Myths of aviation deflated

[Ando1Bar]

Flicking through an AOPA Australia Pilot magazine from late last year, the title '8 common aviation myths' caught my eye. Unfortunately most of the myth buster explanations were vague but one in particular I found inaccuate: 'multi-engine airplanes are inherently safer than single-engine airplanes'.

An NTSB report a few years back report that light multi-engine aircraft are involved in fewer engine-related accidents than single-engine aircraft. However, the same report observed that an engine related accident is four times more likely to cause serious or fatal injuries. One could argue that in fact multi-engine aircraft are safer (less accidents), as long as a loss of control situation is not allowed to occur. But anyway, that is not the main point of my post...

The AOPA feature then went on to make the following statement:
"...if an engine fails in a multi-engine airplane the pilot must immediately and correctly respond to the situation by identifying the failed engine and feathering its prop. If the pilot does not quickly feather the prop - or worse feather the wrong prop - the airplane will VMC and enter a flat, unrecoverable spin."

Anyone see the inaccuracies in this statement? I'm surprised AOPA printed it. Or maybe my schooling has been incorrect...

[Lodown]

Ah yes! I see the inaccuracy...referring to the aeroplane in the yank terminology.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Its not rocket science!

Look at the facts - and assume we are talking piston engines light twins vs high performance piston engine singles - eg Aztec, C310, Baron vs Lance, C210, Bonanza!

In the twin you have 2 engines therefore you have twice the chance of having an engine failure - yeah, I figured that bit out for myself! Furthermore, it is well established that an engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in serious injuries or death, than an engine failure in a light twin.

In a high performance single you have half the chance of having an engine failure than you would if flying a twin and should you be unfortunate enough to have an engine failure, your chances of dying or suffering serious injury are substantially less.

Then remove the most common cause of engine failure in singles ie lack of fat for the fire, add a bit of decent maintenance, and an all-cylinder engine monitor - and driving to the aerodrome gets a bit scarey compared to flying a high performance single.

The decision tree for actions following and engine failure in a single are pretty stunted - park it!

Its a no-brainer really! High performance singles are significantly safer than comparable light twins!

:E

Dr :8

[the wizard of auz]

Light twins??? You ever try lifting one?.

[sms777]

Where are you Wally?
I do not think i can win this battle on my own :O

:E

[Ando1Bar]

I'm enjoying the way this debate is starting to unfold, but is the pilot's first job really to identify and feather the failed engine/prop? Isn't controlling the aircraft - yaw and airspeed - the first vital action?

Would feathering the wrong engine really cause a flat spin? Feathering the good engine would reduce the large amount of thrust therefore yaw normally generated, particularly at a slow airspeed. The aircraft would then in effect become like a single following an engine failure, however I accept the failed, unfeathered engine would generate some significant yaw. Stall the aircraft while yawing and it will spin, but if you controlled the aircraft in the first place and avoided reaching Vmc or a stall then this won't happen.

Feathering the wrong prop won't cause 'an aircraft to VMC :hmm:'. Not maintaining proper control will.

[AerocatS2A]

Yeah there's no reason why poor engine handling following an engine failure will cause a stall/spin/crash/burn/die situation. Provided the pilot pops the nose forward to maintain a safe airspeed, (s)he can arrive in a controlled fashion to the scene of the accident just as well as any single pilot can.

The danger with light twins is that they don't have a lot of single engine performance and pilots generally have the expectation that they'll be able to fly away from an engine failure even though that's not always the case. The multi-engine pilot has options, and when there are options there is always a chance that you'll take the wrong one. When things go pear shaped in a single though, you don't have any option other than finding a good place to crash.

Our after take-off engine failure drill was to control the aircraft, secure the engine, clean up the airframe and assess performance. If the performance is adequate, continue for a reland, if the performance is not adequate, use available power to make your way to a suitable crash site ahead of you.

[Howard Hughes]

Isn't controlling the aircraft - yaw and airspeed - the first vital action?
You bet!:ok:

I would go for airspeed first followed by directional control, without these two whether you feather the prop or not, you are probably gonna end up in a smouldering heap!

[puff]

Having flown both a Bonanza and a Baron, i'd far prefer to have an engine failure in the Baron at 9000 feet over tiger country than a Bonanza. But thats just me!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

puff, its all about risk management! Unfortunately, by chosing to fly a Baron, you accepted double the risk of having an engine failure - and your marble came up. I on the other hand, with half the risk that you accepted, didn't have an engine failure and had a totally uneventful flight over the tiger country! :E

Dr :8

[bushy]

Many of todays pilots have some strange ideas about flying twins, and many should stick to singles. American figures showed that people were less likely to die in twins as a result of an engine failure, but they were more likely to die in twins. These figures would almost certainly be different if the survey had been restricted to commercial pilots, as America had lots of business man pilots and they were using aeroplanes like cars. (the doctor in his bonanza was often quoted)
The workload is much higher in a twin, they are more complex and they often fly in conditions that single pilots would avoid. And when an engine fails they can get nasty if you don't do it right. (some singles can too)
It is necessary to practise engine failure drills and remain current, so you can prevent the nasty behaviour.
The same thinking that tells us to have lots of governments and 1500 politician in this country instead of one government and 100 pollies, also tells us to make twin training very complicated and intimidating, and this is counterproductive. We hear twin pilots saying "if an engine fails i will land straight ahead" and " don't practise that assymetric stuff, it's too dangerous"
If you are one of those, then stick to singles, and you will be safer.
But a twin, flown by a properly trained, current, competent pilot is more likely to reach it's destination safely than a single. That's why our airliners are multi engined.
In Alice Springs where the airfield elevation is 1800 ft AMSL and temperatures are often over 40 we had the humble Partenavia fly home on one ngine on two occasions, and I personally brought a chieftain home on one on a couple of occasions.
Twins CAN do it if the pilot is up to it. Singles cannot fly beyond their gliding range after an engine failure.
Accidents are nearly always caused by people, not aeroplanes.

[Tmbstory]

Look into the Part 23 and Part 25 aspects of certification, It has a role to play in safety


Tmb

[Pinky the pilot]

An interesting thread but I find it somewhat curious that no-one has as of yet picked up on one thing...
the airplane will VMC and enter a flat, unrecoverable spin."

Other than the obvious error, which should read VMCa it should be quite apparent that the latter part of the statement is somewhat erroneous, ie the flat spin part.

