Plane down @ KERV

[Dan208]

The 337 is an interesting twin. It just seems like alot of 414 's and piston twins down latley. My CFI started out in a 414 at his day job.  He was happy  when they upgraded.  

He now flies a very late model king air and a CJ4 . I am always begging for rides in both of those . 

At least in the 337 with an engine out it would still want to go straight ahead. I really hate reading about GA fatalities. 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I rode in a Helicopter the other day, and was talking to a chopper friend about multi engine chopper flying and what happens when they lose an engine.  Interestingly not a lot apart form the power goes, but there is no adverse yaw like we get in twins.  Personally I think that an AD should be made on ALL piston twins (and possibly older turbine twins) that automatic rudder augmentation kicks in the moment that the system sense engine power loss.  The human brain really cant respond fast enough unless it has trained for this every few months.  Reading Single Engine Survival tactics it was interesting to note that in the USAF in the F16 they HAVE to demonstrate SFO (simulated flame out, see I know all the TLAs now) every single month or they become non operational.  

In addition if the FAA etc actually paid for the recurrent training and made it mandatory how many accidents would be stopped?

Multiengine helicopters are different animals, they have two engines driving  one large prop, while multiengine planes maintain one prop per engine. [Yes, the CH53 is an exception, but they have large transmissions so that either (turbine) engine can drive both rotors if needed]. And yeah, helicopters have "rotating wings" not props, yada yada, same difference from an engine failure point of view.

F16s practice for flameouts because they only have the one engine like us, but they have the glide characteristics of a thrown brick; they begin a ballistic arc at engine failure. We get to glide down at a leisurely IFR-like descent rate to hopefully land at normal speed, while the F-16 will become a very high speed lawn dart.

[aviatoreb]

Why don't we see more multi-engine fixed wing airplanes where multiple engines drive a single prop?  I know it exists but it never caught on.

E

[jetdriven]

6 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I rode in a Helicopter the other day, and was talking to a chopper friend about multi engine chopper flying and what happens when they lose an engine.  Interestingly not a lot apart form the power goes, but there is no adverse yaw like we get in twins.  Personally I think that an AD should be made on ALL piston twins (and possibly older turbine twins) that automatic rudder augmentation kicks in the moment that the system sense engine power loss.  The human brain really cant respond fast enough unless it has trained for this every few months.  Reading Single Engine Survival tactics it was interesting to note that in the USAF in the F16 they HAVE to demonstrate SFO (simulated flame out, see I know all the TLAs now) every single month or they become non operational.  

In addition if the FAA etc actually paid for the recurrent training and made it mandatory how many accidents would be stopped?

Its a great idea but gets very complicated and very expensive very quickly. You would need a fast-acting rudder servo, a yaw sensor, and two torque meters to measure the engine torque.  And some kind of computer to run it. Then some kind of inhibit mode above a certain airspeed, and some kind of test function.  And some kind of way to prevent it from accidentally acting. Then it has to be calibrated to every model of airplane it goes on.

We could probably save more lives with some kind of auto tank switching device. Since most engine failures are caused by fuel contamination, with air. When the plane crashes, there is fuel onboard somewhere.

Interestingly, a news article about emergency grounding over flight control system erroneously activating.  https://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-releases-update-on-vision-jet-grounding?fbclid=IwAR1kKlG40gXz7e12jHmXzcoaQ-pBm7SA1OpDwoYd890FqT33BxjdlhcBzHc

Edited April 26, 2019 by jetdriven

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Why don't we see more multi-engine fixed wing airplanes where multiple engines drive a single prop?  I know it exists but it never caught on.

E

There was also the Rutan Defiant, with two engines driving two tandem props (one in the front, and a pusher in the back)

[jetdriven]

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

There was also the Rutan Defiant, with two engines driving two tandem props (one in the front, and a pusher in the back)

The latest one I saw, crashed and killed the pilot.  Bugatti 100P.  https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/30/power-loss-preceded-bugatti-crash

[aviatoreb]

36 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

There was also the Rutan Defiant, with two engines driving two tandem props (one in the front, and a pusher in the back)

I think that is simply two engines driving two props, one each, but they are inline.

