multiengine myths dispelled
Kyler Laird
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.
--kyler
P.S. I love my Aztruck.
H. Adam Stevens
obviously you can overload it to the point where you would be dead,
but you clearly didn't and if it's done right you go home
I just like doin' exercises in the SIM for practice:
you get to learn from failures
H.
N502TB
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:chsgh-...@news.lairds.org...
Ron McKinnon
> Well, I found that I can accelerate to Vmc,
> pull the right engine, rotate, fly around the pattern and land.
Sounds like you were doing this right off the runway.
Having thus 'found' this, it sounds like you didn't *know*
in advance. Just curious - what were you going
to do if it didn't work out?
John Gaquin
Ronnie D. Hughes
does have decent performance under certain circumstances.
However, it does have limits. During my MEI training, I did
a few exercises to test the performace. In particular, I was
interested to determine the single engine rate of climb or descent
on a hot day while heavy.
First step was to determine the true RPM/MP settings for simulated
zero thrust on the left engine. I did that by climbing to 3000', feathering
and shutting down the left engine and noting the airspeed that I could
manage to hold at level altitude. Gear and flaps were up. I then restarted
the left engine and adjusted RPM/MP until I got the same airspeed at
level altitude. I used these values as my zero thrust setting.
Next I landed and topped the fuel tanks. Total weight with me, instructor,
one passenger and miscellaneous stuff in nose baggage compartment was
approximately 4700 lbs, or about 500 lbs under gross. The temp was in
the mid 90s and the airport elevation was 1122' MSL.
We took off and simulated a featured engine by establishing the zero thrust
setting as we climbed through 500' AGL. I held Vyse (102 MPH) with
gear and flaps up, rudder to hold the nose straight and a couple of degrees
of bank into the good engine. Very, very little rate of climb - basically
nothing. Barley able to hold altitude. This somewhat supprised me because
during my initial multi-engine training, during simulated engine failures
with the
instructor estimated zero thrust settings, 2 people on board, and temps in
the
mid 70s, I had always been able to climb at a comfortable rate.
Therefore, there are conditions where the airplane simply will not climb and
will not even hold altitude. Had I been at gross weight, I think I would
have
slowly descended.
The DE that administered my initial multi-engine check ride, had me work an
accelerate-go problem for the Aztec. This is a bit involved for the older
Aztecs since the AFM does not directly provide this info. However
by making a few reasonable calculations, you can get a to an answer.
Conditions given were;
loaded to gross at 5200 lbs
typical hot summer day of 100 degs F/ 50% relative humidity
at my home field of 768' MSL, no wind
accelerate to Vmc+5mph, rotate and lose the critical (left) engine.
Assume 5 seconds to reccognize the failure, 30 seconds to react and
clean up the airplane and to allow it to accelerate to Vyse.
Remember that the lone hydraulic pump is on the left engine meaning
you have to manually pump up the gear (and flaps if down).
Assume the airplane will not climb until cleanup is completed and you
have accelerated to Vyse.
Question is, how much distance is required horizontially before reaching
50' AGL?
My calculations came out to 2.3 miles, but that is likely at bit short,
since
I'm not sure I can feature the prop, pump the gear up, and accelerate to
Vyse in 30 seconds.
So I round up to 2.5 to 3 miles. When I takeoff in condictions like these,
I always think about this distance. My takeoff brief is as follows:
Lose an engine before Vmc, close both throttles, maximum braking.
Lose an engine before 100' AGL, close both throttles, land straight ahead
even if it means sliding off the end of the runway.
Lose an engine above 100' AGL, verify, feather, maintain Vyse, go-around.
Another discussion that my instructor and I got into comming home from OSH
a couple of years ago was the single engine altitude that the Aztec would
hold if we lost an engine at 8000' MSL. I maintained that I could hold
altitude, he claimed not. Conditions were mid 80s at the surface, we were
at about 4400 pounds because of fuel burn-off. About 30 minutes out from
our planned fuel stop, we pulled an engine back to "my" zero thrust
settings.
I had no problem maintaining 8000' and in fact managed to climb more than
500'. I had absolutely no problem getting into our fuel stop on one engine.
Difference was, we were lighter and temps were cooler. Single engine
service ceiling for the C model Aztec, at gross weight take-off, after
having
flown 3 hours is 7500' pressure altitude, standard day.
So IMHO, light tiwns can be safer in some conditions but should be treated
like
a single when an engine fails at low AGLs on hot days and you're loaded to
gross.
R. Hughes
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:chsgh-...@news.lairds.org...
Jim Wolper
elevation is 6447 and it's high surrounded by terrain (to
13,770MSL within 10 miles). Or Blackfoot, Idaho, where the
elevation is 4488, the summer temps often exceed 100F, and the
runway length is about the accelerate-stop distance for a Seneca
II.
JSW
ps You might want an experienced CFI/MEI with you...
ObIFR: or, for even more fun, try a single-engine missed approach
from an ILS with an iced-up airplane...
Dan Thompson
above an airport with a long and wide runway, actually kill and feather one
engine. Set up full power on the other engine, check climb rate available
(if any), trim out the assymetrical thrust, maneuver around a little, maybe
take a digital pic of the stopped and feathered prop, reduce power a little
to where you can just maintain altitude to see what the margin is, then
restart the killed engine. Repeat on the other side.
I like to do this about once a year in my Seneca 2 mainly to verify that the
props will feather and unfeather, since there is no way to check this on the
ground, and to practice the air restart procedure which on my plane seems to
be a little finicky. It's not fun at all, no way.
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:chsgh-...@news.lairds.org...
Kyler Laird
>obviously you can overload it to the point where you would be dead,
I should have pointed out that although I spent most of the time
in the pattern with one engine going full bore and the other
idled, except for landing, I kept it well above Vmc. Surprisingly,
it was not even difficult. I never felt anything close to an urge
to get that slow (especially since I was also making high-bank
turns).
>I just like doin' exercises in the SIM for practice:
>you get to learn from failures
Sure, but then some ninnies are going to tell you that what you
learned there is not based on reality. This was the only way I
knew to find out whether or not they're right.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>> Well, I found that I can accelerate to Vmc,
>> pull the right engine, rotate, fly around the pattern and land.
>Sounds like you were doing this right off the runway.
Correct.
>Having thus 'found' this, it sounds like you didn't *know*
>in advance.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I realized that in theory I
should be able to control the plane in the situation I used.
As part of my ME and Aztec transition training, I did Vmc
demos which showed me that I certainly can control the plane
in slow speed/high asymmetric thrust situations.
>Just curious - what were you going
>to do if it didn't work out?
Fly the plane - just like I would if an engine had really
failed on me. That would mean chopping the running engine,
but I also had the option of adding the idled one.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>C'mon up to Jackson Hole, Wyoming on a hot day and try that.
No. That's not the point and not something I was trying to
discover in my tests. It would not even come close to a
"typical mission" for me.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>Kyler, try this some time for another confidence builder. At 3000 feet
>above an airport with a long and wide runway, actually kill and feather one
>engine. Set up full power on the other engine, check climb rate available
>(if any), trim out the assymetrical thrust, maneuver around a little, maybe
>take a digital pic of the stopped and feathered prop, reduce power a little
>to where you can just maintain altitude to see what the margin is, then
>restart the killed engine. Repeat on the other side.
