Own vs Rent Break Even?

[digits_]

But how many of those twin accidents are due to pilot error?

All of them. Every single one. That's the point. It's not the number of engines that's the danger, it's you. You are the danger. Adding another engine, an autopilot, two fat engines and de-icing increases the probability that you, the most dangerous part of the whole operation, will kill someone, most likely yourself but possibly your entire family too. Start there.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

I am perfectly aware that a lot of people preferring twins might end up in that number. Maybe even myself someday. Very few pilots consider themselves incompetent. But still, it's a very interesting statistic.

[photofly]

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

But nobody dies due to technical issues beyond their control. Not in single engine airplanes, and not in twin engine airplanes.

99.9% of all the risk involved in flying small airplanes comes from the decision-making of the pilot. And most of that comes from the decisions that were made before the aircraft left the ground. It's a waste of time and energy to fuss about the details of the airplane until the significance of those facts is understood.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

I think it's important that to one own's self one is true. A low time pilot who is prepared to countenance putting his or her family in a self-flown piston powered airplane to fly through weather, cannot believe that safety is important. If safety was actually important to that pilot, they would not do that.

It's self-deception to think the endeavour gets safer by bolting more widgets to the airplane. Insufficent widgets is never the root cause of a fatality.

[Archerboy]

I understand there is a premium to be paid for that extra engine, just trying to figure out how much of a premium for the sake of "safety".

If you compare a basic twin to a basic 172 or warrior, you'll be likely doubling the hourly cost, and pay about 30% more per mile flown. Purchase costs will likely only be slightly higher for a twin, but that twin will likely be better equipped.

You do expose yourself to more financial risk though. Double the chance of something major (engine) needing a repair. Then again, if the purchase price is similar, you'll never lose more than what you put into it. A twin with 2 engines needing overhaul is pretty worthless. You can sell off your avionics and engine cores, but that's about it. Then again, a single with an old engine and broken wing spar is equally worthless. If you're dabbling in old airplanes, it could go either way for any airplane.

Assume that whatever money you spend on your airplane, single or twin, is gone. If you can't do that, you better not buy an airplane. And don't go into debt to buy an old plane for personal use either. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks for that insight. So what you are saying is this is akin to buying a brand new Toyota SUV vs a 1995 Ferrari 355 (probably one of my favorite sport cars of all time). They cost the same, except to do any maintenance on the 355 you have to remove the engine i heard. Operating costs are through the roof for any maintenance.

The other way to think of it, is the illusion of OPEX (Operating expenses) vs CAPEX (Capital expenses). The vast majority of people think of costs only in terms of CAPEX. For example, most people would rather buy a brand new BMW M3 rather than a used Ferrari 360. A 2022 M3 goes for what these days? 71K starting MSRP, with a few options and fees you are looking easy 80K. A 360 can be had for 60K. True, the new car may have only oil changes as the only opex cost, but if one budgets the same 80K for the Ferrari, how many years of enjoyment can one get if they budget 20K in maintenance costs? Probably more years than one would think.

Is it not the same with aircraft? If one were to budget 150K for a twin piston and buy it at 100K and plan for 50K in expenses, is that any different than buying a 140K single and budgeting for 10K expenses? (the numbers are just thrown out there).

Air Power is quoting 77,000 USD for the TSIO 360EB engine in a Seneca III. With the cost of the re and re replacing ONE engine will equal the cost of the whole airplane....

Wow...still getting familiar with overhaul costs. For single engine planes numbers I've come across are 20-30K. I had no idea a single engine overhaul could cost 77K. there's a Tomahawk for sale i've seen for 43K CAD....with not too many hours. Cant remember now cause the listing is gone, probably sold.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

I am perfectly aware that a lot of people preferring twins might end up in that number. Maybe even myself someday. Very few pilots consider themselves incompetent. But still, it's a very interesting statistic.

That's how i interpret those stats too. No accidents due to engine failure on a twin means the two engines are doing their job. Giving you one spare engine to survive.

I think it's important that to one own's self one is true. A low time pilot who is prepared to countenance putting his or her family in a self-flown piston powered airplane to fly through weather, cannot believe that safety is important. If safety was actually important to that pilot, they would not do that.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families. I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings. Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather. I believe someone mentioned (I believe it may have been you photofly) that the only way to get good as a pilot is not to train but actually fly for travel and gain cross country experience. If you wait for VFR conditions every time you want to go somewhere, then you'll never fly consistently.

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

Archerboy

[photofly]

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families.

