Can we put the myth that singles are as safe as twins to bed now?
It seems to me from the above that the twin/single safety question is marginal at best.
A single is much cheaper, simpler and greener, gets into short strips, easier to maintain etc etc. In my book that trumps a twins imagined(?) slightly improved safety (if they are, in practice, any safer anyway).
A single is much cheaper, simpler and greener, gets into short strips, easier to maintain etc etc. In my book that trumps a twins imagined(?) slightly improved safety (if they are, in practice, any safer anyway).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT
A Single piston is safe if it is used within its limitations and the pilots limitations. Hence my jokey reference to toy aeroplanes
It is not safe when singles are flown in bad weather, in icing conditions, at night, over water, fog low cloud. wind shear etc then the twin becomes a far far safer machine.
We have done twin safety to death but a twin falls down when an engine fails in the climbout that i put down to inadequate training which should be directed at light piston twins and currency.
Something like a Seneca has an approach speed of 80kts almost the same as a faster single! Twin training is too much directed at climb at all costs and not enough at shut both down and land in a field or do what a light twin does well fly level engine out.
Used properly within their limitations and within the pilot limitations both are safe go out of those limitations which are very different and neither are safe
Pace
A Single piston is safe if it is used within its limitations and the pilots limitations. Hence my jokey reference to toy aeroplanes
It is not safe when singles are flown in bad weather, in icing conditions, at night, over water, fog low cloud. wind shear etc then the twin becomes a far far safer machine.We have done twin safety to death but a twin falls down when an engine fails in the climbout that i put down to inadequate training which should be directed at light piston twins and currency.
Something like a Seneca has an approach speed of 80kts almost the same as a faster single! Twin training is too much directed at climb at all costs and not enough at shut both down and land in a field or do what a light twin does well fly level engine out.
Used properly within their limitations and within the pilot limitations both are safe go out of those limitations which are very different and neither are safe
Pace
I think we are getting (again) into risk perception here.
My daughter is happy to ride animals that often seem to hurt her and there is a high risk of the horse doing something random and killing her or paralyzing her for life. This is considered perfectly acceptable and many are happy for their teenage darlings to do this without any formal training.
But if I get government approved training and fly her IFR at night in a single engined aircraft this is considered by some to be "not safe" and a silly risk.
Flying a well maintained single engined aircraft in bad weather, at night, over water etc is perhaps not as "safe" as in a turbine twin but it is perfectly safe enough and a much better risk than many things that people do. The single also has many other advantages that suit me far better than any twin.
My daughter is happy to ride animals that often seem to hurt her and there is a high risk of the horse doing something random and killing her or paralyzing her for life. This is considered perfectly acceptable and many are happy for their teenage darlings to do this without any formal training.
But if I get government approved training and fly her IFR at night in a single engined aircraft this is considered by some to be "not safe" and a silly risk.
Flying a well maintained single engined aircraft in bad weather, at night, over water etc is perhaps not as "safe" as in a turbine twin but it is perfectly safe enough and a much better risk than many things that people do. The single also has many other advantages that suit me far better than any twin.
Last edited by Romeo Tango; 5th Jan 2014 at 11:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT
I agree with your sentiment especially regarding riding horses which is a scary occupation.
We had a long thread on something simular! I try to fly always having an out or never doing anything which becomes Russian Roulette.
Flying a single at night any distance unless its a Cirrus with a BRS is for me flying with no outs if the engine goes bang.
Then its the case of switching on the landing lights approaching the ground! If you like what you see leave them on if you dont like what you see turn them off again
The same goes over long stretches of ocean, over fog banks, over low cloud etc.
If a pilot wants to play Russian Roulette thats his/her perogative whether you should play that game with unknowing passengers is another matter
Pace
I agree with your sentiment especially regarding riding horses which is a scary occupation.
We had a long thread on something simular! I try to fly always having an out or never doing anything which becomes Russian Roulette.
Flying a single at night any distance unless its a Cirrus with a BRS is for me flying with no outs if the engine goes bang.
Then its the case of switching on the landing lights approaching the ground! If you like what you see leave them on if you dont like what you see turn them off again
The same goes over long stretches of ocean, over fog banks, over low cloud etc.
