Emergency Night Landings/Single Engine
Bojangles
you have an engine failure at night in a single engine plane. Obviously you
can't see potential landing sites and roads could be covered with power
lines. So what to do? I was wondering if anyone had used a pair of 2nd gen
night vision goggles in their plane or at the least a scope.
I'm just curious since I'm neither a pilot nor a student at the time being.
Casey Wilson
"Bojangles" <Marti...@isamajorjackass.com> wrote in message
news:_Kzwa.600806$Zo.131225@sccrnsc03...
BAD idea on the NVGs. We kicked this around pretty throughly a while back.
No depth perception. Poor image fidelity. Unless you kill your panel
lighting, the bloom will wash out all images and if you kill your instrument
lighting you'll kill yourself. BAD IDEA!
With that said, unless you are flying over totally uninhabited terrain there
are a surprising number of light cues on the ground. Your positional
awareness from your last known nadir can also tell you a lot. For example,
is that big black hole over there a golf course? Perhaps a parking lot?
Park? Give me a park with trees. Shearing the wings off on trees dumps a lot
of energy. Yep, that's my plan.... head for the darkest patch I can find.
G.R. Patterson III
Bojangles wrote:
>
> I've got a question for those of you experienced out there.
Never had an engine failure at night, but.... you'd be surprised at how
much stuff is lit up at night.
In this area of the country, I'd shoot for an empty parking lot.
George Patterson
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.
Les Gawlik
New Jersey, I was pleasantly surprised by all of the nice spots to land on
the way up, in daylight. On the way back, after dark, it was really dark.
I thought that in that corridor, finding a highway would be relatively easy.
I'm glad the prop kept spinning, because I didn't see anything that looked
particularly good.
The scoop on the night vision is that unless you spend top dollar for the
newest generation, and are willing to spend a lot of time practicing, the NV
will be more distracting than beneficial. The military spends a lot of time
and effort on night ops, and they still have their share of accidents.
Here's a thought. What about making pilot controlled lighting respond to
121.5 as well as the CTAF? In an emergency, trying to find the airport is
tough enough, without worrying about the right frequencies.
There are two theories. One is to head for lighted areas, because you can
see where you're going, and it's more likely to be populated with people
available to help. The other is to head for the dark, because there are
likely to be fewer structures to run into. It's truly a Hobson's choice.
As they say, when you get low to the ground, turn on your landing light. If
you don't like what you see, just go ahead and turn it off.
Les
"Bojangles" <Marti...@isamajorjackass.com> wrote in message
news:_Kzwa.600806$Zo.131225@sccrnsc03...
G.R. Patterson III
Les Gawlik wrote:
>
> Here's a thought. What about making pilot controlled lighting respond to
> 121.5 as well as the CTAF? In an emergency, trying to find the airport is
> tough enough, without worrying about the right frequencies.
Making that a requirement would certainly have helped the night John and
I were trying to get the Somerset lights on.
Somerset doesn't want transient pilots coming in after dark, so they
keep changing the frequency for the runway lights. You have to be based
there or call ahead during business hours to know what it is.
Bojangles
impression 2nd generation NV dealt with light more effectively than first
generation as well as greatly improved resolution. As for using them to
actually land I agree it would be a bad idea. But, to use it to scope out
that dark spot over there for a quick looksee might work well. Turning off
the instrument lighting for a few seconds I don't think would be a problem.
Of course from the flight training at night that I've had my instructor put
me in a situation to demonstrate spacial disorientation. He had me head east
over the beach towards the ocean while not allowing me to look at
instruments. I was in a 45 degree bank before I knew it, saw it, felt it. So
I definitely know how dangerous the situation would be. But, while you're
using the scope you'll see the horizon. *shrugs*. It would be interesting if
someone has a scope or goggles to hear how well they or preferrably their
passenger could see with it . I've never used them.
"Casey Wilson" <Ph...@nonsense.net> wrote in message
news:cQAwa.1792$Hy3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
BTIZ
out the image and see nothing... to much light reduces the gain on the
goggles.. and light of the wrong color can make what you see very black..
red lights don't work on green NVG goggles... you need green light filters
in the same color frequency band as the NVG..
light reflecting back off the windshield will block what you want to see on
the outside..
every see your co-pilots reflection in the glass?
BeenThereDoneThat (BTDT), got the T-shirt and the hat..
I still have my NVG compatible green filter on my mini mag light
BTIZ
B-1, NVG Test Team
"Bojangles" <Marti...@isamajorjackass.com> wrote in message
news:RsEwa.589853$OV.561269@rwcrnsc54...
Kiwi Jet Jock
... don't fly singles at night away from suitable/identifiable landing
areas.
"Bojangles" <Marti...@isamajorjackass.com> wrote in message
news:_Kzwa.600806$Zo.131225@sccrnsc03...
Roger Tracy
* Turn on the landing light
* When you get down close if you don't like what you see .. turn off the
landing light.
"Bojangles" <Marti...@isamajorjackass.com> wrote in message
news:_Kzwa.600806$Zo.131225@sccrnsc03...
CVBreard
>
>... don't fly singles at night away from suitable/identifiable landing
>areas.
As I move further and further into the ranks of "Old Pilots - Not Bold Pilots"
it scares me a bit to think of the many single-engine night hours I flew in my
younger days, particularly as a CFII (there were 'reasons' and rationalizations
not worth going into here).
But I wouldn't fly single-engine night now unless I 'had' to, particularly
since I had my first in-flight engine trouble (daylight) in almost a half
century of flying last year...(stuck exhaust valve in a 4 cylinder Continental
- I got down on a grass airstrip OK, but it 'got my attention.')
SelwayKid
I've had some engine failures at night and am still here to discuss
it. To be sure I was apprehensive for a while after the first one in
which I got injured when we crashed into the trees. Those who talk
about letting the trees shear off wings, etc, don't know what in hell
they are talking about. That comes from daylight flying under ideal
conditions or close to it. I've also done a lot of night crop dusting
and had a couple engine failures then too with no injuries to either
myself or the aircraft (slight damage but nothing really airworthy). I
have done a lot of single engine flying over uninhabited areas and in
remote hostile terrain both day and night. If an engine quits you go
down and make an unscheduled landing. What happens at the bottom is
often out of our control. The type of aircraft will dictate what you
do until impact. If over populated areas, you'll have a LOT of ambient
lights to illuminate possible landing areas. To be sure you don't have
the luxury of thousands of feet of altitude to deliberate where you
are going to touch down at night, but you still have the capability of
seeing obstacles that can be avoided at the last few seconds. Going
into a black hole you have NO idea what is there and there are no
lights for a reason?
Careful preflight planning can avoid many potential problems. Careful
route selection will ease both your navigation and peace of mind as
you toodle along hopefully without unplanned excitement or landings.
NVG for the average pilot will only cause more problems and potential
danger if only to give one a false sense of safety and security. It
takes a lot of training and practice to use them with any degree of
proficiency.
SelwayKid
RT
SelwayKid wrote in message
<67a933a4.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>Those who talk
>about letting the trees shear off wings, etc, don't know what in hell
>they are talking about. That comes from daylight flying under ideal
>conditions or close to it.
Is that right? Well I'll be.... You learn something every day...
Doubtless then you can explain how a C172 *at cruise* went between 2 trees
(taking the wings off) on a mountain top east of Scone, NSW (Oz) in cloud
with the sole occupant escaping without a scratch - he picked up his
briefcase and walked out. The reason I remember that one is because we
tried to salvage it - but you couldn't get a 4wd within a coupla miles and
it was too high for the local chopper to hover, let alone lift.
And I really can't get too excited about an engine failure at night on ag
work given you're already at dot at low speed over a bloody rice paddy or a
1,000 acres of wheat or similar.
Judah
;)
Seriously, though, I have never heard this theory before. What exactly is
the advantage of clipping the wings on trees at full cruise? Is it supposed
to somehow be safer than landing at near stall?
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in
news:ba2bsm$o281s$1...@ID-194795.news.dfncis.de:
>
> SelwayKid wrote in message
> <67a933a4.03051...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Kiwi Jet Jock
The thing many folks don't seem to realize is that it's impossible to
predict (with any degree of certainty) what the outcome of failing to manage
risks acceptably (on each occasion) is likely to be. Many will log hundreds
of hours in singles at night (or IMC) - not have a problem - and conclude
that it's 'safe' - just as some will hear the story of how a C172 sheared
off the wings by flying into trees, and walked away to tell the tale
(leaving folks to conclude that 'this is the way to go' in that type of
situation).
Sometimes the theory 'sounds good', but it's just not reality. The reality
is (to put it bluntly) - if you lose an engine at night over inhospitable
terrain - or have to land in the trees at any time ...
... you're probably going to die, and kill everybody else on board.
"CVBreard" <cvbr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030515103001...@mb-m10.aol.com...
SelwayKid
Hey Ozzie
For the guy to hit going at cruise speed in the clouds and walk away
means he was plain damned lucky! I went into trees at night in a C-150
with full flaps going as slow as I could to minimize impact damage.
When the left wing touched the trees, the a/c immediately slewed to
the left and pitched the nose down taking us directly into the trunk
of another tree. Pure luck we didn't get creamed then.
As far as ag work goes, perhaps you have lots of experience to draw on
or else they fly slow in Oz? We normally sprayed at cruise speed or
close to it, and we didn't always have clear areas under us for the
turnarounds. In fact, we often had those giant blue gums here and
there that are not friendly to aircraft with no power. The MAJOR
difference is the professionalism of the pilots who were always
watching for any signs of an engine failure or other potential
problems and already had their plan of action figured out.
Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world
RT
Hmmm... What'd I say above? What'd you say above?
>As far as ag work goes, perhaps you have lots of experience to draw on
>or else they fly slow in Oz? We normally sprayed at cruise speed or
>close to it, and we didn't always have clear areas under us for the
>turnarounds. In fact, we often had those giant blue gums here and
>there that are not friendly to aircraft with no power. The MAJOR
>difference is the professionalism of the pilots who were always
>watching for any signs of an engine failure or other potential
>problems and already had their plan of action figured out.
>Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world
Now you are trying to tell me that at the *start* (let alone later) of a
procedure turn you couldn't get back to the paddock? And you (like
everyone else) were operating at *cruise*?
Is that what you're saying? What the hell were you flying? A 2-car
garage?
(Dusting, eh?)
Dan Luke
\> In terms of risk management, the "A" answer is ...
>
> ... don't fly singles at night away from suitable/identifiable landing
> areas.
Mmm, well, in terms of risk management, the "A" answer is don't fly GA
aircraft at all. Certainly one should choose a route that maximizes the time
one is near suitable/identifiable landing areas.
Yes, it's true that a night engine failure is a a much riskier proposition
than a daytime one, but what's the overall risk? Every time this comes up, I
ask everyone to check the NTSB records for any data that supports an
indication of significant danger from night SE failures. While it is true
that there is less SE flying at night, there is probably more than most
people realize due to the large amount of light freight hauling that goes on
after dark. Yet we do not find many freight dogs showing up as fatal entries
in the record due to engine failure. When they do show up, it is most often
due to weather/CFIT accidents, for which there is ample evidence to show
that night significantly increases risk.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
Big John
1. If you hit anything at full cruise your odds of surviving are very
small.
2. If you can't see where you are going in a forced landing and hit r
a tree trunk (at any speed) and push the engine back into your lap
your odds of surviving are very small.
3. If you can see where you are going and heading for a forest try to
have the fuselage go between the tree trunks. Doing this when you
tear the wings off it will slow you down and absorb some of your
energy and your odds of surviving increase. This is an old time rule
of flight. (ie, don't hit anything hard and stop suddenly <G>)
Big John
Point of the sword
On Fri, 16 May 2003 21:27:54 GMT, Judah <Ju...@NOSPAM.NET> wrote:
>Happened in Oz, huh? Maybe the pilot just had ruby slippers?
>
>;)
>
>Seriously, though, I have never heard this theory before. What exactly is
>the advantage of clipping the wings on trees at full cruise? Is it supposed
>to somehow be safer than landing at near stall?
>
----clip----
Kiwi Jet Jock
With single-engine flight by day we can manage the risk effectively - with
single-engine flight by night (for all intents and purposes) your chances of
dying are identical to the chances of the engine quitting. If that's a risk
you're prepared to accept then so be it - but keep in mind if you manage
this risk incorrectly (or as you're suggesting just plain ignore it) in all
likelyhood you won't get a 2nd chance to get it right next time.
How many engine failures have you had? I've had 9 over 50 years and around
25,000 hours. Yes, engines do quit for a variaty of reasons - and they
really don't care if it's day or night. We need to acknowledge this
possibility (not think that it's not going to happen to us) - and plan
accordingly - IMHO.
PS: I see you're a 172RG Jock. I had a friend who died 3 years ago flying
one IFR on a night light freight sortie. Conrod ended up coming through the
crankcase - pilot tried to land next to the lights of a house in the
country, but died when the aircraft hit a 30 foot bank on the final
approach.
"Dan Luke" <c17...@bellSPAMsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vcf2jds...@news.supernews.com...
G.R. Patterson III
Big John wrote:
>
> Doing this when you
> tear the wings off it will slow you down and absorb some of your
> energy and your odds of surviving increase.
It will also tear the gas tanks off and reduce the risk of fire in the
cabin.
Dan Luke
> Dan, it's all about the degree of risk pilots are prepared to accept.
Of course.
> With single-engine flight by day we can manage the risk effectively - with
> single-engine flight by night (for all intents and purposes) your chances
of
> dying are identical to the chances of the engine quitting.
That's a silly exaggeration - not every night SE failure ends in a fatal
accident.
> If that's a risk
> you're prepared to accept
If that was the real risk, of course I wouldn't.
> then so be it - but keep in mind if you manage
> this risk incorrectly (or as you're suggesting just plain ignore it)
Please point out exactly where I made such a suggestion. Flying at night, I
take care to plan a route that maximizes the time I am near a place to land.
Does this eliminate risk? No. Am I managing risk? Yes, to a level I am
comfortable with. BTW, pilot buddies who know the score are welcome to come
along but I do not subject ignorant passengers to this (slightly, IMO)
elevated risk.
> How many engine failures have you had? I've had 9 over 50 years and around
> 25,000 hours. Yes, engines do quit for a variaty of reasons - and they
> really don't care if it's day or night. We need to acknowledge this
> possibility (not think that it's not going to happen to us) - and plan
> accordingly - IMHO.
Your experience is impressive and I agree completely.
> PS: I see you're a 172RG Jock. I had a friend who died 3 years ago flying
> one IFR on a night light freight sortie. Conrod ended up coming through
the
> crankcase - pilot tried to land next to the lights of a house in the
> country, but died when the aircraft hit a 30 foot bank on the final
> approach.
These things happen - sorry about your friend. I *did* say that a night SE
failure is a far more dangerous proposition than a day one.
You seem to be saying that flying SE at night is a practice only for the
foolhardy. My point is that, while statistics show night flying is more
dangerous than day flying, the contribution of engine failure accidents to
those statistics is small - not enough to warrant a blanket condemnation of
SE night flying.
There are many variables to consider, and under some circumstances I would
not fly my airplane cross country at night. Under others I would and do.
SelwayKid
Kiwi Jet Jock
with
> > single-engine flight by night (for all intents and purposes) your
chances
> of
> > dying are identical to the chances of the engine quitting.
>
> That's a silly exaggeration - not every night SE failure ends in a fatal
> accident.
I don't see it as silly at all. Lose an engine by day and "all you need to
do" is "look out the window and pick a place to glide to". With
proficiency/practice it'll still scare you shitless, but it's usually not
that difficult. Lose an engine by night (admittedly there are a variety of
possibilities - but if you consider a scenario away from the circuit (eg a
cross country) on a dark night) you can't see a darned thing. In this
scenario you're probably going to die. And if you don't, it's because of
good luck, not good risk management.
So I stand by my generalisation.
In planning your night flights to be as close as possible to a suitable
landing place is, of course, a good thing. I don't know your circumstances -
Flat / hard desert I wouldn't have a problem with - over water I don't have
a problem with (being ex military the wearing of all appropriate safety
equipment is 2nd nature) - over populated areas / hilly / mountainous
terrain I have a BIG problem with.