How 'bout I just kill the critical engine, and fly to an
alternate airport a half hour away? I did that last month.
(Sorry, I did take a picture, but it was lousy and I erased
it.)
Performance enroute was quite pleasant - so good I turned
around and flew home (3 hours) with the left engine idled.
>I like to do this about once a year in my Seneca 2 mainly to verify that the
>props will feather and unfeather, since there is no way to check this on the
>ground, and to practice the air restart procedure which on my plane seems to
>be a little finicky. It's not fun at all, no way.
I unfeathered on the ground...once I remembered to move the
fuel selector from "off".
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>The DE that administered my initial multi-engine check ride, had me work an
>accelerate-go problem for the Aztec.
It's off the subject, but do you do this for single-engine
planes that you fly?
--kyler
Ronnie D. Hughes
single after engine failure. In a twin, you must make
a decision - that's the point. Sometimes the decision
can be to proceed, sometime not.
R. Hughes
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:61oih-...@news.lairds.org...
Hilton
> 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.
In your airplane, what are the values for Vmc, Vsse, and Vyse?
Hilton
Kyler Laird
>In your airplane, what are the values for Vmc, Vsse, and Vyse?
Vmc = 80mph, Vyse = 102mph
Vsse? Didn't I mention that this is a *1966* Aztec?
--kyler
RT
Kyler Laird wrote in message ...
>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).
Uh-huh. Which switch did you use to turn 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.)
Erm - equivalent to 6x170 lbs?
>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.
Don't you just love Microsloth Flight Sim :-)
Idiot.
Ryan Ferguson
I read your post yesterday, and thought about how to respond. On one
hand, I think you did some very unsafe things that I certainly wouldn't
brag about to the world. I read your other posts about flying your twin
with engine problems, extended single engine flight, etc. To the point,
I think you're guilty of repetitively using poor judgement. Not my
place to judge, sure, but you did post this on a newsgroup in an attempt
to solicit comments, and that's mine.
On the other hand, I, too, have taken my plane out and pushed it a
little closer to the edge so I'd be able to recognize it if I ever found
myself in a sticky situation. The difference is that I didn't do it on
a whim, and I created a very controlled environment in which to do these
things in order to minimize risk. I consulted with others familiar with
the breed. I read literature. I wrote up a short syllabus of what I'd
do in the air, what my limits would be, and where I'd land if I had
problems, and so on. Then I went out, on my own, and conducted my own
flight testing (-- at altitude!). So I understand your desire to 'prove
out' your airplane, albeit using questionable methods.
What I didn't, and won't, consider doing is single engine flight testing
of any kind within 500 feet of the ground except under very specialized
conditions. An MEI friend of mine has been conducting some single
engine takeoff performance research in the PA-30, using a computer to
record flight data and an experienced copilot to help manage the cockpit
workload. Tests were conducted in which the critical engine was cut
after passing 100' AGL, and the airplane was configured for
single-engine flight (at realistic, "normal pilot" reaction speeds)
including simulated feathering on the inop engine. The airplane was
loaded at weights ranging from maximum gross to minimum fuel for two
occupants, CGs ranging from foreward to aft (not to limits, but typical
configurations), and at various altitudes and under specific atmospheric
conditions, but always on a long runway. Mind you, this is not flight
instruction or recommended activity of any kind; it is very detailed,
time-consuming, carefully prepared research being done to improve
knowledge of what can really be expected from a specific airplane under
specific conditions. They've created some 5000 data points which are
being graphed into spreadsheets to better understand the results of
their flight tests. These guys doing the flying are good -- very good
-- with many years of piston twin experience and instruction, and
thousands of hours experience in the type. Their methodical and
organized attack on the problem should give some insight into the
seriousness of low altitude single-engine work in a light twin.
Now, what did you really learn when you did your version of flight
testing your aircraft? You learned that an Aztec, under certain
conditions, exhibits certain performance characteristics. Lightly
loaded, my little twin (not nearly as strong as a turbo Aztec) will
exhibit excellent single engine performance as well. What does it mean
to the average multi-engine pilot? Unless they fly your model airplane,
at your field elevation, in conditions like those you flew in and loaded
the way you load the airplane -- not a heck of a lot. For one to make
any assumptions at all as a result of what you announced to the group
would be a mistake.
Anyway. Enough of that.
I happen to agree with you about the multi-engine naysayers. More often
than not those comments come from pilots who don't fly twins, or who
believe that some interpretation of the most recent version of 'safety
statistics' indicates that light twins are more dangerous than single
engine airplanes. Based on the inherent and obvious flaws of such
statistics, I find that to be an absurd belief. The old 'second engine
takes you to the scene of the crash' argument is also tiring. Even
above the single-engine service ceiling, single engine operations will
provide a dramatic increase in range as the plane 'drifts down' to its
maximum altitude over that of a single. An engine failure incident
enroute, in a twin, is usually a non-event. Most of them will never
appear in the NTSB database because their outcomes were zero damage and
zero injuries. That's only occasionally true for off-field
single-engine landings after engine failures.
The twin gives the pilot options. During that crucial period of takeoff
vulnerability, lack of action, or the wrong reaction, can kill. That is
what most of the critics focus on. My belief is that if a pilot truly
considers more options to be a liability, it's a matter of pilot skill
and proficiency, and has nothing to do with the type of aircraft he or
she is flying. Definitely, the occasional or recreational pilot may not
best be served by flying an aircraft which demands more than the pilot
can give due to time or financial constraints. But for pilots who fly
the weather, work their aircraft, and rely on them for regular travel, I
believe two engines and fully redundant systems are a definite asset.
-Ryan
CFI/MEI, CP-ASMEL-IA, PP-RH, AGI
Kyler Laird
>>So...I tried some maneuvers in my oil-splattered
>>1966 Turbo Aztec (with the turbos off).
>Uh-huh. Which switch did you use to turn the turbos off?
The turbo switches. Are you trying to be clever?
>>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.)
>Erm - equivalent to 6x170 lbs?
No. (Are you thinking you can get 6x170 in a C-182?)
>>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.
>Don't you just love Microsloth Flight Sim :-)
I haven't played it since the first version (on my
4.77MHz 8086).
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>I read your post yesterday, and thought about how to respond. On one
>hand, I think you did some very unsafe things that I certainly wouldn't
>brag about to the world.
I didn't brag about anything. (Bragging on Usenet about
flying would be a *really* poor investment.) Would it
help keep you from getting sidetracked by ego if I posted
such things anonymously?
Worse, relating my experiences *does* set me up for finger
pointing should anything happen some day, but I'm not yet
prepared to stop sharing information out of that fear.
>I read your other posts about flying your twin
>with engine problems, extended single engine flight, etc. To the point,
>I think you're guilty of repetitively using poor judgement.
I repetitively do things I'm comfortable doing. I have a
fairly low tolerance of risk these days. (To me, flying
at night over the flatlands with one engine as a "warm
spare" is a whole lot easier to stomach than flying at
night in a plane with only one engine total.) That does
not mean that I'm going to believe every unfounded claim
about safety.
I have no problem with you interpreting the situation
differently, nor do I have much interest in your
assessment of the risks of the situations unless you have
all of the information I do and some that I don't.
>Not my
>place to judge, sure, but you did post this on a newsgroup in an attempt
>to solicit comments, and that's mine.
