Piston twins, a case of love and serious airmanship

[vanHorck]

Over the last 6 months to a year, there has been a bit of ME bashing on the various threads.

Obviously the main consideration for choosing a plane may be an economical one. Also there is the ever recurring "increased risk" of twins regarding survivability.

But I just love my Seneca! It's a version IV, meaning the old paint (lasts longer), traditional dials but includes 2 GPS-es and moving map), full autopilot with altitude preselect etc, I feel the best of the old and new.

So I would like to make a case for twins.

1. The twin gets you from A to B faster than most singles (not all).
2. Furthermore it tends to fly higher and as you fly higher, the cost decreases dramatically (especially when you fly LOP with good GAMI injectors and something like the JPI 760 i have.
3. There is also the issue of stability in the air, my Seneca IV simply feels more solid than a Saratoga! This is has a great effect on my passengers.
4. Just because i've bothered going for my MEP including asymetric flying, i feel i've become a better pilot, i think of my flying more seriously, I feel more the captain with the responsabilities this gives me.
5. My Seneca has de-ice boots, and this means I can fly more often and longer (in icing) than any TKS system or a non-de-iced plane. The Seneca is more often than not THE training aircraft for career pilots.
I ll not mention the ramp appeal....

In short, if the running costs are less of an issue, and you d like to do SERIOUS flying (I mean all over Europe) don't dismiss a good twin!

Again, I understand that when the economics come into it, people may choose a single, but I just love mine!

[Squeegee Longtail]

...Alrighty then! to quote you from your previous thread:

"I am a ME owner and although I've not put a stop to my flying, it seems much more often than before when I think of flying, the money side comes into my mind and I end up not flying..... "

Maybe if you owned a single you would fly more! ME ownership sounds just great. :}

(Not trying to sell it here are you??)

[vanHorck]

Nope, just wish i could fly more....

[Squeegee Longtail]

...get a single in your case!

[bjornhall]

I would really, really love to fly multi-engine! Also can not quite imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, if given the option, provided we're comparing something remotely similar (such as a Seneca to a Saratoga). Apart from being "more airplane", there's also the increased safety when flying over water, rugged terrain, on top, at night or IFR.

Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well.

[Squeegee Longtail]

"...Also can not quite imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, if given the option, provided we're comparing something remotely similar (such as a Seneca to a Saratoga). Apart from being "more airplane", there's also the increased safety when flying over water, rugged terrain, on top, at night or IFR."

So you cannot imagine why anyone would pick a single over a twin, eh?
Here's your own answer:

"Unfortunately entirely out of reach economically... Oh well."

Jesus, what is this thread about? Asking a stupid question and then giving the obvious answer?

[IO540]

I think the reason why most IFR pilots are buying singles, while the piston twin market has all but died over the last 20-odd years, is that the accident statistics do not support the need for the second engine, and one does pay a helluva penalty for the second engine.

Obviously the individual pilot is free to factor in his own attitude to risk, but - as with TCAS and mid-airs - that view is not well supported by the accident data.

[Fuji Abound]

Ah yes, the cascade effect.

Step 1, add an extra engine to reduce the risk of flying at night, over hostile terrain, in IMC, over the sea etc,

Step 2, with the added confidence of the extra engine pilots now fly in more "challenging" siutations,

Step 3, the accident rates go up and the pilots get blamed,

Step 4, the insurance companies increase premiums and demand better re-current training,

Step 5, the accident rates go down, but many hang on to the notion twins are more dangerous, which, combined with the increased operating costs, leads to the demise of the twin.

If you want ALL WEATHER capability, are prepared to ensure you are current and well trained, and avoid twins with marginal performance I doubt there is any evidence that twins are more or less safe. In fact if you flew a single in the same weather conditions the twin would probably on average be safer.

Sure twins are more expensive to operate if you exclude depreciation. However their acquistion cost is significantly less than high performance singles which are capbale of competing in speed and all weather performace. For example, compare an Aztec with an "equivalent " single. To make the comparison you need to find a single that is certified for flight in known icing, can cruise at 150 knots or more and carry at least four adults and luggage. The very few singles which fit this profile will almost certainly cost twice as much as a decent Aztec and considerably more than a perfectly serviceable Aztec. That is a signifcant sum of money to put towards the running costs of a twin, whilst earning some interest on it in the mean time.

Of course if you are happy to avoid icing, never carry four adults and luggage, and accept the outcome of a forced landing at night, with low bases, or in the drink in February is probably not going to be pretty, then a single is the answer.

[dublinpilot]

The trouble with the statistics is that they are all encompassing.

Yes, the stats show that a single engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in death or serious injury than an engine failure in a twin. Obviously a twin is twice as likely to suffer an engine failure than a twin.

But this encompasses lots of different pilots. Many many of whom will probably be barely able to afford to fly it, and as a result not be very current. On top of the low currency, they will be even less current on asymmetric flight. It stands to reason that if they don't get to fly it very often, then they will want to use it to go places etc when they do get to use it. They won't want to 'waste' their time practising.

A twin owner on the other hand is probably more current in general and more current on asymmetric flight, and therefore their risk profile is probably much better than the general statistics.

Of course this is total guess work on my behalf, and I could be totally wrong. :O

[Squeegee Longtail]

Totally confused by that one! Should the word "single" be used in there somewhere?

[bjornhall]

Squeegee, knock it off already. I think those of us posting to this thread are quite aware that twins are more expensive without needing you to hammer it in.

[vanHorck]

One could easily make the link to another thread currently running, namely why people quit flying.

Most of us start flying not hindered by any knowledge of what flying is realy about, we dream of long international trips, perhaps even flying for business.

During the course we re gripped by the beauty of flying itself, the sense of freedom.

After obtaining the PPL we all do our national trips, go for lunch an hour away on a friendly airfield, and then.... what then?

Then we realise our PPL doesn t quite give us what we originally hoped for. Often we are stuck because of weather, either at departure, en route or on arrival.

That is how i ended up doing my MEP and buying the Seneca.

I DID fly from Fowlmere as far south as Jerez or east as Bucharest. I WAS able to fly when singles could not (like in good weather crossing the Carpat mountains in winter, which i would never do in a single). The go no-go decision is more in your favour in a twin, especially a known icing one.

If you can afford the running cost, there is nothing to beat the solidity and safety of a twin, and the feeling of commanding a 400+ hp machine is nothing but majestic!

[S-Works]

I like flying twins, I have several hundred our in various types from the venerable Seneca to the Navajo and Otter.

But for private flying these days the costs just do not stack up. I fly a Mirage now, 17gph for a 25,000ft cruise at 220kts and fully certified for known ice. A twin just does not come close. But the Mirage is a long trips aircraft so I keep my Cessna for the fun touring and still single engine costs.

I don't believe that twins are any safer statistically, just that they give some people a better feeling of safety!

[bookworm]

So I would like to make a case for twins.

All the reasons you cite are for particular aircraft characteristics that are not dependent on having two engines. You put a case for high performance, high ceiling, de-iced, stable IFR platforms, which include piston and turbine singles too.

The reason for preferring a twin is much simpler -- you don't want the failure of an engine to become a crapshoot.

[FlyingForFun]

vanHorck,

Bookworm has it spot on. All your reasons are good, but not related to the second engine.

For me, the biggest advantage of the second engine is actually something which hasn't been mentioned yet - systems redundancy. Every twin that I know of has two vacuum pumps and two alternators.

In a couple of thousand hours of flying, I've never yet experienced an engine failure, and I've only met a couple of people who have. But I have experienced a few alternator failures, and a couple of vacuum pump failures - both of which could cause serious problems if they happened in solid IMC.

Everyone has a different budget, and a different attitude towards risk. For me, the extra cost is not worth it. If I was paying for the flying myself, I'd go for a single every time. The only reason I fly twins is because people pay me to fly them. But that doesn't mean that flying a twin is not right for someone else.

FFF
-------------

[IO540]

The stats show that a SE turboprop is several times less likely to go down than a ME piston.

Emotionally this is hard to accept, of course.

And the direct hourly running costs of the two are probably similar (e.g. Jetprop or Meridian v. Aztec). And a Jetprop allows you to go IFR without the route charges.

The capital cost is the problem. A half decent TP in flyable condition is going to cost at least £500k. But you can pick up a twin piston for £80k, like for like condition.

I am sticking to singles :) And if I was to move up, and had a really serious mission profile to justify it, it would be a SE TP.

[vanHorck]

you guys are right of course.

My Seneca at LOP will not be far off your 17 GPH but i ll be 20 knots to 30 knots slower. The Mountain High system i have gives me comfortable rides at just below FL200

Of course the redudancy of dual systems is important, I should have mentionned it

But comparing like for like, meaning a piston Malibu versus a piston Seneca, I wouldn t like to cross a mountain range in the single, just a personal thing.

Yes in the TP I would, and yes the running costs are not that different, but tying up 500K versus 200K for a pristine example costs a lot of money in interest (15.000 @ 5%)

So we come back to economics.

From a single piston to ME turboprop via the Twin piston and the SE TP.

We all slowly move up. I learned on a Tomahawk (great memories over Norfolk) and moved to an Archer (first trips to the continent). When I first flew an Arrow III (to the Isle of Man) the feeling was great again, but the sorties were too often limited by weather. My real flying for a purpose only started with my MEP, One day it'll be a TP or maybe even a single engine jet, but i ll need to save up first.... Till then I just LUVVV my Seneca!

There is a plane for all of us, respect for the diversity!

