Originally Posted by
malabo
Flight should have been a doddle. Straight line 200nm, little more than an hour, low level. Easy altitude, lots of turn around or enroute alternates. We all fly in light icing, moderate needs some equipment, heavy you don’t fly in. Lots of beef about single engine -who cares, it is only a statistical consideration. Lots of Malibu and other single-engine fly night IFR all over, if the fan quits you’re a deadman. In a twin if the engine quits then you play the stats against the coincidence of the second one quitting, and there is the same probability it will quit. Over water doesn’t matter, outcome won’t be good but chances are a little better in daylight. Anyway, no indication of engine problems have surfaced, so for now it is simply a platform for the “only twins should be allowed to fly” chestbeaters. Nothing on pilot qualification or experience to indicate a boy was sent out to do a man’s (or woman’s) job. FAA PPL is an easy FLV for an EASA licenced pilot, and the licence (UK) it is based on could be up to an ATPL. All speculation.
One thing that we take for granted in all our aircraft these days is satellite tracking, usually 2.5 minute intervals. Unlimited tracking for a year costs less than an hour of fuel a year. Is this unheard of in EASAland? Seems Stone Age to be depending on radar pings in the 21st century. Always wonder if these unsuccessful searches would have been more successful if they could focus the assets on a few square miles.
I understand what you mean that the left engine has the same probability of the right engine as quitting, but unless you didn't put enough go juice in the plane, you are essentially doubling down on your odds of getting to the destination with one engine still working. Its a bad bad day in the office if you have two blow up.
I don't think that any of us here are saying that single engines are dangerous and shouldn't be flown, however, and this is the big however, you have to start weighing up the conditions.
Day VFR over the flat land parts of Europe. Piston single, A-OK.
Day VFR in the summer over the English Channel at a reasonable altitude, with calm-ish sea conditions. Still fine.
You can see that the levels of safety are slowly being peeled away. At that point, it becomes when you are comfortable for those layers to stop being peeled off.
IFR - No time to find suitable landing spots, as most singles have a low approach speed, most field landings become akin to a car accident.
Night - As above, and unable to see unlit obstacles on approach.
Piston - Not as reliable as turbine.
Water conditions - possibility of a successful ditching. Same considerations as if flying over mountains or forest.
Water temp - survival and more importantly, ability to function.
This flight was attempted :-
1) At night.
2) Single engine.
3) Piston engine.
4) IFR.
5) Over rough waters.
6) Over winter waters.
7) In poor weather.
8) At low level.
9) Icing conditions at low level.
There was at least 9 layers of safety that were peeled away from this flight prior to it even leaving the ground. Some can argue the single pilot point as well in that it may have encouraged better decision making. Personally, with around 2500hrs single pilot ops, I think that the risk from that aspect can be negated, or at least reduced to a negligible level, with professionalism and planning.
As per the satellite tracking, 2.5 minute intervals vs Radar pings? At 180kts, thats still 7-8nm between pings. A search area of 64nm2.
Just prior to me leaving my last flying job, a PC-6 crashed into the mountains only 7nm from the departure airport. The aircraft was using spidertracks. Even with that, it still took a long time to find the aircraft and it was only spotted with the aid of some locals on the ground waving them towards the crash site.
Radar pings in this part of the world are about as accurate as the current cheap tracking software that is used. In the more remote parts of the world such as in America, Africa, Australia, Canada etc etc, then the satelitte tracking makes absolute sense.
In my years of GA, I have met a lot of interesting characters. Some are saying this if this was a commercial operation, then the both of them would still be alive. I disagree.
Regulators only really pay attention to small operators once they start making mistakes, or they have been shown to be dodgy when it comes to audit time. There are still many AOC holding operators who push their young pilots out into horrendous conditions. I have had that happen to me in Canada. It nearly cost me my life.
Other commercial pilots will still "give it a lash", relying on their skills to get them out of trouble if it occurs. Stopping briefly to have a cigarette after landing, before coming back tomorrow to do it all again.
To me, a life is a life. I don't care if its a celebrity who's paying me to fly them from A to B, or a friend on a cost sharing flight. Both are just as valuable and the same degree of mitigating factors can be applied before going flying. I've applied these to just about every one of my flights since day dot with my flight training.
I feel that this pilot would have conducted this flight whether it was an above or below board operation. The flight profile speaks volumes of this.