PPL in a Twin

[vjmehra]

A slightly odd question perhaps, but is it theoretically possible to do a PPL in a twin?

I appreciate you wouldn't be able to get a type rating as such after 45 hours, but in theory if time isn't a massive concern and pretending cost isn't either, after 70 hours, could you theoretically walk away with a PPL and MEP type rating, having never or only briefly flown SEP's?

I've searched a few sites, but not found anything that conclusively says this wouldn't be possible.

[LH-OAB]

I don't know the answer but vaguely remember something about 70 hours being prerequisite to undertaking a MEP rating.

[vjmehra]

My understanding is that the 70 hours figure is the number you need to obtain an MEP rating, in theory however I have not found anything to say you couldn't begin sooner than 70 hours, you merely would not be able to achieve the rating until that point (I think).

[Pilot DAR]

I know a fellow who did his PPL in Canada on a Piper Aztec. Needless to say it took longer than other PPL's.

[Chilli Monster]

Why would you want to?

70 hours @ £300 / hour = £21000

70 hours @ £150 / hour + 7 hours @ £300 / hour = £12600

[A and C]

Cost aside I can't think how you could do some parts of the training safely in a twin.

I feel that some of the stall and spiral dive recovery training would happen to fast for the average student at this part of his/her training.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Again, aside from cost and legalities - even in the height of the cold war where budgets were seldom an issue, I can't recall any of the militaries around the world doing basic training in multi-engine aeroplanes. It was always in a single - sometimes a jet, but still a single. (I have a friend, ex-US Navy who never flew a piston engined aeroplane until Test Pilot School, and I don't think ever logged PiC in one.)

I'm sure it's legally possible: the pilot would end up with an MEP but not an SEP rating, and it would take longer and much more money; I'm sure you could find an instructor who'd do it for all of those lovely juicy multi-engine hours - although I hope they'd have the grace to try and talk you out of it first.

G

[Whopity]

There is nothing in the rules to prevent you from doing a PPL in a twin however; there are a number of issues that might make it unachievable in practice. The cost has already been mentioned and the requirement for 70 hours PIC before you can be issued with a MEP class rating. There is nothing to prevent you from obtaining that 70 hours PIC in a twin as a solo student, except of course insurance; will anyone want to insure a solo student for 70 hours solo in such an aircraft? It has been done in the past and may well be easier in other countries. I have not heard of anyone doing it since the JAA became a reality 11 years ago.

[hingey]

From LASORS:

"An applicant for a JAR-FCL PPL(A) shall have completed
at least 45 hours flight time as a pilot of aeroplanes or
TMGs (Touring Motor Gliders) as appropriate.

An applicant for a class rating for a single-pilot MEP
(Land) aeroplane rating must produce evidence of having
completed a minimum of 70 hours as pilot-in-command
of aeroplanes."

Don't forget, there are 7 theory exams for the PPL which muct be completed within 18 months of passing the first exam and the skills test completed within 24 months of completing the final exam. There is a seperate theory exam for the MEP class rating which must be completed within 6 months before the MEP skills test.

So you would have to do all 8 exams within the time frame of the PPL exams, and within that time you would have to log 70 hours PIC. Whilst these 70 hours could in theory be done under supervision or with an instructor to sign you off solo, I have never heard of this being done. I suspect you would not get insured to fly solo in a twin with less than 50 hours already under your belt.

h

[Jumbo Driver]

Yes, you can obtain a JAR-PPL with just an MEP rating and a good ex-military friend of mine did just that.

Having left the military many years ago, he came into civilian flying by obtaining an NPPL with SSEA, which was a shortened course because of the appropriate exemptions for his considerable previous military experience on both single- and multi-engined.

A year or two later he wanted to get back into twin flying as well. However, an NPPL was not appropriate as it does not extend beyond single-engine so he underwent an MEP course, applied for and was issued with a JAR-PPL with only an MEP rating. Thus he held a PPL/MEP with no SEP.

It is therefore not only possible but it has been done - and why not?

JD
:)

[BillieBob]

JD - One supposes that the OP is referring to undertaking an ab-initio PPL course whereas your acquaintance was already a professional pilot - hardly a valid comparison.

There is, as has been pointed out, no restriction on the class or type of aeroplane on which a PPL may be undertaken (except that it must be certified for single-pilot operation). If money is of no object, it is certainly achievable and could, in theory, be completed in as little as 105 hours flight time.

[IO540]

The other thing which is possible but nobody in the UK will do it is doing a PPL in a "complex" plane e.g. a TB20 (which is not in any way "complex", relatively speaking...).

[Jumbo Driver]

JD - One supposes that the OP is referring to undertaking an ab-initio PPL course whereas your acquaintance was already a professional pilot - hardly a valid comparison.

No, BillieBob, he was not a professional pilot as you are implying, although he had plenty of experience. Neither was he remotely current when he took his NPPL a few years ago. He had retired from the RAF in the late 1960's and, prior to achieving the NPPL, had never held a civil licence.

In any event, his example shows that it is perfectly possible to achieve and hold a PPL with just an MEP rating, without needing an SEP qualification, which I thought was what vjmehra was asking with his "slightly odd question".

I can see no reason (apart from cost) that a PPL/MEP could not be achieved through an ab-initio course.

JD
:)

[BackPacker]

Can a (properly rated, ie. FI/MEP) instructor sign somebody out to fly a MEP solo, without a license?

I thought all MEP training, plus the MEP skills test, was all done dual, so the first time a (SEP) pilot would fly a MEP solo was when he/she would have the license in hand. So there might not be a provision in the legal framework to let somebody solo on a MEP before license issue.

And of course we're not talking about a few circuits here. As the requirement for a MEP rating is 70 hours PIC, you're talking about some significant solo time under the responsibility of an instructor.

My gut feeling says that this might be something to throw a spanner in the works. Then again, I have not checked the ANO or JAR-FCL, so I might be wrong.

[vjmehra]

Yep spot on, that was what I was asking!

Whilst I appreciate this may not be the most practical way to do things, its an interesting debate at least!

Also, I often seem to read on these forums people satying get as many hours as you can on type, so if you intend to fly twins, post ppl, this seems to make sense.

