View Full Version : Don't fly on light twins advises Air Passenger Association!

Cyclic Hotline
28th Aug 2001, 04:22
I'm afraid that although this might be headline grabbing stuff in this story, the comment it ends with is accurate in my opinion and is advice I stick by personally.

Cessna 402, Frequent Work-Horse of Small Charters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The twin-engined Cessna that crashed killing U.S. singer Aaliyah and eight others this weekend is a work-horse of small commuter operations and well known to pilots.

The Cessna 402, with two six-cylinder piston engines and seats for up to nine passengers, can be found ferrying people from New York to Martha's Vineyard or island hopping in the Caribbean.

Aaliyah's plane crashed into swampy scrub and burst into flames just beyond the runway at Marsh Harbor airport in the Bahamas after taking off for Miami.

Local police said the plane had apparently experienced engine failure as it took off but there were also reports that the aircraft was heavily loaded.

Light twin-engined, piston-powered aircraft have a reputation for marginal performance if an engine quits on takeoff with a high-degree of pilot skill required to land safely.

"If there's any truth to reports they were overweight and they had an engine failure -- then they were just out of luck," said a pilot with a major airline who spent 500 hours flying Cessna 402s while working his way up to jets.

"I didn't mind flying the 402," said the pilot who requested anonymity, "but that was a while ago and they're not making any new ones."

Cessna, a unit of Textron Inc., built 664 of the 402B series between 1973 and 1978, said spokeswoman Jessica Meyer.

The company no longer makes a light twin piston-powered plane. Taking its place in the market is the Cessna Caravan, powered by a single turboprop.

National Transportation Safety Board data show 49 people killed in 14 separate Cessna 402 crashes the board has investigated since 1996, excluding the Bahamas crash.

The only other fatal Cessna 402 accident so far this year was an April 26 crash of Texas Air Charters Inc. plane which hit the ground on final approach to Del Rio, Texas killing the pilot who was the sole occupant.

NTSB data shows fatalities connected to two other light twins, the Piper Seneca made by New Piper Aircraft and the Beech Bonanza, made by a unit of Raytheon Co., at 44 deaths a piece since the beginning of 1996.

"We advise our members not to fly light twins," said Air Passengers Association President David Stempler.

28th Aug 2001, 05:04
Hi CH long time no see.
Here in the UK we have problems to get Single Engine Turbo-prop (SET) certified for commercial OPS.
I understand that it is a new concept and the aviationn indusrty being cautious, conservative and wishing to maintain the highest standards of safety, we are reluctant to change.
However, SET like the caravan have a much higher safety record than many light piston twins and it has become increasingly more difficult for the Authority to justify its opposing position.
Not wishing to quote any figure because it is all to easy to manufacture or use manufactured numbers, I would rather you to search carefullyy all the datas available from various sources. But this new generation of single engine seem to have a much better safety record for more than one reason.
- the reliablility of a turbo-prop engine
-the lower approach speed of a single engine
after its engine failed.
-No critical engine
-whatever you know better than me

I certainly woudn't go as far as suggesting that twin engine aren't safe (since the operator is mainly responsible for its maintenance), but I want to stress the advantages of what modern technology has to offer.

28th Aug 2001, 10:06
Perhaps it's time to re-examine the twin engined centreline thrust concept? Something like a bigger, quieter Cessna 337?

28th Aug 2001, 10:15
But is this a Vcrit / Assym handling problem or a power available (on one) problem. I would rather have thought the latter. Putting two inadequate motors on the centerline just means you hit the ground without yaw.

Remember the old Varsity / Valetta brief ".... and the remaining engine will carry us to the scene of the crash..."..


Cyclic Hotline
28th Aug 2001, 11:05
I agree, that an adeqately powered modern version of the 337 would be quite a seller. Two PT-6's, and you would have a tremendous machine.

The current efforts in this arena, are all focused upon twin (combined) engines and a single prop. The problems invoved in certification and completion of the product, seem to be driving at least two organisations to the wall.