As someone who as part of his initial twin endorsement in a Seneca 1, had VMCa very well demonstrated (Thanks TK! It was a lesson well learned.:ok:)... a flat spin? No it fecking will not!!
What will happen is that the aircraft will, upon getting below VMCa, rapidly roll inverted!:eek:

After that, well, a spin may indeed develop. But it won't be flat! And if at low altitude....well the results can be imagined.:uhoh:

[Ando1Bar]

Pinky, I agree with your comments and was waiting for someone else to pick it up. The original quote I posted from Austin S. Collins I find amazing given he is an 'expert':

Austin is the chief pilot of Flight Express, a US based on-demand carrier specialising in light cargo, such as bank checks and medical specimens. He supervises about 50 full-time pilots and 85 airplanes (all Cessna 210s and Beech Barons).

More of his myth busters are in the Nov/Dec 2008 edition of Australia Pilot. I find AOPA's publication disappointing, and Austin's article didn't exactly help to change my mind.

[A37575]

Re light twin safety and engine failure after lift off. Now this is very much a personal viewpoint and it is a comment or better still a point to ponder. Easy on the criticism please if you are inclined to comment>

Once the landing gear is selected up and suddenly you lose an engine, the chances are you will climb away albeit a slow rate of climb, providing you feather the dead engine immediately. For every second you delay feathering and the prop is windmilling you will lose airspeed at the rate of around 1.5 knots per second. These are not hard and fast figures because it also depends how quickly you lower the nose toward level flight.

The flying school mantra of mixture, pitch and power up - identify the failed engine by dead side dead leg (or whatever ) then slowly pull back the throttle on the dead engine to confirm it is the correct one - is fine for initial twin training.

But going through all that with the airspeed decaying at 1.5 knots per second because the prop is windmilling, reduces your chances of a successful climb. The pulling back the throttle to confirm you have the correct dead engine was historically a procedure for a four engined aircraft. Not a twin.
Why? Because dead leg dead side gave you the side (port or starboard) but you still had to positively identify by other means, which engine of the two had given up the ghost. So NOW you slowly pull back the offending throttle to confirm which engine and you did it slowly so if you had the wrong engine you didn't crash due to a two engine VMCA event which is usually much higher than a one engine VMCA event.

Unless the POH states specifically to slowly retard the suspected engine throttle as a means of confirmation, then the act of slowly pulling back the throttle still loses you valuable feathering time and at a speed decay of a windmilling prop at 1.5 knots per second of delay the situation gets deadly serious.

You must get the action right first time. Dead side dead leg in a twin is a natural reaction to prevent further yaw and that is the primary instant means of identification. You then feather immediately.

If you have done your before take off checks correctly then no need to "confirm" full power on the live engine as presumably when the crook engine goes shortly after gear up you will already have full throttle anyway. It is essential to the success of the one engine inoperative initial climb that you dispense with the niceties of flying school training and get the dead engine feathered instantly and that you don't stuff around fiddling with mixtures, pitch controls and throttles and talking to yourself to ensure you get the order right.

No hysterical criticism please - just constructive comments.

[flywatcher]

A37375, very true indeed

[framer]

Not sure I agree with you A37 but as you said it is food for thought.
I think the actions of stepping on the ball (balance that is), and reducing pitch attitude to
to prevent airspeed decaying below your current Vyse if neccesarry, should be automatic and occur pretty much simultaneously with "rich pitch power gear up flap up" (assuming that taking the flap up is appropriate in that a/c) , and then you are left with "dead right leg dead right engine" or whatever you use, then feather. It's not much good addressing the drag factor of the prop if you have missed the drag factor of flap or gear. I have seen a pilot lose an engine in a hold and forget that they had flap out (cleared for the approach) because they didn't have a proceedure that addressed the different configuarations possible. He was highly loaded up and couldn't figure out the reason for the poor performance until he had lost 300ft.
So although I agree that feathering the prop qucikly is highly desireable, I think the risks of jumping straight into it without going through The flying school mantra pose more of a threat than the extra 2 seconds it takes to go through it. Just my thoughts, Regards Framer.

[tinpis]

Exactly Mr 37375, DEAD LEG,DEAD ENGINE, CORRECT LEVER? FEATHER,is all thats required initially
After you have stopped shaking, and the pax have turned back to a nice pax colour, all the other mumbo jumbo can be applied
I say it again, a Chieftan will climb on one at gross weight IF ITS CLEANED UP SMARTISH.If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him

[Peter Fanelli]

While statistics might suggest that increasing the number of engines increases the chance of an engine problem occurring I bet that Capt Sully would have given his left one for a couple more engines on his aircraft.

Bushy is right, flying piston twins DEMANDS a higher level of skills in an engine out situation. Many pilots flying multi engine have no business being there....yet.

[framer]

I say it again, a Chieftan will climb on one at gross weight IF ITS CLEANED UP SMARTISH.If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him Really? You would fire him? Wow....poor b@stard, he was probably just saying what he was taught to say too. Pity he didn't say it to someone else , instead of firing him they may have taken the time to teach him something.
PS I'd like to see a V1 cut in a Chieftan at MAUW on a hot day that climbed out, if you were on a massive billiard table you might reach circuit height at 30 miles.

[Cloud Basher]

Statistics, gotta love them! We all pretty much agree here on what is required as immediate actions and what to do when a twin has an engine failure on takeoff. In a single if you have an engine failure you WILL be landing, In a twin you do have a few more options if it is handled well.

However, ALL the statistics say is that if you have an engine failure in a twin and an engine failure in a single AND the twin "crashes" (the single will most certainly "crash"), then you are more likely to be killed in the twin. There is one simple reason for this - ENERGY.

A certifiied single has to have a stall speed of less than 61kts, a twin does not. There is a reason 61kts was chosen, it is not arbitrary, it has to do with the amount of energy that the human body can absorb before it suffers fatal injuries. 61kts is the magic number. In a twin you will almost definitely hit the deck faster than in a single and that energy has to be spent somewhere, and our hapless pilot who forgot to brush up on his EFATO drills or is flying a twin with 15 year old engines that are producing 80% of what they are rated for and so cannot maintain straight and level on one donk, WILL hit with more energy and so more people will die.