Just to explain my personal situation a bit more...

I was all set to start my SEP PPL at the start of this year, had a trial lesson in a C-152, PA-28 140 and then a PA-28 180, was all set to begin training with Willow Air at Southend in a C-172 when of course they went bust :-(

Since then two things have stopped me flying...one I bought a boat!!! Secondly the missus is incredibly concerned about flying in a single engine plane, which also means she's terrified about me doing it! Hence, I was wondering if there was a potential way round this, as that would make her feel better, knowing at least that I have the extra engine! Also, just by a twist of fate a potential job opportunity has come up for me in Switzerland and whilst I appreciate even if I started flying now I might be years away from being able to fly there from the UK, it may be a fun objective to try and achieve one day.

So in short, my logic is, that once PPL qualified, I would attempt an MEP rating anyway, therefore whilst the cost is clearly an issue in reality, it is good to know this route could be theoretically possible!

[Duchess_Driver]

pilot would fly a MEP solo was when he/she would have the license in hand.

There is no requirement to have the license issued straight after skill test - as I'm sure you're aware - and indeed PLD wouldn't issue the rating (or license) without 70hours PIC. I have looked into this issue an have yet to find any reason why it cannot be done. Not the norm...but hey?

Just trying to workout why it's a minimum of 105 hours.... surely 70 solo + 25 dual makes 95? (providing top notch student..all ducks lined up etc...???)

[BackPacker]

Secondly the missus is incredibly concerned about flying in a single engine plane, which also means she's terrified about me doing it!
What might help (or hinder) you to convince the missus is that the statistics show very little safety benefit from a second engine, as long as we are talking light twins here (not airliners).

Reasons for this are very complex, and statistics can of course be manipulated any way you want, but here's the summary of how I see it:

The technical safety benefits from the second engine are relatively small since climb performance on one engine is marginal at best in low end twins, and may be completely nonexistent in unfavourable conditions. So the second engine is only taking you to the site of the crash in any case. (And with two engines there's twice that many bits that can go wrong...)

And the few technical safety benefits there are, are typically negated because pilots take twins on more dangerous missions, like IFR/night, high altitude or long overwater flights.

(Cue a long debate on technical and statistical safety benefit of twins!)

[BackPacker]

There is no requirement to have the license issued straight after skill test - as I'm sure you're aware - and indeed PLD wouldn't issue the rating (or license) without 70hours PIC.

That doesn't really matter. You need 70 hours PIC time before license issue. Whether those hours are flown all before the skills test, or partly after your skills test doesn't really matter: You are a student and flying under the responsibility of an instructor.

[Duchess_Driver]

That doesn't really matter. You need 70 hours PIC time before license issue.

which was the point I was trying to make. You can indeed do the skills test before the 70 hours P1 is reached then make up the remainder flying solo under the authorization of an FI before applying for the MEP Class rating and License.

[BillieBob]

Can a (properly rated, ie. FI/MEP) instructor sign somebody out to fly a MEP solo, without a license[sic]?Yes.
Just trying to workout why it's a minimum of 105 hoursBecause I wasn't concentrating when I made the last post! You are quite correct, of course
No, BillieBob, he was not a professional pilotAh, when you referred to "appropriate exemptions for his considerable previous military experience on both single- and multi-engined", I sort of assumed that he was a pilot. In any case, it does not change the fact that he did not undertake an ab-initio PPL course in a twin, which was the subject of the original question.

[FlyingStone]

The only reason I see it would be smart to do PPL in a MEP if the student owned the aircraft and it would be cheaper to fly his own twin than rent a single-engine trainer - if such aircraft even exists, which I highly doubt :)

As previous posts explain, losing an engine in a light twin doesn't mean you lost 50% of all your power - ~ 90% is much more realistic number. I suggest reading this article (http://www.iflypete.com/documents/Always_Leave.html) - especially look at the numbers. Flying is all about risk management, whatever the aircraft type/size/number of engines - and engine failures really aren't that common if you compare it to number of CFIT accidents.

And as IO540 states, it's nothing complex about handling a VP prop and retractable gear - it's usually the speed of the aircraft, which is why you must think much more ahead than with an usual spam-can.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Why would you want to?

Without wanting to be rude, I think the goal of the thread was to get answers to the question, not questions.

[Whopity]

losing an engine in a light twin doesn't mean you lost 50% of all your power Yes it does, its that when you loose 50% of your total power you have actually lost a much higher percentage of the excess power available.

A PPL on a MEP would of course have to be conducted at an FTO rather than a registered facility and they would need an approved course. I suspect Insurance remains the major hurdle.

[A and C]

MEP engine failure, 50% power loss = 95% performance loss.

Without doubt all the MEP's I have flown have been the most demanding to aircraft to fly on one engine, unlike turbines that air quite forgiving , the turbine that I have flown that required as much skill to fly with engines not working was the Electra with two out on the same side.

All things considered in the hands of a low time pilot an engine faiure in an SEP is much safer that an engine failure in an MEP.

[vjmehra]

Some interesting responses so far, I'm glad I started this thread, its been quite educational, even if the actual situation may never arise in reality, its nice to know that in theory it could be done!

[proudprivate]

Secondly the missus is incredibly concerned about flying in a single engine plane, which also means she's terrified about me doing it! Hence, I was wondering if there was a potential way round this, as that would make her feel better,...

The missus is misinformed. Flying a twin engine is more accident prone than flying a single engine. Unless you're doing long stretches over water (to the cottage in Sweden or something) or other inhospitable terrain, flying a single is a lot safer.

You could explain her that
a) an engine failure in flight on a properly pre-flighted and correctly maintained modern aircraft is a VERY RARE event, rarer than the missus and yourself having an accident driving to the airport
b) an single engine aircraft with an engine failure becomes a glider (albeit a heavy one)
c) the main accident causes are pilot error (such as flying VFR into IMC and mid-air near an airport, neither of which can be resolved by adding an engine) and you promise to do everything by the book, always, because you love her. This might imply that you won't be home for supper on some occasions.


