Air Med Seneca Down

[hollingworthp]

Hopefully this will not turn out to be as serious as the story suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7152860.stm

[bajadj]

christ... i completely agree. My thoughts are with the crew.

[KeyPilot]

from BBC website

Aircraft crash pilot found alive

A pilot has been found alive after a twin-engine light aircraft crashed near an airport in Oxfordshire.
The plane was returning from the Hampshire when air traffic control lost contact at about 1710 GMT, four miles from Oxford Airport at Kidlington.
The surviving pilot, found in Wytham Woods about 2030 GMT, was taken by ambulance to John Radcliffe Hospital.
The aircraft is owned by Air Medical Ltd, a firm based at the airport which supplies air ambulances.
A police helicopter search team discovered the plane.
The light aircraft sent a distress signal at about 1709 GMT. A police cordon will remain around the scene throughout the night. The Civil Aviation Authority is expected to begin an investigation on Thursday morning.

[vanhigher]

What a relief to hear that he/she is alive ,

[Crosswind Limits]

An ex-colleague of mine from my instructing days flies their Senecas and Navajos.

Hope the pilot makes a full recovery!

[Cyclone733]

Good to hear there are no fatalities.

Anyone know the area? 3 hours to find the aircraft sounds like a very long time to me, any reason it took so long?

[ShyTorque]

Weather not good tonight due to low cloud and mist; my home base was on IFR minimums when I arived, the next aircraft went around.

[TEDS GONE]

any idea on what Piper it was?

PA34/PA31?

[FloaterNorthWest]

3 hours to find the aircraft sounds like a very long time to me, any reason it took so long?

If the aircraft crashed in woods the trees tend to cover the wreckage and it is very hard to see even in daylight where it is. Also the low temperatures mean any wreckage or bodies will get cold very quickly and not show on a thermal camera. If the trees have leaves it is even more difficult to see as the moisture in the leaves forms a visual thermal blanket over the area.

If the weather was as bad as suggested the Police helicopter did well to launch and even get into the area. If it was the Benson machine it is an old un-stabilised T1 model. So well done to them.

FNW

[FoxTwo]

Upsetting occurrence out of EGTK last night. Would be inappropriate to add more details at this time but my sincere best wishes to the pilot.

[Go Smoke]

Piece about it in the local rag - link below.

http://oxfordmail.net/display.var.1917609.0.plane_crash_residents_in_shock.php

[AltFlaps]

Previous thread running below which suggests that the pilot had been found alive !

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=305233

Also BBC News reports pilot found alive and taken to John Radcliffe in Oxford

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7152860.stm

[M.Mouse]

What an emotive phrase 'XYZ down' is in a title. Is it to add drama alongside the thrill of being first to post bad news?

It is often apparent that in their haste the post originator hasn't actually looked to see if the news has already been posted, as in this case.

[Daft bat]

The local Police ASU's were unable to launch due to fog/low cloud and this therefore took away the thermal camera option intially. The search and rescue helicopter eventually arrived and was able to penetrate the gloop and locate the wreckage with it's thermal camera within a very short period.
Prior to this it was a search by foot and vehicles of a large wooded area which takes time. A good advert for the use of a ariel platform with a thermal camera for search's of large open area.
The local news state that the pilot is Ok with facial injuries and was removed by a spinal board for precautions only, This is excelent news.

[charterguy]

I am really sorry to hear about this incident. I used to fly Senencas - then I grew up. How long before UK operators start to realise that the Seneca is a 'widow maker' ? The CAA should ask potential operators to provide evidence that they have a 'paid up share capital' of £2million before issuing an AOC. If they did, we would all be spared these 'Seneca sorry stories'. If you cannot afford turboprops or jets, don't fly public transport. Piston operators are trying to make charter affordable to those who cannot really afford it. :ugh:

With any luck, Avgas prices will put paid to that in the near future.

Regards
CG

[Expressflight]

As someone who operated a fleet of piston twins for many years and who is still happy to fly in a Seneca, I would be interested if you could elaborate on your theory and substantiate your claims to their being inherently unsafe.

[plinkton]

I think it is the single-engine climb performance that is a factor. Remember that at the point of engine failure in a twin, one loses 50% of thrust but due to drag not reducing straight away (and possibly increasing due to use of opposite rudder, non-feathered prop etc.), PERFORMANCE drops by something like 70-80%.

Plus piston engines are not as reliable as a jet/turbo-prop.

Plus when piston engines fail they generally do so without much warning.

Plus piston engines don't have much in the way of 'trend monitoring'.