If you want to know the history of 61kts Google and the FAR's are your friend, but there is one person we can thank more than any other single bloke for study's on this (he subjected himself in his own studies to stuff that woud kill a normal human being - nearly) and the resultant reason for the 61kt "rule" can anyone name him? (Yes some aircraft now get around this rule by having more crash resistant seats givng an equivalent amount of energy delivered to the human body as you would in a 61Kt crash.

Anyway the moral of the story is if you have to crash be in a single. If you would rather have less chance of crashing in the first place, get a twin and lots of good recurrent training. BTW you can thank the recently retired Richard L. Collins of Flying magazine for the increased insurance premiums on your "less safe twins" from the work he did on the statistics throughout his career, and for it being accepted that singles are "safer" than twins - well at least by the insurance companies.

Cheers
CB

[bushy]

Singles ARE safer than twins if the pilots don't have the required sense, skills and recency.

[Stationair8]

When did PA-31/350's get a V1 speed?

One wonders how good your average pilot in a single engine aircraft would cope with a real engine failure, with no recent forced landing practice?

[Dog One]

V1 cuts in a Chieftain? What comic book did that come from. In my experience with Chieftains, none were certified to Transport category in Australia, because of the resultant loss of payload. In Normal category, there are only three speeds, Vtoss and the two single engine climb speeds. There is no gaurantee that a aircraft (@MTOW)will suffer an engine failure at Vtoss and continue to climb out, especialy now, taking into account the age of the airframes and the probability of the max MP being locked at 40" by some operators. back when they were new and the temp was below 15, maybe. Many years ago I suffered a complete engine failure in a Navajo at night close to max take off weight, and due to the low OAT of 10 degrees I got away with it.

I would like to hear this statement repeated in a Coroners Court after an EFATO accident.

"I say it again, a Chieftan will climb on one at gross weight IF ITS CLEANED UP SMARTISH.If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him"

It shows a gross lack of knowledge and inexperience.

[dragchute]

Controlling the aircraft is the first response. The application of mixture, pitch and power immediately after a suspected engine failure serves several purposes. (1) Restores controls to the required position to achieve full power. (2) Ensures the application of full power on the live engine. (3) Provides a common starting point for all engine failures – including low power failure in the base turn of an instrument approach for example. The drill takes less than one or two seconds to achieve.

CAR 3 and FAR 23 aircraft do not have the guaranteed performance of FAR 25 certification where decision speed will precede rotation speed.

Whilst some CAR 3 and FAR 23 manuals may express Vsse or hint at some other value, the manufacturer is really skirting the issue. It falls back to the pilot to select Vdec and most pilots will adjust that to suit the runway length, not the performance capabilities of the aircraft, hence the high number of Vmca accidents after take-off. 'Commercial pressure'. If you don’t have enough time to complete the drills and feather, then your selected Vdec is too low. In reality a superior pilot would probably select a speed closer to Vyse as his or her Vdec and have a margin of safety to allow for speed loss to Vx during the EFATO drill. Less experienced pilots would select a higher value.

An engine failure after take-off in a light twin will leave only one decision if speed and altitude are low – the same decision that is faced by a single engine aircraft pilot following failure. The difference is that the latter will have a more crash resistant airframe (FAR 23 criteria), a lower stalling speed and perhaps a substantial undercarriage and large cargo pod and to absorb the impact!

Your decision to ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ should not be influenced commercial pressures imposed by the operator.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Seems like the original claim re flat spinning MIGHT be possible in an engine failure in cruise.

If an aircraft (with normally aspirated engines) loses and engine at altitude then the stall will happen BEFORE VMCa is reached due to the reduced power available. An assy stall will lead to a spin and left to its own devices could go flat depending on a range of factors...CofG etc.

Its a little hard to comprehend a pilot just sitting there and letting it happen but there are pilots out there who you wouldn't give command of a kite to just like there are plenty of car drivers who shouldn't be.

As to which is safer, twin or single, that is a purely financial question. If a pilot/owner/operator is prepared to spend the money to gain and MAINTAIN the skills required and MAINTAIN the aircraft in excellent condition then a twin is 'safe'...and I would argue SAFER than a single. If not they are deadly.

In Talair, one of the last, if not THE last, large piston twin fleet operators (from memory 20 Islanders, 13 C402s, several Barons, 14 odd twin Otters and 11 odd bandits - 2 Dash 8s) in the Australia/Pacific, a twin endorsement (even the Islander) was several days ground school, 3+ hours endorsement and between 10-50 hours of ICUS. This of course depended on a huge range of variables - initial Islander for a new pilot or Twotter/Bandit command (they were all operated SP) for a senior and experienced company pilot with a known track record. The training pilots all had VAST experience on the type and ME SP ops generally...5000-10000 hrs ++.

Recurrent training was 6 monthly and consisted of at least an hour with several engine failures and encompassed your IR renewal. Of course we were professional pilots flying the aircraft all day every day in bush/mountain ops that tended to lead to better than average handling skills.

To keep a private twin owner/pilot 'safe' I would reckon on 2-3 hours every 3 months with a highly experienced ME instructor pilot (getting rare these days but they exist) would about do it assuming the ppl concerned was average in the skills department. A really good piston twin simulator (which do exist) would be ideal but if not then in the aircraft. It goes without saying that unless the skills are demonstrated to a high level the rating is NOT issued.

The fly in the ointment is the quality of instruction. I have lost count of the number of 1st hand accounts I have heard of truly bizarre **** being passed off as 'fact' in sundry piston twins...Aerostars being flown as if they are transport Cat Jets as just one example. Let alone box ticking endorsements that let poor pilots loose in demanding aircraft.

Two experiences I had when renewing my Oz IR in the late 80s/early 90s while on leave from PNG was one young ME instructor going three shades of peuce when I slowed below blue line on finals to land and another well intentioned chap who gave a 'Vmca demo' at altitude which resulted in a most spectacular assy stall...lucky he had the skills to recover even though he didn't understand what he was actually demonstrating:ugh:

In those days I held Islander/402/404/PA60 C&Ting qualifications in PNG and attempted to correct these bizarre training flaws…whether they modified their behavior longer term I have no idea.

In the first case Tts/Vref is 1.3 Vs no matter on one or two engines and Vmca is a takeoff consideration (arguably GA too) and once you're below 300 odd feet on approach you're NOT going around and that at typical assy approach power settings Vmca < Vs.

In the second case I explained what he was REALLY demonstrating and showed him how to safely and, importantly, accurately demo Vmca at altitude by limiting rudder travel to get the same (usually quite gentle) uncontrollable yaw at something akin to red line speed. A Vmca loss of control is NOT a assy snap roll.

