pondering

[romair]

When I start thinking about night flying, mountains or open water, I have to admit that the thought of flying in a single engine piston aircraft is not the most reassuring. So I am now wondering...given enough money, but still within the constraints of a mindful budget, would you guys prefer a twin, or would a single with parachute be the better option (Cirrus)? I'm talking solely from the perspective of reducing risks due to mechanical failure. I don't want to start the age old talk about more training, being more cautious with personal minimums, etc. All things equal, what do you think is a safer and financially sound option?

Stefan

[Hank]

I fly in IMC. I fly at night. I fly over, across and through the Appalachian Mountains. I have a healthy respect for weather and avoid icing and thunderstorms with a religious fervor.

 

I do this in a carbureted, single engine aircraft. I do this in a Mooney. It glides very well if necessary [practiced irregularly, along with every PPP and BFR, all the way to the taxiway]. It has a wonderful steel roll cage. It has two wonderful, vacuum-powered Brittain autopilot systems.

 

Don't want a twin, the accidents always seem to kill the pilots when they have trouble with one engine, and their odds of engine trouble are twice what mine are. Don't want a parachute, I'd rather control where I end up than simply trust to fate and the wind.

 

Fly fast. Fly safe. Fly Mooney!

[Cruiser]

+1^

[bnicolette]

Stefan I know exactly where you are coming from and I just went through that decision tree.

 

I really like the Cirrus and believe that the parachute is a valuable addition.  To me, it provides the "out" in the very unlikely event that one would ever have an engine issue over unfriendly terrain during night or low IMC conditions.  The only problem is that it is a $350K entry fee minimum to have the one with icing capability.

[DonMuncy]

If the economics were the same and I had to make a choice, I would go with the twin and have more choice of where I was going down.

But, like the others, I think the odds are about as good with a Mooney.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I believe a single engine turbine is preferable to piston twin. But, statistically it is not engine failure that's our problem in GA.

[rainman]

I would offer another option. Get a Cessna with a jump door and wear a parachute, or perhaps an RV 8 or something else with a slider canopy and wear a parachute. If you are truly concerned, these are much cheaper options. Oh, it would help to learn how to skydive first! Stefan, in the end, this solution wouldn't work with the wife and kids. But it is an option? I've made a few thousand jumps but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to get out of a Mooney ( so my plan is to stay with it, keep up the maintenance ) so it's a trade-off. Ray

[MB65E]

I know two Barron owners that convinced me the parachute is their second engine. It's not a get out of jail free parachute, neither is a second engine. However.... The Cirrus parachute idea ONLY works when the ground conditions are survivable. ie Freezing cold, water, and other exposure items. The second engine will hopefully get you back to a safer place. I feel pretty safe with a parachute strapped to my back to when I fly acro. Even with a parachute on, it doesn't make sense fly in an area/route with out a road to be close to. It really won't take that much longer to fly near a major I road when crossing mountains. Also, when you look down and go there is NO place to go, that's when you here noises...

There is still no better medicine than seeing a road or a place to set it down.

All in theory...

-Matt

[Marauder]

Anyway you look at flying (day or night) there are inherent risks. I remember the old saying about twins, "When one engine fails, the second one will take you directly to the accident site". The reason for that statement is probably related to the fact that a twin on one engine, in high terrain, is going to have a potential problem with the single engine service ceiling. I also believe lack of training on handling asymmetrical thrust during an engine failure in a twin is another area of risk. As was mentioned above by Jerry, engine failure is only a part of the potential risk. Ultimately, a sound decision tree about risk plays a bigger factor in the outcome of the flight. Sent using Tapatalk

[fantom]