Soloy has been working on the Pathfinder for many years and seems no closer to certification of a marketable product than he was years ago. The position change of the FAA and Transport Canada, seriously impacted their sales potential. In order to continue with any kind of viability, he has had to continually grow the aircraft in order to provide some basis for an operator to select it over a straight Caravan. Of course the drawback to a design of this nature, is that it grows in complexity by virtue of the drivetrain combination, exposing it to a degree of failure unlike the (relative) simplicity of the straight C208 Caravan. http://www.soloy.com/

The other product is the Ayres Loadmaster, similar concept, but a new and bigger airframe. The company is so embroiled in simply staying alive, that it's future is very uncertain. http://www.ayrescorp.com/loadmaster.html

Amongst various types, I have operated 3 and 4 series Cessna's and would not do so again. I do however currently operate a Caravan and would rate it as simply the most reliable and predictable model (of any aircraft or helicopter) I have ever operated. I do not think the current position of the CAA reflects the evolution and progression of modern aircraft types - not to say there are not limitations to the aircraft; but simply the current certification status is short-changing the aviation consumer.

The old question of whether a single or twin engine aircraft is safer, in the instance of aircraft unable to sustain flight in all regimes on a single engine; comes down to the statistical probability that with 2 engines you are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure - and it's consequences!

On the topic of 337's, thought you might like to read this story! http://canadianaviation.ca/forums/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000431

28th Aug 2001, 13:57
During my air taxi days I noticed a cavalier attitude to weight displayed by one or two operators (you know who you are! and at least one of you no longer has an AOC - hooray!). Amongst other things, they used standard weights when carrying oil rig workers; I think about 80kg - for a rig man?
You should weigh pax and baggage or estimate their weight and use actual figures.

I was in the fortunate position of being able to refuse to operate illegally but not all pilots can so lightly tell the boss to shove it - so, yes, I'd agree - I wouldn't be happy to fly as pax in a light twin unless I knew for certain that I was dealing with a respectable company.

28th Aug 2001, 19:51
Overload any aircraft and you will have major problems if a donk quits.

I'm not sure if the article is claiming that any Perf C aircraft is inherently unsafe, and it has to be admitted that they're not as safe as a Perf A aircraft. However, once again, the paying public have to examine the safety=price equation. A higher margin of safety = a more expensive flight.

Certainly there are aspects of centreline thrust that make it preferable if operating one engine out. But that is very far from being the end of the story.

I have to admit that the C402 is not a very forgiving aircraft. I have known worse, however.

Once in Union Island (south end of the Grenadines), a mate and I saw a French-registered Caravan land from Guadeloupe. He expressed distaste at the idea of operating single-engine over water. I pointed out to him that the Caravan driver was in a safer potition that we were. My friend couldn't understand why. I pointed out that with two engines you have twice the possibility of one failing. Our aircraft's single-engine stabilising altitude was sea-level. So if we lost one, we were going in. He lost his, he was going in. However, he only had one, not two to give up the ghost. Plus, with the track record of different engines, I'd trust a PT6 to keep going much more than I would a Lycoming IO-540.

28th Aug 2001, 20:29
1. I've never lost an 0-540. I have lost PT-6's; they're good, yes, but not *perfect*, contrary to some claims.

2. Light piston twins are borderline dangerous. They don't have to be able to climb out after an engine failure on takeoff. Yikes.

28th Aug 2001, 20:39
I've never lost a PT6 - I have lost an O-540. What does that prove? Not a lot. However, the PT6 is one of the best turboprop engines ever for reliability.

29th Aug 2001, 00:14
I think we have to be careful, as ever about prejudging accidents like this.

Condemming light twins out of hand on the basis of this accident is a little unfair.
As usual if an aircraft is operated within it's limits by a current pilot, then you minimise the risks.