Says the person who’s never flown in Canada. In this country there aren’t. We don’t have the nice gentle mild winters of Florida and Texas and California and Arizona, and airports so close together you are never out of visual range of several at the same time. We have icing above 3000 feet for eight months of the year and hundreds of miles between suitable outs. It’s the middle of May right now and the freezing level where you are is still only 5,000 feet - meanwhile the 100nm safe altitude for Springbank is 13,800.

I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings.

The point of IFR in Canada is for multi-engine turbine aircraft flown by two professional pilots to climb above the weather and cruise at 400 knots and faster, and above FL260.

Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather.

Well, indeed. Why?

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

I’m saying for a low-time inexperienced pilot such as yourself it’s fraught with risks that are not mitigated by having fancier kit. You will be forced to deal with this fact when you try to buy insurance. You can put your family in the back and get your operating experience if you want. But don’t pretend their safety is important to you if you do so.

My advice is to stop worrying about an engine failure. The airplane accident that kills your family will not be caused by an engine failure, regardless of whether you have one, two or more of them. It will be caused by your own bad decision-making and nothing else. Use that as the basis for deciding how to proceed.

[Squaretail]

I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings.

The point of IFR in Canada is for multi-engine turbine aircraft flown by two professional pilots to climb above the weather and cruise at 400 knots and faster, and above FL260.

While Private pilots flying their families around aren't restricted as such, I think its telling that to fly passengers single pilot IFR in this country TC mandates you have a 1000 hours, 50 hours of instrument time and 50 hours on type as per 723.86. There may be some wisdom behind requiing at least that experience level for such endeavors. That requirement is in addition to training beyond a basic IFR in Airborne Icing, High Altitude training (because I'm sure you also considered that flying IFR strictly below 10,000' would be sort of pointless) Initial flight training on said type, Surface contamination training, GPS training, and Emergency Procedures. None of which a Private pilot is required to have.

Remember that the rules are written because the regulator only really cares that you aren't charging money to people you're putting at risk, you are free put your family and friends at risk.

[final28]

Owning a plane will rarely make sense financially, you have to fly a lot to get anywhere near break even in terms of cost. Add dealing with maintenance, insurance, hangar or tie down rental, etc it all takes time.
Owning will give you better access to a plane on your schedule, short notice, staying away for multiple days (or weeks). Some types are also very difficult to rent (float planes, aerobatic and tail wheel) so there may be no other option than to own.
Owning with partners can work well but you all need to be on the same page regarding scheduling, maintenance, upgrades, etc.

[CpnCrunch]

That's how i interpret those stats too. No accidents due to engine failure on a twin means the two engines are doing their job. Giving you one spare engine to survive.

You seem to be implying that a fatal accident in a twin is due to extreme stupidity or negligence, but I don't see it that way. As squaretail pointed out above, the fatality rate is 4x higher for engine failures in a twin.

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

Airline pilots have a number of advantages here: they have to do recurrent training in emergency procedures, they follow SOPs and checklists, twin turboprops generally have autofeathering props, and they have sufficient power to make engine failures less of an event.

I did my multi rating just over a year ago and haven't flown a twin since. Right now I wouldn't feel safe flying a twin without first reviewing all the procedures again and making sure I knew all the steps to handle various engine failure scenarios. But even then, if an engine failure happens at 500ft, are you sure that you push the nose down, and possibly kill the remaining engine if necessary, to avoid a Vmc spin? I imagine it's a bit different when it happens for real vs the instructor just putting the throttle to idle at 2000ft when you know it's about to happen. With a single engine it's a bit less of a challenge when the shit hits the fan...you push the nose down because there isn't really any other option, although many pilots still manage to screw that up.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families. I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings. Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather. I believe someone mentioned (I believe it may have been you photofly) that the only way to get good as a pilot is not to train but actually fly for travel and gain cross country experience. If you wait for VFR conditions every time you want to go somewhere, then you'll never fly consistently.

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

Archerboy

I think it just depends what your expectations are.
Edit: what I mean is, an instrument rating will only increase the days you can fly from something like 50% to 55%, not 95%. And you may find that your family doesn't like getting bounced around in clouds in a small plane. I've come to realise that it's usually better flying VFR with family for that reason. It's nice to have the ability to fly IFR, but it's not quite as useful as you might imagine unless you have at least a Navajo.

Having said all of that, if you have the time and money and inclination, I think it is useful to get multi IFR, CPL etc. It will give you more skills and (perhaps) discipline, reduce your insurance a bit, give you the option of flying commercially if you ever want to do that, and it's also an interesting and challenging goal.

[digits_]

It would really be beneficial to have access to the source data of the statistics that are being discussed.

