Piston twins, a case of love and serious airmanship

[SNS3Guppy]

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.

Post the statistics, then? Why do you take such pride in being wrong?

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!

Foolishness.

A Cessna 172 won't allow me to fly over Everest, either. So what?

If you're flying an airplane that won't fly you over an obstacle...then fly around it. Choose the right equipment for the mission. Perhaps a direct IFR flight in IMC in ice over the alps isn't the right mission for a Cessna 310. It's not the right mission for a Cessna 172, either...or for your beloved Mooney. (Pop quiz: what do the Cessna 310 and the Mooney have in common when they lose an engine while flying enroute over the Alps? Bonus question...what's one big advantage the 310 has over the Mooney...and which one is guaranteed to end up on the ground?).

You appear under the misguided impression that an engine failure in a multi engine airplane will result in an inevitable loss of control...you're quite wrong, of course. A big part of multi engine training in a light twin is learning not only correct multi engine principles, but learning how to handle an engine failure in a light twin...learning to accept that sometimes pulling back the power on the good engine is necessary. This is a foreign concept to you, then?

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.

What on earth are you talking about?

If you can't recognize an engine failure on your instruments, then you're in a boat load of trouble...either completely ignorant of your airplane and multi engine flight, or very, very poorly trained, or simply blind. How on earth do you suppose one identifies an engine that has failed, when flying on instruments? Of course one can identify a failed engine from the instrumentation in the cockpit.

The same basic principles that apply to handling an engine failure in a light piston twin apply when handling an engine failure in a light turboprop or turbojet...and apply to medium and heavy aircraft as well. This may really shock you...but having flown all of them, there's not any significant difference in the way it's done...and in every case, the problem is recognizable from the cockpit, by instrumentation. Furthermore, there's a very important reason why we VERIFY that we have chosen the correct engine, after identifying it.

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!!!

Clearly your training was either poorly received, or poorly conducted, as you appear to have learned nothing. "Which dead foot to use," you say? How many dead feet do you have?

You may have trouble recognizing which engine has failed...but as this is the case then you certainly do NOT meet the standards prescribed by the PTS...the Practical Test Standards. These require that the outcome of a maneuver never be in doubt; you have doubt that you can properly recognize the proper engine (even though you say you're "pritty confident"). The truth is that when an engine failure is most critical...when you're slow and have takeoff power applied to the good engine, there's no doubt at all you've lost an engine. This applies to a light piston twin every bit as much as it applies to a big four engine radial, turboprop, or turbojet airplane...it's flown the same, recognized the same, and handled fairly much the same way...and in every case, it's recognizable. Distinctive need for rudder input against the failed powerplant, and distinctly recognizable from the cockpit, there should be no doubt of this...and indeed this IS a requirement of the PTS.

Your statement alone is proof positive that you and your training is insufficient to comply with the practical test standards, and enough to negate any input you might have on the subject of multi engine flight. Your lack of education and training puts you squarely in the position of being one who ought to be asking questions, rather than attempting to "tell it like it is." Let's face it. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

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.

A China Airlines B747SP, actually...and it was much more than simply rolling over from an engine failure. You can read the full accounting here: China Airlines B747SP Loss of Power and Inflight Upset

Incidentally, the DA42 with FADEC takes the decision of feathering away, which just leaves you with flying an aircraft with f**k all single engine climb performance to worry about. So no real advance there then.

An automatically feathering propeller doesn't take the decision away from a pilot, nor the need to fulfill the procedures for identifying and feathering the engine. Even aircraft such as the previously mentioned King Air 200, with rudder boost and auto feather...one still identifies, verifies, and manually completes the feathering process all the same.

Automatic feathering is certainly an advance "all the same." Even if one cannot climb with the engine secured, one is rid of an enormous amount of drag, and one's rate of descent or drift-down is affected in a big way. A propeller system which feathers automatically is very much a "real advance." Controllability is improved, handling is improved, and the immediate problem of removing the drag from a windmilling propeller and the major performance deterioration it causes, is handled...leaving the pilot to follow through with the securing motions of identifying, verifying, and securing the engine. This can be a real life saver. It can also reduce the pilot workload immensely and buy precious time, as well as make the airplane more controllable, and creates a significant difference in the airspeed margin between where one is at the time of failure to a stall or loss of control. So yes, an automatically feathering propeller is a real advance.