I read a news report today, quoting another pilot who overheard the pilot arguing with the passengers about the amount of camera equipment they were loading. Eventually apparently he gave in. I suspect the argument applied against him was that the aircraft that brought them in had no trouble carrying the load.
There was also a comment that he had trouble starting one of the engines. As anyone who has flown pistons (ie all of us, nearly)knows. Sometimes they don't like starting, it has no bearing on how they run. There is talk of an engine failure, but no one knows yet. It's all too soon.

People are jumping to conclusions.

29th Aug 2001, 01:27
H M:

I think the C-402 has 2 IO-520s made by Continental, not Lycs.

I memory serves me right, the Aztecs sport the 540s, but rated lower: 250 HP vs 300 or 325 for the 520s, depending on type of Cessna 402: B or C model.

The C-402s are good planes if ya don't push 'em as far as load.

Never flew the C-208 Caravan, but have a couple of thousand hours on the DHC-6 with PT-6s. Super engines IMHO.

29th Aug 2001, 02:14
TowerDog, you're probably right about the engine type in the C402. I don't know it well, but a company I used to work for in the Caribbean had one, on which I have a few hours.

As for Continental vs. Rolls Royce vs. Lycoming - basically, they're all the same family of engine. I don't want to be picky, but there are many versions of the PT6A as well.

My point was that, if you examine the records I am sure that you will find far fewer PT6A failures than you will on IO-520's, IO-540's, TSIO-540's, whatever.

The main drive of the article is that light twins ar per se unsafe. My contention is that sure, they're less safe than a Perf A aircraft, which is designed to be able to lose an engine at V1 and still get airborne, but also that any aircraft is unsafe if loaded incorrectly.

But if people only want the price of a C402 they're unlikely to stump up for a KingAir.

[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

Epsom Hold 2
29th Aug 2001, 03:27
Perhaps this should be in the Questions forum but since it's on the topic, could someone please explain what the advantage of two engines is on a light aircraft? Surely the only reason for two engines instead of one is to take-off/initial climb after an engine failure - but if the aircraft isn't required to do this to get it's CofA, what is the advantage of the second engine (especially considering the increased - doubled? - odds of a malfunction)? Everything I've learned about light twins makes me quite nervous about getting back in my mate's Aztec; although I was onboard when he revalidated his Aztec type-rating and this included chopping an engine to zero thrust [forgive the probably incorrect terminology] and I couldn't tell when the engine was cut. This was performed twice very shortly after leaving the ground and we completed the circuit normally and landed both times.

To summarise, Can a light twin at max t/off weight climb away if an engine fails at the point of liftoff or not, and if not, what is the advantage of the second engine?


29th Aug 2001, 04:53
Epsom, a light twin (mostly they're in Performance Category C) cannot take off if an engine fails at takeoff. It can, however, continue to climb away if an engine fails at, say, 200' agl. (Thus goes the theory, and some of the practice.)

The mnemonic I was taught when losing an engine at that sort of height is based on the first word that comes to mind at such moments:-
Firewall everything
Undercarriage up
Correct the yaw
Kill the dead engine

Larger aircraft (those in Performance Category A) can still take off if an engine fails at V1, the most critical point of the take off roll.

Put simply, in a twin-engined aircraft, the joke is that the second engine will see you safely to the scene of the crash. That's a crude way of putting it, but the second engine will generally give you a far better glide ratio at worst, and at best you will be able to feather the dead propeller and fly yourself to a safe landing at a suitable airfield.

Depending upon temperature and pressure, the altitude at which you will be able to fly after an engine failure (the single-engine drift-down altitude) you get from a table in the Flight Manual for the aircraft.

For aircraft such as the Islander, in conditions found in the Caribbean, the above figure is sea-level. Therefore, if you lose an engine, you're going in. If you're significantly overweight, you're probably going to spin in. One is probably survivable. The latter almost certainly is not.

This is not to say, however, that there is anything significantly dangerous about flying in light twins (or any aircraft). Even in the case of a Piper Navajo a few years back in which the left engine decided it was bored with the company of its associated propeller and wished to lose it, when one blade went through the nosebay compartment, taking the entire engine on the opposite side off the wing, the pilot still managed to get it down.

