Twin safety record

[Kristin]

...but let's not talk about the several hundred who didn't make it.

What several hundred? I recently did a safety review of accidents in the Twin Comanche for a 10 year period, for an article I wrote for Piper Flyer. There were eight crashes due to engine failure on takeoff. Four were because the aircraft had been left outside in the rain and the tanks weren't sumped or the aircraft had been sitting for years. One was starting a ferry flight to Hawaii and was massively over gross and claimed a loss of power. The pilot walked there. One had the pilot taking off with one engine sucking an empty tank. One was fuel contamination because the plane had been sitting for a decade -- there is no fuel like an old fuel. And lastly one was because it was a failure at a high density altitude, beyond that which the aircraft could maintain altitude at that weight. In most of these, lack of pilot proficiency, on top of the other bone-head moves, caused a grim outcome. The lesson here is that if you are determined to be stupid, a twin will weed you out of the gene pool faster than most singles.

Of course, a complex single is also a pretty good tool for taking the stupid out of the gene pool.

Short runway, over gross, temp near 100F, taking off down wind.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[brian]]

The doctor that died a year or so ago with his family keeps me wondering if a twin is the way to go. Sounds like he did everything right but his engine let him down in IMC.

Idiots will be idiots.

To get the most utility out of flying, is the extra utility from a twin enough to justify the extra time in training and expense? Guess that is a personal decision.

 

[flyingron]

One issue is, when a pilot has one engine fail on a twin, he has to make some decisions, like whether to land at the closest airport, closest airport with services or continue to his destination.

OH, the agony of having choices when it comes to an emergency situation other than preparing to crash.

 

[Ted]

One issue is, when a pilot has one engine fail on a twin, he has to make some decisions, like whether to land at the closest airport, closest airport with services or continue to his destination

This is a scenario not covered well enough in training. The right answer (usually) is to land at an airport with good facilities. Sometimes you do need to land now, but usually not. Sometimes going on to your destination is a good answer, too.

I've had to make this decision a couple times, and never found it hard to make.

 

[bikert]

The lesson here is that if you are determined to be stupid, a twin will weed you out of the gene pool faster than most singles.

Well then based on the poor safety record of the light piston twins, it appears there are a lot of stupid twin drivers?

 

[Ted]

The doctor that died a year or so ago with his family keeps me wondering if a twin is the way to go. Sounds like he did everything right but his engine let him down in IMC.

Idiots will be idiots.

To get the most utility out of flying, is the extra utility from a twin enough to justify the extra time in training and expense? Guess that is a personal decision.

Which crash are you referring to?

There are lots of instances in singles and twins where someone does everything right and still crashes. More often, you see where someone did something that was obviously wrong, and then crashes. The question becomes whether or not you believe you can not repeat that person's mistakes. Reading NTSB reports and contemplating your emergency reactions while sitting at your desk are ways that I find help.

In twins, the benefits you have are time and distance, which give you more options. In the 310, I can fly for a long time on one engine. The only reason I would land NOW in an engine failure situation would be if I was on fire or, for some reason, couldn't maintain altitude greater than ground level.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

This is a scenario not covered well enough in training. The right answer (usually) is to land at an airport with good facilities. Sometimes you do need to land now, but usually not. Sometimes going on to your destination is a good answer, too.

I've had to make this decision a couple times, and never found it hard to make.

wow....it happens that often?

 

[LDJones]

There are no reports of the ones who do make it, only the ones who don't.

I think that's the biggest missing item in these endless one vs. two debates. I suspect it would significantly affect perceptions. I know of at least five engine failures in twins that ended completely uneventfully that will never be factored into the stats.

 

[bikert]

I think that's the biggest missing item in these endless one vs. two debates. I suspect it would significantly affect perceptions. I know of at least five engine failures in twins that ended completely uneventfully that will never be factored into the stats.

Sure, and also the uneventful single engine issues where a deadstick landing occurred. Those are not reported either.

