Ditching at Night....are you prepared for it?

[M016576]

Ditching during the day can be tricky depending on the sea state.  Ditching at night and... well... good luck... I hope the moon's up...

 

[PTK]

Alex, chill out man! I wasn't lecturing anyone! Certainly not Parker! He has a lot more qualifications than I do!

If I bother you so much a suggestion would be for you to start a website of your own and select the people who don't annoy you!

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Thrust = what engines produce. Excess Thrust = results in climb.

I'm not an MEI, but I did just get my MES and spent a lot of time reading and going over single-engine procedures since I hadn't flown a twin in almost 2 years.

[Piloto]

Ever wonder why the Caravan twin engine conversion by Soloy http://www.soloy.com/files/Products/Documents/Dual%20Pac.pdf was never popular. It decreased the dispatchability rate by half, you need now two engines instead of one to dispatch. Fuel and maintenance is twice of that of the single Caravan. There was no added commercial benefit adding a second engine. Why do you think Piper is betting on the Piper Jet?

José

[sleepingsquirrel]

I think we should merge the "running tanks dry" thread with "ditching at night" then everything would make sense.

[Shadrach]

Quote: Skyatty

2. The TBM-700 and PC-12 don't necessarily have the same roles at a B200 or 350.

3. SE Service Ceiling is a function of horsepower, weight, and the engine's ability to produce power (turbo or NA).

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Piloto

Ever wonder why the Caravan twin engine conversion by Soloy http://www.soloy.com/files/Products/Documents/Dual%20Pac.pdf was never popular. It decreased the dispatchability rate by half, you need now two engines instead of one to dispatch. Fuel and maintenance is twice of that of the single Caravan. There was no added commercial benefit adding a second engine. Why do you think Piper is betting on the Piper Jet?

José

[aviatoreb]

... I should add.  As I understand the issue after lots of research - but I am not a twin pilot.

[Hank]

To each his own. I have neither reason nor opportunity to fly over much more water than the Ohio River, and if I can't glide to the bank [where airports seem to be concentrated] then I have serious problems.

"Hostile terrain" is a very vague definition. Surely looking down at the Badlands counts as hostile, as does the NC/TN border. More people live in the latter, but the former is probably easier to make a forced landing simply because it is much closer to being flat, while surviving the post-crash period would be easier in the latter. At night, neither one would be friendly to forced landing. I operate regularly in the Appalachians, and hope to reach the Rockies again in my [single-engine] plane some day.

Many factors preclude private operation of twins:  acquisition cost; maintenance cost; operating expense; need bigger hangar; need additional training & certification; ongoing additional training requirements; etc., etc. For myself, they ALL apply, along with others that I'm not thinking of right now.

"Ditching at night" is not something that I worry about, as the odds are stacked very high against it ever happening [after all, it requires a large body of water]; "forced landing at night" is something I hope happens in good VMC if it ever occurs; "night IMC" to me sounds much more risky than "night flying," which after all I did as a student pilot.

As far as cold northern water, it is at its warmest in late summer; the coldest swim I ever had was mid-June in Canada, but it was really good incentive to learn really fast how to handle a canoe. The Great Lakes are never warm . . .

[danb35]

Quote: allsmiles

Again I point out the fact that serious business machines are indeed singles! 

[PTK]

Yes, this is exactly what I said Dan!!?? Glad you got the full thrust (pun intended) of what I said without putingt words in my mouth!  

Anybody ever tell you Dan... you are good!  Gillette sharp!!

[Parker_Woodruff]

Each has their own advantages, but for traveling alone or with a couple passengers, I want the TBMooney speed.  When you need cabin space and payload, it's a B200 (or higher) or PC-12 mission.

[jetdriven]

Statistically speaking, the fatal accident rate in twins is the same as in singles.  And in many twins the single engine service ceiling is around 5,000' or so. Some are less than seal level. Even a 414 at full gross on a hot day has a climb rate of 50 feet per mile.  PER MILE.   So, when you have your twice as often chance of engine failure in your plane that can't maintain terrain clearance, you are much more likely to die in the twin because of the hgher landing speed, and no big heavy engine out in front to take the brunt of the crash.

loss of control yes on takoff is one of the major causes of accidents.  So lis losing control in the landing pattern after losing an engine in cruise. Also, missed approaches claim a lot of lives.  Complicaed airplanes are a handful to go around in.