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

29th Aug 2001, 10:37
Maybe the companies that operate these twins should give Burt Rutan a call and find out when(or if?) the "Boomerang" is going to be certificated,from what I have read about it most of the handling problems of light twins have been overcome.Ref. Pilot Feb.1997
regards Dinsdale.

29th Aug 2001, 12:21
No aircraft is really a problem ever. If the owner/operator is moving his aircraft beyond the operational limits set forth by the manufacturer and/or the crew is not as proficient as they perhaps should be, than these tragic accident may happen. Be it for the most recent crash or any yet to come. As we all are well trained in determining our W/B and judging the flight safe or not, we all know what to do during an engine failure, whether we operate an IO 520 or a PT6 has no influence. That something may go awry during a flight and technical installation onboard quit their service at no particular time of any operation is not new to the industry either. To ensure that those risks are minimized we fully and often regretfully rely on our regulatory authorities setting maintenance, flight and other operational parameters. Within those set standards, we should not be worried about the type of equipment being used, rather question the integrity of the operator should any doubts arise.

29th Aug 2001, 22:13
I dont think the accident report is in yet is it? General observation about GA twins concerns the number of fatal accidents after engine failures. its important to separate the failure itself from the subsequent loss of control that usually kills everyone.
lose you one engine in a single and you have a glider which can be controlled down to ground level and dead sticked. if you do it right then people walk away, if not and terrain/water/night/bad vis intervenes then you are equally stuffed. people still lose control and stall/spin in singles even with the engine working.
i shut an engine down in a 400 cessna between greenland and goose bay and the aircraft was a perfect lady and behaved just like the book said drifting down from 230 to 7000 feet, but then again we were only 2 people and a load of rubber suits!
I believe that the 402c has 325 hp engines, down from the 375 horses on the pressurised C421 model. the 402 is unpressurised.
Max tow 402c is 6850lbs or6300 for a 402b
Maxzfw 402c 6515lbs or 6165 for the 402b(which also has only 300hp engines)
fuel burn at take off approx 300lbs per hour and then 200 lbs in the cruise.
I echo the sentiments above. Operate within prudent limits and stay safe.
nasty business. very sad

30th Aug 2001, 00:42
Whilst there is no doubt about the theoretical reliability of turboprops, they are still at the mercy of their ancillaries. I once had to shut down a PT6 simply because a pipe came lose on the oil cooler and it lost all its oil and consequently its oil pressure. Even the most reliable of engines won't run forever without lubrication.

BTW, anyone any idea how long?

Onan the Clumsy
30th Aug 2001, 01:06
Would you care to explain a little more about those rubber suits? :D

30th Aug 2001, 08:24

Agree on yer observations.
Been there, done that as well.

As for the accident in the Bahamas:

(From a legal stand point: This is pure fantasy and have no relation to reality, the following is all Bull [email protected])

1) The C-402 was over loaded by 800 to 1000 pounds.

2) Most of the excess weight was aft of the CG.

3) The pilot was brand new, only second day at work and was not properly trained. (Read: Not trained at all: He came up North from a third world country claiming 3000 hours of flight time....)

4) The pilot did not have a current Medical Certificate.

5) The aircraft had a history of low fuel pressure on one of the engines. The company did not spend the money to replace fuel pumps.

6) The owner of this company will most likely go to jail. (Hope so)

Such a waste of human lifes.

Screw the cheap operators, if ya cant't do it right, get a paper route or whatever, just stay out of aviation.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

30th Aug 2001, 16:33
Whats the old nugget about Light Twins :-

"One Engine to Fail and the other to take you to the scene of your accident"

Good fun but thanks for the jet job !

30th Aug 2001, 22:12
Tower dog...I'm absolutely stunned. I had guessed about the overload but hesitated to speculate. As for the rest of it its beyond belief.
I'd like to see anything fly on one engine with a cg aft out of limits, a hot and humid day,and overweight by that amount.
I'm amazed that people tried to save money by hiring such a cut price operator for such a valuable person.