Endless one vs two is right. I don't see the point of these discussions. Everyone should look at their own missions, and analyze their risk factors and what one vs the other gains them, and make their own decisions. Some may choose to go the Cirrus route. Whatever. It's all good...

If you're truly scared of flying and want to reduce your risk to almost nothing, fly commercial.

 

[LDJones]

Sure, and also the uneventful single engine issues where a deadstick landing occurred. Those are not reported either.

Endless one vs two is right. I don't see the point of these discussions. Everyone should look at their own missions, and analyze their risk factors and what one vs the other gains them, and make their own decisions. Some may choose to go the Cirrus route. Whatever. It's all good...

If you're truly scared of flying and want to reduce your risk to almost nothing, fly commercial.

Actually, most of the successful SE dead stick landings ARE reported....most often on the nightly news. That's not the case for twins which simply land at a nearby airport.

 

[Everskyward]

I thing losing one engine in a twin is "safer" as long as the airplane has been cleaned up after takeoff and is at a sufficient altitude, whatever that is, depending on the airplane. I would not make that statement about a small twin losing an engine right after takeoff. In that case I think it is a tossup with pros and cons for each.

That said, I once was following a twin that lost an engine on approach and crashed. When I spoke to the NTSB, the investigator made the comment, "If only he had been able to maintain control for 30 more seconds".

 

[Ted]

wow....it happens that often?

Well, I've only spent a couple thousand hours in twins. Let's review:

1) I was ferrying a Tuna Tank 310 that had been sitting for something on the order of 10 years. It developed an oil leak and lost oil pressure about halfway through the flight. I made a precautionary shutdown of the engine and chose to land at the closest airport, because it had a 4000 ft runway (plenty for a 310) and the plane was an unknown quantity otherwise.

In a single, I would've had to leave the engine running and hope it didn't seize. In the twin, I was able to make a known approach on one engine and prepare for it, rather than come in on two, have one engine seize on short final, and send me into the trees.

2) My wife and I were flying the 310 on a Cloud Nine mission with 25 dogs. One of the magnetos failed. Initially, the plan was to get back to the home base (it wasn't too far) so that I could switch the Aztec and get the dogs to their destination. I've run Lycomings (in the lab, of course) on one mag for days with no issues. Continentals, as I found, do not like being on one mag, and after an hour and a half or so the engine started misfiring and bucking pretty badly. In that case I elected to leave it running (at reduced power), but did fly about 50 nm to a Class C that had good services rather than stop at the nearest uncontrolled airport with unknown services.

In a single, I would've had to divert at the beginning, or if I didn't notice the mag failure (which I've found most pilots don't) I would've found myself needing to divert to the nearest unknown airport.

I thing losing one engine in a twin is "safer" as long as the airplane has been cleaned up after takeoff and is at a sufficient altitude, whatever that is, depending on the airplane. I would not make that statement about a small twin losing an engine right after takeoff. In that case I think it is a tossup with pros and cons for each.

That said, I once was following a twin that lost an engine on approach and crashed. When I spoke to the NTSB, the investigator made the comment, "If only he had been able to maintain control for 30 more seconds".

I've never flown a 340 on one, but I've spent plenty of time flying the 310 on one to keep proficient at it. It flies very well on one and I would assume the 340 similarly so. The control aspect was likely more of a pilot issue rather than an airplane issue.

 

[Everskyward]

I've never flown a 340 on one, but I've spent plenty of time flying the 310 on one to keep proficient at it. It flies very well on one and I would assume the 340 similarly so. The control aspect was likely more of a pilot issue rather than an airplane issue.

Of couse it was a pilot issue which both preceded and followed the airplane issue, but no one is perfect at all times. The pilot may or may not have been able to land a single under control in the same situation, but he would probably not have VMC rolled it.

I can also point to a number of after takeoff engine failure accidents in twins, actually turboprops, which were flown by professional pilots.

 

[Ted]

Of couse it was a pilot issue which both preceded and followed the airplane issue, but no one is perfect at all times. The pilot may or may not have been able to land a single under control in the same situation, but he would probably not have VMC rolled it.

