One for the twin drivers ...
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 58
From: UK
rustle,
I'm answering on the basis of flying a twin. The twin I fly just happens to rotary winged. (The clue is in my profile!
)
(The only real difference, from my point of view, is that I won't necessarily need a runway to make an emergency landing.)
I'm answering on the basis of flying a twin. The twin I fly just happens to rotary winged. (The clue is in my profile!
)(The only real difference, from my point of view, is that I won't necessarily need a runway to make an emergency landing.)
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 58
From: UK
I'm not sure if either the engine type or wing specification was ever really established.
Just the usual presumptions on the part of many posters.
Anyway, does it really matter? The principles are the same. (And, yes, that question is rhetorical!)
Anyway, does it really matter? The principles are the same. (And, yes, that question is rhetorical!)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
I'm not sure if either the engine type or wing specification was ever really established.
Just the usual presumptions on the part of many posters.
If you lose a donkey whilst pootling along in your twin, do you declare a mayday?
Doesn't mean that twin-turbine rotary pilots are not welcome here. But if they answer from their own expertise, without making it clear, we do get confused. Equally, what would a behavioural scientist, psychiatrist, vet or criminal investigator say about:
If you lose a donkey whilst pootling along in your twin?
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 58
From: UK
Yes, Backpacker, but my point is that engine or wing types doesn't really matter.
A twin is still a twin, regardless of how the wings are configured. The principles are still the same.
I could also point out that the question was directed at 'twin drivers'. But I'm not that much of a b@stard so I won't...
A twin is still a twin, regardless of how the wings are configured. The principles are still the same.
I could also point out that the question was directed at 'twin drivers'. But I'm not that much of a b@stard so I won't...
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Originally Posted by Bravo73
rustle,
I'm answering on the basis of flying a twin. The twin I fly just happens to rotary winged. (The clue is in my profile!)
I'm answering on the basis of flying a twin. The twin I fly just happens to rotary winged. (The clue is in my profile!
)
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Bravo73 - fine, but I am not about to check everyone's profile before understanding better their posts.
Your contribution is interesting but I have to say for one that I would now read your contribution in a totally different light.
I know very little about rotary flying, but I would have to say that your options in the event of an engine failure appear vastly greater than for us fixed wing drivers as to make its relevance to the fixed wing discussion rather less apparent.
Your contribution is interesting but I have to say for one that I would now read your contribution in a totally different light.
I know very little about rotary flying, but I would have to say that your options in the event of an engine failure appear vastly greater than for us fixed wing drivers as to make its relevance to the fixed wing discussion rather less apparent.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
I think checking a poster's profile is a reasonable exercise if you either strongly disagree with a poster or if you strongly agree.
ShyTorque's pseudonym is also a bit of a clue.
For those posters with no profile (or very sketchy information) the "value" of their contribution in any particular thread has to be biased by their previous postings: Someone who usually posts crap* may have a valid point [in a particular thread] but it will be lost/ignored/dismissed in their noise.
* Either meaningless drivel, or just plain wrong...
Now what were you saying, FA?
ShyTorque's pseudonym is also a bit of a clue.
For those posters with no profile (or very sketchy information) the "value" of their contribution in any particular thread has to be biased by their previous postings: Someone who usually posts crap* may have a valid point [in a particular thread] but it will be lost/ignored/dismissed in their noise.
* Either meaningless drivel, or just plain wrong...
Now what were you saying, FA?
Shame, twas an engaging debate.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Grand Com f'Ort
The usual high quality informed debate here... 
If you are ever going to need to know, you'll have been trained, and so your instructor will have given you guidance.
Some 'experts', DFC being notable amongst them, come along with their 'expertise' and simply disappoint...
Sticking with aircraft on which I have training experience (some of it current):
Twin Jets of all descriptions: No, not a mayday, but definitely a pan, when you have time.
Twin turboprops: No, unless feathering is a problem.
Twin pistons: No, if you can sustain flight in safe conditions (eg, remain above MSA in IMC, or carry out a safe visual recovery), otherwise yes.
If you are, or think you might be, on fire, then mayday it is (the majority of my mayday calls have been for fire or smoke).
That said, if you're operating a twin piston, then you'll make sure that in the event of engine failure in unfavourable circumstances, you'll either crash in a controlled fashion or climb away, won't you? (Well you will, if you want me to sign your paperwork). Performance E aircraft are not performance A aircraft, and should not be flown as such.