If you think it's only a *slightly* increased risk I think you're in a fools
paradise (sorry). Being committed to a forced landing effectively blind to
the outside world is in no way a mere "slightly" increased risk (in the
event of a problem - which I guarantee you WILL have later, or sooner) - and
as such whether you live or die all comes down to whether or not your engine
keeps going. Trust me - fly aircraft long enough and eventually you'll have
a problem with an engine - that's as sure as death and taxes - what happens
after that point comes down to how well prepared you are - being able to see
where you're landing goes a long long long way towards that.
By day I'm prepared to accept that there is a small chance that I'll lose an
engine - that small possibility is mitigated by the fact that - with
sensible flight planning - I'm still relatively safe (by day) (say a 1 in
3000 chance I'll lose an engine and a 1 in 100 hundred chance I'll die in
the forced landing = 1 in 300,000 chance of dying on any given flight. By
night you still have the 1 in 3000 chance of losing the engine, but 99%
chance you'll die in the "virtually uncontrolled crash" - so (ball park
figures) "100 times more likely to die flying at night". What are the
chances of losing an engine (by day or night) ... wouldn't have a clue - I'm
sure you can produce statistics - the unfortunate thing about statistics is
that aircraft engines have absolutely no respect for them!
The best analogy I can think of is the wearing of a seatbelt. I don't know
the statistics, but I've lost 9 engines - but have (touch wood) never been
in an automobile accident that required me to be restrained by my seatbelt -
but I wear it regardless because, just like aircraft engines, things DO go
wrong, regardless of what the statistics say. In my car my seatbelt is my
'safety net' - in a SE aeroplane being able to see outside the window to
pick a safe place to land is my safety net.
Grab a safety pilot and a pair of foggles some day soon (don't cheat) - and
get a taste of what it feels like to be flying blind, without power (you
might like to also consider packing a change of underwear that day).
Statistics are funny things - statistically speaking, your chances of an
engine failure on any given flight is small - then again there are many
pilots who would be alive today if they had developed more of a "expect the
best - but plan for the worst" mentailty.
Personally, If I'm flying at night I take the twin (and just for the record
I lost an engine in a twin at night due to fuel contamination - and I'm here
today because of the warm spare on the other side of the aircraft.
Just 10c worth from a very old (not bold) pilot.
RT
>> >Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world
>> Now you are trying to tell me that at the *start* (let alone later) of a
>> procedure turn you couldn't get back to the paddock? And you (like
>> everyone else) were operating at *cruise*?
>>
>> Is that what you're saying? What the hell were you flying? A 2-car
>> garage?
>>
>> (Dusting, eh?)
>HUH?
Um, sorry - a single "HUH?" is not a valid answer to 4 questions........
Oh, and where were these terrifying Blue Gums since you imply they were not
in Oz?
(An additional 4 HUHs doesn't really count, either...)
Michael
> with
> > > single-engine flight by night (for all intents and purposes) your
> chances
> of
> > > dying are identical to the chances of the engine quitting.
> >
> > That's a silly exaggeration - not every night SE failure ends in a fatal
> > accident.
>
> I don't see it as silly at all.
I do. I think you've really gone over the top here, and I'm not
exactly a fan of night/IMC single engine ops.
There's absolutely no way that that your chances of dying are
equivalent (or even close) to your chances of having an engine
failure. Even at night and in IMC, the majority of engine failures
are not fatal. The problem is that, unlike the daytime failures, it's
no longer an overwhelming majority - and it is largely a matter of
luck.
> Lose an engine by day and "all you need to
> do" is "look out the window and pick a place to glide to". With
> proficiency/practice it'll still scare you shitless, but it's usually not
> that difficult.
No argument there.
> Lose an engine by night (admittedly there are a variety of
> possibilities - but if you consider a scenario away from the circuit (eg a
> cross country) on a dark night) you can't see a darned thing. In this
> scenario you're probably going to die.
The statistics do not confirm this. Most engine failure accidents at
night are not fatal.
> And if you don't, it's because of
> good luck, not good risk management.
That part is absolutely true. During the daytime (assuming reasonable
vis and ceiling), you are counting on pilot skill to avoid the
unlandable terrain. At night, you are counting on luck. If the area
is largely flat, the odds are with you. If it's not, they're not. Of
course most people have better sense that to routinely fly single
engine at night over rough terrain.
> So I stand by my generalisation.
But that makes no sense! Your generalization implies that virtually
all terrain is unlandable, and that's simply not the case. Flying
over mountains it might be, but I don't know anyone who flies single
engine at night in the mountains.
> If you think it's only a *slightly* increased risk I think you're in a fools
> paradise (sorry).
That depends on your definition of a slightly increased risk.
For example, I offer you this bargain: yesterday's lottery tickets at
half price. After all, the chances of winning are only very slightly
lower.
The probability of engine failure due to mechanical causes is
somewhere between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10,000 hours according to FAA
estimates. The vast majority are not fatal; the few that are fatal
are usually the result of failure to maintain flying speed. There are
so few engine failures at night in singles that there are no good
statistics (one might assume this is because most people know better)
but I would bet you're at least ten times more likely to die from an
engine failure at night than in good day-VFR.
So from one point of view, you might say that flying at night kicks up
your chances of dying from engine failure by 10:1. That's huge.
From another point of view, the average private pilot might only fly a
couple hundred hours at night in his entire life. What are the odds
that he will lose an engine over unlandable terrain in so few hours of
exposure? I would say extremely small. Thus by flying at night, his
risk is only very slightly increased.
It's all a question of exposure. If you're going to fly 500 hours of
night/IMC a year (a professional might) then multiengine is the ONLY
way to go, because the odds will catch up with you. I fly 50 hours of
night and IMC a year so I want a twin - but I can understand that some
might consider the risk small enough to ignore. If I flew 5 hours of
night and IMC a year, I probably would not consider it worthwhile.
How one maintains adequate proficiency for night/IMC flying if one
only does it 5 hours a year is another story altogether.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
news:<Wpoxa.5389$3t6....@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> Sometimes the theory 'sounds good', but it's just not reality. The reality
> is (to put it bluntly) - if you lose an engine at night over inhospitable
> terrain - or have to land in the trees at any time ...
>
> ... you're probably going to die, and kill everybody else on board.
Actually the facts do not bear this out. If you keep flying the
airplane down to the ground and land at a reasonably slow airspeed
without stalling, the odds are very good that you will walk away even
if the plane is not damaged.
The presumed flip-side to this argument is that flying at night in a
twin is safer. However, there are reasons that you could have to land
off airport even in a twin, most notably fuel contamination or smoke
in the cockpit. Now if you try to land a twin off-airport, day or
night, *then* there is a good chance you will have a fatal accident
because the stall speed is notably higher than on a single.
Whether you are flying a twin or a single, the *best* plan of all at
night is to *fly high*. In most densely populated areas you can glide
to some lighted airport from 10,000 feet, and then of course consider
that lots of engine failures are really partial engine failures and
therefore you can glide further than you would with a complete
dead-stick approach.
A very worthwhile procedure to practice on Microsoft Flight Simulator
or on an Elite or other PC-based flight training device is the
night-time deadstick instrument approach from 10,000 feet.. it takes
practice but can be done, and this gives you another option in your
toolbox if the worst occurs.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@flyimc.com
www.flyimc.com
Dan Luke
[My reply to KJJ for me.]
I couldn't have said it better.
Dan Luke
> Just 10c worth from a very old (not bold) pilot.
Thanks, KJJ. I take the spirit of your post to heart, of course.
Sydney Hoeltzli
>>>With single-engine flight by day we can manage the risk effectively -
>>>with single-engine flight by night (for all intents and purposes) your
>>>chances of dying are identical to the chances of the engine quitting.
This is simply not true. Accident reports do not bear this up.
If you look at the Nall report, at the percentage of fatal accidents
vs. total accidents, overall the rate is about 20%. For day (when most
of the GA flying occurs) it's about 15%. For night, or for IMC, it's
30%.
For night IMC, it's additive. About 60%.
Now granted, this is fatal accidents due to all causes, not just
mechanical or fuel exhaustion. But I think it probably accurately
reflects the increased risk of flying at night and in IMC.
Certainly there are a number of night engine-failure accidents in the
NTSB database which did NOT result in fatalities, and a number of
day engine-failure accidents which did. And that is just those which
made it into the NTSB database because something went wrong.
Increased risk at night, you betcha. Significant increase, possibly
more significant than the overall accident rate suggests, you betcha.
But not nearly so dire as "lose your only engine at night, bend over
and kiss it goodbye".
> I don't see it as silly at all. Lose an engine by day and "all you need to
> do" is "look out the window and pick a place to glide to".
Well, not quite. All you need to do *if* you're flying in VMC over
parts of the country with places to glide to is "look out the window,
pick a place to glide to, and maintain contol of the plane". The
accident record suggests that even over friendly terrain in daylight,
some pilots fail to accomplish all three. And of course, not all day
VMC flight is over terrain so friendly.
> Lose an engine by night (admittedly there are a variety of
> possibilities - but if you consider a scenario away from the circuit (eg a
> cross country) on a dark night) you can't see a darned thing. In this
> scenario you're probably going to die. And if you don't, it's because of
> good luck, not good risk management.
Well, there's certainly an increased risk flying at night. No question.
Even if you think you see someplace good, no guarantee it won't prove
to be full of light poles or powerlines when you get closer, which
you might spot high enough to make other choices in daytime. And it's
a significant increased risk. No question.
Increased risk flying IMC in a single, too. Far as I can tell, 'bout
the same magnitude day IMC vs. VFR night.
But "probably going to die" just isn't bourne out by the stats.
And I do think there's still a strong element of 'doing the right thing'
involved in the outcome. Take the NTSB report of the ijit who ran out
of fuel one night. He was OVER an airport when the engine quit--for
the 2nd time. ATC read him the freq for the PCL, he couldn't get it to
light up, he elected to try to continue 5 miles 'cuz the engine caught
again briefly.
Didn't make it, did a forced landing short of the airport. Maintained
flying speed right down into the trees, wrecked the plane. Everybody
walked off. Now consider he was right over an airport at 5,000 ft, he
could have landed and rolled off the runway (there's luck). Nope, he
spit on his luck and kept going. Even so, he did the right thing,
kept control, didn't stall it, and everyone walked. At the last minute,
he affected the outcome correctly.
> So I stand by my generalisation.
You can stand by whatever you like, doesn't follow you are correct.
> In planning your night flights to be as close as possible to a suitable
> landing place is, of course, a good thing. I don't know your circumstances -
> Flat / hard desert I wouldn't have a problem with - over water I don't have
> a problem with
Interesting you should mention this. Some years back I had a debate
with a chap who insisted 'twas foolish to tote along proper survival
gear overwater because "ditchings were almost invariably fatal". When
it was pointed out to him that the accident record doesn't bear that
out, that in fact the majority of people survive a light plane ditching
and either can't get out, or die of exposure before rescue, I don't
think he ever conceded a point. He stood by his generalization. He
was flying regularly over the Channel and North Sea but no point in
survival stuff 'cuz ditchings were always fatal. But I digress....
You're absolutely right, night flights should be planned to take
advantage of proximity to suitable landing sites and the pilot by
gosh had better take a good hard squint at the sectional or a topo
map and consider what it looks like down there.
> Trust me - fly aircraft long enough and eventually you'll have
> a problem with an engine - that's as sure as death and taxes - what happens
> after that point comes down to how well prepared you are - being able to see
> where you're landing goes a long long long way towards that.
Very true.
> By day I'm prepared to accept that there is a small chance that I'll lose an
> engine - that small possibility is mitigated by the fact that - with
> sensible flight planning - I'm still relatively safe (by day) (say a 1 in
> 3000 chance I'll lose an engine and a 1 in 100 hundred chance I'll die in
> the forced landing = 1 in 300,000 chance of dying on any given flight. By
> night you still have the 1 in 3000 chance of losing the engine, but 99%
> chance you'll die in the "virtually uncontrolled crash"
"99% of statistics are made up" and I think these falls in that category.
Is a blind forced landing (night or IMC) a greater risk than day VFR,
you betcha. So much greater it's two orders of magnitude higher risk?
Accident record doesn't bear that out. Instead it's the same story
night or day: maintain control, go into unfriendly terrain in controlled
flight, and the chances you'll live are good. Lose control and stall
it, you're gone. Are the chances of finding friendly terrain in day
VFR better, of course, but not "sure bet" depending on where you fly.
> Grab a safety pilot and a pair of foggles some day soon (don't cheat) - and
> get a taste of what it feels like to be flying blind, without power (you
> might like to also consider packing a change of underwear that day).
Good advice.
> Personally, If I'm flying at night I take the twin (and just for the record
> I lost an engine in a twin at night due to fuel contamination - and I'm here
> today because of the warm spare on the other side of the aircraft.
For some people, any SE flying is too great a risk. Others fly day
VFR but no night, and no IMC. I can't argue with that. We all have
our risk assessments and comfort levels.
But I don't think it's helpful to exaggerate the level of risk either.
Is it significantly greater, yes. A sure bet you'll die if the fan
quits, far from it even in the accident record (and that doesn't include
the pilots smart enough to *land* at the airport they could glide to).
Just FTR, we fly night on occasion, and IMC on occasion, SE with our
3 yo child in the plane. We prefer to avoid both, because they are
higher risk flying. When we don't avoid them, we plan carefully to
keep as many options clear as we can. But you bet we've done careful
digging into what's known of the actual risks and actual outcomes, and
if it were anything *close* to a sure bet fatality if the fan quits,
or anything *close* to the pilot has no input to the outcome it's
sheer luck, we would never get in the plane with our child in that stuff.
Some people wouldn't fly SE with their child at all. Others
just wouldn't fly. Different risk assessments, different choices.
> Just 10c worth from a very old (not bold) pilot.
Appreciate the advice and the viewpoint, disagree with your generalization.
Regards,
Sydney
Kiwi Jet Jock
Taking your reasoning Michael I need not bother wearing my seatbelt if I
only drive a few thousand miles each year because statistically I'm not
likely to have an accident - by my standards I wear a seatbelt on EVERY
journey regardless.
We seem to agree that in the event of an engine failure by night, whether
you live or die is largely a matter or luck - personally, I'm not going to
bet my life on the fact that my engine is going to keep turning in any
situation - and I've lost 9 engines in my time. And my safety plan for such
a scenario is going to be a lot more than "a full bag of luck" - and I'm
alive today because of that. I'm sure that some might argue that I'm too
conservative - and yet somehow I think the many who have died 'pushing their
luck' (with the benefit of hinesight) would agree with my approach.
Yes, one can argue that statistically, the chances of loosing an engine at
night are small - I see it as a bit like Russian Roulette. Yes, your chances
of loosing an engine are small - so most pilots live - on the flipside of
the coin there are many pilots who are now dead because the statistics went
against them. I have lost an engine at 300 feet agl at night - I'm alive
because I carry a spare on the opposite wing - had I have been in a single
I'd have ended up a mangled wreck in an antenna farm - so I hope you'll
understand my feelings that statistics are for other pilots.
I can't comment on the relative safety of your area - around here I see so
many who simply put too much faith in too many areas - flights by night,
cross country, over the kinds of terrain that would simply rip a plane to
bits being but a few.
... at the end of the day I don't want to read in these NGs that so-and-so
has died in an aircraft "accident" - with his last words being
"Statistically it just wasn't supposed to happen"
Perhaps before getting airbourne in that single at night you need to add one
more check to your list: "Am I feeling lucky today"?
Over and out
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03052...@posting.google.com...
Kiwi Jet Jock
> airplane down to the ground and land at a reasonably slow airspeed
> without stalling, the odds are very good that you will walk away even
> if the plane is not damaged.
I'm wondering if the sun never sets in your area of the world or something?
In my neck of the woods you don't 'land' at a reasonably slow airspeed - you
can't see a damned thing out the window on anything but a clear night with a
nice moon lighting up the ground nicely - akin to attempting your simulator
approach with your monitor switched off!
> The presumed flip-side to this argument is that flying at night in a
> twin is safer. However, there are reasons that you could have to land
> off airport even in a twin, most notably fuel contamination or smoke
> in the cockpit. Now if you try to land a twin off-airport, day or
> night, *then* there is a good chance you will have a fatal accident
> because the stall speed is notably higher than on a single.