No, I posted it to provide information to people who are
interested. You're welcome to comment of course, but I
bristle when you assert that I am claiming something I'm
not.
>Now, what did you really learn when you did your version of flight
>testing your aircraft? You learned that an Aztec, under certain
>conditions, exhibits certain performance characteristics.
Exactly. That's what I set out to discover. That's what
I discovered. That's what I shared.
>What does it mean
>to the average multi-engine pilot?
It means that "an Aztec, under certain conditions, exhibits
certain performance characteristics."
I wasn't trying to provide a cure for cancer. I was trying
to find out if some of the crap being bandied about in
these groups was correct. The Aztec is a "light twin" and
one that is readily available to me, so I used it. It's
especially interesting for me to test it in what is for me
a "typical mission" because I can also apply that knowledge
to much of my flying.
>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.
>I happen to agree with you about the multi-engine naysayers. More often
>than not those comments come from pilots who don't fly twins,
Yup, it took me awhile to figure that out.
>The twin gives the pilot options.
No comment. I just like to repeat that.
>During that crucial period of takeoff
>vulnerability, lack of action, or the wrong reaction, can kill. That is
>what most of the critics focus on.
Yes, and I found that for much of the flying I do, it is not
nearly as critical as many people would lead me to believe.
Simply "flying the plane" is an amazingly effective way to
deal with losing an engine in some cases.
Also, I found that my practice of keeping the gear out to
just land straight ahead WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT RUNWAY
REMAINING TO DO SO gives me the option of simplifying my
reaction to an engine failure shortly after rotation and
still landing safely. That could go a long way toward
encouraging me to break off a departure at the first sign
of a problem.
Doesn't apply to you? Fine. Just don't be one of the
people making _broad_ claims that I have shown aren't true.
--kyler
Michael
> pull the right engine, rotate, fly around the pattern and land.
I note that you did this with the fuel you had left AFTER completing
your typical mission (1 person and two dogs in a 6 person airplane).
Load anything light enough and it will perform. BTW - what was the
temperature?
If you can afford a big airplane to carry a small load, that's great.
The lighter you can load, the safer you are. I'd suggest you try this
trick at gross on a hot day, but I don't want to see you die...
> 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.
The second engine can buy you a lot. When one of my engines quit at
2000 ft, on a hot day, only a couple of minutes after a full gross
takeoff, the second one took me to the scene of an uneventful landing
at an airport - with both engines running, because the second engine
had enough power to keep me in the air (even climbing a little) while
I fiddled with the first one, diagnosed the problem, and got it
restarted. That's normal.
What you're describing is performance only available when the weather
is cool and the plane is VERY lightly loaded. It's a lot like saying
a stock C-150 will climb 1200 fpm. It will. I've seen it done. But
it's nowhere near the norm.
Michael
Doug
"about" the same. It is arguable. No data to definitively proove one is
safer than the other. One thing is for sure, twins cost more to run. A lot
of twin owners claim they at least "feel" safer flying their twin. Fine. I
don't own a twin, I suppose if I had lots of money I might buy one for my
"fast" airplane. Since I'm not buying it, I'll take a pressurized,
turbocharged deiced one. Might as well not buy one that has everything.
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.
So there is not any light twin that could do this. Are there any twins that
can do it? Can it be practiced?
David Megginson
> The accident/fatalities statistics for light twins vs. similar
> singles are "about" the same. It is arguable. No data to
> definitively proove one is safer than the other. One thing is for
> sure, twins cost more to run.
Perhaps there's another way to direct this discussion. Instead of
arguing whether a twin or a single is safer in absolute terms, look at
different types of pilots:
Q. Is a typical 1000 hour pilot with 200 hours ME time safer in a twin
or a single?
Q. Is a typical 500 hour pilot with 50 hours ME time safer in a twin or a
single?
Q. Is a typical (possibly self-insured) 250 hour pilot with 25 hours
ME time safer in a twin or a single?
My guess is that the simpler the plane, the less there is for an
inexperienced pilot to screw up; the more complex the plane, the more
options are available for an experienced (and skilled) pilot.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
Ryan Ferguson
> 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. 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.
> It means that "an Aztec, under certain conditions, exhibits
> certain performance characteristics."
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."
I don't see qualifications about Aztecs and loading configurations in that
sentence.
> >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?
> 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?
Mike Rapoport
company and safety?
Mike
MU-2
"David Megginson" <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:87fzqwd...@megginson.com...
> Perhaps there's another way to direct this discussion. Instead of
> arguing whether a twin or a single is safer in absolute terms, look at
> different types of pilots:
> Q. Is a typical (possibly self-insured) 250 hour pilot with 25 hours
> ME time safer in a twin or a single?
>
Kyler Laird
>I note that you did this with the fuel you had left AFTER completing
>your typical mission (1 person and two dogs in a 6 person airplane).
Yup, I'd used almost 40 gallons.
>Load anything light enough and it will perform.
Yes, and that is contrary to what some have claimed. Also,
it shows that for *some* missions, there are *clear*
advantages of having a twin over a small single.
>BTW - what was the temperature?
Mmmm...long sleeves. I don't recall exactly.
>If you can afford a big airplane to carry a small load, that's great.
It's a lot cheaper than buying a second plane and hiring
someone to follow me around with it. (Although my wife does
talk about getting a Saratoga...)
Think you could fit all of this
http://lairds.org/Kyler/photos/disk0022/img_1301.jpg/image_viewer
and another (slightly larger) dog in a Saratoga?
>The lighter you can load, the safer you are. I'd suggest you try this
>trick at gross on a hot day, but I don't want to see you die...
Nope, not interesting. Well, the "getting back to the runway
after an engine failure" part would still be interesting, but
I doubt that's going to change dramatically (although ground
speeds will be higher).
>The second engine can buy you a lot. When one of my engines quit at
>2000 ft, on a hot day, only a couple of minutes after a full gross
>takeoff, the second one took me to the scene of an uneventful landing
>at an airport - with both engines running, because the second engine
>had enough power to keep me in the air (even climbing a little) while
>I fiddled with the first one, diagnosed the problem, and got it
>restarted. That's normal.
Oh, sure. Just keep bragging! (Sorry, that was aimed at
someone else.)
We need to hear more stories like that.
>What you're describing is performance only available when the weather
>is cool and the plane is VERY lightly loaded.
Yes, I'm making no claims that it's not. Although that
happens to be especially interesting to me because it's
often the situation I'm in, the goal was to show
1. Aborting a takeoff at 300' does not necessarily
result in landing "in the next township". (Dennis
O'Conner)
In my situation, it's even *easy* to do - so easy
that I can do it safely, reliably, and
comfortably, and still have enough runway left
that I can take off again after landing.
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." (crwd...@hotmail.com/Michael)
In some situations, I can have a catastrophic
engine failure *before* rotating and continue the
flight all the way around the pattern without
even identifying and feathering the engine or
raising the gear.
3. The second engine is not "just to take you to the
scene of the crash after the first one dies."
(lots of boneheads)
I can comfortably fly around the pattern (in some
situations) or across the Midwest with one engine
feathered or even idled without displaying any
great skill. (I'm no Bob Hoover.)
>It's a lot like saying
>a stock C-150 will climb 1200 fpm. It will. I've seen it done. But
>it's nowhere near the norm.
