Why Twins Aren't Safer than Singles

I'd like to know how you came to your initial conclusion that twins aren't safer that singles, because I know of no statistics to support that hypothesis.

The statistics make it pretty clear. Twins are safer than singles when flown properly by knowledgeable and proficient multiengine pilots. They are not safer when flown beyond their capabilities by pilots without that knowledge/proficiency. You just don't hear about the first group because they don't have that many accidents.
 
IMHO the OP is grossly oversimplifying. What makes an aircraft "safe" or "unsafe" is the biological unit attached to the controls. On a severe clear dead calm day a minor failure in flight handled in an efficient and competent manner by a well trained pilot is a non-event. If the same occurrence happens to a sloppy and unprepared pilot it could lead to disaster.

My 310Q has a single engine book ceiling of 6680ft. In the intermountain West where I do 99% of my flying that means a gentle descent all the way to the scene of the crash in most instances. But I will have a functioning vacuum system and better cross range ability when choosing a place to land. Any aircraft is unsafe in incompetent hands.
 
I would argue that most recreational flyers would not be any safer in a twin, to handle an OEI situation you need a fairly high level of proficiency, something most folks flying bug smashers don't have.
 
Skylane81E said:
I would argue that most recreational flyers would not be any safer in a twin, to handle an OEI situation you need a fairly high level of proficiency, something most folks flying bug smashers don't have.
Click to expand...

If they got a twin and complied with their insurance training requirements they'd be better pilots than they are today by virtue of the additional training.
 
Skylane81E said:
I would argue that most recreational flyers would not be any safer in a twin, to handle an OEI situation you need a fairly high level of proficiency, something most folks flying bug smashers don't have.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that a fairly high level of proficiency is required. The only time speed and proficiency are going to make a difference is in the T/O scenario, flying a multi is simple.
 
LDJones said:
If they got a twin and complied with their insurance training requirements they'd be better pilots than they are today by virtue of the additional training.
Click to expand...

Depends on the twin. For the Duke I expect you have some higher training. For the 310, Aztec, and Navajo, I had no extra training required. Just have a current flight review and medical.
 
Henning said:
I don't agree that a fairly high level of proficiency is required. The only time speed and proficiency are going to make a difference is in the T/O scenario, flying a multi is simple.
Click to expand...

Those not mentally prepared are apt to panic in SHTF scenarios in my experience.

Also lets not forget pilots propensity for doing silly things like running out of gas, if you can't check your fuel I wouldn't want to be in the back while you try and fly OEI
 
Henning said:
I don't agree that a fairly high level of proficiency is required. The only time speed and proficiency are going to make a difference is in the T/O scenario, flying a multi is simple.
Click to expand...
If you'd given a few hundred hours of training in twins to owner/pilots, you might not feel the same way. Too many of them neglect their OEI proficiency, viz, the guy I went to do IR training with in a Baron. The first time I pulled an engine without warning (in cruise, no less), I had to take the controls to keep from ending up on our back. Seems he hadn't done an engine-out drill since he got his ME rating 18 months before. Good thing for him it didn't happen before he started training with me, and he was pretty good at it when we finished. 'Course, I have no idea whether he kept up on that after I left.
 
Skylane81E said:
I would argue that most recreational flyers would not be any safer in a twin, to handle an OEI situation you need a fairly high level of proficiency, something most folks flying bug smashers don't have.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on what leads you to this conclusion? As a "recreational" pilot I would like to know what you base this opinion upon.
 
Henning said:
Find a different insurance man or a better twin, Twinkie is kinda lame, might be why the insurance is high on it. Quick question though, is the Comanche you are in insured as 4 seat or 6, that makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Twinkie is LAME?!?!?!?!? I take offense to that sir!.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Can you expand on what leads you to this conclusion? As a "recreational" pilot I would like to know what you base this opinion upon.
Click to expand...

I am as well, but spend the day at the local airport and you will likely see what I mean, remember, that running out of gas is a leading cause of GA accidents:mad2:
 
Skylane81E said:
I am as well, but spend the day at the local airport and you will likely see what I mean, remember, that running out of gas is a leading cause of GA accidents:mad2:
Click to expand...