As photofly suggested, it's likely there is a big VFR vs IFR factor present in those statistics.

In a similar way, I suspect there would be a big commercial vs ppl factor as well. I suspect the majority of the single engine flight hours are done by flight s hool aircraft or commercial aircraft. So by a CPL or under a fairly strict FTU regime. Likewise most piston twin hours are likely flown by private people. Not a lot of commercial piston twins flying around anymore.

So I suspect that if we were to compare singe engine private flying fatality rates vs multi engine priave flying fatality rates, the difference might not be as extreme.

I could be wrong of course.

[digits_]

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions. If your only engine in a single fails, your rate of descent will be mich worse than 100 fpm. If it fails on takeoff you also need to lower the nose. And you might be tempted into attempting the impossible turn.

Even if you are incompetent in single engine takeoffs, there is only a 20 second danger window. After that, you have significant more time to react and can very likely maintain flight on one engine.

[photofly]

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions.

And I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on engine failures. They aren't the cause of most accidents and cause virtually no fatalities in single engine airplanes. Meanwhile this board is replete with deaths caused by pilots flying into bad weather, or doing other stupid things that kill themselves and others.

If you want to stay safe in small airplanes, understand the pilot is the weak link. Not the engines, regardless of how few or many you have.

In fact, here's a project for anyone who's interested. Go back through accidents that have been reported and discussed here, and try to find which ones, if any, were caused by engine failures. Then decide:

- could those engine failures have been prevented by better decision making?
- did a fatality result?
- could a second engine have prevented the accident?

[CpnCrunch]

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions. If your only engine in a single fails, your rate of descent will be mich worse than 100 fpm. If it fails on takeoff you also need to lower the nose. And you might be tempted into attempting the impossible turn.

Even if you are incompetent in single engine takeoffs, there is only a 20 second danger window. After that, you have significant more time to react and can very likely maintain flight on one engine.

I would say that in a twin it takes a lot less incompetence to kill yourself during an EFATO. There are more things you have to do correctly to avoid death. In a single you just have to push the nose down a bit.

[Squaretail]

In a similar way, I suspect there would be a big commercial vs ppl factor as well. I suspect the majority of the single engine flight hours are done by flight school aircraft or commercial aircraft. So by a CPL or under a fairly strict FTU regime. Likewise most piston twin hours are likely flown by private people. Not a lot of commercial piston twins flying around anymore.

Actually I would suspect that the majority of both light single and light twin flying in Canada is done by flight schools. That said, depending on your definition of light twin, there is still a reasonable amount of them in commercial service. The few twins I know privately owned, don't do a lot of flying, at least not by comparison. Those two bits of information are why light twins have the statistics they do. Poor training, by low time pilots training lower time pilots, and private owners who don't fly as often as they should. The average private flyer flies less than 30 hours a year. That's not enough to stay proficient on the light twin, much less to be IFR proficient as well. Lots of times its not enough to stay proficient on a fixed gear, fixed pitch light single, though the chances of the last combination being fatal are less.

And I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on engine failures. They aren't the cause of most accidents and cause virtually no fatalities in single engine airplanes. Meanwhile this board is replete with deaths caused by pilots flying into bad weather, or doing other stupid things that kill themselves and others.

Indeed. If anything the light twin combo, like the higher performance singles, enable the pilot to get into far worse trouble, perhaps in part by bestowing a false confidence in the increased safety they feel the performance provides.

If you want to stay safe in small airplanes, understand the pilot is the weak link. Not the engines, regardless of how few or many you have.

It could be said that the worse the pilot and faster the airplane, the farther and quicker said pilot will get behind that airplane. The only possible way to make it worse is to have two poor quality pilots up front - which it might be said is more likely the case in a twin as opposed to a single.

[photofly]

It seems to me the reasons to have a twin are because you want to go a (little bit) faster than a single, or carry a bit more, or you must have (light) de-icing. Once those become requirements, then you have to suffer the safety and proficiency issues that come with two small engines.

The OP's reasoning is therefore backwards. One does not buy a twin to fly a trip more safely than in a single. There are trips that cannot be accomplished at all in a typical single-engine airplane; if one begins with the absolute requirement to fly that route then one must accept the risks of the twin engine airplane and the weather, and abandon the (much safer) alternatives of flying on an airline, ground transport, or, not going.

The use-case for private flying in most light twins has (in my opinion) been changed by and in favour of airplanes like the Caravan, Piper M-series and TBM700's.

[Squaretail]

The use-case for private flying in most light twins has (in my opinion) been changed by and in favour of airplanes like the Caravan, Piper M-series and TBM700's.