I'm not arguing - I'm just trying to inject a little real-world realism from
someone who's been there and done that many times - all too often I read on
here all the good theories, but knowing that they just don't work that way
in the real world. I've had smoke in the cockpit - I've lost an engine in a
twin due to fuel contamination - and yes, damned nearly lost the other one
too - so I wouldn't argue for a moment that there are scenarios that'll
bring down a twin - but you're far more likely to come down in a single.
Been there, done that too - have you had your first total failure yet?
> A very worthwhile procedure to practice on Microsoft Flight Simulator
> or on an Elite or other PC-based flight training device is the
> night-time deadstick instrument approach from 10,000 feet.. it takes
> practice but can be done, and this gives you another option in your
> toolbox if the worst occurs.
Or better still, try it with a real aeroplane
Sydney Hoeltzli
> Actually the facts do not bear this out. If you keep flying the
> airplane down to the ground and land at a reasonably slow airspeed
> without stalling, the odds are very good that you will walk away even
> if the plane is not damaged.
Richard,
I assume by context, you mean "even if the plane *is* damaged, here??
Cheers,
Sydney
Sydney Hoeltzli
> I'm wondering if the sun never sets in your area of the world or something?
> In my neck of the woods you don't 'land' at a reasonably slow airspeed - you
> can't see a damned thing out the window on anything but a clear night with a
> nice moon lighting up the ground nicely - akin to attempting your simulator
> approach with your monitor switched off!
Well, actually, if I'm considering a night flight the phase of the moon
is one of my decision factors. No joke! New moon = get a motel room.
There are areas of the US which are truly a black hole,
can't-see-a-thing. Large portions of the Western part, for example.
But in the Eastern US, where Richard is located if I'm not mistaken,
true black holes are really rare. If you're at any sort of altitude,
chances are good there are lights you can head towards.
I think, though, that Richard's point may be: if you slow the typical
GA light single to or just above minimum sink, or to final approach
speed, your odds of survival aren't that grim even if you can't see
what you're about to hit. In fact, your odds of survival may be
better if you can't see a thing and don't pull back and stall out
in the attempt to avoid the inevitable. There are actually tables
of impact speed and impact angle vs. predicted injury (shudder)
which I don't feel like digging for at the moment, but the rule-of-
thumb I recall is that if your speed is ~80 mph or less and your
impact angle is at least 20-30 degrees off perpendicular and the
seatbelts don't break, your chances of fatal injury aren't bad.
The slower you are and the shallower the impact angle, the better.
I'm continually amazed at what people survive.
You're dished if you go into something a few hundred feet off the
ground, of course, which is where you've a good point that luck is
a definate factor. Situational awareness comes into it of course
(where is that antenna farm?) and a good mapping GPS is a big plus.
If you're flying something which falls out of the sky at airspeeds
below 100 kts, your odds of surviving a crash aren't so good,
which might perhaps be where you're coming from?
Sydney
Kiwi Jet Jock
I suspect the surviveability stats are buoyed to (at least) a significant
degree by the fact that many SE failures at night occured on trival flights
(ie within a few miles of the airport) - and perhaps being 'fortunate'
enough to have at least some visibility (moon/stars) combined with perhaps a
kind place to land, or good local knowledge. If that's part of the plan, so
be it.
I'd suggest forgetting the stats for a sec, and try the exercise with a
safety pilot - at the same time trying to appreciate how you'd feel if it
were for real.
At the end of the day, my thoughts are that folks need to consider just what
their emergency options are before they're needed - I doubt that (faced with
the prospect of a SE night flight) many pilots would stop to consider (for
example) "Do I have sufficient ambient light or ground markers to be able to
identify a suitable place to land in the event of an engine failure". Let's
be honest - the emergency action plan for most would be 'She'll be right -
engines don't stop - and the plane doesn't know it's night time - so lets
go'
Perhaps a helpful start would be for pilots to recite out loud before any
flight (especially to his passengers) "I ACCEPT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR MY
ENGINE TO FAIL AT ANY TIME - AND IF IT DOES, HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO" -
If the best answer folks can come up with is "Hope I'm lucky enough to be
one of the ones who lives to tell the tale" then I think they need to
rethink the plan. If a passenger was to ask "What would you do if the engine
stopped at night", how in control would you feel telling them that the plan
was "to head for a dark patch and hope for the best"? - it's roulette, not
risk management.
I honestly think that people get too caught up in the 'statistics' but -
forgetting that these can well prove to be life or death decisions - you
don't get a 2nd chance to do better next time.
But then again, this is just the opinion of someone who is alive today only
because I practiced what I preach here. You can argue stats until you're
blue in the face - but I can tell you they don't count for much when the
shit hits the fan.
> > By day I'm prepared to accept that there is a small chance that I'll
lose an
> > engine - that small possibility is mitigated by the fact that - with
> > sensible flight planning - I'm still relatively safe (by day) (say a 1
in
> > 3000 chance I'll lose an engine and a 1 in 100 hundred chance I'll die
in
> > the forced landing = 1 in 300,000 chance of dying on any given flight.
By
> > night you still have the 1 in 3000 chance of losing the engine, but 99%
> > chance you'll die in the "virtually uncontrolled crash"
>
> "99% of statistics are made up" and I think these falls in that category.
Let me see - 25,000 hours - 9 engine failures - 1 per 2778 flying hours -
take out jet time and GA is looking even worse. Chances of living by day?
Who knows - but I'm still here - so 0% fatalitles by day so far (close
enough to 1% for me) - By night - who the hell knows. Yes I've done it too -
and I can remember thinking "what are my options if the engine quits right
at this moment" - it's not a very comforting thought when my answer is
"there aren't any". I'm not talking about trivial 10 minute trips over the
city to show friends - or on nights where the moon & stars are so bright you
could land without the runway lights on - but serious cross country where
it's as dark as the inside of a cow out there. Don't worry about if the
paddock you pick has posts in it - you won't see the posts or the paddock
until it's illuminated at 5 feet by the 3milli-watt bulb that passes for a
landing light these days. As I've said before - you might be flying in areas
with millions of acres of hard/flat farm land, and no fences - perhaps
that's the norm over there (I don't know) - but in all of the areas I fly
(and have flown GA) chances are you'd end up in the sea or the mountains or
some very unfriendly turf. I cannot for the life of me see that being
surviveable. (no pun intended)
At the end of the day I think that a lot of pilots feel comfortable in what
they're doing because ignorance is bliss - unfortunately they keep killing
themselves. We joke with friends that the most dangerous thing about GA is
the drive to the airport - and yet the reality is GA is 7 times more
dangerous. Why? because GA pilots keep on doing stupid things - and not
managing risks like we do flying the heavy metal. And this needs to change.
Kiwi Jet Jock
> can't-see-a-thing. Large portions of the Western part, for example.
> But in the Eastern US, where Richard is located if I'm not mistaken,
> true black holes are really rare. If you're at any sort of altitude,
> chances are good there are lights you can head towards.
For us, most of it is 'Black hole' stuff - away from the cities
> I think, though, that Richard's point may be: if you slow the typical
> GA light single to or just above minimum sink, or to final approach
> speed, your odds of survival aren't that grim even if you can't see
> what you're about to hit. In fact, your odds of survival may be
> better if you can't see a thing and don't pull back and stall out
> in the attempt to avoid the inevitable. There are actually tables
> of impact speed and impact angle vs. predicted injury (shudder)
> which I don't feel like digging for at the moment, but the rule-of-
> thumb I recall is that if your speed is ~80 mph or less and your
> impact angle is at least 20-30 degrees off perpendicular and the
> seatbelts don't break, your chances of fatal injury aren't bad.
> The slower you are and the shallower the impact angle, the better.
> I'm continually amazed at what people survive.
It's a square law function - stats show the C172 as being the safest to
crash in - wouldn't like to try it even in a PA28. For me, honestly, it's a
moot point - I fly almost all multi now anyway - but - incidentally - not
over mountainous terrain by night because the SE ceiling is about 1/2 what
the mountain tops are.
You might be interested to know that even flying larger twin turboprops we
avoid certain routes in certain conditions for exactly the same reason
(anti-icing gear alone can take 3000 feet out SE ceiling). Rick Management
in action.
> If you're flying something which falls out of the sky at airspeeds
> below 100 kts, your odds of surviving a crash aren't so good,
> which might perhaps be where you're coming from?
On the GA I'm fling at present we're good for about 70 knots clean - but my
first preferance is not to crash so that the rest becomes irrelevant! :)
Neil Gould
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote:
> "Kiwi Jet Jock" <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
> > Sometimes the theory 'sounds good', but it's just not reality. The
reality
> > is (to put it bluntly) - if you lose an engine at night over
inhospitable
> > terrain - or have to land in the trees at any time ...
> >
> > ... you're probably going to die, and kill everybody else on board.
>
> Actually the facts do not bear this out. If you keep flying the
> airplane down to the ground and land at a reasonably slow airspeed
> without stalling, the odds are very good that you will walk away even
> if the plane is not damaged.
>
Re: KJJ's perspective, I don't know what night or day has to do with this,
except that in the day time you can see it hitting the fan for a longer
period of time. I totally agree with the "risk management" aspect of flight,
and, once again, I think it's equally applicable for day or night flying.
Being in the midwest, there are large areas of both relatively safe and
relatively dangerous terrain. If you have a catastrophic failure over the
relatively dangerous terrain, it won't matter much whether it's day or
night... the chances of surviving will be largely up to other factors.
However, luck needn't be the only factor involved in the outcome.
Re: Richard's perspective, I agree that whether one survives a crash is
dependent on many factors, and that not surving is largely a matter of
coming up against the worst-case-scenario. So, what to do? I agree that
improving one's skill in slow flight is a good idea, because it reduces the
likelihood of the worst-case-scenario. Again, this is true day or night.
Where I see some common ground between these two perspectives is that pilots
should *always* be prepared for the engine to quit, beginning with
pre-flight planning. Choose a route that provides options. If there isn't
such a route, there is still the no-go option. This is equally true day or
night. At night, there may be fewer safe options, but that doesn't equate to
no options, or guaranteed fatalities.
I suspect that there may be some fatalities that are simply the result of
fatalistic thinking at a critical moment.
Regards,
--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Dylan Smith
>I guess it all comes down to personal standards.
>
>Taking your reasoning Michael I need not bother wearing my seatbelt if I
>only drive a few thousand miles each year because statistically I'm not
>likely to have an accident - by my standards I wear a seatbelt on EVERY
>journey regardless.
I disagree that this comparison is valid. We are largely talking of
risk/reward relationships here. Ignoring the seatbelt laws, there is
no additional reward for not wearing a seatbelt - modern inertia belts
are very easy to put on.
However, for many, there is a great deal of reward for flying at night,
even in their light singles.
The comparison is as disingenous as saying the second engine on a twin
will just fly you to the scene of the accident!
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Dylan Smith
>thumb I recall is that if your speed is ~80 mph or less and your
>impact angle is at least 20-30 degrees off perpendicular and the
>seatbelts don't break, your chances of fatal injury aren't bad.
Anecdote: A local pilot (when I was based in Houston) flew from Austin
back home on a dark, IMC night in his Bonanza. Despite having plenty of
fuel capacity, he neglected to fill up with fuel. On his second missed
approach trying to get into HOU on the ILS (this tells you how low it
was) he ran out of fuel. He collided with the roof of a 2-storey house,
and the aircraft came to rest impaling the roof.
He climbed away with no more than minor injuries. The only thing
he did right that evening was to maintain flying speed all the way to
impact.
Michael
Well, sort of. It's a question of how much risk you're willing to
accept, and what kind. I know a pilot that used to have this great
airshow act where he did 'square' loops at low level. Lose the engine
at the wrong time, and it's over. He knew the risk. It was worth it
to him.
> Taking your reasoning Michael I need not bother wearing my seatbelt if I
> only drive a few thousand miles each year because statistically I'm not
> likely to have an accident - by my standards I wear a seatbelt on EVERY
> journey regardless.
Well, no. Taking my reasoning, if your car's seatbelt is broken (say
the inertia reel is stuck) it's OK to drive it that way until you can
get it fixed, because it's too expensive to rent a car with a working
seatbelt for that period, or have it towed, or whatever.
The argument for flying night/IMC SE is basically that I can't afford
or don't want to pay for the equipment and training necessary to fly
ME. It's essentially saying that the cost is disproportionate to the
reduction in risk. I can understand the argument. The fact is that
there are a lot of things I COULD have on my airplane that would lower
risk but that I simply can't afford.
> Yes, one can argue that statistically, the chances of loosing an engine at
> night are small - I see it as a bit like Russian Roulette.
That's exactly what it is - only there's one full chamber and
thousands of empty ones, and thus for a good enough reason I can see
taking the chance. You're doing the same thing with two engines -
only you have more empty chambers.
Michael
SelwayKid
> SelwayKid wrote in message
> <67a933a4.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> >"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<ba7sj1$praf8$1@ID-
>
> >> >Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world
>
> >> Now you are trying to tell me that at the *start* (let alone later) of a
> >> procedure turn you couldn't get back to the paddock? And you (like
> >> everyone else) were operating at *cruise*?
> >>
> >> Is that what you're saying? What the hell were you flying? A 2-car
> >> garage?
> >>
> >> (Dusting, eh?)
> >HUH?
>
> Um, sorry - a single "HUH?" is not a valid answer to 4 questions........
OK. Since you are being silly now let me attempt to answer your
questionable questions.
1. What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you
referring to a spray turn-around? Those are done according to the
terrain and surrounding obstacles as well as the type aircraft being
used.
2. Why should I return to any paddock since that is not what I am
spraying?
3. I am not in the habit of trying to fly as less than flying
airspeed. while spraying with fixed wing, we are normally flying at
cruise speed at an altitude of anywhere from 3' above the crops, to
perhaps 50' above them. Obviously if we are spraying trees we'll
adjust altitude accordingly. Our turn-around altitude will depend on
terrain and obstacles but is frequently within 6 feet of the tops of
trees and or powerlines.
If spraying with rotorcraft, the speed may be anything from just into
translational lift, to cruise. It will depend on the crops being
treated.
4. I didn't imply blue gums were not in OZ....here they are generally
referred to as eucalyptus and are plentiful in many agricultural areas
I work in.
5. I am not licensed to fly a two car garage. However, I have quite a
bit of experience with the following agricultural aircraft; Pawnee,
C-188, Ag Cat, Fletcher, Thrush -piston and turbine, AirTractor
-piston and turbine, Bell helicopters 47/206, Hiller 12C&E piston and
turbine, Hughes 500, and a few multi engined aircraft equipped for ag
work.
I do hold an ATP and rated in ASMELS, Rotorcraft (Instrument) and hold
5 instructor ratings. I have been licensed in at least a dozen
countries.
Does that satisfy your silly questions?
Huh?
Casey Wilson
news:GfCya.17211$3t6.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
==========SNIP=========
> situation - and I've lost 9 engines in my time. And my safety plan for
such
> a scenario is going to be a lot more than "a full bag of luck" - and I'm
==========SNIP=========
Kiwi Jet Jock
I'll finish with a closing thought on statistics:
"If the chances of of losing an engine are, say, 1 in 5000 flight hours then
another way of looking at it is if 5000 folks go flying for an hour, 4999
will probably make it back in time for dinner - and one won't"
In terms of night flying no probs if you're one of the 4999 - but I'm sure
the unlucky one would have a different slant on the discussion.
One your next night flight will you be one of the 4999? Or will you be the 1
in 5000?
No way to know of course - so if nothing else think about it before you do
it - think about your options - and perhaps also give some thought to who'd
going to raise your kids if you're not around. Not a nice thought I know -
but unfortunately it happens too often to folks who felt a lot safer in the
air than they really were.
Fly safe,
KJJ
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbcmtfj...@vexed2.alioth.net...
Sydney Hoeltzli
> I suspect the surviveability stats are buoyed to (at least) a significant
> degree by the fact that many SE failures at night occured on trival flights
> (ie within a few miles of the airport)
I don't know. I've seen a number of NTSB reports where the pilots
were on a long trip at night when the engine quit.
However, I think it's a big assumption that landing near (but not on)
an airport will necessarily have better odds than landing somewhere
else. A lot of our airports are tucked into pretty built-up areas
these days. The same goes for what you call "trivial 10 minute trips
over the city". Actually over our city would be one of my least
favorite places to lose an engine, day or night esp. given the Class
B keeps us low.
