 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have |
 |
|
All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real
world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate
than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal decision.
Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an
engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single.
How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and
proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. Too
many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with
pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys.
Quoting Olen Goodwin <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old
single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing
more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I
can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT
pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single.
Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or
lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack
of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of
flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land
straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where
proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want
to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin
and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down
intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how
well equipped.
do not archive
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mprather(at)spro.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have |
|
|
You are, of course, right about the statistics, Kelly. However, I think
it would arguable (though maybe not statistically supportable) that twins
fly tougher missions. They are more likely to be used for ops at night
and during hazardous weather - hauling freight, etc. The statistics do
support that accidents are more likely to be fatal when they happen in
cruddy weather and in the dark. I believe that if singles were as often
operated in challenging conditions, their fatal rate would be higher than
for twins.
Regards,
Matt-
| Quote: |
<kellym(at)aviating.com>
All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real
world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate
than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal decision.
Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an
engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single.
How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and
proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. Too
many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with
pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys.
Quoting Olen Goodwin <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>:
> Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old
> single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing
> more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I
> can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT
> pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single.
> Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or
> lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack
> of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of
> flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land
> straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where
> proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want
> to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin
> and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down
> intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how
> well equipped.
>
> do not archive
Features Navigator to browse
Email List Wiki!
support!
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have |
|
|
Actually, the higher fatality rate, when a twin does go down, is
generally attributed to higher touch down speed for a twin v. a single.
When you square the touchdown speed to calculate energy, that extra 15
kts turns into a lot of metal bending initia. Without a doubt, more
difficult weather doesn't make the outcome more favorable for a twin.
Chuck Jensen
[quote] --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