But if someone said "No C-150 can ever climb at over 1000
fpm" you'd know better. (And if they said a C-150 can
never climb at over 600 fpm, you'd think they're daft.)
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>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.
--kyler
Teacherjh
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)
Kyler Laird
>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
Ryan Ferguson
> 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.
Best,
Bob Gardner
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
news:chsgh-...@news.lairds.org...
> 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.
>
David Megginson
> > 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.
Kyler Laird
>> 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." (crwd...@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.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>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?
--kyler
KGruber
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.
Karl Gruber
JerryK
long?
JerryK
"> 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.
jerry
Hilton
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.
Please fly safely!
Hilton
Montblack
Ok, since I don't think it was a rhetorical question, I'll throw my new
favorite plane into the ring (Eclipse, ya done me wrong).
The Skyrocket or Super Skyrocket.
Cessna 337 - Riley conversion
(ask for the "Big Engine" upgrade!!)
http://www.superskyrocket.com/
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/super_skyrocket.htm
(performance numbers)
--
Montblack
Kyler Laird
>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.
>and was worried about being flamed. Oh well.
Ha! Why bother fighting it?!
--kyler
Jim Baker
pilot flying. (seriously)
JB
"KGruber" <no.skyw...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b29v29$1a4jk8$1...@ID-161519.news.dfncis.de...
Jim Knoyle
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
Kyler Laird
>***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.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>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.
Yet you believe it?
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>> 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.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>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.
--kyler
Julian Scarfe
> 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!)
Julian Scarfe
Ryan Ferguson
>[abbreviated repost]
>
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.
JerryK
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
news:iggmh-...@news.lairds.org...
Kyler Laird
>> 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.)
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>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.
Thank you.
--kyler
Mike Rapoport
that someone who is self insured is a worse risk than someone who isn't. I
self insure the hull because hull insurance is about 2.5%/yr for my
airplane. I purchased insurance for a couple of years when the premium was
1.2% of the hull value. In the three years that I have self insured I have
saved about $75,000 in premiums which would pay for some pretty serious
damage. I also hanger the airplane almost everywhere I go.
In a tight insurance market like we are in now, it doesn't make sense for me
to buy hull insurance.
Mike
MU-2
"David Megginson" <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:87bs1je...@megginson.com...
David Megginson
> No flame intended. I find it interesting that some people (not you)
> think that someone who is self insured is a worse risk than someone
> who isn't.
The people who are good insurance risks appear in both groups, but the
people who are bad insurance risks are mostly concentrated in the
self-insured group. That's bound to skew the numbers, so collectively
the belief is probably correct; it's not fair to apply it on an
individual level, though.
I agree with your point about insurance: it doesn't make sense to
insure anything that you can afford to replace yourself without undue
hardship: on average, you'll always pay more in premiums than you get
back in claims.
My little Warrior II represents a big investment for me, so the hull
is fully insured; if I had a net worth three or four times higher than
I currently do, I probably wouldn't insure the hull at all.
Kyler Laird
>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.
I get anxious thinking about someone doing cuts like that.
I know it *can* be done safely, but if it's a training
situation, where you're *trying* to simulate the surprise
you'd feel in a real engine-out, there's a lot of
opportunity for something *really* bad to happen.
>As long as you have airspeed it was not that big of a deal.
And that required airspeed changes for the power developed
on the running engine. I'm amazed at how some instructors
fail to explain this to their ME students. Instead they
go with the "If you go below Vmc, you'll die!" tactic.
(My wife was convinced she should never go below Vyse on a
single engine. So I asked her how she was planning to
land...)
I think there's a decent chance I could take off single-
engine from a stop with enough patience and a feathered
engine. (It's been done in similar planes.) The key would
be to resist using more power than the airspeed allows the
rudder to control. (I've tried taxiing on a single engine
and it's not pleasant.)
--kyler
Mike Rapoport
concentrated in the self insured group. Most people have insurance because
their lender requires it. The only thing that the self insured have in
common is that they have no loan on their airplane.
I know several jet owners with professional crews that don't insure their
hulls. The rational (in addition to the fact that the insurance company
makes money) is that they have a lower exposure to losses than the average
operator. They only fly to major airports with ILS and ramp security and
the airplane is hangered in their own hangers at both ends of the flights.
It would be interesting to know what portion of claims are do to ground
damage as opposed to flight damage. There is a lot that you can do to
reduce ground damage risk, depending on the airports that you fly into and
your hanger situation.
I think than for most people the descision rests on whether they can afford
to shoulder the financial risk, not whether they are "good" insurance risks
Mike
MU-2
"David Megginson" <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:87r8aen1...@megginson.com...
David Megginson
> I'm not sure that I would agree with the contention that the bad
> risks are concentrated in the self insured group. Most people have
> insurance because their lender requires it. The only thing that the
> self insured have in common is that they have no loan on their
> airplane.
If the insurance companies are willing to insure you, you can be
insured by them or self-insured; if they are not, you can only be
self-insured: that adds a certain amount of skew automatically, though I won't claim to know how much.
It in no way means that people who choose to be self-insured are in
any way more dangerous; it's just that they're lumped into a group
that also includes people who didn't have the choice.
Mike Rapoport
un-insurable pilots. It also includes some of the best risks and I don't
know how to balance the two against each other.
Mike
MU-2
"David Megginson" <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:87n0l2m...@megginson.com...
Jim Knoyle
> "Jim Knoyle" <j.knoyl...@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...
>
Sheesh! I was working with a twenty some year recall.
You, on the other hand, said: (two days ago?)
"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."
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:27:20 GMT
In Fred's case, he couldn't even nurse the poor thing back to
the hangar, which wasn't terribly far away. So much for redundancy.
> >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.
You chose the subject.
On the other hand, you seem to be supporting the myths.
> 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.
>
Fred's hangar was *up* in Denver, as he found out.
That raises the question, does the examiner giving the
practical actually reach over and shut 'er down or
does he just say "pretend it quit." Do the regs give
him a choice?
JK
Kyler Laird
>I find it interesting that some people (not you) think
>that someone who is self insured is a worse risk than someone who isn't.
Who thinks that? I can imagine they might have evidence to
support their claim.
For example, would a self-insured pilot (not you) who is low
on fuel be more likely to risk pushing on into a more
populated (hazardous) area on the slim chance that he can
make an uneventful airport landing (and avoid damage)
instead of landing off-field (and having a greater chance of
*some* damage, however minor)?
I'm sure you can come up with other gear-failure and off-
field examples.
>I
>self insure the hull because hull insurance is about 2.5%/yr for my
>airplane. I purchased insurance for a couple of years when the premium was
>1.2% of the hull value. In the three years that I have self insured I have
>saved about $75,000 in premiums which would pay for some pretty serious
>damage. I also hanger the airplane almost everywhere I go.
I have no argument for the numbers. The key difference is
that you *will* take a hit for any damage and that *could*
lead you (or rather, someone who is less financially secure)
to take a risk that you wouldn't otherwise in an attempt to
avoid damage altogether.
Heck, this sort of stuff happens all the time (to insured
pilots), right? Someone loses power and tries to make it
back to the runway instead of just landing straight ahead
in an open field (and falls in the turn), or upon getting
close to the runway, the pilot stalls the plane trying to
"squeeze out" a little more glide instead of making a
controlled ditching short of the runway.
