Angel flight accident

[Tommy]

Is this one of those heated debates caused by the lack of definition to start with?

Somehow I had the feeling that both Jose and Jim are right. Jose is saying left uncorrected, asymmetric operation at take off will often lead to severe yaw with subseqnet roll especially with a left engine failure. Jim is saying if corrected, that would not happen.

 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Piloto said:

Here are a couple of videos of twins crashing due to engine failure.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Twin+engine+video+crash&&view=detail&mid=1A736847EF950E7D18D31A736847EF950E7D18D3&&FORM=VDRVRV

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Twin+engine+video+crash&view=detail&mid=FD83690E89F59A283067FD83690E89F59A283067&FORM=VIRE

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Twin+engine+video+crash&&view=detail&mid=3CB79F938D1C711FEC813CB79F938D1C711FEC81&&FORM=VDRVRV

Not only the extra the engine didn't prevented the crash but the additional fuel on twins enhanced the fire on the ground.

José

They aren’t crashing due to an engine failure.  They are crashing because of improper flying technique and failure to heed Vmc speeds.

Clarence

[Hank]

24 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

They aren’t crashing due to an engine failure.  They are crashing because of improper flying technique and failure to heed Vmc speeds.

Crashing due to "improper flying technique" or "improper single-engine flying technique"? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking. Because to me, it looks like they are crashing because an engine isn't doing its thing right . . .

[Piloto]

Realistic Facts:

You have twice the probability of an engine failure on a twin than on a single. 

Most engine failures happens on takeoff/climb do to maximum stress on the engine.

Catastrophic twin crashes do happens with experienced pilots.

Charles Lindbergh made it to Paris on a single. None of the twins that try made it. 

On a crash twins make a bigger ball of fire than singles.

Twins operating cost is at least twice that of a single.

Direct Hourly Costs C182 C210 C310      Fuel @ $2.00/gal $26 $32 $60      Oil @ $4.00/qt 1 1 2      Scheduled 50-hour maintenance 4 6 10      Unscheduled maintenance 4 6 10         Amortized Hourly Costs C182 C210 C310      Engine overhaul $10 $14 $28      Miscellaneous engine maintenance 3 4 7      Vacuum pumps 1 1 3         Total Hourly Costs $49 $64 $120         Annual Fixed Costs C182 C210 C310      Annual inspection $2,000 $3,000 $6,000      Insurance 1,500 2,000 3,000      Propeller overhaul @ 5 years 300 500 1,600      Paint and interior @ 5 years 1,600 2,000 2,400      Avionics maintenance, gyro OH 800 1,000 1,200      Hangar 1,800 1,800 3,000      Recurrent training 1,000 2,000 5,000         Total Annual Fixed Costs $9,000 $12,300 $22,200           C182 C210 C310 Total Cost/Hr @ 100 hours/year $139 $187 $342 Total Cost/Hr @ 200 hours/year 94 126 231 Total Cost/Hr @ 300 hours/year 79 105 194

 

A flying single is always faster than a twin in the shop. The time you spent on twin recurrent training and maintenance leaves you with less time to attend your business than the time spent on a single. 

 

FEDEX chose the Caravan C208 single for reliable delivery service.

 

José

 

[M016576]

@Piloto  I think your numbers are a little out of date... I wish I could get avgas for 2.00/gal or paint the mooney at a shop for 2500!

Edited June 16, 2018 by M016576

[jetdriven]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

They aren’t crashing due to an engine failure.  They are crashing because of improper flying technique and failure to heed Vmc speeds.

Clarence

Exactly. A light Be58 will fly just fine and climb away on one engine with proper technique. Failure to operate the airplane properly and/or allowing airspeed to get below Vmc and that’s it, but that’s pilot error. It’s a perfectly flyable airplane.  Jose seems to have a basic lack of understanding of twin aerodynamics. Losing an engine doesn’t cause a spiral and a crash anymore than losing an engine on takeoff in a M20J at 500’ on a 14,000’ runway causes a crash. 