So most popular of that configuration is the Cessna 337.

The danger of under training with that setup is it can be difficult to decide which engine failed if on failed in order to feather it in order to optimize what is now anemic climb on one engine.

[aviatoreb]

34 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

The latest one I saw, crashed and killed the pilot.  Bugatti 100P.  https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/30/power-loss-preceded-bugatti-crash

Right - that is the one I was thinking of when I was wondering why we don't see two engines driving a single shaft more often - that Bugatti is an ancient design.  I think the crashing of that one is not necessarily due to the concept of a single shaft, but surely more related to trying to revive an antique concept.

But perhaps two engines, one shaft, could well be reliable and safer in GA airplanes.

I think the hybrid electric concepts coming along potentially offer this kind of redundancy.

Also the all electric airplanes with like 20 or 30 mini Motors on a pair of wings offer the ultimate in backup.

Like the old joke - "First officer: Captain!  Engine number 4 has failed and its on fire.  Captain to first officer: which side?"

[m20kmooney]

Comparing a single and a twin with an engine failure the single is safer imo. Piston twins are not safer than piston singles after either loses an engine. So until I can afford a TBM or a Pilatus I’ll take my piston Mooney over a twin.

Edited April 26, 2019 by m20kmooney

[Yooper Rocketman]

21 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

...as said many times.  Its the plane and the pilot training.  I know Cape Air has been flying the Cessna 402 for years and years as scheduled air service with dozens of planes and countless of hours.  As far as I know, never a major accident.  (They did have a runway over run I know of a few years ago - in the very same exact airframe that starred in the tv show Wings - they repaired it).  I have known some of the pilots and they are proud of this record.  And they are highly trained in twin emergency ops, as that airline has a really well oiled pilot training system.

I am doubtful I personally would fly enough to maintain such currency.

The EXACT REASON I didn’t waste time getting a twin rating when my mercy flight organization bought a twin.  You have to fly enough hours and train sufficiently to be safe during an engine failure.   I didn’t feel I could do that, and knew I would be flying a much more capable and faster single engine turbine in the future.  

No disrespect to an obviously good pilot and great man helping a lot of people at his own expense.  RIP my friend.  

Tom

[M016576]

27 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

Comparing a single and a twin with an engine failure the single is safer imo. Piston twins are not safer than piston singles after either loses an engine.

That’s not necessarily entirely true...

in a single engine aircraft- when an engine fails, the plane is coming down.  Maybe it will land in a field, or on a road, or at a nearby strip.  

When a twin loses an engine- most of the time, the pilot flys the plane back to the field and lands safely.  The engine failure isn’t even required to be reported to anyone... and the statistic doesn’t make the Nall report.  

A twin has failure modes that need to be corrected immediately or can result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft (blue line speeds/Vmc being a major one).. but so do singles (approach turn stall, etc). 

The key is this: training.  Knowing one’s limits and abilities.. objectively.  and continuous preparation and practice for the worst case scenario.  

The twins do have higher approach speeds- so if they suffer a dual engine failure (fuel starvation)... then that opens the pilot up to a higher risk of fatality on landing than a single- for sure- but a competent, trained twin pilot should be able to handle a single engine failure safely, and without issue.  Sadly, the person in the video did not leave himself a safety margin, and/or wasn’t ready or prepared...and the result was catastrophic.

[M20F]

Until purchasing my Mooney almost all my flying was in twins.  I learned to fly in a AC560 and moved onto a C320.  Twins are very safe if you move slow and methodically.  When things go bad most NTSB reports in general aviation tend to relate to a bad decision even with good training (that is looking very much to be the case in the recent Atlas loss).  

People rush to feather, pull mixtures, etc. which you see even during training.  A windmilling prop isn’t that much drag put people tend to really focus on that and pulling the gear up.  You just have to be very slow and methodical and you are ok.  You rush and you end up like the China Airlines ATR. 