I think we'd all like to avoid "paying" for an accident
altogether - whether it's our money, health, or even
reputation. That can encourage us to make a minor accident
into a major one. Setting aside money in a traditional
insurance policy is a way for some people to eliminate some
of that temptation. (Of course you know your policy is
going to go up or get canceled if you prang something...)
I'm certainly not trying to say that any of that applies to
any individual, but it could explain the perspective you
described.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>> >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...
>>
>Sheesh! I was working with a twenty some year recall.
>You, on the other hand, said: (two days ago?)
>"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."
>Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:27:20 GMT
O.k., but no one mentioned in-air restarts. And I
certainly never said anything about the second engine
always being able to pull your butt out of any fire.
>In Fred's case, he couldn't even nurse the poor thing back to
>the hangar, which wasn't terribly far away. So much for redundancy.
Yeah, that's sad - on several levels.
>> >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.
>You chose the subject.
It sounds like you're implying that I somehow was saying
that you shouldn't have posted that story because I've
heard too many. If you had just continued to read, you
might have noted that I was saying "too many" as being a
reason that I don't like to depend on in-air restarts.
>On the other hand, you seem to be supporting the myths.
Name one and supply a quote.
>Fred's hangar was *up* in Denver, as he found out.
>That raises the question, does the examiner giving the
>practical actually reach over and shut 'er down or
>does he just say "pretend it quit." Do the regs give
>him a choice?
I forget what happened with my MEL, but for my ME
Instrument check, it was just zero-thrusted.
--kyler
Michael
> un-insurable pilots. It also includes some of the best risks and I don't
> know how to balance the two against each other.
Well, that's not true. The self insured group includes people who
BELIEVE that they are the best risks. In general, the insurance
companies do not share their point of view - else they would write
more favorable rates. I tend to have more faith in an insurance
company's asessment of the risk than in the individual's. Insurance
companies that aren't good at asessing risks in a given market
generally leave the market after either losing market share or losing
their shirts on claims or both.
Michael
Peter Duniho
> >Uh-huh. Which switch did you use to turn the turbos off?
>
> The turbo switches. Are you trying to be clever?
My best guess: he's never heard of manually operated wastegates? I'm
assuming your plane's wastegates are manually controlled. Pretty common for
a '66 airplane, AFAIK.
Of course, one could just use reduced power settings on a plane with an
automatically controlled wastegate, so his comment is dumb in any case.
Pete
Mark Kolber
<rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>OK, I accept the arguement that the self insured group includes some
>un-insurable pilots. It also includes some of the best risks and I don't
>know how to balance the two against each other.
Guess it depends on definition.
"Self insured" typically means that instead of paying an insurance
company, one decides to cover risks on one's own. It's usually used in
the context of mandatory insurance requirements. For example, some
taxi companies self-insure. The term assumes that the assets that
would be necessary to cover claims exist.
"Uninsured" simply means "not having insurance".
Dan Thompson
I used to be one of 3 owners in a Robinson helicopter. Hull insurance was
10% of the value. That seemed ridiculous. We self-insured and were damn
careful. The value was not that high, and there were three of us. Never
had an incident in about 600 hrs of use (3 yrs).
On my airplane I had an incident where the nose gear would not extend and I
landed mains only, with a short and noisy roll out. The hull insurance
claim was about 20 times what the premium is. So I figure I am already
about 15 years ahead of the game there.
It is amazing how insurance is involved in almost every major decision in
aviation.
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b2b7kt$phv$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Bob Gardner
You were the one who called the basic tenets of multiengine instruction
"myths." I wonder if you would care to repeat your experiments with an
Aerostar or a PA-30...the Aztec does have a very forgiving wing.
When I was taking my multiengine training in 1970, test standards called for
the applicant to maintain the wings level and the ball in the center, and
engine-outs were to be demonstrated as low as possible in order for the
operating engine to develop near-sealevel power. Flight schools all over the
country were losing students, instructors, and examiners. The school where I
trained lost an instructor and student. The standards were changed in the
mid-1970s when "zero sideslip" became widely accepted, and training
accidents have fallen off precipitously. I think that the prudent
multiengine student will follow the guidance of the many authors I mentioned
(and the FAA), keep Murphy's Law in mind, and stay alive.
Bob Gardner
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:mq1mh-...@news.lairds.org...
> "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?
>
> --kyler
Doug
would be more expensive to do so. If one burns down, they replace it.
"Mark Kolber" <spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es3j4vgmj0vj65ttl...@4ax.com...
Mike Rapoport
into groups. They figure out which group you are in and then quote you a
price. A group might be Citation II's with a two pilot professional crew.
One individual risk might only fly between San Jose and Orange County, both
in California. Another might fly into airports all over the country perhaps
once to many challenging runways, where the plane is then left out
unsecured. Clearly, all other things being equal, the first risk is better
than the second, but the premium will be the same.
If you watch the insurance industry through a cycle, you will see that they
are learning as the go.
Mike
MU-2
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03021...@posting.google.com...
Mike Rapoport
might cause a pilot to choose poorly. But you could make the case that the
self insured pilot has more lose by pushing his range and is less likely to
do so.
Mike
MU-2
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:bjsnh-...@news.lairds.org...
Kyler Laird
>"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
>news:rc3lh-...@news.lairds.org...
>> >Uh-huh. Which switch did you use to turn the turbos off?
>>
>> The turbo switches. Are you trying to be clever?
>My best guess: he's never heard of manually operated wastegates? I'm
>assuming your plane's wastegates are manually controlled.
Nope. They just have manual overrides. I'd hate to have
to manually control them.
>Pretty common for a '66 airplane, AFAIK.
Yeah, I like having the automatic wastegates...when they
work.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
it's an interesting topic that deserves discussion.]
>On my airplane I had an incident where the nose gear would not extend and I
>landed mains only, with a short and noisy roll out.
O.k., think back...if you were self-insured, would you
have been more tempted to kill the engine and try to bump
the prop to horizontal before landing?
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>I accept your anectdotal evidence at face value...I can hardly refute it.
Thank you.
>You were the one who called the basic tenets of multiengine instruction
>"myths."
If you're going to make wild claims, at least have the decency
to quote something I wrote.
>I wonder if you would care to repeat your experiments with an
>Aerostar or a PA-30...
I'm not much of a thrillseeker these days, but *maybe* if you
pay all of the expenses.
>the Aztec does have a very forgiving wing.
Yup, it's great. Slow, but steady.
>When I was taking my multiengine training in 1970, test standards called for
>the applicant to maintain the wings level and the ball in the center, and
>engine-outs were to be demonstrated as low as possible in order for the
>operating engine to develop near-sealevel power.
I'm a whole lot more comfortable with pulling my own engines
to idle than I am with letting someone else try to surprise
me with a cut.
>Flight schools all over the
>country were losing students, instructors, and examiners. The school where I
>trained lost an instructor and student. The standards were changed in the
>mid-1970s when "zero sideslip" became widely accepted, and training
>accidents have fallen off precipitously. I think that the prudent
>multiengine student will follow the guidance of the many authors I mentioned
>(and the FAA), keep Murphy's Law in mind, and stay alive.
Find someone who disagrees with you and go chew on his butt
for awhile.
--kyler
JerryK
> "JerryK" <jer...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> >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.
