Go-around after engine failure in light twin
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins
Have just been through the perf data for a 310 and there's no mention of performance difference between port or starboard failures.
Logic suggests there may be a slight difference, as critical engine failure should require slightly more rudder input (hence more drag)...
2Donkeys
I think you misquoted me - we achieved 1700fpm both engines full power at Blue line
Have just been through the perf data for a 310 and there's no mention of performance difference between port or starboard failures.
Logic suggests there may be a slight difference, as critical engine failure should require slightly more rudder input (hence more drag)...
2Donkeys
I think you misquoted me - we achieved 1700fpm both engines full power at Blue line
Later we tried the full power to both, blue-line climb from take-off (approx 300' AMSL) and acheived 1700 fpm.
We were probably an hour lighter (fuel) and 3-4 degrees warmer (so ISA-11/12)
We were probably an hour lighter (fuel) and 3-4 degrees warmer (so ISA-11/12)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W(!)
Its my typing rather than my reading I'm afraid!
1700 fpm is fine full power, it is the 600 fpm on one engine on a colder day, and with a lighter load that I was concerned about. Perhaps rustle could benefit from flying with you, so that he too can benefit from the 800-900 fpm climb rate that you achieve.
Just think about it, if he could show you how to get 1700, and you could show him how to get 900, you would have a marvellous animal, an aircraft that loses less than 50% of its available climb performance when an engine fails.
---- PS: I do know that I am being slightly unfair here!
Its my typing rather than my reading I'm afraid!
1700 fpm is fine full power, it is the 600 fpm on one engine on a colder day, and with a lighter load that I was concerned about. Perhaps rustle could benefit from flying with you, so that he too can benefit from the 800-900 fpm climb rate that you achieve.
Just think about it, if he could show you how to get 1700, and you could show him how to get 900, you would have a marvellous animal, an aircraft that loses less than 50% of its available climb performance when an engine fails.
---- PS: I do know that I am being slightly unfair here!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2
Incidentally, I noticed a big, well loaded, Cessna twin departing yesterday on a long runway (though, surprisingly, not using full length) on a clear day, over farmland and whipping the gear up immediately despite apparent land-ahead possibilities.
Any idea what might have been going through the pilot's mind?
I have never sought to explain the performance I got on that day, but I do feel that Rumbo and you are casting aspersions.
The fact of the matter is that it happened and I can offer two witnesses to whom I pointed it out in surprise at the time.
Both are well known to you, 2, one being a surprisingly well-fed Buddhist the other being an ex-RAF type with a wife with an unusual name.
The fact that I pointed the VSI out to them demonstrates that I was as surprised as you and Rumbo, but I would rather find an explanation than make vague accusations of lying or exageration (both vices that you know I don't suffer from.)
One sensible explanation I can think of was that the zero-power setting was different. In the first case I set it, in the second it was Rustle, and we may have used different formulae.
Another explanation is that on the first occasion I was much more current than yesterday and may have been paying more attentiuon to getting the ball exactly in the right place and the bank angle exactly right.
W
Incidentally, I noticed a big, well loaded, Cessna twin departing yesterday on a long runway (though, surprisingly, not using full length) on a clear day, over farmland and whipping the gear up immediately despite apparent land-ahead possibilities.
Any idea what might have been going through the pilot's mind?
I have never sought to explain the performance I got on that day, but I do feel that Rumbo and you are casting aspersions.
The fact of the matter is that it happened and I can offer two witnesses to whom I pointed it out in surprise at the time.
Both are well known to you, 2, one being a surprisingly well-fed Buddhist the other being an ex-RAF type with a wife with an unusual name.
The fact that I pointed the VSI out to them demonstrates that I was as surprised as you and Rumbo, but I would rather find an explanation than make vague accusations of lying or exageration (both vices that you know I don't suffer from.)
One sensible explanation I can think of was that the zero-power setting was different. In the first case I set it, in the second it was Rustle, and we may have used different formulae.
Another explanation is that on the first occasion I was much more current than yesterday and may have been paying more attentiuon to getting the ball exactly in the right place and the bank angle exactly right.
W
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
critical engine performance
As I understand it if an aircraft has a critical engine all the performance graphs and Vmca are based on the failure of that engine.
After all if the other one quits it can only be better.
After all if the other one quits it can only be better.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I know you?
Its a good question. Let me tell you why I selected the strategy that I did for that take-off.
For the benefit of those not at North Weald (the airfield concerned) yesterday, here are the facts.
The aircraft was a Cessna 421C and the runway in use was 02 which is 6300 feet long give or take.
