Twin take off on one engine?

I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.


--
Dallas

On Aug 28, 3:06*pm, Dallas wrote:
I'm wondering if it's legal? *I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. *but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.

--
Dallas

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

a schreef:
On Aug 28, 3:06 pm, Dallas wrote:
I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where the
pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic compass.. but
it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.

--
Dallas

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

The POH seems to me the ultimate source of wisdom indeed. But what
is/are fars? Something USA-specific, probably?

jan olieslagers wrote:
a schreef:
On Aug 28, 3:06 pm, Dallas wrote:
I'm wondering if it's legal? I'm referring to a recent crash where
the pilot decided to take off on one engine and clipped a tree.

Looking over 91.205, you can't take off with out a magnetic
compass.. but it doesn't say anything about one engine out of two.

--
Dallas

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

The POH seems to me the ultimate source of wisdom indeed. But what
is/are fars? Something USA-specific, probably?

He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook limitations.
Otherwise you will not go very far.

Jim Logajan wrote
He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook limitations.
Otherwise you will not go very far.

Jan asked what seems to me to be a serious question and got nothing but
a stupid answer.

Jan... the original answer would have been a bit more clear if it had
stated "the FARs" meaning the USofA Federal Aviation Regulations.

Bob Moore

Robert Moore wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote
He meant to type "fear". Fear demands you observe handbook
limitations. Otherwise you will not go very far.

Jan asked what seems to me to be a serious question and got nothing
but a stupid answer.

Perhaps it was a serious question, but I have observed Jan to post the
occasional sardonic and tongue-in-cheek messages, so I assumed this was
another one. Here are a few of Jan's past postings that made me assume
he knew what was intended by "fars" and probably wasn't being serious:

------
Subject: Flight time barter
From: jan olieslagers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

schreef:
would like to barter with
someone to finish my hours.

And what's your prefered way to go?
City gas? Strangling in nylon hose?
Engine failure on take-off? Poison?
Veins cut while immersed in hot bath?

And, err, what have you to offer for barter?
Better than nylon hose, I hope?

-----
Subject: short guide to learning to fly
From: jan olieslagers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

d17uk schreef:
Hi all if your interested in learning to fly and want to read a short
guide, visit www.shortguidetolearningtofly.com

Thanks & congrats for your efforts.
You might well wish to better define yur subject:

quote

interested in learning to fly

to add

-) _a real _airplane_ i.e. requiring a PPL, not an ultralight neither an
LSA

-) in the US of A, or under USA i.e. FAA regulations

/to add
/quote

-----
Subject: short guide to learning to fly
From: jan olieslagers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

d17uk schreef:
Hi all if your interested in learning to fly and want to read a short
guide, visit www.shortguidetolearningtofly.com

PS while you're at version 2.0, some spelling check wouldn't hurt
either. To begin with "if you're interested"" ...
Keep up the good work!
KA

"a" wrote in message
...

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

That would be 91.213 Inoperative instruments & equipment.

Of course, if there happens to be an approved minimum equipment list that
says that single engine takeoff is OK...

Vaughn

On Aug 28, 11:23*pm, "vaughn"
wrote:
"a" wrote in message

...

You'll find the limitations in the pilot operating handbook: the fars
demand you observe those handbook limitations.

That would be 91.213 *Inoperative instruments & equipment.

Of course, if there happens to be an approved minimum equipment list that
says that single engine takeoff is OK...

Vaughn

So you could disable it and placard it inop?

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:

So you could disable it and placard it inop?

Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.

LOL
--
Dallas

In article ,
Dallas wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby wrote:

So you could disable it and placard it inop?

Sure, just put a big ole trash bag over it and write "inoperative" on it.

LOL

I noticed that neither prop was feathered and that the landing gear was
down -- not a healthy condition for single-engine operation!

How was one engine inop? did it not pass mag check? did he lose it
during takeoff roll?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.