If one isn't taking stupid pills, our single engine piston planes are very safe. No it isn't either engine failures or getting lost that kill pilots and their families, it's those damn pills. Risk is a normal part of life and should be mitigated and balanced, but it's always there. Flying, even the Walter Mitty type most well prepared GA pilots do, has an element of risk. So what. Most of us fly for fun, sport, relaxation, challenge, and a few for a living. It's a passion, and passion is always tinged with a little danger. I've been flying since I was a teen, in war and in peace, military, commercial and civilian, and the most dangerous characteristic I EVER see in a pilot, when the chips are down and things are going to poop, is timidity. Unfortunately IMHO there has been a concentration of that around here lately and it feeds off itself. Keep focusing on it and the passion, the enjoyment, and IMO your level of safety will erode. If you share the love of flight, then fly and ponder about making yourself the best flyer you can be. If you find yourself constantly obsessing about the dangers of flying, forget about the twin, the turbo, the chute, the added avionics and find another avenue for your time. I believe knitting is quite safe

[fluffysheap]

When I start thinking about night flying, mountains or open water, I have to admit that the thought of flying in a single engine piston aircraft is not the most reassuring. So I am now wondering...given enough money, but still within the constraints of a mindful budget, would you guys prefer a twin, or would a single with parachute be the better option (Cirrus)?

 

Statistically, the Cirrus parachute is not very helpful.  I can actually only remember reading one NTSB accident report (though I presume there are others) - out of thousands I've read and dozens of those being Cirrus - where the plane had some in-flight problem, the pilot activated the parachute, the parachute worked, and the people on board the plane actually survived.  In most Cirrus accidents, one of those things doesn't happen.  Early on, the Cirruses had a *worse* fatality rate than most other GA aircraft - maybe the parachutes gave a false sense of security, or maybe it was just new-plane teething problems.  Now, I believe, their accident and fatality rate is pretty much typical.

 

For mountain flying, maybe the parachute is potentially helpful if you have an engine out.  Over water, I'd rather have a Mooney or any retractable, so I could ditch (hopefully) without flipping over.  It's bad enough trying to get out of a plane in the water without getting tangled in a giant parachute too.

 

I would feel safer in a turbine single than a piston twin.  Statistics don't indicate any significant safety benefit in a piston twin.  Two engines don't save you if you run out of gas, which is the #1 cause of power loss.  They don't really help all that much if one of the engines fails at takeoff.  If I had a Socata budget, I'd buy one, but I don't.

 

I think in most situations I'd rather have a turbocharged single than a typical twin.  The longer gliding distance from flying higher, plus the superior weather-avoidance ability, is probably more real-world benefit than the extra engine.  If you start at 25,000 feet, you can glide about 60 miles.  It's about 150 miles from Miami to the Bahamas.  So there's only about a 30 mile zone where you're out of gliding range of one shore or the other.  Ten minutes, give or take.  Winds actually improve the situation, if you account for them properly.  Granted this doesn't help much if you're trying to go to, like, Hawaii.  But my guess is that the majority of GA long over-water trips by American-based aircraft are to the Caribbean.

 

I feel "safe enough" in a piston single.  I fly over mountains regularly.  I haven't flown over open water, but only because I haven't had a reason to yet.  I would be willing to do it if I had a raft.  The hassle of international flight is a bigger deterrent for me than the risk of engine failure!

[Jeff_S]

Fluffy, you should read the last few months of the Aviation Accident reports online, freely available at http://www.ntsb.gov.  I was interested to see 3 or 4 Cirrus incidents in recent months where the parachute was used and all survived. Now, one might argue that the situation could also have been survived in a normal single-engine with a pilot who kept his wits and followed his training, but the fact is the Cirrus chute can be effective.

 

To answer the poster's original question, if money isn't an object and I'm looking purely for safety from mechanical issues, I will side with at least one other person here in favor of a single engine turbo-prop.  The TBM 850 is my dream machine, but a Meridian would be a welcome gift as well. The reliability of these engines is superb, and yet they still maintain the glide capabilities and low stall speed to make a decent off-airport landing if done correctly. Plus, they are faster than any twin-engine piston out there.

[aviatoreb]

A second parallel safety statistics thread.  Twins and parachutes seem like great safety items, but in the hands of the general pilot population, they just are not.  The risk of a twin is all concentrated in the first 30 seconds - during take off.  If you are flying a twin and you are not very very current with that engine out procedure, then you will roll over, and with two engines the probability of a take off engine out is roughly doubled. Once you survive that first 30 seconds, then a twin is better in case of cruise-phase engine out.  But that does not happen as often as the former.  There is a reason that twin insurance is much more expensive for the same hull value.  Cirrus parachutes seem like a fabulous idea, but they have not been enough of a good idea to overcome poor decision making of invincibility of pilot-owners who will launch when they should not with a parachute-feeling-of-invincibility.  That statistics of the Cirrus have been poor too.  In either style plane, the overwhelming greater risk is the usual stuff - remember a parachute or a second engine will not fix a controlled flight into terrain.