I have no idea what happened in this incident but twins are safe and training on systems is rarely the issue.  It is training on being logical and calm in an emergency, it is all about EQ and not IQ.  I have never had an issue of losing an engine in a twin in almost 2000hrs so who knows.  I have though lost 2 cylinders in a Mooney on two separate occasions including one in IMC.  In both cases still here to talk about not because I flew a perfect ILS (it was a full forward slip rocket ship to hit DH) with an engine chewing itself apart but because I just focused on being rational.

[exM20K]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

Until purchasing my Mooney almost all my flying was in twins.  I learned to fly in a AC560 and moved onto a C320.  Twins are very safe if you move slow and methodically.  When things go bad most NTSB reports in general aviation tend to relate to a bad decision even with good training (that is looking very much to be the case in the recent Atlas loss).  

People rush to feather, pull mixtures, etc. which you see even during training.  A windmilling prop isn’t that much drag put people tend to really focus on that and pulling the gear up.  You just have to be very slow and methodical and you are ok.  You rush and you end up like the China Airlines ATR. 

I have no idea what happened in this incident but twins are safe and training on systems is rarely the issue.  It is training on being logical and calm in an emergency, it is all about EQ and not IQ.  I have never had an issue of losing an engine in a twin in almost 2000hrs so who knows.  I have though lost 2 cylinders in a Mooney on two separate occasions including one in IMC.  In both cases still here to talk about not because I flew a perfect ILS (it was a full forward slip rocket ship to hit DH) with an engine chewing itself apart but because I just focused on being rational.

En route, I definitely agree that: “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.”  However, on and immediately after takeoff, you’d better be spring loaded to jump on it and maintain airspeed and thus control.  Whatever happened in the Duke crash, it was over in a blink. On reflection, I guess the reaction time must be the same for a single on or after takeoff, but at least the plane isn’t trying to roll over and kill you.

great job getting the Mooney down from IMC.  That shows superb control and airmanship.

[Mcstealth]

You guys are scaring me.When I win the lottery tonight, it is straight to the TBM, after an Ultra of course. No cabin class twins for me.

On the serious side, I went to the airport and the locals are pretty bummed. Evidently this pilot was well respected. 

I hope the NTSB report is a full report and not just a cursory investigation. It would be nice to know specifics. 

[M20F]

39 minutes ago, exM20K said:

En route, I definitely agree that: “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.”  However, on and immediately after takeoff, you’d better be spring loaded to jump on it and maintain airspeed and thus control.  Whatever happened in the Duke crash, it was over in a blink. On reflection, I guess the reaction time must be the same for a single on or after takeoff, but at least the plane isn’t trying to roll over and kill you.

great job getting the Mooney down from IMC.  That shows superb control and airmanship.

I completely disagree and you can go out and practice this with a 4500’ deck and see what happens.  I would add that in most twins stall comes before Vmc so rolling over is not generally the issue.  The transition to Vmc to Vyse is very very quick as well.  You generally are pushing the nose and trimming down rapidly to hold it.  It is a rocket on rails   

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by M20F

[Yetti]

Same practice should be done in a Mooney.  Configure for takeoff and cut the throttle.   The push down on the yoke should be immediate.   The stall horn will be quick.

[jaylw314]

On 4/26/2019 at 9:24 AM, aviatoreb said:

I think that is simply two engines driving two props, one each, but they are inline.

So most popular of that configuration is the Cessna 337.

The danger of under training with that setup is it can be difficult to decide which engine failed if on failed in order to feather it in order to optimize what is now anemic climb on one engine.

True, I was more thinking of aircraft where a failure of one engine does not result in the typical multi-engine problem...

[Mooney in Oz]

On 4/28/2019 at 12:00 AM, M20F said:

You rush and you end up like the China Airlines ATR. 

 I have no idea what happened in this incident ......

Very much agree with your comment Mike and use of an excellent example.

The crash you are referring to occurred just over 4 years ago involving a Taiwanese airline, TransAsia Airways.  After takeoff from Taipei airport and climbing through 600 feet the aircraft suffered an uncommanded auto feather to the No.2 engine. The crew mistakenly shut down the No. 1 engine, realised their mistake then attempted to restart No. 2 but by then it was too late as the aircraft stalled, dropped the left wing, which struck a bridge then ended up in the river below. There is dramatic dash cam footage of the bridge collision on YouTube. 