If a pilot wants to play Russian Roulette thats his/her perogative whether you should play that game with unknowing passengers is another matter
Pace
As a child I got around with a pony and trap. My uncle always drove two-in-hand, saying that if one horse dropped dead he could still get home.
I never did have a death in harness. Nor did he.
I never did have a death in harness. Nor did he.
Pace
I do not mind playing Russian roulette as long as there are enough empty chambers, and not too many loaded ones! You are playing the same game in your twin - there are still things that can go wrong and kill you, it's just less likely.
As has been said many times before it depends what risk you regard as acceptable.
I'm sorry you no longer like flying single engined aircraft over water etc but that's up to you.
I do not mind playing Russian roulette as long as there are enough empty chambers, and not too many loaded ones! You are playing the same game in your twin - there are still things that can go wrong and kill you, it's just less likely.
As has been said many times before it depends what risk you regard as acceptable.
I'm sorry you no longer like flying single engined aircraft over water etc but that's up to you.
I think it is pointless to make the single vs twin a binary argument as in one is safer than the other. There are just too many factors that apply
The only relevant fact on this issue that IMO matters is the fact that the second engine only increases safety if the pilot has the skill and knowledge to deal with the engine failure scenario in any part of a flight.
My personal observation is that maintaining true proficiency requires a significant investment in training and practice and that the majority of private twin owners are not willing to make the commitment.
The TBM850/Pilatus PC12 are extremely efficient and capable airplanes which can beat the pants off any T-prop twin....until the pilot light in the engine goes out 
I bet every one of those PC 12/TBM pilots who have had the engine fail sure wished they were in a King Air.
The only relevant fact on this issue that IMO matters is the fact that the second engine only increases safety if the pilot has the skill and knowledge to deal with the engine failure scenario in any part of a flight.
My personal observation is that maintaining true proficiency requires a significant investment in training and practice and that the majority of private twin owners are not willing to make the commitment.
I bet every one of those PC 12/TBM pilots who have had the engine fail sure wished they were in a King Air.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 5th Jan 2014 at 22:50.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was a full time flight instructor a long time ago, the Chief Flight Instructor set WX minimums for piston dispatch. 600-2 for a single and 200-1/2 (or IFR mins) for a twin. In retrospect, I think that was wise given the circumstances of the flight training operation.
I know when I had a throttle cable disconnect shortly after takeoff in a Piper Arrow (and a resulting slow loss of power), I was grateful that the weather allowed me to circle to another runway and land. Oh, and don't forget to pull the prop control back if you need to when the engine quits or you pull the mixture because there is no throttle control.
Doing practice approaches below mins in a single is really not necessary when they can be simulated with a hood...but that's me at this stage of my life. I am happy to fly the spam can only when the weather is better than marginal. Other's mileage may vary, however.
I know when I had a throttle cable disconnect shortly after takeoff in a Piper Arrow (and a resulting slow loss of power), I was grateful that the weather allowed me to circle to another runway and land. Oh, and don't forget to pull the prop control back if you need to when the engine quits or you pull the mixture because there is no throttle control.
Doing practice approaches below mins in a single is really not necessary when they can be simulated with a hood...but that's me at this stage of my life. I am happy to fly the spam can only when the weather is better than marginal. Other's mileage may vary, however.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order of safety, powered flying machines are safest in this order:
Hovercraft
Multi-engine Jet
Multi engine turbo prop
Single engine TP
Multi engine piston
Single engine piston
You can probably insert in there between MEP and SET a Cessna 337 though
These seem like very good value for money and a great compromise between Single and Multi if you don't want any asymmetric issues....
Hovercraft
Multi-engine Jet
Multi engine turbo prop
Single engine TP
Multi engine piston
Single engine piston
You can probably insert in there between MEP and SET a Cessna 337 though
These seem like very good value for money and a great compromise between Single and Multi if you don't want any asymmetric issues....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E
Your list is interesting yet not unexpected!
I fly business jets an engine failure or need to shut an engine down is a non event ! On one engine the jet will outperform a SEP !