As Backpacker pointed out:
- probability of an engine failure is about double in a twin than in a single
and also
- inexperienced pilots are much more likely to mishandle an engine failure in a twin than in a single

Second point is insurance : unless you own the plane and/or strike a good deal with an insurance company, they won't let you solo a twin with under 250 hours TT (of which 50 on your twin). And then we are talking a BE76 Duchess or a PA23 Aztec or some other twin that only makes sense as a trainer. For a proper Cessna 310, no insurance company will sensibly underwrite your soloing under 500 hours (even if you owned it they would ask for at least half of that).

As insurance is important in your particular case (not only do you want to protect the capital invested in your plane, you want to make sure to take care of the missus in the rare event that something does happen to you), the underwriting restrictions will dictate your line of action.


Third point is learning efficiency. It is a hell of a lot easier to operate a spam can (or a warrior, katana, cheetah, ...) than a Duchess. Even with proper ground preparation, it will still take you longer to properly fly a circuit and land a twin than to do the same with the spam can. No matter how good your instructor is, you would lose precious flying time with basic handling of the duchess.

[Pace]

The only reason I see it would be smart to do PPL in a MEP if the student owned the aircraft and it would be cheaper to fly his own twin than rent a single-engine trainer - if such aircraft even exists, which I highly doubt

I flew such an owner in a Seneca five twin for a few years. As most was SP I taught him how to fly the aircraft until the point that he used to fly the whole route from the right seat.
The owner started training for an FAA PPL in the aircraft after I left although I believe he did part in a single.

If the missues is worried about singles why not a Cirrus then you can tell her it has its own parachute system to lower you all safely to the ground in event of you having a heart attack :(

Pace

[vjmehra]

Haha I did think about that actually!

[IO540]

probability of an engine failure is about double in a twin than in a single

Perhaps more than 2x, because

- the control cable runs are much longer

- the engines are believed to be subject to more vibration (more flimsy mounting)

- the owners, mostly, are less fussy about maintenance, precisely because they have a spare engine (and some are quite open about it, too)

[Astra SPx]

"- the owners, mostly, are less fussy about maintenance, precisely because they have a spare engine (and some are quite open about it, too)"

Rubbish!. What a completely unfounded statement.

[Pace]

Backpacker

I cannot agree with your Interpretation of the safety benefits of a twin.
Yes climb performance especially at grosse weight and high temps can be minimal or nil and yes a lot of accidents occur with pilots attempting to climb on one engine.
I had an engine failure on a 100 hr total time Seneca but still had at my guess 30 % power. I did not shut the engine down until I got up to 1000 feet.
I held one hand on the prop lever ready to pull it in event of a complete failure. At 1000 feet I shut it down flew level and landed.
Cause three broken rocker shafts!
A light twin does badly climbing on one but is brilliant flying level on one.
15 plus years ago we shut an engine down flying Bournemouth to France and didn't restart until approaching the French coast.
Not a clever thing to do but it does show that a light twin is perfectly happy flying level on one.
There is no reason at most fields why you cannot go for level flight at 500 feet rather than a climb. Then once established in single engine cruise step climb on the trim very slowly to circuit height.
At night, over fog in IMC or over water a light twin will fly well on one but in level flight.
Maybe training should look at light twins in a different light.
The light twin gives more options than purely heading for the ground as in a single. Light on fuel and PAX it will climb so yet another option.

Pace

[BackPacker]

Like I said, in the hands of a competent and current pilot a light twin does offer a technical safety benefit over a single. However, what I've seen about the statistics is that that technical safety benefit is negated by having twice the number of bits that can go wrong, and by pilots going on more dangerous missions. At night, in fog/IMC and over water for example - something that only very brave SEP pilots would do.

And let me offer up another story for comparison. One of my pilot friends had a recent fATPL and was due his MEP checkride. For preparation he booked a sim session with an instructor and I was invited to sit RHS just for fun. The request he had to the instructor was an IFR flight ending in a few different approaches plus some failures. The usual workout.

After one particular missed approach, climbing away at full power, still in IMC, the instructor failed one of the engines. Three seconds later we were inverted in the field, dead, and the instructor stopped the simulator. The look in my friends eyes was something to behold.

Now I appreciate that an FNPT-II (or whatever it was) certified simulator is still not moving and does not give you the seat-of-the-pants yaw response that a real twin would give in case of an engine failure. That may offer a partial explanation why my friend didn't react instantly the way he should. But it still shows that in a twin things can go from good to hell in a very short period of time. In a single, at the very least, the aircraft would not have inverted itself in zero time flat, giving you far more (though still limited) time to figure out what to do and where to (crash) land it.

Edited: I guess the point I'm trying to make all along is that twins are not automatically and inherently twice as safe as singles - something your missus seems to believe. Yes, twins offer more safety and more options in case of an engine failure but the downside is that it requires more training, more currency and more money to be a competent enough pilot to realize these safety benefits.

[silverknapper]

All things considered in the hands of a low time pilot an engine faiure in an SEP is much safer that an engine failure in an MEP

That really depends on the pilot. I would fancy someone who has just completed their MEP course's chances a lot more than someone who passed it 5 years ago, does the bare minimum of hours and scrapes through the revalidation each year. IMHO it really comes down to the pilots attitude towards currency, and seeking instruction if they aren't current enough.

probability of an engine failure is about double in a twin than in a single

Oh please, save me from this tosh. Normally it's TBM salesmen or single engine fanboys that spout this crap. We can manipulate stats all we like. One could argue that any given piston engine, well maintained, has the same chance of failure. If one does go I'd rather have a spare one on the other side.

Twin training isn't all that difficult really, and brings a whole new dimension to flight planning long trips (and a whole new planet of expense!). But insurance will always be the prohibitive factor in a situation like this. And I'm not sure I'd move away from the traditional learning sequence.

I wonder what these guys would rather have been in:
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/466251-tbm700-forced-landing-near-kfll.html

[CJ Driver]

vjmehra,

As I hope you realise, there's a lot of nonsense on this thread, but the basic economic argument is reasonable.

The underlying answer to your question is YES, you can get your PPL on a twin. I have a friend who did just that, and went on to go commercial and get various turbine type ratings without ever having SEP on her licence. Of course, there was a catch. Her husband owned a MEP aircraft, and was an instructor :-)

Without that little quirk, it really doesn't make much economic sense.

