Increasing risk to get more flying time

[aviatoreb]

Relevant to this thread - someone I know just last week had a catastrophic engine failure - threw a rod which blew a hold in the case.  Luckily he was in a C310 and landed without incident very much enjoying his other engine. In cruise flight no less! That is the unicorn of engine failures.  I was kidding with him- I said ...see if you had not been flying with that bad engine, but just been flying single engine on the good engine you wouldn't have had a problem!  So much for dragging two engines around.  So twin engines airplanes have twice the probability of having an engine failure but the nice consolation of having at least some power to fly home if one of the engines fails.  Just don't loose an engine on take off and forget how to handle that.

[MIm20c]

14 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

someone I know just last week had a catastrophic engine failure - threw a rod which blew a hold in the case...That is the unicorn of engine failures.

I’m not sure about the unicorn rarity. A similar recent story from an acquaintance who put a hole in his 210 engine case and now owns a Baron comes to mind. 

[Oldguy]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

I think risk tolerance is a very personal topic and should be set by the individual based on his or her own set of criteria. When I first started flying there were a lot of old time pilots that lived by the Yeager adage "It's the man, not the machine". I remember canceling an IFR flight right after getting my IFR ticket and having one of them say to me, if you can't handle 500 foot ceilings, you shouldn't be flying. Ironically, the same guy ended up running out of fuel and flipped his Pitts upside down on a snow covered field.

My risk tolerance is balanced between a healthy respect for the factors involved and the experience I have. Sometimes it IS the machine and not the man...

There are several metrics I use to gauge risk tolerance before I fly. Some of them are the basics (IMSAFE, etc.), the MMOPA-Frat (thanks @Jerry 5TJ) and my 3-strike rule.

3-strike rule for me is making 3 simple, or not so simple, mistakes before takeoff. Get to the hangar and forgot my iPad? Strike 1. Start to taxi out and realize I left out something off the pre-flight check? Strike 2. Get down to the end of the runway and realize I was going to get fuel but passed up the fuel station? Park it. My mind is not in the game today, and I don't need to get up in the air and find out just how behind the plane I really am.

I have had a lot of fun over the years doing adrenaline fueled hobbies where a simple mistake could get you killed. Quickly. Fortunately, I have learned from older and wiser participants to think about risk prior to putting myself into a situation which could have been avoided. Has not always worked (and I have not always followed my own advice), but I have been fortunate enough to come out of it all with little damage to myself and no damage to others, and I would like to keep it that way.

[steingar]

14 minutes ago, Oldguy said:

3-strike rule for me is making 3 simple, or not so simple, mistakes before takeoff.

Me too.  I once cancelled a flight to the East Coast because I didn't have an updated chart.  It was strike 3 and was automatic.  It was a long drive, and I didn't regret the decision even once, even though the forecast bad weather never materialized.

Too many guys would still be walking around had they been able to break the accident chain.

[aviatoreb]

56 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

I’m not sure about the unicorn rarity. A similar recent story from an acquaintance who put a hole in his 210 engine case and now owns a Baron comes to mind. 

...well I would like to think it is a unicorn.  I have heard that catastrophic engine failure ( catastrophic meaning the engine breaks into little parts blowing holes through the case, etc ...vs fuel starvation or otherwise some accessory fails), is supposedly very rare in cruise flight.  Such failures if they occur I have heard are much more likely during take off/full power stress.

But maybe - this is just false?

[thinwing]

More likely failure, accessory failure....my friends Baron had a high pressure fuel line to flow divider chaffing thru and blowing blue 100 LL out the top of the cowling.A and P owner pilot was 200 mi from home airport (KSAC) and after shutting down Engine ,elected to continue home on 1 Engine over flat valley terrain.He admitted later he had failed to secure fuel line at last annual.He didn’t seem too concerned about not landing at nearest airport...high risk tolerance.Other long term Baron owner enroute to Branson For thanksgiving last year.He iced up over the Rockies and hit power lines on emerg approach he couldn’t see due to windshield icing.His Baron had windshield alcohol deice but hadn’t been filled in years when he did his own annuals...more high risk tolerance.At his memorial service ,he and his wife were spoken of as highly skilled and experienced pilots.

[tmo]

Engine out in a single a couple weeks ago at Zurich.  It is in German, but the pics of the engine (need to click the 'next' button a few times) tell the story (it ended well).

[carusoam]

Some big oil leaking cracks in those pics...

Straight tailed B-plane...

Best regards,

-a-

[squeaky.stow]

The airplanes I have flown for a living have high levels of automation and system redundancy, so I feel quite comfortable flying in pretty lousy conditions. The airplane I fly for fun has much less of both of those things and I am a lot more picky about when and where I fly.

I don’t think that’s because I am any smarter or better at risk assessment than someone who has only flown light singles, just more spoiled!

Many years ago, just before my first PP night cross-country, my instructor gave me the following tips in the event of an engine failure.

1) Turn into wind

2) Slow to minimum-sink speed.

3) When you get near the ground, turn on your landing light.

4) If you don’t like what you see, turn it off again.