Another Twin Down

[frcabot]

I'm with Byron on this one. Those planes will fly.

I don't know their weight, or the DA, but in most instances they will fly and also will produce some bit of a climb performance if flown correctly.

Reminds me ... It happen quickly and can go bad quickly in a twin if you are not ready ...

(Same is true in twin engines helicopters, more or less ... )

I honestly think this one may have come down to pilot skill / actions. It's too early to judge but it certainly looks that way. Doesnt make it any less sad for the families of the crew and pax.

[AndyFromCB]

Jose,

 

Here is a nice video for you. Not exactly know for best single engine performance, but still does just fine. 42NG is actually my favorite light twin, right after Seneca V.

 

[Piloto]

Jose,

 

Here is a nice video for you. Not exactly know for best single engine performance, but still does just fine. 42NG is actually my favorite light twin, right after Seneca V.

 

 

Nice video, but never saw the plane coming back for landing on one engine. The pilot turned the dead engine back on and returned for landing. I am sure it was light on weight. And a long runway to rotate way above blue line. Still climb performance was anemic or none.

 

José 

[frcabot]

It's also total Vmc and flat. Now, throw in some imc, buildings all around, inability to land on the runway and inability to maintain required rate of climb for obstacle clearance. Although I suppose your chances would still be about the same in a single, like pretty much nil.

The pilot in the video also knew exactly what to expect. Throw in a totally unexpected engine failure not in a training scenario at say 200 ft with no runway remaining, and it's going to take you a few crucial seconds to wrap your head around what happened and to confirm actual engine failure. Whereas if your only prop starts to give you engine problems in a single, you know immediately what's happening because you can both hear and see it right in front of you and there's nowhere to go but down.

[AndyFromCB]

It's also total Vmc and flat. Now, throw in some imc, buildings all around, inability to land on the runway and inability to maintain required rate of climb for obstacle clearance. Although I suppose your chances would still be about the same in a single, like pretty much nil.

The pilot in the video also knew exactly what to expect. Throw in a totally unexpected engine failure not in a training scenario at say 200 ft with no runway remaining, and it's going to take you a few crucial seconds to wrap your head around what happened and to confirm actual engine failure. Whereas if your only prop starts to give you engine problems in a single, you know immediately what's happening because you can both hear and see it right in front of you and there's nowhere to go but down.

 

Not a problem in Diamond. It has auto feather, just like King Air. Have you ever flown a twin? It's not seconds, it's an immediate feeling. Dead foot, dead engine. Just got to learn to keep your feet on the ruder during take off. And if you're already at 200feet, your speed and gear is already up, there is no rush to do anything. You can take your sweet time. The only time it's truly scary is the few seconds during the gear transition time, which in a twin should happen immediately upon rotation and verified positive. If you're smart, you use a long runway with flat approaches on both ends.

 

If you fly most piston twins according to the book, load them according to charts (which means a lot under gross under certain conditions), they will fly away on one. But you are correct, the rate of climb can leave a lot of be desired, or not. Just depends how much stuff you load up. Look at a Cessna 421C. At certain airports (hot and high), you really need to be 1000lb under gross, and you will get 500fpm climb which is quite respectable. You also really need to stick to longer runways and obey the accelerate-stop-go tables. This usually means a fuel stop in 2 hours. Some operators will choose safety, take off light, stop for fuel east of the rockies. Some operators will fill her up and go, and assume the risk of 0 to -100fpm climb rate in case of engine failure.

 

You can be as safe in a twin or as dangerous as you choose to be. In a commuter category, like KA350 or the ATR, you're not supposed to have that choice. You must obey runway requirements and engine out climb gradients  and if you do, the outcome should not be in question. Flying a KA350 on one is just as simple as flying a Mooney one one. There just isn't that much to do but climb away, clear obstacles and then pull out the checklist. The autopilot will fly it just fine one too once you level off for checklist.

 

Let's not make twins or GA in general sound any worse than it already is. Here is you table for a 421C. Don't have a KA350 table handy, but a KA350 at gross, at sea level, ISA will fly away at 775fpm, which like I said, is better or as good as a M20J. 

 

[AndyFromCB]

Nice video, but never saw the plane coming back for landing on one engine. The pilot turned the dead engine back on and returned for landing. I am sure it was light on weight. And a long runway to rotate way above blue line. Still climb performance was anemic or none.

