Why are multiple engines different?

Sylvain wrote in
t:

new_CFI wrote:

Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor
is onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo?
I think the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up.

solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on
board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships);
Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging
regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision)
different from instruction; is this what you had in mind?

--Sylvain

I think it was just the schools policy for timebuilding in their multi.
No solo flight, they had supervised solo's. You had to take one of
their instructors along.

Michelle P writes:

Usually an engine will give you a sign before it dies. A new vibration,
a new leak....

Great! That gives you time to scribble out your last will and
testament before that last spiral into terrain.

THere are some counter rotating but they are few. The seminole is one.
It is commonly said the remaining engine on a multi engine aircraft will
carry you to the scene of the crash. YOu loose half of your power and
80% of your perfomance.

So I've heard. But you're in trouble either way if there's no handy
place to land nearby. And if there _are_ handy places to land,
presumably 20% performance will get you to more of them than 0%
performance.

Check the single engine service cielings. most
non-turbochaged are around 5000 MSL. No good if you are flying out west.
The airplane i fly has a ingle engine service cieling above 18,000. this
is useful.

If the engine fails at altitude, don't you still have a fair amount of
time to fly around while it drifts down to the service ceiling for a
single engine?

Which reminds me: Does flying on one engine put hazardous stress on
the airframe? I especially wonder about twin jets, with their engines
on plyons--the eccentric stresses on the pylon and engine mount must
be tremendous with one engine doing all the work.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Gaquin writes:

Precisely my point, (except for the "...indefinite period..." part). If an
engine fails in a single, you are going to land, now. After a failure in a
twin, you have choices, but without proper training and mindset, most light
twin pilots don't seem to have a realization of just how marginal and
limited those choices become. Most light twins do not fly well on one
engine.

I'd interpret any engine failure as a sign from above to land
immediately. I figure a twin might just let you reach a bit further
in search of an airfield, nothing more.

Now if you have three or more engines, perhaps the situation is
different. I once read that Boeing would demonstrate its 727 to
prospective buyers by taking off and setting one engine to idle as the
aircraft left the runway. The aircraft never even skipped a beat,
apparently.

A faulty assumption. I believe that engine failure in light twins leads to
more accidents/injuries than in singles. A light twin is squirrelly on one
engine, and apparently gives some pilots a false sense of security.

But if you don't have the false sense of security, you're still better
off, right?

I guess one can do the numbers. If the change of an engine failure is
one in 1000, then the chance of losing all power in a single is one in
1000, and the chance of losing all power in a twin is one in
1,000,000. The chance of losing 80% power is slightly less than one
in 500 in a twin, though (because the more engines you have, the more
likely you are to lose at least one).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily writes:

Uh, no. Look up "single engine service ceiling" please.

I already have. The single-engine ceiling for the Baron I prefer in
the sim is about 8000' MSL, as I recall, which is enough for almost
all the flights I take. I do occasionally fly over mountainous
regions, but I'd be much more hesitant to do so in real life.

Better yet, actually GO FLY something.

I'll just win the lottery and run right over the airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

CinciGreg writes:

Since the cost of training is hopelessly beyond my budget, anyway, I
may as well dream of multiengine training.

As a non-aviator in much the same boat, you may want to consider hang
gliding. It's not the "daredevil sport" it may once have been, and is
not a terribly expensive undertaking. I'll probably take my first
lesson in a week or so, at which point I'll decide whether that will be
my primary life focus next spring. Just a thought.

Thanks. I rather think that with my interests tending towards the big
iron side and IFR, hang gliding might be the wrong direction to take,
but who knows? I've read about a lot of dead hang gliders, though.
It's possible that they just didn't know what they were doing, I
suppose. From the videos I've seen, it involves a lot of sensations
I'd prefer to avoid.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic schrieb:

important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.

Well, it worked for British Airways.

IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and
perfectly legal.

Stefan

Stefan writes:

IIRC, they "limped" home on *three* engines. Slightly different and
perfectly legal.

Just as illegal things are not always unsafe, legal things are not
always safe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

important, not merely the procedures. Trying to "...limp home on one
engine..." is a fool's errand, with many gravestones to mark the path.

Well, it worked for British Airways.

they were not flying the kind of light twins we were talking
about... different performances.

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:

But with a single, your only option is to find a place to land,
quickly.

in other words, you don't have the opportunity to make a
wrong decision, the decision has already been made for you;
all you have to do now is to implement it correctly :-)

--Sylvain

Mxsmanic wrote:
So how many endorsements and certificates would I need to pilot my
favorite Baron 58?

I haven't flown the Baron 58 (I wish) but you'd need at
least a private with multi- rating and high performance and
complex endorsements. And to answer a previous question of
yours, yes, you could do your private directly in this
aircraft (lets' forget the technicalities related to finding
an insurance -- let's say you are so loaded with cash that
you can self insure); you could also start your multi- training
in this aircraft without having had the endorsements
previously (you'd combine it all in one go); but it would
not be a very efficient use of your time and money...

--Sylvain