Understood, I just wanted to point out that the plane itself was probably controllable in the situation. It didn't seem clear from the statement. I also find that most people who've never flown a light twin with one caged are amazed at how easily they fly on one, so much of the statement was for the benefit of those who haven't tried it.

I can also point to a number of after takeoff engine failure accidents in twins, actually turboprops, which were flown by professional pilots.

When Wayne was here, he often spoke of his favorite thing to do in the King Air sim - fail the autofeather (don't tell the pilots), and then fail an engine right after gear up. After bouncing through a field a few times, the plane would inevitably hit a telephone pole and kill everyone on board, or something like that. He also pointed out that the pros who came in every 6 months still usually had this fate. I found out a few weeks ago from a coworker who worked at FlightSafety that he knew Wayne, and that Wayne doing that cracked the floor under the sim (full motion). Apparently simulated crashes are still pretty violent.

Side note: One thing I found interesting about that was when I went to SimCom with another 310 driving friend a few years back. At one point we broke their 421 sim, so they threw us in the 425 (Conquest I). Our big thing to do there were engine failures right after takeoff. We turned of the autofeather, which got the instructor all angry. He insisted we couldn't possibly fly it out of an engine failure without autofeather. I said "Well I'm pretty sure we'll survive the crash, so we'll try it anyway."

My friend and I, being used to not having autofeather, flew out of every single engine failure. Once the instructor picked his jaw up off the floor, he said he'd never seen anyone do that in the sim before. That's not to say we'd do the same in the real world, of course, it was just interesting the difference between two guys who expect a lack of autofeather and pros who expect an autofeather to work.

 

[Everskyward]

But knowing (or suspecting) that you are going to have an engine failure because you are sitting in a sim in a training situation is different than being totally surprised by it. I know that we are supposed to be ready for anything but it's still a surprise when something different happens.

 

[Ted]

But knowing (or suspecting) that you are going to have an engine failure because you are sitting in a sim in a training situation is different than being totally surprised by it. I know that we are supposed to be ready for anything but it's still a surprise when something different happens.

Agreed, hence my statement:

That's not to say we'd do the same in the real world, of course, it was just interesting the difference between two guys who expect a lack of autofeather and pros who expect an autofeather to work.

Like all other pilots, my hope is that, should an engine fail, it have the decency to do so very early in the takeoff roll, or wait until I've got plenty of altitude and airspeed.

 

[bikert]

Actually, most of the successful SE dead stick landings ARE reported.

How would you know? You (and others) can not possibly know about the successful SE dead stick landings that were NOT reported.

 

[dell30rb]

How would you know? You (and others) can not possibly know about the successful SE dead stick landings that were NOT reported.

If I had to take a guess, i'd say 80% of single engine forced landings are off-airport and are reported.

 

[bikert]

If I had to take a guess, i'd say 80% of single engine forced landings are off-airport and are reported.

Sure and it may be a good guess, but just a guess. Point is we don't REALLY know the exact stats.

 

[ActiveAir]

Any of you twin drivers do solo T & G's? After everything I have read and seen about flying twins, there is no way I would fly one without staying extremely proficient. Sim time sounds invaluable. Lost a good friend in a twin. Still waiting for the NTSB report, but I think it will turn out to be a combination of maintenance issues coupled with unfamiliarity with the plane and pride and external pressures of the pilot that lead to his demise. I flight plan as much as I can to leave myself land out options and I constantly look for landing spots. I actually enjoy that. I will fly a little longer out of the way to give myself better options.

 

[Kristin]

Well then based on the poor safety record of the light piston twins, it appears there are a lot of stupid twin drivers?

To what statistics are you referring? The ones I have seen show that light twins and complex singles have very similar accident rates. Perhaps you are mislead by statistics that lump Cubs and 172's in with the singles. Any discussion of the light twin accident rate needs to compare to complex singles, not Cubs. No one contemplating a twin or a single is making the comparison between the twin and a Cub. They are comparing between something like a Cirrus and a light twin.