 

José 

 

Actually, if you look at the chart in video, they are right on blue line, they achieve 300fpm climb and the tests were performed at gross weight or whatever the equivalent of gross would be for that specific density altitude. 

 

This is about what every light twin will do, about 300fpm or so at gross, at sea level.

[AndyFromCB]

AndyFromCB, here is a King Air

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article3596912.html

that lost the left engine on take off and crashed into the Flight Safety school.

 

I found that planes glide better in level flight than on a 90 deg bank angle.

What would you have done on the above cases?

 

José

 

Jose,

 

See my post above.

 

You really have no business flying if you cannot control a KA with an engine out. I am serious when I say they fly better with one engine out than most singles do with one running. 

 

Most KA have auto feather, which is supposed to be verified during the first flight of the day and turned on on take off. So unless the pilot disabled it, in flat lands of Wichita, KS, on a cold fall day, with only one person aboard, that king air should have climbed away at 1000fpm or more on one. It was a Blackhawk conversion, which means flat rated 850hp available with just one running.

[Piloto]

Actually, if you look at the chart in video, they are right on blue line, they achieve 300fpm climb and the tests were performed at gross weight or whatever the equivalent of gross would be for that specific density altitude. 

 

This is about what every light twin will do, about 300fpm or so at gross, at sea level.

 

So how do you explain the three crashes on this thread. All of them experienced pilots.

 

José

[AndyFromCB]

So how do you explain the three crashes on this thread. All of them experienced pilots.

 

José

 

Shitty piloting and preflight planning. Are you claiming the performance tables are fake? Most engine outs in a twin do not end up in a crash. The ones that do make the news.

 

Bet you that ATR was way over the weight required to make the climb gradient...The Wichita crash was simply shit piloting, that's all. Like I said, KA200 with one pilot aboard, with only one running will out climb your Mooney any day of the week, any airport conditions.

 

You want to fly a twin, take recurrent once every 6 months. That's what our corporate pilots did when I worked with a company that had a fleet of King Airs. Actually, you want to fly anything, take recurrent every 6 months. I have a long list of IPC stickers in the back of my logbook. About once every 6 months.

[jkhirsch]

If you pause the initial video right as the plane crosses the bridge you can see that the left prop appears to be feathered.

 

~17 seconds

[Marauder]

If you pause the initial video right as the plane crosses the bridge you can see that the left prop appears to be feathered.

 

~17 seconds

 

 

You also see the plane hit the van on the bridge as well! I didn't catch that on the real speed video.

[AndyFromCB]

Actual twin turbine engine failure on take off. Nothing happens, prop goes into auto feather and slows down:

 

[frcabot]

That looks like a twotter, one of my favorite planes!

Look, seriously folks, all we can say for sure is that for the weekend warrior, for the AVERAGE pilot, GA piston twins have higher fatality rates. For good, competent, above-average pilots, maybe not. But that's like thinking that each one of us is of above-average intelligence. By definition, some of us are below the average.

[AndyFromCB]

That looks like a twotter, one of my favorite planes!

Look, seriously folks, all we can say for sure is that for the weekend warrior, for the AVERAGE pilot, GA piston twins have higher fatality rates. For good, competent, above-average pilots, maybe not. But that's like thinking that each one of us is of above-average intelligence. By definition, some of us are below the average.

 

That's all I am trying to say. When flown within envelope by properly trained pilot, the margin of safety goes up considerably in certain situations. Parachute levels the playing field over 600feet AGL. From 0-600agl give me more money so I can afford a KA350. I tend not to fly to airports where my survival between 0-600 is questionable. Hate Midway in a single. Nothing but buildings in all directions.

[Piloto]

Actual twin turbine engine failure on take off. Nothing happens, prop goes into auto feather and slows down:

 

 

Not visible in flight after the trees. Looks like went safely into the ground. No video of coming back for landing.

 

José

[AndyFromCB]

Not visible in flight after the trees. Looks like went safely into the ground. No video of coming back for landing.

 

José

Are you actually a pilot? There is no video I can find of you not drooling all over yourself. Is that evidence? Here you go, don't drool too much:

 

[Piloto]

Are you actually a pilot? There is no video I can find of you not drooling all over yourself. Is that evidence? Here you go, don't drool too much:

 

 

When I got my multi-engine rating I did a few of those engine out landings. One thing is loosing an engine on take off and another is while over the clouds in cruise with plenty of speed and altitude to spare.