As I said above the twin v single debate is PURELY a cost issue. One is not inherently safer than the other. While you're (theoretically) more likely to have an engine failure in a twin vs a single I have had about the same number of piston twin engine failures as single engine failures (although only a small fraction, maybe 20%, of my piston TT is SE) but in every case, in twins, I flew around and landed normally (shaking like a leaf afterwards) and in singles I force landed with varying success/levels of damage but never any injuries.

Technique?

I was taught, and taught to others, the old faithful mixture/pitch/power/wheels up/flaps up/identify/verify/feather mantra but agree with whomever above said that this may not be appropriate to EVERY situation or to every stage of the takeoff/flight. Not 1 of my real piston engine failures followed the training script...NOT 1.

A real engine failure will only be like a training engine failure if you have run a tank dry (losing all induction air will do it too)...that isn't a system failure that is a system behaving EXACTLY as it was designed to behave.

1/. Islander (chocker block full - and then some) in cruise at 9000' (over water a LONG way from land) 3 out of 4 magnetos begin to break down...the only mags that have EVER given me grief in my entire career:hmm: Both engines were alternately losing power and the aircraft was gently yawing both left and right...although the left engine started several minutes before the right. EGT/CHTs both dropping dramatically and no amount of fiddling with mixture etc could fix it...I initially thought I was too lean...eventually the left engine stopped and I feathered it and the right kept going through a drift down and landing after reaching land and following the coast to my destination at very low level always ready to land on a beach/in the water if the right gave more grief. Engineers replaced 3 magnetos...they were toast.

2/. C402a (not that much below MTOW) taking off from an old wartime coastal strip (Finchafen) in typical wet season weather, heavy rain/500' cloudbase...wheels have just retracted and flaps traveling (< 50' off the ground - trees between me and the sea - probably 5-10kts over blue line) and the left engine dies completely and then roars back to full power, dies again, full power etc. The aircraft was yawing BOTH ways dramatically...no dead leg/dead engine.

Did I fall back on the old training mantra and methodically work my way through 5 steps that were already done and one that was useless (dead leg etc)?

Nope.

The way I came to look at that mantra over the years was more as things to check off rather than actually DO them mindlessly again AFTER a failure. The point made in a previous post about the retardation of throttle being a 4 engine procedure is a very good point (that had never occurred to me). In a piston twin MP/RPM may not give any worthwhile indications.

My open hand had pushed everything, and was holding everything forward at the first sign of trouble. I had already selected wheels/flaps up and heard them thump into position and the indications confirm up...by the time the left engine had died the second time I had decided it was the problem child (the aircraft yawed left first) so I quickly identified my hand was on the correct lever and closed the left throttle/feather left and left mixture cut off. As was my habit in those days, and still when in this class of aircraft, I had gone for speed as soon as wheels off rather than altitude so I gently pitched up and rolled the left engine a bees dick up and decelerated to/nailed blue line speed. I cleared the trees (by **** ALL) and then ground my way out to sea barely climbing...5nm to get to 3-400' just below the cloud base and then level off, trim, tidy up, notice how badly my right leg was shaking on the peddle, turn around and fly a bad weather circuit, land and call on HF for a rescue aircraft/engineers...they removed a lump of perished rubber aux fuel tank from the system.

3/. Pa60-680P Aerostar (possibly a 100kg, or so:ok:, over MTOW:E) Again just wheels up and traveling 10kts or so faster than Vyse and accelerating fast. Left engine fire warning and dramatic, although not complete, loss of power on the left engine. If I land straight ahead wheels up its REALLY rough ground and the aircraft will cartwheel/break up. The aircraft has fire warning but no fire suppression...wing will burn off in minutes if it really is on fire.

Revert instantly into the training mantra?

Nope.

Everything to the stops (open palm of hand and push everything together - its already there anyway)...wheels and flaps are already up...the left engine is developing SOME power so leave it running...pitch up gently and nail Vyse...roll the left engine up a bees dick (think "left engine again?") and watch left cowl/upper wing intently. No bubbling paint or sundry other indications of fire...its NOT on fire...climb straight out to about 500' in about a minute or two, fly a circuit, shut down/feather left engine on downwind and land. Remove cowls to find outboard bank of left engine exhaust system has fallen off engine (corroded helicoils) blowing raw exhaust on fire probe and killing off the power.

None of the above is meant to indicate god like skills on my part rather excellent initial/recurrent training, experience and and luck. Lucky these things didn’t happen at numerous PNG strips where I would likely have died no matter the skill demonstrated.


dragchute you would apply full power on the good engine turning base, either visually or IAL base, in the case of a lower power failure?

I think that would be a great way to stuff up the rest of the approach.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And also,

Please DO confirm that the gear has indeed 'come on up'!!

Doing an abinitio many years ago in a Twin Comanche - God bless it - I selected the 'Gear Up' knob ok, (so I thought) but did not confirm that it had risen.:eek:
...so as we continued a very slow descent / attempt at 'level flight' out at Camden, with 'that hill' approaching, I looked at 'Him' and asked what had He done to prevent this aeroplane from at least climbing a little....:confused:

Of course He denied all knowledge and left it to me a little longer....the little mirror on the engine nacelle said it all, and I moved that little switch UP to ITS FULL UP position....and low and behold.....
We both breathed again.

Just a point that sometimes 'more haste - less speed'...

:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Like a trainee I once had on the 402...straight off 1000+ hrs Islander...departed on first line training/ICUS flight to the dulcet tones of his whining about what a piece of crap the 402 was and how he thought they climbed better than this, etc...I just sat their pondering 3 green lights...he didn't notice for ages:}

And for clarification I am not suggesting 'rushing' merely not doing stuff twice.

[megle2]

I think the book indicates a S/E climb at ISA / sea level of 230fpm.

So thats the best Mr Piper could come up with in their sales push.

Now about 30 years later with an aged aircraft probably with vortex generators, a pilot low on experience and at best a good endorsement with no recurrency training since, operator max weight, he / she departs on a summers day and experiences an engine failure.

You could use two examples
Darwin for one as its been in the news lately
Toowoomba as it has plenty of Chieftain traffic and a higher elevation

So thirty years ago we got 230fpm
So what do we get today - stuff all I'd say.

[Chimbu chuckles]

megle2 this 'old worn out 30 yr old piston twins' rhetoric is a bit silly.

