GA twins not certified for single engine flight?

[RyanB]

I have read somewhere that says GA light multi-engine aircraft are not certified or tested to be able to fly with an engine out (like on takeoff), cruise flight maybe a different story. Is this a flaw in safety regulations? Commercial aircraft can fly if they lose an engine on takeoff but GA multis seem to have a hard time with it. Seems like several multi aircraft that have lost an engine lately have not been able to land safely, whats up with this?

 

[stratobee]

There is no requirement under 6000lbs that the plane be able to climb, at gross, single engine at SL. Above 6000lbs there is. Most of them do (if you do everything correctly), but losing an engine on takeoff is a critical period and it's very easy to mess up.

 

[RyanB]

Its surprising the FAA has not mandated a reg for that to be required for all GA multis. In reality a twin should be much safer than a single

 

[JHW]

you have a serious misunderstanding of how both regulations and practical considerations are constructed. An engine failure is an emergency in virtually any airplane except maybe a B52

 

[Ted]

Part 23 and Part 25 regs are quite different. This is why bigger planes can do better on one engine, but it's still an emergency as Jeff said.

There are a number of things that hurt you for an engine failure at rotation in a GA twin. Twin pilots understand this and work with it (mostly).

Best safety upgrade you can put in a twin is more powerful engines.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Its surprising the FAA has not mandated a reg for that to be required for all GA multis. In reality a twin should be much safer than a single

Pilot proficiency (or lack thereof) is a far bigger factor I multi-engine safety than the requirements imposed by the certification regulations.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Part 23 and Part 25 regs are quite different. This is why bigger planes can do better on one engine, but it's still an emergency as Jeff said.

There are a number of things that hurt you for an engine failure at rotation in a GA twin. Twin pilots understand this and work with it (mostly).

Best safety upgrade you can put in a twin is more powerful engines.

As long as it isn't burning or severe damage, engine failure is only an abnormal procedure in 3 or 4 engine jets like the DC-8, DC-10, MD-11 and B-747-400.

Light twins, it is.

As the OP, a key part of flying a multiengine GA plane is knowing if you'll be able to climb or the best you can do is a slow descent. Weight is everything in single engine performance. The ironic thing is that the first twin you fly will have the least single engine performance. As the planes get bigger and more expensive, the engine out improves. The worst are the training twins like the Duchess or the Seminole.

 

[RyanB]

you have a serious misunderstanding of how both regulations and practical considerations are constructed. An engine failure is an emergency in virtually any airplane except maybe a B52

Of course its an emergency, a serious one at that. Im just saying it seems like there should be a reg that these aircraft have to have the ability to perform in these situations as part 121 carriers do. Maybe it is the fact that they have bigger engines but weight to power displacement is probably somewhat similar

 

[JHW]

Of course its an emergency, a serious one at that. Im just saying it seems like there should be a reg that these aircraft have to have the ability to perform in these situations as part 121 carriers do.

why ? should there also be a regulation that they have 2 pilots? Have security screening for all passengers? have a drug testing program for crew members ? And why is your single engine plane exempt from your proposed regulation? Let's ban that death trap.

 

[CFI AandP]

I have read somewhere that says GA light multi-engine aircraft are not certified or tested to be able to fly with an engine out (like on takeoff), cruise flight maybe a different story. Is this a flaw in safety regulations? Commercial aircraft can fly if they lose an engine on takeoff but GA multis seem to have a hard time with it. Seems like several multi aircraft that have lost an engine lately have not been able to land safely, whats up with this?

You should read this article:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/A/AE001.html

 

[SCCutler]

I would modestly suggest that, using your reasoning, all general aviation aircraft must be grounded immediately because, of course, an engine failure will cause the airplane to perform poorly. Why, after all, should single-engined aircraft be treated differently than multiple-engined aircraft?

 

[Henning]

I have read somewhere that says GA light multi-engine aircraft are not certified or tested to be able to fly with an engine out (like on takeoff), cruise flight maybe a different story. Is this a flaw in safety regulations? Commercial aircraft can fly if they lose an engine on takeoff but GA multis seem to have a hard time with it. Seems like several multi aircraft that have lost an engine lately have not been able to land safely, whats up with this?