[Piloto]

There is a big difference recovering from an engine out in cruise at 10,000ft vs on takeoff/climb at 500ft at full fuel. An engine out on takeoff leaves little or no room to recover. The airspeed drops quickly below blue line due to climb configuration and full fuel and the option to dive to gain speed and recover is minimal. Many will try to turn to the airport with minimum velocity getting into a spin. Best a pilot can do is to try  maintain a 5 deg bank into the running engine and gain sufficient speed (blue line) to make a shallow turn toward the airport. The problem is that most twins on takeoff are fully loaded and may be unable to maintain altitude to gain speed unless a shallow dive is performed to achieve blue line speed.

José

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Piloto

[ValkyrieRider]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:46 AM, PTK said:

Bob was a friend and a fellow Angel Flight pilot. We had flown together and he was a very capable pilot. He loved his Baron. We spoke on the phone Tuesday evening and he mentioned the flight and the wx he was monitoring. Wednesday morning VAY was LIFR ceilings around 400. I didn’t think he’d go but he went. If he had trouble and needed to get back in there was no way because there are no precision approaches. I heard today at the airport that both engines were running moments before the crash. Speculation is spatial disorientation and loss of control.

Tailwinds and clear skies Bob. 

This is the second friend based on my field who I have lost to a Baron crash. The first was Ron Lecates who crashed his Baron several years ago at MIV.

 

PTK I am sorry for your loss.  As @mike_elliott stated, it is very sad when any of our brothers or sisters perish while piloting an aircraft.  I pray for the family members and friends that knew him.

 

[Tommy]

Asymmetric operation in itself will not cause the crash - though some may argue a very underpowered twin like Tecnam, a crash is almost guaranteed if you lose one - but it's definitely a contributing factor. A big one when everything stacks against you - inexperienced pilot + heavy load + left engine + poor weather + low altitude + slow speed etc.  

The discussion here is not about the risk of asymmetric operation - a tad bit ironic on a Mooney forum too! Lol - but it's about the injustice of lives lost for a charitable action. It's just another thing to prove that god does not exist.   Now that's a slightly more worthy debate than asymmetric operation - can be done, has been done, but doesn't mean it's easy. Besides, we don't even know if it's the improper asymmetric operation that caused the accident. 

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, Piloto said:

There is a big difference recovering from an engine out in cruise at 10,000ft vs on takeoff/climb at 500ft at full fuel. An engine out on takeoff leaves little or no room to recover. The airspeed drops quickly below blue line due to climb configuration and full fuel and the option to dive to gain speed and recover is minimal. Many will try to turn to the airport with minimum velocity getting into a spin. Best a pilot can do is to try  maintain a 5 deg bank into the dead engine and gain sufficient speed (blue line) to make a shallow turn toward the airport. The problem is that most twins on takeoff are fully loaded and may be unable to maintain altitude to gain speed unless a shallow dive is performed to achieve blue line speed.

José

 

If you have ever flown a twin you would know that you rotate at or above blue line and pitch for that speed as an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM after liftoff. If you have an airplane that can not maintain a positive rate of climb at that weight and atmospheric condition (you did brief that, right) then you pitch for blue line and find a place to land.  But if you have loss of control it’s all poor pilot technique. Nothing more or less. 

[ValkyrieRider]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

Asymmetric operation in itself will not cause the crash - though some may argue a very underpowered twin like Tecnam, a crash is almost guaranteed if you lose one - but it's definitely a contributing factor. A big one when everything stacks against you - inexperienced pilot + heavy load + left engine + poor weather + low altitude + slow speed etc.  

The discussion here is not about the risk of asymmetric operation - a tad bit ironic on a Mooney forum too! Lol - but it's about the injustice of lives lost for a charitable action. It's just another thing to prove that god does not exist.   Now that's a slightly more worthy debate than asymmetric operation - can be done, has been done, but doesn't mean it's easy. Besides, we don't even know if it's the improper asymmetric operation that caused the accident. 

 

Tommy, I won't get into a long drawn out debate on a subject that we cannot solve here, specifically the existence of God, as you have a right to have, or not have faith as you wish.  However, your statement " ... another thing to prove that god does not exist" proves nothing.  

Let me correct my own statement, you are correct, the god that guarantees that humans cannot kill themselves, regardless of their actions, does not exist.  The god that says no human will ever get cancer, or any other serious illness, does not exist.  The god that says, if you are doing a charitable action, you are free to defy the laws of gravity and still live, does not exist.  The god that says you will live on this earth forever, does not exist.  In other words, every one of us is going to die at some time.  Some from an incurable disease, some from tragic accidents, some from the body giving out with old age, but we will all die.  The fact that we will all die, for some reason, does not prove the existence or non-existence of God.  