Either the engines produce rated power or they don't and either the airframe is rigged properly or its isn't

If they don't/it isn't the aircraft is not airworthy and shouldn't be flown period. If they do/ it is the aeroplane will perform pretty much as it did when new.

None of the piston twins I used to fly were new...they were all at least 15-20 years old/had massive airframe TTs...and they flew just fine.

[framer]

V1 cuts in a Chieftain? What comic book did that come from.

heh heh fair enough, it's been a few years since I didn't have a V1!

The point I was trying to make is I say it again, a Chieftan will climb on one at gross weight IF ITS CLEANED UP SMARTISH.If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him
the first part of that quote is not always true and the second part displays a poor attitude.
Cheers

[Mach E Avelli]

When we are dealing with aeroplanes that don't meet transport aircraft certificated engine-out performance standards, imho the safest ones are those with the lowest stall speeds, regardless of engines. Thus the safest twin is probably something like the BN2 Islander and the safest single something like a Cub. There are also some very safe recreational aircraft such as the Lightwing and Savannah because they have good crash protection and very low stall speeds.
High performance singles with all the engine monitoring gizmos may be wonderful things while they are working as advertised, but if the crankshaft breaks, I wanna be hitting the trees/water/rocks at 35 knots or less. I do not want to be in some twin going down at 90 knots because the poxy thing isn't controllable at any less speed and while I can't remember the minimum approach speed of a C210 or Bonanza, I do know it's too bloody fast for hitting stuff.
You can spout all the statistics you like about how engine brand X only fails once in a million hours, but with my luck.......

[megle2]

Chuck

" None of the piston twins I used to fly were new...they were all at least 15-20 years old/had massive airframe TTs...and they flew just fine ".

Yes thats correct and they had experienced engineers / pilots totally familliar with the task plus your training system as you pointed out.

Different to the average Chieftain / pilot running around these days.
Some are as you described and there are plenty who are not.

So how many fpm do you think we will achieve?
And don't think for a minute that all the predominantly young Gen Y drivers have your knowledge, experience and confidence.

[tinpis]

Framer, of course that must have been it, over 30 years ago, two engine failures in a PA 31 350 both gross weight both out of Adelaide (well one in the winter but in IMC) both circle back to land successfully.
Tell us about your ditching?

[Richo]

It's an interesting argument, and it would seem to have a few different ways of looking at it. But for me the argument is not about how, when or who taught you your immediate action drills, but what you do with the information that you do have.

For me it's about DECISION MAKING and ensuring that each pilot has the skills to make appropriate decisions given the (sometimes unique) situation in which he/she finds themselvs.

Tinny, I have a lot of respect for you and your experiance, but I do not agree with your statement (I will put it down to an off batch of green cans, hay). If the appropriate decision was to land straight ahead, maybe because of some minor (or major) condition that existed then surely that is the right decision. Expecting guys to just go because of "If you Don't, I'll.." well that is just wrong. I remember a guy in Darwin back in the 80's who used to MAKE guys go around in the 310 when (simulated) on one engine.

This type of flying programs pilots with the WRONG thinking.

The right thinking is to give them the skills and necessary information and ability to make good appropriate DECISIONS given what ever the situation they are confronted with.

I note that someone mentioned capt Sulley (USAIR A320), I bet that those passengers were glad that he had the ability to make decisions that were not just reciting something from the book. He assessed and made the most appropriate decision given the circumstances (luck included).


So are Twins safer that singles?

Most of the time they provide a MUCH greater safety margin, that safety margin is slighter (some say negative) in one phase of flight, that bieng the after TO engine failure case. This area is suspetable to many issues such as those well pointed out already by posters such as Bushy. But as also pointed out the single engine driver is in a much bigger world of hurt and has a much larger probability of having not practiced and EFATO in a very long time.

I do agree with the US AOPA bit about statistics, but the Quote about "Mishandeled the failure" needs to be in perspective, I ,mean how many of the single engine EFATO were mishandeled as well.

Bottom line...

Failure in a twin between say VMCa and 300ft", I have some decisons to make.
Failure in a single (at any height), I have emergency procedures to follow which will (almost) ALWAYS result in a forced landing (it's just the time that changes with height).



All the best and do some reading on making good DECISIONS

Richo

[Chimbu chuckles]

And don't think for a minute that all the predominantly young Gen Y drivers have your knowledge, experience and confidence.

I wasn't born with it either.

Was just discussing this thread with a mate on skype who owns a 33 year old piston single, I have a 39 year old piston single (in bits at present:( ) have other mates with 45-55 year old piston aircraft and ALL of them fly at least as well as they did when new...some better after engine upgrades (in my aircraft's case new it had an IO520 now it has an IO550).

If a Chieftain wont climb on one at a specific location under ambient conditions NOW it wouldn't have when it was new either.

A while back the above mate and I were discussing these type of issues and in pondering the extremely negative light in which piston twins are held these days I could only come up with the following.

Most Gen X/Y get the bulk of their 'knowledge' from places like this...the internet. When I was in my early/mid 20s the internet was still a long way off...so were PCs for that matter. Of course there were always dickheads who spouted off about this aeroplane or that without any first hand knowledge but they didn't have the all pervasive influence of the WWW.

So many people have written stuff along the lines of 'these worn out 30 yr old heaps of **** won't climb on one....etc etc etc...dangerous blah blah...flat spin blah blah' and young inexperienced pilots believe it. As a result they are mentally ill equipped to fly these aircraft... so negative it leads to an almost self fulfilling prophesy.

"Why bother learning to do something really well/precisely/maximising my knowledge when this heap of **** my bastard of a boss is forcing me fly:rolleyes: just won't go if I lose one...yeah the book says 230'/min in ISA/MSL but that was 30 years ago...I know better...piece of rubbish...blah blah"

The way we were taught back in the day was "look the book says X'/min ISA/MSL and it WILL do that but if its hot/high/heavy you wont get that BUT if you do X.Y and Z and fly precisely you will probably be able to climb or at least maintain height...even if you're only maintaining altitude/climbing at 50-100'/min that aint crashing...and if despite your best efforts it really won't even maintain height, then maintain speed/control and look for the softest thing in front of you to hit"

Its a completely different mindset.