They do not have to meet a performance gradient, no. Your ability to climb is dependent on various factors, most notably Gross Weight. Gross weight is the maximum weight you are allowed to operate at and will result in the worst single engine performance. If you are operating light twins in a high DA environment at Gross Weight, there is a chance you may end up with a rate of descent when cleaned up and at Blue Line, and you treat it as an extended glide. Most any non turbo 4 cylinder twin operating single engine at Gross Weight is an 'extended glider' above 4500'.

However, we rarely operate private light twins at their gross weight, and leaving even 10% of your max gross on the ground has a dramatic effect on your single engine performance, and most light twins typically fly even further below their weight than that, so they will typically still have some single engine performance in their normal operating altitude. Even at gross, most light twins with 180hp a side will have some SE performance in the Sea Level-1500' airports except in exceptional high DA weather. I managed just fine with 3 different engine shut down circumstances in my Travelair, never even had to advance full power to make Vyse+15 while holding altitude, and I was at gross with 3 people and an anchor and chain onboard. At my typical takeoff weight in the 310 I was significantly below gross, leaving 40% of my useful load unused even at full fuel. I took off out of FXE and went out off shore to head north and did a climb test at this weight, temps were iso+3 or 4. I feathered the left at 75' and set the trim for Vyse and the ball a half cage out and a list to the right and let it climb. The climb started around 1250fpm and I quit at 7500' still climbing some.

So it's a misnomer to say this is a safety defect or oversight, it is more a concession to reality and economics. It would greatly increase the costs of a light twin to meet Pt 25 rules, the horsepower required is expensive, and unwarranted for the greatest part in the application the planes serve. Everything is a safety compromise, but eventually the house always wins regardless how you play.

 

[Henning]

Its surprising the FAA has not mandated a reg for that to be required for all GA multis. In reality a twin should be much safer than a single

The issue is the cost of carrying reserve horsepower. Most twins operated effectively are just fine as they exist. The risk factor difference between a single and twin isn't particularly significant since most accidents are created in the cockpit.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I managed just fine with 3 different engine shut down circumstances in my Travelair, never even had to advance full power to make Vyse+15 while holding altitude, and I was at gross with 3 people and an anchor and chain onboard.

So over the short time you owned the airplane 3 times you had to shut down an engine? Sounds to me like maintenance issues.

 

[N801BH]

As long as it isn't burning or severe damage, engine failure is only an abnormal procedure in 3 or 4 engine jets like the DC-8, DC-10, MD-11 and B-747-400.

Light twins, it is.

As the OP, a key part of flying a multiengine GA plane is knowing if you'll be able to climb or the best you can do is a slow descent. Weight is everything in single engine performance. The ironic thing is that the first twin you fly will have the least single engine performance. As the planes get bigger and more expensive, the engine out improves. The worst are the training twins like the Duchess or the Seminole.

Agreed...

Those two twins will literally take you to the scene of the crash if you lose a motor... Especially on take off...

 

[Henning]

So over the short time you owned the airplane 3 times you had to shut down an engine? Sounds to me like maintenance issues.

My Travelair I owned and flew over 1200 hours in a decade. Yes, I had to shut it down 3 times in flight until I just changed out all the hoses on my engines. Once was an ILS to below minimums at Oakland. They had been recently replaced with the engine overhauls the last owner did prior to selling and all were made with 'counterfeit' fittings. After the third cracked and started spraying oil I just changed them all. All three were in my first year of ownership.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Its surprising the FAA has not mandated a reg for that to be required for all GA multis. In reality a twin should be much safer than a single

Well, here's how it works. Take your GA multi - Let's say it's a Seminole, which has 180hp/side, a MGW of 3800 pounds, and a single-engine service ceiling (the altitude at which the plane can climb 50fpm with one engine inop) of 3800 feet DA.

First of all, a transport-category plane can continue takeoff at V1 - They have to, or they'll plow into "stuff" off the end of the runway which could include expensive and/or living things. A Seminole, OTOH, has an 880-foot ground roll so plenty of room to stop if you lose an engine on the ground, and no real V1. In fact, the Seminole can get up to 50 AGL, lose one, and still put it back down on a 3000-foot runway.

But, let's say we want to be able to continue takeoff if we lose an engine right at rotation. How do we do that? More power, of course! Climb comes from excess horsepower. By my calculations, getting 500 fpm out of a Seminole at sea level on a standard day would require about 230 hp/side instead of 180 at the same gross weight. Well, that means we need to upgrade the engines. An IO-540 weighs 180 pounds more than an O-360, so now we have 360 extra pounds of engines. That also means we'll need a beefier airframe to handle those engines, as well as about 60 more gallons of fuel to maintain the same endurance. So, now we're talking a 4600-pound airplane instead of a 3800-pound one, so we're closer to 280hp necessary to get that 500fpm climb on one engine. And that's at sea level on a standard day.

