Where does the UK/JAR "twin only" mentality come from?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like a hamster wheel, you say?
Looks like AnFI has overplayed his hand on the Gillingham accident thread. Someone else has already suggested he's a troll. Perhaps he's just another Walter Mitty? chopjock in disguise?
In all respects I think we can rightfully say that AnFI (Another Flying Instructor) has had a good old Jolly Rogering by the local mafiosa. 
PS: Rotorspeed: I've had two separate engine failures in a twin and yes it didn't even get into the Barchester Gazette!
Some excellent posts by Rotor/Tandem/J2O!
Respect.................
PS: Rotorspeed: I've had two separate engine failures in a twin and yes it didn't even get into the Barchester Gazette!
Some excellent posts by Rotor/Tandem/J2O!
Respect.................
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI
Reading your recent posts is interesting. You have clearly gone to a lot of thought to consider why a second engine failure rate in twins might be higher that it statistically should be. But if you were balanced in your views, would you not have mentioned that the failure rate of even one engine on a twin might be less than for a single because in twins they generally run at a lower % of maximum power and therefore are under less stress?
What are your thoughts on the probability of a first engine failure in a twin vs a single?
For now let's assume it's not greater. Then maybe other Ppruners can let us know of any personal experiences; (1) how many have experienced an engine failure on a twin that has resulted in a safe undamaged landing on the second engine, and (2) how many have experienced an engine failure on a twin that has been followed by the failure of the other engine? Now clearly the Glasgow 135 falls into (2). I suspect most incidents of (2) result in a well publicised serious accident whereas most of (1) go unknown as they are unremarkable.
Reading your recent posts is interesting. You have clearly gone to a lot of thought to consider why a second engine failure rate in twins might be higher that it statistically should be. But if you were balanced in your views, would you not have mentioned that the failure rate of even one engine on a twin might be less than for a single because in twins they generally run at a lower % of maximum power and therefore are under less stress?
What are your thoughts on the probability of a first engine failure in a twin vs a single?
For now let's assume it's not greater. Then maybe other Ppruners can let us know of any personal experiences; (1) how many have experienced an engine failure on a twin that has resulted in a safe undamaged landing on the second engine, and (2) how many have experienced an engine failure on a twin that has been followed by the failure of the other engine? Now clearly the Glasgow 135 falls into (2). I suspect most incidents of (2) result in a well publicised serious accident whereas most of (1) go unknown as they are unremarkable.
Yes an engine fail in a twin can (and should) be a non-event - but to be fair it needs to be weighed against the consequential downsides. and it is not always a non event, and has consequences of other events.
The maths used to support the twin is clearly at fault, as demonstrated, and nobody has come back on that, clearly because it is so obviously not correct.
Does anyone take issue with that?
I am all for people selling a twin to do the job if they think they make more money that way. Even mandating it for OIL work is ok, police work and AA perhaps.
But legislating against singles is ludite, and not the way foward.
The PC12 stack up better against a Barron, and the single/twin consideration naturally favours the single in the helicopter even more than in an aeroplane (for all the obvious reasons).
I think the ref to mafiosa is appropriate.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC: "I've had two separate engine failures in a twin"
Wow. What's the chance of that?
Is it 1:100,000 squared divided by the number of hours you have flown?
Granted - that is much less stressful in a twin.
Were they real engine failures, did the engines actually let go, or your shut down prior to failure?
Wow. What's the chance of that?
Is it 1:100,000 squared divided by the number of hours you have flown?
Granted - that is much less stressful in a twin.
Were they real engine failures, did the engines actually let go, or your shut down prior to failure?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps he's just another Walter Mitty? chopjock in disguise?
I should think all of you that do would feel safer in a twin. I sometimes think that when feet wet half way across the Irish sea.
Then I think about how inefficient it would be carrying all that fuel for all those engines that rarely fail anyway.
So in my opinion, it is all about perceived safety. If someone else was paying, sure I would fly in a twin.But is it any safer I wonder?