The fact that no-one here can agree on even a basic task like identifying which engine is out kind of answers why assymetric accidents give light twins a bad reputation.

Not at all. There are many ways to recognize an engine failure in a multi engine airplane, depending on the aircraft and the circumstances. What works in a given airplane under one set of circumstances may not in another. An airplane descending under a low power setting may have little or no discernable yaw by which to feel an engine failure; there may be no "dead foot." Reference to engine instrumentation may be the only way to identify it. Or an automatic feathering of the propeller may be one of the first signs. I experienced a perfectly functioning engine, but no propeller control, due to oil loss. Everything appeared to function...but the propeller produced no torque, and consequently no thrust...even though every other indication was just fine. What gives away the failed engine may be a system malfunction, a physical control issue, a system warning, or any number of identifying criteria. Knowing one's airplane and how to recognize the engine failure is a basic tenet of the privilege to fly it in the first place.

...Just buy a King Air! Autofeather and rudder boost, much easier and loads of excess power at hand!

A King Air still has the same handling requirements, pilot practices, and behavior as any light twin. Particularly the smaller brothers of the family. I took a checkride with the chief pilot of an ambulance operation years ago, in a BE-9L (King Air 90) he'd arranged for the company. He believed the airplane would fly on one engine, climb on one engine, and could perform a go-around or missed approach on one engine. He insisted he would do it with passengers aboard. He insisted on doing a single engine missed approach from a single engine ILS. I warned him not to try it, and told him that we would consider the engine failed during the missed. He soon found that the airplane wouldn't maintain altitude at the high density altitude field, surrounded by mountains (Reno, Nevada--USA), and told me to increase power on the "failed" engine. I refused. He asked my intentions, and I told him I intended to land in a field. By the time I let him have the power back, he was in tears (literally), and didn't try to claim the airplane could do a single engine go-around, again.

While the bigger brother to the 90 is the 200...it too is also a Part 23 airplane, and has no requirement to be able to maintain altitude, or climb on one engine. It does perform well one one engine, incidentally, but only to a point. One of the best performing light twin turboprops I've flown in the same weight class was the Piaggio Avanti...and a typical single engine climb isn't really stellar...about 800 fpm or less.

If an engine go's bang at less than 1000' ft on take off in IMC, there isnt a huge amount of time to go fact finding by hunting around the instruments. Control and identify asap.

Multi engine training always assumes that the engine has failed at the worst possible time; takeoff when at low altitude and at high power settings...and yes, one had better be able to do it from the instruments...asap. How long have you got to get it right?

The rest of your life.

The only way of identifying a failed engine in a light twin is dead leg, dead engine.

Not at all. There are many ways to identify a failed engine, and these depend very much on the specific airplane and the nature of what's gone wrong, as well as the phase of flight, power setting, etc.

[julian_storey]

This whole protracted thread can be quite simply summed up as follows:

A twin engined aircraft, when flown by a well trained, CURRENT pilot is safer than an aircraft with just one engine. It has to be.

The trouble (in the UK especially) is that hiring a twin is often fearsomely expensive and some multi engine pilots are not as current as they should be (or in most cases, would like to be).

A pilot in a multi engine aircraft who is not well trained AND current, is an accident waiting to happen.

[sternone]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.

Oh wait, there is an expierence limit on PPRuNe to post something right ? Like some flying dutch said, i'm way to green to even dare to comment on something.

Hahahahaha

[julian_storey]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.

And that's the point.

If you can't correctly identify a failed engine and react to it quickly, in the right way (all comes down to good training and currency) - then you should question whether you should be flying a twin.

[Pace]

Julian

A valid point as part of flying any aircraft single or Multi is knowing that aircraft.

When it fits like a glove you sense every creak and groan she makes and know if something is not right, then its the doctors hat on to determine what is not right and why!

Sometimes its an emergency and again like a Doctor you have to work faster to save the day but its a relationship and harmony between man and machine and if you dont really know the machine then how can there be that harmony.

Thanks Guppy as usual you have a way of putting things over and a depth of knowledge. I hope Sternone listens to you but ???

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

At least i hope some of you fancy pilots learned something.. like that you cannot always detect an engine problem in a twin soley on the instruments.