Now, since it seems that you'd like to have safety be a sure thing, we need to consider several more things. First is field elevation. 95th percentile field elevation in the US is 4,660 feet MSL. Take a place like that on a hot day in the summer, or Leadville on a cold day, you'd probably like to see 500 fpm at 8000 DA, and that means that you're going to need... 377 hp/side! Uh oh, our 300hp IO-540 won't even do the trick any more - Now we need to add turbos, more structure, and more fuel to do the job. And now, people are going to expect at least a couple more seats and some more carrying capacity for all that power and fuel burn, so up it just a bit more and you're over 6,000 pounds.

The point of all this is - If there were a regulation stating that even light twins had to be able to climb out the way transport category planes can, there simply wouldn't be any light twins any more. It's just not feasible to have an airplane that can do that at such a low weight.

Yes, twins should be safer than singles - But most of that is, like in all things aviation, the pilot's responsibility. If you want your twin to be safer than a single, then don't load it up to gross, especially on a hot day or at a higher-altitude field, if you want to be able to continue a climb-out. However, in many cases (field elevations <1500MSL, not-hot days, not loaded all the way up to gross weight), even the lowly Seminole can in fact either get back onto the runway (from <50 AGL) or continue to climb out above obstacles long enough to get back to a runway. You just have to know what the variables are and stack the deck in your favor as well as stay proficient in handling an engine-out situation.

 

[RotorAndWing]

My Travelair I owned and flew over 1200 hours in a decade.

Interesting. I had my C310Q for about the same time and never had any engine problems, but then of course I meticulously maintained my airplane and did a thorough prebuy.

Yes, I had to shut it down 3 times in flight until I just changed out all the hoses on my engines.

See above.

Once was an ILS to below minimums at Oakland.

So you fly approaches to below minimums?

They had been recently replaced with the engine overhauls the last owner did prior to selling and all were made with 'counterfeit' fittings. After the third cracked and started spraying oil I just changed them all. All three were in my first year of ownership.

Again, a qualified mechanic would have picked up on this during a prebuy, or at least with the failure of the first fitting.

 

[Dead Stick]

you have a serious misunderstanding of how both regulations and practical considerations are constructed. An engine failure is an emergency in virtually any airplane except maybe a B52

I fly a tri-jet for a living. The loss of an engine in any jet aircraft with 3 or more engines is an abnormal procedure not an emergency. But you're right, light twins have two engines because they need two engines. Under certain conditions, light twins can maintain controlled flight with OEI. They are inherently safer than singles ONLY if they are operated in such a manner that preserves their extremely limited OEI performance capability.

There is an assumption associated with the operation light twins: That when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart.

A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous. Unfortunately, many light twin drivers (including many of the "pros") would be safer in a single.

It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgment and discipline to operate your twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise the limited OEI performance capabilities of the typical light piston twin.

Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. In a twin, it's all about competency, not just currency and the only way to achieve and maintain proficiency is through a structured recurrent training program. If you're going to fly a twin, you need to budget the time and money to do it right and it ain't going to be cheap.

This is what it looks like when you haven't done what you were supposed to do and an engine quits on you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQwkKameLg

 

[bobmrg]

"§ 23.67 Climb: One engine inoperative.
(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, the following apply:
(1) Except for those airplanes that meet the requirements prescribed in § 23.562(d), each airplane with a VS0 of more than 61 knots must be able to maintain a steady climb gradient of at least 1.5 percent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet with the -
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2 VS1.
(2) For each airplane that meets the requirements prescribed in § 23.562(d), or that has a VS0 of 61 knots or less, the steady gradient of climb or descent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet must be determined with the -
(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2 VS1."

The fixed-gear, non-featherable-props Champion Lancer is an example (maybe the only example) of a twin that must be controllable all the way to impact.

Bob Gardner

 

[Henning]

Agreed...

Those two twins will literally take you to the scene of the crash if you lose a motor... Especially on take off...