If I was departing some outback strip mid summer and lost an engine at say 100-200' (to high to land straight ahead and stop on runway) in a Baron/Chieftain and ALL i could do was maintain altitude I would 'happily' fly around on one engine at 100-200' until fuel exhaustion before I would give up and crash off airport. If it took me 30 or 60 minutes to eak out a few hundred feet more altitude to slowly creep around and get back to the airport (or a road) then that was what I would do and I would give the aeroplane an affectionate pat when I landed again.

ALL my piston twin time is in the tropics (ISA+15-20) and flying with big loads. On those occasions when I did lose an engine the aeroplane looked after me because I gave it every opportunity to do so. The same applies to mates who experienced similar...A mate took off in a 404 allegedly 400kgs over MTOW, lost an engine just after gear up, flew a circuit and landed at ISA + 20. I am NOT saying he climbed to 1000' and did a flying school circuit and landing...but he didn't end up in the trees/water either.

Some one gave Toowoomba as an example of a terrible place to lose an engine in a Chieftain.

Why?

You get up high enough to clear the roofs and trees (100'?) and the terrain falls away off both runways...you dont even have to climb just fly away level and land somewhere else...Oakey as an example.

There is only the briefest time on takeoff in a decent piston twin (I am NOT talking Seminole/Twin Comanche) when you're truly exposed...with good technique you're talking probably < 15 seconds when a complete loss of power probably ends end in scraped paint/dented metal.

A Vmca loss of control is pure incompetence.

If you fly around thumb in bum/mind in neutral in a Baron/Chieftain/other then, YES, eventually the aeroplane will probably hand you your ar$e...but that is YOUR fault not the aeroplane's.

[Dog One]

One of the aspects not fully appreciated by a lot of newer pilots is the ground distance covered to climb to 500'. In the example of the Chieftain, which had similar performance to the 402B, 230 fpm at a blue line speed of 109 kts = roughly 1 mile per 100'. Depart 17 at EN and you would be over the bay before you got to 500' after turning slightly left to avoid the Westgate Bridge. Any turns would reduce the rate of climb to zero.

Chuck, I would venture to say that in PNG, the 402's would have be set up to give max MP in the event of a failure. In Australia, a lot of operators adjusted the waste gates so that the maximum MP was up to 5" below max allowable, in the belief they were saving wear and tear on their engines. That 5" of MP could equate to 40 hp and the difference between 230 fpm and - 200 fpm.

There has been several fatal accidents in both C402's and Chieftains in the past due to this procedure.

[Chimbu chuckles]

If that is the case, and I take your word for it, that is criminal negligence. Deaths that resulted from that practice would not be accidental deaths but murder.

An operator who even suggested it should be reported to CASA and lose their AOC.

An aeroplane so ****** with is NOT airworthy and should not be flown period.

Can I make myself any clearer?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

a lot of operators adjusted the waste gates so that the maximum MP was up to 5" below max allowable, in the belief they were saving wear and tear on their engines

That being the case, I would have written up the Maintenance Release and grounded the aircraft for not delivering full power (per the book) on TO!

Dr :8

[A37575]

In those days I held Islander/402/404/PA60 C&Ting qualifications in PNG and attempted to correct these bizarre training flaws…whether they modified their behavior longer term I have no idea

PNG high density altitude airports require that most piston types mixture be leaned to ensure full power on take off otherwise power is degraded due excessively rich mixture. Armidale NSW means similar engine handling principles may apply.

If an engine fails just after take off and you immediately whack both mixture levers to full rich as per flying training teaching, then the live engine loses power. So you have to be careful not to make blind engine control selections just because its the way you were taught.

[Chimbu chuckles]

A37 I am sure you meant to write '...normally aspirated piston types require mixture to be leaned for full power...':ok:

Which of course doesn't apply to the 402/404/PA60-680 but certainly did on the islander.

I did my BN2 type rating at Mt Hagen (elev 5400'/ISA+20-25) in a 260hp Islander. The last exercise was an engine failure after takeoff, full shutdown/feathered circuit (initially set zero thrust and then feathered the prop on downwind), go around and a further circuit and landing. Don Fraser was the training pilot...a true gentleman of ENORMOUS experience. He'd probably been in Talair 15+ years at that stage, the vast majority of that time based in the highlands (he hated the coastal weather).

I wasn't even a Talair employee until a year later...was working for Simbu Aviation. They sent me to Talair and I stayed 5 days with Don and his Mrs flying with him on normal revenue flights in between sessions of circuits and HOURS and HOURS of book work in the evenings and pertinent discussion at the dinner table and over beers. A couple of years later Talair sent me back to Don for my 402 endorsement in Mt Hagen...it was a repeat of the BN2...then minimum 10 hours ICUS back in my home base.

You could not ask for better quality training.

[bushy]

Thank you for those posts.
As always you have summed up the situation very well. There are lots of myths out there, and you have debunked many of them.

[tinpis]

Poor old Don. He started in Wewak as a the rooky pilot in 1974/5.Lived in the Donga next door .Went AWOL after leave and turned up like a lost puppy about a year later as if nothing had happened :ok:
Does anyone reading in know how he is doing?

[framer]

Framer, of course that must have been it, over 30 years ago, two engine failures in a PA 31 350 both gross weight both out of Adelaide (well one in the winter but in IMC) both circle back to land successfully.
Tell us about your ditching?

Tin thats great. I'm not saying that a Chief can't fly away on one engine. What I am saying is that there are circumstances where it won't and your statement of If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him"
indicates a crappy attitude to training and your employees.
I imagine it's not really a true indication of your attitude and Richo had it right when he said you had been exposed to a bad batch of green cans!
Think how vastly different the act of firing someone for saying that is from the training that Don gave Chimbu.....
Anyway, enough of that.
Nice fishing trip on the ditching in Darwin but no, not me, I've been out of the Territory for more than five years now, my immediate actions on losing an engine now days is to simply fly the plane until 500ft, easy:)
Have a good day mate, Framer

[the wizard of auz]

The company in Broome that uses Chieftains used to regularly do a circuit on one at MTOW on some pretty hot and humid days. I saw three in about three weeks. :E
I hope they fixed that left engine. It was scary just listening to it taxi past.

[HarleyD]

The single versus twin argument is another one one in which too may pilots let their egos and personal experience and/or expectations dictate dogma.

The simple fact, supported by statistics (yes I know) is that in general aviation, most passengers are safer in a single engine aircraft than a twin.