 

José 

[AndyFromCB]

When I got my multi-engine rating I did a few of those engine out landings. One thing is loosing and engine on take off and another is while over the clouds in cruise with plenty of speed and altitude to recover.

 

José 

To recover what? A KA350 doesn't need to recover shit, it will climb to 20,000 on one engine at gross weight? Commuter category aircraft are certified to essentially same standards as jets. Are you really this dense? Have you ever been in a KA? There is nothing to do but fly. Auto feather and rudder boost. You probably would not even notice you lost one. Do you know what v1 cut is?

 

How often do you see 900fpm minute in your Mooney? Not very often I bet. First step when you lose one is to pitch down a tad, to about 8 degrees nose up (still better than your Mooney) and throw the autopilot on and pull out the checklist and then ask to get you coffee while you browse thru the checklist. That's how eventful loosing an engine after v1 is in a King Air. Clouds or not clouds, one or two running, you got your flight director one for take off, don't you? Are you just being dense on purpose?

 

There has never been a KA350 crash. Never. Not once.

[Piloto]

 

 

There has never been a KA350 crash. Never. Not once.

 

I guess there is always a first.

 

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20120322-1

 

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090522-0

 

 

 

 

José

[frcabot]

I guess there is always a first.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20120322-1

José

O snap

[AndyFromCB]

I guess there is always a first.

 

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20120322-1

 

José

 

I stand corrected. I did my search in US and Europe only. Apparently was not a take off issue. Problem started at FL280. Weird. Sudden decompression? Unlikely in a cabin this size. In cruise a FL280 you're indicating well over Vmc. The thing is certified to FL350 although it wallows and just feels weird up that high.

[frcabot]

I stand corrected. I did my search in US and Europe only. Apparently was not a take off issue.

How is it CFIT if he "departed controlled flight at FL280"? If he was not in controlled flight at 28000 ft then he sure wasn't in controlled flight when he smacked the ground.

[frcabot]

Although I can't imagine what would cause loss of controlled flight at that altitude other than a pilot or icing induced stall/spin or physical damage to the plane like a wing or rudder shearing off.

[AndyFromCB]

Commuter category aircraft is actually required to be able to perform missed approach in landing configuration with one engine inop. Here are the certification rules. Considerably more stringent than what Jose pointed out for light twins. They don't apply to the crashes ATR anyway. ATR is a Part 25 aircraft, with even more stringent requirements.

 

§23.67   Climb: One engine inoperative.

 

(d) For jets over 6,000 pounds maximum weight in the normal, utility and acrobatic category and commuter category airplanes, the following apply:

(1) Takeoff; landing gear extended. The steady gradient of climb at the altitude of the takeoff surface must be measurably positive for two-engine airplanes, not less than 0.3 percent for three-engine airplanes, or 0.5 percent for four-engine airplanes with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(iii) The landing gear extended, and all landing gear doors open;

(iv) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s);

(v) The wings level; and

(vi) A climb speed equal to V2.

(2) Takeoff; landing gear retracted. The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 feet above the takeoff surface must be not less than 2.0 percent of two-engine airplanes, 2.3 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 2.6 percent for four-engine airplanes with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(iii) The landing gear retracted;

(iv) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s);

(v) A climb speed equal to V2.

(3) Enroute. The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 1,500 feet above the takeoff or landing surface, as appropriate, must be not less than 1.2 percent for two-engine airplanes, 1.5 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 1.7 percent for four-engine airplanes with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;

(iii) The landing gear retracted;

(iv) The wing flaps retracted; and

(v) A climb speed not less than 1.2 VS1.

(4) Discontinued approach. The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 feet above the landing surface must be not less than 2.1 percent for two-engine airplanes, 2.4 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 2.7 percent for four-engine airplanes, with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(iii) Landing gear retracted;

(iv) Wing flaps in the approach position(s) in which VS1 for these position(s) does not exceed 110 percent of the VS1for the related all-engines-operated landing position(s); and

(v) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures but not exceeding 1.5 VS1.

[AndyFromCB]

How is it CFIT if he "departed controlled flight at FL280"? If he was not in controlled flight at 28000 ft then he sure wasn't in controlled flight when he smacked the ground.

I missread the report...