Plus most of the piston twins operating in the UK must be 20-30 years old and used by companies that may be operating 'on a budget’. This includes maintenance.

Plus they are generally crewed by pilots in their first job, flying to get the multi time and using the job as a stepping-stone.

Plus they are generally flown single crew.

People think two engines are better than one but compare a Seneca to a large piston single and yes, it has a greater chance of making it to an airport if it loses and engine in the cruise...

...but it also has twice the chance of an engine failure overall and if that failure comes at a critical phase of flight then it has twice the chance of an accident, bearing in mind that piston twin pilots are trained to climb (or attempt to) on the live engine rather than make a forced landing.

Personally I would rather get into a Cessna Caravan (the single engine turbo-prop) than a piston twin any day.

Why we cannot use single engine turbo-prop for public transport is beyond me.

Best wishes to the pilot and family of the Air Med Seneca and I wish him a swift recovery.

[Daysleeper]

Plinkton makes some good points, just my thoughts on it though...I flew piston twins for a few years commercially.

Plus piston engines are not as reliable as a jet/turbo-prop.
No real argument there, though its not really comparing apples and apples. Simple point, piston engines are cheaper to buy and to run just not in fuel costs. Many of these flights simply would not happen if the only option was turbine powered and many of the clients that start by hiring light piston twins go on to hire turboprops later as they want more done.

Plus when piston engines fail they generally do so without much warning.
Dunno bout that, I've had run downs to sub idle on a turboprop with no warning and had a piston throw a valve with no apparent loss of performance, just enough vibration to loosen teeth. Sticking my neck out most piston engine failures are not due to the core engine but based in the ancillaries and turboprops have many of the same issues.

Plus piston engines don't have much in the way of 'trend monitoring'.
The technology is available for pistons same as for many others, oil analysis every x hours, magnetic plugs, frequent oil changes and decent pilots, though I accept its not as formalized as many bug airlines.. but then neither are many turboprop light jet operators.

Plus most of the piston twins operating in the UK must be 20-30 years old and used by companies that may be operating 'on a budget’. This includes maintenance.
Every UK piston I've flown has been maintained in accordance with the regulations as a minimum and most way beyond. Infact I've had more issues on turbos where the costs can be astronomical than pistons where repair and overhaul costs are somewhat more manageable.

Plus they are generally crewed by pilots in their first job, flying to get the multi time and using the job as a stepping-stone.
Everyone gotta start somewhere, seen lots of incident free flying by low hours guys on light twins, also seen plenty of airliners bent by highly experienced pilots.

Plus they are generally flown single crew
No need for more, and plenty of light turbo props and jets are flown single crew as well.

bearing in mind that piston twin pilots are trained to climb (or attempt to) on the live engine rather than make a forced landing.
Where I learned we were always told that flight on one engine is not assured and the best option may be to close the other throttle and take the fence at the end of the field at 40 knots rather than go vertically in from 300'. But I accept that there is an issue

personally I would rather get into a Cessna Caravan (the single engine turbo-prop) than a piston twin any day.
Plenty of caravan singles have crashed....ice anyone?

Why we cannot use single engine turbo-prop for public transport is beyond me
I would suspect it is not because the twin piston would be replaced by single turboprops but that the twin turboprop would be.

The whole piston twin thing will probably die anyhow out as the VLJ market expands and costs come down...maybe

[frontlefthamster]

No it won't. :cool:

[flybypilot]

Any update on the condition of the pilot, met him a few times out and about and a thoroughly nice guy. Any ideas as to the initial cause yet?

[Chinchilla.612]

Just to put my 2 cents worth in:
I agree with some of the points made with regard to climb performance of a light twin piston compared to flying jets or turbo props (twins), but not with all the points made. Granted though, in principle, I am much happier now flying jets than I was with the pistons.
As for the point plinkton made about : "Plus they are generally crewed by pilots in their first job, flying to get the multi time and using the job as a stepping-stone." I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Whilst I am not able to comment on all operations I can say that the majority of the pilots with AirMed are experienced pilots with thousands of relevant flying hours and are not just using the job as a stepping stone. This includes the pilot whose accident has sparked this thread!
Since to fly single pilot IFR charter the pilots need a minimum of 700 hours total, and 100 IFR (40 hours MEP) and this legal minimum is often much lower than the hours AirMed look for I don't see the relevance of his point?
Anyway.....Christmas Eve, and that's an end to my opinion on it.

Merry Christmas to all.

PS, for anyone actually interested in the more important point, the pilot is making good progress in his recovery.

