silver-eagle
En-Route
or so you told your wife.
Can we put the myth that singles are as safe as twins to bed now?
- Thread starter stratobee
- Start date
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Again point missed. It has zero to do with difficulty or safety. When are most mistakes/accidents made? In the 100-300 or so range. What are 99.9% of the people flying when that happens? A single. So of course the stats are going to show a higher rate of accidents in singles than twins. Just like there's a higher risk of drivers under 25 having an accident. It doesn't matter what car they are driving, the chances of them having accident is higher.
If those same pilots who were having accidents were flying twins, chances are that they would still have the accidents because it has nothing to do with the plane that's being flown, but the person flying it. Is a twin safer - if the pilot is proficient in OEI situations, yes, but if you look at that chart posted above - the majority of accidents were going to happen regardless of the plane they were flying.
The stats do not say twins are safer. They are, if proficiency is maintained, but the case for one is not made from the statistics.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Here we go again.....
Bill Watson
En-Route
"The simple fact today is that, using available numbers, there's little difference in accident rates of most high performance singles and piston twins. One can't be said to be safer than the other and there is no current justification for insurance discrimination against twins. That is somewhat different than my original study..." Collins -2008
That's from this update of his original piece in Air Facts:
What Happened to the Piston Twin
Setting aside the many statistical difficulties in doing accident analysis, difficulties that Dick Collins should get a lot of credit for sifting through, the biggest factor in the excessive twin accident rate he reported was early training practices. That is, practicing and demonstrating single engine operations at low altitudes. Duh!
This debate started about 50 years ago with this Dick Collings piece:
Double Trouble
Maybe I missed it but how can a discussion like this go on for 2 pages without referencing any of the original work? It's not like one has to go to the library. Worse than the Spin Zone
That's from this update of his original piece in Air Facts:
What Happened to the Piston Twin
Setting aside the many statistical difficulties in doing accident analysis, difficulties that Dick Collins should get a lot of credit for sifting through, the biggest factor in the excessive twin accident rate he reported was early training practices. That is, practicing and demonstrating single engine operations at low altitudes. Duh!
This debate started about 50 years ago with this Dick Collings piece:
Double Trouble
Maybe I missed it but how can a discussion like this go on for 2 pages without referencing any of the original work? It's not like one has to go to the library. Worse than the Spin Zone
BobThePilot
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 161
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob
Not if you have synthetic vision. If you're IMC, dead stick and in the mountains, you're not having a good day but with G1000 and synthetic vision you can try to save your ass by steering away from that mountain and locating a valley. With luck you will get below the ceiling. Hopefully too, when you decided to spend a heap load of money on a late model G1000 equipped bird, you also knew you would be flying in the mountains and got the Turbo… If you're high enough, you still have options.
With a light twin in the mountains, with one engine out you're still f'ed in many cases. You're going down because that single engine is probably not going to maintain altitude for you… Then you're going to start panicking because you spent all your money on that damn twin with old crappy avionics and you don't have all the bells and whistles you could have had sticking with a single. Your chances of spinning it in now and dying just went up exponentially.
Doesn't apply to a decent twin like a King Air… I'm talking about that light twin crap.
This debate is as comical as the one on "safety of general aviation". In general I agree with Henning but, one point I differ on is that a twin is as easy to fly as a single. A twin takes more skill (training) to fly safely than a single, IMO.
For the sake of argument let's assume that for the first 120 seconds of a typical GA flight that a light twin is more dangerous than a single. I don't believe that but, more on that later. How about the next two hours? Does the overall safety controversy, twin vs single, get mitigated any by this?
Many want to opine on this but, have no experience in a twin. In my own very limited experience I have had 4 engine failures in a twin. Three sudden and complete loss of power. One I was given a few seconds notice before I had to cage the engine. All four of these flight were a non issue. No reports or follow up. Two of the flights were continued for more than an hour to find suitable landing places, one of which I continued to my home airport. All were day VFR, fortunately. One was over the West Virginia mountains where I continued to a suitable airport, Lynchburg, Va. This one would have been ugly in a single engine. Lost one coming out of FTY (NW of Atlanta) Landed at PDK ( NE of Atlanta) where we had a maintenance facility we were familiar with. This one too would have been ugly in a single. The other two in a single would have most likely been off airport but perhaps survivable. So for me the first 120 seconds of perceived risk is mitigated by the good fortune of still having one engine making noise. I am not even going to get into the system failures, vacuum pumps, alternators, partial power loss due to a mag problem on one side or mechanical failure of other types that cause reduced power on one engine. For me it is a no brainer not really open to debate on my part. Redundancy adds safety, period.