If you are ever going to need to know, you'll have been trained, and so your instructor will have given you guidance.
Some 'experts', DFC being notable amongst them, come along with their 'expertise' and simply disappoint...
Sticking with aircraft on which I have training experience (some of it current):
Twin Jets of all descriptions: No, not a mayday, but definitely a pan, when you have time.
Twin turboprops: No, unless feathering is a problem.
Twin pistons: No, if you can sustain flight in safe conditions (eg, remain above MSA in IMC, or carry out a safe visual recovery), otherwise yes.
If you are, or think you might be, on fire, then mayday it is (the majority of my mayday calls have been for fire or smoke).
That said, if you're operating a twin piston, then you'll make sure that in the event of engine failure in unfavourable circumstances, you'll either crash in a controlled fashion or climb away, won't you? (Well you will, if you want me to sign your paperwork). Performance E aircraft are not performance A aircraft, and should not be flown as such.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Grand Com f'Ort
Oh, and Bravo73, you're right that a twin is just a twin, as long as you're happy that the distinction between <aircraft which can land vertically in a 2D clearing> and <aircraft which can't> is a given, in the debate (which it wasn't - but that's not going to worry your little mind, is it?).
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
The usual high quality informed debate here...
Twin pistons: No, if you can sustain flight in safe conditions (eg, remain above MSA in IMC, or carry out a safe visual recovery), otherwise yes.
For those posters with no profile (or very sketchy information) the "value" of their contribution in any particular thread has to be biased by their previous postings: Someone who usually posts crap* may have a valid point [in a particular thread] but it will be lost/ignored/dismissed in their noise.
That's only true to some extent, bearing in mind that many helicopters can't hover on one engine. It takes more power to carry out a normal landing than to fly S + L
I am off to do my MEP renewal this week so this should provide an interesting point for discussion - if my examiner doesnt fail me for chatting and flying at the same time
.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Grand Com f'Ort
Well done... You found the 'quote' button!
No-one asked for a debate, someone asked for the right answers, so there they are!
Oh, and rest assured, if you need to know my 'profile', someone will tell you...
Finally, I am moved to point out that the vast majority of helicopters will hover on one engine...
Right from the R22 to the world's 'safest single-engined aircraft', the Jetranger, to take examples from my log book alone...
No-one asked for a debate, someone asked for the right answers, so there they are!
Oh, and rest assured, if you need to know my 'profile', someone will tell you...
Finally, I am moved to point out that the vast majority of helicopters will hover on one engine...
Right from the R22 to the world's 'safest single-engined aircraft', the Jetranger, to take examples from my log book alone...
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 58
From: UK
But I see that your reading lessons are coming along so well:
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Grand Com f'Ort
My reading lessons are fine, thanks. In several languages.
Off-airport landings are often perfectly survivable in piston twins, and when training and checking in such aircraft, I will brief (or expect candidates to brief) appropriate plans for off-airport landings in the event of power loss at less than blue line speed and/or with gear or flap down.
Alles Klar?
Off-airport landings are often perfectly survivable in piston twins, and when training and checking in such aircraft, I will brief (or expect candidates to brief) appropriate plans for off-airport landings in the event of power loss at less than blue line speed and/or with gear or flap down.
Alles Klar?
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
RodtheSod:
My God - this is a Private Flying forum!
The guy asked a simple question and received all the options he needs in the first and third responses. What is the purpose of this ongoing debate; to totally confuse and demoralise him?
My God - this is a Private Flying forum!
The guy asked a simple question and received all the options he needs in the first and third responses. What is the purpose of this ongoing debate; to totally confuse and demoralise him?
I have a twin rating, but fly almost exclusively SEPs. I am firmly in the "it's up to the pilot" camp, and I do not believe that "every problem is an emergency" or whatever the quote was. Strangely, only yesterday I had a seriously rough-running engine after take off, and went straight back in without a Mayday. Was that wise ? Well, buggered if I know, but I'd told ATC what was going on, and got the clearance I wanted without using "that word".
Last year, I had a fairly serious problem after taking off from Blackpool. My belief was that the 'plane was flying well enough to get me back in, and I know what the problem was and that it wasn't likely to get any worse. In other words, I wanted me (and the PAX) on the ground, but believed we'd get there under control.
I called a "Pan", and reported my conditions and requirements. Almost immediately, ATC came back and asked "Are you delcaring an emergency?". Well, was I ?
