Angry [More Info]

Morgans wrote:

As they say, a second engine is there to take
you to the crash site.

Then "they" aren't worth listening to. One guess why the safety record
of twin-engine light planes isn't better...

....the answer is in the left seat. Operate them according to their
abilities and limitations and you'll do just fine. The fact that you
can't do that on a casual basis, and get away with it as easily as you
can with a 172, seems to escape some people. That sort of thinking is
the inspiration for the Darwin awards.

At least the comment had something to do with aviation -- a nice change
from the rest of the thread.


Jack

"Jack" wrote

Then "they" aren't worth listening to. One guess why the safety record of
twin-engine light planes isn't better...

Agreed. I forgot the smiley! g


The cost of maintaining and operating a twin, along with the absurd
insurance rates, mean that the only ones operating twins are people with a
good bit of money to throw around. If they have that money, those that have
to work for it are too busy (possibly)to keep current and do recurrent
training, and get in over their heads.

That's my theory, anyway! g
--
Jim in NC