Now, I am not telling you what to believe, or not believe, but your statement that this proves there is no God, is not correct, regardless of your belief.

[Guest]

I’d sooner fly a twin with one out, than a single with one out.

Clarence

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, ValkyrieRider said:

The fact that we will all die, for some reason, does not prove the existence or non-existence of God.  

You are right, the fact that 20 million children died of natural causes each year doesn't disapprove the existence of a Spinozan god but disapprove an omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent god. Now care to define what sort of god you believe in and what abilities does he possess if you wish to play an apologist? 

 

3 hours ago, ValkyrieRider said:

 The god that says, if you are doing a charitable action, you are free to defy the laws of gravity and still live, does not exist. 

I found this statement rather distasteful. I hope you are not suggesting that part of the reason these two pilots were out there flying was to defy the laws of gravity...

Victim-blaming much?

[Tommy]

52 minutes ago, David Herman said:

This is yet another great example of why the IGNORE USER feature on MooneySpace should be used!

This is yet another great example of people who said they will ignore you yet can't leave you alone...

 

[Piloto]

God normally is associated with the creator of everything humans can perceive and the source of energy to maintain human existence. By this definition you would assume that the Sun is the God of mankind, since all the planets came from the Sun creation and all mankind relies on the Sun for survival. The Incas and other tribes believed that the Sun was the God. Not a bad assessment when the Sun created our solar system and every living thing on it. But by scientific assessment and other religions the Sun has no soul to listen to prayers. But without it there will be no daylight but total darkness and cold. So tomorrow smile to the Sun and give it a thumbs up. But as you know man has found more stars like the Sun so are there multiple Gods or a master God? So science has found the Master God? Check this out.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=god+particle+explained&view=detail&mid=223E76EA9A1C1AF22B24223E76EA9A1C1AF22B24&FORM=VIRE

But no matter what after all my prayers on Sunday mass (when I was a kid) I never got the winning Lotto number. In fact I never won anything, not even at Bingo.

José

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, David Herman said:

@Piloto ... sometimes I think you’re a genius; sometimes I think you’re sadly twisted. Regardless of anything I think ... let me ask you sir, 

Is it poor form to force your opinion that singles are safer than twins ... over the smoldering dead bodies of two guys doing an angel flight who were friends of a member of this forum who is grieving?

you stay clazzy

He never said it's safer. He simply postulated the cause which is premature to say the least. Don't put words into his mouth. 

[N6018Q]

One thing I know, I’m impressed a whole lot more by the contributors to MS when the discussion sticks to Mooneys........  

[Tommy]

2 minutes ago, David Herman said:

I wouldn’t mistake @Tommy as a contributor ... 

Same way as I wouldn't mistake you as a stalker who can't seem to get enough of me... *Kisses* 

 

35 minutes ago, Piloto said:

God normally is associated with the creator of everything humans can perceive and the source of energy to maintain human existence. By this definition you would assume that the Sun is the God of mankind, since all the planets came from the Sun creation and all mankind relies on the Sun for survival. The Incas and other tribes believed that the Sun was the God. Not a bad assessment when the Sun created our solar system and every living thing on it. But by scientific assessment and other religions the Sun has no soul to listen to prayers. But without it there will be no daylight but total darkness and cold. So tomorrow smile to the Sun and give it a thumbs up. But as you know man has found more stars like the Sun so are there multiple Gods or a master God? So science has found the Master God? Check this out.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=god+particle+explained&view=detail&mid=223E76EA9A1C1AF22B24223E76EA9A1C1AF22B24&FORM=VIRE

But no matter what after all my prayers on Sunday mass (when I was a kid) I never got the winning Lotto number. In fact I never won anything, not even at Bingo.

José

Don't even mention the "G" word, you will get a warning from the moderator!

[Mooney in Oz]

12 hours ago, Piloto said:

Best a pilot can do is to try  maintain a 5 deg bank into the dead engine and gain sufficient speed (blue line) to make a shallow turn toward the airport.

Sorry Jose, but I must correct you on this statement. In an engine out scenario in a twin, it is absolutely imperative that correct rudder application is immediately applied followed by a 5 deg bank into the live engine, not the dead engine.