The argument rage on both sides and many are valid – e.g. twins do more of the hazardous/IFR etc work, granted, but also consider that these aircraft are generally flown by more experience CPL pilots whilst most singles are flown by less experienced pilots, and the private pilots are also included in these statistics. At the end of the day you are more likely to be killed or injured in a twin accident that a SE one., too many considerations to list.
Mac Job wrote some interesting articles regarding this matter, and he is no fool be assured. I have researched this topic extensively and ALL the evidence is that “in general” the single is usually safer. Having said that there are obviously times when this is in fact NOT the case, and the twin is the place to be, but statistics are based on a wide range of accidents under different circumstances.

The twin/single arguments are in general as fallacious as the arguments that allow helos to operate with less restrictions than FW ACFT, they sound good and are easily accepted by the uninformed, but not borne out by the actual statistics.

Direct Anywhere, Pinky, and Ando
And any others that don’t think that a flat spin can result from a Vmc departure:

“December 04, Rosamond, Calif. / Wing Derringer At 0854 Pacific time, a Wing Aircraft D-1 crashed in the desert about 11 nm from Rosamond. The ATP certificated instructor and student pilot were killed. The student was enrolled in a preparatory course at a civilian test pilot school prior to beginning an 11-month-long test pilot program. The accident flight was part of the course’s multiengine aircraft familiarization training and, according to the lesson plan and flight card, was to include stalls and Vmc maneuvers. Investigators used airport surveillance radar from the High Desert Tracon at Edwards AFB to identify the flight track of the accident airplane. The airplane’s track indicated maneuvers between 6,000 and 5,200 feet msl over…” ( can’t find full article)

This Instructor Pilot on this aircraft was a highly experienced ex Military pilot with a strong flight test background, he was familiar with the aircraft, an experienced Flight Test Instructor conducting a serial sortie for an established highly reputable Test Pilot School. In the full article that I couldn’t find, the accident analysis shows that the aircraft impacted in the attitude of a flat spin after descent from 6000 ft.I had met this pilot whilst at FRI/NTPS conducting a famil course and can attest to his credentials. I was shocked when only a few weeks later I heard of his death in this accident.

I am not sure why you some of you guys/girls think you know more about this stuff than the real experts, it is real, can bite and better men than you have been killed by it

HD

[Ando1Bar]

My argument was never that an aircraft won't flat spin when Vmc has been reached. My gripe was the comment a flat spin will occur if the wrong prop is feathered. It sent out the wrong message to those pilots without the experience we've seen throughout this thread.

[Wally Mk2]

"sms777" don't worry buddy I'm right behind you keeping you upright whilst the SE believers are bashing away at you:E Only trouble is Wmk2 is tired (hence I ain't here that much anymore) of being beaten himself by the Mods over the slightest thing that gets the hairs up on the back of their necks so I stay out of it all now & watch the peanut gallery from the side lines:} But I guess I am human & will add some basic words here. I know as well as a few others that twins are safer, but it's about choice:-) For me I'd rather be in a twin at night in IMC over tiger country than in ANY single. I have a choice if one fails, may not be a brilliant choice but with a SE you have NO choices but to go straight to the scene of the accident guarenteed!:ok:



Wmk2:)

[bushy]

If you feather the prop on a chieftain when the engine is running at full power you will probably rip that engine out of it's mounts and have bigger problems.
It happened at Liegh Creek (I think) a long time ago.
A perfectly serviceable chieftain was wrecked with two pilots on board. One had checked the oil and apparently not put the cap back on properly so that oil was visible coming out of the engine in flight. They went through the shutdown drills and feathered the wrong prop. That action ripped the engine out of its' mounts. The aircraft "landed" off airfield very bent. Both pilots survived.

[tinpis]

Framer
crappy attitude to training and your employees
and....

Think how vastly different the act of firing someone for saying that is from the training that Don gave Chimbu....

Who do you suppose did some of Dons training?

Retirement suits me dont it? :rolleyes:

Have a nice day.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Since my old FS days, I thought the second engine was fitted to light twins to transport you to the crash site.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well now, TIEW, you know better:ok:

framer, while I should let tinny dig his own holes, my impression was that he was suggesting termination for a pilot who, despite all training, made a bad decision based on old wife's tales.

Professional pilots are trained as they are to provide them with the skills/knowledge needed to make good decisions...if they then make bad decisions disregarding that training then action needs to be taken. That action can follow essentially one of two paths..and I am assuming that the quality of the initial training was up to speed, which sometimes it isn't...retraining or termination.

It is said quite correctly that our decision making should be guided by;

1/. Safety
2/. Pax comfort
3/. Economy

Some people then believe that ANY decision they make that they believe was made with the above in mind can never be questioned on any level.

Pure unadulterated BS...you MUST be able to justify ANY decision you make and if the company doesn't like your decision and you wont back down claiming some inalienable right to ignore SOPs/aircraft certification standards etc just because 'you believe' then you better be prepared to look for alternative employment.

Had I been convinced, despite my training, that 'these old junkers...etc' and made the decision to not keep that 402 in the air and make it max perform I would have ended up in the trees...not safe, not comfortable for the pax and definately not an economical alternative for my employer...particularly if there had been fatalities.

What about if the Aerostar engine fire indication was real and the engine was on fire? (ignoring for a minute what we discovered after landing was causing the fire)

Well immediately shutting down the engine in this case would have silenced the fire indication (it silenced when I shut the engine down on downwind) but what if not?

In this case I had 3 options...a mile so after the rough ground was Bootless Bay...I could ditch there right next to a B17 that did similar in WW2. There was the Magi Hwy...could land there. Or a dumb bell turn and land downwind on a very long runway.

I did have the performance to do a procedure turn of sorts and land back on the runway. Both other options would take about the same or even slightly longer to do...so how would I justify landing on a road and risking hitting traffic or ditching in Bootless Bay and destroying valuable cargo?

I would be hard pressed.

The recent A320 Hudson river ditching is instructive...they made all the right decisions and subsequent simulation proves that but if subsequent simulation/investigation showed the could have made a runway with height to spare they would be on the receiving end of VERY pointed questions and no amount of 'I believed' would cut the mustard.

Another example.

Pilot of large jet transport with hundreds of pax flying A-B suffers X system fault and diverts/lands back at A. Safe? yes. Pax comfort? Well no because they are not at B. Economy? No - pilot just cost company cubic money.

Pilot gets called to justify his actions.

why did you divert to A when X happened?

Because I thought X+1 might happen.