 

Following up on your comment fluffy sheep.  I do use my turbo as a sort of virtual twin.  I fly much higher than efficiency would suggest when flying over hostile terrain. (Meaning I am willing to fly high despite a head wind or spending fuel to fly higher than you might guess for a short flight).  I have flown right across the great lakes - at 19,000ft-21,000ft - never out of gliding range to land and then some.  I fly often over out local mountains, especially in the winter if it is -10F or some such coldness on the ground - meaning tough to survive an off field landing.  I am remembering my glide ratio when flight planning.  And I am happy to have my full feathering prop which allows for 3 miles of (no wind) glide for every 1000ft.

 

Funny exchange with air traffic control two days ago - I was going to Burlington, VT on Thursday to visit somebody at the hospital.  It was -18F early in the morning.  It was -5F at 9am and severe clear when I was planning to launch, and I have chosen my personal minimums as 0F (for reasons of comfort during preflight but also for reasons of safety of survivability of an off field landing).  Predictions were to warm up to 20F later in the day.  By 930 it was 0F so I took my time but headed over to the airport and was wheels up by 10:15 at 5F.  I filed KPTD->KMAL->KBTV which is not direct but to stay over the low terrain instead of the Adirondacks mindful that it was -25F that night up there, and still -10F when I launched.  The controller asked if there was a reason why I filed like that and I said it was to stay out of the cold mountainous terrain.  It just didn't compute with him, and he said "That's interesting" in a very sarcastic voice - it was striking.  His problem - I had made my aeronautical decision for well considered reasons.

 

If I could have a turbine single I think that is the best of all worlds regarding this discussion.

[bnicolette]

Anyway you look at flying (day or night) there are inherent risks.

Yep, I sure agree with that.  That doesn't mitigate the pilots responsibility for a plan of action over the entire route to meet whatever emergency ensues.  And CFIT when you can't see is not a viable option.  Odds are that you're going to be knocked unconscious and burn alive.  Remember Patrick hit a tree doing less than 80 knots and only one pax got out.  Horrifying.

 

I remember the old saying about twins, "When one engine fails, the second one will take you directly to the accident site".

I remember the old saying about pilots. "There are old pilots and bold pilots, just no old bold pilots"

 

The reason for that statement is probably related to the fact that a twin on one engine, in high terrain, is going to have a potential problem with the single engine service ceiling.

True depending on what and where your flying.  See CFIT statement above and a plan.  The twin I have has a SE service ceiling of 14K.

 

I also believe lack of training on handling asymmetrical thrust during an engine failure in a twin is another area of risk.

Absolutely true and they are a handful when it happens at any point but especially during takeoff.  However, at least there is a solid plan if it happens.  Executing that plan is where folks fall short.

 

As was mentioned above by Jerry, engine failure is only a part of the potential risk. Ultimately, a sound decision tree about risk plays a bigger factor in the outcome of the flight.

Right on!!!

 

This argument is the same one pilots have been having for ever.  No one is going to convince the other that their idea is the right one.  Point is, whatever your flying do it as safe as you can.  If you're carrying passengers and you don't have a solid plan for whatever might happen to you during the entire route of flight then you are doing them a huge disservice.

[manu damaschin]

...nice for the fresh pilots having so many opinions!! Thank you all!

