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

[jetdriven]

You hit the nall on the head.  Before going out and buying a twin engined airplane (for perceived safety, not other factors) you can recieve training that will help prevent 90% of all accidents.   Instrument rating, Commercial, unusual attitudes. Instrument refresher. Then, throw in some useful equipment that truly increases safety, anf you just upped your chances of not having an accident many times over.  Thats a pretty good investment.

[jlunseth]

The only rational conclusion for a "low time" (i.e. under 10,000 hour) GA pilot, is to take the $3,850,000 you save by buying a sound Mooney as opposed to a turbine aircraft, and spend the whole thing on fuel and maintenance to fly the aircraft, and on training.  Heck, now that I have read this thread and looked at that report, I think I am going to sign up for Upset Recovery of something.  Anything to learn to be safer. 

[aviatoreb]

Turboprops can have engine failures too.  They are MUCH more reliable than pistons but nothing has a 100% impossible to fail.  Whether it be engine reasons or fuel flow reasons, or what not.  The twin versus single issue is still there for turbo props but perhaps less serious since single turbo props are just that much more reliable.

[jetdriven]

TEN MILLION FLIGHT HOURS

Statistically speaking, the Nall report only showed 33 engine failures on certified aircraft, and turbine engines are orderos of magnitude more reliable.  How many piston engines have you seen go 20,000 hours between overhauls?

 

edited, this accident rate is for fatalities due to engine failure.  Not all piston twin fatalities are due to engine failure, either.

 

here is one for you:

"Since 1985 when the first single engine turboprop went into service, all single engine turboprop aircraft COMBINED have compiled over 10,000,000 (ten million) flight hours with no (that’s zero) fatalities in North America due to engine failure."  

yoour fatal accident rate in a twin is .88 per 100k flight hours.  Thats 88 fatalities per 10 million hours in a piston twin. Statistically the fatal accident rate for a turbine single is zero.

I have approximtaely 4,000 flying hours in twin turboprops, and I have never came close to having to shut one down.  There is no comparison between turbine engines and pistons.

 

source:  http://westair.com/images/pdfs//Vaughn%20Single%20Engine%20Safety%2011-15-10.pdf

[jetdriven]

here, the fatal  accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles.  A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single.

 

Facts folks.  Not feelings.

 

http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

[Piloto]

Quote: jetdriven

here, the fatal  accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles.  A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single.

 

Facts folks.  Not feelings.

 

http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

[WardHolbrook]

Double post

[WardHolbrook]

 

Single vs twin and piston vs turbine arguements are starting to get boring. It seems as though everyone has made up their minds on the subject and converting a devotee from one camp into the other is pretty much a futile exercise. Regardless of your personal opinion, the original question revolved around ditching and preparation. This much hopefully we can all agree on, if you're in a single and for what ever reason the engine quits and you happen to be out of gliding distance from land you will be getting wet. A prepared pilot will have jackets on board and if the water's not too cold you shoulld be able to get through it assuming you can be found and rescued before hypothermia sets in and runs its course. If your really well prepared you will have a raft and you'll be able to await rescue "in style ". Or so that's the way most folks think. Rafts are a nice idea and they might give you a warm fuzzy feelings regarding your preparations, but have you ever tried to climb into the one you'll be using in the open water? Or even in a swimming pool? I've been to some ditching courses and getting 50 or 60-something year old guys up onto and into the raft can be problematic when you're in dressed in street clothes and fighting the swells in cold water. Add an injury or two and it's probably not going to happen. 

It's a fools errand to use statistical probabilities as justification as to how, where and when you fly any airplane - piston or turbine, single or multi. It also doesn't matter why the engine lost power. The airframe doesn't care why the engine decided to stop pulling. Using statistics is one thing, but as the accident record demonstrates, what really matters is when is it going to happen to me? The only answer a person can honestly give is "Sooner or Later". Since we can't pick the time or the place of the event, I believe it's wise to limit limit our exposure  to those places and conditions where one has little or no control over the outcome. A successful outcome - no injuries, not necessarily no aircraft damage - under those situations requires luck. I choose to limit my dependency upon luck. Hence, you won't find me flying singles - piston or turboprop - at night, LIFR, or anywhere - hostile terrain or open water - that I don't have someplace to put it down safely IF/WHEN the engine quits. You have to be able  to see. In a twin, you've got to fly the airplane at appropriate weights and maintain sufficient proficiency to deal with the performance and handling issues that arise during OEI operations. It requires discipline to operate these airplanes safely, because our equipment is so reliable and because engines really do seldom quit and there is a temptation to say think along the lines of... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

 

[carusoam]

I'm swayed...

The twin commander is out of my dreams...

The TBM750 is in...

I will still order the life jackets with the integral lights and whistle prior to flying over water.