The aircraft contained three adult males (two big, one average) and two very small children. We had just 2 hours endurance and were therefore very considerably below MTOW. It was a cold day. ISO - 13 on the ground.
The book says that the distance required to clear 50 feet is 2250 feet with those factors taken into account. The ground run is around 2000 feet. Accelerate/Stop is a tad over 4000. If an engine fails at rotate and I elect to carry it into the air, the books suggest a little over 4800 feet to get above 50, but I can sustain a SE rate of climb of around 400-500 fpm at that weight with some considerable comfort. At MTOW, SE climb is a less impressive measured 300 fpm.
All of this assumes a rotate at 106 knots which is already comfortably higher than my Vmc.
So, with the data done, back to the question.
If the engine had quit at or before Rotate, I had ample runway to close the throttles and brake to a halt. Full length was not absolutely necessary, although I only left a 30-50 foot gap at the very end to allow a small aircraft that had backtracked behind me to get around my tail before I rolled.
Once the wheels have left the ground, and you are at 50 feet, you are approaching the halfway point on the runway. If the donkey quits, you have a choice, you could try and put it down in the *rapidly* diminishing runway, or knowing that you are very light, you could carry the problem away, confident of a climb performance that would easily deal with any obstacle, and that would outstrip most of the SELs taking of yesterday. You fly the circuit and land. [*purists read the footnote]
Critical to that climb performance is having the airframe cleaned up. With an engine failed, the 421 gear takes 7 seconds to retract, as opposed to 4 with both engines operating.
All factors considered, once safely climbing I took the gear up, and climbed away. Landing ahead (off runway) was not an option that I was likely to have to consider. Not least because whilst there are fields, there is also the busy A414 within the likely landing zone.
As I wrote earlier, I think it is a big mistake to have a dogmatic view of what you do with the gear. The trick is to have a knowledge of the aircraft, the prevailing conditions and the runway in use, and formulate a plan for that set of circumstances.
[* footnote - Engine failures are not always instantaneous in real life. Surging, yawing and swinging often herald a failure. This is frightening and confusing, but more importantly, in this context, takes valuable seconds and distance. It is a pretty good bet on the 6300 feet of North Weald that once the failure was reacted to, the available runway on which to put down would have gone.]
Its a good question. Let me tell you why I selected the strategy that I did for that take-off.
For the benefit of those not at North Weald (the airfield concerned) yesterday, here are the facts.
The aircraft was a Cessna 421C and the runway in use was 02 which is 6300 feet long give or take.
The aircraft contained three adult males (two big, one average) and two very small children. We had just 2 hours endurance and were therefore very considerably below MTOW. It was a cold day. ISO - 13 on the ground.
The book says that the distance required to clear 50 feet is 2250 feet with those factors taken into account. The ground run is around 2000 feet. Accelerate/Stop is a tad over 4000. If an engine fails at rotate and I elect to carry it into the air, the books suggest a little over 4800 feet to get above 50, but I can sustain a SE rate of climb of around 400-500 fpm at that weight with some considerable comfort. At MTOW, SE climb is a less impressive measured 300 fpm.
All of this assumes a rotate at 106 knots which is already comfortably higher than my Vmc.
So, with the data done, back to the question.
If the engine had quit at or before Rotate, I had ample runway to close the throttles and brake to a halt. Full length was not absolutely necessary, although I only left a 30-50 foot gap at the very end to allow a small aircraft that had backtracked behind me to get around my tail before I rolled.
Once the wheels have left the ground, and you are at 50 feet, you are approaching the halfway point on the runway. If the donkey quits, you have a choice, you could try and put it down in the *rapidly* diminishing runway, or knowing that you are very light, you could carry the problem away, confident of a climb performance that would easily deal with any obstacle, and that would outstrip most of the SELs taking of yesterday. You fly the circuit and land. [*purists read the footnote]
Critical to that climb performance is having the airframe cleaned up. With an engine failed, the 421 gear takes 7 seconds to retract, as opposed to 4 with both engines operating.
All factors considered, once safely climbing I took the gear up, and climbed away. Landing ahead (off runway) was not an option that I was likely to have to consider. Not least because whilst there are fields, there is also the busy A414 within the likely landing zone.
As I wrote earlier, I think it is a big mistake to have a dogmatic view of what you do with the gear. The trick is to have a knowledge of the aircraft, the prevailing conditions and the runway in use, and formulate a plan for that set of circumstances.
[* footnote - Engine failures are not always instantaneous in real life. Surging, yawing and swinging often herald a failure. This is frightening and confusing, but more importantly, in this context, takes valuable seconds and distance. It is a pretty good bet on the 6300 feet of North Weald that once the failure was reacted to, the available runway on which to put down would have gone.]