At Jackson at high DA and high weight maybe, but on the coasts and lowlands operating light as trainers, or as a low cost twin engine commuter, they are perfectly fine. Heck, even a 160hp Apache will climb on a single when it's light enough. For commuting around densely populated metropolises or between offshore islands with one or two people in them, you have plenty of single engine performance.

 

[poadeleted20]

I managed just fine with 3 different engine shut down circumstances in my Travelair, never even had to advance full power to make Vyse+15 while holding altitude, and I was at gross with 3 people and an anchor and chain onboard.

And if you believe that, he's got some beachfront property in Florida to sell you.

Fact is, as Dead Stick said, light piston twins have two engines because they need two engines to get the desired performance (e.g., 170 knots with six adults aboard). 350HP is just about the limit of what we can get out of a horizontally-opposed air-cooled piston engine turning 2700 RPM or so, and that's just not enough power to lift that much weight and propel it that fast in level flight. In order to get that sort of performance, you need 500-600 HP, and the only way you can get that short of turbine engines is to use one big radial engine or two horizontally-opposed engines.

No doubt you could put a big old radial engine on a Navajo sized airframe to do that, but you'd have other issues arising which nobody wants to live with any more. So, the only piston option becomes a couple of 300-400HP horizontally-opposed engines, and the loss of either leaves you a couple of hundred horsepower short of HPreq for safe operation. Thus, with Part 23 piston twins, both engines are "critical engines" from a safety perspective, and pilots who forget that become statistics.

 

[JHW]

And if you believe that, he's got some beachfront property in Florida to sell you.

yeah, at the weights we fly my travel air is in coast-down mode to ~6K with whipped squirrels and holding blue line as close as I can. They're 4-bangers, there is only so much they can do.

 

[Henning]

yeah, at the weights we fly my travel air is in coast-down mode to ~6K with whipped squirrels and holding blue line as close as I can. They're 4-bangers, there is only so much they can do.

Mine was turbo normalized and coasted down to 13,100 on one which was why I took it, it could clear every MEA it would see on a single engine. Down around 1300' though it did extremely well. I was turning around just after being handed off to LA and got back to LGB and they asked if I wanted 07, but I said no, I was doing fine, I'd rather have the headwind and left turns. He asked if I wanted equipment, I told him "Sure, I may **** this up yet." He even gave me a gear check on final. That was the first fitting that blew, had the boat owner's wife and buddy onboard as well as an anchor and chain for the tender which the fire chief dude found amusing, so when he asked why the hell I had an anchor in the back of my plane, I just couldn't help myself and told him it was my emergency brake.

I still think a Travelair is one of the best values in personal aviation.

 

[RyanB]

Thanks for the responses, i ask this question simply because i do not know much about multi aircraft. I was just curious the differences as to why commercial multi's can climb safely with an engine out vs the comparison. I probably overstepped my bounds by asking this and assuming, i just dont know much about them like i say. Thanks for the insight!

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks for the responses, i ask this question simply because i do not know much about multi aircraft. I was just curious the differences as to why commercial multi's can climb safely with an engine out vs the comparison. I probably overstepped my bounds by asking this and assuming, i just dont know much about them like i say. Thanks for the insight!

It's all about the difference in the FAA's required level of safety between commercial airlines in "common carriage" (look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall's, or maybe google it, in this digital age ) and private operations. The details are, as mentioned above, found in the differences between regular Part 23 rules, Part 23 rules for "commuter" aircraft, and the Part 25 rules for "transport" aircraft.

 

[Henning]

Thanks for the responses, i ask this question simply because i do not know much about multi aircraft. I was just curious the differences as to why commercial multi's can climb safely with an engine out vs the comparison. I probably overstepped my bounds by asking this and assuming, i just dont know much about them like i say. Thanks for the insight!

Because they operate in Commerce, and we as a society hold commerce to a higher standard of safety and liability to a higher standard because the scale of potential loss is so much higher. Plus when people pay for a service you form a contract with performance expectations, that again raises the liability stakes which is why Air Carrier services operate under Strict Liability.

The scale of commercial operations also creates the economic viability of the costs that bring about those assurances. In the private sector it costs at least half a million dollars to buy that level of regulatory performance assurance, and you're not getting the nice shiny model of the King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne, MU-2, turbine Commander... for that. Realistic cost of entry into that level of capability in aviation these days to get a good machine is going to be $800k-$1.2MM. It really requires the power to weight ratios of a turbine to do twin engine, which is why recip transports were often 4 engine.