On the first 120 seconds, now there is room for discussion there. Contrary to popular belief by the SE crowd when one quits in a twin, the wings do not immediately fall of and the fuselage go inverted and nose into the ground fifty feet from the end of the runway. However, I will concede, especially in PISTON twins if one is lost on take off, that precise, proficient airmanship is REQUIRED if you hope to survive. Your ADM had better be quick and CORRECT during this time. If you are not up to the task you need to stay out of a twin.
Well, what about the first 120 seconds of a single engine flight that loses an engine. I would suggest that precise and proficient airmanship is also required. Your ADM had better be quick and correct during this time. If you are not up to the task...
So, back to my original thought. If you can fly a single engine during the loss of an engine precisely, and correctly but the same cannot be said for you in a twin then PERHAPS the single is safer. However, how do you then factor in the remaining flight time? Might the redundancy offset the initial increased risk of a non proficient twin pilot?
When you look at this debate objectively it does becomes almost comical. It is sort of like the low time pilots that deny that the horrible safety stats apply to them because they are not the typical low time pilot. The typical SE pilot knows the single is safer because he is a single engine pilot
For the sake of argument let's assume that for the first 120 seconds of a typical GA flight that a light twin is more dangerous than a single. I don't believe that but, more on that later. How about the next two hours? Does the overall safety controversy, twin vs single, get mitigated any by this?
Many want to opine on this but, have no experience in a twin. In my own very limited experience I have had 4 engine failures in a twin. Three sudden and complete loss of power. One I was given a few seconds notice before I had to cage the engine. All four of these flight were a non issue. No reports or follow up. Two of the flights were continued for more than an hour to find suitable landing places, one of which I continued to my home airport. All were day VFR, fortunately. One was over the West Virginia mountains where I continued to a suitable airport, Lynchburg, Va. This one would have been ugly in a single engine. Lost one coming out of FTY (NW of Atlanta) Landed at PDK ( NE of Atlanta) where we had a maintenance facility we were familiar with. This one too would have been ugly in a single. The other two in a single would have most likely been off airport but perhaps survivable. So for me the first 120 seconds of perceived risk is mitigated by the good fortune of still having one engine making noise. I am not even going to get into the system failures, vacuum pumps, alternators, partial power loss due to a mag problem on one side or mechanical failure of other types that cause reduced power on one engine. For me it is a no brainer not really open to debate on my part. Redundancy adds safety, period.
On the first 120 seconds, now there is room for discussion there. Contrary to popular belief by the SE crowd when one quits in a twin, the wings do not immediately fall of and the fuselage go inverted and nose into the ground fifty feet from the end of the runway. However, I will concede, especially in PISTON twins if one is lost on take off, that precise, proficient airmanship is REQUIRED if you hope to survive. Your ADM had better be quick and CORRECT during this time. If you are not up to the task you need to stay out of a twin.
Well, what about the first 120 seconds of a single engine flight that loses an engine. I would suggest that precise and proficient airmanship is also required. Your ADM had better be quick and correct during this time. If you are not up to the task...
So, back to my original thought. If you can fly a single engine during the loss of an engine precisely, and correctly but the same cannot be said for you in a twin then PERHAPS the single is safer. However, how do you then factor in the remaining flight time? Might the redundancy offset the initial increased risk of a non proficient twin pilot?
When you look at this debate objectively it does becomes almost comical. It is sort of like the low time pilots that deny that the horrible safety stats apply to them because they are not the typical low time pilot. The typical SE pilot knows the single is safer because he is a single engine pilot
BobThePilot
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 161
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob
The typical ME pilot knows the twin is safer because he is a multi engine pilot
Couldn't have said it better myself
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Depends on the pilot. If new in a twin, probably not too good. High time twin pilot, good in the clutch, much more apt to make it safely to the ground. Usually it's low time pilots who buy the farm , many caught in IFR situations exceeding their abilitys, then often compounded by their low time in a twin. I'm always very very careful who I fly with , their hours in type, and in what they fly.
tinerj
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,350
- Display Name
Display name:
tinerj
The never ending saga.
I read a lot of aviation books, including historical ones, and before the Internet was invented, this was a topic everyone, regardless of experience or what they actually flew, had an opinion based on everything from engineering studies and statistics to off-hand anecdotes.
I read a lot of aviation books, including historical ones, and before the Internet was invented, this was a topic everyone, regardless of experience or what they actually flew, had an opinion based on everything from engineering studies and statistics to off-hand anecdotes.
N747JB
Final Approach
FTFY
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
"Can we put the myth that singles are as safe as twins to bed now?"
Didn't that title get my dirty mind to churning about.