<snip>
> At the end of the day, my thoughts are that folks need to consider just what
> their emergency options are before they're needed - I doubt that (faced with
> the prospect of a SE night flight) many pilots would stop to consider (for
> example) "Do I have sufficient ambient light or ground markers to be able to
> identify a suitable place to land in the event of an engine failure". Let's
> be honest - the emergency action plan for most would be 'She'll be right -
> engines don't stop - and the plane doesn't know it's night time - so lets
> go'
This is a very valid point, but I think it applies to *all* emergencies
in *all* phases of flight. What I mean is, I think many pilots don't
stop to consider "what will I do here if the engine fails on takeoff?"
"where's my abort point on this runway today?" "what are my options if
the engine quits during this 10 minute trivial scenic flight I'm about
to make at 1000 ft agl" "what will I do if I need to make a forced
landing in this winter weather, and it's 30 hrs before I am found?"
etc etc.
> Perhaps a helpful start would be for pilots to recite out loud before any
> flight (especially to his passengers) "I ACCEPT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR MY
> ENGINE TO FAIL AT ANY TIME - AND IF IT DOES, HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO"
Sounds like a great thing for the pilot to say to himself, I'm
all for it.
Sounds like a great way to make new friends for GA when recited to the
passengers. Not.
> I honestly think that people get too caught up in the 'statistics' but -
> forgetting that these can well prove to be life or death decisions - you
> don't get a 2nd chance to do better next time
You're very right, but please recall that it was your introduction
of statistics, and of an absolute statement about the survivability
of an engine failure at night, which brought me in here. Don't
fetch a bone if you don't want it looked at.
It's very valid to point out that statistics don't predict our
individual outcome, and that if one's engine just died it's scant
comfort to know it's a rare event.
On the other hand, if the engine just died, it's helpful to know
that statistically, people who keep control of the plane and hit
solid stuff slowly tend to live to revise their opinions. It's
not helpful to believe that statistically, everyone who has an
engine failure at night dies unless luck takes a hand -- especially
when the accident record (at least here in the States) doesn't
bear that out.
> Don't worry about if the paddock you pick has posts in it
It's a worry to me, actually. The posts I'm thinking of are 50-60
feet tall and quite stout, and hitting them from that altitude
quite likely fatal. Just one of the dangers that one can so much
more readily assess by day. Of course I was told once that a decently-
trained pilot would just thread between them. Heh. Heh.
> As I've said before - you might be flying in areas
> with millions of acres of hard/flat farm land, and no fences - perhaps
> that's the norm over there (I don't know) - but in all of the areas I fly
> (and have flown GA) chances are you'd end up in the sea or the mountains or
> some very unfriendly turf. I cannot for the life of me see that being
> surviveable. (no pun intended)
I don't know anything about the terrain where you fly nor the accident
record there. It may be as dire as you say.
Around here, there are millions of acres of hard/flat land, and
millions of acres of less-friendly terrain. There are places where
a night cross country of 200 miles can be planned to stay w/in glide
range of an airport from 7000 feet, and places where the closest
airport will be the departure point until halfway through the trip.
It's a varied country, which is one reason it's hard to make absolute
pronouncements.
> At the end of the day I think that a lot of pilots feel comfortable in what
> they're doing because ignorance is bliss - unfortunately they keep killing
> themselves. We joke with friends that the most dangerous thing about GA is
> the drive to the airport - and yet the reality is GA is 7 times more
> dangerous. Why? because GA pilots keep on doing stupid things - and not
> managing risks like we do flying the heavy metal. And this needs to change.
I'm a wholehearted fan of risk management, but that starts with
accurately assessing the risks. And frankly, if no SE GA pilots ever
had an engine failure at night again, it really wouldn't cause the
accident rate to flicker. Please note, I'm not trying to argue night
flight in a SE plane isn't significantly more risky than other flight
modes, other things being equal. But other things aren't.
I'd love to see pilots stop killing themselves, but the accident record
says that if we could get people to stop buzzing Grandma's house, keep
up their proficiency for landing and takeoffs, land the plane (or stay
home) when they're VFR and the weather gets low, and manage fuel
properly, we could do a lot more for the accident rate.
Best,
Sydney
Hank Rausch
> I've got a question for those of you experienced out there. What happens if
> you have an engine failure at night in a single engine plane. Obviously you
> can't see potential landing sites and roads could be covered with power
> lines. So what to do?
I had a partial loss of engine power at night--valve stuck open and
cylinder beat itself to death on it--caused me to get 1500+ rpm out of
the engine, was able to glide into Charleston SC Intl.
Since then I've thought about it and though I haven't done a good
deal of night flying since then, have resolved to set it down in a
lake, river or other body of water if it happens again outside of
glide range to a lighted field.
Better the devil you know than the one you don't--I am sure I can get
out of the plane, even inverted, in a lake. I am sure I will not make
it out if I run into a tree.
Hank Rausch
N9906T
RT
SelwayKid wrote in message
<67a933a4.03052...@posting.google.com>...
*********************************
No, it doesn't actually. One of the things about the net is that anyone
can appear/pretend to be anyone they like, even if they're in an iron lung
in hospital.
A couple more silly questions for you, Selway "Kid", mate...
Where is the master switch on a Fletcher 300, and how does it operate? And
don't bother to try to explain why you can't remember. How are the booms
attached?
Pawnee: where is the fixed fire extinguisher fitted and how is it actuated?
How many bungee cords are used?
AgCat: position of the oil reservoir?
C-188; where is the main fuel injection filter and how do you remove it?
"I have been licensed in at least a dozen countries."
Name just the first 12, with dates.
"I am not in the habit of trying to fly as less than flying airspeed. while
spraying with fixed wing"
REALLY! You mean all these other silly buggers still DO that - and after
you've TOLD them?
"What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you referring to a
spray turn-around? Those are done according to the terrain and surrounding
obstacles as well as the type aircraft being used."
Oh really?
>> >> (Dusting, eh?)
>> >HUH?
Huh - you don't know what that is?
"and a few multi engined aircraft equipped for ag work."
Details, please.....
>1. What do you mean by the start of a procedure turn? Are you
>referring to a spray turn-around?
but you say: "I do hold an ATP and rated in ASMELS, Rotorcraft (Instrument)
and hold
5 instructor ratings."
*5* instructor ratings. What are they?
And you don't know what a procedure turn is????????????
And when did you do the theory for the ATPL - who with and why? (Erm, note
ATP = airline transport pilot. While you may hold one, we're not really
interested in your kinky habits. Try ATPL = as above licence)
"Why should I return to any paddock since that is not what I am spraying?"
Que? And this is after an engine failure?
From your responses so far, if you have done as you say, you are a
statistical anomaly, as in something that doesn't exist.
A far more likely explanation is that you are either a pimply faced kid (or
a fat and bald divorcee) amusing himself by abusing himself while running
Micro$loths Flight Sim.
In the first case stop wasting everyones' time and go and do your homework.
In the second case stop wasting everyones' time and look up the yellow pages
for "Cathouse".
In either case stop wasting our bloody time, you wanker.
Goodbye SelwayKid - I hope you leaned your lesson.
RT
Was in an a/c which had a cabin fire (started by the overhead instrument
flood lights, so you can guess what type I'm talking about:-) over tiger
country on a black night. 3 of us. The two that weren't flying were not
only (in US terms) A&Ps but had their toolboxes as we were coming back from
a maintenance job. You've never seen a cabin lining ripped down so fast!
Had been just the pilot or a load of non-techo pax, might have been very
unfriendly
Reckon I'd rather stay overnight at the local pub and leave at first light
next day.........
(Jay, that should get me 10% commission for the next 12 months :-)
RT
Judah wrote in message ...
>Happened in Oz, huh? Maybe the pilot just had ruby slippers?
>
>;)
>
>Seriously, though, I have never heard this theory before. What exactly is
>the advantage of clipping the wings on trees at full cruise? Is it supposed
>to somehow be safer than landing at near stall?
>
>
>
>"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in
>news:ba2bsm$o281s$1...@ID-194795.news.dfncis.de:><snip>
>
>> Doubtless then you can explain how a C172 *at cruise* went between 2
>> trees (taking the wings off) on a mountain top east of Scone, NSW (Oz)
>> in cloud with the sole occupant escaping without a scratch - he picked
>> up his briefcase and walked out. The reason I remember that one is
>> coupla miles and it was too high for the local chopper to hover, let
>> alone lift.
'Pologies Judah - missed your post. And since you top posted I don't feel
obliged to reply anyway - however...
No - the point was that the a/c went between 2 trees at cruise and the pilot
walked out. Of course you should be within a poofteenth of stall if you
have to go into the scrub - but it illustrates the value of zotting between
a coupla trees to stuff the wings and slow you down gently.
Richard Kaplan
> I'm wondering if the sun never sets in your area of the world or something?
> In my neck of the woods you don't 'land' at a reasonably slow airspeed - you
> can't see a damned thing out the window on anything but a clear night with a
It depends where you fly. I am based out in the country 60 miles from
Pittsburgh. Between here and New York to the East or Dayton to the
West there is never a time when there are not enough lights to act as
a sufficient reference point for flight if the weather is VMC.
> too - so I wouldn't argue for a moment that there are scenarios that'll
> bring down a twin - but you're far more likely to come down in a single.
> Been there, done that too - have you had your first total failure yet?
No, I have not had my first total engine failure yet; the closest I
came was very intermittent partial power loss due to fuel
contamination.
The main point I am differing with you on is your statement that a
night forced landing in a single results in certain death -- that is
just patently false. There are many, many examples of people who have
succeeded in night-time deadstick ladings without injury.
The single vs. twin argument is simply not clear-cut. There is
excellent data to support a reasonable argument that either a single
is safer or a twin is safer. Such a discussion is timeless but always
useful and interesting; each side should respect the other, because
there is definitely not a definitive one-size-fits-all solution to
this debate.
> Or better still, try it with a real aeroplane
Yes, there is no doubt that the deadstick instrument approach can be
practiced most realistically in an actual airplane. However, that
requires a safety pilot, a very high cloud base, and lots of time to
climb to high altitude before each attempted approach. While it is
certainly reasonable for any pilot to practice this once in a while in
an actual airplane, it is doubtful that many general aviation pilots
would have enough proficiency-building time to maintain proficiency in
this maneuver. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to think
that someone could master the maneuver on Microsoft Flight Simulator
or something of similar capability and then practice the maneuver "for
real" once in a while in an airplane.
Richard Kaplan
> I assume by context, you mean "even if the plane *is* damaged, here??
Oops... thanks for the proofreading.
Richard Kaplan
> I'm wondering if the sun never sets in your area of the world or
something?
> In my neck of the woods you don't 'land' at a reasonably slow airspeed -
you
> can't see a damned thing out the window on anything but a clear night with
a
This all depends where you are conducting your night flight.
For what it is worth I used to fly a lot at night when I lived in
Minnesota -- I may have logged almost half my instrument training at night,
for example. Yet since I moved to Western Pennsylvania I fly at night much
more sparingly because the odds of identifying a successful landing spot are
smaller. I do not disagree with you that the risk goes up at night --- I
just do not agree that engine failure at night in a single equals 100%
chance of death.
Also consider that in Minnesota in the winter-time, if there is any
significant moonlight then the snow-covered fields will be quite visible. I
think for this reason that a night-time full-moon winter cross-country
flight carries better odds of a successful forced landing than a daytime
cross-country flight near by home base.
Michael
> excellent data to support a reasonable argument that either a single
> is safer or a twin is safer.
That would be why the airlines are running a mix of single engine and
multiengine transports. Oh, wait...
Now that I've weighed in on one side of this argument, I'm going to
weigh in on another. The only 'excellent data' on the safety
advantages of a single over a twin comes from GA, where the average
private airplane flies 26 hours a year and the average private pilot
gets so little in the way of advanced/recurrent training that the FAA
bribes flight instructors to do Wings and some insurance companies
actually give a discount for it.
For a pilot who gets proper training (initial and recurrent) the
single offers no safety advantages over a twin of equivalent
performance. Unfortunately, from what I've seen this does not
describe the average twin rated pilot in GA.
The higher landing speed (in the event of a forced off-field landing)
is a red herring - when you look at twins with performance comparable
to that of the higher end singles, you find that the landing/stall
speeds are not any higher. The downside of the twin is not safety -
it's cost.
The higher operating cost is just the tip of the iceberg. The
conventional twin configuration generally means that when you convert
a single to a twin (keeping the same basic fuselage, gear, and
aerodynamic surfaces) you come out about 5% slower. If you want to
retain the same speed, you need to increase power about 15%. That
gives you a 15% increase in basic operating cost (fuel, oil, engine
overhaul, routine engine maintenance).
Now we get into the extras. Equipment. The single probably only had
one alternator, one vacuum pump, one attitude gyro. On the twin
you're probably going to want to duplicate those. Of course most
people who fly hard IFR in singles duplicate those things as well, but
many of those who routinely fly at night won't.
And then there's the training. Recurrent training costs money, and
generally the insurance company will insist on it - or at least make a
reasonable rate contingent on it. Even if you do the training in your
own airplane and pay the instructor nothing, you're still looking at
the cost of running the airplane.
It's even worse when a 'real' twin of performance equivalent to your
single doesn't exist. If you're flying a Bonanza or 210, you can move
into a Twin Comanche or Travel Air and only see the 15% increase in
operating costs, plus the other costs mentioned. What are you going
to do if you're flying a Cherokee? There's nothing there for you, and
to get the redundancy of a twin you may have to buy a lot of extra
capability (speed and/or load) you really don't need, and a lot of
complexity you may not want.
Then there are the safety issues raised by the complexity and
aerodynamics. Some people just don't deal well with an airplane that
is both slick and complex. They divert attention from flying to
manage systems, and the plane gets away from them. The difference in
slickness and complexity between a Bonanza and a Twin Comanche is
minimal and the transition is easy, but the transition from something
like a Cherokee won't be. It does little good to reduce the chances
of dying from engine failure if all you accomplish is increasing the
chances of dying from mishandling the airplane. Of course this is
also a training/proficiency issue, but now you're talking about a
serious cost in time and money. My transition from TriPacer
(equivalent to a Cherokee)to Twin Comanche took 25 hours flight, at
least 15 hours ground with my instructor, and probably 100 hours of
self-study. It was certainly overkill for the checkride, but I'm not
convinced it was overkill for real life.
The other aspect of this is availability of equipment. The reality is
that icing brings down a lot more airplanes than engine failure. You
can get TKS on a Bonanza or 210. You can't get it on a Twin Comanche
or Travel Air. You can get it on a Baron, but now you're looking at a
lot higher operating cost - for capability you may not need. Of
course that's an IFR issue, not a night issue.
There was this one guy who put two small engines on a TriPacer. No
kidding. They were a little over 100 hp (most of the stock ones were
either built with or converted to 150-160 hp) and so the plane could
fly on one - just. He actually did this on 337's and stayed in the
normal category, not experimental. The plane was nearly centerline
thrust, with no Vmc, because he hung both engines on the nose, with a
prop extension for one of them. He flew over the Rockies routinely
and wasn't comfortable with the exposure of doing it single engine.
My point is not that this is necessarily a brilliant idea, but that it
can be done - and it would eliminate many of the slickness,
complexity, and cost issues. However, it hasn't been done on any
great scale, and that narrows the choices available.
> Such a discussion is timeless but always
> useful and interesting; each side should respect the other, because
> there is definitely not a definitive one-size-fits-all solution to
> this debate.
That's true. But I do object to claiming a safety advantage for the
single related to anything other than pilot proficiency. That's
simply not realistic.
Of course in real life we can't eliminate the pilot proficiency issue,
and thus your 'excellent evidence' that in the real world, the twin
offers no safety advantage for the average GA pilot.
> Yes, there is no doubt that the deadstick instrument approach can be
> practiced most realistically in an actual airplane. However, that
> requires a safety pilot, a very high cloud base, and lots of time to
> climb to high altitude before each attempted approach. While it is
> certainly reasonable for any pilot to practice this once in a while in
> an actual airplane, it is doubtful that many general aviation pilots
> would have enough proficiency-building time to maintain proficiency in
> this maneuver. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to think
> that someone could master the maneuver on Microsoft Flight Simulator
> or something of similar capability and then practice the maneuver "for
> real" once in a while in an airplane.