Best regards,

-a-

[jlunseth]

Quote: Piloto

[fantom]

It sure is fun reading this thread......

Just remember having an engine failure or problem in a twin almost never gets reported, so the stats aren't accurate.

As for going down at night, I'd rather do it into water than into mountains.

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

[DaV8or]

Quote: jlunseth

 The chances of an accident in a piston powered type certificated aircraft due to power plant failure are tiny, really tiny.  Doesn't matter if it is a twin or a single.  The chances of a fatal outcome are also tiny.

 

 

[GeorgePerry]

The question here isn't wether or not one is prepared, but rather is one is prepared to take the risk.  Flying an aircraft with a single piston powerplant at night (over land or water) increases the risk for an unsucsessful forced landing exponentially.  In fact the odds of a fatal forced landing at night are anywhere from 5-10 times higher than day time, depending which safety study you quote.

As a navy pilot my job involves flying on and off the carrier, day, night, in bad weather etc...For the most part we do this safely largely because we have backups, redundant systems and our own full time SAR on call.  I willingly accept the risks associated with carrier aviation because there are enough mitigators that reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

I've been in the flying game for a long time and for me (others milage will vary), Flying a piston powered single engine aircraft at night is an unacceptible risk and one that I do not take.  I mitigate my risk by flying in the day only and plan land times no later than 10 minutes prior to sunset. 

[jetdriven]

George, that is a well thought out post.  I choose to fly at night, althought night IFR isnt really my thing, I will do that too if the weather is not LIFR.   It is an elevated risk from daytime flying, but a rather small one that is offset somewhat by careful attention the the condition of the aircraft and proper proficiency.

 

[GeorgePerry]

Byron,  Also a well thoughtout and written post.  You are right on the money when it comes to currency and proficiency.  Being comfortable in "varsity" condiditons should be a prerequisite for anyone flying at night (SE or ME).  As an guy who cut his teeth as a flight instructor flying the standard assortment of high time C's and P's I've experienced two complete engine failures.  One at about 500 ft on take off and another on the takeoff roll.  Engines quit from time to time and that's OK...If you can see where your going you'll likely walk away.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: GeorgePerry

The question here isn't wether or not one is prepared, but rather is one is prepared to take the risk.  Flying an aircraft with a single piston powerplant at night (over land or water) increases the risk for an unsucsessful forced landing exponentially.  In fact the odds of a fatal forced landing at night are anywhere from 5-10 times higher than day time, depending which safety study you quote.

As a navy pilot my job involves flying on and off the carrier, day, night, in bad weather etc...For the most part we do this safely largely because we have backups, redundant systems and our own full time SAR on call.  I willingly accept the risks associated with carrier aviation because there are enough mitigators that reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

I've been in the flying game for a long time and for me (others milage will vary), Flying a piston powered single engine aircraft at night is an unacceptible risk and one that I do not take.  I mitigate my risk by flying in the day only and plan land times no later than 10 minutes prior to sunset. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: DaV8or

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

here, the fatal  accident rate in a twin is 4 times the rate of singles.  A piston twin is 88 times or more likely to have a fatal accident than a turboprop single.

 

Facts folks.  Not feelings.

 

http://www.avemco.com/information/blogs/twin-engine-temptation.aspx

[aviatoreb]

Quote: WardHolbrook

Single vs twin and piston vs turbine arguements are starting to get boring. It seems as though everyone has made up their minds on the subject and converting a devotee from one camp into the other is pretty much a futile exercise. ... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

 

[jetdriven]

The same can be said for IFR flying, perhaps its even more dangerous than night flying.

Quote: aviatoreb

Hi George, I agree with the concept of avoiding night flying and this is my working principle too.  The reason being the difficulty of picking an off field site if the need ever arises - in other words no back-up plan means no-go.  On that basis, I wonder on the detail of why you choose 10 min prior to sunset as your cut-off. I use anywhere from 10 min prior to civil twighlight all the way to civil twilight - 30 -40 min different from you - since I feel like I can still see fields well enough ten min prior to civil twilight but after sunset.

Has anyone ever thought of flying at night with hunters night vision goggles.  I have sometimes wondered if that would make picking fields a possibility and therefore erase the extra danger of night flying.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

[RJBrown]

Quote

: DaV8or

[jetdriven]

Try identifying the dead engine in a centerline twin. I have flown a 337. It is worse that a Baron on one engine, and try doing a V1 cut on that plane. You wil crash every time because you must clean up, but when those big gear doors open, the plane cannot climb.  The accident rate for that one is worse than a regular piston twin and even worse than the 210.

[DaV8or]

Quote: RJBrown

 The Riley Rocket is done by Riley. Riley did a "Rocket"  conversion to Cessna 337 aircraft. The Riley Rocket 337 still used the TSIO360 engine.