The performance of a jet soon clears ALL the weather while a piston single or twin is stuck in the worst!
A jet tends to live in CAS takeoff to touchdown
The pilots will normally be professionally trained and experienced!
Some of the same can be said for the SEP turboprop!
A turbine is far more reliable than a piston with hundreds of bits wirring around !
Piston twins will generally be flown by more experienced pilots and will tend to be more weather resilient than an SEP piston!
So your list confirms what I would think!
Fly within your limits and the aircraft limits and all will be safe!
Those aircraft limits are very different between a piston single / twin / turboprop/ and jet and the problems occur when pilots fly out of their or the aircraft limits or safe operating conditions
Pace
Your list is interesting yet not unexpected!
I fly business jets an engine failure or need to shut an engine down is a non event ! On one engine the jet will outperform a SEP !
The performance of a jet soon clears ALL the weather while a piston single or twin is stuck in the worst!
A jet tends to live in CAS takeoff to touchdown
The pilots will normally be professionally trained and experienced!
Some of the same can be said for the SEP turboprop!
A turbine is far more reliable than a piston with hundreds of bits wirring around !
Piston twins will generally be flown by more experienced pilots and will tend to be more weather resilient than an SEP piston!
So your list confirms what I would think!
Fly within your limits and the aircraft limits and all will be safe!
Those aircraft limits are very different between a piston single / twin / turboprop/ and jet and the problems occur when pilots fly out of their or the aircraft limits or safe operating conditions
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, on a twin you have twice the chance of an engine failure ----- which in the case of many twins means you are going down if fully loaded and the field you are going to land in will have to be longer as your approach speed will be higher. Slightly far fetched, but I would rather be in a PA28 with a dead engine going for that small field in Kent rather than a Piper Apache with six occupants and full fuel and a engine failure on the left !!! Obviously does not apply to the PC12 versus King Air argument.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
Not true most piston twins fly very happily on one engine level! In my stupid days (nothing much changed
We shut a Seneca engine down after leaving bournemouth an flew it all the way to france in such a state only restarting to land in france.
If you mean at 200 feet in the climb? yes you have a point but then pull both back and take to a field! At 400 FEET don't even attempt a blue line climb but go for level flight and once nicely trimmed and stable in level flight fly a low level circuit and land or gently step climb using the trim.
The seneca cruises at 128 its one engine out and feathered step climb till you get back to 100 kTS (10 above blue) and hold altitude again until speed builds.
ok if weight is good go for blue line and climb away.
But consider all the options and choose the right one which maybe taking to a field.
How many times in the multi engine rating do pilots practice PFLs as in singles my guess NONE! No wonder pilots fixate on climb at all costs and often at a high cost!!!
Seneca approach speed 80kts Saratoga approach speed (single) 80 KTS other than more weight but beefier brakes whats the difference between landing a Saratoga and Seneca in a field ?
Pace
Not true most piston twins fly very happily on one engine level! In my stupid days (nothing much changed
We shut a Seneca engine down after leaving bournemouth an flew it all the way to france in such a state only restarting to land in france.If you mean at 200 feet in the climb? yes you have a point but then pull both back and take to a field! At 400 FEET don't even attempt a blue line climb but go for level flight and once nicely trimmed and stable in level flight fly a low level circuit and land or gently step climb using the trim.
The seneca cruises at 128 its one engine out and feathered step climb till you get back to 100 kTS (10 above blue) and hold altitude again until speed builds.
ok if weight is good go for blue line and climb away.
But consider all the options and choose the right one which maybe taking to a field.
How many times in the multi engine rating do pilots practice PFLs as in singles my guess NONE! No wonder pilots fixate on climb at all costs and often at a high cost!!!