[Life's a Beech]

Charterguy

You are talking out of your backside, to put it bluntly but fairly.

For a start your bizarre idea for a precondition would not stop most of the PA34 operators I know of, who can perfectly well afford turboprops and jets. It is just that there is a market for light twins, and that market is fairly strong, and people can make money out of them so will operate them. Secondly there is no basis for calling the Seneca a "widow maker" or for talking of "Seneca sorry stories". It is not an especially dangerous aircraft. I've flown one on one engine and it does so perfectly well.

I suspect when you do talk of Seneca sorry stories you are talking about flights outside AOC operations. People who can afford a private turbine aircraft often operate them quite well, or even get professionals to operate them. However light pistons are often used privately, flown by inexperienced pilots, or for training, or even chartered on a very suspect basis (have you seen the recent leaflet from the CAA?).

There is no objective reason to restrict public transport flying to turbines. Today's light charter operations are safer than in the past.

chinchilla

Those are not actually legal limits for flying single-crew in a piston. However many companies have them in their operations manual. We all insist on certain experience, ability and very high standards from our crews. If I wouldn't trust my pilots to fly my girlfriend (who is scared of flying) or my young nephew, then I would not sign their line check.

[Jetscream 32]

Charterguy and Plinkton,
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
:rolleyes: :mad:

[Life's a Beech]

Yes, and I believe AirMed have IIIs, with 10% more power than the II.

Plinkerton

Trend monitoring is actually rather nicely done by flying a small number of aircraft with a small number of crew who know them really rather well, and fly them regularly, and care about the aircraft and each other, in a small team. This is usually the case in a small piston fleet.

[selfin]

Those are not actually legal limits for flying single-crew in a piston. However many companies have them in their operations manual.

JAR-OPS 1.960(a)(1)(ii) (http://paste.lisp.org/display/53204/raw)

Am I mistaken believing the III's 220HP reverts to 200HP after 5 mins (?)

[plinkton]

Jetscream 32:

Charterguy and Plinkton,
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
:rolleyes: :mad:

There is no need to be unpleasant. Most of the posts so far have been the writers own opinion, can't you see that. This is clearly an emotive issue and to attack others won't drive the debate any further forward.

I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.

Life's a Beech:

Trend monitoring is actually rather nicely done by flying a small number of aircraft with a small number of crew who know them really rather well, and fly them regularly, and care about the aircraft and each other, in a small team. This is usually the case in a small piston fleet.

This is actually a good point, I have worked in a team like this and it does work but it's not the type of trend monitoring I mean, having said that the only time I did have an engine failure in a piston twin it probably couldn't have been predicted by any type of trend monitoring.

Most of what I said in my original post refers to that fact that when put together the factors mentioned are not positive or complimentary but could add up to a less safe situation than with a single tubine (for example).

[Life's a Beech]

Selfin

You are right that 220 is the take-off power. Still very useful in the event of an engine failure. Not flown the II, but I assume that the 200 hp is also a take-off power, as stated power is with most engines (even a C152 has max continuous of 100, but lack of turbo-charging makes it kind of irrelevant!).

1.960 does not apply to a PA-34.A Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) holder does not operate as a commander of an aeroplane certificated in the Aeroplane Flight Manual for single pilot operations unless:
my emphasis
I don't have JAR-OPS in front of me at the moment, but I think the relevant part is the appendix to 1.980. The hours requirement is actually far below what any operator would accept for typical air-taxi operations!


plinkton

Indeed, the most likely time for a failure is in the first 50 hours after rebuild. No time for trend monitoring!

Statistically piston twins are less safe than single turbines. However that is probably because there are a lot more flown by inexperienced pilots and in difficult conditions, and they are actually harder to fly. In AOC operations, with line training and close monitoring of experienced CPL holders I don't think that would apply. We won't see single-engine AOC operations (except day VMC) in the UK for a long time yet. Anywhere that a single failure can cause a crash the CAA will avoid if at all possible.

[Jetscream 32]

Plinkton,

[quote]
There is no need to be unpleasant. Most of the posts so far have been the writers own opinion, can't you see that. This is clearly an emotive issue and to attack others won't drive the debate any further forward.

I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.
[quote]

Plinkers, you will need to be able to take a bit more flak then i have given you - if your posts are going to be so uniformed and factually wrong - post good stuff and personal expereinces for all to share - gets a thumbs up from me - post rubbish as you have done and expect to get the odd flame thrown at you- as all you did was unpleasant to those who have many, many SAFE hours driving around in them. - touche - and hey dont get offended....:hmm:

[SNS3Guppy]

I used to fly Senencas - then I grew up. How long before UK operators start to realise that the Seneca is a 'widow maker' ?