Do you know/hang out with twin pilots? Safety is all about attitude, and there are slackers in every pursuit. I don't spend days at an airport, I go there, tug the plane out and go flying.
 
Skylane81E said:
Those not mentally prepared are apt to panic in SHTF scenarios in my experience.

Also lets not forget pilots propensity for doing silly things like running out of gas, if you can't check your fuel I wouldn't want to be in the back while you try and fly OEI
Click to expand...

If you can't check your fuel, I don't care if it's SE or ME, you shouldn't be a pilot.

Panic has nothing to do with proficiency IMO, that reaction is wired in, besides I'd say that an engine failure on a twin would be much less inclined to incite panic than an engine failure on a single. Most people buy a twin with the expectation that an engine will quit on them, most people buy a single with the expectation it won't. Who would be more likely to be surprised/panicked?
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Do you know/hang out with twin pilots? Safety is all about attitude, and there are slackers in every pursuit. I don't spend days at an airport, I go there, tug the plane out and go flying.
Click to expand...

Yes, they seem to be about the same in make up as single pilots, there just aren't as many of them
 
Henning said:
If you can't check your fuel, I don't care if it's SE or ME, you shouldn't be a pilot.
Click to expand...

Well duh:wink2:

But I would argue that the more complex the plane the less tolerant it will be of such handling, and a twin is generally more complex than the standard single, giving the careless pilot mo opportunity to screw up.

A light twin, flown by a proficient pilot with proper maintenance is indeed safer than a single for most of the flight.

However it gives the less than ideal owner/pilot more chances to ham fist the plane into the ground or cut corners in the shop, so in those cases it is no safer than a single, at best.

Just boils down to the fact that the leading cause of accidents is the loose nut sitting in the seat.
 
Skylane81E said:
Yes, they seem to be about the same in make up as single pilots, there just aren't as many of them
Click to expand...

I must be lucky in my circle of acquaintances then. I always considered self-discipline a prime requisite for pilots. Those I know around my home drome seem to be pretty tuned up, two make the pilgrimage to FSI each year, I make it a point to do an IPC annually required or not, and I regularly do emergency evolution practice. Thought that was normal. :dunno:
 
Not so. Many planes have tank configurations that make visual checks impossible.

Henning said:
If you can't check your fuel, I don't care if it's SE or ME, you shouldn't be a pilot.

Panic has nothing to do with proficiency IMO, that reaction is wired in, besides I'd say that an engine failure on a twin would be much less inclined to incite panic than an engine failure on a single. Most people buy a twin with the expectation that an engine will quit on them, most people buy a single with the expectation it won't. Who would be more likely to be surprised/panicked?
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
besides I'd say that an engine failure on a twin would be much less inclined to incite panic than an engine failure on a single.
Click to expand...
Except that singles don't try to turn around and bite themselves in the tail when one engine quits. OTOH, that initial "yee-hah" response from a twin when one engine quits has a tendency to cage peoples' brains. I've seen it plenty of times when giving training in twins, and in that training case, with a CFI-AME in the right seat, you really ought to be expecting it -- and they still often get brain-lock the first time I do it.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I must be lucky in my circle of acquaintances then. I always considered self-discipline a prime requisite for pilots. Those I know around my home drome seem to be pretty tuned up, two make the pilgrimage to FSI each year, I make it a point to do an IPC annually required or not, and I regularly do emergency evolution practice. Thought that was normal. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Not even slightly normal:(
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I must be lucky in my circle of acquaintances then. I always considered self-discipline a prime requisite for pilots. Those I know around my home drome seem to be pretty tuned up, two make the pilgrimage to FSI each year, I make it a point to do an IPC annually required or not, and I regularly do emergency evolution practice. Thought that was normal. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I agree that pilots are typically disciplined people. The problem as I see it with many private pilots (paying their own way not the rating) is money. I see hundreds of aircraft at the airports I visit that never move. When fuel is $7.50 or more in some places it is easy to see why. The weekend comes and I can go do a couple of landings and fly around a little for $300 in fuel or... do a whole lot of other more productive things for a lot less money. That becomes insidious and eventually dangerous.
 
Your 210 numbers are not accurate.