[vjmehra]

Good point, well made!

[Pace]

The problem with light twins is that they have been extensively used for commercial training looking at larger more capable aircraft in the future!
IMO that is why the accident rates are high especially in low time incurrent private pilots.
Light twins give you more options than a single but they are options!
One maybe to establish blue line and go for a climb at grosse weight!
Maybe ok till you hit sinking air and blue line has gone while you are adding more and more rudder to hold the ship together.
That training forgets you have an extra throttle connected to another energy source through the elevator. It forgets other drag you can get rid of other than flaps gear props etc.
As stated why try and kill yourself trying to hold blue line when most light twins are more than happy in level flight!
The twin doesn't know whether it's at 300 feet agl or 3000 feet !
As in my engine failure, feather the prop shut down the faulty engine!
Why? Why shut down a unit producing 30 % power when you desperately need it ? In my case it worked.
The extra engine gives you more options one which maybe to close both and take to a field.
Historically twin training has been all about blue line NOT thinking out of the box at numerous options open to you.
IMO that is the reason for bad accident stats on twins.

Pace

[IO540]

The twin incident stats would be even worse had it not been for the fact that most enroute engine failures (which should mostly be a non-event) are bound to be unreported.

Normally it's TBM salesmen or single engine fanboys that spout this crap. We can manipulate stats all we like. One could argue that any given piston engine, well maintained, has the same chance of failure. If one does go I'd rather have a spare one on the other side.

I am no TBM salesman but I think you have a basic misunderstanding of stats. It is a fact that the fatality rate (or any other incident rate that you care to pick) of SE turboprops is around several times lower than that of piston twins - regardless of how the piston twins are operated.

Emotionally, the warm feeling from a 2nd engine is fully understandable, but the numbers do not support it.

If one went on the basis of a concurrent failure of two unconnected systems being extremely improbable (which it certainly is) then twins of any sort should never go down as a result of loss of propulsion.

Yet they do.

If one takes out fuel system mismanagement (which is arguably 100% pilot error, no matter how confusing some of them are) you are still left with plenty of ways to go down.

And if you are crossing terrain which rises above the SE ceiling of the twin (for a significant distance) then you have a 2x (min.) chance of crashing into it, than with a single. Admittedly that is an unusual case in Europe (the Alps take only ~ 45 mins to cross, N-S) but twin owners do like to use mountains as a common example of twin advantages.

[AdamFrisch]

Agree with Pace.

I'm a pretty new twin flyer, but have already had my left engine semi-fail on my previous cross country. 2 cylinders went bad, one chewing oil rings plugging up the sparks and making damage, the other shedding a valve. I was over Iowa fields at the moment and only an hour away from my destination, Chicago. Engine ran rough but was still producing power on 4 cylinders (which I didn't know then, I though it was a magneto problem), so I opted to continue. Because I knew that flying the Commander on one is a total non-event. In my type conversion, we shut one down completely and landed with it as you should. Rudder trim for it and she'll fly all day long like that.

Aircraft has since been repaired and just end of last week I flew her back. With two new cylinders I was weary of crossing Rockies and Sierra Nevadas, so I opted for a more southerly route, via New Mexico and Arizona with lower mountains. What I hadn't counted on is how extremely barren these areas are and I felt terrible lonely and apprehensive over these huge vast forests, canyons and mountains (albeit lower than the Rockies). In those cases I was very glad to be sitting in a twin - below me there were literally zero options for a successful forced landing.

A twin is not hard to fly on one engine. And most importantly, if you ever get into control troubles with a twin, just reduce the good engine until your control problems disappear and start over. If you're heavy, trying to outclimb things and run out of rudder, Vmc, pull back, reconfigure, rethink. As Pace said, they'll fly S&L all day long at lower altitudes. It's pretty intuitive.

[Pace]

Addendum

Just to stress I am not diminishing the importance of flying blue line before someone jumps down my throat:E

If you have the discipline, courage and accuracy of flying to peg blue line good for you! but that means on hot days, or at grosse, or on windy turbulent days being able to accept minimal or no climb or maybe even a descent rate of 500 fpm.

My problem with blue line is that in low powered twins the margins for error are small. Add in panicking pax and other distractions and it's only too easy to loose blue and to get into a mess!

In the right conditions and weight blue line may be the right way but there are other ways with larger margins for different situations.

For me flying light twins is about respecting the limitations of a light twin and flying out of the box considering a number of options and using them even if that's closed throttles into s field.
Remember too that a light twin will fly quite happily all day on one engine if your flying level and use that fact to your advantage !!

Pace

[silverknapper]

but I think you have a basic misunderstanding of stats. It is a fact that the fatality rate (or any other incident rate that you care to pick) of SE turboprops is around several times lower than that of piston twins - regardless of how the piston twins are operated

With the greatest of respect and not wanting to commence the usual prune back and forth which I try to stay away from.

My understanding of stats is pretty sound. And my point stands, one can make them look however one wants to.
There are many many thousands more piston twins in the world than turbine singles. It stands there are therefore more accidents. Also the piston twin fleet is generally much older, Cessna 310 fuel system anyone? So comparing a rate per 100000 hours or any other comparison generally doen't stand scrutiny.
My post was comparing single engine pistons with multi engine pistons, and the added safety factor the second engine provides. And also an attempt to dispel the naysayers that say anyone who touches a piston twin will die a horrid death. I've flown them for years and am still about.

I hear the 'double chance of engine failure' line a lot from Pilatus and TBM. And it hacks me off every time. Generally they are comparing their new machines to turbine twins. And it really is just a play on words. At the end of the day if the singles engine quits you are going one way. And if it quits at height you are starting that journey very quickly to recover cabin alt. In the turbine twin if an engine fails it's no big deal.

My example at the end, whilst tongue in cheek is still very very valid. Which machine do you think those pax would rather have been in?

[Pace]

And if you are crossing terrain which rises above the SE ceiling of the twin (for a significant distance) then you have a 2x (min.) chance of crashing into it, than with a single. Admittedly that is an unusual case in Europe (the Alps take only ~ 45 mins to cross, N-S) but twin owners do like to use mountains as a common example of twin advantages.