The closest you will come for under $250k are the top horse power cabin class twins and such >6000lbs. There are some performance assurances that start at that weight, and planes like a 421 and Navajo have a respectable ability that if handled capably will be sufficient to bring you to a runway under control from the point of rotation in most conditions. All typical twins are capable of this type of performance though, what happens is as you lose excess HP, the set of conditions, mostly variable in DA and GW, become more restricted. Usually a twin can tank way more fuel than it needs for a given flight if operating locally, so leaving 3 hours of fuel out of 6 on the ground adds a lot of SE performance that can go into payload, climb gradient, or altitude increases. Carrying a bunch of excess fuel in a twin just because you always top off is not a good idea really.

The 310 is such a popular 'Pilot's airplane' because with just a pilot flying it, it really has good SE performance, with turbo versions available for operators who need higher altitude performance. They also came with available deicing gear even from the start in 1955. It is the lightest, lowest cost, of the real "SE Performance Assurance" planes, PROVIDED, you understand that is only an assurance at mid operating weight, which one businessman, full fuel, and luggage comes in at. With that the 310 was the first economical all weather plane for the business man that had solid single engine performance and 3 mile a minute speeds allowing one to cross the country in a day.

Capability all revolves around the excess horsepower available beyond what is required to maintain level flight at L/D Max.

 

[nosehair]

Interesting. I had my C310Q for about the same time and never had any engine problems, but then of course I meticulously maintained my airplane and did a thorough prebuy.



See above.



So you fly approaches to below minimums?




Again, a qualified mechanic would have picked up on this during a prebuy, or at least with the failure of the first fitting.

Woah, now you're coming across like the character in your picture .
He doesn't like to make friends either.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Woah, now you're coming across like the character in your picture .
He doesn't like to make friends either.

No, I'm just curious. This is a guy who brags about all of his aircraft maintenance experience (without an A&P to show for it) but yet would let something like "counterfeit" fittings get by a prebuy.

And I got a chuckle out of the "shooting an approach to below minimums"...c'mon, think about that statement for a minute....

 

[Henning]

Interesting. I had my C310Q for about the same time and never had any engine problems, but then of course I meticulously maintained my airplane and did a thorough prebuy.



See above.



So you fly approaches to below minimums?




Again, a qualified mechanic would have picked up on this during a prebuy, or at least with the failure of the first fitting.

Yep, I was young and learning, mistakes were made. I maintain my planes pretty well. I don't know how a prebuy would have identified those fittings though. it took the FSDO guy next door a week to find out.

I wasn't planning the approach lol. That was a real learning experience in foggy ops. Departing Hayward I had 300' and ok vis, problem was that was below the LDA approach available to get back in. However I always figured I could use OAK ILS as my alternate and when I briefed it was 300' at OAK as well, so I'm good to go. Well, it took a while before I finally got my release, and I didn't think to ask for an update on the conditions at OAK, that was my big mistake. I saw oil coming out of my cowling around 700' and caged the engine. When declared and asked for the ILS 11 into OAK, they got me on vectors and informed me OAK was reporting below minimums. It was still my best option so I proceeded. I knew my CDIs were accurate up to this point so at 200' I slowed to a fast landing attitude and just stayed on the needles. I saw the runway around 90'.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yep, I was young and learning, mistakes were made. I maintain my planes pretty well. I don't know how a prebuy would have identified those fittings though. it took the FSDO guy next door a week to find out.

I wasn't planning the approach lol. That was a real learning experience in foggy ops. Departing Hayward I had 300' and ok vis, problem was that was below the LDA approach available to get back in. However I always figured I could use OAK ILS as my alternate and when I briefed it was 300' at OAK as well, so I'm good to go. Well, it took a while before I finally got my release, and I didn't think to ask for an update on the conditions at OAK, that was my big mistake. I saw oil coming out of my cowling around 700' and caged the engine. When declared and asked for the ILS 11 into OAK, they got me on vectors and informed me OAK was reporting below minimums. It was still my best option so I proceeded. I knew my CDIs were accurate up to this point so at 200' I slowed to a fast landing attitude and just stayed on the needles. I saw the runway around 90'.

Uh huh.........