-John
Didn't that title get my dirty mind to churning about.
-John
N747JB
Final Approach
The actual answer is "IT DEPENDS" on who is flying, what they are flying, where they are flying, what weather are they flying in and how current are they.
It's not the airplane itself that is more or less safe, it's the guy in the left seat that causes most fatal accidents.
On a personal level, I fly single engine day IFR, but not as comfortable at night IFR, just a preference. Actually at night I prefer a twin, again just a preference, the airplane has no idea where the sun is while it's flying.
On long trips I prefer two engines, I feel safer, I doubt that a I am actually any safer, but I feel safer.
I have both a single and a twin and use them for different missions, if I had just one airplane, which I did for most of my life, it would be a twin.
It's not the airplane itself that is more or less safe, it's the guy in the left seat that causes most fatal accidents.
On a personal level, I fly single engine day IFR, but not as comfortable at night IFR, just a preference. Actually at night I prefer a twin, again just a preference, the airplane has no idea where the sun is while it's flying.
On long trips I prefer two engines, I feel safer, I doubt that a I am actually any safer, but I feel safer.
I have both a single and a twin and use them for different missions, if I had just one airplane, which I did for most of my life, it would be a twin.
rbridges
En-Route
"Can we put the myth that singles are as safe as twins to bed now?"
Didn't that title get my dirty mind to churning about.
-John
if that's what the OP was talking about, there would be a whole lot more posts in this thread.
Well, of course who's flying is more important than if it's a twin or a single. But I think the argument is if the twin is safer than the single (the aircraft), so you control for the other variables.
The study in the OP doesn't control for that variable (and a lot of others), so from a scientific point of view, based on those studies, no, you can't put it to bed one way or the other.
I think everything else being equal (including the capacity of the pilot to react appropriately to an emergency), a twin is safer than a single. The thing is, that answer is pretty useless when you are deciding if FOR YOU it is safer. Also, the more important question is how much safer. That depends on the emergency (powerplant failure being the obvious one). If powerplant failure rates were incredibly low, then the additional safety would be too small in a cost benefit analysis (just from a safety point of view, there might be other advantages/disadvantages that bring the benefit up or down).
The study in the OP doesn't control for that variable (and a lot of others), so from a scientific point of view, based on those studies, no, you can't put it to bed one way or the other.
I think everything else being equal (including the capacity of the pilot to react appropriately to an emergency), a twin is safer than a single. The thing is, that answer is pretty useless when you are deciding if FOR YOU it is safer. Also, the more important question is how much safer. That depends on the emergency (powerplant failure being the obvious one). If powerplant failure rates were incredibly low, then the additional safety would be too small in a cost benefit analysis (just from a safety point of view, there might be other advantages/disadvantages that bring the benefit up or down).
Emergencies aren't the only time an excess of horsepower is a positive safety factor.
stratobee
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,112
- Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
I knew I could get you going. 
As for propagating the myth that singles are as safe, it dates back to Dick Collins columns in Flying magazine. Gotta be at least 20-25 years and going now. He obviously had a vested interest in the figures being in his favour, as he was flying a P210. You can prove anything with statistics if you try hard enough.
As for propagating the myth that singles are as safe, it dates back to Dick Collins columns in Flying magazine. Gotta be at least 20-25 years and going now. He obviously had a vested interest in the figures being in his favour, as he was flying a P210. You can prove anything with statistics if you try hard enough.
Bill Watson
En-Route
I'm a Dick Collins fan and hate seeing him get disrespected. I apologize for repeating an earlier post but:
"The simple fact today is that, using available numbers, there's little difference in accident rates of most high performance singles and piston twins. One can't be said to be safer than the other and there is no current justification for insurance discrimination against twins. That is somewhat different than my original study..." Collins -2008
That's from this update of his original piece in Air Facts:
What happened to the piston twin
Setting aside the many statistical difficulties in doing accident analysis, difficulties that Dick Collins should get a lot of credit for sifting through, the biggest factor in the excessive twin accident rate he reported was early training practices. That is, practicing and demonstrating single engine operations at low altitudes. Duh!
This debate started about 50 years ago with this Dick Collings piece:
Double Trouble
So everyone went off on this one but I'd say Collins has been on top of this from the beginning - 50 years and still going.
But lighting diversionary fires is definitely more fun, so have at it I guess. Jeez
JHW
En-Route
well then apologies to you but Collins is still an idiot. There is a huge justification for higher insurance rates for twins. An incident like a gear-up or a nosegear collapse that is a repair bill in a single, automatically totals the twin.