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2
We may have met
Sorry, obviously a different understanding of what displaced thresholds are for.
Also I miscounted. I thought you had two ATCOs, a sheep farmer, yourself (ie 3 large, one average) and two kids.
W
We may have met
Sorry, obviously a different understanding of what displaced thresholds are for.
Also I miscounted. I thought you had two ATCOs, a sheep farmer, yourself (ie 3 large, one average) and two kids.
W
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it is time for you to put your glasses on Mr Collins!
The threshold is considerably before (or after) the parallel hard-standing at the side of the 02 runway.
We pulled all the way up passed the displaced threshold, along with an Extra and 1 other, who did their checks on the hard-standing to one side of the runway.
But enough, of this personal chit chat, that is perhaps better in a private message.
I rather hoped that you were going to offer me the benefit of your thoughts now that I had explained in some detail why I
yesterday. Do you disagree with the strategy, what is your suggested approach?
The threshold is considerably before (or after) the parallel hard-standing at the side of the 02 runway.
We pulled all the way up passed the displaced threshold, along with an Extra and 1 other, who did their checks on the hard-standing to one side of the runway.
But enough, of this personal chit chat, that is perhaps better in a private message.
I rather hoped that you were going to offer me the benefit of your thoughts now that I had explained in some detail why I
whipped the gear up
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2
Maybe I am a little more pessimistic than you (though I know that you are a very careful and thoughtful pilot.)
If I got an engine failure in the Aztec below 200' I would put it back down if possible. I agree that there are many factors which make it impossible, such as fog, houses and cliffs, but in the N Weald case yesterday I used the full length (including displaced threshold), rotated slow, climbed at blue line and, if I had had an engine failure, would definitely have put it back on the remaining runway, gone over the end, into a ditch at twenty knots, got out, run away, called the wife then the insurance company.
However, I have huge respect for your knowledge and skill, and, in all seriousness do not question that you take the opposite view in what is a very marginal decision!
W
Maybe I am a little more pessimistic than you (though I know that you are a very careful and thoughtful pilot.)
If I got an engine failure in the Aztec below 200' I would put it back down if possible. I agree that there are many factors which make it impossible, such as fog, houses and cliffs, but in the N Weald case yesterday I used the full length (including displaced threshold), rotated slow, climbed at blue line and, if I had had an engine failure, would definitely have put it back on the remaining runway, gone over the end, into a ditch at twenty knots, got out, run away, called the wife then the insurance company.
However, I have huge respect for your knowledge and skill, and, in all seriousness do not question that you take the opposite view in what is a very marginal decision!
W
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right that it is marginal. Sufficiently so that I did the maths on your "put it down below 200 feet" line of thought.
Leaving aside the very different flight characteristics of the Aztec, the calculation to consider first off for the 421C is where you will be over the ground at 200 feet.
So, I roll, and avoiding the anal arguments about book performance versus real life for a moment, let us imagine that at 50 feet AGL I will have moved 2250 feet down the runway.
My climb speed is around 110 knots (best rate all engines) at which with 36" and 1900RPM gives an initial climb leaving the runway of about 1000 fpm (assuming gear left down, which builds as I clean up to 1600-1700 fpm". *Very* roughly, my time to climb from 50 to 200 feet is 9 seconds, during which I will have travelled another 1500 feet.
Total movement along the runway at 200 feet AGL is then 3750 feet. If I abort at that point, I will not trickle off the end of the 6300 foot runway, I will shoot off it at very high speed.
I would accept that a 50 foot abort might just work, but since I reach 50 feet within 3 seconds of leaving the ground, and the gear takes 4 seconds to retract after that, it is something of a moot point in my opinion.
Interesting discussion.
Leaving aside the very different flight characteristics of the Aztec, the calculation to consider first off for the 421C is where you will be over the ground at 200 feet.
So, I roll, and avoiding the anal arguments about book performance versus real life for a moment, let us imagine that at 50 feet AGL I will have moved 2250 feet down the runway.
My climb speed is around 110 knots (best rate all engines) at which with 36" and 1900RPM gives an initial climb leaving the runway of about 1000 fpm (assuming gear left down, which builds as I clean up to 1600-1700 fpm". *Very* roughly, my time to climb from 50 to 200 feet is 9 seconds, during which I will have travelled another 1500 feet.
Total movement along the runway at 200 feet AGL is then 3750 feet. If I abort at that point, I will not trickle off the end of the 6300 foot runway, I will shoot off it at very high speed.
I would accept that a 50 foot abort might just work, but since I reach 50 feet within 3 seconds of leaving the ground, and the gear takes 4 seconds to retract after that, it is something of a moot point in my opinion.