I flew the II and III doing rural ambulance operations in very mountainous terrain , in remote areas, and from rough fields including dirt airstrips illuminated with automobiles and flare pots. Of the light piston twins, the Seneca II and III have some of the highest published single engine service ceilings, and can hold about eight thousand with passengers and fuel on one engine. This is considerably different than many light twins that can't hold altitude at all on one engine.

I flew frequently at night in Senecas into rough places to pick up and move medical and trauma victims. While I'd rather have a King Air, the Seneca did just fine. Widow maker? Such melodrama.

As for beating it down because of inexperienced pilots and the like...those aren't airplane issues and one can't blame the airplane.

So far as trend monitoring...that's an operator issue, and has nothing to do with the airplane.

The airplane doesn't have twice the opportunity for an engine failure...you have the same opportunity every time with every powerplant; it's very simple; either it will, or it won't.

Piston pilots aren't trained for try to wrangle a bad situation any more than anybody else. Light piston twin pilots are drilled on the need to pull back the good engine rather than trying the impossible during an engine failure, where the case merits. If you received training to the contrary, then you received incorrect training, and certainly didn't receive what's commonly taught.

[Life's a Beech]

Guppy

Agree, and in my experience it ain't necessary. OK I'm flying light, but in all single-engine drills (and reality) have never needed max continuous to climb away on one in commercial twins (unlike the twins I trained in!). I even left the gear down in training to fly one with a big hydraulic lever instead of the little electric switch I was used to.

[plinkton]

When will the AAIB Bullletin / Report be out on this?

[Martin Barnes]

Sorry Guys BUT

We have been operating PA34s for a lot of years the Aircraft does what it says on the tin and has launched thousands of pilot careers and certainly not made any widows on uk aoc work that I am aware of

The problem is the lack of medium time (500 hrs plus ex flying instructors)
to fly them safely.

If you are just out of flight school with 200 hours, why not get an instructors rating and learn to fly marginal aircraft ! you might find it useful one day

Happy New Year to you all

[plinkton]

Martin, are you saying you cannot get pilots with the right hours to fly your Seneca’s?

What would the right hours and mix of Multi/single/P1 time be?

Also, and I know this is an emotive subject, but is there a way you could get around this with two crew? (Obviously not with two low hours pilots though).

There must be at least one person with the right time.

Also, is it possible to employ a low hour pilot for just one route, therefore offsetting the inexperience against the fact they are only cleared for say Cov-IOM, for example?

[Kiltie]

When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying

Plinkton has a point, Jetscream. By making such bluff remark it would appear you have personal issues to address. All aircraft are "real"; those that fly other types do not necessarily have inferior skills to yourself which is what you imply.

[SpeedbirdXK8]

The accident aircraft was a PA31T and appears to be pilot error. Very experienced driver. Pilot was critical but understand he is making progress. Came down in trees, lost the wings and contacted the ground inverted. It's a miracle the pilot is alive. Let's wait and see what the AAIB report has to say on the matter.

[southcote]

"The accident aircraft was a PA31T and appears to be pilot error. Very experienced driver. Pilot was critical but understand he is making progress. Came down in trees, lost the wings and contacted the ground inverted. It's a miracle the pilot is alive. Let's wait and see what the AAIB report has to say on the matter"

Speedbird, I'd be interested to know where you got your info from as it was certainly not a PA31T, it was a PA34 as per the previous messages and at this stage it is not clear what the cause was so lets not start pointing the finger at the pilot.

[radicalrabit]

Keeping my gob shut in debates where I cant make a positive contribution but it amazes me how many people talk such "factual" boll:mad:.
Thanks to the rest of you who at least keep to the facts even if your opinions differ to those of others.
:oh:
Regards to the Pilot and hope he makes a full and speedy recovery .

[Il Duce]

Good shout radicalrabit - even the good old BBC got it wrong by saying that he was found by a "police helicopter". The local police chopper couldn't get airborne for the search owing to fog at Benson. The ARCC scrambled the SAR heli from Lee On Solent and they found the crash site.

[SNS3Guppy]

All the braying and crying about the Seneca, people quick to rush to conclusions...and here a report is provided which shows the pilot simply let down early. Ban the seneca, some said. All the airplane's fault...don't fly light twins...they're dangerous.

Once again we find that the most dangerous thing in the airplane is the pilot.

Hopefully nobody starts beating their chest and calling for banning pilots.