I am very familiar with the accident in Taiwan,  the subject of the links you provided.  The aircraft was a near new ATR72-600, the same type as I fly for a living and have performed a similar failure in an ATR simulator, as have my colleagues, as part of one of our 6 monthly checks following this accident.

The brief facts are following a normal takeoff at about 1,400’ at the correct climb out speed, the No. 2 Pratt & Whitney (right) engine suddenly at full power went into auto feather, meaning the prop suddenly feathered. The system is designed that if an engine suddenly fails and falls below 30% torque with the auto feather system armed, the failed engine props will immediately feather without crew input. 

When there is a malfunction such as what occurred here with the props going into auto feather at full power, it can be confirmed by Torque, NH (gas generator) and RPM indications on the malfunctioning side. This engine is then manually shut down by the crew.

In this instance the crew panicked, shut down the wrong engine resulting in both engines having props in the feathered state and going down, losing speed at the same time. They then became preoccupied with attempting to restart the good engine with decaying speed until the left wing stalled, struck the bridge and crashed inverted into a river.

All of this is moot relating to this tragic Baron accident or to Mooney and for this I apologise. I mentioned this for those Mooniacs who intend to convert to twin engine flying. Whether you are flying a light twin or heavy turbo prop, following an engine out after takeoff it is most important to apply correct rudder application, 5 deg bank into the live engine and NEVER touch any throttle or prop levers without CONFIRMATION, otherwise you greatly risk shutting down the wrong engine. Sadly, it does happen.

[ValkyrieRider]

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

You are right, the fact that 20 million children died of natural causes each year doesn't disapprove the existence of a Spinozan god but disapprove an omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent god. Now care to define what sort of god you believe in and what abilities does he possess if you wish to play an apologist? 

 

I found this statement rather distasteful. I hope you are not suggesting that part of the reason these two pilots were out there flying was to defy the laws of gravity...

Victim-blaming much?

 

Tommy,

As I said, I WILL NOT get into a long drawn out debate with you on this subject.  I have much more important things to do, like watch paint dry, than to play word games with you! 

Also as I mentioned, you can believe anything that you want ...

Good day!

[Tommy]

14 minutes ago, ValkyrieRider said:

Tommy,

As I said, I WILL NOT get into a long drawn out debate with you on this subject.  I have much more important things to do, like watch paint dry, than to play word games with you! 

Also as I mentioned, you can believe anything that you want ...

Good day!

Never ceases to amaze me how people who started the debate - I didn't ask for your opinion, did I? - and wrote a 300-plus words thesis on this subject can accuse me for "playing word games."

I still don't quite understand why you think these two pilots - who flew for charitable cause - deserved to die because they are out defying gravity. Guess we will never find out because you prefer watching the paint dry...

Enjoy and see ya!

[Guest]

I and I’m guessing others don’t mind a spirited debate here,  but I see no reason for it to result in personal bitterness and insults as so often happens.

Clarence

[Piloto]

8 hours ago, Mooney in Oz said:

Sorry Jose, but I must correct you on this statement. In an engine out scenario in a twin, it is absolutely imperative that correct rudder application is immediately applied followed by a 5 deg bank into the live engine, not the dead engine.

I

You are very right. Thanks. Also adjusting the rudder trim helps.

José

Edited June 17, 2018 by Piloto

[MyNameIsNobody]

Two men that were loved and respected perished while trying to help others.  Noble are thee.  PTK especially thinking of you as well as families and loved ones.

This thread, as most, shows the best and absolutely worst of MooneySpace.  All my thoughts have been clearly communicated by others so I will just say:  Peace and Love.

Edited June 17, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody

[Hank]

9 hours ago, ValkyrieRider said:

Tommy,

As I said, I WILL NOT get into a long drawn out debate with you on this subject.  I have much more important things to do, like watch paint dry, than to play word games with you! 

Also as I mentioned, you can believe anything that you want ...

Good day!

I find "ignore" works well . . . .

Also, bad things happening do not disprove the existence of a benevolent God. Dust off your Bible and read the book of Job . . . Or most any of the books. Bad stuff happens. What's important is your response to what happens, be it good things or bad.

I won't be flying my Mooney today, I'm in town for a wedding this evening. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Hank