Let's see, an emergency was declared (correct?) and the tower reported below minimums and you continued the approach to landing. Right? And no pilot deviation was filed? Right? Because a PD would have triggered at least an explanation of the failed fitting to the FAA and subsequent investigation (you did claim counterfeit parts). The FAA has a huge hard on for conterfeit parts and I promise you an insuing investigation would occur.

The rest would have been covered under PIC declaring an emergency and taken care of.

I think we can file this one with the exploding barge story....

 

[Henning]

Nope, They were happy I was on the ground safe and sound, nothing beyond the basic info call to the tower. The extremely low patch was transitory and just bad luck. Yes, I had declared an emergency. The only reason the FSDO got involved at all was that one of the guys from next door was in our shop and asked why I was changing out all my new hoses and I told him I had 3 fitting failures already in as many months and he asked me to have them so I gave them to him. It wasn't something he could just spot though, he had to research it, so I don't hold it against my old boss for not finding them on my prebuy, though he did pay for my new ones.

 

[Ted]

Like I said, best thing you can do is more power. Dr. Bruce specifically operates his Seneca under gross to achieve the desired performance, and there's no reason why others can't do the same thing. If you have the plane because you need the useful load in it, then your safety margins are reduced.

I would love to put GTSIO-520s out of a 421 in the 310. At 375 HP a side, you'd have a power/weight ratio equal to a Commander 690, and suddenly you have great OEI performance. Of course, you also have to get the dead engine caged (there's a lot of drag on that prop), which is a consideration.

It's absolutely true that many twin pilots would be safer in a single. It's not just the plane, it is the pilot.

But, if you do the training, fly enough and keep your proficiency, there's a safety advantage.

 

[RyanB]

Good answers, just to clarify, i did not post this thread to try and start arguments or say anything bad about multi's or anything. I just heard about this and wanted to post on here to get some insight about this topic. I just wanted to know what the differences were between the two and why they perform differently given the situation. Thank you for your replies!

 

[ja_user]

Thanks for the responses, i ask this question simply because i do not know much about multi aircraft. I was just curious the differences as to why commercial multi's can climb safely with an engine out vs the comparison. I probably overstepped my bounds by asking this and assuming, i just dont know much about them like i say. Thanks for the insight!

That's fine for the question.

They are trainers though, they have their limitations. They do a good job of teaching people why you don't want to overload a twin on a hot day...

As much as we would all like to, we can't all do our MEL training in a King Air, so we need these light twins for training or traveling in the flat lands..

 

[Kristin]

Nope, They were happy I was on the ground safe and sound, nothing beyond the basic info call to the tower. The extremely low patch was transitory and just bad luck. Yes, I had declared an emergency. The only reason the FSDO got involved at all was that one of the guys from next door was in our shop and asked why I was changing out all my new hoses and I told him I had 3 fitting failures already in as many months and he asked me to have them so I gave them to him. It wasn't something he could just spot though, he had to research it, so I don't hold it against my old boss for not finding them on my prebuy, though he did pay for my new ones.

I do pre-buy inspections, and there is no way I can tell a counterfeit hose fitting if it looks the same as either Aeroquip's fittings or the Stratoflex fittings by Parker Hannifin. While I would be fine with disassembling the aircraft and sending all the parts to Anamet Labs for metallurgical testing, most buyers and sellers aren't up for that. I would give your old boss a pass on that.

 

[Henning]

I do pre-buy inspections, and there is no way I can tell a counterfeit hose fitting if it looks the same as either Aeroquip's fittings or the Stratoflex fittings by Parker Hannifin. While I would be fine with disassembling the aircraft and sending all the parts to Anamet Labs for metallurgical testing, most buyers and sellers aren't up for that. I would give your old boss a pass on that.

Exactly they were nice new tagged hoses on nice new engines. He was the one who told me to grab some new hose and fittings and just change them all out.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Exactly they were nice new tagged hoses on nice new engines. He was the one who told me to grab some new hose and fittings and just change them all out.

At first you said they were counterfeit, so what was written on the tag? Were they traceable?

 

[Henning]

At first you said they were counterfeit, so what was written on the tag? Were they traceable?

The fittings were, the hose shop tagged the hoses when they made them, yes it got traced back to a big supply of fittings, some of which had also been delivered to Douglas across the way.

 

[Kristin]

Exactly they were nice new tagged hoses on nice new engines. He was the one who told me to grab some new hose and fittings and just change them all out.

It seems that whatever shop made up, tagged, and certified the hoses has some 'splaining to do.