Interesting discussion.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2
I agree that the 200' case would end up in a field, not on the runway, hence the emphasis on farmland versus town. I raise the gear when I cannot get back on the runway (typically 50-100'). Thereafter, if I had a left failure I would probably land wheels up in a field, with a right failure wheels down, depending on how long it took to get to the scene of the crash.
On another slight digression. I used to fly Perf A a lot, now sadly not at all. You are just starting to do a significant amount of Perf A and Rumbo seems to require Perf A*++. I think that it is important for us all to remember that your 421 and my Aztec are nothing at all like Perf A, and that we must not be suckered into continuing when the book either says we shouldn't or gives us no information.
W
I agree that the 200' case would end up in a field, not on the runway, hence the emphasis on farmland versus town. I raise the gear when I cannot get back on the runway (typically 50-100'). Thereafter, if I had a left failure I would probably land wheels up in a field, with a right failure wheels down, depending on how long it took to get to the scene of the crash.
On another slight digression. I used to fly Perf A a lot, now sadly not at all. You are just starting to do a significant amount of Perf A and Rumbo seems to require Perf A*++. I think that it is important for us all to remember that your 421 and my Aztec are nothing at all like Perf A, and that we must not be suckered into continuing when the book either says we shouldn't or gives us no information.
W
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the 200' case would end up in a field, not on the runway
Whilst neither the Aztec nor the 421 are anything like Perf A aircraft, they are sufficiently different in their flying characteristics and runway requirements not to be able to apply a one-size-fits-all reasoning to them. Whereas in the Aztec, the take-off roll and speeds involved are both relatively low, permitting you to conclude that an abort onto the runway from 200 feet is not life-threatening, the same abort in the faster, heavier 421 will put you into the very same ditch at the end of the runway at speeds that could well prove fatal. If there were to be an abort ahead option in the 421, either the runway has to be proportionately longer than for the Aztec, or the maximum height at which the abort remains possible becomes lower. That much is simply a matter of physics. Given the speeds and lengths involved at North Weald, you probably have with 02 a classic case of a runway which divides the decision between the two types. Were we both sitting on 27L at LHR, I would be right there beside you having aborted at 200 feet (actually I would be 1500 feet or more in front of you, but still on the runway)
As for perf A versus our mere aircraft, you are absolutely right. Handling an engine failure at the critical moment in a light twin is not an "easy" proposition on take-off, and one of the most important things to be equiped with is a clear plan as to what you are going to do. When the donkey goes bang is the not the time to scratch your head and wonder which option to take.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....
This is getting to be quite a discussion.
When we depart any runway or other takeoff surface we very carefully examine the useable rwy and the departure path that is available.
On multi engine airplanes I rotate - accelerate if necessary and once positive rate of climb is identified I retract the gear. If the first officer is flying he will do the same.
To leave the gear hanging in the airflow at such a critical segment of flight as the early stages of the climb is counter productive and can and probably will produce some very demanding flying due to the rapid loss of a/s due to high profile drag of the gear. Should a loss of an engine occur I fly the airplane straight ahead and we identify why the thing quit, we then find a solution to the problem such as feather. Most piston engine twin engine airplanes will have "some " climb ability with an engine feathered and everything cleaned up, most will not be controllable with the gear hanging in the first segment of the climb.
Note:
Should you decide to land on the remaining runway / grass or whatever you have far better braking power with the gear up.
Speaking of North Weald, I had an interesting experience there in July of 2001. On the initial test flight of the PBY with the depth charges mounted and quite a lot of movie gear on board and a vicious x/wind I was quite suprised at the loss of performance caused by the added drag of the depth charges hanging under the wings.
Once we started the filming flights and we were at all up gross weight an engine failure with the depth charges hanging out in the airflow after take off east bound could very well of have had me operating the biggest tree shredding machine on the British isles.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
This is getting to be quite a discussion.
When we depart any runway or other takeoff surface we very carefully examine the useable rwy and the departure path that is available.
On multi engine airplanes I rotate - accelerate if necessary and once positive rate of climb is identified I retract the gear. If the first officer is flying he will do the same.
To leave the gear hanging in the airflow at such a critical segment of flight as the early stages of the climb is counter productive and can and probably will produce some very demanding flying due to the rapid loss of a/s due to high profile drag of the gear. Should a loss of an engine occur I fly the airplane straight ahead and we identify why the thing quit, we then find a solution to the problem such as feather. Most piston engine twin engine airplanes will have "some " climb ability with an engine feathered and everything cleaned up, most will not be controllable with the gear hanging in the first segment of the climb.