Quote: aviatoreb

Yes a twin is roughly twice as likely to have an engine failure than a single.  But you are MUCH MUCH more likely to still have one engine running.  That is the important part.   Back of the envelope calculation says you square the (small number near zero) probability of failure to consider a double failure, assuming independence of events, which of course is a rough assumption since there can be correlated failures.

Twins have full feathering props.  If you use that correctly, there is no windmilling issue, right?

Problem is then the pilot and the higher probability of a single engine failure upon take off.  Which is roughly twice as likely as a single engine failure on a single engine airplane. I will work out the rough estimates for anyone that wishes.  And a single engine failure is very dangerous in the hands of an unprepared not current-enough twin pilot - with quick hands and reactions to feather the bad engines prop.  Without that the asymetric prop causes the airplane to roll over on its back - and in the runway environment - very bad thing.  So as far as I understand it, the majority of the extra danger of a twin is concentrated all on the take off events.  And furthermore concentrated on twin pilots who are not current enough on that single engine emergency procedure.

In enroute phase, over hostile terrain, I would take a twin any day.

At annual time, I will take a single.  And for the fact that I am not sure I would be that current enough in twin procedures, I think in my hands a single engine mooney is safer for the bulk of my operations.  Plus, I mitigate my over water risk by not flying over water, and I hardly fly at night - though I wish I had a twin for that.

[John Pleisse]

Ditching at night? Forces you to maintain shallow decent rate and accept what happens. In warm water on a moonlight night, it would be an exercise of survival.

In the twin tangent, there hasn't been much dicussion about proficiency. Probably more impotant than most SE climb rates.

[AlexR]

Quote: aviatoreb

Perhaps - but I would rather have an engine failure in a twin than in a single engine.  You are citing an economic reason - a very valid perspective for a company.  And this drives popularity. Yes, a twin for its added complexity has a higher chance of being a hangar queen.  But when she runs...

Yes a twin is roughly twice as likely to have an engine failure than a single.  But you are MUCH MUCH more likely to still have one engine running.  That is the important part.   Back of the envelope calculation says you square the (small number near zero) probability of failure to consider a double failure, assuming independence of events, which of course is a rough assumption since there can be correlated failures.

Twins have full feathering props.  If you use that correctly, there is no windmilling issue, right?

Problem is then the pilot and the higher probability of a single engine failure upon take off.  Which is roughly twice as likely as a single engine failure on a single engine airplane. I will work out the rough estimates for anyone that wishes.  And a single engine failure is very dangerous in the hands of an unprepared not current-enough twin pilot - with quick hands and reactions to feather the bad engines prop.  Without that the asymetric prop causes the airplane to roll over on its back - and in the runway environment - very bad thing.  So as far as I understand it, the majority of the extra danger of a twin is concentrated all on the take off events.  And furthermore concentrated on twin pilots who are not current enough on that single engine emergency procedure.

In enroute phase, over hostile terrain, I would take a twin any day.

At annual time, I will take a single.  And for the fact that I am not sure I would be that current enough in twin procedures, I think in my hands a single engine mooney is safer for the bulk of my operations.  Plus, I mitigate my over water risk by not flying over water, and I hardly fly at night - though I wish I had a twin for that.

[alex]

Quote: danb35

So the Pilatus and TBM are "serious business machines", while the King Airs (and every bizjet) aren't?

Once again, often wrong, never in doubt.

[aviatoreb]

 I am a twin pilot and MEI ...you got it absolutely right aviatoreb.  Dispatch reliability is an economic factor, not a safety factor. ..

[BorealOne]

Quote: gsengle

Hey borealone, appears our planes are twins!  96 TKS Ovation here, same paint job, serial number 89 I think...

[BorealOne]

Quote: gsengle

Hey borealone, appears our planes are twins!  96 TKS Ovation here, same paint job, serial number 89 I think...

[Skyatty]

Ross, thanks for the explanation.  i don't have a multi-rating and admittedly know nothing about the limitations.  I was trying to figure out how much additional drag can slow a crippled twin.  Aside from prop drag, or lack thereof if feathered, I wonder how much performance degrades due to the yaw in the direction of the operating engine and, assuming that the pilot increases rudder forces to neutralize the yaw, how much additional rudder drag is present.  Intuitively, 50% reduction seems too small and 80%-90% seems high.