Henning said:
Yep, I don't use twice the gas of a C-210, I use 21gph total to do 180kts, a 210 uses 17 to do 160 so I get 8.5 mpg and it gets 9.5mpg, that's 11% more not 100%. Now we get to the other part of that and that is I'm running just under 60% power way LOP to get that speed, my engines are loafing just barely solid on the pipe fat dumb and happy, they'll run like that with no complaint forever. The 210 is always throttled up ROP to do 160, talk to HP single owners about cylinder replacement.

What the second engine buys you is options.
Click to expand...
 
Alexb2000 said:
I agree that pilots are typically disciplined people. The problem as I see it with many private pilots (paying their own way not the rating) is money. I see hundreds of aircraft at the airports I visit that never move. When fuel is $7.50 or more in some places it is easy to see why. The weekend comes and I can go do a couple of landings and fly around a little for $300 in fuel or... do a whole lot of other more productive things for a lot less money. That becomes insidious and eventually dangerous.
Click to expand...

Then the guy gets the money to go fly, and takes his unmaintained plane into the air having not flown for who knows how long and we are several links along the accident chain before the engine start is attempted.
 
The simple answer that I've always used is that engine loss in a twin reduces power by 50% but degrades performance by 80%--and that's just the beginning point for the other problems the pilot must be able to handle when it happens.

IMO, sim training should be mandatory for M/E pilots. It's not perfect, but better than the pablum "now we'll simulate this failure, but only at a safe altitude and with the rudder blocked, yada, yada, yada. After that, we'll do a single-engine approach to landing, but only with simulated engine-out."

And then we'll do all the watered-down simulated stuff again on the checkride and you'll be a ME-rated pilot. Really?
 
Inverted said:
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody else bought it, either. And we didn't come up with that to compliment or agree with him. ;)
 
VWGhiaBob said:
:dunno:

So...I'm just getting back into flying after a 25 year break and was thinking twins this time instead of singles.

It has been a real head scratcher for me on why twins aren't that much safer. Now I think I'm getting it. I may just stick with singles, but would be interested in other thoughts. :blueplane:
Click to expand...
I definitely believe the average private pilot should stick with a single. Twins are fine for professionals who fly them every day and stay proficient.
 
Skylane81E said:
Well duh:wink2:

But I would argue that the more complex the plane the less tolerant it will be of such handling, and a twin is generally more complex than the standard single, giving the careless pilot mo opportunity to screw up.

A light twin, flown by a proficient pilot with proper maintenance is indeed safer than a single for most of the flight.

However it gives the less than ideal owner/pilot more chances to ham fist the plane into the ground or cut corners in the shop, so in those cases it is no safer than a single, at best.

Just boils down to the fact that the leading cause of accidents is the loose nut sitting in the seat.
Click to expand...


Long and short of it, no bloody GA plane is that damned complicated, I don't give a crap how many engines it has. If SE airplanes are less hazardous than Multis, why can't they be operated Pt 135 IFR?

If you want redundancy in propulsion you need 2 engines, simple as that, there is no other way to do it. The question really is do you need redundancy, that is a personal choice. Having been a mechanic my entire life and having limped in many mechanical failures, I trust engines to keep running exactly as far as I can throw them. If all my flying is Day VFR and I can see where I'm gonna put it when the engine fails, I'm ok with that. However, over 25 years of GA, that has not played out to be my aviation modus operendi, I fly quite a bit at night, and I also fly quite low under weather where I have no glide range to speak of. In 14 years and over 1300hrs of flying and owning twins, I have yet to regret having the second engine and there have been several occasions where it left me with a smile on a runway looking at a feathered prop.

There's a million reasons to not own a twin, safety is not one of them.
 
Henning said:
What SE planes can you operate IFR under 135? Are we talking just cargo?
Click to expand...

Edit: never mind - you said IFR. Though I wonder about single engine turbine like the Pilatus ;) And I think you mean IMC not IFR, lots of single engine operators file IFR but have to remain VMC.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I don't agree that a fairly high level of proficiency is required. The only time speed and proficiency are going to make a difference is in the T/O scenario, flying a multi is simple.
Click to expand...
Not really. I remember being hearing from the tower, "We think we lost the airplane out there on the approach, could you look for it if you have time?" It was a C-340 that did a Vmc roll after losing an engine on the approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top