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]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.
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.
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.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 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.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'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?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.
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?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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.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.
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.
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?
Yeah but turbines are not in same league both in purchasing and operating costs...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.
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).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.
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
My original question did include also the thought of purchasing a twin, hence all the twin vs single. But I appreciate everyone input on subject. 