>
> I get anxious thinking about someone doing cuts like that.
> I know it *can* be done safely, but if it's a training
> situation, where you're *trying* to simulate the surprise
> you'd feel in a real engine-out, there's a lot of
> opportunity for something *really* bad to happen.
Well, better to practice it when there is an instructor in the plane. For
the flying ones we used Stockton which has a pretty long runway.
When I lost one for real-life on the takeoff roll I was real glad to have
the training. I was at about 20-30 knots and the yaw was amazing. If I had
not been on hair trigger to pull the throttles as soon as the yaw started we
would have been off the runway.
>
> I think there's a decent chance I could take off single-
> engine from a stop with enough patience and a feathered
> engine. (It's been done in similar planes.) The key would
> be to resist using more power than the airspeed allows the
> rudder to control. (I've tried taxiing on a single engine
> and it's not pleasant.)
>
After my engine loss I got to taxi for a with one engine sort of running.
Not fun, but not many options at a uncontrolled airport with no mechanics.
A one engine takeoff is not something I would want to try, but I suppose one
could. The Twin Commander people did a demo where they flew a plane across
the country with one prop in the cabin!
jerry
Peter Duniho
> Nope. They just have manual overrides. I'd hate to have
> to manually control them.
Heh...well, that's new to me. Next thing I know, someone will be telling me
most turbos with automatic wastegates have manual overrides.
Ahh well...learned something new today. I can stop now... :)
> >Pretty common for a '66 airplane, AFAIK.
>
> Yeah, I like having the automatic wastegates...when they
> work.
Problems? The turbo is one of the few things on my plane that *hasn't*
given me trouble in the last nine years. Automatic wastegate and all
(without a manual override, of course :) ).
Pete
Jim Knoyle
> "Jim Knoyle" <j.knoyl...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >"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."
> >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:27:20 GMT
>
> O.k., but no one mentioned in-air restarts. And I
> certainly never said anything about the second engine
> always being able to pull your butt out of any fire.
>
>
> that you shouldn't have posted that story because I've
> heard too many. If you had just continued to read, you
> might have noted that I was saying "too many" as being a
>
No, I thought it sounded like hearing so many stories
about problems trying to fly on only one engine made
you very reluctant to shut down a perfectly good engine.
Sounds like a healthy attitude to me. :-)
> >On the other hand, you seem to be supporting the myths.
>
> Name one and supply a quote.
>
Assuming the myth to be: ( from first paragraph. )
"the second engine is to take you to the
scene of the crash" crap
"...I don't like to depend on in-air restarts."
"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."
Having a choice is good.
> >Fred's hangar was *up* in Denver, as he found out.
JK
Dan Thompson
"Kyler Laird" <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:4qroh-...@news.lairds.org...
Michael
> into groups. They figure out which group you are in and then quote you a
> price. A group might be Citation II's with a two pilot professional crew.
> One individual risk might only fly between San Jose and Orange County, both
> in California. Another might fly into airports all over the country perhaps
> once to many challenging runways, where the plane is then left out
> unsecured. Clearly, all other things being equal, the first risk is better
> than the second, but the premium will be the same.
Well, that's not quite how it works. There's significantly more
judgment to it than that. For example, at my first renewal after
buying the twin, I had less than 1000 TT and less than 250 ME. That
put me into a relatively high risk group. The 1000+ TT and 250+ ME
group had significantly lower (but not the best) rates. The insurer
noted that in the past year, I had logged 220 hours ME (all in make
and model) and added a commercial ticket. On the basis of high recent
experience and recurrent training, I was insured at the lower rate,
which I technically did not qualify for. This year, I missed the
1500TT and 500 ME (the best avaialable rate) by about 200TT and 60 ME.
Hoever, once again I had logged 220 hours ME and added an MEI, and so
was again written at a rate I did not really qualify for. This is a
relatively common practice - much of aviation insurance risk asessment
is judgment based rather than strictly statistical. So far, I've
generally been the beneficiary of this judgment, and of course this
can color my view.
> If you watch the insurance industry through a cycle, you will see that they
> are learning as the go.
Because the sample sizes are too small for good statistical analysis
in many cases, the judgment of the actuary involved comes into play a
lot. Obviously not all actuaries are created equal, and learning as
you go is the norm for OJT. Some actuaries have very poor
understanding of some aspects of the market. For example, I had noted
in my dealings with Avemco in regard to some experimental aircraft I
was flying that they seemed not to understand what they were doing in
that market. Speaking with the head actuary at Oshkosh confirmed the
impression. Sure enough, they have largely abandoned that market - a
sound business decision for them.
The bottom line, though, is that most insurers are mostly competent.
On average, I think it makes more sense to give credibility to the
insurance comapny than the individual. Of course that's the average -
there are exceptions.
Michael
Maule Driver
economic, fact-based decision to self insure. A decision where the rates
offered by carriers plays less of role than the owners ability to cover any
financial loss and willingness to accept a level of financial risk in return
for certain savings. Anecdotally , I would submit that many are smart,
saavy owners, perhaps more so than the average.
But I don't have the facts to support the overall quality of this pool of
people. Doesn't seem like anyone else here does either. Would be
interesting to *know*, but more but accurate data may be difficult to
collect in this area.
Personally, I'm not smart or saavy enough to make a rational decision. I've
considered self insurance but the fact that I'm towing a tail wheel around
has caused me to lean towards coverage. And that coverage has closely
tracked my perceived ability to keep it all in one piece. Suprisingly so.
But any moment...
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03021...@posting.google.com...
Dale
<rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I can't fault your logic and in certain circumstances the lack of insurnace
> might cause a pilot to choose poorly. But you could make the case that the
> self insured pilot has more lose by pushing his range and is less likely to
> do so.
Yeah, I don't know about this. I flew the 182 many years with no insurance, and
then the last couple of years I insured it (mostly so I could fly it to
Oshkosh). Insurance or lack of it was never a factor in my decision making. I
knew that without insurance if I broke the airplane I was going to be out of the
airplane flying business...so perhaps by not having insurance I was a bit more
cautious. I was taking the 182 into places most people would think of, 500ft
rock strips, river sandbars, things like that. I was timid enough that I would
only land at a place that already had tire marks and no wreckage.
--
Dale L. Falk
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
Kyler Laird
>> Nope. They just have manual overrides. I'd hate to have
>> to manually control them.
>Heh...well, that's new to me. Next thing I know, someone will be telling me
>most turbos with automatic wastegates have manual overrides.
Naw, it's a weird system. I wouldn't treat it as
representative.
As a WAG, I'd say that they did it because it made the STC
easier to get.
>> Yeah, I like having the automatic wastegates...when they
>> work.
>Problems?
Oh, yeah. It's taken years and tens of thousands of dollars
to get the boost to something approaching what it should be.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>> I get anxious thinking about someone doing cuts like that.
>> I know it *can* be done safely, but if it's a training
>> situation, where you're *trying* to simulate the surprise
>> you'd feel in a real engine-out, there's a lot of
>> opportunity for something *really* bad to happen.
>Well, better to practice it when there is an instructor in the plane.
Better than what? I've seen repeated warnings that accidents
seem to happen at a high rate when instructors are in the
plane. I won't even go into the validity of the statistical
analysis used to come to that conclusion, but we had a
training plane go down at Purdue (killing all aboard)
following (as I recall), a low-altitude engine cut. (I think
it was trimmed nose high and it stalled.)