[youngskywalker]

Problem is as stated above. As reliable as a Single engine turboprop is, it still doesnt have much system redundandcy; one Generator, vacum, fuel pump etc and these are much more likely to fail than an engine. In over 500 hours of KingAir flying and about 100 in light twins (not much I know) I never once suffered any form of power failure, but most certainly had regular Generator faults, instrument failures, pressurisation problems and one cockpit fire at night. Some of those would have been much more serious had we been in a single engine aircraft, especially over the Alps at night!

[S-Works]

Thats not quite true on the single systems front. The Mirage has redundant everything apart from the engine!! I would be quite happy to cross a mountain range in it and do. The highest in Europe is only around FL160 and crossing them at FL250 if the donkey did quit will allow me to glide clear.

Even my 172 has redundant Vac, electric's and fuel pumps.

[vanHorck]

Lucky guys you are!

[youngskywalker]

Lucky guy I 'was', my former employer took away all my toys :{.

I'm the ultimate aviation coward, I get nervous just crossing a small river in a single engine piston never mind flying over the chanel or the Alps!

You cant beat that feeling of utter reliability that you get from sitting in the cruise and listening to those fantastic PT-6's growling away! In contrast everytime I got into a twin piston I fully expected to die horribly one day...only joking!

Trouble is that once you get a taste of flying something really special (in my opinion it was the King Air) then it becomes really hard to get enthusiastic about pootering around in something smaller again, god help me if I ever get near a jet!

Bose-x, fair enough, I know nothing about the more advanced piston singles.

[IO540]

I wouldn t like to cross a mountain range in the single

Statistically and practically, you are far more likely to die doing this by icing up (because you don't have the operating ceiling, so got stuck in IMC) and plummetting and hitting a mountain because the 0C level is below the terrain so you never got a chance to thaw out, than through a straight engine failure.

Enroute IFR flight is (or should be, unless you have balls of solid brass) done in VMC, and (especially in a non-turbocharged plane) the engine is running at quite a low power and thus under little stress. When I cross the Alps at say FL180 the engine is probably making only 40% power, and is cool as a cucumber. FL250 is the province of turbos but even then the power output should not be high; FL250 is the ceiling for most turbo pistons.

[youngskywalker]

Of course, chances are you will be perfectly safe doing so. It's just an attitude to risk, which is a very personal thing. I've lost a good friend after a water ditching in a single engine piston at night and my first instructor perished in a twin engine piston prang, I guess thats what plays on my mind and has made me very cautious, perhaps overly so.

[FlyingForFun]

I wouldn t like to cross a mountain range in the single, just a personal thing.Out of interest, what's the single-engine ceiling of your Seneca? And how how are the mountains you're crossing?

FFF
--------------

[BelArgUSA]

Having flown with airlines, I am just about to retire in a few weeks.
Throughout my aviation career, I am often around small private airfields.
Even own a Piper L-21C (a former military Super Cub).
And of course have acquaintances who own/fly light twins.
xxx
If flying a twin with powerful engines and good single engine performance, fine.
But beware of low-powered twins, and heavy payloads.
Besides all that, try to maintain adequate engine-out proficiency as pilot.
xxx
I have a preference for my little tail dragger. I can land it about anywhere.
Twins have double the engine failure rates than single engines.
Statistics - If engines fail every 4,000 hrs, twins will average one each 2,000 hrs.
I agree to the mention of system redundancy, i.e. generators, vacuum pumps.
De-icing, dont believe in it too much... and call it anti-icing.
If you enter icing conditions, your best procedure might be a 180º turn.
For me, lightplanes, single or twins remain restricted to VMC and blue skies.
xxx
I have a friend who owns an old PA23 Apache - 2 x 160 hp...
Last year, one engine failed, he had to land it on a road in the country.
Had 4 adults on board, could not keep it flying to the nearest field.
xxx
Have fun guys, if you can afford the extra gasoline. And fly safe.
:)
Happy contrails

[Pace]

>Out of interest, what's the single-engine ceiling of your Seneca? And how how are the mountains you're crossing?<

Flying for fun

The single engine ceiling on Seneca twin is around 16500 feet without checking the manual :) I have over 2000 hrs in Seneca Five twins and they are a solid safe twin. The five is great at altitude. Crossing the Alps the lowest you will get airways is FL180.

Passengers especially if they are not aviation Knowledgable are not happy in a single. They see the twin engine as having a spare engine and in the cruise loss of one would make that the case as they are a doddle to fly one out in level cruise.

I also must admit that statistics or no statistics I feel far happier at Night solid IMC with a 300 foot cloudbase and 1000 metre viz in a twin. The same goes over fog or 200 miles out to sea when you know those white caps seen from Altitude would be 50 foot high moving brick walls close to in the event of a ditching.

So maybe statistics dont mean that much to me or my passengers its perception. Knowing sods law the 300 cloudbase at night is the time the single will decide to go bang anyway ;) Or my single turboprop hot rod will choose to hit the only eagle flying in the skies and knock out my one and only prop.

Finally and this is a little known fact! if you collide at high speed on the ground into something solid, with a single the whole engine enters the passenger compartment and will smash the occupants into obliteration. No! aircraft deformable structures are non existant compared to the techology in cars.

The twin has those massive lumps of potential projectile metal on the wings and away from you or your passengers and the nose of a twin does act as a deformable structure.

Pace

[IO540]

Crossing the Alps the lowest you will get airways is FL180.

You can get a lot lower than that, an lower still from Austria IIRC. I recall filing FL140 from UK to Croatia, straight over the Alps.

But rarely can one do it without climbing to remain above cloud.

[Pace]

10540

I would imagine without checking charts for airways that it depends where you are routing maybe over the lower Alps?

Have you been into Lublijana LJLJ has to be one of my favourite destinations into really pretty countyside and high mountains.
I have flown into there in twins and business jets and it well worth a visit.

Pace

[Pace]

BelArgUSA

The Apache is NOT a GOOD example of a twin single engine on takeoff or cruise. It has a diabolical record and performance capability.
The Apache is really a single with half its one engine on each wing :)

Many moons ago flying from the UK to France we shut down a Seneca engine and flew the whole 70 miles across on one. Restarted and landed on two :) Crazy thing to do looking back but ????

A twin will happily fly on one in the cruise.

The Seneca is approved into Light ice and does a pretty reasonable job of dealing with it although I agree you do not want to hang around in ice.

Pace

[englishal]

I don't fly a Twin in Europe, as frankly I don't own one and paying £300 per hour for the privilige of renting one doesn't appeal to me.

However, when in the USA (like now) I always rent a Twin Star, which I think is the best twin out there. It may not perform along the lines of the Seneca (yet), and only have 4 seats, but it is a great IFR platform and the benefits outweigh the extra 10 kts of the seneca . It performs great on 1 engine and of course being turbocharged has no problem with altitiude. The new version with ~170HP engines will cruise in the region of 190 kts+ ......

Nowadays I'd never buy an Avgas burning piston twin, for many reasons, not least operating costs. I just wish I had a spare $800,000 :O How much does one pay for a TS in the UK?

[IO540]

Pace,

Yes, LJLJ, been there and really loved it.

Re routes, here are some examples, validated for 0900 Z tomorrow, FL100 base level

-EGHH0900
-N0150F100
SAM R8 DVR DCT KOK L607 NEKIR/N0150F120 L607 RUDUS/N0150F100 L984 ASKIK/N0150F120 Z74 KOSEK/N0150F100 L603 UNKEN/N0150F130 L603 OBEDI/N0150F150 L172 VIW/N0150F110 L608 TELSI
-LJLJ0502

The above is FL150 max.

SAM R8 DVR DCT KOK L607 NEKIR/N0150F120 L607 RUDUS/N0150F100 L984 ASKIK/N0150F120 Z74 KOSEK/N0150F100 L603 TEGBA L605 ALMER L604 GRZ L141 ARLON

is FL120 max.

although I agree you do not want to hang around in ice.And there is the crunch! Let's say you are doing a 5hr flight. Pottering along nicely at FL100, no oxygen, and ahead are clouds looming up to an estimated FL180.

What is the plan now?

There is no way to do this without "hanging around in ice" :) Regardless of icing forecasts (for what they are worth) being completely blank, I can guarantee that over some hours you will pick up ice. Also you cannot see where you are going anymore, so you could fly into something with "quite a bit" of ice inside it.

The only way is to either totally rely on your rubber boots, over mountains etc, or make sure the SAT is colder than -15C and preferably (if there is any lift, which over mountains is fairly likely) a lot colder than that.

VMC on top is the only way.

Englishal

A poor man's turboprop is $2M (Meridian) :) A Jetprop can be a lot less, depending on how beaten-up the Mirage it is based on was. And it is 1999kg :ok:

[Pace]

>170HP engines will cruise in the region of 190 kts+ ......<

Englishall

Can you detail that? are you talking about the Avgas version or some replacement diesel unit? for the 135 hp diesels.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Englishal

The new version with ~170HP engines will cruise in the region of 190 kts+ ......

Are you writing from experience? I have flown the single with the new engine and it doesnt add greatly to the performance - certainly nothing like that amount. I have not flown the 42 with the new engines however.

I guess you have flown the 42 at MTOW with a simulated failure after take off. Personally I would not have said on the critical engine the performance is all that great - reassuringly it does climb IF you are on the money, but plenty of margin to get it wrong if climbing away in IMC. In the cruise I would agree it is fine - and I speak from actual experience ;).

[sternone]

I flew a few hours in a Seneca and a few hours in a Twin Comanche. While both are fun, they will kill you in a second. Twin flying is much more dangerous than single engine flying.