I think the important thing to point out is this - any single engine
pilot who is going to put that kind of time, effort, and money into
preparing for an engine failure and actually develop the necessary
skill to pull it off would be safer in the twin, all else being equal.
The average pilot won't ever do this; too much time and effort. Can
it be done? Absolutely; I know someone who did it for real. There
are even some airplanes where an engine-out instrument approach is
part of the POH and the training program. These include the PC-12 (no
surprise) and the 727 (surprise!).
But note that in the environment where pilot training and proficiency
are largely not issues (the major airlines) and where they know about
and practice the engine-out instrument approach, the airplanes are all
multiengines. That should tell you something.
The only aircraft that does perform an engine-out instrument approach
on anything like a regular basis is the Space Shuttle. The original
design included air-breathing engines for glideslope control and
go-around capability. These were removed from the design early on.
The reason? Cost.
Michael
SelwayKid
> SelwayKid wrote in message
> <67a933a4.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> >"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<bad79r$rv2sa$1...@ID-194795.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> SelwayKid wrote in message
> >> <67a933a4.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<ba7sj1$praf8$1@ID-
>
> >> >> >Selway Kid - 22,000 hours of fun flying all over the world
>
> >> >> Now you are trying to tell me that at the *start* (let alone later)
etc, etc. You have turned this into a personal attack on me rather
than issues for some reason and now demand my credentials while
offering none of your own.
While you may feel you are being clever, all you are doing is taking
up a lot of space and making a fool of yourself.
No I am not a pimply faced kid or wanker as you call me. I am a 66
year old professional pilot with all the qualifications and experience
I have stated and can readily produce the verifications but see no
need to and especially for you or anyone like you.
No I'm not going away.
Selway Kid *as in Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Montana/Idaho*
Richard Kaplan
> That would be why the airlines are running a mix of single engine and
> multiengine transports. Oh, wait...
The airlines run all multi-engine airplanes because single-engine
airplanes cannot be certified to transport category standards. There
is also a huge difference between general aviation multi-engine
airplanes and transport category multi-engine airplanes. Transport
category airplanes are require to be able to lose an engine at the
most critical part of the takeoff roll just after the pilot is
committed to takeoff and then continue the takeoff and climb
successfully with the engine inoperative at maximum gross weight and
with sufficient climb performance to clear terrain at any airport at
which they operate. No general aviation multi-engine airplane I know
of can achieve this or at least not any piston multi-engine airplane.
Also realize that transport category airplanes are required to have
fire suppression systems and all sorts of other redundant systems not
present on the vast majority of multi-engine piston airplanes.
The bottom line is that when you analyze a piston single vs. a piston
multi-engine airplane one inevitably concludes that there are safety
pros and cons to having an extra multi-engine airplane: the
advantage is the possibility of retaining power when one engine
failures, but the disadvantage is a higher risk of in-flight fire, the
possibility of a Vmc rollover if a pilot is not highly profcient with
an engine failure on takeoff, a lesser chance of being able to execute
an off-airport landing safely in the event of fuel contamination or
fire, etc. So there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the
piston single vs. piston twin debate. With a transport category
airplane, the disadvantages of an additional engine have been overcome
to the extent that there is little downside to the extra engine(s)
except extreme cost which is completely out of the question for the
owner of any piston aircraft.
> For a pilot who gets proper training (initial and recurrent) the
> single offers no safety advantages over a twin of equivalent
> performance. Unfortunately, from what I've seen this does not
> describe the average twin rated pilot in GA.
First of all, the risk of in-flight fire persists in piston twins and
is clearly higher than the in-flight fire risk of a piston single.
And again, the odds of safely landing a twin off-airport are smaller
than in a single due to the twin's higher stall speed.
Second of all, I think it is a reasonable argument to say that it just
is not practical for most general aviation pilots to attend recurrent
training as often as necessary to retain proficiency in engine out on
takeoff scenarios. I should note in fairness that I am *not* a
multi-rated pilot, though from what I have read and heard from many
multi-engine pilots and instructors it is necessary to attend
simulator training at least twice yearly to retain this proficiency,
and such training may be hundreds or even 1,000 miles away for many
pilots. For many such general aviation pilots, it just is not
practical to schedule these twice-yearly training sessions. Out of
curiosity, do you attend twice-yearly multi-engine simulator training?
> The higher landing speed (in the event of a forced off-field landing)
> is a red herring - when you look at twins with performance comparable
> to that of the higher end singles, you find that the landing/stall
> speeds are not any higher.
The higher landing speed is absolutely not a red herring. All
singles have a maximum stall speed of 61 knots - the only exception I
know of is the Pilatus PC12, which has an exemption to this rule due
to seats which can withstand higher Gs. Piston twins with comparable
performance to my plane have higher stall speeds, and when you
consider that energy is proportional to the square of speed then this
becomes a very major factor in the safety analysis of singles vs.
twins.
>The downside of the twin is not safety - it's cost.
Safety is indeed a downside to twins. More accurately, there are both
pros and cons to the safety or twins and singles and these need to be
addressed for the specific mission of a given airplane -- there is no
one size fits all answer here.
On the other hand, if you want to eliminate cost as an obstacle, then
the clear answer is to move up to a turobprop single. The failure
rates of turboprop engines are so much lower than piston engines as to
make engine failure a mere blip in the accident picture. From a pure
safety perspective I would take a Cessna Caravan or Pilatus PC12 or
even a Silver Eagle P210 Turbine Conversion any day over any piston
twin.
> It's even worse when a 'real' twin of performance equivalent to your
> single doesn't exist. If you're flying a Bonanza or 210, you can move
> into a Twin Comanche or Travel Air and only see the 15% increase in
Actually, when you consider the speed, payload, and known-icing
capabilities of my P210 the only reasonable twin-engine alternatives
would be a Cessna 414, Piper Navajo, or maybe the Cessna 340 --
definitely not a Twin Comanche or Travel Air. Cost does become a a
*huge* consideration with those airplanes besides just the safety
issues -- the total operating cost for those planes including
insurance and recurrent training as well as all the other costs is
easily 3 times what it is for my P210. At that point, it probably
makes a lot more economic sense to buy a Caravan and do a leaseback to
a Part 135 operator to offset the cost of the airpane. Not only
would the added revenue offset the cost (it is a lot easier to get
charter business in a turboprop single than a piston twin) but I think
the Caravan or PC12 would be safer than a piston twin for the reasons
above.
> That's true. But I do object to claiming a safety advantage for the
> single related to anything other than pilot proficiency. That's
> simply not realistic.
The stall speed issue is quite real. There really are reasons why
airplanes need to be landed off-airport besides engine failure. The
centerline-thrust Cessna Skymaster bears this out -- it did not have
the stellar safety record Cessna had hoped for it.
> I think the important thing to point out is this - any single engine
> pilot who is going to put that kind of time, effort, and money into
> preparing for an engine failure and actually develop the necessary
> skill to pull it off would be safer in the twin, all else being equal.
Well I am not sure I would be safer in a twin, for all the reasons
above. And again, if I could afford a "safer" airplane then I would
move up to a Cessna Caravan or a Pilatus PC12, not to a twin. But in
the end I am not saying this applies to everyone -- for example, the
fact that you do not need known-icing in Texas is a huge difference
compared with my mission of taking my family on winter vacations from
Pennsylvania to Florida. So in the final analysis there is no
one-size-fits-all answer to the single vs. twin safety debate but
rather it all depends on the mission of the airplane.
> The only aircraft that does perform an engine-out instrument approach
> on anything like a regular basis is the Space Shuttle. The original
Obviously this is just an aside, but my understanding is that the
Space Shuttle has weather minimums for takeoff and landing which are
substantially above VFR. But in any event of course the complexity
and risk assessment for the Shuttle is markedly different from
anything in general aviation.
RT
SelwayKid wrote in message
<67a933a4.0305...@posting.google.com>...
>etc, etc. You have turned this into a personal attack on me rather
>than issues for some reason and now demand my credentials while
>offering none of your own.
>While you may feel you are being clever, all you are doing is taking
>up a lot of space and making a fool of yourself.
>No I am not a pimply faced kid or wanker as you call me. I am a 66
>year old professional pilot with all the qualifications and experience
>I have stated and can readily produce the verifications but see no
>need to and especially for you or anyone like you.
>No I'm not going away.
>Selway Kid *as in Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Montana/Idaho*
This lot has been taken to email - to the everlasting relief of the rest of
you, no doubt :-)
RT
Richard Kaplan wrote in message ...
>Well I am not sure I would be safer in a twin, for all the reasons
>above. And again, if I could afford a "safer" airplane then I would
>move up to a Cessna Caravan or a Pilatus PC12, not to a twin. But in
>the end I am not saying this applies to everyone -- for example, the
>fact that you do not need known-icing in Texas is a huge difference
>compared with my mission of taking my family on winter vacations from
>Pennsylvania to Florida. So in the final analysis there is no
>one-size-fits-all answer to the single vs. twin safety debate but
>rather it all depends on the mission of the airplane.
Unfortunately in a twin, like a glider, you are first on the scene of the
accident. In a single you have the engine/prop and beefy engine mounts
doing damage to the surroundings before you arrive. The 336/337 had the
best/worst of both words - no assymetric thrust and a donc in front - but a
donc behind as well.......
Richard Kaplan
> I suspect the surviveability stats are buoyed to (at least) a significant
> degree by the fact that many SE failures at night occured on trival flights
No, the stats are bouoyed by reports of actual piots who flew
cross-country at night and walked away from dead-stick landings...
again, your statement that engine failure on a night cross country
equals certain death or even 99% likelihood of death is patently
wrong.
> Let me see - 25,000 hours - 9 engine failures - 1 per 2778 flying hours -
> take out jet time and GA is looking even worse. Chances of living by day?
Perhaps you should reconsider the maintenance practices on your
general aviation aircraft. Piston engines fail about 1 in 10,000
hours. And that includes partial failures where the engine continues
to generate some power to permit an extended glide.
> that's the norm over there (I don't know) - but in all of the areas I fly
> (and have flown GA) chances are you'd end up in the sea or the mountains or
> some very unfriendly turf. I cannot for the life of me see that being
Now we are getting somewhere. If you want to say that it is
dangerous to fly over mountainous terrain at night there might well be
some logic there. That is quite different from stating flat out that
all night landings equal sudden death.
As far as flying somewhere where you would end up in the sea if you
had an engine out, I am not sure how that relates to day vs. night.
There is certainly a risk flying either day or night over water beyond
gliding distance to land.
For that matter, there is quite a risk flying even in the day over a
highly urban area. Suppose you were to lose your engine over New York
City in the daytime... where would you land? Or do you just presume
like most of us do that with a 1:10,000 hour mean time between
failures of piston airplane engines, flying over New York City is at
least as safe as being a passenger in a taxi in New York City? You
cannot eliminate all risks; you can just reasonably assess your
various options.
Michael
> airplanes cannot be certified to transport category standards.
Sure, but why are the standars written that way? In Canada, PC-12's
are being used for some feeder routes. A couple have already crashed
due to engine failure. Nobody has died - yet.
> There
> is also a huge difference between general aviation multi-engine
> airplanes and transport category multi-engine airplanes. Transport
> category airplanes are require to be able to lose an engine at the
> most critical part of the takeoff roll just after the pilot is
> committed to takeoff and then continue the takeoff and climb
> successfully with the engine inoperative at maximum gross weight and
> with sufficient climb performance to clear terrain at any airport at
> which they operate. No general aviation multi-engine airplane I know
> of can achieve this or at least not any piston multi-engine airplane.
This is correct - after a fashion. Realize that for some airports,
this means the gross weight is reduced. If you reduce the gross
weight enough, some GA twins can do this - the Aztec is an example,
and one of the people on this NG has done it just to prove it can be
done.
That's beside the point, though. I accept that in reality, most
multiengine takeoffs in the GA world involve exposed time - you're too
fast to stop on the remaining runway but too low/slow to continue
flight in the event of engine failure and clear the relevant
obstacles. The twin I fly is probably one of the worst offenders in
this area - high wing loading, small engines, and known difficult
handling at low speeds. Nonetheless, my exposed time is measured in
SECONDS. Yes, it is almost always less than a minute, and that period
occurs just seconds after pushing the throttles forward.
Consider the probability that an engine will go from passing runup
checks just minutes prior, and having nominal performance on the
takeoff roll, to catastrophic failure in less than a minute. Even
blowing an oil line or prop seal gives you about two minutes until the
engine seizes - long enough to get to blue line and a safe altitude,
and thus the ability to return to the airport. Of course this assumes
you don't suddenly decide to feather the wrong engine, but that's a
training issue.
> Also realize that transport category airplanes are required to have
> fire suppression systems and all sorts of other redundant systems not
> present on the vast majority of multi-engine piston airplanes.
That is a valid point - but those systems aren't present on the
singles either.
> The bottom line is that when you analyze a piston single vs. a piston
> multi-engine airplane one inevitably concludes that there are safety
> pros and cons to having an extra multi-engine airplane: the
> advantage is the possibility of retaining power when one engine
> failures, but the disadvantage is a higher risk of in-flight fire
How do you figure a higher risk of in-flight fire? If you're talking
about electrical fires (the most common) this is patently incorrect.
If you're talking about engine fires, well, two engines means double
the chance. But in a twin, you can shut the engine down and stop fuel
to it at the first sign of fire. You are not likely to want to do
that in a single. Thus I am not at all convinced that the risk of an
off field landing or accident due to fire is greater. There is the
additional advantage of having the fire out on the wing where the
smoke is not filling the cockpit and is immediately visible and
identifiable as an engine fire rather than an avionics/electrical
fire.
> the
> possibility of a Vmc rollover if a pilot is not highly profcient with
> an engine failure on takeoff
That I conceded from day one - but it's a training issue.
> a lesser chance of being able to execute
> an off-airport landing safely in the event of fuel contamination or
> fire
Don't buy that one either. The singles that can match my performance
don't have lower stall speeds.
> And again, the odds of safely landing a twin off-airport are smaller
> than in a single due to the twin's higher stall speed.
And you're still wrong about the higher stall speed. The twins that
have performance similar to the high performance singles have stall
speeds under 61 kts. To get above that, you're getting into cabin
class twins.
> Second of all, I think it is a reasonable argument to say that it just
> is not practical for most general aviation pilots to attend recurrent
> training as often as necessary to retain proficiency in engine out on
> takeoff scenarios.
It's way more practical as the deadstick instrument approach training
you mentioned. There is a lot of misinformation about the
difficulties of flying a twin on one engine, and it mostly comes from
single engine pilots and low time multiengine instructors. The
reality is that if you are proficient in a 210, VFR and IFR, I could
have you proficient in a PA-30 or C-310, VFR and IFR, in about 10-15
hours. There's simply not that much to it.
> I should note in fairness that I am *not* a
> multi-rated pilot, though from what I have read and heard from many
> multi-engine pilots and instructors it is necessary to attend
> simulator training at least twice yearly to retain this proficiency
I'll buy into semiannual training - and it's something I do. I don't
buy into the need for a simulator. It would be great, but it's simply
not necessary. And yes, my recurrent training (both as student and as
instructor) includes engine cuts at 100 ft AGL. I will also admit
that once you go to turbocharged engines, there is a real advantage to
simulator training - you don't tear up the engines. But in a light
twin with O-320's or O-360's (or the injected variants) it's simply
not a concern.
> The higher landing speed is absolutely not a red herring. All
> singles have a maximum stall speed of 61 knots
And so do all the light twins.
> Actually, when you consider the speed, payload, and known-icing
> capabilities of my P210 the only reasonable twin-engine alternatives
> would be a Cessna 414, Piper Navajo, or maybe the Cessna 340 --
> definitely not a Twin Comanche or Travel Air.
Really? A friend of mine just moved up from a P-210 to a C-340,
because it was a real increase in capability - mainly speed - that he
needed. The TKS is an issue, as is the desire to have pressurization
rather than suck oxygen (and I did mention the issue of being able to
find the features you want), but in terms of speed and load I believe
you're a lot closer to a PA-30T then a C-340. And the stall speed of
the PA-30T will be within 3 kts of you 210.