10540

Dont understand some of the above? Why do you have 2x the chance of crashing into them? are you basing that on the fact that you have 2 engines hence 2xs the chance of one failing. Ok accepting that you have one fail you will be going down as well as forward and hopefully forward to lower terrain if you know where you are and head in the right direction!

On the non turbo twin you will be going down albeit at a small rate with the remaining engine producing power.

As the non turbo descends that descent rate will decrease until at about 7-8K the aircraft will fly level.

Take a Seneca five light twin with turbo charged and intercooled engines and it has a single engine service ceiling of approx 16500 feet good to clear all the mountains in Europe.

The poor single will GO DOWN and down into whatever so cannot understand your 2Xs in a twin?

That sounds very much like a singles marketing statement and NOT accurate
And remember even over the Alps while there might be spot heights up at 16K the everage will be much lower with valleys much lower still.

Pace

[IO540]

I hear the 'double chance of engine failure' line a lot from Pilatus and TBM. And it hacks me off every time

Yet it must be true, that an engine failure in a twin must be 2x more likely than same in a single.

This is nothing to do with turboprops, but it must be equally true for them (TBM v. a King Air for example).

And remember even over the Alps while there might be spot heights up at 16K the everage will be much lower with valleys much lower still.

True, which is why I qualified it. Your ROD with a dead engine will be lower than with a SE, and will be only down to the SE ceiling which will probably be OK in most of Europe.

[proudprivate]

With respect to your comments:

I hear the 'double chance of engine failure' line a lot from Pilatus and TBM.
and related

Oh please, save me from this tosh.


I would like to add the following:

1) Statistically, a piston twin will have about double the chance of an engine failure as a comparable piston single

2) Whilst hopefully nobody disputes this statistical fact, this is not meant an argument to sell a single engine piston by claiming they are "safer".

3) As most people will know, engine failures are extremely rare and engine failures leading to an accident are very rare. We are talking about x per 10^6 flying hours here. That is why statistics show virtually no difference in accident rates between turbo singles and turbo twins (which is what the TBM brigade likes to talk about, but which is irrelevant in a discussion whether it is a good idea to learn to fly a initio in a twin)

4) The reason I mentioned it is because uninformed people (like his missus) believe that multi-engine aircraft are safer than single-engine aircraft regardless of who is flying them. This is of course NOT the case. "Low on class" pilots have a higher relative fatality rate in MEL than in SEL. The statistics (FAA data 1980-2000) are not giving the true picture, because most Multi-Engine beginners have already 200+ hours under their belt, unlike vjmehra here, who would graduate with a little over 100 hours...

5) In conclusion, I think Missus Mehra would be safer flying with VJ in a single than VJ in a twin. Their chances of making it safe and sound to 500 flight hours are significantly higher. The insurance companies seem to agree with this reasoning.


And also an attempt to dispel the naysayers that say anyone who touches a piston twin will die a horrid death.


Nobody said that or inferred that. Flying the family Duchess (I wish !) I would have about a 2.5 in 100,000 flight hours of buying it. VJ, at the end of his little twin training tour, would have about 10 times that chance in his first post PPL flying year (making some assumptions about independence of general non-ifr / non-commercial accident statistics and low class hour statistics and using admittedly a "dated" data set).

So not exactly certain horrid death, but (assuming he does 50 hours in his first PPL year) about 1.25% chance, with another 5%-odd chance of a non-fatal (but potentially expensive) accident. Which is why no sensible insurer will want to underwrite him.

My conclusion remains that it doesn't make sense as a project because
- it costs more than double to complete the training.
- it puts you in a less safe situation after completion.

Safe flying (whether in a twin or a single) !

[Pace]

Safe flying (whether in a twin or a single) !

And maybe the twin would be safer if pilots were taught how to fly light twins rather than teaching them how to fly bigger high performance twins whether jet or turboprop in their commercial future.

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Though no wanting to stir this pot in either direction, I will link this article

Always Leave Yourself An Out (http://www.iflypete.com/documents/Always_Leave.html)

again, as I think it to be appropriately sobering.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

Could not agree more!!! It makes sobering reading hence why with all my twin time I have personally looked at the options.
If you take the Seneca (figures based on earlier Senecas not the 5) Its stalling and over the hedge speeds are similar to a high performance single so you always have the option to close both throttles and treat it as one.
The article looks at light twins at grosse weight. Light they will perform better on one but there is a danger zone in the first couple of hundred feet after takeoff where you maybe better off treating the aircraft as a single and taking to a field as you would a single.
Little is discussed about single engine cruise and all about how bad they are attempting to climb.
As stated many moons ago we shut a Seneca engine down fully crossing the channel, trimmed it and flew to france restarting the unit to land in france.
That phase is a doddle the aircraft quite happy albeit with an IAS of 120-125 kts instead of 150 kts.
At most airfields there is no reason why you cannot go for single engine cruise even at 4-500 feet AGL.
Give yourself a margine down to 110 kts! set up for level cruise at 120 kts trim for a slight climb as speed comes back to 110kts level again and gradually step to circuit height.
Most training in twins are for bigger and better aircraft usually with commercial pilots looking ahead and not directed at pilots who will only fly light twins.
The article is a good read and reinforces the fact that all a twin gives you is more options than a single which will only go one way and thats down.
With those extra options comes an option to get it badly wrong with fatal consequences.
In the cruise over fog or sea or at night or in IMC with cloud almost down to the deck below the twin is very reassuring. Why because you are not in the takeoff phase you are in the cruise phase and in the cruise they behave very nicely thank you on one.

Pace

[seat 0A]

I am with Pace on this one.
I have just done my yearly profcheck on my twin comanche. It should be considered a light twin, with MTOW 3600 lbs and 2 x 160 bhp.

Full fuel, two persons, so not exactly MTOW. OAT 25C.

Happily flying actual closed engine from 100ft. Single engine go-arounds from 100ft. No problem.
You just have to keep your options open. That means thinking about energy-management when flying on one engine. Maybe fly a little bit faster on your final approach when going into that long runway you chose for your single engine landing?

I am much happier flying across a freezing North Sea this time of year then I would be if I was in a Cirrus. Like the guys I heard crossing last Saturday...