Buying a new Seneca V for 1M$ doesn't work that good anymore these days. It's a bad business model.

I know some very good pilots who will never fly a twin over mountains. In case of an engine faillure (which you have more chance to happen than in a single) they will go down to SE ceiling and you won't be able to climb anymore in case you encounter something nasty like icing etc.

I tought I wanted to fly twins, but I don't buy it anymore. Give me a IO-550 anytime.

Could be a last hope of the original poster of this thread to get the prices or request up for his seneca since he before wrote he wants to stop flying because of the money. It must hurt for him filling up his Seneca tanks each time these days... and for what ? Not for speed that is... his Seneca is so nasty on the fuel burn compared to speed it simply doesn't make sence.

[Pace]

Sternone

I dont know where you are getting your information? You say you have has a few hours in a Seneca and a few in a commanche?

Any aircraft will kill you if mistreated single or twin the only difference is the twin gives you more options. The single in the event of an engine failure means you are going one place and that is down.

The twin gives you the option of possibly staying up but yes you do have to be current and on the ball and able to make the right choices.

I have had three engine failures in over 2600 hrs multi piston time. One was a full failure the other two partial so maybe in a position to offer an opinion?

You quote a failure over mountains? The Seneca will maintain 16500 feet engine out! Are you referring to the Himalayas? As 16500 feet should keep you above most. The single will NOT keep you above any so I dont see your arguement?

>In case of an engine faillure (which you have more chance to happen than in a single)<

Yes but get this straight we are not talking about a twins engines being less reliable than a single but the pure fact that you have two engines and the greater mathematical chance that one will fail.

Pace

[sternone]

I have had three engine failures in over 2600 hrs multi piston time

First of all, I DO NOT WANNA FLY WITH YOU, you are completely MESSING UP THE SATISTICS!!! each 900 hours you get an engine faillure ?

The twin kills you faster, most who get killed while lost of trust on one engine is because they let the plane go below VMC or they feathered the wrong engine. While it doesn't happen with you it happens with other GA ME pilots alot. Why is that ? In a real partial loss (and you know that) it isn't THAT easy to feel what side has failled...the plane just goes from left to right...

The twin gives you more options to mess it up. And that's where it goes wrong with the GA pilot.

Most light twins don't go as high as the seneca. Ever checked if your seneca keeps altitude on SE ? I would love to see you can hold that 16500ft i doubt it.

Ever checked what the SE ceiling is of a baron ? 7000ft...

The fact remains that you are LESS prone in a single than in a twin to get into problems above mountains.

Don't get me wrong, i love twins, i just had to get the training and the flight expierence in them to know it's a bad business model.

[S-Works]

Don't get me wrong, i love twins, i just had to get the training and the flight expierence in them to know it's a bad business model.

My, you have done well. Only a couple of months ago you were doing your PPL and telling us the Mooney was the best thing in the world. Now you are an expert on twin flying. I am impressed indeed.

As pace points out the twin does have some advantages over a single in certain circumstances and does require currency. I only have around 700hrs of multi time so can't compare to his experience but my limited experience agrees with his.

Notwithstanding this I will take the Mirage over any of the twins based on speed and economy!!

[Contacttower]

You quote a failure over mountains? The Seneca will maintain 16500 feet engine out! Are you referring to the Himalayas? As 16500 feet should keep you above most. The single will NOT keep you above any so I dont see your arguement?Which Seneca is that Pace?....I assume it's one of the later ones since I was under the impression that Seneca I single engined ceiling is something like 3000ft.

Certainly when it came out in 1963 the Twin Comanche was a major departure in terms of performance with a single engine ceiling of 5800ft service and 7100ft absolute. Which is fine for UK mountains at least.

The one thing that constantly bothers me about twins is engine failure on take-off.....one needs a nice long runway to ensure that if you get a failure below Vmca one is not going to have any problem with shutting the throttles and stopping/landing ahead.

[Fuji Abound]

Twins have double the engine failure rates than single engines.
Statistics - If engines fail every 4,000 hrs, twins will average one each 2,000 hrs.

I wanted to point out this is a commonly held view - which is incorrect. The single engine failure rate of twins is significantly lower than that for singles. Many factors combine to make this so.

Here is a few exercises to try for those here that think they know how to fly twins.

Climb to 3,000 feet and set up a descent of 500 fpm, 10 % below best SE rate of climb. Continue this to say 2,200 feet anticipating a landing at 2,000 feet and simulate a single engine go around. What do you think happens?

Can any one come up with a twin that doesn’t lose more than 80% of its climb performance on one engine - I can think of only one. It would be the one I would buy if I were in the market and have had the pleasure of flying for a few hours.

You can debate it all you like but twins offer a safety advantage during the en route phase in many circumstances and also generally during the approach and departure BUT in both cases, and especially the second, the skill of the pilot AND a proper understanding of what is and isnt possible is critical.

The last engine failure I had was in a twin. Had it been in a single I would have landed in a field. I would have hoped to have suffered little personal injury (based on the statistical evidence and my own experience) but as grateful as I would have been for that outcome, the aircraft would almost certainly have suffered some to considerable damage, the cost of recovery would have been significant and I and my passenger would have been inconvenienced. As it turned out the twin suffered no damage at all as a result of the landing (at the airport), no charge was incurred (the airport waived all costs) and personal inconvenience was minimal.

Some will tell you the extra engine in a MEP is to enable you to complete your journey. So far as I am concerned it is an emergency. At the point of losing an engine I have lost more than 80% of my performance.

I am still grateful when the transport picks me up it is from the nearest airport and not from the nearest muddy field.

[mixture]

asymetric flying

This is the double edged sword of twin flying.

Having that second engine can, in some pilots, incite a great deal of arrogance.

There are a number of crashes that could have been avoided by the pilots reluctance to do the right thing and shut off that second engine and go back to the good old SEP days of gliding.

Your multi is not a Boeing/Airbus. Different performance class althogether. Its probably not a wise idea to to extended runs on the good engine and you certainly won't get the same climb performance !

Twins are great, but in the right hands and the right circumstances. As others have pointed out, sometimes you're just better off with a good SEP !

[Pace]

>Which Seneca is that Pace?....I assume it's one of the later ones since I was under the impression that Seneca I single engined ceiling is something like 3000ft. <

Seneca Five twin, Turbocharged intercooled and wastegated. Suggest you go to Piper aircraft and check for yourself?
Seneca 1 is a totally different animal. I have flown them all 1,2,3,4,5

Sternone

>First of all, I DO NOT WANNA FLY WITH YOU, you are completely MESSING UP THE SATISTICS!!! each 900 hours you get an engine faillure ? <

Why do you not want to fly with me? I fly as a captain on Citations with an ATP and have had failures and problems with jets too! but not engine failures.
But isnt that what we are trained for? when things go wrong not the sunny days.

The full engine failure was with an almost new Seneca, 100 hrs total time. Three rocker shafts failed due to incorrect torque of the shafts at Manufacture by continental. Engine replaced within two weeks with an apology.

Second partial was a fuel problem which took a long time to find and required an almost complete replacement of the fuel sytem.

Third was a complete failure of an exhaust manifold pipework which had detached and was found lying at the bottom of the engine cowl.

All luckely for me were handled correctly the full failure occurred at 300 feet in the climb at grosse weight.
So who would you fly with? someone who lost the plot and crashed?

Pace

[Pace]

Sternone

>Why is that ? In a real partial loss (and you know that) it isn't THAT easy to feel what side has failled...the plane just goes from left to right... <

The old dead leg dead engine works well as well as having the ball centre as an early indication. Make sure you disconnect the yaw damper.
then of course check the engine indications!

Its not rocket science but simple piloting skills. From what you are saying many twin pilots are lacking!!! but then that has to be training, currency, or pure panic if you loose it.

Pace

[englishal]

Englishal


Quote:
The new version with ~170HP engines will cruise in the region of 190 kts+ ......

Are you writing from experience? I have flown the single with the new engine and it doesnt add greatly to the performance - certainly nothing like that amount. I have not flown the 42 with the new engines however.

I guess you have flown the 42 at MTOW with a simulated failure after take off. Personally I would not have said on the critical engine the performance is all that great - reassuringly it does climb IF you are on the money, but plenty of margin to get it wrong if climbing away in IMC. In the cruise I would agree it is fine - and I speak from actual experience .
The DA42 is supposed to be coming out with 170HP turbo diesels within a year - or so my friend who runs a Diamond Training Centre said - I'll find out more. I was flying the DA42 with the 2.0 litre diesel a couple of days ago and "failed" the critical engine on approach at near max AUW. No problem at all, could easily climb and managed a nice stable ILS followed by circle to land with no drama....The 2.0Litre has been de-rated to supply same BHP - but I guess you could chip them ;)

[sternone]

The old dead leg dead engine works well as well as having the ball centre as an early indication. Make sure you disconnect the yaw damper.
then of course check the engine indications!


Here you go wrong. Engine instruments like fuel flow/rpm and map will not give you always an indication of an engine faillure.

And ESPECIALLY NOT the inclinometerl.

You see, you just gave me another reason not to fly with you.

Since you have flown the Seneca 1,2,3,4 i would love to hear from you what their SE ceilings are.

Also to keep that SE ceiling at 16500 rpm, how many degrees do you bank into the live engine for that ?

It is during my ME training that i descided that twins aren't what people expect from them. I might not have 999000 hours of multi engine expierence but you can't blame me for having an opinion that is based on what i expierenced myself. For that reason the argument that i'm too low on hours to make an argument stinks.