Exactly. If engine failures are what you're worried about, upgrade to a turbine rather than get a second piston. Additionally, one can argue that the better performance of the single turbine opens more possibilities when flight planning. The Meridians and TBMs have higher service ceilings, eye popping rates of climb, and a better pressurization system than any twin piston. While they have a steep purchase price, on the whole they have lower operating costs.

[WANP]

Greatest advantage of being IFR rated for some of us ( me included ) is not as much the ability to fly in terrible weather. But if already in flight, and it gets nasty, you have a reasonable chance of surviving. If you have no IFR experience, and without meaning to into fog or something, you're at a high risk of crashing. So even if you don't plan to use your rating to intentionally fly into a fog bank, if it ever happens you will be glad.

[Archerboy]

Says the person who’s never flown in Canada. In this country there aren’t. We don’t have the nice gentle mild winters of Florida and Texas and California and Arizona, and airports so close together you are never out of visual range of several at the same time. We have icing above 3000 feet for eight months of the year and hundreds of miles between suitable outs. It’s the middle of May right now and the freezing level where you are is still only 5,000 feet - meanwhile the 100nm safe altitude for Springbank is 13,800.

I guess there is mild IMC and really bad IMC. Fair point about icing. Due to the much colder climate, i imagine it's a much bigger problem in Canada than in the US. [/quote]

The point of IFR in Canada is for multi-engine turbine aircraft flown by two professional pilots to climb above the weather and cruise at 400 knots and faster, and above FL260.

My advice is to stop worrying about an engine failure. The airplane accident that kills your family will not be caused by an engine failure, regardless of whether you have one, two or more of them. It will be caused by your own bad decision-making and nothing else. Use that as the basis for deciding how to proceed.

I agree that pilot skill/decision making is the most important safety factor. I dont think anyone would question that. It's a given. Just trying to understand the twin vs single, provided everything else is the same. Which the more I look into it, the more appears to be an impossible comparison by just looking at statistics as there are too many other variables.

While Private pilots flying their families around aren't restricted as such, I think its telling that to fly passengers single pilot IFR in this country TC mandates you have a 1000 hours, 50 hours of instrument time and 50 hours on type as per 723.86. There may be some wisdom behind requiing at least that experience level for such endeavors.

I wasnt aware of that requirement, but makes sense. I only was 15 hours into my IFR rating in the US before i took my long leave from aviation. The workload from VFR is bad enough, but IFR adds a huge amount more of pilot workload not only in navigation and comms, but in piloting itself. In VFR nobody cares if you deviate from altitude or course.

Owning a plane will rarely make sense financially, you have to fly a lot to get anywhere near break even in terms of cost. Add dealing with maintenance, insurance, hangar or tie down rental, etc it all takes time.
Owning will give you better access to a plane on your schedule, short notice, staying away for multiple days (or weeks). Some types are also very difficult to rent (float planes, aerobatic and tail wheel) so there may be no other option than to own.
Owning with partners can work well but you all need to be on the same page regarding scheduling, maintenance, upgrades, etc.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to reach as well. 100 hours at $185/hr is $18K/year. Fixed costs with 0 hours/year is around 10K (from what I'm starting to gather). And at $9/gallon for Avgas say 10 gph, for 100 hours that's $9K in opex which means both owning and renting at 100 hours is the same, difference being if you fly 0 hours for whatever reason, you still pay the equivalent of 100 hours of flight time just for the airplane sitting in the hangar. Some mentioned hangars space can cost as much as 20K/yr. That would in make owning an airplane definitely not worth it from a financial point. And that's assuming that you somehow made a good purchase and didnt have to spend 10 or 20K in repairs. Just read a YT comment saying one person who has owned many aircraft over the last 40 years, he had a 152 cost him 20K for a damaged spar and a botched overhaul, vs a Baron that required barely any maintenance and he was able to re-sell from 100K profit. Not all maintenance is created equal I guess eh?

ou seem to be implying that a fatal accident in a twin is due to extreme stupidity or negligence, but I don't see it that way. As squaretail pointed out above, the fatality rate is 4x higher for engine failures in a twin.

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

Airline pilots have a number of advantages here: they have to do recurrent training in emergency procedures, they follow SOPs and checklists, twin turboprops generally have autofeathering props, and they have sufficient power to make engine failures less of an event.