Did you do the X non normal checklist?

No

Did you do the X+1 checklist?

No.

Why?

Because X+1 didn't happen.

Are you aware that X happens from time to time and the X system is designed with that in mind, and there is an X checklist that indicates this, and further X+1 essentially cannot happen unless X+2 is also occurring?

Ummm.

So given what we have told you and given what it says in the XYZ publications would you handle X differently in the future?

No because I believe I took the safest course of action.

Is that belief justified?

I would argue not.

[tinpis]

framer, while I should let tinny dig his own holes, my impression was that he was suggesting termination for a pilot who, despite all training, made a bad decision based on old wife's tales.

What chucky said
My dad never wasted money on me edjamacation :uhoh:

[framer]

Sounds good guys:ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

Bushy; The Chieftain incident to which you refer ocurred at Innamincka.

Harley D; Thanks for the excerpt from the article. To your recollection, does the article/report state that the flat spin ocurred as a direct result of the VMCa excercises?

[Stationair8]

In the early 60's when the first generation of light twins appeared on the scene, how friends in America decided on doing some rather risky training and therefore a very high accident rate developed.

Talking to people like the late John Lindsay of DCA/CAA/CASA and various GA companies, you certainly were left wondering why more people weren't killed in the USA. The American AOPA magazine covered some of the training issues as well that evolved through stupidity, arrogance and a culture of the time.

One of John's favourite stories was of the recently retired ace military instructor working at the local FBO doing initial twin endorsements in the PA-30 and this included stall and VMC demonstrations conducted at circuit height, engine failures at lift-off and then feathering the engine, most landings with a feathered engine, missed approach from low level with feathered engine and engine failures by turning the fuel off. Unfotrunately the gentleman killed himself and a student when a VMC demonstration went wrong and the aircraft crashed into a feild on the downwind leg of the aerodrome. Another instructor at the school who had come of B17's etc, taught his students to get airborne at minimum speed and then hold the aircraft down until the end of the runway(5000') and then climb away.
Likewise that story from the UK where the PA-23 Apache rolled on its back during a simulated engine failure after take-off on a instrment renewal.

No wonder Piper and Beechcraft spent time and money developing the Duchess and Seminole with a VMC below stall speed.

[werbil]

My $0.02

Engines are mechanical items and on average will fail once in x hours - fuel starvation / exhaustion excluded.

If you have two of them on the one aircraft, on average you will have fail once in x/2 hours, and both fail once in x * x hours compared to the same model of engine fitted to a single.

For over 99% of the time, if one engine fails in a twin and providing the pilot acts correctly a landing on a runway is assured.

For the remaining less than 1% of the time, if the situation is seriously mishandled or if two engines fail you are probably better off in a single for crashworthiness reasons as they fly slower, generally glide better and have a significantly larger percentage of their mass in front of the cabin.

The hard question IMHO is the safety of piston twin vs ASEPTA single operations - turbines have a much lower MTBF, the airframes are required to meet much high crashworthiness standards, and flight time distance limitations from suitable airports apply. In another 20 years there may be enough accident data to statistically compare the comparative safety of the two options.

Personally, I'm in the if your time is up your time is up camp.

[bushy]

You're right. It was innaminka. And the engine failure drills went wrong.
I think Beechcraft have some very simple and sensible advice. They say the first action in the event of an engine failure is ALL SIX LEVERS FORWARD. You can do that in one action. That simplifies things and saves some time, and errors.
The old pitch up pwerup gear up etc takes time, and seems to forget enriching mixture.(is that what happened at Whyalla)
Another of Beechcraft's wise sayings is MANY ACCIDENTS ARE CAUSED BY AIRPLANES STALLING. PILOTS SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO PREVENT THEIR AIRCRAFT FROM STALLING. Simple and obvious, but so tragically true.

[bushy]

If you cannot make a Cheftain do what the book saysi it can do, you should let someone else fly it.

[framer]

Geeze Wayne! Can't you guys accept that not every combination of
a/c weight
ambient temperature
humidity
c of g
engine condition
airframe condition
phase of flight
wind / turbulence
results in a light twin being able to perform a climb exactly as the manufacturers books says?
Instead you have to make comments like
If you cannot make a Cheftain do what the book says it can do, you should let someone else fly it. Or are you simple enough to think that every light twin in Australia with an airworthiness certificate could be made to replicate all manufacturers figures?
Before you start I have not lost an engine and been unable to get it to perform, it's just I realise that in a lighty that is a real possibility.
Serious question, do you think that every light twin that has an airworthines cert is capable of doing the book figures in all conditions?
Regards, Framer

[tinpis]

do you think that every light twin that has an airworthines cert is capable of doing the book figures in all conditions?

Moot point:

But if I am sitting in the bloody thing, Im not going to be a big blouse and give up trying.

[prospector]

"For over 99% of the time, if one engine fails in a twin and providing the pilot acts correctly a landing on a runway is assured."

Would have to agree with that statement. Two failures in an Aero Commander 680FL at full gross was not a problem. No doubt it could have been in that very short time frame between rotate and blue line, but that would be considerably less than 1% of total time.

[framer]

Tinpis,It's not a moot point. It's a question and I'm interested in peoples opinions or answers to the question.
I think having answers can prove two things.
a) if a poster thinks that not all twins could make the book figures all the time then off field landings can be justified in some circumstances.
or
b) if posters think that all twins could make the book figures in all conditions then we can make a mental note of their names and remember to never take anything they say seriously:)
Cheers

[framer]

Here it is.....I think it just slid away with lack of interest.

[Ando1Bar]

Time for a new myth? How about 'don't ever fly an engine over square'?

[muffman]

What about raising the minima to achieve the missed approach climb gradient with one engine shut down? I've had 'instructors' telling me until they're blue in the face that you must raise the minima every time. What a load of rubbish.

My thinking is if you've had an engine failure in a light twin and there's some chance you won't get visual by doing the instrument approach at your chosen destination, then choose a different destination. If you can't do that due to a lack of fuel or a lack of better options, then you have no choice - regardless of the minima, you're going to have to land.

If you're unlucky enough to have one fail during the approach, I'd be giving myself the best chance possible of getting visual by flying the approach down to the minima, and if that didn't work I know I'm faced with either attempting to go up at < 2.5% or keep going down. Local knowledge would dictate the answer to that.

Thoughts?

[Jabawocky]

I think some common sense would apply muffman.

J:ok: