Why Twins Aren't Safer than Singles

[Skylane81E]

I've said it before but...


Twins have more that can go wrong, but most of the time the penalty for it is not as bad as it is for a single. A capable, proficient pilot who can handle a less than perfect flight is going to be at worst as safe in a twin as a single, and most of the time safer.

The rest of the multi pilots just better hope never to get bitten by the heavy, fast and complex aircraft they have chosen not to master.

 

[wabower]

Collins did the research and wrote about it extensively many years ago. His conclusion was that no case can be made for presumed difference in the single/twin fatal safety argument including night IFR engine failure in a single. That's why he bought the P-210 that he flew for ~9k hours. He was also the guy who wrote the FM article after trying to duplicate the accident that killed my partner and his wife in our well-maintained pressurized twin--at night and in the foothills.

During a recent 25-hour multiple-leg X/C from TX to the Atlantic coast of NC, roughly 40% of the legs were flown at night. Amazingly (to some anyway) we survived all of them and landed at our intended destination--just like hundreds of others over the years and in direct contrast to the forced landing in the mountains when the fuel line broke on the twin. Have you tested the glide characteristics of a 601-T Aerostar?

Do you have statistics on engine failures with successful landings? That's the part that I've been looking for.

 

[Ted]

Collins did the research and wrote about it extensively many years ago. His conclusion was that no case can be made for presumed difference in the single/twin fatal safety argument including night IFR engine failure in a single. That's why he bought the P-210 that he flew for ~9k hours. He was also the guy who wrote the FM article after trying to duplicate the accident that killed my partner and his wife in our well-maintained pressurized twin--at night and in the foothills.

During a recent 25-hour multiple-leg X/C from TX to the Atlantic coast of NC, roughly 40% of the legs were flown at night. Amazingly (to some anyway) we survived all of them and landed at our intended destination--just like hundreds of others over the years and in direct contrast to the forced landing in the mountains when the fuel line broke on the twin. Have you tested the glide characteristics of a 601-T Aerostar?

Hope to never test the glide characteristics on an Aerostar (or a 310). I'd imagine they'd be almost as bad as a Lancair IV-P, which, if I bought a single, is the only one that really appeals to me.

So if there's no appreciable difference in safety between singles and twins, there is an appreciable difference in safety between a Lancair IV-P and, well, anything else. So since that's the only single that appeals to me, I'm probably better off sticking with the twin.

 

[Morne]

Why do the twin fan-boys always default to an engine loss scenario when they are so infrequent and OEI crashes are so frequent?

For the same reason I carry two revolvers, even though the statistical likelihood of my ever being in a self-defense shoot is quite low. I like to be prepared and I like redundancy. Two lungs, two kidneys, two eyes - see a pattern yet? Sure, you can do fine as a Cyclops but why? Oh, because you don't want to purchase double the contact lenses?

Freedom, how does it work?

 

[wabower]

Based on your vast experience and knowledge I understand why you might feel that way. If you're worried about managing a revolver, you're a natural for a twin.

For the same reason I carry two revolvers, even though the statistical likelihood of my ever being in a self-defense shoot is quite low. I like to be prepared and I like redundancy. Two lungs, two kidneys, two eyes - see a pattern yet? Sure, you can do fine as a Cyclops but why? Oh, because you don't want to purchase double the contact lenses?

Freedom, how does it work?

 

[Doggtyred]

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

That is, until I read every article I could find on the topic. Basically, if you read all the research, twins are safer under very limited circumstances and more dangerous in many.

A reason why occurred to me last night, other than the obvious ones I've read (e.g., hard to control on one engine). It's this: In a twin, you are at least TWICE AS LIKELY to have an engine fail, because you have, well, two engines. That means you are 2 times as likely to be in a situation that requires skilled piloting under extreme stress. Add to that the faster landing speed, and the all too likely loss of control, and you start to understand why the safety record isn't necessarily better.

Granted, twins under ideal conditions can make it to a runway on one engine. But I have also learned that in the real world, many twins can't maintain altitude on one engine with any kind of load (despite specs to the contrary), so you may not be going down to a runway anyway.

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.

A twin has an increased level of complexity for sure, and while having two engines "doubles" the risk of an engine failure, you have a much much smaller risk of total power loss/multiple engine failure...

A twin may provide just enough power to "fly to the scene of the crash"... but you have a lot more options in picking that crash site than you do in an unpowered single. You might even be able to get much much closer to civilization, if not even to an airport (even if its one shot, no go-around)...

Like any other risky endeavor, its about managing risk and learning how to effectively use the tools you have. If I could afford a twin, I'd likely do it.

