Piston twins, a case of love and serious airmanship
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x you are quite correct.
An engine failure is quite different depending on what stage of flight you are at.
I will admit my normal steed has a turbines but the forces involved are the same. It doesn't have autopilot and is at the very bottom end of the pref A performance definition.
The evidence of failure can be very harsh in say the takeoff phase to "whats it doing now" in the cruise, to finding out you don't have reverse available on the roll out when its been failed at 200'. Thankfully we get to see as many engine failure modes as the imagination of the sim examiner can provide. But the aircraft still manages to pull failures (not just with the engines) out of the bag which nobody has thought of. How to spot the failure though is just as interesting and has to be honest be a case of spot the difference to normal using engine instruments and flight instruments it can be very very difficult at low power settings to see the difference. Usually its battered into you by failing the engine just before you perform a go-around. Your working quite hard focused on the flight instruments and your calls and all of a sudden the plane kicks the ball out and it flips on its back and the instructor starts laughing on the intercom.
Yaw dampers stop the yaw, autopilots hold it on bank. I think a 747 ended up in a spin because an engine failed and the automatics held it and the crew didn't realise what had happened until it stalled. And the resulting recovery was exciting to say the least.
The definition of experienced twin driver would be interesting. There have been some fatalities of what I would say are very experienced twin drivers. I would say there are quite a few experienced two engine working twin drivers but very few single engine on a twin experienced twin drivers certainly in the UK anyway. The US and Canada will have alot more. Even with 3500hours in twin engine aircraft I have only done 40 hours single engine work. An engine failure, 3 approaches, 2 go around's and a couple of landings every six months. And that's more than most because I am both seat's checked.
I would say its not really anything to do with the number of engines on the wing but the number of pilots looking at the instruments. The work load involved, the backup of someone saying "bank angle" before the situation becomes unworkable cannot be forgotten.
An engine failure is quite different depending on what stage of flight you are at.
I will admit my normal steed has a turbines but the forces involved are the same. It doesn't have autopilot and is at the very bottom end of the pref A performance definition.
The evidence of failure can be very harsh in say the takeoff phase to "whats it doing now" in the cruise, to finding out you don't have reverse available on the roll out when its been failed at 200'. Thankfully we get to see as many engine failure modes as the imagination of the sim examiner can provide. But the aircraft still manages to pull failures (not just with the engines) out of the bag which nobody has thought of. How to spot the failure though is just as interesting and has to be honest be a case of spot the difference to normal using engine instruments and flight instruments it can be very very difficult at low power settings to see the difference. Usually its battered into you by failing the engine just before you perform a go-around. Your working quite hard focused on the flight instruments and your calls and all of a sudden the plane kicks the ball out and it flips on its back and the instructor starts laughing on the intercom.
Yaw dampers stop the yaw, autopilots hold it on bank. I think a 747 ended up in a spin because an engine failed and the automatics held it and the crew didn't realise what had happened until it stalled. And the resulting recovery was exciting to say the least.
The definition of experienced twin driver would be interesting. There have been some fatalities of what I would say are very experienced twin drivers. I would say there are quite a few experienced two engine working twin drivers but very few single engine on a twin experienced twin drivers certainly in the UK anyway. The US and Canada will have alot more. Even with 3500hours in twin engine aircraft I have only done 40 hours single engine work. An engine failure, 3 approaches, 2 go around's and a couple of landings every six months. And that's more than most because I am both seat's checked.
I would say its not really anything to do with the number of engines on the wing but the number of pilots looking at the instruments. The work load involved, the backup of someone saying "bank angle" before the situation becomes unworkable cannot be forgotten.
Last edited by mad_jock; 7th Oct 2008 at 11:18.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all SNS3Guppy, i don't care at all if you think i'm a troll, ugly, poor inexpierenced or whatever, you can call me just what you like. I'm happy i can make you happy.