Actually I tell a lie: 3 engine failures in twins:
1 in a SeaKing in a 40' hover over the sea. Glancing blow off the swell but managed to get home. If that had been a single - HM would have had to foot the bill for millions and millions, plus salvage costs as she had 4 x torpedoes on board!
1 x Compressor blade went walkabout in a 355 Twin Squirrel. I was hovering over Wrexham town centre at the time tracking baddies! Uneventful shut down and landing at the nearest LZ (Cricket green). A single may have required me to bring a spare pair of underpants.
1 x Compressor stall over a city football pitch at night filming crowd control. Again in an AS355. Uneventful shutdown and landing at the hospital LZ. Again - a single would have made front page national news.
NO-ONE.....especially the yanks with their track record...is going to convince me that I could have re-run the whole of my flying career in a single engined helo and ended up here - still compus mentis. Twins have at worst - saved my life and at best saved severe embarassment.
1 in a SeaKing in a 40' hover over the sea. Glancing blow off the swell but managed to get home. If that had been a single - HM would have had to foot the bill for millions and millions, plus salvage costs as she had 4 x torpedoes on board!
1 x Compressor blade went walkabout in a 355 Twin Squirrel. I was hovering over Wrexham town centre at the time tracking baddies! Uneventful shut down and landing at the nearest LZ (Cricket green). A single may have required me to bring a spare pair of underpants.
1 x Compressor stall over a city football pitch at night filming crowd control. Again in an AS355. Uneventful shutdown and landing at the hospital LZ. Again - a single would have made front page national news.
NO-ONE.....especially the yanks with their track record...is going to convince me that I could have re-run the whole of my flying career in a single engined helo and ended up here - still compus mentis. Twins have at worst - saved my life and at best saved severe embarassment.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO-ONE.....especially the yanks with their track record...is going to convince me that I could have re-run the whole of my flying career in a single engined helo and ended up here - still compus mentis.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hum people who fly twins say they are safer people in singles say they are just as safe and the evidence or lack there of can be used to support ether argument .
In the uk a Cessna 150 suitably equipt can fly imc at night why if I put SAS and or an autopilot in an ec120 for arguments sake can I not do the same ? Not PT obviously
Twins only at night for public transport looks on the face of it a sensible idea if you're over a built up area to give people on the ground better protection but A to B across open terrain seems like over kill as it's being done anyway just not PT .
Maybe a relaxation of the rules but with strict weather limits might appease both parties ? Or wait a few more years and EASA will have killed off helicopter flying and there will no longer be a problem
In the uk a Cessna 150 suitably equipt can fly imc at night why if I put SAS and or an autopilot in an ec120 for arguments sake can I not do the same ? Not PT obviously
Twins only at night for public transport looks on the face of it a sensible idea if you're over a built up area to give people on the ground better protection but A to B across open terrain seems like over kill as it's being done anyway just not PT .
Maybe a relaxation of the rules but with strict weather limits might appease both parties ? Or wait a few more years and EASA will have killed off helicopter flying and there will no longer be a problem
Have you ever had to do an auto to the ground in an unlit field at night?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo 73
I am lucky enough that in the 18 years I have been flying I have never had to do an auto for real but I have practiced them to the hover into unlit areas at night yes
I am lucky enough that in the 18 years I have been flying I have never had to do an auto for real but I have practiced them to the hover into unlit areas at night yes
But to have to do it with paying passengers on board? No, thanks. That is a unnecessary high level of risk that can be mitigated against relatively easily: by having a second engine. Hence the twin only at night rule.
Last edited by Bravo73; 26th Mar 2014 at 20:20. Reason: Touch wood.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm all for keeping people safe but there does seem to be a certain amount of fear among the twin only brigade of autorotations perhaps if they did more of them they might not be so terrified , and maybe although we still wait the final out come the Glasgow crash might have had a differant outcome if the pilot had done autos at night to the hover .