> The stall speed issue is quite real. There really are reasons why
> airplanes need to be landed off-airport besides engine failure. The
> centerline-thrust Cessna Skymaster bears this out -- it did not have
> the stellar safety record Cessna had hoped for it.
Of course not - because it is a flawed design based on a flawed
concept. What kills most twin pilots is not the Vmc roll but system
mismanagement.
> But in
> the end I am not saying this applies to everyone -- for example, the
> fact that you do not need known-icing in Texas is a huge difference
> compared with my mission of taking my family on winter vacations from
> Pennsylvania to Florida.
Right, but realize that there is no real reason why the same TKS
system you carry could not be adapted to my airplane. I once asked
the TKS rep why there was no TKS for the PA-30's - the answer was
simply that there wasn't a market demand to justify the certification
costs.
This goes back to available features. If the features you need (say
pressurization and TKS) are not available on a light twin, then you're
stuck going to a cabin class twin. In that case, there's really
nothing to discuss. The stall speed goes up, the costs go up
astronomically, and it's simply not a viable option. But that's got
nothing to do with single vs. twin - that's a matter of available
features, driven primarily by marketing and certification costs.
Michael
David Megginson
> > The airlines run all multi-engine airplanes because single-engine
> > airplanes cannot be certified to transport category standards.
>
> Sure, but why are the standars written that way? In Canada, PC-12's
> are being used for some feeder routes. A couple have already crashed
> due to engine failure. Nobody has died - yet.
Do you have any references for forced landings in PC-12's carrying
passengers on scheduled routes in Canada? I don't remember hearing
about it, and would be interested in reading the reports.
They're nice planes -- I was a passenger on one last fall from Ottawa
to Buttonville.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
Dennis O'Connor
and the folks with the rating don't understand all the hand wringing...
Denny
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.03052...@posting.google.com...
Big John
Good post.
Big John
Point of the sword
Richard Kaplan
> handling at low speeds. Nonetheless, my exposed time is measured in
> SECONDS. Yes, it is almost always less than a minute, and that period
> occurs just seconds after pushing the throttles forward.
But IF it happens during those seconds can you really be sure you can
handle the situation? *Especially* if you do not practice this
regularly in a simulator (as you mentioned later in your post). It
seems to me that the worst-case situation in a twin is a takeoff
engine failure with Vmc rollover; can you really practice that without
regular simulator training? Of course a Vmc rollover *will* result in
near-certain death, whereas engine failure on takeoff in a single is
often survivable.
> That is a valid point - but those systems aren't present on the
> singles either.
True. I made the point simply because you said that twins are clearly
safer since that is what the airlines use. My point is that
transport-category twins are safer than singles; that does not
necessarily mean that piston twins are safer than singles.
> If you're talking about engine fires, well, two engines means double
> the chance. But in a twin, you can shut the engine down and stop fuel
Yes, I mean engine fires.. especially if it happens to be a
turbocharged twin.
I can shut down the engine in a single, too... that still does not
mean I will not become quickly incapacitated by smoke. Remember the
airline crash a couple years ago where a transoceanic commercial
airliner crashed because the pilot did not execute an emergency
landing quickly enough?
> to it at the first sign of fire. You are not likely to want to do
> that in a single. Thus I am not at all convinced that the risk of an
Yes, I am indeed likely to do that in a single... smoke in the cockpit
is the worst possible emergency and calls for landing the plane as
soon as I can and probably off airport.. and when I do so, I will be
glad I am in a single-engine airplane which can land at or below 61
knots.
> Don't buy that one either. The singles that can match my performance
> don't have lower stall speeds.
But the twins that can match my performance do have higher stall
speeds. As we have said before, the need to address icing in the
Northeast for practical winter IMC changes things considerably. If I
begin my search for an airplane with the criteria that it can be
equipped for known-ice, then my options are greatly reduced. If I
then say that I want to be able to travel with a family of 5 and
luggage (i.e. 880 pound payload in my P210 with full fuel) the options
really decrease.
> And you're still wrong about the higher stall speed. The twins that
> have performance similar to the high performance singles have stall
> speeds under 61 kts. To get above that, you're getting into cabin
> class twins.
Exactly.. and for practical family winter cross-country travel in the
Northeast, a cabin class twin would be the only twin I could consider
which could match the capabilities of my P210.
> It's way more practical as the deadstick instrument approach training
Why? All you need to practice a deadstick instrument approach is
Microsoft Flight Simulator, a yoke, and a CFII willing to try a new
idea. To get twin-engine sim training you probably have to travel
several states away twice a year.
> reality is that if you are proficient in a 210, VFR and IFR, I could
> have you proficient in a PA-30 or C-310, VFR and IFR, in about 10-15
> hours. There's simply not that much to it.
Could I get the rating in 10-15 hours? Sure. Would you then trust
me to be the solo pilot flying your family, knowing I might need to
handle an engine failure on takeoff?
> I'll buy into semiannual training - and it's something I do. I don't
> buy into the need for a simulator. It would be great, but it's simply
> not necessary. And yes, my recurrent training (both as student and as
Here I need to say simply that I have no real source of information
other than articles I have read -- especially those by Mike Busch --
which swear by the need for simulator training for twin-engine
recurrency as much more important than for singles. But not having
experienced this first hand, I will have to leave it at that. If you
could tell us that you did the twin-engine sim training once and
thought it was not particularly worthwhile to repeat regularly, that
would certainly be another story.
> Really? A friend of mine just moved up from a P-210 to a C-340,
> because it was a real increase in capability - mainly speed - that he
> needed. The TKS is an issue, as is the desire to have pressurization
Yes, that is the point... the TKS is a major issue. As you have said
yourself, icing is far more of a danger in cold winter IMC than is
engine failure.
> Right, but realize that there is no real reason why the same TKS
> system you carry could not be adapted to my airplane. I once asked
> the TKS rep why there was no TKS for the PA-30's - the answer was
> simply that there wasn't a market demand to justify the certification
> costs.
That is absolutely true. Indeed, the TKS on the P210 was made
available to the public simply as an afterthought. The STC was
originally developed by Flight Express, which operates a fleet of 70+
210s and T210s which they use for cargo charter operations. They
developed the known-ice TKS approval for their own internal use and
then set up Flight Ice as a spinoff.
> stuck going to a cabin class twin. In that case, there's really
> nothing to discuss. The stall speed goes up, the costs go up
> astronomically, and it's simply not a viable option. But that's got
> nothing to do with single vs. twin - that's a matter of available
> features, driven primarily by marketing and certification costs.
I think that basically sums up my decision-making quite well and sums
it up quite well when I am asked so often why I do not trade my
airplane for a twin. It is hard for me to compare apples with apples
in the single vs. twin debate because in the back of my mind I know
that moving up to a twin would as a practical matter mean moving up to
a cabin-class twin. And being able to fly winter IMC without worrying
about known-icing is a huge paradigm shift for me or any IFR pilot in
the North, just as the converse must be for you. So the Commanche
works best for you and the P210 works best for me, both for very
rational reasons.
Michael
> handle the situation?
You know, we do practice this at altitude. I hate to go into a long
discussion of this, because it would be of little value to a single
engine pilot and old hat to a twin pilot, but here goes.
I KNOW what it feels like, because we've done engine cuts in slow
flight. I am PREPARED to cut the throttles when I feel the yaw -
because I've briefed my go-condition, and until I've called GO I know
that engine failure means pulling the throttles back and landing
straight ahead. I have done a high speed abort on the ground for
cause, twice - once because engine gauges did not register what I
wanted to see, and once because airspeed failed to come alive. The
only unknown factor is mental/emotional, and we can't test that in the
sim either. But yes, I'm confident I'll do the right thing if the
time comes. But this is a big if. I used to consider it my biggest
risk, and my insurer just laughed at me. He said that in decades of
insuring PA-30's, he has never paid out a claim like that - either for
off-airport landing or Vmc rollover due to failure on takeoff. On the
other hand, there were MANY Vmc rollovers in training.
> > If you're talking about engine fires, well, two engines means double
> > the chance. But in a twin, you can shut the engine down and stop fuel
>
> Yes, I mean engine fires.. especially if it happens to be a
> turbocharged twin.
>
> I can shut down the engine in a single, too... that still does not
> mean I will not become quickly incapacitated by smoke. Remember the
> airline crash a couple years ago where a transoceanic commercial
> airliner crashed because the pilot did not execute an emergency
> landing quickly enough?
Yes. And they had all the transport category fire supression systems,
did they not?
> > to it at the first sign of fire. You are not likely to want to do
> > that in a single. Thus I am not at all convinced that the risk of an
>
> Yes, I am indeed likely to do that in a single...
Really? How do you know? This is the same mental/psychological
problem as in the engine failure on takeoff in a twin. For me to shut
down a suspect engine in a twin is no big deal most times - I KNOW it
will fly on one. The only time it's difficult is on takeoff, because
I'm pretty much guaranteeing an accident, trashing the metal to save
the meat. Only in my case the decision is easy - I can quite
accurately estimate required speed and altitude for the conditions
(weight, density altitude, obstructions). It's a whole lot more
complex when you suspect engine fire. Will you respond immediately,
possibly causing an accident needlessly? Or will you hesitate?
> > reality is that if you are proficient in a 210, VFR and IFR, I could
> > have you proficient in a PA-30 or C-310, VFR and IFR, in about 10-15
> > hours. There's simply not that much to it.
>
> Could I get the rating in 10-15 hours? Sure.
I could have you rated in 5. That's not what I'm talking about.
> Would you then trust
> me to be the solo pilot flying your family, knowing I might need to
> handle an engine failure on takeoff?
Yes. Because my transition into the PA-30 was from a TriPacer (a much
slower, simpler, and more forgiving airplane than the 210) it took 25
hours. My very first solo flight in the airplane (insurance didn't
allow solo before getting the rating) required dodging T-storms,
air-filing IFR, and shooting a circling NDB approach to get home - and
it was cake.
So yes, in 10-15 hours, you could be at a point where I would calmly
sit in the back seat knowing you might need to handle an engine
failure on takeoff. It's just not as big a deal as you think it is.
It's made into a big deal by people who either don't know (because
they're not multiengine pilots) or have a need to pump up their egos
about being multiengine pilots. Denny has it right - it's a lot of
hand wringing from those least qualified, while those of us who are
qualified see it as simply a training issue.
> Here I need to say simply that I have no real source of information
> other than articles I have read -- especially those by Mike Busch --
> which swear by the need for simulator training for twin-engine
> recurrency as much more important than for singles.
I've read his articles, of course. He seems to feel that the kind of
training we do in the real airplane is too dangerous. I do not
concur. But if you take his assumption at face value (that you just
don't cut an engine at 80 ft) then of course he is correct. But I
will cut an engine at 80 ft, and expect my instructor to do it too.
> Yes, that is the point... the TKS is a major issue. As you have said
> yourself, icing is far more of a danger in cold winter IMC than is
> engine failure.
Yes, this is obvious. Since my ice experience is almost as limited as
your multiengine experience, I will take your word that TKS is
dramatically more effective against ice than boots, and that this
difference makes up for the engine failure risk.
> That is absolutely true. Indeed, the TKS on the P210 was made
> available to the public simply as an afterthought. The STC was
> originally developed by Flight Express, which operates a fleet of 70+
> 210s and T210s which they use for cargo charter operations. They
> developed the known-ice TKS approval for their own internal use and
> then set up Flight Ice as a spinoff.
So what would you do had this not been done? Are you telling me that
there would be NO single engine airplane that would be capable of
flying your mission profile? That seems just a bit odd - I can name
several airplanes that would fit my mission profile without a large
cost increase.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
> I KNOW what it feels like, because we've done engine cuts in slow
> flight. I am PREPARED to cut the throttles when I feel the yaw -
Are you SURE you know what it feels like?
Let me tell you what I think is a relevant story. Last month for the
first time I had to execute the engine-failure checklist for real in
my airplane. I began a descent from 7,000 feet in VFR conditions
after passing through some light rain. Then I heard funny tapping
noises and thought it was odd to hear precipitation but not see it.
Then I got into a downdraft and my rate of descent increased, and at
the same time the airflow sound over the prop changed notably. Then
my prop RPMs became erratic trending down. "Finally" the light bulb
went off and I realized I had a partial engine failure and had heard
the engine struggling to generate power as the propeller decelerated.
I was angry at how this could happen to an engine I had just broken in
and which at 15 hours was just beyond the initial high-risk point.
Then I "realized" I could control the situation an I began the
engine-failure checklist -- the first item was to push the mixture
forward, this instantly restored full power, and I landed
uneventfully.
This mental process of identifying the problem and reacting with the
pre-planned procedure probably took 5-10 seconds, though emotionally
it was a lot longer. I can tell you, though, that it was not instant.
How many times have I simulated engine failures on students or had it
done to me on checkrides? Last month I would have said the same
exact thing you said about KNOWING that you can feel or otherwise
identify this classic problem. But I can tell you now that having
heard and experienced this FOR REAL I would react even quicker next
time.
Of course on takeoff in a twin you are much more primed for engine
anomalies than I would be in a single in descent after an uneventful
flight. But the reaction needs to be so quick in a twin that I wonder
if you really can be prepared without having done it for real. Even
the sim of course would not be perfect for simulating this since most
sims do not simulate the actual sounds and sequence of a mechanical
engine malfunction, but perhaps Mike Busch could be right that sim
training in a twin is better than simply in-aircraft training.
Neither of us has done this both in a multi-engine sim and in a
multi-engine airplane so I suppose neither of us can say for sure
whether Mike Busch is right.
(It turned out that my engine issue was a benign problem related to
the setup of the mixture controller causing uncommanded far
lean-of-peak operation. If flight were continued its symptoms would
have been intermittent fuel fluctuations at less than full-rich
mixture settings but the problem would not have lead to engine failure
or engine damage. But that is only in retrospect and I could/did not
know that at the time.)
> off-airport landing or Vmc rollover due to failure on takeoff. On the
> other hand, there were MANY Vmc rollovers in training.
Actually, to some extent this is another factor in my decision-making
and one which certainly does not apply to most airplane owners. I use
my plane for instruction as well as for my family and business
missions, and this instruction is something I very much enjoy and
would continue with any airplane I own. Regardless of one's personal
viewpoint on the safety of singles vs. twins, I think there is pretty
good evidence that multi-engine training is more dangerous than
single-engine instruction... I cannot imagine that I would want to
provide multi-engine training and thus if I were to move up to a twin
I would no longer be able to provide instruction in my plane.
> Really? How do you know? This is the same mental/psychological
> problem as in the engine failure on takeoff in a twin. For me to shut
We do not know, for the reasons I mentioned above in the beginning of
this post.
> failure on takeoff. It's just not as big a deal as you think it is.
Then how do you explain why Vmc rollovers happen to muli-rated pilots?
Do you think this only happens to multi pilots with no recurrent
training?
Do they fail to mentally prime themself that "this is the one" each
time they do a takeoff in a twin?
What distinguishes these pilots from you?
> > Yes, that is the point... the TKS is a major issue. As you have said
> > yourself, icing is far more of a danger in cold winter IMC than is
> > engine failure.
Yes, indeed. Perhaps if there were a more economically practical
twin-engine option with the capability of my current plane and true
redundant engines at my P210's maximum payload then I would reconsider
things more. Right now the single vs. twin issue is really just an
academic issue since an upgrade to a twin would mean about three times
the total operating expense and would mean I could no longer instruct
in my plane. (Even if I were willing to do multi-engine instruction,
a twin would be the wrong plane. I do not do primary instruction or
even initial instrument ratings -- I only do advanced instrument
training and single-engine pilots, who are my primary
students/clients, would not be able to get signed off for an IPC/BFR
while getting instruction in a twin.)
> So what would you do had this not been done? Are you telling me that
> there would be NO single engine airplane that would be capable of
> flying your mission profile? That seems just a bit odd - I can name
> several airplanes that would fit my mission profile without a large
> cost increase.
Well, placing known-ice on the top of the "must have" list really
reduces options dramatically. Then asking that this plane be capable
of flying 5 people and luggage to go on vacation is really asking a
lot.
The only known-ice singles I know of are the Cessna 210, newer
Mooneys, some Commanders, and the Piper Malibu. Add in the Caravan
and Pilatus PC12 if you want but of course those are in a whole
different price range. I think Cirrus and Socata are working on
known-ice certification but these were not available when I bought my
plane and the Cirrus is not 6-place in any event.