I did my multi rating just over a year ago and haven't flown a twin since. Right now I wouldn't feel safe flying a twin without first reviewing all the procedures again and making sure I knew all the steps to handle various engine failure scenarios. But even then, if an engine failure happens at 500ft, are you sure that you push the nose down, and possibly kill the remaining engine if necessary, to avoid a Vmc spin? I imagine it's a bit different when it happens for real vs the instructor just putting the throttle to idle at 2000ft when you know it's about to happen. With a single engine it's a bit less of a challenge when the shit hits the fan...you push the nose down because there isn't really any other option, although many pilots still manage to screw that up.

There is no doubt that turbine aircraft are safer, especially multi-engine turbine. I feel there is a definite difference between Multi-engine aircraft safety at 300 ft after take off, vs at 10,000 ft over mountains and water in IMC (or in VMC for that matter). All those engine-out at take off challenges go away, and that second engine becomes a 100% safety tool. So now, what are the stats on engine failure at take-off vs in flight?

I think it just depends what your expectations are.
Edit: what I mean is, an instrument rating will only increase the days you can fly from something like 50% to 55%, not 95%. And you may find that your family doesn't like getting bounced around in clouds in a small plane. I've come to realise that it's usually better flying VFR with family for that reason. It's nice to have the ability to fly IFR, but it's not quite as useful as you might imagine unless you have at least a Navajo.

Having said all of that, if you have the time and money and inclination, I think it is useful to get multi IFR, CPL etc. It will give you more skills and (perhaps) discipline, reduce your insurance a bit, give you the option of flying commercially if you ever want to do that, and it's also an interesting and challenging goal.

50 to 55%? I'd find that surprising. I dont think all IMC conditions are severe thunderstorms with 500 ft ceiling and icing? Again, just asking the question. I dont pretend to know these things. I'm a low time VFR pilot that hasnt flown in 15+ years. It's why I'm asking.

It would really be beneficial to have access to the source data of the statistics that are being discussed.

As photofly suggested, it's likely there is a big VFR vs IFR factor present in those statistics.

In a similar way, I suspect there would be a big commercial vs ppl factor as well. I suspect the majority of the single engine flight hours are done by flight s hool aircraft or commercial aircraft. So by a CPL or under a fairly strict FTU regime. Likewise most piston twin hours are likely flown by private people. Not a lot of commercial piston twins flying around anymore.

So I suspect that if we were to compare singe engine private flying fatality rates vs multi engine priave flying fatality rates, the difference might not be as extreme.

I could be wrong of course.

It's what I was trying to state earlier. The 4x multi-engine fatality i think has too many variables to compare to singles. Is it brand new low time IFR/multi private pilots in those accidents? Is it in severe IMC conditions over bad terrain or water?

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions. If your only engine in a single fails, your rate of descent will be mich worse than 100 fpm. If it fails on takeoff you also need to lower the nose. And you might be tempted into attempting the impossible turn.

Even if you are incompetent in single engine takeoffs, there is only a 20 second danger window. After that, you have significant more time to react and can very likely maintain flight on one engine.

I'm trying to understand this as well. I mean if your engine fails in a single at 300 ft, you are just as screwed. Either the runway is long enough and you try to land, and if not, you better hope there are no obstacles, water, trees, or anything in front of you if you want to survive that engine out. And, you'll be descending not at 100 fpm, vs 700-800 fpm.

Again, between heading towards a bunch of trees at 800 fpm, or having the chance to fly straight at 100 fpm descent with chance to start climbing at 200 fpm, would everyone not choose the latter?

Exactly. If engine failures are what you're worried about, upgrade to a turbine rather than get a second piston. Additionally, one can argue that the better performance of the single turbine opens more possibilities when flight planning. The Meridians and TBMs have higher service ceilings, eye popping rates of climb, and a better pressurization system than any twin piston. While they have a steep purchase price, on the whole they have lower operating costs.

Yeah but turbines are not in same league both in purchasing and operating costs...

Greatest advantage of being IFR rated for some of us ( me included ) is not as much the ability to fly in terrible weather. But if already in flight, and it gets nasty, you have a reasonable chance of surviving. If you have no IFR experience, and without meaning to into fog or something, you're at a high risk of crashing. So even if you don't plan to use your rating to intentionally fly into a fog bank, if it ever happens you will be glad.

Yes I totally agree. IFR adds a huge "Plan-B" in case you run into unexpected IMC. Gives pilot more options. But also, the whole bad IMC vs mild IMC. Flying IFR in warm water through a few layers of clouds would be quite safe vs knowingly flying into a thunderstorm? Heck, even when I fly on airlines, as a passenger, I always hope for good weather. I always get nervous with visibility and ceilings are low, or with high winds and hope that my flight does not encounter those. Also get nervous when there is snow on the ground (there's been more than one airline going off the end of the runway on heavy snow days).