[Pace]

Look at it another way! Seneca stall approx 60 kts over hedge 80kts retractable single approx 60 kts over hedge 80 kts.
You could if you like decide below 500 feet pretend it's a single above all the safety benefits in the cruise approach and landing?
Or when your next up play with my techniques of leveling and see how that works

Pace

[IO540]

Great article posted by Pilot-DAR :ok:

Quite an eye-opener.

[Pace]

10540

Yes its a good article BUT? What are the advantages safety wise of your single against my twin?
Engine failure on takeoff? You go down I may decide to do the same as you and go down but if the situation is right I may decide to go up or even level.
You cannot decide to do that.
In the cruise over fog low, cloud, sea or at night engine failure? You go down into whatver I happily fly on to my destination.
On approach to landing engine failure!!! You go down into whatever I happily fly the approach and the ILS and land.
So with a clever pilot who knows what he is doing we are equal on takeoff and I am ahead of you on all other parts of the flight with my 2 :ok:

Pace

[BackPacker]

So with a clever pilot who knows what he is doing we are equal on takeoff and I am ahead of you on all other parts of the flight with my 2

Well, that assumes all other things being equal. But they're not. For starters the direct operating costs of a twin are roughly two to three times higher than a single of comparable performance. So if you're flying to an annual budget (like most of us on here) you can do two to three times the hours if you choose singles over twins. More if you go for full ownership and will solely be responsible for the annual fixed costs too.

So either you fly a plane that requires a lot of currency, in a not-so-current state, or you fly a plane that requires less currency, in a very-current state.

What does that do to your ability to deal with emergencies in general? (And remember an engine failure is not the only possible emergency in an aircraft. Emergencies like fuel exhaustion/starvation or CFIT really don't care about the number of engines you are bringing.)

[Pace]

Backpacker

I agree with what you are saying. I am lucky because I have flown other peoples twins for them and numerous types so my currency is good and I have over 2000 hrs in Seneca Fives alone.
Not so guys who are paying for their time or aircraft and who can only afford a few hours a year.
Having said that how many twin pilots low or high time actually practice single engine work other than with an examiner?
The twin gives more options and with those more options the option to get it badly wrong as going up with one engine is a minimal climb experience which requires accuracy and an ability to manage energy and drag and definately to think out of the box.

Pace

[Jan Olieslagers]

ISTR the C335/C337 was designed to be legally flyable on a SEP qualification, yet have some of the advantages of a twin.

[vjmehra]

I've never seen either of those planes before, interesting!

So, to sum up the responses I've seen so far, with the original question being:

'I appreciate you wouldn't be able to get a type rating as such after 45 hours, but in theory if time isn't a massive concern and pretending cost isn't either, after 70 hours, could you theoretically walk away with a PPL and MEP type rating, having never or only briefly flown SEP's?'

It seems that it is possible, but the consensus is that it would be unadvisable to do. However once SEP rated, there seems to be a greater divide between singles and twins.

I have to say, as a neutral (having only logged 3 SEP hours), I am really struggling to see why (cost permitting), once considered a competent enough pilot to possess a PPL, why you would not want to move up to a twin for safety reasons (obviously whilst receiving the appripriate training).

Based on the points listed, it seems from a technological point of view to be safer to fly a twin, with the main concern, seemingly pilot error, but presumably with proper training this risk should be diminished?

[BackPacker]

You can be reasonably sure that you will receive proper instruction, regardless of whether it's for MEP or SEP. We've all had that, plus a checkride. So that's not the problem. But from that point onwards you are responsible for maintaining currency. And "currency" means anything from basic motor skills to perform safe landings and other handling, via keeping up to date on legal issues (EASA anyone? But also NOTAMs, flight guides, licenses and other paperwork etc.) to maintaining your medical and maintaining G-tolerance for aerobatics (or simply turbulence).

You've just had three lessons. You will already notice that some of the stuff that was covered in those three lessons will be partially forgotten by the time you start lesson four. Now consider what's going to happen when you've had 25 hours worth of lessons, then not flown for three months or more.

Maintaining not just legal currency (3 landings in the last 90 days to carry passengers) but also your own personal limit with regards to currency, so that you have the feeling that you can handle whatever the plane and the circumstances (ATC, weather, ...) can throw at you, is a major challenge in the long run. Unless you're in a position to fly very regularly, including taking time to perform handling exercises such as stalls and steep turns, and in a twin, asymmetric flight. (And let me tell you up front that very few passengers enjoy riding with you when you practice that sort of stuff, so it's hardly something you can do en-route to somewhere.)

Just out of curiosity, have you done the sums? To maintain reasonably current in a SEP, for VFR flight only, you maybe need 12-15 hours each year. Times 150-200 pounds. For a MEP, you might be looking at a minimum of 20-25 hours annually times, what, 400 pounds? If you can afford to spend at least something like 10.000 pounds of the family budget annually on your hobby, no questions asked, by all means go ahead. But if your budget is less, a MEP rating might not be such a good idea.

[Pace]

Diamond Twin Star Engine Shutdown - YouTube

The above is a Link to a flight test on the Twin Star I did. I shut the engine down although wasnt sure it was going to crank back up :E no sweat if it had not!!

10540 if that right engine was in your TB20 I know where you would be going ???

I really do think the training is at fault for the accident stats on light twins engine out and has been for years!


Pace

[IO540]

10540 if that right engine was in your TB20 I know where you would be going ???Down of course, but I never argued otherwise.

But I would still prefer a single PT6 over any number of piston engines.

BTW, my name is IO540 not 10540 :) :)

BTW I bumped into our mutual friend this morning, wearing the full Col Gaddafi regalia (was clean so presumably he must have just washed it) off to somewhere warmer (and much more corrupt) in something fairly big with two PT6s :)

[Pace]

The Bugger he is always off somewhere :E In full regalia ? Maybe he is off to Libya to replace someone ?

You must join us soon on one of our corrupt nights out in London?

Totally agree those pistons have too many bits thrashing around waiting to disintegrate ;) and twice as many in a twin!!!