The last statement is not meant as a slur on the pilot or operater I'm just using it as an example for all I know they do practice it !
The last statement is not meant as a slur on the pilot or operater I'm just using it as an example for all I know they do practice it !
It's not a question about being 'so terrified'. It's about a duty of care to paying passengers and however good that you might think that you are, it is a risk that doesn't need to be taken.
A power recovery auto (ie to the hover) is very different to a full down auto to a surface that you can't see. The real world will be very different to the mowed grass or tarmac runway that you are used to at an airfield.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRAZYBROADSWORD (great name!)
As I've said before. On a private flight, anyone in addition to the pilot is a volunteer! On a Public Transport flight we tend to call them Fare Paying Passengers.
If it's 'fear' that dissuades me from flying in a Cessna150 at night in IMC with a PPL at the controls, then yep..... I'm as yeller as a tree full of ripe bananas!
Oh, and I'm less than one handful of years away from drawing my hard earned pension after an entire lifetime of being nothing other than a professional pilot! Might there be a connection??
You may very well think so. I couldn't possibly comment!
As I've said before. On a private flight, anyone in addition to the pilot is a volunteer! On a Public Transport flight we tend to call them Fare Paying Passengers.
If it's 'fear' that dissuades me from flying in a Cessna150 at night in IMC with a PPL at the controls, then yep..... I'm as yeller as a tree full of ripe bananas!
Oh, and I'm less than one handful of years away from drawing my hard earned pension after an entire lifetime of being nothing other than a professional pilot! Might there be a connection??
You may very well think so. I couldn't possibly comment!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Having two engines is not just about redundancy of motive power. It's about duplication of essential systems and instrumentation.
You might be confident about carrying out a successful EOL to "blank" terrain, many of us have done it but how about when there is cloud/fog right down to the deck? You won't know till you get there. Could you do your EOL on a small standby horizon in IMC when you have also lost your electrical system and main instruments?
All this guff by the usual suspects regarding control forces and extra systems being superfluous, confusing and even dangerous - as I've said before - if you can design an autopilot system that doesn't require assisted controls, you'll make a fortune.
Maybe a system that sends HT shocks up the trousers of the pilot if the aircraft strays from the correct attitude might work for some worthy protagonists.
You might be confident about carrying out a successful EOL to "blank" terrain, many of us have done it but how about when there is cloud/fog right down to the deck? You won't know till you get there. Could you do your EOL on a small standby horizon in IMC when you have also lost your electrical system and main instruments?
All this guff by the usual suspects regarding control forces and extra systems being superfluous, confusing and even dangerous - as I've said before - if you can design an autopilot system that doesn't require assisted controls, you'll make a fortune.
Maybe a system that sends HT shocks up the trousers of the pilot if the aircraft strays from the correct attitude might work for some worthy protagonists.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Would ht shocks not effect the pace makers ?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA nonsense
The last 3 horrible crashes have been multi-engine, multi-crew. The proof is in the pudding.. i.e there is no proof. Just more cash to be made by licensing agents.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shyt: "Could you do your EOL on a small standby horizon in IMC when you have also lost your electrical system and main instruments?"
Then you would be having an unusually 'bad day' , (but not uncontrolable, reasonable chance of fair outcome, but at that point you might prefer to have been in a twin). Day IMC to deck - fair chance. Night IMC to deck poor chance, bad for lights. Night IMC to 200ft cloudbase - fair chance. terrain dependant. (jungle no good, agricultural ok)
The twin numbers appear now to be accepted as wrong.
It is just not 2x10^-10.
No defenders.
Then you would be having an unusually 'bad day' , (but not uncontrolable, reasonable chance of fair outcome, but at that point you might prefer to have been in a twin). Day IMC to deck - fair chance. Night IMC to deck poor chance, bad for lights. Night IMC to 200ft cloudbase - fair chance. terrain dependant. (jungle no good, agricultural ok)
The twin numbers appear now to be accepted as wrong.
It is just not 2x10^-10.
No defenders.