So obviously, i would not fly a 3000 lb plane into conditions I feel uncomfortably in a 787 with folk at the front with 20,000 hours of experience. But an overcast or broken layer with ceiling at 3000 ft, that I would consider even fun to shoot an instrument approach.

Archerboy

[photofly]

I'm trying to understand this as well. I mean if your engine fails in a single at 300 ft

Firstly, engines don't fail at 300' in singles, or in twins, for that matter.

Secondly, if they do, it's twice as likely to happen in twin.

Thirdly, assuming you're 100% spot on on technique, and you can avoid losing any of those 300' while you sort out your gear, flaps and dead engine, you're climbing at 90 knots and 100 feet per minute, or less if it's a warm summer day. Those next seven minutes to circuit altitude are going to take you 11 miles away from the airport - that's more than two control zones away. That's not exactly a climb gradient to shout about, and if your technique isn't perfect you're not going to climb at all. Let's hope there's no rising ground in whichever direction you decide to fly. Let's also hope you're not departing on a day with low ceilings - isn't one of the reasons you bought a twin to fly on those lousy weather days?

If and when you do lose control, of course, you're not wings level in a 65 knot glide, like you are in the single, where you're most likely to survive, you're spinning in nose first, and 100% guaranteed to die.

Fourthly, engine failures are not the danger to pilots. Poor decision making by pilots is the danger to pilots.

But an overcast or broken layer with ceiling at 3000 ft, that I would consider even fun to shoot an instrument approach.

Why would you bother with an instrument approach on a VFR day like that? What purpose is there in flying 20 extra track miles to some random five letter waypoint and back, in clear air, with the airport in sight - thereby pissing off everyone who's waiting behind you? Break out below, cleared the visual, and land. Now you're just being silly and treating instrument flight like a game. It isn't.

I always get nervous with visibility and ceilings are low, or with high winds and hope that my flight does not encounter those. Also get nervous when there is snow on the ground (there's been more than one airline going off the end of the runway on heavy snow days).

Well God help your passengers when you're the pilot then! Don't you think your wife and children deserve more than that!? If that's your attitude, stick to VFR!

[Archerboy]

Twin that lost power momentarily and owner feels twins are less safe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhh588od5nA

Single engine plane engine out makes airport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEMlny_ExuU

Single engine plane engine out lands on field in residential area
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTrLxkVOShg

I dont know about anyone else, but my heart rate was through roof just watching those single engine outs. I'd rather be in a twin anyday in those situations...as "rare" as they may be, and as simpler and more controllable a single engine plane may be.

EDIT: Found a engine out at altitude on a twin comanche.
ATC: " are you declaring an emergency?"
Pilot: " No we'll be ok. If i have to shut it down, we'll be ok".
Shuts down engine and proceed to land at intended airport...

[CpnCrunch]

I dont know about anyone else, but my heart rate was through roof just watching those single engine outs. I'd rather be in a twin anyday in those situations...as "rare" as they may be, and as simpler and more controllable a single engine plane may be.

I'd suggest watching some videos of Vmc spins. And maybe look at the recent King Air crash at Flight Safety. How in heck did he manage to spin it in when it has auto-feather? I can't even figure that one out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wich ... _Air_crash

50 to 55%? I'd find that surprising. I dont think all IMC conditions are severe thunderstorms with 500 ft ceiling and icing? Again, just asking the question. I dont pretend to know these things. I'm a low time VFR pilot that hasnt flown in 15+ years. It's why I'm asking.

That's just a guesstimate. I just find that most days on the west coast are either decent VFR or unsuitable for IFR in a small plane. Calgary is even more so. Since getting my instrument rating I think there has only been a single day when I really needed it, but I couldn't actually use it that day because it had expired.

[Archerboy]

I'm trying to understand this as well. I mean if your engine fails in a single at 300 ft

Firstly, engines don't fail at 300' in singles, or in twins, for that matter.

They dont happen eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdRQiHyWQs

I rest my case

Thirdly, assuming you're 100% spot on on technique, and you can avoid losing any of those 300' while you sort out your gear, flaps and dead engine, you're climbing at 90 knots and 100 feet per minute, or less if it's a warm summer day. Those next seven minutes to circuit altitude are going to take you 11 miles away from the airport - that's more than two control zones away. That's not exactly a climb gradient to shout about, and if your technique isn't perfect you're not going to climb at all. Let's hope there's no rising ground in whichever direction you decide to fly. Let's also hope you're not departing on a day with low ceilings - isn't one of the reasons you bought a twin to fly on those lousy weather days?