 

[Morne]

Based on your vast experience and knowledge I understand why you might feel that way. If you're worried about managing a revolver, you're a natural for a twin.

I have had a semi-auto malfunction on me at a bad time. My revolvers cannot fail in the way that the semi-auto let me down.

 

[Rayden]

Must not have been a Glock ... j/k

I have had a semi-auto malfunction on me at a bad time. My revolvers cannot fail in the way that the semi-auto let me down.

 

[wabower]

NTSB shows 122 fatalities for twins during 2011-2012. Evidently total power loss isn't the only contributing factor.

A twin has an increased level of complexity for sure, and while having two engines "doubles" the risk of an engine failure, you have a much much smaller risk of total power loss/multiple engine failure...

A twin may provide just enough power to "fly to the scene of the crash"... but you have a lot more options in picking that crash site than you do in an unpowered single. You might even be able to get much much closer to civilization, if not even to an airport (even if its one shot, no go-around)...

Like any other risky endeavor, its about managing risk and learning how to effectively use the tools you have. If I could afford a twin, I'd likely do it.

 

[Doggtyred]

NTSB shows 122 fatalities for twins during 2011-2012. Evidently total power loss isn't the only contributing factor.

Never said it was. Engine failure seemed to be a prime concern of the original poster.

 

[Ted]

NTSB shows 122 fatalities for twins during 2011-2012. Evidently total power loss isn't the only contributing factor.

Last month's TTCF talked about a 340 that a guy simply failed to maintain airspeed, and crashed a mile or two short of the runway. The ensuing fire killed the pilot, who was without a current flight review and had been told he needed to go faster on final. Guess he didn't learn.

 

[wabower]

A good example. We all know (or should) that the mechanical issues are a drop in the bucket compared to the pilot issues, on the order of ~90:10.

So the solution is to concentrate on unproven theories (IFR, night, mountains, Martians, etc.) that might allegedly help reduce the 10% rather than taking a hard look at the 90% and doing the no-fun things (like spending money for training and proficiency and operating within survivable weight ranges) that might actually make a difference in the outcomes?

That story might sound good under direct questioning, but the cross-examination is going to be a *****.

Last month's TTCF talked about a 340 that a guy simply failed to maintain airspeed, and crashed a mile or two short of the runway. The ensuing fire killed the pilot, who was without a current flight review and had been told he needed to go faster on final. Guess he didn't learn.

 

[Ted]

A good example. We all know (or should) that the mechanical issues are a drop in the bucket compared to the pilot issues, on the order of ~90:10.

So the solution is to concentrate on unproven theories (IFR, night, mountains, Martians, etc.) that might allegedly help reduce the 10% rather than taking a hard look at the 90% and doing the no-fun things (like spending money for training and proficiency and operating within survivable weight ranges) that might actually make a difference in the outcomes?

That story might sound good under direct questioning, but the cross-examination is going to be a *****.

I'm voting for focusing on Martians myself.

I don't get the aversion to training by many, which is an issue in both singles and twins. I find it a lot of fun myself. The hardest part I've historically had is finding someone who will actually put me through the ringer on a recurring basis. So I do it myself, the obvious problem being that I know when I'm about to fail parts on myself. Maybe that's what Aspen had in mind when mine went poof south of Cozumel in no-man's land.

No matter what you fly, train, train, train.

 

[wabower]

When you read the vehement protests about FR's, it's probably safe to assume that a fair-sized chunk of the pilot population isn't all that keen on having their weaknesses exposed to light. Couple that with the aversion to spending any money for anything other than breakfast runs or trips to Grannie's house and the picture becomes even more clear.

I'm voting for focusing on Martians myself.

I don't get the aversion to training by many, which is an issue in both singles and twins. I find it a lot of fun myself. The hardest part I've historically had is finding someone who will actually put me through the ringer on a recurring basis. So I do it myself, the obvious problem being that I know when I'm about to fail parts on myself. Maybe that's what Aspen had in mind when mine went poof south of Cozumel in no-man's land.

No matter what you fly, train, train, train.

 

[Ted]

When you read the vehement protests about FR's, it's probably safe to assume that a fair-sized chunk of the pilot population isn't all that keen on having their weaknesses exposed to light. Couple that with the aversion to spending any money for anything other than breakfast runs or trips to Grannie's house and the picture becomes even more clear.

Which is pretty funny when you figure that those very items can be used as great learning experiences for a minimal extra cost. I do understand it can be difficult to find a good CFI. But you're spot on that a number of pilots don't like to have their weaknesses exposed, to which I'd tell these people "Get over it." It's amazing how much better you feel when you gain confidence over a maneuver or skill that was intimidating at one time.

 

[wabower]

We giggle about it because we occasionally have breakfast at a table adjacent to the regular morning meetings the local airport liars club. If you sit and listen to these guys, their "ace of the base" stories put all those on this board (well, other than one guy) to shame.

Occasionally, one of these Doolittle/Yeager/Hoovers will show up for a FR, checkout, IPC or other flying event at which his skills will be on display to a CFI or check airman of some kind.

The change in the story and the list of excuses in advance of the flight are so funny it's hard to maintain a straight face. "Now don't expect too much, I haven't flown to speak of in several months and never did really understand some of that stuff, and all this new airspace and radio stuff is Greek, so . . . "

Which is pretty funny when you figure that those very items can be used as great learning experiences for a minimal extra cost. I do understand it can be difficult to find a good CFI. But you're spot on that a number of pilots don't like to have their weaknesses exposed, to which I'd tell these people "Get over it." It's amazing how much better you feel when you gain confidence over a maneuver or skill that was intimidating at one time.

 

[Ted]

But I bet he's really good at overhead breaks!

We giggle about it because we occasionally have breakfast at a table adjacent to the regular morning meetings the local airport liars club. If you sit and listen to these guys, their "ace of the base" stories put all those on this board (well, other than one guy) to shame.

Occasionally, one of these Doolittle/Yeager/Hoovers will show up for a FR, checkout, IPC or other flying event at which his skills will be on display to a CFI or check airman of some kind.

The change in the story and the list of excuses in advance of the flight are so funny it's hard to maintain a straight face. "Now don't expect too much, I haven't flown to speak of in several months and never did really understand some of that stuff, and all this new airspace and radio stuff is Greek, so . . . "

 

[JHW]

We giggle about it because we occasionally have breakfast at a table adjacent to the regular morning meetings the local airport liars club. If you sit and listen to these guys, their "ace of the base" stories put all those on this board (well, other than one guy) to shame.

Occasionally, one of these Doolittle/Yeager/Hoovers will show up for a FR, checkout, IPC or other flying event at which his skills will be on display to a CFI or check airman of some kind.

The change in the story and the list of excuses in advance of the flight are so funny it's hard to maintain a straight face. "Now don't expect too much, I haven't flown to speak of in several months and never did really understand some of that stuff, and all this new airspace and radio stuff is Greek, so . . . "

when privett sent us to sim school for the big russian twins, a couple guys in the group talked a pretty good game on the long cattle car ride from south africa to georgia. When the russian sim instructors started putting us through the ringer, the loudmouths died just as often as us youngsters. When we left they were a little more subdued but by the time we got home they were bob hoovers again. The best performer in our group was a 5ft nothing blonde girl in her early 20's. That really got their goat. She did well by employing a tactic they hadn't considered: she listened to the instructor.

 

[wabower]

In the coffee shop he's a scratch player. In the plane, he not only can't break 100, he can't break an egg.

But I bet he's really good at overhead breaks!

 

[Ted]

Reminds me of one gathering of airport liars where the guy was talking about how difficult his flight over was after the fuel drain got stuck open on pre-flight. He'd have you believe that he had flown his Cherokee over Berlin in the early 40s and had the Luftwaffe after him.

This was the night after a few errors on my part had resulted in me landing the Aztec in the middle of a thunderstorm, which I still regard as one of the scariest landings I've had to do 4 years and 1,600 hours later. I wasn't exactly kind in my assessment of what he thought was a big deal.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I really look forward to annual SIMCOM training. Ask for some sim time where I can just practice emergencies, single engine and circle to land stuff. Did so much last year folks got bored and left while I just did approach after approach. Go up several times a year with good folks and do practice approaches. I'll start doing some simulated single engine stuff in the plane now that I know the systems well, but we're very careful with that or set a hard floor below.

Best,

Dave

 

[Morne]

When you read the vehement protests about FR's, it's probably safe to assume that a fair-sized chunk of the pilot population isn't all that keen on having their weaknesses exposed to light. Couple that with the aversion to spending any money for anything other than breakfast runs or trips to Grannie's house and the picture becomes even more clear.

You are generalizing and then attacking people who may or may not fit into your preconceived notion of the "average pilot". Why are you so bothered by the idea that someone might fly a twin?

I agree that training is HUGE. Stupid mistakes kill too many pilots. The good news is that today we have more options like SIM training and the like than ever before. Add modern meteorology, and inflight resources for that, and the classic flying into worsening weather mistake can be mitigated as well. Of course, all this requires good ADM, which is no small thing.