Onan the Clumsy
30th Aug 2001, 22:21
Why's she "such a valuable person"? Just because she sings for a living instead of doing something useful like being a dentist or a teacher? What about all the other people that bought it? was it ok to put them on the low price carrier?

ok, rant off and appologies to aztruck. Not meant to be a personal attack etc etc.

30th Aug 2001, 22:22
Onan...nearly forgot.
luvverly thick neoprene survival suits but rubber coated or something like it. good for bobbing up and down in the Atlantic for several hours and avoiding death. Also had the dinghy of course, because if you can get into that then you have increased your chances by several squillion per cent.
When we took off next morning bound from Narsarssuaq to kulusuk there was a 172 on the ramp bound for Goose. He just had the one piston engine between him and the sea.
Dunno about that folks.

Rat Catcher
30th Aug 2001, 22:35
It's a shame to slag of piston twins in general just because that particular one was so over weight. Most turbo prop twins would fare just as badly with that overload if one donkey went on holiday just after take-off, and JetA1 burns on impact too!
Many pilots got their start in pistons and many more will, perhaps the regulatory authorities need to be a bit more concientious and some operators in less of a hurry for some quick greenbacks...and sympathies to the poor ****** who probably had no choice if he wanted that job. No one is perfect!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

31st Aug 2001, 05:51
Epsom Hold 2 asked what the benefit of 2 engines on a light twin are. Thinking about that, I come up with some possibilities:

2 vacuum pumps...
2 alternators...

31st Aug 2001, 06:03
Did anyone see this airpassengerassociation prez on the tube the other night, what a blow-hard. I've heard this guy before. If he had his way we'd be paying the pax for the privilege of carrying them. And forget about personnal responsibility, it wasn't this doper pilot's fault or the pi**-ant little company he flew for. This APA prez said this falls totally on the FAA's shoulders for their lack of oversight and enforcement. Well, I've certainly not noticed a lack of either. This is a big ass country with a lot of freedom, freedom to be stupid and careless is among them.
edited to clarify X'd out word

[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Brad737 ]

31st Aug 2001, 07:05
First of all I have about equal time between PT6's and Garrett 331. I have had 3 engine failures with the PT6 and none with the Garrett. All of them on take-off. So turboprops are not necessarily more reliable. After all they also have a large number of moving parts.

I flew 402B for a little bit. I remember them having only 300HP. And it is a Continental. Managed to servive over 1200 hours of communter flying in a Navajo without an engine failure. As we get older we get more careful.

As for a Cessna 337. It is basicly a Cessna 206 with two engines. The 206 flys much, much better. Also to my knowledge 337's have more engine failures than 206's.

Lets wait and see what the investigation brings out first.

I agree that the APA guy is full of it.

But there are too many operators out there that will totally kiss the clients rear end and screw over the pilot, when all he is trying to do is keep the client safe. To many people, mostly doctors, lawyers, rich business persons, seem to think that the rules do not apply to them. Even the laws of aerodynamics. On more than one occassion I have tossed my ID to the boss and started to walk out the door. And on each instance he has relented. One of these days he'll let me keep walking. If that happens, it'll be a job I don't miss too much. Cause you have to be alive to get another job.

About FAA oversight. All increased FAA oversight does is increase the workload on the good and legal operators. The illegal and/or poor operators always seem to get away with it.

31st Aug 2001, 07:13
It's really really simple.

Cessna 402 and the others in that class are designed and built to FAR23 certification rules which are promulgated around "private, business and recreation" and NOT "transport category" as are FAR25 types.

Apart from a number of fundamental structural issues, FAR 25 aircraft have required/gauranteed engine failure on take off performance. FAR23 do not and are not required to demonstrate any ability to continue take off beyond demonstrating a "positive" (=> +50fpm) ROC from 50ft. and the ability to maintain crz at 5,000ft in ISA in the cruise config with one inop and feathered.

End of story, period, thats the facts.

It does not make the FAR 23 types "dangerous" just a different level of "safety" and "cost".