So basically the only 6-place known-ice airplanes which were available
to me were the 210/T210/P210 or the Malibu. The Malibu costs twice as
much and has less payload so it would not have been a useful
alternative.
So yes, the 210 series seemed to be the only practical option for a
single-engine airplane.
I did consider twins and I came very close to buying a pressurized,
booted Skymaster -- the centerline thrust idea made a lot of sense to
me even if the accident statistics did not bear out its success. But
I did not want to forever play the game of flying in ice in a plane
with boots but not officially known-ice. I also knew I would provide
instruction after I became comfortable with the plane, and flying in
even trace ice for-hire in a non-known-ice plane would be positively
out of the question.
So I looked at known-ice twins. The Seneca and Baron were the most
obvious choices, but their payload did not match the 880 pound
full-fuel payload of the P210, especially if I were planning to fly
them light enough to take advantage of the second engine. It seemed
to me that flying these twins with my family and luggage on board
would give me all the economic disadvantages of a twin without having
an appropriate margin of safety in the engine failure on takeoff
situation.
So I looked for known-ice twins which could comfortably handle a
payload equivalent to my P210... this meant cabin-class twins, with
the Cessna 340 being the entry-level. And by the time I analyzed all
the stats I concluded I would pay 50% more to buy it, I would pay 3
times more to operate it, the long-term investment risk would be
higher since cabin-class twins are not as liquid as singles come
resale time, the safety advantages would be debatable at best, and I
would not realistically offer instruction in such a plane. So the
P210 seemed to be the best choice... FOR ME. Your
mission/goals/payload/geography of course may vary. Did I miss
something else which would have met my mission?
AirplaneListings.Com
> Just 10c worth from a very old (not bold) pilot.
There's no better story than those from not bold old pilots... and it was
worth more than 10c!
--
Matt Lang
AirplaneListings.Com
Michael
> > flight. I am PREPARED to cut the throttles when I feel the yaw -
>
> Are you SURE you know what it feels like?
Well, yes - because I have lost one in the climb due to contaminated
fuel (I was able to get a restart). Reaction was automatic.
> Let me tell you what I think is a relevant story.
<Story of gradual partial failure deleted>
It's a great story, but it's just not relevant. You see, if the
engine only fails partially, and continues to make partial power for a
minute or so, the exposed time is over. I've got the gear up, the
speed up to cruise climb, and altitude to work with. At that point,
quick reactions are simply not necessary. They are ONLY necessary if
the failure is low and total.
Now here's something you may not realize - recognition of total engine
failure in a twin in the takeoff configuration is instant - you feel
the yaw, and I do mean FEEL. It is visceral, not intellectual. The
rudder response is automatic. When it takes a bootfull of rudder to
go straight, there is no denying the failure. That's why, IMO, the
centerline thrust twin is dangerous - it removes this unmistakable
clue and opens the pilot up to the kind of denial you experienced.
But there's no way I can convince you of this without taking you up in
a twin, having you set up a climb, and then pulling an engine. BTW -
that's something that happens VERY early in twin instruction.
> Of course on takeoff in a twin you are much more primed for engine
> anomalies than I would be in a single in descent after an uneventful
> flight. But the reaction needs to be so quick in a twin that I wonder
> if you really can be prepared without having done it for real.
How quick do you think it has to be? Again, my twin (the PA-30) is
probably the worst offender in that regard; even the much maligned
C-310 seemed docile by comparison (at least to me). Yet there is
plenty of time to say the steps out loud and perform the procedure
without any huge rush.
I hate to say it, but I think for an informed opinion on this you
really need to experience what it's really like. This is what I mean
when I say that the issue is made much bigger than it really is by
people who are not multiengine qualified.
> Even
> the sim of course would not be perfect for simulating this since most
> sims do not simulate the actual sounds and sequence of a mechanical
> engine malfunction
Even worse, there would be no way to simulate the yaw!
> > off-airport landing or Vmc rollover due to failure on takeoff. On the
> > other hand, there were MANY Vmc rollovers in training.
>
> Actually, to some extent this is another factor in my decision-making
> and one which certainly does not apply to most airplane owners. I use
> my plane for instruction as well as for my family and business
> missions, and this instruction is something I very much enjoy and
> would continue with any airplane I own. Regardless of one's personal
> viewpoint on the safety of singles vs. twins, I think there is pretty
> good evidence that multi-engine training is more dangerous than
> single-engine instruction...
I do not believe this is true. I think the real problem is that most
multiengine training is done by people who absolutely have no business
doing it. I think 100-200 hours multi (depending on prior experience
in complex, high performance singles) is a practical minimum for doing
multinengine training. However, the average practicing MEI has less
than 100 hours multi and doesn't really stay current in a twin. The
people who trained me were very experienced and proficient; since then
I've let quite a few MEI's fly my airplane and only one of them showed
adequate proficiency - a C-310 owner.
Here's a disturbing thought for you - my commercial multi and MEI were
done by an MEI who accumulated some make and model time doing
'instruction' on Angel Flights during the Enhanced Class B period when
we had to carry instructors to fly VFR. As part of my MEI training, I
tried to check her out in my airplane. I believe I got her to minimum
day-VFR proficiency. The other MEI's who flew my airplane really had
no business flying multi.
To go back to insurance - my personal coverage on a $90K hull is
$2400. Does that really seem out of line on a 35+ year old complex
high performance airplane, over and above the twin issue?
Now here's the kicker - insurance for instruction would be $6800 with
me as the instructor. Once again, not out of line. Insurance that
would cover an MEI with 50 hours multi (the norm!) is not available.
So basically what I'm saying is that multi instruction isn't really
all that dangerous if done by competent, qualified people - but it's
mostly done by timebuilders who have no real experience. Remember how
I said I could turn you into a competent twin pilot in 10-15 hours? I
can't turn you into a competent twin instructor in that period. For
that, you have to go out and accumulate experience, and most MEI's
haven't.
> I cannot imagine that I would want to
> provide multi-engine training and thus if I were to move up to a twin
> I would no longer be able to provide instruction in my plane.
I think that after you accumulated a couple hundred hours in the plane
(and the way we utilize our planes, that's only a year or so) you
would change your mind.
> > failure on takeoff. It's just not as big a deal as you think it is.
> Then how do you explain why Vmc rollovers happen to muli-rated pilots?
How often does it happen? Remember what I said about my insurer -
most of the claims were paid out for gear up landings and gear
collapses. He's never paid out on an actual Vmc rollover on takeoff.
> Do you think this only happens to multi pilots with no recurrent
> training?
Or inadequate recurrent training. Or insufficient quantity, quality,
and/or recency of experience. My insurance is no higher than it would
be for a single of equivalent capability, but my insurer won't even
talk to you if you don't fly 80 hours a year and get recurrent
training.
So yes, I think they are the largest group. Remember what I said
about proficiency? Once, when I was skydiving, I needed to give
special instructions to the jump pilot. He absolutely could not
divert enough attention to listen to me until we were above 6000 ft.
In a Twin Otter. Launching from an uncontrolled private field, in day
VFR. He needed almost 10 minutes to catch up to the airplane. Do you
think he's going to survive an engine failure on takeoff?
> Do they fail to mentally prime themself that "this is the one" each
> time they do a takeoff in a twin?
Quite possibly. I don't deny that it COULD happen to me, but my
insurance company seems to agree that I'm in the lowest risk group - I
now pay the same rate as my ATP-rated instructor with multiengine time
in five figures, and in fact meet his open pilot warranty.
> So I looked at known-ice twins. The Seneca and Baron were the most
> obvious choices, but their payload did not match the 880 pound
> full-fuel payload of the P210
Wait a minute. Full-fuel payload is meaningless. Some planes have
great full-fuel payload because they really don't carry enough fuel
for serious IFR. Some have terrible full-fuel payload because they
have ridiculously long legs.
What is your real range/speed/load requirement?
> especially if I were planning to fly
> them light enough to take advantage of the second engine. It seemed
> to me that flying these twins with my family and luggage on board
> would give me all the economic disadvantages of a twin without having
> an appropriate margin of safety in the engine failure on takeoff
> situation.
But either of those twins is quite capable of climbing on one engine
at gross. Again - exposed time is measured in seconds in the twin,
but in a single it can easily be hours.
Michael
TThierry
> Whether you are flying a twin or a single, the *best* plan of all at
> night is to *fly high*.
If you fly VFR, this is not always possible. Wouldn't the best plan be
to choose a full moon night, where you can see what is below? This is
what pilots dropping or fetching undercover agents in occupied France
did during WWII.
--
TThierry, PPL __|__
http://flyinfrance.free.fr \___(x)___/
Replace my _antisp@m_ by @. ! ! !
TThierry
> First of all, the risk of in-flight fire persists in piston twins and
> is clearly higher than the in-flight fire risk of a piston single.
Why?
TThierry
> Of course a Vmc rollover *will* result in
> near-certain death, whereas engine failure on takeoff in a single is
> often survivable.
I'm not twin rated, but I don't understand your point :
Why can't the pilot of a twin shut down the remaining engine or feather
the prop? He would then be in the same situation as a single's pilot
with an engine failure. Then, his chances of surviving would be the
same. I can't see a situation where odds would be against him, and in
favor of a single's pilot. Do I miss something?
Michael
> Why can't the pilot of a twin shut down the remaining engine or feather
> the prop?
He can and should. Some don't. Nobody really knows why, because they
don't generally live through the experience.
Of course most Vmc rollovers don't happen on takeoff - they happen on
landing. Why that happens is very well understood, and it's a
training/skill issue.
> He would then be in the same situation as a single's pilot
> with an engine failure.
Except two engines mean twice the chance of failure.
> Then, his chances of surviving would be the
> same. I can't see a situation where odds would be against him, and in
> favor of a single's pilot. Do I miss something?
Well, in the first 30 seconds or so after liftoff, the (extremely
tiny) probability of engine failure is doubled in a light twin, and
the twin has no more options than the single.
Some would say that it's more dangerous because of the Vmc rollover,
but of course this is disingenuos. We all know that quite a few
engine failures on takeoff in a single end in death, generally due to
low altitude maneuvering and failing to maintain flying speed. Why
don't the pilots just land straight ahead? Well, nobody knows. It's
like the Vmc rollover - they're generally not around to tell their
stories.
Michael
Montblack
can't. I'm able to have my opinion changed, but your post didn't do it for
me.
Neither plane will climb well in your scenario. One plane will not climb all
that well but will continue to fly straight - mostly.
I guess you're looking at first indicators. I'm assuming both pilots are
figuring "something" is up because of climb issues. Maybe you figure the
C-337 pilot might not know there's an engine problem until he/she can't make
it over a hilltop.
I think side-by-side, the possibility of Vmc rollover is the more dangerous
of the two scenarios.
(IMHO) centerline thrust = safer....from what I've read.
http://www.superskyrocket.com/pages/menu.htm :-)
--
Montblack
("Michael" wrote)
<snips>
> Now here's something you may not realize - recognition of total engine
> failure in a twin in the takeoff configuration is instant - you feel
> the yaw, and I do mean FEEL. It is visceral, not intellectual. The
> rudder response is automatic. When it takes a bootfull of rudder to
> go straight, there is no denying the failure. That's why, IMO, the
> centerline thrust twin is dangerous - it removes this unmistakable
> clue and opens the pilot up to the kind of denial you experienced.
>
> But there's no way I can convince you of this without taking you up in
> a twin, having you set up a climb, and then pulling an engine. BTW -
> that's something that happens VERY early in twin instruction.
<snip>
TThierry
> Perhaps before getting airbourne in that single at night you need to add one
> more check to your list: "Am I feeling lucky today"?
I appreciated very much your sharing your -huge- experience with us. I'm
convinced that you're right.
Dylan Smith
<33mo44nt...@77wa88ve99front.com> wrote:
>Trying to see it your way on centerline thrust being more dangerous, but
>can't. I'm able to have my opinion changed, but your post didn't do it for
>me.
You're right - logically, a centre-line thrust plane SHOULD be safer
in the event of an engine failure. The accident stats just don't bear
this out though.
There's a few other gotchas with centreline thrust (due to pilot error).
There are a couple of cases where the pilot has tried to take off without
starting the rear engine, and gone off the end of the runway or stalled.
You'll make a short sharp trip to groundloop city if you try that in
a normal twin before getting up to a fatal speed.
It does take quite a bit longer to identify the engine that's stopped
in a centreline thrust twin. As Michael points out, the yaw in a standard
twin is absolutely unmistakable. With centreline thrust it may be a few
seconds before you even realise an engine has stopped producing enough
power - probably from the airspeed decaying unusually as you climb out.
Of course, an alert pilot would lower the nose at that point. Then the
pilot must identify and feather the engine to get the meagre climb
performance that's available. You can't just do dead foot dead engine.
You have to look for the EGT gauges and interpret them because guess what -
with constant speed props, it's likely the engine RPM will be normal,
the manifold pressure will be normal, and quite possibly the fuel flow
too depending on what caused the failure. The EGT falling is the only
reliable indicator of which engine is failing to have combustion events.
All this takes time. The obvious yaw means it's quick to identify the
failed engine - hopefully quick enough to make it over the standard 50 foot
FAA trees at the far end. The accident statistics seem to bear this out:
for every non-VMC roll on takeoff with engine failure in a C337, there's
a crash into the trees or stall because the pilot didn't react properly
or didn't have time to identify the failed engine and feather it.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Michael
> that well but will continue to fly straight - mostly.
Right - and IMO that's the problem.
> I guess you're looking at first indicators. I'm assuming both pilots are
> figuring "something" is up because of climb issues.
That's exactly where I disagree, and Richard's story of his partial
engine failure exaplins why. It took him quite a while to figure out
something was wrong, due to noise and climb issues. In a conventional
twin, you know IMMEDIATELY. I think that for the proficient pilot,
it's far more important to have an immediate and unmistakeable
indication of a problem than it is to have an easier time handling the
problem, if only because harder still isn't very hard.
The more this goes on, the more I realize Denny had it pegged. The
non-rated people agonize over the deadly twin (especially that Vmc
roll) while those of us who actually fly twins routinely don't see
what the big deal is.
> Maybe you figure the
> C-337 pilot might not know there's an engine problem until he/she can't make
> it over a hilltop.
That's EXACTLY what I figure. Further, I know of several accidents
where this is EXACTLY what happened.
Michael
Robert Briggs
> That's exactly where I disagree, and Richard's story of his partial
> engine failure exaplins why. It took him quite a while to figure out
> something was wrong, due to noise and climb issues. In a conventional
> twin, you know IMMEDIATELY. I think that for the proficient pilot,
> it's far more important to have an immediate and unmistakeable
> indication of a problem than it is to have an easier time handling the
> problem, if only because harder still isn't very hard.
Personally, I don't have the experience to weigh in on one side or the
other of the centreline/wing debate, but the topic reminds me of a crash
soon after take-off from Glasgow.
FWIW, here is part of an article I posted here last year:
A light twin-engined aircraft crashed near Glasgow a while ago
after an engine failed on take-off.
The principles outlined above [stuff about having sufficient
power to complete a take-off after an engine failure at V1]
mean that that incident *should* have been survivable.
However, it seems that the loss of power was progressive,
rather than sudden, so that the aircraft did not yaw
sufficiently for that to give the pilot a particularly clear
indication of which engine had failed. Instead, it seems that
he thought he heard a bang from one side of the aircraft and
shut down the engine on that side, thinking it was the bad
one.
As you've probably guessed, the bad engine was on the other
side, so he ended up with no engines working properly, crashed,
and burned.
The AAIB report is at:
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm
[My old article's Message-ID is <3CFFD8B1...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET>
and it was recycled from a previous post to a local NG.]
Richard Kaplan
> The more this goes on, the more I realize Denny had it pegged. The
> non-rated people agonize over the deadly twin (especially that Vmc
> roll) while those of us who actually fly twins routinely don't see
> what the big deal is.
I am willing to be convinced on this point, but I am still not sure what it
is that makes you "different" from all the pilots who have experienced Vmc
rollovers.
Mike Busch says the difference is sim training but yo do not feel this is
necessary.
Is the difference how often you do recurrent training in your own plane?
Is the difference that you are willing to practice low altitude engine cuts
in your plane?