I repeated my conditions and requirements, and said that if they wanted me to call Mayday to get me straight in, I would. (I may have been a little "flowery" with my language at that point ...
). Next thing I heard was ATC shifting everythng out of my way : excellent service.However, it has left me wondering about the "mayday"/"pan" thing ... do ATC treat them any differently ?
Anyway, I guess the answer to my original question is "it depends ..." : and isn't that the way on Proon !
FF
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: Dunno ... what day is it?
Have any of the people advocating an automatic Mayday actually read the definition of the Mayday call?
The difference between that and a Pan is "requiring immediate assistance". In some situations (such as a large commercial aircraft that has suddenly become a single, i.e. not really allowed to be where it is) then immediate assistance is required for a diversion. No matter the skill and experience of the crew, a complicated bit of machinery has to be prepared for landing, with crew and passenger briefings and actions. Any assistance from the ground is really useful.
On the other hand a private twin has just become a really under-powered private single. No reason, other than lack of experience in handling at low speeds that it should be more dangerous than a tricky approach in any other single. Sure it is not a normal condition, and a pan call is the minimum, but in a failure in the cruise or very early (or very late) on approach immediate assistance might not be required. If in doubt call mayday. If you have the experience to know you don't need to call mayday, call pan.
It does happen that an ATSU has multiple emergencies, or other considerations that could become emergencies. Over calling your own situation could make someone else's more threatening.
I called pan for a small problem, not a threat to my remaining airborne. I was asked if I could hold for an aircraft with low fuel state (Vampire - normal condition). Had I over called as a mayday, he would have been stuck with a divert. Not a problem, until his diversion airfield goes black, or out of crosswind limits. I might have taken away one of his three options, and left him under silk.
It might be apocryphal but surely everyone has heard the one about the F16 who calls for priority approach with low fuel state, to be told to hold for a B52 with an engine failure.
"Oh, no! The dreaded seven-engine approach".
The difference between that and a Pan is "requiring immediate assistance". In some situations (such as a large commercial aircraft that has suddenly become a single, i.e. not really allowed to be where it is) then immediate assistance is required for a diversion. No matter the skill and experience of the crew, a complicated bit of machinery has to be prepared for landing, with crew and passenger briefings and actions. Any assistance from the ground is really useful.
On the other hand a private twin has just become a really under-powered private single. No reason, other than lack of experience in handling at low speeds that it should be more dangerous than a tricky approach in any other single. Sure it is not a normal condition, and a pan call is the minimum, but in a failure in the cruise or very early (or very late) on approach immediate assistance might not be required. If in doubt call mayday. If you have the experience to know you don't need to call mayday, call pan.
It does happen that an ATSU has multiple emergencies, or other considerations that could become emergencies. Over calling your own situation could make someone else's more threatening.
I called pan for a small problem, not a threat to my remaining airborne. I was asked if I could hold for an aircraft with low fuel state (Vampire - normal condition). Had I over called as a mayday, he would have been stuck with a divert. Not a problem, until his diversion airfield goes black, or out of crosswind limits. I might have taken away one of his three options, and left him under silk.
It might be apocryphal but surely everyone has heard the one about the F16 who calls for priority approach with low fuel state, to be told to hold for a B52 with an engine failure.
"Oh, no! The dreaded seven-engine approach".
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: Dunno ... what day is it?
Originally Posted by Fuji
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
That's only true to some extent, bearing in mind that many helicopters can't hover on one engine. It takes more power to carry out a normal landing than to fly S + L
Typically flown at about 70 knots single-engine, min power speed, that is faster than the cruise for a Schwiezer 300! The remaining (turbine) engine is also far more reliable than the 300's single piston. So why is there a requirement for landing asap on a private flight?
Also what do you mean by "asap"? "As soon as possible" is often wrong. The meaning of that to me when taught to fly rotary was to put down in the nearest suitable site. This might be correct if I was concerned about the other powerplant, but if not then that would not usually be my choice. "As soon as practicable" is often better for an engine failure on a twin - land at the nearest suitable aviation facility (how we plank fliers would define "as soon as possible", I suppose), in this case one with some sort of runway. The reason for this is that the aviation facility has services, and needing a run-on landing I want somewhere that had a known smooth, level surface for the purpose.
The single-engine cruise is no more a hazard for the helicopter than an aeroplane, so why treat it differently and introduce new hazards?