Myths of aviation deflated
Grandpa Aerotart
A37 I am sure you meant to write '...normally aspirated piston types require mixture to be leaned for full power...'
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.
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.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 22nd Feb 2009 at 14:00.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles
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.
As always you have summed up the situation very well. There are lots of myths out there, and you have debunked many of them.
Silly Old Git
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
Does anyone reading in know how he is doing?
Does anyone reading in know how he is doing?
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?
Tell us about your ditching?
If a pilot told me he was gonna land it straight ahead I would fire him"
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
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
I hope they fixed that left engine. It was scary just listening to it taxi past.
I hope they fixed that left engine. It was scary just listening to it taxi past.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] 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)[/font]
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
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[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] 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)[/font]
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
Last edited by HarleyD; 23rd Feb 2009 at 00:01. Reason: formatting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"sms777" don't worry buddy I'm right behind you keeping you upright whilst the SE believers are bashing away at you 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!
Wmk2
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!Wmk2
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Losing an engine?
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.
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.
Silly Old Git
Framer
and....
Who do you suppose did some of Dons training?
Retirement suits me dont it?
Have a nice day.
crappy attitude to training and your employees
Think how vastly different the act of firing someone for saying that is from the training that Don gave Chimbu....
Retirement suits me dont it?
Have a nice day.
Last edited by tinpis; 23rd Feb 2009 at 02:15.
Since my old FS days, I thought the second engine was fitted to light twins to transport you to the crash site.
Grandpa Aerotart
Well now, TIEW, you know better
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.
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.
Silly Old Git
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.
My dad never wasted money on me edjamacation
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinky
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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