Sternone, one need not be a "fancy pilot" to know that one had better be able to identify an engine failure based strictly on instrument representation each and every time, else one has no business in the airplane at all. Of course one can detect the engine failure on instruments. You must be able to do this, if you fly a multi engine airplane...even if you are a VFR-only pilot.

Are you suggesting you can't read and interpret the basic instrumentation given you? How can you consider yourself competent to fly?

This isn't "fancy flying." This is bare-bones basic, an essential skill. If you cannot conduct yourself within the framework of the most basic, raw skills, then you ought not place yourself in the airplane where you can harm yourself or others...nor should you attempt to suggest that you have any clue whence you speak...for clearly you do not.

You are proof positive that a little learning is indeed a very dangerous thing.

[vanhigher]

SNS3 GUPPY - Excellent post

[Squeegee Longtail]

This thread started with a guy telling us how he sooo much loved flying/owning his twin and how they are the dog's knackers, whilst simultaneously running a thread moaning how he cannot afford to go flying very often in his aircraft due to costs!

We (you lot) have gone on for 5 pages about how to identify a quiet engine!
The fact is that the thread starter is a prime example of what you guys are saying is dangerous - that to be a safe ME pilot you need to stay current. That means regular flying and regular training. The ME owner who more often than not thinks about the costs and stays at home, is surely the kind of guy who makes the statistics look scary.

[BartV]

Like i said, PPRuNe is limited to 10.000+ hours perfect English speaking pilots. No problem for me.

There is absolutely no room for any critisism. That's why i just love this place!

[vanHorck]

That would be me, then....


Fact is in the other thread i was honest about how the financial crisis is now permanently on my mind and that i flly less due to this concern which i would not have had a year ago.

A discussion evolved on that thread about how people percieve the economic crisis. I think the conversation could have been uselfull to others too.

Yes i am acautious man, and also now regarding the worst economic crisis since the 1030-ies.

Here i started this thread because of all the nonsense on twins. To me it is the perfect ship for the sorties i like the fly.

As to being a good pilot, i always consider myself as not being good enough, it think that too is being prudent. I ll not bother you with all i do to stay safe, suffice to say a good friend of mine is the best instructor i ve ever met, a verdict shared by many, and as long as he s happy with my flying, i am current and i feel good i will continue to fly

Geez there are some pedantic know-it-all people here! I dont know all and i want to learn and share opinions, thought that was what this forum was about!?

[100LL]

Look yet another serious debate has ben ruined by our hard of thinking friend. Dont even bite. If you argue with an Idoit he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

""Squeegiee Longtail Got it in 1""

We (you lot) have gone on for 5 pages about how to identify a quiet engine!
The fact is that the thread starter is a prime example of what you guys are saying is dangerous - that to be a safe ME pilot you need to stay current. That means regular flying and regular training. The ME owner who more often than not thinks about the costs and stays at home, is surely the kind of guy who makes the statistics look scary.

[Fuji Abound]

You are not always going to get an immediate dead leg indication on some types so an assessment of all of the data is a perhaps a better approach to the situation.

I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise. In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.

[Pace]

>I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise. In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.<

Fuji

Regarding descent in twins I usually leave cruise power set and descend with 1000 fpm. This may take the aircraft into the yellow arc which is fine in clear air or stable type clouds. On approach again I use drag in various forms gear or flap and try to carry power to the flair point.

There are two reasons firstly to keep the engines warm but secondly so you are not in the awkward position of a closed throttle and finding there is nothing there when you need it. thirdly there is an arguement about clawing back the speed you lost in the climb sector by trading altitude for speed in the descent sector.

With a twin you do have the benefit that if one engine doesnt open up you have the other and can control your profile with the one engine . In a single that is more important and I never understand the wisdom of being high and coming down with a closed throttle. The argument being to keep high so that you can make the runway in the event of a failure. In a single better to train to look for other landing points left or right of the approach than fixating on a distant runway which has to be the killer.

To me that is a false conception. Better to have a powered approach with the other benefits of air over the wing roots and tail and better control over the touchdown point than the closed throttle.

More emphasis is placed in the climb out as that is the highest risk area, followed by the cruise which should be more procedural.

The descent does not hold such a high risk. Mainly because you can trade height for speed and the engines are not so stressed as in the full or climb power scenario. I remember in my single engine days being told to warm the engine every now and again when maybe it should have been to check that the unit was still running.

