We got to the moon on one engine (apollo)

I think you'll be fine to cross the country...


but just in case - buy a cirrus

If you are intent on single pilot IFR work, both a large complex single and an equivalent light twin require diligence. The US AOPA have produced some very good training material. A small amount of research should generate some good material to read which will help you develop a plan for proficiency.

For me, the main arguments for a twin are in cruise at night or over remote areas. A twin gives a bit more flexibility for altitude to stay in clear air to avoid ice, but its at the margin. I can recall several high profile engine failures in climb and cruise, but I cannot recall any during an IMC instrument approach. For me, vac pump failure, alternator failure, instrument failure, gear failure, icing and pilot brain fade all rate ahead of engine failure on my worry list.

And its uncommon that you need to fly an approach to minima.

Of course, the first couple of these are more likely to be dangerous in many singles ... For me, a big advantage of a twin over most singles is two vac pumps and two alternators ...

Ted

One of my multi instructors many years ago said this... If you were sat as a passenger in a B737 and the pilot announced "One of our two engines has failed, but we are still going to take off - because we still had one good engine", you would be wanting to get off that aircraft.

My wife knows nothing about piston v turbine v twin v single reliability, but she does know if one engine fails another working one is handy. In a PC12 v B200GT scenario - she wants the B200GT - regardless of extra costs.

How many are enuf...indeed...

A 'story' of a trans-Atlantic flight in 'De Good Ole Days' in a 4-engined 'Connie'.....

Interested Passenger gets invited forward for a cockpit visit.
(Ah!...THOSE 'Good Ole Days'...)
Suitably impressed, he says to the Captain,
'How many engines would you consider to be the safest for these long overwater crossings'?

To which the Captain replies...
'When my co pilot here leans over and says
"No. 16 is running a bit rough Skipper",
and I reply,

"Oh!....Which Side ??"...............:};)

Troo Story...........;);)

oh goody someone has revived my fav subject:E

Love the 737 story, too true:-)
'griffo' have heard sim stories over time, another too true:-)

I guess if you have more than one then there's simply more choices as with one there is only ONE choice:)
I recall doing my NVMC rating in a C172RG many moons ago & even back then when I was fearless & brave & still thought "what if"
I had a well known DOTc guy doing my check flight & when we where coming back in to EN after flying Nth on a nav-ex when I was cleared for a visual app in the circ area even he said don't start down 'till you can glide into the field. Even now when I do fly SE (DAY VMC) I still stay high & make pretty much every app with little or no pwr on, just me I guess:-)
Even old Arthur 'Chutty' didn't like flying low over built up area as I flew him back to Mb one day out of EN (for a friend) & he said stay as high as you can for as long as you can.See these guys installed the fear of God in me way back then:E


Wmk2

It's all pretty simple really.

If you are IMC at DA/MDA and the donk quits, you have virtually no choices and the safest is probably continue and hope you pop out over a runway or something flat. You are probably going to get hurt unless you are very lucky. You might make a turn if water is adjacent... but then you are going for a swim, and that is probably less appealing to most... especially in anything with a high wing (although it will probably end up on it's back, in which case you are fine).

Now extend this a bit... what about if you are IMC at DA/MDA, and it is dark? Now it's just a complete lottery.

Personally I reckon that single pilot SE IFR will only last as long as there are no serious accidents. The first big one (say a full Grand Caravan plowing into a shopping centre or a school), and I predict SE IFR will become a thing of the past (thank God).

I know this feeling exactly and it hit pretty close to home recently when I ferried a large single at night. It was in a remote area and completely overcast above which gave me no moon & therefore from about 5 mins into the flight I had no ground features whatsoever. (The nearest light was a cattle station about 160km away.) The flight was uneventful but I still kissed the ground after landing and proceeded to the pub. All of 3 days later this same aircraft made a very quite landing in a paddock. It was pretty sobering to say the least and I'll be thinking very hard before I do that again.

As far as SE night IFR, I definitely have respect for the RFDS and others that do it!

And what would you know about such events...... :E

Can't wait to get back to them 4 holers hey! :ok:

What I want to know is what are the 20-30 year + piston twins going to be replaced with? Off the top of my head, the aircraft that seems to fill the role of a PA31 (an aircraft that ceased production 1984ish) seems to be the Cessna Caravan. Now I know the PT-6 has had some trouble (see these forums), but surely a turbine at the front of a relatively new airframe is more confidence inspiring than two pistons on an old work horse with 10000+ hours.

Just food for thought (and I know the cost of a new caravan is alot!).