 

[Ted]

Any of you twin drivers do solo T & G's? After everything I have read and seen about flying twins, there is no way I would fly one without staying extremely proficient. Sim time sounds invaluable. Lost a good friend in a twin. Still waiting for the NTSB report, but I think it will turn out to be a combination of maintenance issues coupled with unfamiliarity with the plane and pride and external pressures of the pilot that lead to his demise. I flight plan as much as I can to leave myself land out options and I constantly look for landing spots. I actually enjoy that. I will fly a little longer out of the way to give myself better options.

I do not do T&Gs in twins, nor will I either solo or with students. Make a landing, stop, come around, take off again. Too much happening too quickly.

I'm sorry about your friend.

 

[Kritchlow]

I do not do T&Gs in twins, nor will I either solo or with students. Make a landing, stop, come around, take off again. Too much happening too quickly.

I'm sorry about your friend.

A few years ago I was at GSO waiting for my releases at the hold line. The presidential 747 was doing touch & gos. What a site to be seen that close up, super shiny and huge. It was using the call sign
"Venus 1".

Point is... There is nothing inherently wrong with touch & gos. If you aren't comfortable that's a different story.

 

[bikert]

To what statistics are you referring? The ones I have seen show that light twins and complex singles have very similar accident rates.

Yes, me too. Very similar accident rates. I think that is the point a lot of us are making.

 

[Kristin]

Yes, me too. Very similar accident rates. I think that is the point a lot of us are making.

I am glad we could get some clarity on your comments.

Well then based on the poor safety record of the light piston twins, it appears there are a lot of stupid twin drivers?

So you meant to say that: based on the poor safety record of both high performance singles and light piston twins, it appears that there are a lot of stupid pilots.

I would say that there are a lot of pilots who need additional training.

 

[GRG55]

Well then based on the poor safety record of the light piston twins, it appears there are a lot of stupid twin drivers?

Is the high performance single safety record better?

 

[GRG55]

How would you know? You (and others) can not possibly know about the successful SE dead stick landings that were NOT reported.

Does a Cirrus chute pull qualify as a "dead stick" in your opinion? If so do you think there has been a Cirrus chute pull that hasn't been reported? Around my place every gear up landing in a retract on the runway (and we've had a few over the years) gets scraped paint & bent prop pictures in the press and on the evening news, along with the obligatory "rich, stupid pilots engaged in dangerous pastime" story angle.

 

[GRG55]

I do not do T&Gs in twins, nor will I either solo or with students. Make a landing, stop, come around, take off again. Too much happening too quickly.

Interesting. On my flight test first exercise was a full circuit. Examiner simulated failed RH engine on downwind, required me to call the touchdown point on final and make it within 500 ft, "gave me back my engine" on the roll and we kept going right into a normal takeoff. I didn't think anything of it at the time...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Interesting. On my flight test first exercise was a full circuit. Examiner simulated failed RH engine on downwind, required me to call the touchdown point on final and make it within 500 ft, "gave me back my engine" on the roll and we kept going right into a normal takeoff. I didn't think anything of it at the time...

Some people do it, but there are two reasons why many of us refuse to do TnG's in twins. One is that there is more to do configuration wise to transition between landing and takeoff. The other is the whole balanced field thing. Unless you are at some place like Edwards AFB, you will almost never have a balanced field taking off after a touch and go.

 

[mscard88]

I do not do T&Gs in twins, nor will I either solo or with students. Make a landing, stop, come around, take off again. Too much happening too quickly.

I'm sorry about your friend.

I can see your reasoning if the runway is inadequate (too short) for T&Gs. I instructed mostly on a 6500' runway in C310s and did T&Gs all the time. Even on my ME rating and ME CFI rides did T&Gs w/ the examiner, FAA Insp on the ME CFI. But nothing wrong with your method either.

 

[Ted]

Interesting. On my flight test first exercise was a full circuit. Examiner simulated failed RH engine on downwind, required me to call the touchdown point on final and make it within 500 ft, "gave me back my engine" on the roll and we kept going right into a normal takeoff. I didn't think anything of it at the time...

