. All at gross
David Megginson <da...@megginson.com> writes: >No -- I just wasn't sure whether a 250 hour pilot with 25 hours ME >time would be able to get insurance for a twin,
From a recent conversation with my agent, I think you're right to assume that such a pilot is unlikely to find insurance these days.
> ***You "educate potential multiengine pilots" with lies? And you're proud of > it?***
> Kyler,
> Congratulations, you have made the ranks of amateur test pilots. Your > inexperience in light twins continues only by the graces of Edward Stinson > and William Piper who gave the Aztec such mild manners that even braggarts > and fools like you can live through their immaturity.
> You owe Bob Gardner an apology. His entire life has been dedicated to the > education of today's generation of professional pilots.
> >Well, Kyler, while I appreciate your anecdotal evidence, I think I will > >stick with Dick Taylor, Barry Schiff, Bill Kershner, the late Les Berven, > >Paul Craig, Chris Anderson, and others who have written on multiengine > >flight.
> So...they claim something that the experience I related > disproved?
> >So I'm happy for you but I will continue to > >educate potential multiengine pilots based on what has been learned in > >controlled tests.
> You "educate potential multiengine pilots" with lies? > And you're proud of it?
Darn, you folks have me trying to drag up a long forgotten memory. Happened to a fellow I used to work with back in the '80s. If I ever recall Fred's last name I'll look up the details. Anyhow, Fred was instructing a student on his multi in the Denver area and they were doing the engine out drill. Unfortunately, they couldn't get a restart and, much worse, they couldn't maintain altitude on one. Ended up packing it in and Fred ended up with a broken back. JK
"KGruber" <no.skywagon...@msn.com> writes: >***You "educate potential multiengine pilots" with lies? And you're proud of >it?*** >You owe Bob Gardner an apology. His entire life has been dedicated to the >education of today's generation of professional pilots.
First he owes me an explanation of why he addressed me as though I was trying to change what he taught simply by offering a narrative of a flight. I told what I did. Unless he's claiming *I* lied, I don't see what his beef is.
"Hilton" <hiltongoldst...@mindspring.com> writes: >I've been trying to figure out a response to your post. Bob and others have >tried to convince you that perhaps your 'test' may not have been the >brightest thing to do, yet you ignore their sound advice.
No, Bob said that he wasn't going to change the way he taught because of what I discovered - as if I was attempting to convince him to. He addressed me yet did not address anything I wrote or did.
I don't mind someone addressing what I wrote - Usenet's peer review is one of its prime attractions to me. Just ripping in to me for something I didn't even write is certainly not beneficial to anyone.
If he wants to call me a liar, he should at least come out and say it and give some basis.
>I'm going to ask you a favor. If you do decide to do this again for >whatever reason, please hop over the hill to Byron or better yet, Castle >with its huge runway.
Wow, what a great idea! Castle would be just about the perfect place for that, wouldn't it? It'd be especially handy since I live, work, and hangar my plane there.
>Pretending your aircraft has no Vsse just because one is >not published (1966 model) is simply beyond belief.
"JerryK" <jer...@nospam.com> writes: >> This morning I left (fully fueled) early and hopped over to San >> Carlos. I spent the day biking around with a trailer full of >> fur before heading home. After all of the biking, I was fairly >> relaxed and inclined to just taxi to the hangar and unpack. >> Instead, I thought it was time to try some engine out work for >> a "typical mission." >You did this at San Carlos?
No, I hopped over to San Carlos...and then headed home, where I did some engine out work.
>I am impressed, what is the runway, 2500 feet >long?
Close. I did my typical carrier landing there.
Having any more fun there would surely get me noticed - they are an "extremely noise sensitive" area.
"Jim Knoyle" <j.knoylenos...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >Darn, you folks have me trying to drag up a long forgotten memory.
Not sure what this memory has to do with this thread, but...
>Happened to a fellow I used to work with back in the '80s. If I >ever recall Fred's last name I'll look up the details. >Anyhow, Fred was instructing a student on his multi in the Denver >area and they were doing the engine out drill. Unfortunately, they >couldn't get a restart and, much worse, they couldn't maintain >altitude on one. Ended up packing it in and Fred ended up with >a broken back.
I've heard way too many stories like that. I've also experienced difficult in-air restarts. Heck, I have problems with hot starts on the ground when I'm *not* under pressure. That's why I'd much rather idle the engine instead of feathering it. It's more drag, but it's just waiting to roar back to life.
I'd get pretty anxious about shutting down an engine if there was even a remote chance that I'd need to climb. To me, one engine going is usually the signal to start the descent.
> I even tried some variations like landing fast and clean, only > running up the left engine, and taking off (leaving the right > engine at idle for the whole pattern).
This one surprises me. Did you note what speed you got down to before accelerating? Minimum control speed on the ground is probably higher than in the air, so presumably you didn't let it drop close to Vmc. (I'm not suggesting that you do the test again to find out, BTW!)
Congratulations, you've completely and utterly missed the point. I don't have any subtlety left, and I don't think you want to understand anyway. Best of luck, and please -- be careful out there.
Ok. So I assume you did this over at Castle or whatever they call it these days. That is the perfect place to try this, nice and big.
It sounds similar to part of my ME training. We did engine cuts at numerous speeds and altitudes including 50 to 100 feet and landing back on on the runway. As long as you have airspeed it was not that big of a deal.
jerry
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
> >> This morning I left (fully fueled) early and hopped over to San > >> Carlos. I spent the day biking around with a trailer full of > >> fur before heading home. After all of the biking, I was fairly > >> relaxed and inclined to just taxi to the hangar and unpack. > >> Instead, I thought it was time to try some engine out work for > >> a "typical mission."
> >You did this at San Carlos?
> No, I hopped over to San Carlos...and then headed home, > where I did some engine out work.
> >I am impressed, what is the runway, 2500 feet > >long?
> Close. I did my typical carrier landing there.
> Having any more fun there would surely get me noticed - > they are an "extremely noise sensitive" area.
"Julian Scarfe" <jul...@avbrief.com> writes: >> I even tried some variations like landing fast and clean, only >> running up the left engine, and taking off (leaving the right >> engine at idle for the whole pattern). >This one surprises me.
Yeah, I was a bit surprised at how benign it was.
>Did you note what speed you got down to before >accelerating?
No, but I doubt it was much more than 10MPH below Vmc.
>Minimum control speed on the ground is probably higher than in >the air, so presumably you didn't let it drop close to Vmc.
I was *very* cautious doing this (duh), but I found I could bring up the power fairly gingerly without heading too far away from the centerline. Having a 300' wide runway certainly made it easier!
>(I'm not >suggesting that you do the test again to find out, BTW!)
Thank you. When I originally started thinking of doing this, I planned to have my computer logging fast-update GPS receiver data. That would have been a big help in answering such questions. (I do have the track in my handheld, but I don't think it has all of the interesting data.)
Ryan Ferguson <r...@fergworld.com> writes: >Kyler Laird wrote: >>[abbreviated repost] >Congratulations, you've completely and utterly missed the point.
I wrote the original post. I was trying to clarify the point I was attempting to make in response to your request.
I think we're talking past each other. I am very reluctant to get sidetracked into pretending what I did was something it wasn't. I'm not going to readily fall for being baited into it.
>I >don't have any subtlety left, and I don't think you want to understand >anyway.
I'm sure not requiring that you be subtle. I'd be nice if you'd say something instead of just waving your hands though.
>Best of luck, and please -- be careful out there.
