PPL in a Twin

[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]

Silverknapper :

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

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

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

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 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 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