Is there something else different? I suspect most pilots who have died in
Vmc rollovers -- both on takeoff and also in the more common landing
situation -- also thought they could handle this.
Big John
Some notes on the 0-2/337.
Bird was not over powered.
Had hydraluic pump only on one engine (been a long time but want to
say rear???)
If you lost the engine with hydraluic pump on take off before you had
the gear retracted and you feathered the engine you couldn't retract
the gear.
Clean bird single engine, with the rear engine operational, would fly
the bird better than single engine with just the front engine running.
The rear engine was mounted high on the fuselage and the prop sucked
air over the top of the wing center section generating more lift
allowing flight at a slower A/S.
Some pilots said they would let the dead hydraulic pump engine
windmill to get the hydraulic pressue to retract the gear (very slow
due to low Hyd pressure). This would have required flying in ground
effect until the gear was up and then feathered engine. This needed a
pretty light bird (not combat load).
The 0-2, with a combat load, had a single engine ceiling of around or
less than 5K.
If the 337 had bigger engines where bird would fly and climb with an
engine out and gear down and dead prop not feathered, it would be a
pretty damn good twin for the SE pilot wanting a safe upgrade to twin
engine.
What is it peope say about wishes????<G>
.
Big John
Point of the sword
.
Big John
On 30 May 2003 08:08:36 -0700, crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote:
>"Montblack" <33mo44nt...@77wa88ve99front.com> wrote
>> Neither plane will climb well in your scenario. One plane will not climb all
>> that well but will continue to fly straight - mostly.
>
>Right - and IMO that's the problem.
>
>> I guess you're looking at first indicators. I'm assuming both pilots are
>> figuring "something" is up because of climb issues.
>
>That's exactly where I disagree, and Richard's story of his partial
>engine failure exaplins why. It took him quite a while to figure out
>something was wrong, due to noise and climb issues. In a conventional
>twin, you know IMMEDIATELY. I think that for the proficient pilot,
>it's far more important to have an immediate and unmistakeable
>indication of a problem than it is to have an easier time handling the
>problem, if only because harder still isn't very hard.
>
Through the years have seen many twin accidents where they lost an
engine and for one reason or another feathered the good engine and
became a glider. Some at low altitude crash landed and others at
altitude got the good engine restarted and made it to 'home plate'.
I know in my conventional twin experience I had the co-pilot/navigator
monitor the engine instruments on take off and if we had an engine
failure we both had to agree which engine it was before we feathered.
You can have all the rote you want but under pressure you may not
follow the procedure until too late.
Single pilot, GA light twin, can become overloaded in an emergency
very easy (read the accident reports). Loss of an engine at a critical
time is a very high risk situation even if it is described in the
pilots hand book and has been practiced by the pilot either/both in
the simulator or actual flight. Training will help you but it does not
eliminate the risk. Where you have risk you have accidents.
>The more this goes on, the more I realize Denny had it pegged. The
>non-rated people agonize over the deadly twin (especially that Vmc
>roll) while those of us who actually fly twins routinely don't see
>what the big deal is.
>
>> Maybe you figure the
>> C-337 pilot might not know there's an engine problem until he/she can't make
>> it over a hilltop.
>
>That's EXACTLY what I figure. Further, I know of several accidents
>where this is EXACTLY what happened.
I wonder where you got the information that with the loss of an engine
a 337 crashed because he/she didn't know they had lost the engine?
Never heard of that being reported (or happening). Are you sure it
didn't happened because they tried to fly on single engine and didn't
have enough power (rate of climb on SE) to clear terrain? Big
difference than your empathized comment.
When a 337 engine shuts down, there are many indications of loss.
Noise, vibrations, A/S, MP, RPM, trim, etc.
May you fly safe and never experience a Vmc roll over or SE stall at
low altitude trying to stay airborne and make it back to field.
Michael
> is that makes you "different" from all the pilots who have experienced Vmc
> rollovers.
>
> Mike Busch says the difference is sim training but yo do not feel this is
> necessary.
Well, I think it's training period. Whether you do it in the sim or
the real airplane is not, IMO, all that crucial. The sim is primarily
a cost-cutting measure, not a safety measure.
But I invite you to look at this from a different perspective. Lots
of single engine pilots get killed when they lose the engine on
takeoff. Very rarely is it because the terrain ahead is unlandable -
generally, it's because they start maneuvering for a more desirable
landing area (like the airport) and fail to maintain flying speed.
WHY? More importantly, what makes you different from them?
Michael
Michael
> other of the centreline/wing debate, but the topic reminds me of a crash
> soon after take-off from Glasgow.
This particular crash is quite well known in the twin community -
certainly I have read the report before.
> However, it seems that the loss of power was progressive,
> rather than sudden, so that the aircraft did not yaw
> sufficiently for that to give the pilot a particularly clear
> indication of which engine had failed. Instead, it seems that
> he thought he heard a bang from one side of the aircraft and
> shut down the engine on that side, thinking it was the bad
> one.
Well, sort of. I didn't get the impression that the power loss was
progressive - as I understand it, some gears grenanded themselves and
it happened pretty quickly. In any case, I never quite understood how
someone could attempt to feather the wrong engine, until one day in
training I retarded the wrong throttle.
The normal procedure for engine failure in a piston twin is:
Identify - Dead foot, dead engine
Verify - Retard the Throttle
Feather
And as I pulled back the throttle, I immediately felt that something
was wrong. See, when you pull back the throttle on an engine that has
already failed, you feel nothing. But even if the engine failure was
gradual, when you pull the throttle back to verify and do it on the
wrong engine, it's not gradual - it's immediate, and you feel it. And
when you feel it, you push the throttle right back in.
You do that because even if you correctly identified the dead engine,
it's not really dead - it's still making enough power that pulling the
throttle on it is obvious. And that means you leave it alone, because
it's helping you more than feathering the prop is going to help you.
So you keep it running until you're at a high enough altitude that you
can start thinking about saving the engine, not just the airplane.
Or you just misidentified the engine that failed, because you listened
to a bang instead of feeling your foot. But no harm done - you pushed
the throttle back in and can now go to the other throttle, suitably
chastened.
On a piston twin, especially a light piston twin, feathering the prop
is not the huge emergency everyone makes it out to be. Let's say you
are 3 seconds slow doing it - that's really an eternity. That
windmilling prop costs you about 200 fpm, a little over 3 fps. That's
10 ft. If you can't afford to give up 10 ft, you're cutting it way
too tight - you should have pulled them both back and landed straight
ahead.
> As you've probably guessed, the bad engine was on the other
> side, so he ended up with no engines working properly, crashed,
> and burned.
Yes - despite the fact that he lowered the nose and crashed wings
level. See, this wasn't a light twin - this was a cabin class twin,
with a high stall speed and no real ability to make an off-field
landing.
Michael
Wayne Sweet
and others) and the CLT C-337, I would take the C-337 if I was not willing
to maintain the proficiency needed in light twins. As has been observered,
light twins have two engines because they need two engines. I warned my
students that on every takeoff, expect to lose an engine. Have a plan in
advance before pushing up on the throttles. If an engine quits while on the
runway, throttles back and hope for a soft stop; while on climbout, gear
still down, throttles back and hope for a soft spot; if gear is up and
climbing at max angle of climb (two engines) do the identify, verify and
feather thing, go to SE Vx and TURN INTO THE DEAD ENGINE to get back to the
airport. WHY????? Less control deflection therefore less drag. BUT, this
requires practice, practice and then more practice. A light twin loses about
80% of it's available climb power when losing an engine. A CLT does not lose
as much, but is still more than 50%.
Can't spend the time to practice all this with an instructor??? Then get a
C-337 and be able to find the EGT gages instantly. A C-337 on two engines is
a C-182 on steroids.A C-337 on one engine, is a C-182 with a C-152 power.
BUT and here's the important point, IMHO, the stalling speeds of light twins
are much higher than single engine aircraft (and a C-337) by FAR's, since
all single engine aircraft must have a stalling speed of 66 knots or less.
Twins have no such restrictions. So when one force-lands a twin, the kinetic
energy needed to be dissipated is much greater (~velocity squared) and hence
it hurts lots more than a single engine. That's assuming one can keep from
the VMC rollover.
Aircraft engines are very reliable if they are well maintained. But with two
engines, it's hard to argue that one doesn't have twice the probability of
losing an engine and on takeoff is the most critical time for that to
happen.
One more point, on every landing in a light twin, there is a certain point
that a single engine missed approach is just not done; knowing when that
point is reached is another part of proficiency.
Wayne
"Big John" <Big...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vp7fdvorn3l3gtnlr...@4ax.com...
Richard Kaplan
> WHY? More importantly, what makes you different from them?
I think there is a risk that any pilot -- myself included -- can make a
mistake.
The best I can do is to follow generally accepted advice re: recurrent
training and maintenance practices for the type of airplane I fly.
I ask you this question because for twins many experienced twin pilots
recommend regular simulator training for twin engine pilots and you have
chosen not to do this.
I do not think there is any regularly recommended training practice for my
airplane which I do not follow -- what more can I do?
Michael
> > WHY? More importantly, what makes you different from them?
>
> I think there is a risk that any pilot -- myself included -- can make a
> mistake.
Yes there is. However, insurance companies are in the business of
knowing that the risks are not all equal.
> The best I can do is to follow generally accepted advice re: recurrent
> training and maintenance practices for the type of airplane I fly.
So do you practice engine failures on takeoff?
> I ask you this question because for twins many experienced twin pilots
> recommend regular simulator training for twin engine pilots and you have
> chosen not to do this.
Only because (a) there is no simulator available for my make and model
and (b) I practice the maneuvers in the airplane. I haven't chosen to
skip the training they recommend.
> I do not think there is any regularly recommended training practice for my
> airplane which I do not follow -- what more can I do?
Well, you could do the same thing I do - in the absence of an
available simulator and recognized training program for the type I
fly, I've been proactive in developing my own training program
performed in the airplane.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
news:449a3d6e.03053...@posting.google.com...
> So do you practice engine failures on takeoff?
Not in the airplane -- the risk is too high and it would cause excessive
wear on a turbocharged engine.
I do regularly work on the "land straight ahead vs. 180 degree turn"
scenario in a computer-based PCATD.
Very shortly I will install a full-motion single-engine "simulator"
(actually, a Level 3 Flight Training Device with a P210 flight model) with
which to practice this both myself and with my students. It will be both
an advanced avionics trainer and an emergency procedures trainer.
> Well, you could do the same thing I do - in the absence of an
> available simulator and recognized training program for the type I
> fly, I've been proactive in developing my own training program
> performed in the airplane.
I do not believe there is a Level D type-specific simulator for any piston
twin. Such a device would cost well over $1 million. If such a device
exists, certaily that is not what Mike Busch and others are routinely
recommending for twin-engine pilots as the cost would be completely
unrealistic. Even the "simulators" which model a specific cockpit -- such
as the one recently made available for the Cessna 340, for example, at a
well-known training center -- are specific only to a class of airplane, such
as twin engine land. Although there may be an exception somewhere, I am
not aware of any simulator for piston twins in which you log the time as if
you flew the airplane; the time is logged instead as flight training device
time (and as simulated instrument time, as appropriate). All this means
is that you need to use both the airplane and the simulator, not either one
alone. According to a number of reviews or articles on twin-engine
training, such a "generic" twin simulator helps reinforce the
decision-making needed in critical takeoff and landing scenarios. I have
certainly not heard of anyone who attended such a program and came back
feeling the training was not worthwhile. Most twin pilots I know have done
this sort of training at least once, and many twin pilots do this annually
or twice yearly.
Dylan Smith
<Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:
> A light twin-engined aircraft crashed near Glasgow a while ago
> after an engine failed on take-off.
> rather than sudden, so that the aircraft did not yaw
> sufficiently for that to give the pilot a particularly clear
> indication of which engine had failed. Instead, it seems that
> he thought he heard a bang from one side of the aircraft and
> shut down the engine on that side, thinking it was the bad
> one.
Unfortunately, the link is bad, but I think the accident in question
involved an Isle of Man based pilot, so it's quite a well known
accident here. Apparently, he had recently had an engine overhauled,
and supposedly he suspected the new engine and shut it down.
It just goes to reinforce the "Identify - VERIFY -" part of the
twin with a failed engine procedure. The verify stage is very
important as this accident shows. Of course, we'll never know
what he was really thinking as he was killed. It really is a good
illustration why making assumptions in emergencies without verifying
is a bad idea - and that applies to emergencies in singles too.
I heard one pilot say that the first thing to do in an emergency
is wind your watch. Most emergencies don't require a rash, high-speed
reaction. There are some exceptions (like engine failure at very
low altitude) but if you're climbing out in a twin, above all obstacles,
and not on fire when one quits, there's seldom any need to rush the
'identify, verify, feather' procedure.
Michael
> Not in the airplane -- the risk is too high and it would cause excessive
> wear on a turbocharged engine.
I'm not sure I agree wrt risk, but I certainly agree about the engine
issue. In fact, it would be difficult to maintain adequate
proficiency in a turbocharged twin without a sim.
> I do not believe there is a Level D type-specific simulator for any piston
> twin. Such a device would cost well over $1 million. If such a device
> exists, certaily that is not what Mike Busch and others are routinely
> recommending for twin-engine pilots as the cost would be completely
> unrealistic.
Yes, but the Cessna sims at FlightSafety at least can be tuned to
approximate the flight model. There's nothing I can fly that will
approximate the PA-30 flight model. This is a real issue with
practicing engine failures on takeoff - the PA-30 doesn't really
handle anything like a C-310; the speed bleeds off much more quickly.
> I have
> certainly not heard of anyone who attended such a program and came back
> feeling the training was not worthwhile.
Interestingly, I know quite a few twin pilots who came back from such
programs feeling the training was not worthwhile, and their
experiences led to my decision to give it a miss. In fact, I don't
know ANY PA-30 owners who did sim training and considered it
worthrhile. Of course the only PA-30 sim course available uses a very
generic AST sim that doesn't behave anything like the real airplane.
I think sim training makes a lot of sense in airplanes with large
and/or turbo'd engines where you are going to be reluctant to yank
throttles. Also, I think sim training makes a lot of sense when the
sim can be programmed with the flight model of the airplane that will
have high fidelity for the operations practiced. I think that when
you have small normally aspirated engines (O-320/O-360 and the
injected variants) and only a generic sim, the sim training is of
little benefit - you're better off training in the airplane.
Michael
Richard Kaplan
>> I think sim training makes a lot of sense in airplanes with large
> and/or turbo'd engines where you are going to be reluctant to yank
> throttles. Also, I think sim training makes a lot of sense when the
> sim can be programmed with the flight model of the airplane that will
> have high fidelity for the operations practiced. I think that when
> you have small normally aspirated engines (O-320/O-360 and the
> injected variants) and only a generic sim, the sim training is of
> little benefit - you're better off training in the airplane.
That seems reasonable enough and perhaps that explains why your thoughts are
so different from those of Mike Busch, who of course flies a C310 with twin
turbos. Maybe it is another example of making decisions based on your
particular equipment and mission rather than one size fits all.
--
Michael
> so different from those of Mike Busch, who of course flies a C310 with twin
> turbos.
Yes. Note that his engines are both large and turboed, AND he has
access to a sim that reasonably mimics the flight model of his
airplane. He also gets a substantial discount on his insurance.
On the other hand, my engines are small and normally aspirated, no sim
is available to mimic the flight model of my airplane, and I don't get
an insurance discount.
I make that final point (about the insurance discount) because it's
important - the people writing the insurance are (usually) not idiots.
They've probably thought through this problem just as I did, and
decided that sim training provides a real safety edge in a C-T310 but
not in a PA-30.
> Maybe it is another example of making decisions based on your
> particular equipment and mission rather than one size fits all.
It's all about risk management. Look through the PTS sometime -
they're available on the web as searchable PDF files. A search for
the term 'risk management' will turn up nothing - not at the private,
commercial, ATP, or CFI level. Not for any pilot or instructor
certificate or rating.
Yet the moment you step off the road well-traveled and start doing
things with your aircraft that the majority of the pilot population
doesn't do, a systematic approach to risk management becomes
absolutely essential. You can't eliminate all risks and accomplish
anything. Resources are finite. Statistics are of limited use, since
they are gathered from populations of which you are not
representative. One size certainly doesn't fit all.
Michael