[Expressflight]

Yes, and now that the AAIB report is out I don't suppose we shall see any posts from the anti-Seneca brigade admitting that they were too hasty in condemning the performance envelope of a perfectly safe aircraft type.

[eyeinthesky]

Expressflight:

No, but you can bet there will be many who will opine that, had there been two pilots on board, they would have been less likely to overlook a step-down MDA limit...

Not that I agree with them.

'Done it many times before' (sic) appears in the report. Perhaps there lies the rub: if we do it lots of times, even if it's wrong, and get away with it, then we might do it at a time when it's critical that we do the right thing (as in this case). The hill has always been there. How many people have come close to it in IMC without realising??

[usedtofly]

eyeinthesky...

had there been two pilots on board, they would have been less likely to overlook a step-down MDA limit...I agree with you entirely. I have said before on PPRUNE that I believe there is a clear case for two crew ops. Having flown hundreds of hours single crew I am well aware of what really goes on (!).

Two pilots help protect each other as well as the pax.

As for this particular case, well, at least it did not cost him his life

I still debate the issue of piston a/c and will not go into that here, but for what it's worth I now fly multi crew turbine and am not prepared to fly single pilot ops (or piston!) ever again.

Be safe dudes

UTF

[Flintstone]

usedtofly. I think you and eyeinthesky are actually in disagreement.

For what it's worth I agree with you on the two-crew concept. Having flown 2500 hours single-crew (IFR) and more than that multi-crew I think I know which I consider to be safer most of the time and it's not when a pilot is all on their lonesome.

[SNS3Guppy]

A lot of CFIT mishaps have occured with two or three pilot crews.

An excellent example was the G-III crash at Houston in November of 2004. Flown by a crew of 2, each of whom had considerable flight experience (over 19,000 hours each) and experience in type, one of whom was the current company chief pilot, and the other the former company chief pilot, both check airmen...descended into a parking lot during a routine ILS intercept enroute to pick up the former President of the United States. The nature of the mishap, an early descent into terrain below the published procedure, is somewhat similiar to the Seneca incident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0606.pdf

The addition of a crewmember may be an enhancement to safety, but not necessarily so. A well equipped airplane with adequate performance does not prevent CFIT any more than a second crewmember, or an experienced crew.

[Flintstone]

So if I brief an incorrect MSA/minima or whatever and was corrected by the other pilot it would still have been safe had he not been there? Hmmmm:suspect:

We're all human, we all make mistkes (see?) and having another person there to crosscheck (providing it's done properly) has to be A Good Thing. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

[eyeinthesky]

Back to what I said earlier:

'Done it lots of times before'

Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...

The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.

Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.

My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.

[Flintstone]

Back to what I said earlier:

'Done it lots of times before'

Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...

The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.

Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.

My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.]
My bold.

All a bit 'if' and 'maybe' really. I still maintain that two crew doing their jobs properly are safer than one. How many briefs have you given or received that contain errors? How often does the other pilot pick up on them? I've seen it lots of times particularly in the sim or at the end of a long day/week when the pressure is on and people are tired. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole and that little extra capacity often makes the difference.

We've done this to death in the past. If single pilot were safer why aren't all the airlines and operators doing it? I know I can fly my aircraft alone, simulated incapacitation proves that, and it would be easy to introduce a higher level of automation than we already have. So why no single pilot airline ops?

[usedtofly]

OK, I was a bit premature. I do not agree fully with eyeinthesky.

Two pilots are (mostly) safer then one (in my opinion).

Put it this way, on your own there is no one else on board to help you! ... FACT

Been there, done that, never again...... 2 crew 4 me :)

[Fair_Weather_Flyer]

Yes, two crew is safer. Look at some of the other accidents that have happened in single crew ops. Two Loganair BN2 fatal crashes and the Mersey Chieftain crash that killed five.

I used to fly for an ambulance operator that did multi crew ops in a piston. I always felt safer knowing that the other guy was watching my back. I also did single crew ops. Based on being in the know, if I was told that I would be riding in the back of a single crew piston as a PAX, I think I'd suddenly rememeber that I'd left the taps running at home....

[Pace]

I have over 2000 hrs in Senecas . They are easy to fly and very docile forgiving aircraft.

Most of those hours have been in seneca fives with the wastegated intercooled engines which perform better than the earlier engines.

I have had a grosse weight engine failure at 200 feet in the climb out and very few piston twins do a good job on one but is there any indication that this was an engine problem?

They will let you get away with murder and are well tried and tested aircraft.

I am afraid that all aircraft crash. Is there some statistics that Senecas have worse safety records than other twins. I doubt it.

Pace