BTW, my name is IO540 not 10540

No its not its the same as mine ;) Ok your stage name is IO540 not 10540


Pace

[vjmehra]

Just going back a couple of points...

Backpacker, budget and time wise that would be fine, although I was actually thinking more of the Technam P2006t, which seems to be £235 per hour solo in Wycombe, so for arguements sake lets call it £300 ph including extras.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, from what I've read, in reviews it doesn't handle in the same way as other twins, does this change anything anyone has said up to this point?

[Pace]

The Aircraft you mention looks great with obvious fuel benefits of rotax engines.
My concern is that a twin should be for most weather flying summer and winter, day and night! Which also means approved anti/ deice!
I do not believe the technam has approved anti ice / de ice ?

Pace

[vjmehra]

I believe that is correct, there is no anti-icing version.

[Pace]

VJ

The Diamond Twinstar which I tested is a far better aircraft than its underpowered brother it replaced with the new AG300 diesels.
See Below


VJThe 336hp make for impressive acceleration, which unsurprisingly is noticeably increased in comparison with the basic DA42. With the engines delivering 100 %Take Off power, the nose is raised to 12° and it climbs at 90 KCAS burning 9.4 US gal per hour per engine with the variometer oscillating between 1,100 and 1,300 fpm. That is truly impressive. Five minutes after Take Off we are retarding to max continious power of 92% and still get a climb rate of approximately 1,100fpm. The fuel flow meter is indicating 8.5 USgal/h now.

Levelling off at 12,000 ft and the power indication still at 92% we are accelerating to 145 KCAS which leads to a true airspeed of 183 kts. The service ceiling is 18,000 ft and it can maintain 14,000 ft with one engine out. We are engaging the autopilot and enjoying the luxury of the GFC 700 with its yaw damping system. Bringing the power back to a more normal 75 % power, the engines are burning 6.8 US gal per engine and delivering 175 KTAS, which is magnificient for just 51 l of Jet A1 per hour

If your looking for a low running cost twin aircraft ???

[vjmehra]

Reports look very good online! Even seen one site quoting £175 ph wet!!!

[smarthawke]

Tecnam are working on a TKS system for the P2006T - having looked at the other de/anti-ice alternatives.

[IO540]

with obvious fuel benefits of rotax engines.

Have they discovered new laws of physics?

:)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Dealing with a engine failure when you know one is coming, like what will happen in training is a whole different animal than dealing with the sudden unexpected lurch to one side. I do not think most twin training does a very good job of preparing twin owners for real world emergencies.

Also my personal observation is most privately operated twins are flown by pilot who do not seem willing to do regular recurrent training and more importantly do not have the personal discipline to follow the important SOP's that this equipment needs to actually benefit from the second engine.

For example I teach (and do myself !) a run through the engine fail vital actions, including lightly touching the relevant controls (to build muscle memory) before every takeoff and have a predetermined no/go vs go point in the takeoff.

As for the question of doing your PPL on a twin.......well my thought is just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This being a perfect example. The best way to learn the foundation handling skills is in a light low powered trainer, with simple systems allowing you to concentrate on looking out the windscreen, and which flies on the wing not on the engine(s).

[IO540]

Setting aside stuff like insurance issues, I think the answer will depend on what you ultimately want to do.

The PPL training business simply assumes the punter is probably going to drop out ASAP, and the few that stay will just do burger runs.

So it makes sense to train in spamcans.

The more keen and better funded people who want to do e.g. serious flying around Europe and want to buy their own plane are discouraged, because the instructors know almost nothing about the subject and because they want to keep him soing self fly hire for as long as possible.

Let's say your objective is to get an IR and do European touring. (Touring beyond Europe is a hassle, relatively, due to corruption, fuel issues, overflight permits, etc). Wouldn't it make sense to get yourself trained in a plane which at least resembles what you will ultimately be flying?

I gather that various air forces have stopped SE spamcan training because it is just a waste of time.

Flying a more complex type requires a better intellectual grasp, but flying something with a G1000 also requires a better intellectual grasp...

[vjmehra]

Interesting post I0540, that was the main reason (other than safety), why I asked the question.

All hypothetical of course, and it can be argued slightly irrational (although I feel there is enough statistical evidence to suggest otherwise), I would definitely feel more re-assured piloting something a bit more air worthy than a C-152 post PPL (not that I'm suggesting a C-152 isn't air worthy, simply that there are bigger, more comfortable aircraft for cruising in).

[AdamFrisch]

Unfortunately, real travel and as a business (or pleasure) tool it is hard work in Europe. Wasn't it someone in another thread that asked which London UK GA airport that's open after dark and pretty much the only one that's even an alternative unless you have a jet and can pay £500 handling is Biggin Hill? You'll have to declare an emergency around London (one of the biggest cities in Europe, the financial center) if you arrive at 9.01pm. It's mind boggling.

I pretty much got back into flying so that I can use it for travel and pleasure. I still nurse a naive thought of one day winning the lottery and being able to fly my Piaggio Avanti to all my work engagements. I would love to never have to fly commercial again. But even if I did win big, regulations and hassles would pretty much prevent it in Europe. In the US it's a no brainer.

So for now, I use the old dinosaur twin I fly as a pleasure tool mostly, with the occasional work stuff thrown in when the moons align. Only time she's a alternative is on shorter routes and to slightly off-the-beaten-path places. That's when they save time and money. For longer trips between big cities it's just financial suicide and time consuming. Not to say it's not worth doing, it just doesn't make any rational sense.

[IO540]

Southend EGMC is H24.

But that's about it. Cardiff EGFF is the only other one.

There are various ways to skin the cat if you want to progress to more advanced stuff ASAP, but it will take an imaginative instructor and more importantly a lot more cash.

A lot of people have done the FAA PPL+IR by flying around the USA with an instructor. This is possible here too (JAA PPL, or IR) but would cost similarly more, because the instructor is your "guest" :) You will end up being a very good practically capable pilot - something you definitely will not be when you get your PPL.

[smarthawke]

The Tecnam P2006T handles just like any other twin.

There was one 'flight test' by a now retired magazine editor who said he preferred the 'heritage twins'. Althought the article was written in the form of an MEP rating renewal, the writer had not in actual fact ever held an MEP rating although had done some MEP training in a Duchess.