JHW
En-Route
my travel air insurance is about 20% higher than the fixed-gear PA32 that it replaced. Given the high potential repair cost for a major incident I find that completely reasonable.My first year rates on my Travelair ($1100, 60TT, no multi rating, 27hrs or so retract) were half of what they would have been on a Bonanza according to my amazed insurance guy.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
My first year rates on my Travelair ($1100, 60TT, no multi rating, 27hrs or so retract) were half of what they would have been on a Bonanza according to my amazed insurance guy.
And what year was that??? We all know you didn't get your ME rating yesterday so quoting what it cost you years ago doesn't really help anyone get an idea of how the underwriters look at twins today. Insurance rates have been all over the board for many years. They go from being reasonable to dang near unobtainable to reasonable again. How easy it is largely depends on the current insurance market.
1991 or so, but I insured the 310 at well over twice the value for $1700 a couple of years ago.
mrindian
Pre-Flight
Insurance isn't too bad. I insured my 1943 DC-3 in August of 2013 for $12,000 per year for 12 souls on board. So I thought that was a deal for that size plane, and I'm getting my Mel in that plane.
Gary
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Gary
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
That was the "watch it happen" part of the joke.
pilot_dude
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,793
- Display Name
Display name:
pilot_dude
Just find a wall and
. It'll save bandwidth and your mental health.
Last edited:
catmandu
Pattern Altitude
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
My first year rates on my Travelair ($1100, 60TT, no multi rating, 27hrs or so retract) were half of what they would have been on a Bonanza according to my amazed insurance guy.
We just paid $4613 for 1st year insurance on a travel air. $50k hull value. $5k deductible if plane moving, and $15k deductible for gear up landing.
My two partners each have about 1,200 hours with an instrument rating. I have about 200 hours, almost all in a Cessna 172, and am about 10 hours short of an instrument rating.
This is the ONLY company we could find that would insure me. From my vantage point, times, they are, a changing....
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That must be due to your times. Get your ME and build at least 25-50 in the TA and it should come down.
I'm at $3k for the Baron ($2 Mil policy and hull value 120k) and my broker told me it was high due to my recent engine claim on my 170. For comparison, I'm around 600TT with IR and over 200 hrs ME.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Yeah, it's clearly my time. I'm doing just what you suggested - 8 hours last week. Got a great instructor, and it's been a BLAST so far!
But writing the insurance check hurt. Not financially, but didn't get no lube...
JHW
En-Route
that'll change as you get a little time. As a point of reference mine is $2400 premium for 80K hull, 1M smooth liability, $500 deductible for anything
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,729
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
I'd say over water is one mission set where the piston twin shines over the single.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Yes, or any scenario of high altitude cruise over seriously hostile terrain but you have to carry that insurance because in any scenario of marginal performance, that is where you may be on the edge getting in or out of a particular spot, having two engines just means you're twice as likely to lose one at a critical point. That would be mitigated if you always operated your twin in a situation where you would be fine on one engine but do you always do that? Is it even possible to do that in many twins?
Well, it's whatever aspect of excess horsepower you want to take advantage of. Load is one of them. The lighter you load, the more excess horsepower on a single engine you have. Personally I load to take advantage of the 'I can always make the next runway on an engine failure' aspect.
Last edited:
Perezhr
Pre-takeoff checklist
I suspect if you look closely at the statistics the number of fatalities caused by engine failure that could have been avoided by having a second engine is probably pretty small specially when compared to fatalities caused by all the other factors. Even though I fully believe this, there is a reason I try to avoid flying at night, and there is also a reason why long overwater legs are not my favorite. If I had a twin both of these would be much lesser issues because of the realization that redundancy could save the day. I don't fly a twin because I can't/don't want to afford the higher cost, but if I had money to burn a twin would be in my future. I do believe a well trained and proficient pilot behind a good performing twin has more options.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
That would be a bonafide advantage but the constraints... Does it make sense to operate a twin under such stringent limits? It seems you're effectively eliminating the payload advantages.
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
If I were going to move into a twin, I would probably start with a twinky and just go self insured. Liability only.
They're cheap enough to do that.
$39K
They're cheap enough to do that.
$39K
Yeah, I don't particularly need the payload, 99% of my personal flying is solo long range X/C. 180kts allows me to cross the country corner to corner in a day, and with full fuel, my tools and luggage I have 750lbs of unused useful load. The other advantage to this is I can get my 180kts running each of my engines at 10.5gph, they basically are loafing well lean of peak. My exhaust residue is a white powder, my valves stay nice and clean and my CHTs are low.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
So why not a Quickie? Engine out and only one dude dies, no cargo lost. What's the point for a twin, just a quest to enlarge one's carbon footprint for no apparent reason?