[PTK]

Quote: AlexR

[DaV8or]

Quote: allsmiles

On one engine you have, at best, marginal performance losing about 90% of thrust. Also when DA becomes a consideration your ceiling is no more than about 5000 feet DA.

Ever wonder why light business airplanes such as the TBM-700 and PC-12 have single engines?

[jetdriven]

There is a lot more to it than rudder yaw. There is also the drag from asymmetrical flight, you can neutalize most of that with the rudder, but the ball outside the window to the good engine and banked into the good engine minimizes it. Drag from the dead cowl flap. Flaps up. Gear up. Controlling the aircraft.

Basically climb performance is cut by 80-90%, sometimes 100% when you account for drift down. Cruise performance is cut by not quite half. A 190 KTAS C-55 Baron might fly at 120-30 KTS on one in cruise.  (been a while) A 250 IAS Beech 1900D would slow to ~150-160 on one engine.

Still, overall, you might be safer at night over water with a piston twin, but you are taking more risks in other phases of flight. Its a wash.  Don't kid yourself.

A study in australia spread out over 4 million flight hours bears the single vs. twin total accident rate to be the same, but the fatal accident rate was 3X MORE in a light twin.    http://www.flightweb.com/archive/flightmed/2002/11/msg00076.html

here's another article stating that there has never been an inflight engine shutdown on a TBM-700.  Australian study reported fatal accident rate was .07 per 100k hours (turbine single)  vs. .15 per 100k hours (piston twin).  That is HALF in favor if a turbine single.  Perhaps Parker is onto something.  http://www.myjets.net/mjsafety.htm

Mike Busch speaks on twins vs. singles:      http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html

Quote: Skyatty

Ross, thanks for the explanation.  i don't have a multi-rating and admittedly know nothing about the limitations.  I was trying to figure out how much additional drag can slow a crippled twin.  Aside from prop drag, or lack thereof if feathered, I wonder how much performance degrades due to the yaw in the direction of the operating engine and, assuming that the pilot increases rudder forces to neutralize the yaw, how much additional rudder drag is present.  Intuitively, 50% reduction seems too small and 80%-90% seems high.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: aviatoreb

 I am a twin pilot and MEI ...you got it absolutely right aviatoreb.  Dispatch reliability is an economic factor, not a safety factor. ..

[jlunseth]

I have done several flights either over water, or over mountains, pretty much the same thing if you are flying at cruise altitude (as opposed to flying at or under mountain top altitude).  I always use what the turbo Mooney gives me, which is altitude (which gives glide range), and with altitude the ability in the right conditions to make use of winds aloft.

I think you need to bear in mind the risk you are trying to manage, and so to do that I went to the Nall Report.  I have to say, I found it distinctly unhelpful in most respects, because it generally fails to establish base numbers.  A little off my point here, but for example, it might tell you that ATP's were involved in "x" percent of all GA accidents, but it does not say what % of GA pilots are ATP's, nor how many hours they fly. 

Be that as it may, there is a little useful information.  One piece is that 17% of accidents were maintenance accidents, a number that is higher in the past, which they hypothecate is due to poor economic conditions causing skimping on maintenance (to paraphrase).  So on a given flight, you are four times more likely to have an accident because of your own stupidity, than to have your aircraft cause it.  And of all GA accidents, of which it appeared there were 1190, power plant failures were 89 or 7.5% of the total.  Not accounted for in that number is another conclusion of the report, which is that amateur built aircraft accounted for a large share of maintenance accidents.  56 of the 89 power plant failure accidents were in amateur built aircraft, which leaves 33 power plant failures in type-certificated aircraft such as the Mooney.  That is 2.7% of all accidents. 

Further, although there was no clear data in the Nall Report on this, the number of mechanical issues that occurred during cruise flight, as opposed to take-off, landing, maneuvering, etc., was tiny.  Essentially, this leaves a small handful of cruise flight power plant failures in GA (total of twin and single). 

Roughly speaking, a pilot is about 100 times more likely to kill himself or herself through their own stupidity than because the engine of their Mooney fails in cruise flight.

The number is not zero of course.  And there is a risk that needs to be managed.  But of all the risks in aviation, such as the risk of stalling the aircraft in the pattern or colliding with another aircraft, engine failure in cruise is one of, if not the, tiniest.  Regardless of plane type.