If and when you do lose control, of course, you're not wings level in a 65 knot glide, like you are in the single, where you're most likely to survive, you're spinning in nose first, and 100% guaranteed to die.

Cant you just pull back power on a twin and it becomes no different than a single engine airplane with engine failure? At least the twin gives you the option of not crashing straight ahead into that tree....which a single engine airplane does not. What am I missing here?

Fourthly, engine failures are not the danger to pilots. Poor decision making by pilots is the danger to pilots.

Yes, we get that. I thought we established pilot training is a given.

I always get nervous with visibility and ceilings are low, or with high winds and hope that my flight does not encounter those. Also get nervous when there is snow on the ground (there's been more than one airline going off the end of the runway on heavy snow days).

Well God help your passengers when you're the pilot then! Don't you think your wife and children deserve more than that!? If that's your attitude, stick to VFR!
[/quote]

What I'm saying is i respect IMC conditions and would rather avoid them when possible. But if there are a few broken layers enroute, that should be perfectly fine for an IFR flight.

[photofly]

Cant you just pull back power on a twin and it becomes no different than a single engine airplane with engine failure?
At least the twin gives you the option of not crashing straight ahead into that tree....which a single engine airplane does not. What am I missing here?

A Cessna 182 stalls at 50 knots. Piper Aztec 60 knots, Cessna 310 72 knots. Assuming you maintain control and touch the ground at minimum airspeed the last two impact with 45% and 96% more energy than the C182. That makes a huge difference to your survival chances.

Certification for singles requires a sufficiently low stalling speed. For twins (at least those that are supposed to be able to fly on one engine) - not. That's why twins are generally faster, they can have a thinner wing. Look at the contortions that PIlatus and Piper had to jump through to get the (fast) TBM and M-series certified with a higher stall speed, by demonstrating an "equivalent level of safety" - hoops that twins don't have to jump through, and didn't.

Besides, you don't close both throttles and land ahead, do you? Because, dammit, you bought a twin for the extra safety, and now it's time to call in that debt you're owed for all that extra fuel and maintenance, and all that expensive training, so come hell or high water you're going to be the hero and save the airplane aren't you? Till you stuff it up and get too slow trying to avoid that antenna, or hill, at which point it's too late to pull back the power, because you're in a spin upside down at 200 agl. Decision-making.

Fourthly, engine failures are not the danger to pilots. Poor decision making by pilots is the danger to pilots.

Yes, we get that. I thought we established pilot training is a given.

Quite clearly you don't get it at all - because training gives you an opportunity to learn skills, not decision-making. Good decision-making means avoiding those situations where you need to exercise those superhero skills they taught you in multiengine training.

What I'm saying is i respect IMC conditions and would rather avoid them when possible.

With respect, what you're saying is you're shit scared to be in a plane with two professional pilots with literally 100x your flight experience during marginal conditions. Yet you're prepared to bet your family's life on your own skill and judgement in those situations. Don't get me wrong - it's ok to feel uncomfortable in marginal conditions - many pilots do. But recognize what that means for your own piloting abilities in those circumstances, and act accordingly.

When you make decisions about what and where to fly, it's all too easy to assume yourself to have a 100% competence. If every pilot was as good as they thought themselves to be when they took off, no accidents would ever be attributable to pilot error. Yet, somehow, they all are. You are not the perfect pilot. You're probably not even a good pilot. In fact it's 50% likely that you're worse than average - possibly significantly worse than average, and even average isn't really very good. That's what you have to figure in. When you tell yourself and us that twins are safer than singles it's pretty much guaranteed you are overestimating your own abilities.

[PilotDAR]

Cant you just pull back power on a twin and it becomes no different than a single engine airplane with engine failure? At least the twin gives you the option of not crashing straight ahead into that tree....which a single engine airplane does not. What am I missing here?

Well, yes, and I have done a few flights, where this was my preplan. However, this is counter to instinct, and too many pilots fly "I think I can, I think I can.." and really they never could. There are a few twins I have flown which present in the flight manual that under some conditions, a single engine climb is not possible. So you gotta know that, and plan for it. A Google search should turn up a well written article about this called: "Always Leave yourself an out". It well explains for different common twins that it could take miles to climb a few hundred feet on one engine - all this while managing a plane which is flying in an unsymmetrical condition, and would like to be flying less well if allowed to do so.

You'll find that if hitting a tree is a risk, the single is probably more maneuverable power off than the twin for such precise flying. Few twins have the agility of most singles.