[triple8s]

I have "a little" twin time and have pondered on getting a twin like many. I dont have a twin because I am "cheap", not broke, but I pinch a penny. I love Mooneys because I get the most speed and efficiency for the dollar. I like the Bo's however if you will look, put the same engine in a Mooney and you will go faster and /or farther. I believe the best thing a pilot can do to increase survivability chances are to be informed on the weather, stay out of it when possible, stay out of ice, dont push my limits nor the airplanes limits. I may one day own a twin, if i do, I will own a cheap twin, A CR twinco would be high on my list and if possible a twinco with the lyc 360 instead of the 320 because of the increased SE ceiling. I fly over mountains in my mooney I fly some IFR, I fly at night, but I am understand the increased risk and make my decisions accordingly. A parachute sells airplanes but they have to be repacked and they arent cheap, look at the statistics, making better decisions on weather and other things saves many more lives than a BRS. I cant help but think about pulling the oh sh_t button in a Cirrus and coming down in a transmission line, or tree tops the chute collapses and then fall from 150 ft to the rocky ground. What good is a chute then?

[aviatoreb]

...nice for the fresh pilots having so many opinions!! Thank you all!

 

Are you saying that only a high time pilot is allowed to have opinions?  Is one permitted opinions only after achieving 5000hrs and until then a pilot should be a mindless plebe cowering and waiting for the high time pilot to tell them how to think?

 

 

...edit added - please see my apology - I misinterpreted the tone and intent.  Please forgive and thank you for your input!!!

 

Erik

[Hank]

Relax, Erik. He's writing to us in his second language. I took it to mean that he was glad to see the thought that we have put into this, and that there are a variety of valid opinions on the matter. I may never reach 5000 hours, but I plan to think and have opinions on many subjects anyway.

[Marauder]

Relax, Erik. He's writing to us in his second language. I took it to mean that he was glad to see the thought that we have put into this, and that there are a variety of valid opinions on the matter. I may never reach 5000 hours, but I plan to think and have opinions on many subjects anyway.

I have worldwide employees who report to me and that is the way I read it as well.

Sent using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

Relax, Erik. He's writing to us in his second language. I took it to mean that he was glad to see the thought that we have put into this, and that there are a variety of valid opinions on the matter. I may never reach 5000 hours, but I plan to think and have opinions on many subjects anyway.

 

Darn, thanks Hank.  You are absolutely correct.   I misinterpreted him entirely.

 

I apologize Manu and thank you for your input!  

Erik

[Buster1]

Don't forget, the Cirrus parachute is not a get out of jail free card.  It's only rated to about 150 kts or so, after that, it's probably gonna fail if you use it.

 

So if you are disoriented in IMC, or in a spin...your odds are the same as in any other single-engine aircraft.  If you pull the chute then, you may be actually increasing your odds of injury or death depending on airspeed.

 

Also, I forget the recommended altitude for chute deployment...but if you get into a stall/spin situation in the pattern (below 1000 AGL)...forget it.  It's over.

[bnicolette]

Also, I forget the recommended altitude for chute deployment...but if you get into a stall/spin situation in the pattern (below 1000 AGL)...forget it. It's over.

I think it's 400' minimum.

[Marauder]

I think it's 400' minimum.

400' in straight & level flight, 920' in a spin (from their manual).

Sent using Tapatalk

[MB65E]

I am not selling the SR-20/22 but the facts should be known so we don't distribute poor info. The guy who sold his cherry B-55 for a SR-22 made me read the site. Worth the read.

I enjoy the "inverted in the clouds" with a terrain warning being the decision to punch.

With the respect of the system and a conservative approach, I think there safe, but so is an old M20E.

-Matt

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

[jlunseth]

The issue the OP raises is whether it is safer to have two engines in case one quits.  The Cirrus incidents I have read about have all been situations where the pilot got himself in trouble, such as VFR into IMC, and pulled the chute.  I think I can only recall one that might have been an engine issues, that was the ditching in the Carribean about18 months or two years ago, and that might have been a fuel issue.  The sole "advantage" of the twin, if you can call it an advantage, is having another engine if one quits.  The statistics do not support this as an advantage, nor do they support the turbine engine as an advantage.  The latest Nall Report (still the 2010 version), says that mechanical accidents happen in multiengines and turbine engine aircraft in the same proportion as they bear to the total fleet.

 

I think the market has pretty much voted with its feet on this one.  The prices on used twins are about the same as their single engine cousins or often less.  Not many people willing to pay for three or four times the maintenance and the 40-60 gph fuel flows, to get a second piston engine.