[Pace]

>Here you go wrong. Engine instruments like fuel flow/rpm and map will not give you always an indication of an engine faillure.

And ESPECIALLY NOT the inclinometerl.

You see, you just gave me another reason not to fly with you.<

Sternone

Dont display your complete ignorance. I am seriously starting to doubt your ability to be voicing a believable opinion here at all.

A complete engine failure will show on your Engine instruments. A loss of power either constant or sporadic will show through unequal thrust.
You need to run through the checks specified in your training (if you have had any?) and positively identify the problem engine before deciding to shut it down or not.

How would you identify an engine problem as I would be interested to hear from such an experienced pilot ;)

>Service Ceiling Two Engines (100 fpm) *25,000+ ft / 7,620+ m
Single Engine (50 fpm) 16,500 ft / 5,029 m
*25,000 ft. is max. approved altitu<

Above are the figures for the Seneca V twin Note the SE quoted as 16500 (50 FPM)

Pace

[sternone]

Pace, I think you should get some updated training, tell me

A complete engine failure will show on your Engine instruments

On what instruments are you always seeing a complete engine faillure ?

And please give me the SE ceiling of the seneca 1,2,3,4 since you flew them all.

[IO540]

My "research" on this topic is as non-exhaustive as it could be :) but I seem to know a number of twin pilots who have had a staggering incidence of engine failures, yet I know very few SE pilots who have had an engine failure.

One twin (Aztec) pilot I know of has had some huge # of engine failures (10?).

On the Thielers, all bets are off anyway but that is a known problem.

I wonder if twins are more likely (I mean much more than 2x more likely) to get an engine failure? Is there more vibration on the engine and accessories? Or are the engines driven harder, due to the typical operational profile? The control cables are certainly longer.

[Fuji Abound]

I wonder if twins are more likely (I mean much more than 2x more likely) to get an engine failure? Is there more vibration on the engine and accessories? Or are the engines driven harder, due to the typical operational profile? The control cables are certainly longer.

The reverse. At any rate based on FAA statistics the failure rate in twins is considerably less than double the failure rate for singles. Flying published a rate of 1.42 times.

The DA42 is supposed to be coming out with 170HP turbo diesels within a year - or so my friend who runs a Diamond Training Centre said - I'll find out more. I was flying the DA42 with the 2.0 litre diesel a couple of days ago and "failed" the critical engine on approach at near max AUW. No problem at all, could easily climb and managed a nice stable ILS followed by circle to land with no drama....The 2.0Litre has been de-rated to supply same BHP - but I guess you could chip them

Yes, Diamond's own engine is slated to replace the Theilert engines. Personally I doubt the 42 will get close to 190 knots on these but undoubtedly there will be an improvement in performance. The 2.0 litre is as you say currently "de-rated" and offers no noticeable performance gain but does have other advantages.

At what height did you initiate the go around? How was the airframe configured. Did you notice the rate fo climb and how much height was lost between initiating the go around and achieving a stable rate of climb. What rate and speed were you descending at?

[SNS3Guppy]

Obviously the main consideration for choosing a plane may be an economical one. Also there is the ever recurring "increased risk" of twins regarding survivability.


Not necessarily.

Economy may be one reason for choosing an airplane, but it's a poor one in consideration of one's intended mission. If getting from A to B in the least expensive way is most important, then yes, economy is important. That's not necessarily the case if you want to get there quickly, or if performance is an issue, or safety, or avionics, or...you get the idea. There are many reasons to make a flight and many ways to conduct it. Economy is seldom the chief driving criteria in selecting the aircraft.

Ever-recurring increased risk? Not so. "Increased risk" is largely in the purview of the pilot...not a function of the aircraft. How you use the airplane makes all the difference in the world.

On what instruments are you always seeing a complete engine faillure ?

And please give me the SE ceiling of the seneca 1,2,3,4 since you flew them all.


I have to believe Sternone is a troll, or a very, very inexperienced pilot with a very, very inflated opinion of his own training and ability.

My Seneca experience has been primarily in the II and III, and mostly operating from rough dirt airfields in remote locations, always in mountainous terrain. Whatever the book published numbers may be, 8,000 feet at gross weight on a standard day seemed to come closer to the truth when doing engine-out work...which isn't bad for a light twin.

The twin kills you faster, most who get killed while lost of trust on one engine is because they let the plane go below VMC or they feathered the wrong engine. While it doesn't happen with you it happens with other GA ME pilots alot. Why is that ? In a real partial loss (and you know that) it isn't THAT easy to feel what side has failled...the plane just goes from left to right...


Is there some particular benefit to dying slowly in an airplane? If not, then arguing which kills you faster is really a mindless inroad into the airplane decision making process here.

You assert that most fatal mishaps occur due to assymetrical thrust issues, specifically loss of control. Perhaps you could back that up, because if you bother to do a little research I believe you'll find that's not the case at all. Other causal factors such as controlled flight into terrain, fuel mismanagement, and weather related losses account for much higher numbers of mishaps and fatalities.

Now Sternone, based on your VAST experience with simulated and real engine failures in multi-engine airplane, you assert that identification of the failed engine is a difficult task. How many actual engine failures have you experienced in a light twin?

The amount of rudder input is dependent both on airspeed, and on the power setting on the good engine. I've had very pronounced yaw and need for rudder input, with no question which engine failed, and have had no indication in feel when powered back and in a descent, when an engine failed in a twin commander.

Propeller RPM may or may not be an indication, as the propeller when not powered by the engine may be driven by the slipstream at a speed which approximates it's driven speed...or the propeller may experience an decrease in RPM...what occurs depends largely on the airspeed at which the power loss occurs. Further, if it's a blower failure, the RPM will remain unchanged, but manifold pressure will change.

Fuel flow is a good indicator, generally. Not always; the nature of the failure dictates. Same for manifold pressure, etc. An EGT drop is a good indication, however...though it may not show a partial power loss.

Regardless, your assertion that an engine failure is difficult to identify in a multi engine airplane clearly shows that you really don't know what it is you're talking about. Again, that really paints you more in the troll category.

I know some very good pilots who will never fly a twin over mountains.


To each his own. I won't fly single engine IMC. I have spent a lifetime flying single engine airplanes in the mountains, and have even made forced landings in the mountains following an engine failure. I prefer a multi engine airplane for IMC not so much for the redundancy of powerplants, but for redundancy of instrument power (vacum), electrical power, etc. I like the performance a twin gives. A twin can be operated just as safely as a multi engine airplane; the burden comes back to the pilot. I've spent a lot of time in multi engine airplanes and single engine airplanes of all kinds, from light pistons to heavy turbojets to turboprops in the mountains, in IMC, and everywhere you can imagine.

I find that most experienced pilots are reluctant to fly single engine airplanes in IMC, or do single engine night work. Count me among them. I've certainly done it. I've experienced an engine failure in a single engine light piston single in IMC...right to a landing...and yes, in mountainous terrain. For me, experience is a great teacher, and teaches me that I really don't care to experience that again. I find that the willingness to do single engine IMC or night tends to be much greater with low experience pilots, and dwindles considerably as pilots gain experience.

Having said this, single engine IMC and night flying is done regularly, and most often safely by a great many people. I won't. Conversely, I won't fly many light twins IMC either, except under specific circumstances...or at night, or over certain terrain or water...because one needs to consider the limitations that apply to that specific airplane. To assert that one is more safe than the other is ridiculous; it's the pilot that makes the difference between what's safe and what isn't.

A single engine airplane should be flown within the limits of it's capability, just as a multi engine airplane should be.

If you're not comfortable flying a multi engine airplane, then you have no obligation to do so. Your comments that you won't fly with others here, however, smack of an extreme arrogance borne of ignorance, and you seem really proud of your ignorance. Ignorance doth not evidence make...and is hardly an arguement for or against flying a multi-engine airplane. What you're really saying is that you don't like multi engine airplanes because you don't know anything about them and don't understand their capabilities and limitations. Perhaps you should learn a little more before you try to know so much.

[Contacttower]

On what instruments are you always seeing a complete engine faillure?Although one is not supposed to primarily use the engine instruments to gauge a complete failure they will show different from the live engine; say prior to the failure it was running at 2400rpm.....it won't be any more. The oil pressure will probably have dropped as well and the fuel flow. I agree though sternone....one may not always see those instruments do that.

You do seem to be rather overstating the "twins are dangerous case"....like Pace said mistakes can be made but at the end of the day if one follows the procedures....you know dead leg, dead engine etc you are unlikely to go wrong. Just curious sternone did you actually do the MEP rating?

Ah ha....I see Guppy has arrived....;)

[FlyingForFun]

Pace,A complete engine failure will show on your Engine instruments I demonstrate to my students that this is most definitely not the case. I do it by climbing to a safe height, then switching off the fuel on one engine. Depending on the aircraft (and I mean the exact airframe, not just the type, because they are all slightly different) I can usually demonstrate that the MP has not changed, the RPM has not changed and the oil pressure has not changed. Over time, the temperatures will start to decrease - although if there was a fire that probably wouldn't be true either. Perhaps you should try this some time (but not in something with a turbocharger, unless you want a big bill)?

The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.

FFF
------------

[IO540]

The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.A quicker way would be to look at the EGTs - if you have a multicylinder engine monitor.

Pilots who fly with these watch them all the time, and the combustion upset is immediately obvious.

Or fuel flow - if you have an accurate flow indication.

As you say, the MP, RPM and oil pressure won't change because they are nothing to do with the combustion part of the engine. They are all driven off the rotating mechanism only.