ATR SOP in this instance is to follow the same procedure as an engine failure after takeoff.

Identification of the issue is quite easy as TQ and NP (prop RPM) drop to zero and NH (gas gen) drops and pegs at 73%. All this is displayed on a large centre screen in full view of the crew in the middle of the instrument panel. I’ve actually done this in the ATR sim following this accident as a part of my company’s 6 monthly cyclic training matrix and found it to be a non event when the failure is confirmed, levers are correctly identified and confirmed then actioned, all in a controlled manner..

The theme here is that rushing can kill.

 

[LANCECASPER]

On 4/26/2019 at 4:51 PM, m20kmooney said:

Comparing a single and a twin with an engine failure the single is safer imo. Piston twins are not safer than piston singles after either loses an engine. So until I can afford a TBM or a Pilatus I’ll take my piston Mooney over a twin.

It all depends on when the engine fails. On take-off the records show that losing an engine on a twin is a handful, not that it's a good thing on a single either.

However, losing one engine on a twin at cruise over mountains or water should be close to a non-event, other than damage to the checkbook.

[Ron McBride]

When I was flying C310's, I had an engine failure at 93mph, 2 mph below rotation. The right engine failed on the runway, and I pulled both engines back to idle and corrected to keep the plane on the runway. 150 wide runway and was within 10' of going off the side.    Since the power failure was only partial I was able to taxi back to the hanger. 

Another situation part of the throttle linkage came loose in the pattern one night. I could not advance power on the right engine.  Just planned just in case that I needed to make a go around what the effects of a partial power go around would be.  Maintained power on the right engine, used the left engine for adjustments until the runway was guaranteed, then pulled the right engine to idle.

Twins can be great, lots of maintenance and fuel.    I figured about twice the fuel compared to my M20F and 50% or more for maintenance.   They both needed new avionics, paint etc.

Ron

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, N803RM said:

When I was flying C310's, I had an engine failure at 93mph, 2 mph below rotation. The right engine failed on the runway, and I pulled both engines back to idle and corrected to keep the plane on the runway. 150 wide runway and was within 10' of going off the side.    Since the power failure was only partial I was able to taxi back to the hanger. 

Another situation part of the throttle linkage came loose in the pattern one night. I could not advance power on the right engine.  Just planned just in case that I needed to make a go around what the effects of a partial power go around would be.  Maintained power on the right engine, used the left engine for adjustments until the runway was guaranteed, then pulled the right engine to idle.

Twins can be great, lots of maintenance and fuel.    I figured about twice the fuel compared to my M20F and 50% or more for maintenance.   They both needed new avionics, paint etc.

Ron

Things like throttle linkage failure can of course happen on a single engine mooney (as can most other failure types).

From anecdotes I sure hear about a lot of engine failures in twins which happily end in some version of the story, good thing with the other engine I got home safely.  But is it me or does it seem as if there are more engine failures for some reason in twins generally than in singles?

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

From anecdotes I sure hear about a lot of engine failures in twins which happily end in some version of the story, good thing with the other engine I got home safely.  But is it me or does it seem as if there are more engine failures for some reason in twins generally than in singles?

Engine failure rates in twins [per flight hour] should be double the rate in singles, since they accumulate double the engine-hours per flight hour.

[aviatoreb]

49 minutes ago, Hank said:

Engine failure rates in twins [per flight hour] should be double the rate in singles, since they accumulate double the engine-hours per flight hour.

Right - I will give you that!  (Although that takes an assumption of independence which is likely not true - but nonetheless lets just go with it).

But nonetheless, I hear so many stories as I said it has the "feel" as if there are many more even than twice.

[ArtVandelay]

I wonder if some twin owners are more cavalier about their engines maintenance because they have two of them? So more failures.


Tom

[aviatoreb]

24 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

I wonder if some twin owners are more cavalier about their engines maintenance because they have two of them? So more failures.


Tom

It is my impression that yes that at least some are.