Seneca approach speed 80kts Saratoga approach speed (single) 80 KTS other than more weight but beefier brakes whats the difference between landing a Saratoga and Seneca in a field ?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Jan 2014 at 16:20.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All sounds good when at sea level on a standard day...and maybe not close to GW. Anywhere between Reno and Denver on a summer day with an engine out in a NA twin is another story. If I had a twin, I would want it to be at least turbo-normalized. High density altitude is not your friend when down to one engine.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert185
Damn that knocks my old friend the Baron 55 out of the loop but not my beloved Seneca five which is turbocharged, waste gated and intercooler
Good on one up to 16500 feet
Moral to that is do not buy a Baron 55 if operating in high lands choose a boring old Seneca
Pace
Damn that knocks my old friend the Baron 55 out of the loop but not my beloved Seneca five which is turbocharged, waste gated and intercooler
Good on one up to 16500 feet
Moral to that is do not buy a Baron 55 if operating in high lands choose a boring old Seneca
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main problem with trying to compare the relative safety of flying twins verses singles is that whilst the machinery is more or less a predictable constant (i.e. one PA28r-200 will fly very much like another, as will one Seneca III fly much like another) the quality of pilots differs hugely.
Whilst I can't claim to have analysed the statistics in any great detail, save for reading all the AAIB reports that have come my way over the last 10 years, the impression that I have is the twins tend to have different accidents to singles, and the more popular the model, the more accidents it will tend to have.
Hence, if you were a spaceman coming to the planet earth and trying to decide which SEP to fly based on the sheer number of accidents, you might decide to avoid Piper Warriors in favour of BD-5's, on the basis that Warriors had more accidents...
There are huge variables in mission profile between singles and twins, with the bulk of the hours in singles being taken up with training and short flights with lots of landings in the hands of the inexperienced, verses twins being flown longer distances very often in instrument conditions, but the biggest variable is in the quality of the nut behind the wheel - i.e. the pilot.
If someone can come up with a way of putting the same quality of pilots, with the same levels of experience, talent and qualifications in both singles and twins and then compare the accident rates, you'll have a meaningful study.
Until then, you'll merely have a bunch of people using statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post; for support, not illumination.
Whilst I can't claim to have analysed the statistics in any great detail, save for reading all the AAIB reports that have come my way over the last 10 years, the impression that I have is the twins tend to have different accidents to singles, and the more popular the model, the more accidents it will tend to have.
Hence, if you were a spaceman coming to the planet earth and trying to decide which SEP to fly based on the sheer number of accidents, you might decide to avoid Piper Warriors in favour of BD-5's, on the basis that Warriors had more accidents...
There are huge variables in mission profile between singles and twins, with the bulk of the hours in singles being taken up with training and short flights with lots of landings in the hands of the inexperienced, verses twins being flown longer distances very often in instrument conditions, but the biggest variable is in the quality of the nut behind the wheel - i.e. the pilot.
If someone can come up with a way of putting the same quality of pilots, with the same levels of experience, talent and qualifications in both singles and twins and then compare the accident rates, you'll have a meaningful study.
Until then, you'll merely have a bunch of people using statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post; for support, not illumination.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say the light twin is more dangerous during the takeoff phase and then safer for the remainder of the flight.
Personally speaking and being coldly analytical about my own shortcomings, I'd likely make different mistakes in a twin vs a single. With a twin, I'd likely press on after EFATO & try to keep flying when I'd be better off chopping the power on the remaining engine & landing ahead; or be flying overweight
; with a single, I'd likely be flying where I've no business being without a second engine & have no safe options for a forced landing .
Fortunately, my propellors have always kept turning and advancing age seems to bring with it a greater sense of caution - and responsibility.
Personally speaking and being coldly analytical about my own shortcomings, I'd likely make different mistakes in a twin vs a single. With a twin, I'd likely press on after EFATO & try to keep flying when I'd be better off chopping the power on the remaining engine & landing ahead; or be flying overweight
; with a single, I'd likely be flying where I've no business being without a second engine & have no safe options for a forced landing .Fortunately, my propellors have always kept turning and advancing age seems to bring with it a greater sense of caution - and responsibility.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most vintage aeroplanes are singles.
there are some twin engined vintage aeroplanes around.
the question I suppose would be answered if the percentage of vintage singles exceeded the percentage of vintage twins that were in the non vintage original environment.
there are some twin engined vintage aeroplanes around.
the question I suppose would be answered if the percentage of vintage singles exceeded the percentage of vintage twins that were in the non vintage original environment.