[MIKECR]

And what if the EGT's ar telling porky's? It comes back to good old Dead leg, dead engine.

If an engine go's bang at less than 1000' ft on take off in IMC, there isnt a huge amount of time to go fact finding by hunting around the instruments. Control and identify asap.

[S-Works]

I would like to think that an experienced twin driver will be able to interpret the failed engine by a fluid assessment of all of the information available to them rather than a dogmatic approach to a single method.

I seem to recall a BMI aircraft that crashed due to the good engine being shutdown after an engine failure.

You are not always going to get an immediate dead leg indication on some types so an assessment of all of the data is a perhaps a better approach to the situation.

[shaun ryder]

Thats fine MIKE, but dont forget you will have no peripheral vision to assist with your diagnosis of which engine has failed in IMC. Instruments and not the seat of your pants surely!

[youngskywalker]

It's quite easy really, if the left engine fails on take off you will crash to the left, right engine fails you will crash to the right! :E

[IO540]

And what if the EGT's ar telling porky's

How is that possible?

With the common EDM-type instrument (http://www.jpinstruments.com/edm_twin.html) you get a bargraph for each engine. You can see immediately if there is something wrong.

The only way I can see of getting the "correct" EGTs is if the crankshaft snaps off right behind the prop (the prop comes off) and at the same time there is a fuel flow obstruction which reduces the fuel flow "just right" to maintain the expected EGTs.

[MIKECR]

IO540,

I think thats fine if your at altitude and have time do some kind of fact find. Pooter at the egt's or fuel flow indicators to your hearts content. At low level on take off in IMC and the engine go's bang/fire whatever...then theres a serious urgency to get it sorted. A rapidly decaying rpm needs to be feathered(ideally) before the prop locks. It comes back to control and identify...dead leg, dead engine....check the primary instruments...sort the problem. If you've got time..then fine...try and back up your diagnosis with use of other clues to hand. Im not even remotely an expert, far far from it, but thats what theyre teaching.

[youngskywalker]

...Just buy a King Air! Autofeather and rudder boost, much easier and loads of excess power at hand!

If I had the money, I'd just buy a nice little single engine aeroplane and have fun, if I had loads and loads of money i'd buy the above!

[Squeegee Longtail]

The fact that no-one here can agree on even a basic task like identifying which engine is out kind of answers why assymetric accidents give light twins a bad reputation.

Incidentally, the DA42 with FADEC takes the decision of feathering away, which just leaves you with flying an aircraft with f**k all single engine climb performance to worry about. So no real advance there then.

[mad_jock]

Bose-x you are quite correct.

An engine failure is quite different depending on what stage of flight you are at.

I will admit my normal steed has a turbines but the forces involved are the same. It doesn't have autopilot and is at the very bottom end of the pref A performance definition.

The evidence of failure can be very harsh in say the takeoff phase to "whats it doing now" in the cruise, to finding out you don't have reverse available on the roll out when its been failed at 200'. Thankfully we get to see as many engine failure modes as the imagination of the sim examiner can provide. But the aircraft still manages to pull failures (not just with the engines) out of the bag which nobody has thought of. How to spot the failure though is just as interesting and has to be honest be a case of spot the difference to normal using engine instruments and flight instruments it can be very very difficult at low power settings to see the difference. Usually its battered into you by failing the engine just before you perform a go-around. Your working quite hard focused on the flight instruments and your calls and all of a sudden the plane kicks the ball out and it flips on its back and the instructor starts laughing on the intercom.

Yaw dampers stop the yaw, autopilots hold it on bank. I think a 747 ended up in a spin because an engine failed and the automatics held it and the crew didn't realise what had happened until it stalled. And the resulting recovery was exciting to say the least.

The definition of experienced twin driver would be interesting. There have been some fatalities of what I would say are very experienced twin drivers. I would say there are quite a few experienced two engine working twin drivers but very few single engine on a twin experienced twin drivers certainly in the UK anyway. The US and Canada will have alot more. Even with 3500hours in twin engine aircraft I have only done 40 hours single engine work. An engine failure, 3 approaches, 2 go around's and a couple of landings every six months. And that's more than most because I am both seat's checked.

I would say its not really anything to do with the number of engines on the wing but the number of pilots looking at the instruments. The work load involved, the backup of someone saying "bank angle" before the situation becomes unworkable cannot be forgotten.

[sternone]

First of all SNS3Guppy, i don't care at all if you think i'm a troll, ugly, poor inexpierenced or whatever, you can call me just what you like. I'm happy i can make you happy.

Having a ceiling of 8000ft would not let me comfortably fly over the Alps on route to Italy and that is the point i wanna make. You have 2 of them running, more chance that it goes wrong than in a single, and crossing the Alps or other high mountains (that's why people fly twins for also) has no purpose unless indeed your twin has a SE Ceiling of 16500, which for example the mighty brand new Baron has NOT!

Is there some particular benefit to dying slowly in an airplane? If not, then arguing which kills you faster is really a mindless inroad into the airplane decision making process here.


Sure, that's why there are so many fatalities of GA ME pilots messing this part up. Loose an engine on takeoff in a single you go down, loose an engine in a light twin and when you try to stay in the air like many do they end up up-side down, stall spin and DEAD, these are the statistics.

I only had the training according to the PTS standards for FAA multi engine, and i feel pritty confident to secure the correct engine, i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!! but hey, guys like SNS3Guppy doesn't have this problem ofcorse. Good for you.

What i care about is that i'm correct and Pace not. You don't have always an indication on the instruments in a complete engine faillure, and that is the point i want to make. he's with his so good training and multi many hours wrong, and i'm right with my low multi hours and low multi ground school training. Still waiting on his reply on what instrument you always can see when there is an engine problem.

Let me help you a little, but Pace might never been heard about it. There is only one instrument that works correctly IMO, and that is a trust-detector. With my low non existing life in aviation, non existing training and blown up ME flight expierence, i had the amazing chance to fly with a pilot friend of mine in his twin who has one mounted right in his face. Unfortunatly it's not one of the instruments Pace is referring to, and i really don't wanna fly with a ME guy that really believes that if there is something wrong he can see it always on his instruments.

[youngskywalker]

Whilst I agree that you cannot always rely on instrumentation, the rest of what you have written makes little sense! (making allowances for the fact that English is probably not your first language) If I were you I would knock this one on the head mate!

Also, I think that if Pace really wanted to carry you in his Citation, then he would probably find a use for you as ballast in the baggage compartment!

[Pace]

>Also, I think that if Pace really wanted to carry you in his Citation, then he would probably find a use for you as ballast in the baggage compartment!<

Youngskywalker

I wouldnt be so cruel as to use Sternone as ballast its too cold back there.
I would more likely drop him out with a parachute over his Mummies house so that he can return to where he ought to be :)

Pace

[S-Works]

Don't worry he will switch to telling us the mooney is the best thing since sliced bread and how we are all going to die if we fly anything else...... :ok:

[Pace]

>I demonstrate to my students that this is most definitely not the case. I do it by climbing to a safe height, then switching off the fuel on one engine. Depending on the aircraft (and I mean the exact airframe, not just the type, because they are all slightly different) I can usually demonstrate that the MP has not changed, the RPM has not changed and the oil pressure has not changed. Over time, the temperatures will start to decrease - although if there was a fire that probably wouldn't be true either. Perhaps you should try this some time (but not in something with a turbocharger, unless you want a big bill)?

The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.<

So what will your fuel flow be telling you?

Pace

[sternone]

Fuel flow is NOT a correct indicator that there is anything wrong with the engine.

Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee :sad:

And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!

[youngskywalker]

Sternone - Lot's of Pilot's on here have huge amounts of flying experience and multi engine hours, I have very little with about 600 or so multi and still feel barely experienced enough to comment on this thread, and yet you have barely 10 in a twin I'm guessing? :suspect:

[Contacttower]

i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!!

Well assuming one only steps on one pedal at at time I wouldn't have thought deciding 'which dead foot to use' is particularly hard! :cool:

[Pace]

>Fuel flow is NOT a correct indicator that there is anything wrong with the engine.

Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee

And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!<

Sternine

You look at all the indications available to you as well as what the aircraft is doing and when you are sure you make a descision on whether to keep the engine running or shut it down.

> i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! <

Yes its about time you turned the computer off and stopped playing Microsoft flight simulator and do what Mummy says ie get your tea.

She might even cut the toast into soldiers for you so you can dip them in your egg before you get egg all over your face.

Pace

[The Hat]

Not sure why everybody keeps on talking abt flying over the very tops of the mountains. You can fly around the peaks!

[youngskywalker]

Because I like to keep an eye on the skiing conditions at Grindelwald!:ok:

[The Hat]

Ahh very true!!

I feel that a lot of the comments made here abt people being crazy flying through / over / around the mountains in a single engine have never done it before and therefore have no experience in this matter.

You can easily fly from the north to the south of Switzerland via the passes at around 8000'. I'm often doing this in a single. Just make sure you have got yr map with you and stop relying on the GPS!

[dont overfil]

Sternone, I don't know why I am even bothering to answer your post, but. A twin does not plummet down to 8000 feet on one engine but will drift down, certainly at a slower rate than a single with no engine. Thereby GIVING YOU OPTIONS!
DO.

[wsmempson]

Gosh, I can smell a heated debate on the merits of gps verses maps coming now!

There is one poster (who has clearly been absent for about a 6-9 month stretch) who has just popped up again; welcome back!