Some people do it, but there are two reasons why many of us refuse to do TnG's in twins. One is that there is more to do configuration wise to transition between landing and takeoff. The other is the whole balanced field thing. Unless you are at some place like Edwards AFB, you will almost never have a balanced field taking off after a touch and go.

I can see your reasoning if the runway is inadequate (too short) for T&Gs. I instructed mostly on a 6500' runway in C310s and did T&Gs all the time. Even on my ME rating and ME CFI rides did T&Gs w/ the examiner, FAA Insp on the ME CFI. But nothing wrong with your method either.

As with everything in aviation, there are different sides to it. My point was that personally, I won't do T&Gs in a twin. Keep in mind that many won't do T&Gs in a complex single, either, because of the concern of pulling the gear when the intent is to pull the flaps. Having two pilots helps to mitigate this (SIC's job is flaps, etc. while PIC's job is fly the airplane), but it's a concern. Fearless's point about balanced field length is a good one.

One of my reasons is that, in twins, I focus on teaching my students (and keeping practice myself) with the pre-takeoff briefing, where you pre-decide what you do if an engine fails at any point throughout the takeoff roll. In a light twin, this is important, especially when doing transition training (I notice many pilots don't do this). So each landing and then lining up at the hold short line provides the opportunity to go over the pre-takeoff briefing.

I know the military does them in C-130s and the like, and I'm sure it was more common decades ago. But, as we know, risk tolerance in training has decreased over the years.

To each his own. Personally, not something I would do for the above reasons, but I won't say people are idiots for doing them.

 

[Everskyward]

I know the military does them in C-130s and the like, and I'm sure it was more common decades ago. But, as we know, risk tolerance in training has decreased over the years.

To each his own. Personally, not something I would do for the above reasons, but I won't say people are idiots for doing them.

It's easier to do touch and goes in a crewed jet. There are fewer levers to manipulate!

While I would not have done touch and goes in the C-320, especially when training someone, I have done my first two landings in two type of jets as touch and goes.

 

[Ted]

It's easier to do touch and goes in a crewed jet. There are fewer levers to manipulate!

While I would not have done touch and goes in the C-320, especially when training someone, I have done my first two landings in two type of jets as touch and goes.

I could actually see it making more sense in a jet. I presume you have your V1/VR/V2 speeds already known, it's also very simple in that regard what you do when if an engine fails, like you said you have a 2-pilot crew to manipulate the levers (which are also easier).

 

[dtuuri]

I presume you have your V1/VR/V2 speeds already known...

I wouldn't bet on it. What's V1 for a moving target who knows how far down the runway?

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

I could actually see it making more sense in a jet. I presume you have your V1/VR/V2 speeds already known, it's also very simple in that regard what you do when if an engine fails, like you said you have a 2-pilot crew to manipulate the levers (which are also easier).

The speeds are not going to change based on a trip around the pattern. The weight doesn't change that much.

 

[Everskyward]

I wouldn't bet on it. What's V1 for a moving target who knows how far down the runway?

dtuuri

It's not going to change based on how far down the runway you are. We aren't talking about having a balanced field length problem. Besides, it doesn't take very long to get to V1 again on a touch and go.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

"balanced field length problem..."????....possibly there's a simpler way to say that.....there ain't no mo (enough) runway left to stop.

 

[Everskyward]

"balanced field length problem..."????....possibly there's a simpler way to say that.....there ain't no mo runway left to stop.

You can say it's the distance where accelerate/stop equals accelerate/go. In other words, you're not supposed to use a runway shorter than that. The runways where we were doing touch and goes were long enough to land, come to a stop, then takeoff again. But we would use less runway than that on a touch and go because we wouldn't be using the distance it would theoretically take to slow all the way to a stop then accelerate from a stop.

 

[dtuuri]

The runways where we were doing touch and goes were long enough to land, come to a stop, then takeoff again.

Is that the minimum required runway length for touch and go's according to SOP?

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Is that the minimum required runway length for touch and go's according to SOP?

dtuuri

What SOP are you talking about? Have you clairvoyantly read ours?