There have been many more accurate appraisals of the P2006T in UK and American magazines.

The Rotax hasn't reinvented the wheel but it has made possible an IFR certified twin engine four seater that burns 38LPH at its normal (real world) cruise of 135 KIAS.

The Airways Flying Club example is (IIRC) £240/hr (inc VAT) solo and £280.

Somehow I think an abinitio PPL student going from scratch on a twin is going to take a tad more than 45 hours to complete the task...

[vjmehra]

Just in case anyone is interested, I found this (sort of) related thread, whilst trailing around the internet:

A twin vs. BRS-equipped single [Archive] - StudentPilot.com Message Board (http://www.studentpilot.com/interact/forum/archive/index.php/t-35554.html)

It basically talks about the merrits of twins vs ballistic parachutes and then questions whether there are any twins with ballistic parachutes!

[Jan Olieslagers]

Quote:
with obvious fuel benefits of rotax engines.
Have they discovered new laws of physics?

Perhaps they studied them better. Or should we say they applied them from a different economic reality?

[AdamFrisch]

What's even greater about the Tecnam P2006T is that it's certified and even prefers Mogas. With or without ethanol - it doesn't matter. It was designed to handle it, contrary to all other dinosaur Lycs and Contis. So just strap a small bowser to your pickup or in the trunk and fill it up at the regular garage and flick two fingers to the a***oles who decided that 100LL should be 2 squids a litre..

Another great thing: 100LL is scarce in Europe, but there's always Mogas available everywhere as long as you can get to a garage. Carry one of those soft collapsible 50gal tanks in the baggage compartment, land anywhere, hitch a ride to a gas station and fill it up. Total autonomy.

If I could just afford one, I'd buy one tomorrow.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Setting aside stuff like insurance issues, I think the answer will depend on what you ultimately want to do.

The PPL training business simply assumes the punter is probably going to drop out ASAP, and the few that stay will just do burger runs.

So it makes sense to train in spamcans.

The more keen and better funded people who want to do e.g. serious flying around Europe and want to buy their own plane are discouraged, because the instructors know almost nothing about the subject and because they want to keep him soing self fly hire for as long as possible.

Let's say your objective is to get an IR and do European touring. (Touring beyond Europe is a hassle, relatively, due to corruption, fuel issues, overflight permits, etc). Wouldn't it make sense to get yourself trained in a plane which at least resembles what you will ultimately be flying?

I gather that various air forces have stopped SE spamcan training because it is just a waste of time.

Flying a more complex type requires a better intellectual grasp, but flying something with a G1000 also requires a better intellectual grasp...

I think your premise is fundamentally flawed. Regardless of the technological spiffyness of the aircraft there is a irreducible minimum level of pure stick and rudder skill that is necessary. The best way to first get this skill IMO, is in a simple airplane. There seems to be a lot of Cirrus and Columbia's that are being bent due to poor handling skills, especially on landing and I have to wonder if this is a result of too much emphasis placed on "system management" and not enough on actually manipulating the control stick/wheel.

A well taught PPL on a basic trainer will have all the fundamental flying skills that will serve him/her well regardless of the type subsequently flown.

The true problem is post PPL training. That is to be taught how to add to those basic skills so the pilot becomes proficient in the real world A to B flying that makes an aircraft useful. Unfortunately most flying school instructors are of very little use to a new PPL who wants to learn how to effectively and safely use his new G1000 speedster in the real world.

[IO540]

So just strap a small bowser to your pickup or in the trunk and fill it up at the regular garage and flick two fingers to the a***oles who decided that 100LL should be 2 squids a litre..

Another great thing: 100LL is scarce in Europe, but there's always Mogas available everywhere as long as you can get to a garage. Carry one of those soft collapsible 50gal tanks in the baggage compartment, land anywhere, hitch a ride to a gas station and fill it up. Total autonomy.

That scenario is obviously applicable to only a very specific subset of the flying community.

It works if you fly from a very private site, and land back at either the same site, or another private site with a similar facility.

If you want to fly away somewhere, you will need a flying car, so you can drive to the garage to fill it up.

And it will work with very small planes only, because the amount of fuel burnt in going e.g. to southern Europe is way too much for manual handling.

How will you handle the collapsible 50 gallon tank when it has been filled up? It will weigh about 150kg.

[Jan Olieslagers]

My microlight examiner recently told me how he once flew a two-stroke powered open microlight from Belgium to Spain by following motorways, and landing next to a services area every two hours or so to refuel. He soon learned to land as inconspicuously as possible, however, not in full sight from the motorway.
The trip took just three days.

As for the 50 gallons, there might well be a typo somewhere.

[IO540]

It takes less than 5 mins to dig up an online trip report where somebody flew a hang-glider with a lawn mower strapped to the back of it, from the UK to Kathmandu, or whatever.

Whether this is practical, or whether the number of pilots that actually do it could or could not be counted on a couple of fingers, is another matter.

Wouldn't we all love to be burning car petrol? The other day I filled up with 221.4 litres (159kg) of avgas. How many jerrycans would this be? With my back, I can barely lift one full size jerrycan out of my car boot and carry it any distance.

There are many different communities within GA, with different requirements and with different levels at which "user satisfaction" can be achieved.

50USG is 136kg. If you filled a rubber bladder with that lot, in the back of your car, and assuming the exhaust is still off the ground, about the only thing you will be able to do is find an industrial waste disposal company to come along and dispose of the contents ;)

[IO540]

Yeah, but you are in the USA. It is a heaven for GA.

There, you can take off in the morning and just fly around, land after dark (pilot controlled lightning, airport not closed at night), etc. Avgas everywhere, and no Customs required for some 99.x% of US based pilots in their entire lifetime. And many other factors, which combine to deliver not just enjoyment but also serious utility value.

Europe is entirely "doable", and I have done a lot of touring (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/index.html) around Europe myself, but one has to put a lot more effort into getting one's ducks in a row before going on a long trip. Once you sort out a good process for doing that, it's not hard, and the flying itself is of course similar everywhere.

And a long range aircraft makes the job a lot easier because every airport which you overfly is one airport less to worry about :)