There are shades of Ali G to his arguments; whenever the going got tough for Ali G in any of his interviews with unsuspecting guests, he'd always spring the "is it 'cus I's black?" question - which would always send the guest into a stuttering tail-spin. I don't remember anyone ever turning round and saying "no, it's not because you're black, it's because you're a knob" and, in many way, this was the essence of the long-running joke. No-one was ever prepared to call a ..... shovel a shovel.

So for the record, I reckon that the "you're only having a go at me because I's a low hours pilot" is an extension of this.:rolleyes:

[IO540]

I feel that a lot of the comments made here abt people being crazy flying through / over / around the mountains in a single engine have never done it before and therefore have no experience in this matter.

You would be wrong ;)

You can easily fly from the north to the south of Switzerland via the passes at around 8000'. I'm often doing this in a single. Just make sure you have got yr map with you and stop relying on the GPS!

What a daft comment!

The context here is IFR, airways, flying (as one should) VMC on top in sunshine, above the clouds etc, out of icing conditions, at a safe altitude. Not scud running through the Swiss/Austrian/Italian canyons, hoping that the cloudbase will not meet up with the rising terrain, and hoping that you did not misread the map and flew into a canyon where you get stuffed - as many do when doing that kind of flying.

One can indeed cross the spine of the Alps at about 8000ft but this is possible only under VFR, not under an IFR clearance. And you better hope there are no clouds around when you do that, or significant wind when flying that close to the terrain.

I've been to the Alps, with a local expert, doing that kind of flying, and it was great fun on the (carefully picked) day. But for going places - no way. The safest way is to fly straight across the top at FL160 or higher, in VMC, and for that you have to be IFR. Zurich will not allow transit through their FL130-base Class C.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Seems like a lot of unnecessary emotion in this thread. The bottom line is the more complex the aircraft and the more demanding the flying conditions the more training (both initial and recurrent) required to safely operate the aircraft. I think the reason light twins have a bad accident history is almost entirely related to the fact that most private twin owners do not attain and maintain a adequate level of piloting proficency. I know that sounds harsh but it is an opinion I hold based on what I have personally witnessed over many years.

By defintion a twin will be safer than a single but only if you have he skill to be able to manage an engine failure during any part of a flight.

With respect to single engine IFR I can't help but remember a conversation at the local club lounge a few years ago. Just after a young buck allowed as how he had absolutely no problem flying singles in hard IFR, my friend (a vastly experienced pilot with over 40 yrs flying experience from bush to airlines) walked in. I asked how many hours of single IFR time he had. He thought about it for a while and said "maybe 10hrs". Then it dawned on me what I had asked and so I added "how many hours of single engine IFR in an airplane with only one engine ?" He gave me a puzzled look and said "You gotta be crazy to fly a single IFR ! ":cool:;)

[S-Works]

He gave me a puzzled look and said "You gotta be crazy to fly a single IFR"!

I don't think you do, I just think it helps........ :O

[The Hat]

Its definitely not scudding and I did say has experience and therefore they would already know if it was safe enough to go (and get back!) taking yr points into consideration.

[vanHorck]

All those who fought off the onslaught, thank you, I was away all day.

Sternone (is that a feromone?) has full rights to his opinions, but his tone is -especially given his minimal experience- offensive.

I have chosen a twin and fly often over mountains, IFR but on top and I feel safe and good doing it. But I cannot stop listening to other people s advice and experience.

People with such limited experience should listen more and condem less, learning!
Learning is the name of the game in our hobby/sport and those who are so pedantic they think and express they know it all, close the door on advice and inherently endanger themselves and those that fly with him.

There are people I would never fly with. Just from his tone, I would not fly with Sternone, because I love flying but I love life even more

[SNS3Guppy]

Sure, that's why there are so many fatalities of GA ME pilots messing this part up. Loose an engine on takeoff in a single you go down, loose an engine in a light twin and when you try to stay in the air like many do they end up up-side down, stall spin and DEAD, these are the statistics.


Post the statistics, then? Why do you take such pride in being wrong?

Having a ceiling of 8000ft would not let me comfortably fly over the Alps on route to Italy and that is the point i wanna make. You have 2 of them running, more chance that it goes wrong than in a single, and crossing the Alps or other high mountains (that's why people fly twins for also) has no purpose unless indeed your twin has a SE Ceiling of 16500, which for example the mighty brand new Baron has NOT!


Foolishness.

A Cessna 172 won't allow me to fly over Everest, either. So what?

If you're flying an airplane that won't fly you over an obstacle...then fly around it. Choose the right equipment for the mission. Perhaps a direct IFR flight in IMC in ice over the alps isn't the right mission for a Cessna 310. It's not the right mission for a Cessna 172, either...or for your beloved Mooney. (Pop quiz: what do the Cessna 310 and the Mooney have in common when they lose an engine while flying enroute over the Alps? Bonus question...what's one big advantage the 310 has over the Mooney...and which one is guaranteed to end up on the ground?).

You appear under the misguided impression that an engine failure in a multi engine airplane will result in an inevitable loss of control...you're quite wrong, of course. A big part of multi engine training in a light twin is learning not only correct multi engine principles, but learning how to handle an engine failure in a light twin...learning to accept that sometimes pulling back the power on the good engine is necessary. This is a foreign concept to you, then?

Let me help you a little, but Pace might never been heard about it. There is only one instrument that works correctly IMO, and that is a trust-detector. With my low non existing life in aviation, non existing training and blown up ME flight expierence, i had the amazing chance to fly with a pilot friend of mine in his twin who has one mounted right in his face. Unfortunatly it's not one of the instruments Pace is referring to, and i really don't wanna fly with a ME guy that really believes that if there is something wrong he can see it always on his instruments.


What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't recognize an engine failure on your instruments, then you're in a boat load of trouble...either completely ignorant of your airplane and multi engine flight, or very, very poorly trained, or simply blind. How on earth do you suppose one identifies an engine that has failed, when flying on instruments? Of course one can identify a failed engine from the instrumentation in the cockpit.

The same basic principles that apply to handling an engine failure in a light piston twin apply when handling an engine failure in a light turboprop or turbojet...and apply to medium and heavy aircraft as well. This may really shock you...but having flown all of them, there's not any significant difference in the way it's done...and in every case, the problem is recognizable from the cockpit, by instrumentation. Furthermore, there's a very important reason why we VERIFY that we have chosen the correct engine, after identifying it.

I only had the training according to the PTS standards for FAA multi engine, and i feel pritty confident to secure the correct engine, i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!!


Clearly your training was either poorly received, or poorly conducted, as you appear to have learned nothing. "Which dead foot to use," you say? How many dead feet do you have?

You may have trouble recognizing which engine has failed...but as this is the case then you certainly do NOT meet the standards prescribed by the PTS...the Practical Test Standards. These require that the outcome of a maneuver never be in doubt; you have doubt that you can properly recognize the proper engine (even though you say you're "pritty confident"). The truth is that when an engine failure is most critical...when you're slow and have takeoff power applied to the good engine, there's no doubt at all you've lost an engine. This applies to a light piston twin every bit as much as it applies to a big four engine radial, turboprop, or turbojet airplane...it's flown the same, recognized the same, and handled fairly much the same way...and in every case, it's recognizable. Distinctive need for rudder input against the failed powerplant, and distinctly recognizable from the cockpit, there should be no doubt of this...and indeed this IS a requirement of the PTS.

Your statement alone is proof positive that you and your training is insufficient to comply with the practical test standards, and enough to negate any input you might have on the subject of multi engine flight. Your lack of education and training puts you squarely in the position of being one who ought to be asking questions, rather than attempting to "tell it like it is." Let's face it. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I think a 747 ended up in a spin because an engine failed and the automatics held it and the crew didn't realise what had happened until it stalled.


A China Airlines B747SP, actually...and it was much more than simply rolling over from an engine failure. You can read the full accounting here: China Airlines B747SP Loss of Power and Inflight Upset (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html)

Incidentally, the DA42 with FADEC takes the decision of feathering away, which just leaves you with flying an aircraft with f**k all single engine climb performance to worry about. So no real advance there then.


An automatically feathering propeller doesn't take the decision away from a pilot, nor the need to fulfill the procedures for identifying and feathering the engine. Even aircraft such as the previously mentioned King Air 200, with rudder boost and auto feather...one still identifies, verifies, and manually completes the feathering process all the same.

Automatic feathering is certainly an advance "all the same." Even if one cannot climb with the engine secured, one is rid of an enormous amount of drag, and one's rate of descent or drift-down is affected in a big way. A propeller system which feathers automatically is very much a "real advance." Controllability is improved, handling is improved, and the immediate problem of removing the drag from a windmilling propeller and the major performance deterioration it causes, is handled...leaving the pilot to follow through with the securing motions of identifying, verifying, and securing the engine. This can be a real life saver. It can also reduce the pilot workload immensely and buy precious time, as well as make the airplane more controllable, and creates a significant difference in the airspeed margin between where one is at the time of failure to a stall or loss of control. So yes, an automatically feathering propeller is a real advance.

The fact that no-one here can agree on even a basic task like identifying which engine is out kind of answers why assymetric accidents give light twins a bad reputation.


Not at all. There are many ways to recognize an engine failure in a multi engine airplane, depending on the aircraft and the circumstances. What works in a given airplane under one set of circumstances may not in another. An airplane descending under a low power setting may have little or no discernable yaw by which to feel an engine failure; there may be no "dead foot." Reference to engine instrumentation may be the only way to identify it. Or an automatic feathering of the propeller may be one of the first signs. I experienced a perfectly functioning engine, but no propeller control, due to oil loss. Everything appeared to function...but the propeller produced no torque, and consequently no thrust...even though every other indication was just fine. What gives away the failed engine may be a system malfunction, a physical control issue, a system warning, or any number of identifying criteria. Knowing one's airplane and how to recognize the engine failure is a basic tenet of the privilege to fly it in the first place.