Having said that whether it was a C402 or B747 overloaded by the same percentage (around 16%) over gross then the results would likely have been the same if anyhing higher than the fence appeared in front of you.
Both fine aircraft and no more or less difficult to operate than each other, as long as they are operated within the limits to which they wee certified.
B744 at 64 tonnes over gross, yeah right!

31st Aug 2001, 07:53
Cessna 402B facts. Engines TSIO-520E 300hp. MTOW 2898kg. Cruise @ 65% = 180kts at 10,000' In short a lovely aircraft if treated in a professional manner. News Media reports state that the pilot had recently been in court on drug charges and that he was not listed on the operators list of pilots authorised to operate that aircraft. The media also states that the pilot had an argument with the passengers about overloading the aircraft prior to departure. I would say he didn't know weather it was christmas night or cracker night. In his state of mind I might dare to suggest that he was going to give the pax a scare by pulling up hard on departure and it all back fired. p.s. lycoming IO-540's do fail.

31st Aug 2001, 08:07

I believe the C-402s have the Continentals, not the Lycs.
Yes they all fail, but the in MHO the Cont's fail more.

Agree that the C-402 is a good plane to fly if operated within its limitations.

Same with the B-747: Have flown 'em both.

If the pay was the same, I would rather fly the C-402...(Less jet-lag)

31st Aug 2001, 19:06
Seems to me that the paying public have a choice between safety and cost. That's fine as long as they are informed about the choice they are making.

Maybe they should be told whether their prospective jaunt is in a Perf C/ FAR23 or a Perf A/FAR25 airplane before they fly, and allowed to make an intelligent decision.

Mind you, in this example, all that was needed was a tougher judge a couple of weeks ago. The inaptly named 'Morales' couldn't have killed anyone from a cell or with no job. :mad:

1st Sep 2001, 14:15
The issue of enabling the public to make a rational choice regarding safety before getting inside a non-Performance A aircraft throws up a whole can of worms. The fact is, in any mode of transport, we take a lot on trust. Do we check out a car driver we haven't travelled with before getting in the car? Basic assumptions about rail travel safety in the UK have certainly come under a lot criticism in the past couple of years, so the issue isn't confined to aviation.

Do we carefully weigh up the safety pros and cons before getting on a train, getting on a cross-channel ferry, or come to that, accepting the judgement of a doctor? Most of us, most of the time, can't be bothered. We rely on the organisational "system" and professional judgement to protect us. I can't imagine a bunch of vacationers, eager to get to their resort or home again, wanting to be confronted with making a safety decision on whether to fly or not. Most people just want to get to their destination, and they trust "the system" to get them their safely.

Surely the accident to the C402 was a systems failure more than anything, as others have pointed out. In other words, established legal procedures regarding loading and pilot qualifications were openly flouted, if the information given is correct. Nothing new there!

Engine failures in twin piston aircraft are going to happen from time to time, which is why twin drivers spend much of the time on a multi-engined training course flying the beast on one engine, and proving during licence revalidations that they still can handle it when the elastic breaks. I don't have any C402 time, only Seneca and Duchess, which are probably less of a handfull than a 402 with an engine out. How would I make out with a real engine failure at 200 ft, and committed to go? I don't know. I just hope that the training kicks in, I've got a reasonably clear head that day, and that I don't muddle the drill. Bit then I don't have a cowboy operator breathing down my neck with my job on the line if I kick up a fuss about something...

3rd Sep 2001, 00:25
for info only...

1) All light piston twins have marginal engine-out performance

2) for these airplanes to be certified for FAR 135, or public transport under any certifying authority they should be required to be retrofitted with auto feather systems...yes they DO exist...

3) why would any agent or person responsible for the transport of any person, celebrity or otherwise, not investigate the company they hire to provide the above services....case in point....reba mc intyre's band...the ritchie valens/buddy holly/big bopper accident/patsy cline...and the list goes on....