I think there are some *great* instructors around, but I'm
not around any enough to trust them to put me into such a
risky situation, give me the opportunity to screw it up, and
*then* save us.
>When I lost one for real-life on the takeoff roll I was real glad to have
>the training. I was at about 20-30 knots and the yaw was amazing.
Yeah, it'll sure wake you up if one completely goes. I'm
even more concerned about one just fading gradually.
>If I had
>not been on hair trigger to pull the throttles as soon as the yaw started we
>would have been off the runway.
Think you could have safely put it back down or climbed out?
I have no problem with simulating pre-rotation engine cuts
with an instructor in a real plane. For the low-altitude
"surprise" cuts, I think I'll stick to a simulator. I'm
just not comfortable with a human's ability to surprise me,
recognize that I screwed up something, and then fix it in
time in that situation.
Does Bob Hoover give dual? (He's back flying, right?)
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>No, I thought it sounded like hearing so many stories
>about problems trying to fly on only one engine made
>you very reluctant to shut down a perfectly good engine.
Oh! Well, yes. That is true. I'm happy to *idle* it,
but just not shut it down all the way.
>Sounds like a healthy attitude to me. :-)
Yeah, well, I demand a pretty high return on risk-taking
these days.
>> >On the other hand, you seem to be supporting the myths.
>>
>> Name one and supply a quote.
>>
>Assuming the myth to be: ( from first paragraph. )
>"the second engine is to take you to the
>scene of the crash" crap
I think I have clearly shown that the second engine is
not just "to take you to the scene of the crash". I
have spent my fair share of time flying with one idled
or feathered in the past month to show that it is not
only possible to travel and land safely on one engine
(out of two), but it's quite possible even without
extraordinary skill.
>"...I don't like to depend on in-air restarts."
I don't. Was there some kind of myth there? Perhaps
you're thinking of the "Lycomings always start on the
first try without any effort" thread?
>"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."
Yup. All true. No myths there. That's how I feel.
I'm certainly not saying that you *can't* do more in
some situations on one engine (as I also clearly
showed), but it's not something I'd want to push.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>> O.k., think back...if you were self-insured, would you
>> have been more tempted to kill the engine and try to bump
>> the prop to horizontal before landing?
>Yes, absolutely. It would have been easy to do, looking back on it.
I recently had the opportunity to try it. I feathered my
left engine and had a half-hour decent ahead of me. I tried
bumping the prop to horizontal - I even got it a couple
times, but eventually it would rotate to vertical. That's
with a feathering prop and lots of time on my hands -
something singles don't usually have.
Also, I'm certainly not going to assert that it would be
unsafe in any condition to do so, but by feathering the prop
you are severely limiting your options. You're not going
around. You're not able to bump the power to make it a few
more yards to the runway. You can't even soften the flare
(or catch a bounce) with a bit of power. A skilled pilot
might not need those options, but they sure are nice to have
if you do need them!
So...it's possible that in this case not having insurance
(self-insuring) would have tempted you to do something that
would have limited your options at a critical phase of your
flight. I'll distill that to "self-insuring would make you
less safe."
Think so?
--kyler
Mike Rapoport
make statistical decisions. If you only have a few accidents then the risk
cannot be assesed to a fine degree.
Mike
MU-2
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03021...@posting.google.com...
Alex
> buying the twin, I had less than 1000 TT and less than 250 ME. That
> put me into a relatively high risk group. The 1000+ TT and 250+ ME
> group had significantly lower (but not the best) rates. The insurer
> noted that in the past year, I had logged 220 hours ME (all in make
> and model) and added a commercial ticket. On the basis of high recent
> experience and recurrent training, I was insured at the lower rate,
> which I technically did not qualify for.
Sounds like what you are recounting has more to do with basic
salesmanship than insurance. The old "We wouldn't do this for just
anybody, but since you are such an outstanding pilot...." routine.
Alex
Cuey Nutterman
investigation. They seem interested in researching this for a possible
violation of FAR 91.13.
I am not quite sure how we'll figure out what the enforcement action
is. However, be assured that the FSDO wasn't too enthused to read the
message.
Cuey
Kyler Laird <Ky...@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message news:<chsgh-...@news.lairds.org>...
> 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.
>
> --kyler
>
> P.S. I love my Aztruck.
JerryK
> >not been on hair trigger to pull the throttles as soon as the yaw started
we
> >would have been off the runway.
>
> Think you could have safely put it back down or climbed out?
>
> I have no problem with simulating pre-rotation engine cuts
> with an instructor in a real plane. For the low-altitude
> "surprise" cuts, I think I'll stick to a simulator. I'm
> just not comfortable with a human's ability to surprise me,
> recognize that I screwed up something, and then fix it in
> time in that situation.
>
I am not sure how it would have turned out a few seconds later. This was at
Mammoth Mountain on a summer afternoon (7100 MSL, 20 C). The book says the
climb might have been around 75-100 fpm after you got it all figured out.
That is not much give the nature of the terrain. I would have been
interesting, that's for sure.
jerry
JerryK
me
> most turbos with automatic wastegates have manual overrides.
>
> Ahh well...learned something new today. I can stop now... :)
>
an override. The problem with some automatic system is that they mask
problems until they become serious and expensive.
Jeryy.
Dan Thompson
"Cuey Nutterman" <cueynu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd63d557.03021...@posting.google.com...
Newps
Cuey Nutterman wrote:
> FYI Group: I have turned this message over to the SJC FSDO for
> investigation. They seem interested in researching this for a possible
> violation of FAR 91.13.
Anyone who has spent 10 minutes with a FSDO inspector knows you are full
of shit.
Kyler Laird
>FYI Group: I have turned this message over to the SJC FSDO for
>investigation. They seem interested in researching this for a possible
>violation of FAR 91.13.
>I am not quite sure how we'll figure out what the enforcement action
>is.
As usual, I'll post it.
--kyler
Richard Kaplan
> It in no way means that people who choose to be self-insured are in
> any way more dangerous; it's just that they're lumped into a group
> that also includes people who didn't have the choice.
If someone is uninsurable for hull insurance then probably he/she is
also uninsurable for liability insurance. Except for people of
extraordinary wealth, I think that may say something about their
judgment or sense of responsibility. Granted $1M/$100K liability will
not necessarily cover all liability claims, but at least it is a
reasonable start.
While there may be a good number of pilots/owners willing to take
their lumps and risk their own airplanes, how many self-insured
pilots/owners are there out there who could/would cause $1M of
property damage and then write out a check to make good on it? How
many are "self-insured" for liability and unable (or unwilling) to
make good on $1M of damage to someone else's property?
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@umrpc.com
www.umrpc.com/p210
Richard Kaplan
> It would be interesting to know what portion of claims are do to ground
> damage as opposed to flight damage. There is a lot that you can do to
> reduce ground damage risk, depending on the airports that you fly into and
> your hanger situation.
Another option for insurance is to insure for liability and
not-in-motion hull damage but self-insure for in-motion hull. This is
what I have chosen to do for my P210 since commercial in-motion
insurance is so high. The premium for in-motion hull would have been
4% of the hull value, vs. about 0.5% hull value for not-in-motion hull
only.