Note:
Should you decide to land on the remaining runway / grass or whatever you have far better braking power with the gear up.
Speaking of North Weald, I had an interesting experience there in July of 2001. On the initial test flight of the PBY with the depth charges mounted and quite a lot of movie gear on board and a vicious x/wind I was quite suprised at the loss of performance caused by the added drag of the depth charges hanging under the wings.
Once we started the filming flights and we were at all up gross weight an engine failure with the depth charges hanging out in the airflow after take off east bound could very well of have had me operating the biggest tree shredding machine on the British isles.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
I would always bow to your great experience, but I do believe that while raising the gear on achieving positive rate of climb would be absolutely the correct procedure in instrument conditions, in VMC and with a small twin and a large airport the option to land back on should not be prematurely discarded.
Why do I only see my spelling mistakes after submitting a post?
I would always bow to your great experience, but I do believe that while raising the gear on achieving positive rate of climb would be absolutely the correct procedure in instrument conditions, in VMC and with a small twin and a large airport the option to land back on should not be prematurely discarded.
Why do I only see my spelling mistakes after submitting a post?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluskis:
There are few difinitive things in flying, of course there would be sitiuations where one may elect to leave the gear down on very long runways.
Just remember your best friend in an engine failure after take off is inertia, and that goes to hell in a hurry with the gear down.
But I will agree there could be cases where one could wait to select gear up.
It is a very seldom avaliable option for me though. Generally I fly a profile that gives best performance.
Cat Driver:
There are few difinitive things in flying, of course there would be sitiuations where one may elect to leave the gear down on very long runways.
Just remember your best friend in an engine failure after take off is inertia, and that goes to hell in a hurry with the gear down.
But I will agree there could be cases where one could wait to select gear up.
It is a very seldom avaliable option for me though. Generally I fly a profile that gives best performance.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to the question about differences in critical and non critical engine performance,
Aztec D handbook : min controllable single engine speed 80mph
Notes from an ancient twin training exercise: two people no baggage, prob half fuel,
Aztec D: min controllable left engine only 72mph
right engine only 68 mph
Aztec D handbook : min controllable single engine speed 80mph
Notes from an ancient twin training exercise: two people no baggage, prob half fuel,
Aztec D: min controllable left engine only 72mph
right engine only 68 mph
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution:
Caution:
Caution:
When reading performance stats you must bear in mind that there will be many factors that will skew these numbers.
Here is a logical question to mull around in your thoughts.
The performance number is lets say 72 MPH.
Question:
How many MPH is the thickness of your airspeed needle?
Having answered that how many of us can hold the airspeed to the thickness of the needle?
In otherwords always take these numbers with a grain of salt and use common sense.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Caution:
Caution:
When reading performance stats you must bear in mind that there will be many factors that will skew these numbers.
Here is a logical question to mull around in your thoughts.
The performance number is lets say 72 MPH.
Question:
How many MPH is the thickness of your airspeed needle?
Having answered that how many of us can hold the airspeed to the thickness of the needle?
In otherwords always take these numbers with a grain of salt and use common sense.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief! Reading all this makes me very glad I don't fly a twin. Sounds like they are quite exceptionally dangerous things.
I keep my single-engined aeroplane wheels down until there's no chance of landing back on the runway, and usually until there's time to get them back down again if the engine stops. Then I raise them.
So much easier. For those who fly tens rather than hundreds of hours a year, that seems preferable. If I inherit a fortune and can afford to fly many hours a week, maybe, just maybe...
No, there are other things I'd rather spend it on.
I keep my single-engined aeroplane wheels down until there's no chance of landing back on the runway, and usually until there's time to get them back down again if the engine stops. Then I raise them.
So much easier. For those who fly tens rather than hundreds of hours a year, that seems preferable. If I inherit a fortune and can afford to fly many hours a week, maybe, just maybe...
No, there are other things I'd rather spend it on.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef
It's a bit like the Hare that never overtakes the Tortoise.
Twins are a problem for about 10-15 secs per flight, for the rest of the time they are safer than singles.
The thing is that we tend to dwell on those 15 secs.
But if you feel safer in yer arrer, that's fine!
W
It's a bit like the Hare that never overtakes the Tortoise.
Twins are a problem for about 10-15 secs per flight, for the rest of the time they are safer than singles.
The thing is that we tend to dwell on those 15 secs.
But if you feel safer in yer arrer, that's fine!
W
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ain't that the truth! I don't fly enough hours to have much hope of keeping asymmetric skills honed to the level I'd need. The arrer does the job nicely, cheaply, and with minimal fear.
Anyway, like I said, I've had my engine failure already...
Anyway, like I said, I've had my engine failure already...