Having a ceiling of 8000ft would not let me comfortably fly over the Alps on route to Italy and that is the point i wanna make. You have 2 of them running, more chance that it goes wrong than in a single, and crossing the Alps or other high mountains (that's why people fly twins for also) has no purpose unless indeed your twin has a SE Ceiling of 16500, which for example the mighty brand new Baron has NOT!
Sure, that's why there are so many fatalities of GA ME pilots messing this part up. Loose an engine on takeoff in a single you go down, loose an engine in a light twin and when you try to stay in the air like many do they end up up-side down, stall spin and DEAD, these are the statistics.
I only had the training according to the PTS standards for FAA multi engine, and i feel pritty confident to secure the correct engine, i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!! but hey, guys like SNS3Guppy doesn't have this problem ofcorse. Good for you.
What i care about is that i'm correct and Pace not. You don't have always an indication on the instruments in a complete engine faillure, and that is the point i want to make. he's with his so good training and multi many hours wrong, and i'm right with my low multi hours and low multi ground school training. Still waiting on his reply on what instrument you always can see when there is an engine problem.
Let me help you a little, but Pace might never been heard about it. There is only one instrument that works correctly IMO, and that is a trust-detector. With my low non existing life in aviation, non existing training and blown up ME flight expierence, i had the amazing chance to fly with a pilot friend of mine in his twin who has one mounted right in his face. Unfortunatly it's not one of the instruments Pace is referring to, and i really don't wanna fly with a ME guy that really believes that if there is something wrong he can see it always on his instruments.
Having a ceiling of 8000ft would not let me comfortably fly over the Alps on route to Italy and that is the point i wanna make. You have 2 of them running, more chance that it goes wrong than in a single, and crossing the Alps or other high mountains (that's why people fly twins for also) has no purpose unless indeed your twin has a SE Ceiling of 16500, which for example the mighty brand new Baron has NOT!
Is there some particular benefit to dying slowly in an airplane? If not, then arguing which kills you faster is really a mindless inroad into the airplane decision making process here.
I only had the training according to the PTS standards for FAA multi engine, and i feel pritty confident to secure the correct engine, i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!! but hey, guys like SNS3Guppy doesn't have this problem ofcorse. Good for you.
What i care about is that i'm correct and Pace not. You don't have always an indication on the instruments in a complete engine faillure, and that is the point i want to make. he's with his so good training and multi many hours wrong, and i'm right with my low multi hours and low multi ground school training. Still waiting on his reply on what instrument you always can see when there is an engine problem.
Let me help you a little, but Pace might never been heard about it. There is only one instrument that works correctly IMO, and that is a trust-detector. With my low non existing life in aviation, non existing training and blown up ME flight expierence, i had the amazing chance to fly with a pilot friend of mine in his twin who has one mounted right in his face. Unfortunatly it's not one of the instruments Pace is referring to, and i really don't wanna fly with a ME guy that really believes that if there is something wrong he can see it always on his instruments.
Whilst I agree that you cannot always rely on instrumentation, the rest of what you have written makes little sense! (making allowances for the fact that English is probably not your first language) If I were you I would knock this one on the head mate!
Also, I think that if Pace really wanted to carry you in his Citation, then he would probably find a use for you as ballast in the baggage compartment!
Also, I think that if Pace really wanted to carry you in his Citation, then he would probably find a use for you as ballast in the baggage compartment!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Also, I think that if Pace really wanted to carry you in his Citation, then he would probably find a use for you as ballast in the baggage compartment!<
Youngskywalker
I wouldnt be so cruel as to use Sternone as ballast its too cold back there.
I would more likely drop him out with a parachute over his Mummies house so that he can return to where he ought to be
Pace
Youngskywalker
I wouldnt be so cruel as to use Sternone as ballast its too cold back there.
I would more likely drop him out with a parachute over his Mummies house so that he can return to where he ought to be
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I demonstrate to my students that this is most definitely not the case. I do it by climbing to a safe height, then switching off the fuel on one engine. Depending on the aircraft (and I mean the exact airframe, not just the type, because they are all slightly different) I can usually demonstrate that the MP has not changed, the RPM has not changed and the oil pressure has not changed. Over time, the temperatures will start to decrease - although if there was a fire that probably wouldn't be true either. Perhaps you should try this some time (but not in something with a turbocharger, unless you want a big bill)?