Among other things, my thoughts are that there are many more potential
causes of not-in-motion damage which are completely out of my control
than in-motion damage.. among these are severe weather, theft, other
people taxiing into my plane, a flood if I hangar it somewhere, hangar
rash from a community hanagar, etc., etc. I agree that hangaring the
plane at a distant airport helps to reduce the risk, but still the
risks would be largely beyond my control. In any event, I think the
premium for not-in-motion hull insurance is at least realistic
compared to the risk which is being insured.
--
Richard Kaplan
rka...@umrpc.com
www.umrpc.com/p210
Richard Kaplan
> Well, that's not true. The self insured group includes people who
> BELIEVE that they are the best risks. In general, the insurance
> companies do not share their point of view - else they would write
If an owner pilot is willing to "put his money where is mouth is" and
self-insure for hull, that proabably does indeed go a long way towards
self-selecting a group of pilots with at least a conservative approach
towards risk management.
I suspect there are any number of factors which an insurance company
simply cannot assess objectively... A pilot may set personal weather
minimums conservatively, choose not to fly night IMC or not fly at all
at night, choose to stay 50nm away from thunderstorms, choose to not
land on short runways, not fly in stiff crosswinds, etc., etc. but
there is simply no way an insurance company can assess this. In fact,
they cannot even write these items into a policy as voiding the
insurance because they seem to be of the impression that such an act
would increase their risk by limiting a pilot's options.
Even some items which clearly are objectively safety-related are
rarely considered in underwriting... when was the last time your
insurance underwriter asked you if you have an electric AI when flying
IMC, whether your engine is beyond TBO, whether your last engine
overhaul was to new limits or service limits, when was the last time
that you replaced your exhaust system, whether you do oil analyis,
whether you have an all-cylinder engine monitor, whether you have
spherics equipment, etc., etc.
Risk assessment as done by aviation insurance underwriters is very
coarse and probably is only valid for a group of similar aircraft but
not at all valid for an individual pilot.
---
Mike Rapoport
hull if it was availible at a reasonable pric.. 0.5% sounds pretty good to
me.
Mike
MU-2
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.03021...@posting.google.com...
Bela P. Havasreti
I know of an individual (millionaire) who has wrecked/
destroyed 4+ (?) airplanes in darned near as many years, and
has collected on the hulll coverage insurance policy for each event.
Before anyone says "as long as he can afford the insurance
policies....", guess who gets passed the buck on these wrecks when it
comes time to renew our polcies? (i.e, you & me).
Bela P. Havasreti
David Megginson
> And you are, who?
>
>
> "Cuey Nutterman" <cueynu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cd63d557.03021...@posting.google.com...
This one, I think:
http://www.jetprop.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=303
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
Kyler Laird
> http://www.jetprop.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=303
Ouch! That is funny. No, I don't find withholding evidence
that an engine might be damaged in order to avoid canceling
trips funny, but the other message from him in the thread
seems all too appropriate.
http://www.jetprop.com/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=354
And really, I posted this so others could learn, not
so others can attack.
I'm not pretending that it makes what he posted on this thread
any more or less inane, but it *is* funny.
--kyler
N7155A
only for commercial purposes including sightseeing rides and photo
operations. I'm only 500 hrs TT, and about 100hr/yr.
P&B = $700/year 4%
Comm Liability = 1900/year = 7 %
Comm Hull = $2500 additional = 10%
The plane is only worth $25000.
Remember that insurance is only a hedge against financial loss. If
you can afford to lose the value of the airplane, its is cheaper to
self-insure and buy another one if I damage this one. One the
liabilty side, I'd have to be ready to lose my life's savings in the
event that someone dies in my plane. Now if I die also, then I guess
my wife gets to deal with it...
Mitch
Michael
> self-insure for hull, that proabably does indeed go a long way towards
> self-selecting a group of pilots with at least a conservative approach
> towards risk management.
I think one of the LEAST valid ways of estimating risk is what the
indivisual pilot/owner thinks of his own risk profile. Let's consider
this - every pilot who ever died in an airplane (military flights and
suicides excepted) fully believed that he could complete the flight
safely, and every one of them was wrong.
> I suspect there are any number of factors which an insurance company
> simply cannot assess objectively... A pilot may set personal weather
> minimums conservatively, choose not to fly night IMC or not fly at all
> at night, choose to stay 50nm away from thunderstorms, choose to not
> land on short runways, not fly in stiff crosswinds, etc., etc.
I am not convinced that ANY of those things actually make a pilot
safer. In fact, from what I've been able to observe, the clubs and
FBO's that have the most rules of that sort seem to have the worst
records for accidents.
> but
> there is simply no way an insurance company can assess this. In fact,
> they cannot even write these items into a policy as voiding the
> insurance because they seem to be of the impression that such an act
> would increase their risk by limiting a pilot's options.
Once again, I have to agree with the insurers! Such rules not only
limit the pilot's options but, in the long run, degrade his
proficiency. They COULD write these things into the policy, but they
choose not to because they believe this will not reduce risk. I think
they are correct.
> Even some items which clearly are objectively safety-related are
> rarely considered in underwriting... when was the last time your
> insurance underwriter asked you if you have an electric AI when flying
> IMC, whether your engine is beyond TBO, whether your last engine
> overhaul was to new limits or service limits, when was the last time
> that you replaced your exhaust system, whether you do oil analyis,
> whether you have an all-cylinder engine monitor, whether you have
> spherics equipment, etc., etc.
Once again, I have to agree with the insurers here! I don't think any
of the things you mention are used by people to reduce their risks,
but to extend their capability. For example, the only people who
would add backup gyros or sferics are the people who routinely fly
hard IFR. Sure, that's safer than flying hard IFR without these
things - but most people wouldn't. Everyone I know who routinely
flies hard IFR in a single takes very good care of that one engine and
monitors it closely - but the fact is that he's still flying single
engine IFR, and odds are excellent that if he loses that engine he
will trash the plane if not kill himself. Those who fly day-VFR may
not take such great care of their engines, and may be at increased
risk of it failing, but odds are they're not going to destroy the
plane in an engine failure either.
> Risk assessment as done by aviation insurance underwriters is very
> coarse and probably is only valid for a group of similar aircraft but
> not at all valid for an individual pilot.
I think it's closer to the mark than many believe. It has to be for
them to stay in business. Set the rates too low and you lose your
shirt; set them too high and you lose market share. There are always
people on the far ends of the curve, but by definiton most people are
not.
Michael
Mike Rapoport
> rka...@umrpc.com (Richard Kaplan) wrote
> Risk assessment as done by aviation insurance underwriters is very
> coarse and probably is only valid for a group of similar aircraft but
> not at all valid for an individual pilot.
> I think it's closer to the mark than many believe. It has to be for
> them to stay in business. Set the rates too low and you lose your
> shirt; set them too high and you lose market share. There are always
> people on the far ends of the curve, but by definiton most people are
> not.
>
> Michael
Since the history of the insurance industry is a history of cycles, big
profits followed by huge losses and constantly changing underwriting
standards, you conclusion doesn't make sense. Insurance is a good deal in a
loose market and a bad deal in a tight one. Insurance pricing is a feedback
loop with big variations. Like I said earlier, they are learning as they
go.
Mike
MU-2
Dave Stadt
I think you generalize based on so much hot air.