If you can afford the twin, and keep yourself well trained to fly it as intended, and within realistic limitations, sure, go for it. But, that extra, very expensive engine is not an absolute safety feature, it's a relative safety feature, which is useful part of the time, and an actual detriment to continued flight at a few critical phases of flight. When you know you've lost the engine in a single, you know you're looking for a spot, and should make a good job of it. Too many pilots flying twins did not look for a spot when they probably should have. I don't have statistics to support an argument, but I can think of a number of fatal engine failure accidents in twins which would probably not have been fatal in a single.

I flew actual hands on IMC for years. I learned that that sort of flying should be done in a very well equipped plane, usually a twin (excepting Caravan, PC-12 and a couple of other exotic types, which are designed for that environment. I gave up that kind of flying a long time ago, and don't miss it - that's just my personal preference. If I can't fly it Vmc, I'm happy either wait, or buy an airline ticket.

As for the King Air which penetrated Flight Safety after an engine failure in a seemingly manageable situation, my experience testing a modified King Air B200 lead me to understand, and demonstrate, some odd yaw characteristics, particularly gear down. I think that pilot was caught out by a design with a marginally compliant yaw characteristic, and the "I think I can..." mentality.

If you're going for a Twin, be very sure to seek out a very competent type familiar instructor. I did my training on a C310. Getting a type familiar examiner for my multi engine rating was difficult, but I did. I was very glad, as he taught me a number of quirks of the 310, and I was a much better pilot for it. It was not an Aztec, and certainly not a Comanche, Seminole, nor Seneca!

[Archerboy]

Cant you just pull back power on a twin and it becomes no different than a single engine airplane with engine failure? At least the twin gives you the option of not crashing straight ahead into that tree....which a single engine airplane does not. What am I missing here?

Well, yes, and I have done a few flights, where this was my preplan. However, this is counter to instinct, and too many pilots fly "I think I can, I think I can.." and really they never could. There are a few twins I have flown which present in the flight manual that under some conditions, a single engine climb is not possible. So you gotta know that, and plan for it. A Google search should turn up a well written article about this called: "Always Leave yourself an out". It well explains for different common twins that it could take miles to climb a few hundred feet on one engine - all this while managing a plane which is flying in an unsymmetrical condition, and would like to be flying less well if allowed to do so.

So what you are saying is a twin can lead to a pilot to complacency. Pushing an aircraft too close to its limits (or beyond them) instead of reverting back to fundamentals such as as always planning for an emergency landing and watching for possible landing spots (rather than assuming that you will keep the airplane in flight).

You'll find that if hitting a tree is a risk, the single is probably more maneuverable power off than the twin for such precise flying. Few twins have the agility of most singles.

When mentioning the tree, I was more thinking of a scenario where you just took off from a short runway with obstacles in front of you (trees, houses), and you do not have sufficient altitude to make turns and are forced to land straight ahead. A twin would give you a chance to maintain flight, a single gives you no options in that particular case.

that extra, very expensive engine is not an absolute safety feature, it's a relative safety feature, which is useful part of the time, and an actual detriment to continued flight at a few critical phases of flight.

Yes, that's what I'm gathering. Consensus seems a twin is generally less safe at take-off and low altitude, but I dont think anyone can argue that it is more safe at altitude. The YouTube video of the pilot losing an engine and not declaring an emergency is an example. The King Air crash is an example of the risks on take off. Granted, the pilot had full left rudder on a left engine failure....

I flew actual hands on IMC for years. I learned that that sort of flying should be done in a very well equipped plane, usually a twin (excepting Caravan, PC-12 and a couple of other exotic types, which are designed for that environment. I gave up that kind of flying a long time ago, and don't miss it - that's just my personal preference. If I can't fly it Vmc, I'm happy either wait, or buy an airline ticket.

Interesting. So is this pretty common thinking among IFR pilots? Are there not thousands of folks flying IFR in 172s and Warriors? For example, I came across a listing for a Warrior for 70K that had a Garmin 430, a Garmin 696 and several tablets. Description stated it was used for instrument flying primarily and a great IFR trainer.

[photofly]

Nobody - but nobody - flies in IMC in a 172 in Canada.

[digits_]

A few more thoughts:

- If you buy a plane for travelling, you won't just buy it to fly IMC in Canada. It would be likely that you would fly IMC in warmer climates.
- Statistics show us that there have been no fatalities on a PC12 flight. People have died in A330 crashes. Would you rather cross the Atlantic in a PC12 or an A330? A PC12 should be safer, right?
- Imagine twin engine airplanes existed first, and then someone suggested to drop an engine and fly around with only one to save on fuel...