The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.<
So what will your fuel flow be telling you?
Pace
The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.<
So what will your fuel flow be telling you?
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel flow is NOT a correct indicator that there is anything wrong with the engine.
Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee
And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!
Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee
And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!
Sternone - Lot's of Pilot's on here have huge amounts of flying experience and multi engine hours, I have very little with about 600 or so multi and still feel barely experienced enough to comment on this thread, and yet you have barely 10 in a twin I'm guessing? 
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i learn from very high time expierenced pilots they tell me that most of the times when there is an engine problem the bird just waggels from left to right and you have no clue what dead foot to use!!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Fuel flow is NOT a correct indicator that there is anything wrong with the engine.
Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee
And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!<
Sternine
You look at all the indications available to you as well as what the aircraft is doing and when you are sure you make a descision on whether to keep the engine running or shut it down.
> i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! <
Yes its about time you turned the computer off and stopped playing Microsoft flight simulator and do what Mummy says ie get your tea.
She might even cut the toast into soldiers for you so you can dip them in your egg before you get egg all over your face.
Pace
Now if you'll excuse me, i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! Wheeee
And it's not because Pace bought a Citation that he can't be wrong!!<
Sternine
You look at all the indications available to you as well as what the aircraft is doing and when you are sure you make a descision on whether to keep the engine running or shut it down.
> i have to get into the Mooney because my mummie called me !!!! <
Yes its about time you turned the computer off and stopped playing Microsoft flight simulator and do what Mummy says ie get your tea.
She might even cut the toast into soldiers for you so you can dip them in your egg before you get egg all over your face.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Oct 2008 at 14:55.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh very true!!
I feel that a lot of the comments made here abt people being crazy flying through / over / around the mountains in a single engine have never done it before and therefore have no experience in this matter.
You can easily fly from the north to the south of Switzerland via the passes at around 8000'. I'm often doing this in a single. Just make sure you have got yr map with you and stop relying on the GPS!
I feel that a lot of the comments made here abt people being crazy flying through / over / around the mountains in a single engine have never done it before and therefore have no experience in this matter.
You can easily fly from the north to the south of Switzerland via the passes at around 8000'. I'm often doing this in a single. Just make sure you have got yr map with you and stop relying on the GPS!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone, I don't know why I am even bothering to answer your post, but. A twin does not plummet down to 8000 feet on one engine but will drift down, certainly at a slower rate than a single with no engine. Thereby GIVING YOU OPTIONS!
DO.
DO.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, I can smell a heated debate on the merits of gps verses maps coming now!
There is one poster (who has clearly been absent for about a 6-9 month stretch) who has just popped up again; welcome back!
There are shades of Ali G to his arguments; whenever the going got tough for Ali G in any of his interviews with unsuspecting guests, he'd always spring the "is it 'cus I's black?" question - which would always send the guest into a stuttering tail-spin. I don't remember anyone ever turning round and saying "no, it's not because you're black, it's because you're a knob" and, in many way, this was the essence of the long-running joke. No-one was ever prepared to call a ..... shovel a shovel.
So for the record, I reckon that the "you're only having a go at me because I's a low hours pilot" is an extension of this.
There is one poster (who has clearly been absent for about a 6-9 month stretch) who has just popped up again; welcome back!
There are shades of Ali G to his arguments; whenever the going got tough for Ali G in any of his interviews with unsuspecting guests, he'd always spring the "is it 'cus I's black?" question - which would always send the guest into a stuttering tail-spin. I don't remember anyone ever turning round and saying "no, it's not because you're black, it's because you're a knob" and, in many way, this was the essence of the long-running joke. No-one was ever prepared to call a ..... shovel a shovel.
So for the record, I reckon that the "you're only having a go at me because I's a low hours pilot" is an extension of this.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that a lot of the comments made here abt people being crazy flying through / over / around the mountains in a single engine have never done it before and therefore have no experience in this matter.