A non-current pilot with poor ADM is a hazard to himself even flying a 172 over flat-as-a-board terrain on a cool day with CAVU. A current pilot with good ADM is safe flying an Apache /A in hard IMC.

Thing is, you don't have to choose between training and equipment. My view is that if you want to afford a twin then you had better budget regular SIM training along with your higher Avgas and MX allowance. But then, I want to live.

Just imagine how much safer single engine pilots would be if they did regular SIM training.

 

[Ted]

The real point is more training in general. A sim has the benefit of making it easy to fail specific items and create scenarios that one wouldn't be able to realistically and safely do in reality. In a twin the obvious benefit is more systems combined with OEI failures that would be unsafe in the plane. I know some folks who do them anyway in the plane, but I'm not one of them.

The point I make to people consulting me in consideration of a twin is that it's only safer with an extra level of training and proficiency. I think Wayne's point is similar - with 90% of failures being of the pilot, seems thathe obvious place for most to look before spending money on a twin.

And in my case, the only single I'd want to buy is a death trap. And I'd put an auto conversion in it most likely.

Yeah, I'm definitely safer in a twin. Although I do need to go up and do some more practice/training.

 

[wabower]

You are generalizing and then attacking people who may or may not fit into your preconceived notion of the "average pilot". Why are you so bothered by the idea that someone might fly a twin?

I agree that training is HUGE. Stupid mistakes kill too many pilots. The good news is that today we have more options like SIM training and the like than ever before. Add modern meteorology, and inflight resources for that, and the classic flying into worsening weather mistake can be mitigated as well. Of course, all this requires good ADM, which is no small thing.

A non-current pilot with poor ADM is a hazard to himself even flying a 172 over flat-as-a-board terrain on a cool day with CAVU. A current pilot with good ADM is safe flying an Apache /A in hard IMC.

Thing is, you don't have to choose between training and equipment. My view is that if you want to afford a twin then you had better budget regular SIM training along with your higher Avgas and MX allowance. But then, I want to live.

Just imagine how much safer single engine pilots would be if they did regular SIM training.

Which specific issues are you claiming as generalizations?

I've carried a few credentials for observing and evaluating pilots for 30-odd years. And you?

How much sim training do you do in your single?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

The real point is more training in general. A sim has the benefit of making it easy to fail specific items and create scenarios that one wouldn't be able to realistically and safely do in reality.

What some can't, ( or refuse to ), understand is that with increased complexity comes the responsibility to step up your level of training. Simulators are valuable for the exact reasons you outlined. I would wager that if the facts were examined in most twin accidents the level of recurrent training would be found to be woefully lacking. Sure it is expensive, but I'd much rather be alive and whining about the cost of training than serving as the guest of honor at a crash site investigation.

 

[wabower]

+1. Some embrace the training, others will do almost anything to avoid it, as well as any observation of their skills. When you see the 340 owner consistently showing up for FR's in a 172, you get a pretty good idea of his approach to the subject. The insurance companies are mandating more sim training than in the past, but the training courses are watered down to the point that the pilots can obtain passing marks without much display of airmanship.

What some can't, ( or refuse to ), understand is that with increased complexity comes the responsibility to step up your level of training. Simulators are valuable for the exact reasons you outlined. I would wager that if the facts were examined in most twin accidents the level of recurrent training would be found to be woefully lacking. Sure it is expensive, but I'd much rather be alive and whining about the cost of training than serving as the guest of honor at a crash site investigation.

 

[Ted]

+1. Some embrace the training, others will do almost anything to avoid it, as well as any observation of their skills. When you see the 340 owner consistently showing up for FR's in a 172, you get a pretty good idea of his approach to the subject. The insurance companies are mandating more sim training than in the past, but the training courses are watered down to the point that the pilots can obtain passing marks without much display of airmanship.

One of your local 421 owners just went to SimCom, and was complaining they made it far too easy for his liking. But he's also the kind of pilot who wants more training and values it for the safety of him and his family.

What's somewhat surprised me is that my insurance hasn't offered a discount for sim, Wings, or any other form of training beyond the minimum required. I'm coming up for renewall now, so I've asked my broker what sorts of discount opportunities exist this year that may not have before. Granted I'm flying a 310 and not a 421, but plenty of people kill themselves in 310s, too.

 

[Skylane81E]

Ted, I know some good local MEIs that I would imagine would be more than willing to let you have it.

 

[Ted]

Duncan, I may get in touch with you for that. Still working on what sort of planning I want to do.