Crab

Just s thought for you the NTSB is now very concerned that pilots of PT planks are now losing their skills and suffer from immense boredom monitoring instruments. The manufacturers are trying to make the ac fly itself and keep pilot out of the loop, well that is airbus view. Boing view is that the pilot is part of the aircraft.So perhaps AnFi's 2 pilots just ticking things off is right !!!!!!! Don't shoot the messenger here !

Crab "Back to the wife and kids - if you put them as fare-paying pax into an aircraft that then crashed because additional exposure was experienced and the engine failed at a critical point - would you sue?"

No I don't think so. I think I would focus on the constructive future. I think I would be happier to live in a world where I am not forced into the irrational by the paranoid for the sake of irrelevant risk overreaction. You do realise that the twin loss rates have been fairly high over the last 10 years? The problems don't seem to be engines.

Your engine fail, fair enough, and in a single you would have been fine also I guess, with at least half the chance of it occuring at all.

Statistics help people make rational decisions, despite irrational knee jerk desire to respond to distorted impression of risk. Micromorts are a clear way to convey rationality to people who are challenged otherwise.

H5 thanks for the support

No, the big problem with statistics and probability is that they tell you how often something might happen not when it will happen - that is why you can have 1000's of flying hours with no fatals and then 2 on the same day.

It doesn't make for good safety planning, especially in terms of customer expectation, it just gives the bean counters a means to quantify the cost of a life.

Yes, CFIT is a bigger killer than engine failure but the corrections to the 2 issues should run in parallel, not in competition.

Hughes - you are absolutely right, skill-fade due to automation-reliance is very real in the FW world and is spreading into the RW world. I'm an old-fashioned boy (perhaps dinosaur) and rather believe if you have a pilot in the cockpit, he should be capable of flying the aircraft really well.

Having trained on single engined aircraft (FW and RW), flown them as an instructor and wrt helicopters, operationally, I have since flown twins for quite a long time.

I maintain the view that I'd rather have a well equipped single than a poorly equipped twin.

However, the argument for and against SE isn't just about the likelihood or not of engine failure. It's about duplication of other systems, such as electrical generators, especially with regard to IFR operations.

I have flown in IMC in both single engines fixed and rotary wing aircraft (trained to do so and done quite legally) but i do look back and think that I'm very glad not to have to do it now.

Shy:

"I maintain the view that I'd rather have a well equipped single than a poorly equipped twin."
Quite right

"However, the argument for and against SE isn't just about the likelihood or not of engine failure. It's about duplication of other systems, such as electrical generators, especially with regard to IFR operations."
Agree on the other systems, so they should not be linked to number of engines, let singles duplicate if that is appropriate. Anyway duplication does not equate to more reliable, (the opposite often, magnetos are a classic example)

"I have flown in IMC in both single engines fixed and rotary wing aircraft (trained to do so and done quite legally) but i do look back and think that I'm very glad not to have to do it now." Sure, but a B3 now does not have a significant downside from only having one engine, but does have a significant downside in not being more capable wrt equipment (esp legality of IMC equipment)


Crab "skill-fade due to automation-reliance is very real in the FW world and is spreading into the RW world. I'm an old-fashioned boy (perhaps dinosaur) and rather believe if you have a pilot in the cockpit, he should be capable of flying the aircraft really well. " I am completely with you on that one, although there are significant operators who think that there's not enough understanding of the automatics either.
As for your views on statistics and probability I don't think you have logic on your side on that one.
The numbers in my (oversimplified) example surely illustrate that small point (?)

But what about the helicopters (and fixed wing) that have made it safely back because they had a spare engine to keep them going after a failure?

The constant banging on by AnFI about a second engine not being needed seems to conveniently ignore the realities of the complete flight regime, and I notice that we still don't have a response from him about how a safe ditching can be achieved following a SE helicopter engine failure over a sea state 6, as he previously posted.

No, I am not an Agusta salesman.

AnFI - look at it this way - which helicopters are written off or badly damaged the most? Oh, that will be single engined ones then.

Why? because they are used for training and some of that training is touch-down autos (EOLs). Why? because the effect of a single engine failure in a single is usually much worse than in a twin so dealing with that becomes quite high up in the priority list.

Why bother? according to your viewpoint and 'statistics' you are as safe in a single yet AFAIK all authorities around the world require that EOL skill (even if the examiners might not be up to it any more).

The British military (and others) are going to twin-only training, even for basic helicopter trg, all Police and AA in UK are twins, SAR is in twins - even the Queen flys in a twin.

So, has everyone else in the world got it wrong and you are the true voice of reason???

Discuss:ok:

Crab:
"The British military (and others) are going to twin-only training, even for basic helicopter trg, all Police and AA in UK are twins, SAR is in twins - even the Queen flys in a twin.

So, has everyone else in the world got it wrong and you are the true voice of reason???

Discusshttp://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"

It is not the most sensitive time for me to put my views, as I imagine is very obvious with these recent events.
I think the excessive emphasis on engine failure is not sound.
Engine redundancy comes at a price that needs to be factored in and not ignored.

It was referred to by H500:
"Yes you can argue what you want that a twin is better than a single but you could also argue what happens if the combining gearbox decides to take a break ??? Could have 3 engines doesn't make any difference. Again what is the probability of that.
It is all about weighing up risk and everyone has a different view. I would suggest that the pilot is the biggest risk not the machine."

Has the revision to the EASA Basic Regulation 216/008 allowing, in Annex IV, the penetration in the H-V region been issued?