3rd Sep 2001, 01:14
From my commuter days I recall that the 402B was a marginal single engine performer with 9 pax. I was thankful that No.2 engine did not go on vacation immediately after rotation, but somewhere in the later stages of climb. I was able to return to the airport in a shallow descent.
The 402C is a much improved performer with 325 hp engines. A capable 10 seater. The C model is distinguished from the A&B models by the absence of tip tanks.

4th Sep 2001, 09:15

re #3
That is one of the great mysteries of the universe. :rolleyes:

4th Sep 2001, 19:22
pax domina
Then my/our case rests.

You need professional accounting you hire a CPA, you need brain surgery a you hire a brain surgeon, you need someone to fly the companies most important and only multimillion dollar asset somewhere, you go find your next door neighbours kid who's building hours to do it.
Most enlightened companies don't but you'd be amazed at the number who do.

BTW, hiya haven't seen you around for a bit or is it vice versa :)

4th Sep 2001, 20:02
In a previous life I was the Director of Operations and Check Airman for an FAR 135 check-hauling outfit. This after about 2000 hours in the C401/402 series. Not counting Twin Commanders, Navajos, Queen Airs, Barons and Beech 18s.

When flown by the book, the 401/402 will do a better job than most any other piston twin on one engine. When training new pilots on the type I spent A LOT of time on the ground, in the cockpit, hammering the engine out drill.

1. Pitch level and stand on the rudder
2. Both throttles full forward
3. Flaps up
4. Gear up
5. Identify
6. Verify
7. Feather
8. Speed Vyse

Afterwards we would go fly. After the first hour, which was used to just get familiar with the a/c, the new guy almost never flew the thing on two engines again. That he EVER had two running was primarily due to the fact that he had to demonstrate a normal ILS on the check ride.

My new guys never got less than 10 hours of single engine work, ILS, circling approaches,
non-precision straight in's, engine cuts after lift off, on crosswind, downwind and final, on the runway, the whole nine yards!
For most of them it was their first "real" flying job. They came to us with 1200 total time and maybe 200 hours of multi engine experience. The best sticks all had experience as multi engine instructors.

They all got the same drill for their IFR re-current as well.

The cost of cracked cylinders was enormous, but cheaper than loosing a pilot!

We had some failures, but never lost a pilot. One guy had a total electrical failure in hard ball IFR wx at night. He whipped out his cell phone, got the number for approach control from directory assistance, and then got vectors for an ASR approach, with only needle, ball and airspeed, while somehow holding a flash light! Another had the bottom skin peel off the outboard left wing after dodging thunderstorms (a little too close I think), and landed without incident. When we got there two hours later he was fast asleep on the couch. We had several engines quit. No problem. The pilots just flew the airplane and got it on the ground. I've never worked with a finer bunch of guys.

Most failures were of the partial power type. Engine driven fuel pumps (an inop electric boost pump is a no-go item), turbocharger/waste gate failures, or mags grounding out. Nothing really critical.
We flew the airplanes hard. They were never designed for that type of service.

My BIG RULES were as follows.
1. NO INTERSECTION TAKE OFFS (grounds for immediate dismissal)
2. Do not attempt a single engine go around with the gear and flaps hanging out.
3. Never start a single engine approach if there is the possibility of a miss. Go somewhere else.
4. Never get below blue line until you can glide to the runway.
5. If ya gotta crash, do it at an airport where they sell alcohol. Airports like that always have fire trucks, and you may want a drink after talking to the FAA.

I hammered it home that EVERY take off we did was at max gross, and to plan accordingly. Study the performance charts!

My point is that a well trained, emotionally mature and proficient pilot can handle just about any inflight emergency, if the airplane is not flown out of limits.

4th Sep 2001, 20:50
Big rules
don't sit in the back if a dope is flying the propjob! or you don't have 13000ft or Rwy. :cool:

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: brokepilot ]

6th Sep 2001, 08:59
Onya, they were very very fortunate pilots to have you as a boss.
I'll bet very few of them had any trouble progressing through their careers.

Your post/method should be a template for anyone using these types.