...Just buy a King Air! Autofeather and rudder boost, much easier and loads of excess power at hand!


A King Air still has the same handling requirements, pilot practices, and behavior as any light twin. Particularly the smaller brothers of the family. I took a checkride with the chief pilot of an ambulance operation years ago, in a BE-9L (King Air 90) he'd arranged for the company. He believed the airplane would fly on one engine, climb on one engine, and could perform a go-around or missed approach on one engine. He insisted he would do it with passengers aboard. He insisted on doing a single engine missed approach from a single engine ILS. I warned him not to try it, and told him that we would consider the engine failed during the missed. He soon found that the airplane wouldn't maintain altitude at the high density altitude field, surrounded by mountains (Reno, Nevada--USA), and told me to increase power on the "failed" engine. I refused. He asked my intentions, and I told him I intended to land in a field. By the time I let him have the power back, he was in tears (literally), and didn't try to claim the airplane could do a single engine go-around, again.

While the bigger brother to the 90 is the 200...it too is also a Part 23 airplane, and has no requirement to be able to maintain altitude, or climb on one engine. It does perform well one one engine, incidentally, but only to a point. One of the best performing light twin turboprops I've flown in the same weight class was the Piaggio Avanti...and a typical single engine climb isn't really stellar...about 800 fpm or less.

If an engine go's bang at less than 1000' ft on take off in IMC, there isnt a huge amount of time to go fact finding by hunting around the instruments. Control and identify asap.


Multi engine training always assumes that the engine has failed at the worst possible time; takeoff when at low altitude and at high power settings...and yes, one had better be able to do it from the instruments...asap. How long have you got to get it right?

The rest of your life.

The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.


Not at all. There are many ways to identify a failed engine, and these depend very much on the specific airplane and the nature of what's gone wrong, as well as the phase of flight, power setting, etc.

[julian_storey]

This whole protracted thread can be quite simply summed up as follows:

A twin engined aircraft, when flown by a well trained, CURRENT pilot is safer than an aircraft with just one engine. It has to be.

The trouble (in the UK especially) is that hiring a twin is often fearsomely expensive and some multi engine pilots are not as current as they should be (or in most cases, would like to be).

A pilot in a multi engine aircraft who is not well trained AND current, is an accident waiting to happen.

[sternone]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.

Oh wait, there is an expierence limit on PPRuNe to post something right ? Like some flying dutch said, i'm way to green to even dare to comment on something.

Hahahahaha

[julian_storey]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.

And that's the point.

If you can't correctly identify a failed engine and react to it quickly, in the right way (all comes down to good training and currency) - then you should question whether you should be flying a twin.

[Pace]

Julian

A valid point as part of flying any aircraft single or Multi is knowing that aircraft.

When it fits like a glove you sense every creak and groan she makes and know if something is not right, then its the doctors hat on to determine what is not right and why!

Sometimes its an emergency and again like a Doctor you have to work faster to save the day but its a relationship and harmony between man and machine and if you dont really know the machine then how can there be that harmony.

Thanks Guppy as usual you have a way of putting things over and a depth of knowledge. I hope Sternone listens to you but ??? :)

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.


Sternone, one need not be a "fancy pilot" to know that one had better be able to identify an engine failure based strictly on instrument representation each and every time, else one has no business in the airplane at all. Of course one can detect the engine failure on instruments. You must be able to do this, if you fly a multi engine airplane...even if you are a VFR-only pilot.

Are you suggesting you can't read and interpret the basic instrumentation given you? How can you consider yourself competent to fly?

This isn't "fancy flying." This is bare-bones basic, an essential skill. If you cannot conduct yourself within the framework of the most basic, raw skills, then you ought not place yourself in the airplane where you can harm yourself or others...nor should you attempt to suggest that you have any clue whence you speak...for clearly you do not.

You are proof positive that a little learning is indeed a very dangerous thing.

[vanhigher]

SNS3 GUPPY - Excellent post :ok:

[Squeegee Longtail]

This thread started with a guy telling us how he sooo much loved flying/owning his twin and how they are the dog's knackers, whilst simultaneously running a thread moaning how he cannot afford to go flying very often in his aircraft due to costs!

We (you lot) have gone on for 5 pages about how to identify a quiet engine!
The fact is that the thread starter is a prime example of what you guys are saying is dangerous - that to be a safe ME pilot you need to stay current. That means regular flying and regular training. The ME owner who more often than not thinks about the costs and stays at home, is surely the kind of guy who makes the statistics look scary.

[BartV]

Like i said, PPRuNe is limited to 10.000+ hours perfect English speaking pilots. No problem for me.

There is absolutely no room for any critisism. That's why i just love this place!

[vanHorck]

That would be me, then....


Fact is in the other thread i was honest about how the financial crisis is now permanently on my mind and that i flly less due to this concern which i would not have had a year ago.

A discussion evolved on that thread about how people percieve the economic crisis. I think the conversation could have been uselfull to others too.

Yes i am acautious man, and also now regarding the worst economic crisis since the 1030-ies.

Here i started this thread because of all the nonsense on twins. To me it is the perfect ship for the sorties i like the fly.

As to being a good pilot, i always consider myself as not being good enough, it think that too is being prudent. I ll not bother you with all i do to stay safe, suffice to say a good friend of mine is the best instructor i ve ever met, a verdict shared by many, and as long as he s happy with my flying, i am current and i feel good i will continue to fly

Geez there are some pedantic know-it-all people here! I dont know all and i want to learn and share opinions, thought that was what this forum was about!?

[100LL]

Look yet another serious debate has ben ruined by our hard of thinking friend. Dont even bite. If you argue with an Idoit he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

""Squeegiee Longtail Got it in 1""

We (you lot) have gone on for 5 pages about how to identify a quiet engine!
The fact is that the thread starter is a prime example of what you guys are saying is dangerous - that to be a safe ME pilot you need to stay current. That means regular flying and regular training. The ME owner who more often than not thinks about the costs and stays at home, is surely the kind of guy who makes the statistics look scary.

[Fuji Abound]

You are not always going to get an immediate dead leg indication on some types so an assessment of all of the data is a perhaps a better approach to the situation.

I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise. In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.

[Pace]

>I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise. In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.<

Fuji

Regarding descent in twins I usually leave cruise power set and descend with 1000 fpm. This may take the aircraft into the yellow arc which is fine in clear air or stable type clouds. On approach again I use drag in various forms gear or flap and try to carry power to the flair point.

There are two reasons firstly to keep the engines warm but secondly so you are not in the awkward position of a closed throttle and finding there is nothing there when you need it. thirdly there is an arguement about clawing back the speed you lost in the climb sector by trading altitude for speed in the descent sector.

With a twin you do have the benefit that if one engine doesnt open up you have the other and can control your profile with the one engine . In a single that is more important and I never understand the wisdom of being high and coming down with a closed throttle. The argument being to keep high so that you can make the runway in the event of a failure. In a single better to train to look for other landing points left or right of the approach than fixating on a distant runway which has to be the killer.

To me that is a false conception. Better to have a powered approach with the other benefits of air over the wing roots and tail and better control over the touchdown point than the closed throttle.

More emphasis is placed in the climb out as that is the highest risk area, followed by the cruise which should be more procedural.

The descent does not hold such a high risk. Mainly because you can trade height for speed and the engines are not so stressed as in the full or climb power scenario. I remember in my single engine days being told to warm the engine every now and again when maybe it should have been to check that the unit was still running.

Finally especially in the bigger stuff it is normal to fly engine out for an ILS or other approaches engine out to touchdown in tests and I have had that in twins too. Any examiner worth his salt will put you through that and even ask for a go around from the flair single engine.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I agree with your comments.

However you will know in the real world unfortunately that is not always the comfortable way in which it works.

Here is the scenario. The descent is in IMC in a busy TCA and AT is calling the shots. They are calling the speeds and the heights so you dont have the luxury of descending at yellow line. Things get busy, perhaps with a bit of weather avoidance or the passenger checking out the bottom of the sick bag. There you go with AT telling you to turn left the long way around onto 140, descend to 4,000 and then best speed to Donald. As you roll out on heading up goes the power about the time you realise you are about to go through your assigned altitude (I know, I know you should have anticipated what was happening). Of course that is also the moment the aircraft rapidly rolls to the left in IMC just when you had no idea the engine was not going to respond and perhaps having missed the earlier subtle indications whilst at low power that something was adrift. Ah yes, if you were very unlucky maybe you have already taken one stage so as not to destabalise the approach you are about to intercept and for the same reason the gear is down. I agree, plenty of mistakes there but how often has that type of scenario happened when even an experienced pilot has got behind the curve.

[Pace]

>Ah yes, if you were very unlucky maybe you have already taken one stage so as not to destabalise the approach you are about to intercept and for the same reason the gear is down. I agree, plenty of mistakes there but how often has that type of scenario happened when even an experienced pilot has got behind the curve.<

Fuji with the risk of being shot at again (not by you :) do treat drag as a speed brake both so you can keep power on but in the event of an engine failure where you do not want that drag get rid of it :) ie flaps or gear as long as you have a safe margin of speed and height to do so.