Finally especially in the bigger stuff it is normal to fly engine out for an ILS or other approaches engine out to touchdown in tests and I have had that in twins too. Any examiner worth his salt will put you through that and even ask for a go around from the flair single engine.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I agree with your comments.

However you will know in the real world unfortunately that is not always the comfortable way in which it works.

Here is the scenario. The descent is in IMC in a busy TCA and AT is calling the shots. They are calling the speeds and the heights so you dont have the luxury of descending at yellow line. Things get busy, perhaps with a bit of weather avoidance or the passenger checking out the bottom of the sick bag. There you go with AT telling you to turn left the long way around onto 140, descend to 4,000 and then best speed to Donald. As you roll out on heading up goes the power about the time you realise you are about to go through your assigned altitude (I know, I know you should have anticipated what was happening). Of course that is also the moment the aircraft rapidly rolls to the left in IMC just when you had no idea the engine was not going to respond and perhaps having missed the earlier subtle indications whilst at low power that something was adrift. Ah yes, if you were very unlucky maybe you have already taken one stage so as not to destabalise the approach you are about to intercept and for the same reason the gear is down. I agree, plenty of mistakes there but how often has that type of scenario happened when even an experienced pilot has got behind the curve.

[Pace]

>Ah yes, if you were very unlucky maybe you have already taken one stage so as not to destabalise the approach you are about to intercept and for the same reason the gear is down. I agree, plenty of mistakes there but how often has that type of scenario happened when even an experienced pilot has got behind the curve.<

Fuji with the risk of being shot at again (not by you do treat drag as a speed brake both so you can keep power on but in the event of an engine failure where you do not want that drag get rid of it ie flaps or gear as long as you have a safe margin of speed and height to do so.

Ie just as in the takeoff you clean up the aircraft as quickly as possible because you dont want the drag in the event of a engine failure dont become fixated on the approach configuration but clean it up if you need to on an engine failure in the approach descent.

Another reason to carry a clean approach speed rather than drag in at VREF landing flap from 4 miles out

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

(not by you

Yeah, I guess this is how it is:

In a twin you should be worrying the whole time you are going up or down which engine is about to let go and what you going to do about it, in a single you just worry the whole time.

So two engines just = a whole lot less worry and if you are not the worrying type two engines = not a lot.

[Pace]

(not by you) <

Fuji

By that I just meant you know what you are talking about

Pace

[SNS3Guppy]

I never understand why engine failures are almost always simulated after take off or in the cruise.

Because a power failure after takeoff when heaviest, lowest, and carrying the most power at the highest angle of attack...is the single most critical time during the course of the flight to lose an engine. That's why we train for that scenario, because we train for the worst-case scenario.

In some respects one of the most dangerous failure modes is an engine failure in the descent in IMC, particularly if and when power is needed to arrest the descent.

Far, far less critical than an engine failure during takeoff. If you can't arrest a descent, then one will continue to descend...one has altitude, one has a descent going...one is far better off than when one has no altitude to play with during the takeoff. Descent is far from the most dangerous time to lose a powerplant.

[Fuji Abound]

I commented that in GA we almost exclusively practise engine failures after take off and in the cruise but rarely if ever in the descent. I didnt comment on whether or not a failure after take off was the most dangerous phase.

However, a curent and astute pilot should be well aware of the risk during climb out. Potentially the same pilot is less aware of the risk during the descent particularly as he may not recognise any of the symptoms until the power levers come up.

Of course I was not talking about arresting a descent - my observation was regarding the unexpected roll as the power levers come up at a time when work load could be very high and you are least expecting an engine failure.

In short in every day reality for most GA pilots the climb out is in VMC nearly all of the time, the pilot is very well aware of the risk of an engine failure and such a failure will instantly manifest itself. Hopefully the pilot is well rehearsed and has a good chance of reacting correctly to the failiure. On the other hand there is I reckon more chance of a descent in IMC, more chance of the workload and other distractions being much higher during this phase than in the climb out when the pilot is fresh and has nothing much to worry about (AT is leaving him alone, he has his clearance, the passengers are behaving themselves etc), more chance of the pilot not realising what is going on as the pilot brings up the power levers in IMC in a right turn with gear and flaps set until it is too late.

[SNS3Guppy]

That's a fairly wild scenario, and I think a little thought-work on your part can reason out why it's just not an issue or one worth training for in a syllabus.