You can easily fly from the north to the south of Switzerland via the passes at around 8000'. I'm often doing this in a single. Just make sure you have got yr map with you and stop relying on the GPS!
The context here is IFR, airways, flying (as one should) VMC on top in sunshine, above the clouds etc, out of icing conditions, at a safe altitude. Not scud running through the Swiss/Austrian/Italian canyons, hoping that the cloudbase will not meet up with the rising terrain, and hoping that you did not misread the map and flew into a canyon where you get stuffed - as many do when doing that kind of flying.
One can indeed cross the spine of the Alps at about 8000ft but this is possible only under VFR, not under an IFR clearance. And you better hope there are no clouds around when you do that, or significant wind when flying that close to the terrain.
I've been to the Alps, with a local expert, doing that kind of flying, and it was great fun on the (carefully picked) day. But for going places - no way. The safest way is to fly straight across the top at FL160 or higher, in VMC, and for that you have to be IFR. Zurich will not allow transit through their FL130-base Class C.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary emotion in this thread. The bottom line is the more complex the aircraft and the more demanding the flying conditions the more training (both initial and recurrent) required to safely operate the aircraft. I think the reason light twins have a bad accident history is almost entirely related to the fact that most private twin owners do not attain and maintain a adequate level of piloting proficency. I know that sounds harsh but it is an opinion I hold based on what I have personally witnessed over many years.
By defintion a twin will be safer than a single but only if you have he skill to be able to manage an engine failure during any part of a flight.
With respect to single engine IFR I can't help but remember a conversation at the local club lounge a few years ago. Just after a young buck allowed as how he had absolutely no problem flying singles in hard IFR, my friend (a vastly experienced pilot with over 40 yrs flying experience from bush to airlines) walked in. I asked how many hours of single IFR time he had. He thought about it for a while and said "maybe 10hrs". Then it dawned on me what I had asked and so I added "how many hours of single engine IFR in an airplane with only one engine ?" He gave me a puzzled look and said "You gotta be crazy to fly a single IFR ! "
By defintion a twin will be safer than a single but only if you have he skill to be able to manage an engine failure during any part of a flight.
With respect to single engine IFR I can't help but remember a conversation at the local club lounge a few years ago. Just after a young buck allowed as how he had absolutely no problem flying singles in hard IFR, my friend (a vastly experienced pilot with over 40 yrs flying experience from bush to airlines) walked in. I asked how many hours of single IFR time he had. He thought about it for a while and said "maybe 10hrs". Then it dawned on me what I had asked and so I added "how many hours of single engine IFR in an airplane with only one engine ?" He gave me a puzzled look and said "You gotta be crazy to fly a single IFR ! "
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its definitely not scudding and I did say has experience and therefore they would already know if it was safe enough to go (and get back!) taking yr points into consideration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about Sternone
All those who fought off the onslaught, thank you, I was away all day.
Sternone (is that a feromone?) has full rights to his opinions, but his tone is -especially given his minimal experience- offensive.
I have chosen a twin and fly often over mountains, IFR but on top and I feel safe and good doing it. But I cannot stop listening to other people s advice and experience.
People with such limited experience should listen more and condem less, learning!
Learning is the name of the game in our hobby/sport and those who are so pedantic they think and express they know it all, close the door on advice and inherently endanger themselves and those that fly with him.
There are people I would never fly with. Just from his tone, I would not fly with Sternone, because I love flying but I love life even more
Sternone (is that a feromone?) has full rights to his opinions, but his tone is -especially given his minimal experience- offensive.
I have chosen a twin and fly often over mountains, IFR but on top and I feel safe and good doing it. But I cannot stop listening to other people s advice and experience.
People with such limited experience should listen more and condem less, learning!
Learning is the name of the game in our hobby/sport and those who are so pedantic they think and express they know it all, close the door on advice and inherently endanger themselves and those that fly with him.
There are people I would never fly with. Just from his tone, I would not fly with Sternone, because I love flying but I love life even more