Ie just as in the takeoff you clean up the aircraft as quickly as possible because you dont want the drag in the event of a engine failure dont become fixated on the approach configuration but clean it up if you need to on an engine failure in the approach descent.

Another reason to carry a clean approach speed rather than drag in at VREF landing flap from 4 miles out :)

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

(not by you

:):)

Yeah, I guess this is how it is:

In a twin you should be worrying the whole time you are going up or down which engine is about to let go and what you going to do about it, in a single you just worry the whole time. :O

So two engines just = a whole lot less worry and if you are not the worrying type two engines = not a lot.

[Pace]

(not by you) <

Fuji

By that I just meant you know what you are talking about :)

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise.


Because a power failure after takeoff when heaviest, lowest, and carrying the most power at the highest angle of attack...is the single most critical time during the course of the flight to lose an engine. That's why we train for that scenario, because we train for the worst-case scenario.

In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.


Far, far less critical than an engine failure during takeoff. If you can't arrest a descent, then one will continue to descend...one has altitude, one has a descent going...one is far better off than when one has no altitude to play with during the takeoff. Descent is far from the most dangerous time to lose a powerplant.

[Fuji Abound]

I commented that in GA we almost exclusively practise engine failures after take off and in the cruise but rarely if ever in the descent. I didnt comment on whether or not a failure after take off was the most dangerous phase.

However, a curent and astute pilot should be well aware of the risk during climb out. Potentially the same pilot is less aware of the risk during the descent particularly as he may not recognise any of the symptoms until the power levers come up.

Of course I was not talking about arresting a descent - my observation was regarding the unexpected roll as the power levers come up at a time when work load could be very high and you are least expecting an engine failure.

In short in every day reality for most GA pilots the climb out is in VMC nearly all of the time, the pilot is very well aware of the risk of an engine failure and such a failure will instantly manifest itself. Hopefully the pilot is well rehearsed and has a good chance of reacting correctly to the failiure. On the other hand there is I reckon more chance of a descent in IMC, more chance of the workload and other distractions being much higher during this phase than in the climb out when the pilot is fresh and has nothing much to worry about (AT is leaving him alone, he has his clearance, the passengers are behaving themselves etc), more chance of the pilot not realising what is going on as the pilot brings up the power levers in IMC in a right turn with gear and flaps set until it is too late.

[SNS3Guppy]

That's a fairly wild scenario, and I think a little thought-work on your part can reason out why it's just not an issue or one worth training for in a syllabus.

[Fuji Abound]

Ah yes, shame it is exactly what happened to one particular twin driver - go figure. Really weird indeed:

1. IMC in the descent,
2. A few vectors from AT,
3. Flaps and gear and speed changes.

Personally never things I do during the descent!

Anyway I am going to stick to my own rules - I shall keep on worrying whats happening any time I am in the climb out, or the descent into, always expecting the worst during these phases and leave everyone else to worry only during the climb out.

[Pace]

more chance of the pilot not realising what is going on as the pilot brings up the power levers in IMC in a right turn with gear and flaps set until it is too late.
Fuji

I think what you are getting at here is more to do with stall/spin situations.
ie getting slow while distracted in a banked turn with gear and flaps down especially in poor vis or cloud.

adding unequal thrust in a stall situation could flip you into a spin in a twin in that situation.

It is commonpractice to only go to the incipient stage when practicing stalls in twins at altitude for the very reason of powering up unequally.
You can get instructor/examiners who are old school and will go into fully stalled scenarios which in my opinion is the real deal.

Speed is your friend and I find it a good practice to carry speed during the approach phase and only come back to VREF when you are wings level and assured of landing.

Many airports require fast approaches to slot in with other traffic. In busines jets I like to hold 150 kts till about 6 miles out and then bleed back to 130 and then back to a typical VREF of 105 at 1/2 mile, but I have often had requests from ATC to maintain 160 kts till 4 dme.

Even in something like a seneca which has a gear speed of 129 kts and first stage flap of 140 there is no reason on earth (or in the sky :) to get below 120 kts initially and 100 kts until very short finals. The speed taking landing flap soon bleeds back to 80 kts for landing and you fly well above your blue line of approx 90 kts almost to the flair.

A lot is to do with knowing the aircraft and being comfortable. How many singles with an over the hedge speed of 65 kts do you see with landing flap and 70 kts all the way in because the pilots are nervous and want everything stable in the landing configuration to early?

Speed is your saviour in windshear as well as being distracted in a turn so maybe we should be talking about variable speed approaches and not getting to fixated with the stable approach so as to avoid the low and slow. To me a stable approach means a managed approach.

Stable approach can be a variable speed approach as long as it all comes good to VREF for the landing and that comes with practice and knowing the aircraft.

Fuji at the end of the day there is always a risk that any of us will loose the plot or have some awful flook happen while flying. I have lost five friends 2 of them 20000 hr very experienced guys so all we can ever do is our best and try and learn tips from others and its not always the highly experienced pilots who supply those tips.

Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

Pace

You said In a single that is more important and I never understand the wisdom of being high and coming down with a closed throttle. The argument being to keep high so that you can make the runway in the event of a failure. In a single better to train to look for other landing points left or right of the approach than fixating on a distant runway which has to be the killer.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I am a great believer in flying a short final at about 5-6 degrees in a single (throttle isn't closed, but little power is used), but also constantly looking for off airport landing options.

Also, there are far too many singles approaching at 70, when it should be 65, I agree it is derived from comfort, but one is trading aerial comfort for comfort during the landing roll - okay if you operate off a long strip, but not so clever on a short runway.

I don't have many hours and only a few on twins, but it seems to me that knowing the type and flying it accurately is important regardless of how many engines.

[Pace]

I don't have many hours and only a few on twins, but it seems to me that knowing the type and flying it accurately is important regardless of how many engines.

Especially with very low powered aircraft and low time pilots there is a big danger of getting on the back of the drag curve and a student not having the ability to deal with that situation or the power available to overcome the drag.

For that reason very low powered aircraft often make use of glide approaches where they are high on the profile. 5-6 degrees seems very steep?

But being high means that the student will usually be in a position to tap into potential energy and avoid a high drag low power situation which especially on low powered aircraft could occur with a powered approach.

So stick with what you are taught as my reference to powered approaches was more towards light twins and complex singles.

The problem I see with glide approaches is the fact that you are high on the profile. With power off and full flap should the winds change or the pilot misjudge the descent path to the touchdown point there is little he can do other than sideslipping or increasing speed to make the touchdown point.

Increasing speed holds the risk of arriving too fast or touching some way down the runway.

Glide approaches are argued for with the idea that you can make the runway if the engine quits. That is ok if you can but fixating on landing on the runway also brings its perils. I was taught in life no matter what you do to always have an OUT. Having one option is a game of russian roulette.

On more powerful complex aircraft and a powered approach the pilot can play with all the forces to control his speed and descent profile.

He also has the added benefit of knowing he has power rather than opening the throttle and finding none or landing with a stopped prop. On a powered approach the prop wash making the wings and tail surfaces more effective and an accurate touchdown on the numbers more likely.

Once you leave the VFR airport the usual glideslope is around 3 degrees.

Regarding accurate flying there is no reason why even in a 152 the aircraft cannot be flown down the slope at 80-85 kts reducing to 60-65 kts over the hedge. Get a big dollop of windshear and you will be glad of that extra speed as will the guy waiting to depart with someone calling finals 4 miles out at 65kts into a 15 kt headwind and the endless time it takes for him to land :)


Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

Pace

BTW my definition of low hours = a few hundred, so not high time, but not a complete newbie either.

I fly into a field with a 1 mile final and am happy to turn at 5-600 feet. The aircraft is a PA28 which will easily get in from there, but if I found myself uncomfortably high on final approach I'd go around, as self preservation wins over pride :E

RoD on final is about 550-600 fpm, unless headwind is unusually light, I can cope with this okay, one needs to monitor it carefully though.

I don't think this technique would work in every aeroplane however, the PA28 is quite draggy and also very easy to handle.

Once you leave the VFR airport the usual glideslope is around 3 degrees.

I learned with PAPI, but tend to disregard these when flying PA28s.

I appreciate your input, I shall have a good think about your points.

[Pace]

>I appreciate your input, I shall have a good think about your points.<

Final3Greens

Do remember they are only my points. That doesnt make them right ;) or right for you!

Above all only ever do what you are comfortable with and if its out of your comfort zone only with an instructor.

Take care

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace, indeed getting slow with asymmetry is a very real danger. I entirely agree that it is far better to stay in the speed comfort zone. However, accidents happen because we end up outside that zone. I was simply pointing out that the approach comprises all the factors that can result in pilots dropping out of that zone, perhaps even too a greater degree than the departure.

The contributory factors are:

1. Pilot(s) may be tired after a long flight,

2. The descent may be from VMC into IMC requiring a transition to instrument flying,

3. AT may be working the pilot hard,

4. The weather maybe a factor,

5. The pilot maybe running various procedures to configure the aircraft for the landing.

Contrast this with the climb:

1. The pilot is fresh,

2. The departure may be into IMC but flights with bases so low that the transition is quick are relatively less frequent than descents into IMC,

3. AT will almost always allow the pilot to manage the departure through the initial climb without “interference”,

4. The pilot is concerned with configuring the aircraft, but other than cleaning up the airframe most of the jobs can be left until the critical phase of the climb has been completed,

5. An astute pilot should be aware that an engine failure may occur during the climb out and mentally should be prepared to react to such a failure. Personally I think every MEP GA pilot should run a quick mental checklist immediately prior to departure of the actions he will take if there was an engine failure during the initial climb.