Now, because im not IF rated, and havent really done alot with it, this is interesting for me.
Lets say SE, down to DA, I would be thinking really I probably shouldn't be there to start with...however; I would think that 9 times out of 10, you have an issue with spluttering/coughing etc when you increase from a LOW power setting to a HIGH power setting.
As someone pointed out before, they would fly at the higher end of the speed scale for the APP.
Me, I would think that fly at a higher speed with a HIGHER engine speed until you have to. Im not sure I would want to be descending near DA with near idle power. Ive been in too many training aircraft during the FLOWP for eg that do splutter on the GA for a variety of reasons.
You keep a higher engine speed, that gives you 1) airspeed for a 'zoom' climb if required, and 2), you can feel a little happier that she is still producing SOMETHING, and your not going through the risky phase of throwing that throttle through the wall, and wanting to go further...
Makes sense in my mind...If im wrong, well, I learn.

'PM' what you say is true to some degree but even a 10000 hr airframe should have engines suitable for the task as in not 10000 hrs old.
As i have said many a time before with a SE there are NO options but going down at best glide speed at least with a twin even an old busted arse one going down on one engine is a lot slower than a SE therefore giving you more options/time. You can always close the remaining pwr lever on a twin if it's starting to get beyond you but in a SE yr cactus right from the start when it goes quiet!:}

It boils down to choice at the end of the day, you either am happy to accept the risks or you aren't, the latter for me:-0)

'pilotette' that is an indeed sobering story. I too had a sim story once. I used to hire a V tail (Forkie type machine) & flew it just once NVMC due bad wx. Upon arrival EN I had some U/C problems but all good in the end with the fire boys attending to make me feel good:ok:. BUT some time latter I heard the same airframe lost a donk in the Hunter Valley area & crashed at night leaving the pilot seriously injured........phewww!!!!
No thanks my life is worth far more than one engine !:)

Wmk2

Absolutely. Plus if the twin isn't at max gross, you might even climb.

The problem with that is, that if the wx is really poo, the very last thing you want at DA/MDA is excess speed...

Fair point Wally, I guess a Baron with two new IO 550s would be ok :ok:


Again very truthfull. Flying (like driving) involves a risk. Personally I would have no problem flying a 208/TBM/PC-12 etc as I wouldn't have a problem in a B200 either (you don't have a spare B350 around do you?). At the end of the day we are all (mostly) commercial pilots, and are hopefully trained to do the best for the machine we are flying at the current time.

I fly a brand new single engine aeroplane equipped with G1000, TAWS, Dual Vac pumps, stand by battery, Airbags, and a stall speed of about 45 knots. It is flown all over VIC all year round and will quite happily do so for a while yet.

It is normally flown at 8-9000 ft which i would think would allow enough time to zoom in on the moving map and find somewhere suitable to put it down. The exception to this is obviously the east/north east of the state where I and my passengers well know the consequences of engine failure. Avoid at all costs and if you have to go to Canberra and its a bit crappy outside, take the long way around.

Quite often in that part of the world, when the conditions are as bad that you will be cruising in solid IMC, and in the soup the whole way to the minima, the freezing levels will probably get you first ie. you wont go to begin with, be it single or twin.

I know the original topic was engine failure in the missed approach, and as minimal as the chances are of that happening, if it did happen immediately after the MAP then hold an attitude, keeps wings level and as was said earlier zoom the gps in as far as it will go (made even easier in my aircraft as it is equipped with the Jepp "ChartView"). If it happens at a few hudred feet hopefully you have looked at the airport diagram in ERSA as well as studied where the obstacles are on your IAL chart - dont head towards the bit marked 'No Circling"! Then as above hold an attitude and wings level.

I would be more worried about my loved ones getting in a chieftain or 402 to fly from melbourne to canberra on these days that so many would deem un-acceptable for single engine flight, than taking them myself in the 206.

Time will tell I suppose..

Yep....I am with you there.

Wally will say otherwise..... but hey I would rather a B737 than his B200. he would rather his A320 than B200 too :ooh:

So if flown responsibly in the appropriate conditions under the right circumstances....... you have to say............apples for apples.

Comparing a PC12 to a Beech 200 Kingbair is not quite as easy as it sounds. :ugh:

J:ok:

I'm guessing you'd make different decisions if you had two engines, where different does not necessarily equate to better... So, on that basis, SEP could be safer overall.

Re post #28.

We nearly had that recently - except the only people that were killed was everyone on board and it was a PA31 derivative not a SE machine.

On the other hand there have been two SE turbine engine failures in the last couple of years where the aircraft were landed on a runway with no further damage - one at night and one in IMC to minima.