Cessna 414 down near John Wayne - 5 Dead

CC268 said:
Twins are scarrrryyyyy
Click to expand...

Hardly. People make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

When twins are flown properly the risks are minimal. The problem is, not everyone flys them that way which can make a situation that would normally be recoverable into one that isn't. From what I've seen, the people who struggle with multiengine flying generally struggle with single engine flying too.
 
CC268 said:
I real scured for my multi
Click to expand...

The thought of training engine out procedures, Vmc demos, single engine approaches and landings is significantly more scary than the rating itself. It's still an airplane and you will revert to the basics of "fly the airplane".

The thought of losing an engine on takeoff is scary, and that's why you train and hope that your training kicks in when/if that happens. It's why you calculate the risk of going into short fields that don't allow much margin if that happens on takeoff. The thought of losing an engine in a single at night, in IMC or over mountainous terrain (heaven forbid a combination of those) is more scary, IMO. As with anything flying a twin has calculated risks and you have to decide if your training/currency will make you a safe enough twin pilot.
 
sarangan said:
If the airplane was only 2 miles from SNA, he would have been talking to the controller. I assume this recording not been found on liveATC?
Click to expand...

Here's the recording, but it's a shared feed largely dominated by the approach frequency. The only time I heard anything regarding the accident aircraft is a brief "seven-romeo-papa" readback at 27:10 and there's no indication of anything amiss. At 29:55, the SNA tower controller advises area traffic, “I think they’re going to close down the airport right now."

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksna/KSNA2-Aug-05-2018-1900Z.mp3

dfwnightflyer said:
My guess is left engine failure for fuel starvation and VMC roll on final.
Click to expand...

Based on the impact location it looks like he crashed while on a right downwind to 20R.
 
dfwnightflyer said:
My guess is left engine failure for fuel starvation and VMC roll on final. One of my biggest takeaways from my MEI ride was simulated engine failure on final. No bueno.
Click to expand...

Or it could be some catastrophic elevator failure just as he was extending gear and flaps, which would be consistent with a full nose down dive.
 
dfwnightflyer said:
My guess is left engine failure for fuel starvation and VMC roll on final. One of my biggest takeaways from my MEI ride was simulated engine failure on final. No bueno.
Click to expand...
I do not like folks trying to guess what happened.

That said, a VMC roll on final isn’t all that likely imo. Low power, nose down...
 
Kritchlow said:
I do not like folks trying to guess what happened.

That said, a VMC roll on final isn’t all that likely imo. Low power, nose down...
Click to expand...

I agree with both parts of your post.

Judging by the videos posted of this accident I think we're going to need to wait and see what the accident investigators determine.
 
mondtster said:
Hardly. People make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

When twins are flown properly the risks are minimal. The problem is, not everyone flys them that way which can make a situation that would normally be recoverable into one that isn't. From what I've seen, the people who struggle with multiengine flying generally struggle with single engine flying too.
Click to expand...

But it's really simple with a single. When the engine quits, you've got a glider...glide accordingly. Twins introduce a whole set of problems with an engine out that can catch the unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot. That second running engine can create more problems than it solves, and we've see it countless times, sadly.

I like that binary nature of a single, but then I'm always flying VFR over land, most often in the wide-open-spaces Southwest.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
But it's really simple with a single. When the engine quits, you've got a glider...glide accordingly. Twins introduce a whole set of problems with an engine out that can catch the unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot. That second running engine can create more problems than it solves, and we've see it countless times, sadly.

I like that binary nature of a single, but then I'm always flying VFR over land, most often in the wide-open-spaces Southwest.
Click to expand...
Just curious... would you like to see single engine airliners?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
But it's really simple with a single. When the engine quits, you've got a glider...glide accordingly. Twins introduce a whole set of problems with an engine out that can catch the unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot. That second running engine can create more problems than it solves, and we've see it countless times, sadly.

I like that binary nature of a single, but then I'm always flying VFR over land, most often in the wide-open-spaces Southwest.
Click to expand...

The unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot shouldn't be PIC in a single, or anything else until they correct that situation.

It's not the second running engine that creates more problems. It's the person commanding the airplane. And we see quite a bit of that in single engine aircraft also, unfortunately. The links in post #59 of this thread are about a pilot losing control of a perfectly good, problem free single engine airplane and stuffing it nose down into a retail parking lot within sight of the airport.
 
Last edited:
sarangan said:
Regardless of fuel starvation, is it really possible to make an airplane dive straight down like that? I've never observed myself during a practice stall or spin exercise, but I don't think it is really 90-deg nose down like it shows on that video.
Click to expand...

Ted DuPuis said:
Yes. The TBM that crashed in NJ was almost straight nose down. The report on Wayne's 340 when it crashed was that it was about 85 degrees nose down.

It is entirely possible to end up that way.
Click to expand...

The elaborate on this a little more for @sarangan , you can think of a way to do this in a single pretty easily if you think back to your last airshow you watched.

A hammerhead stall is just a straight up stall where yaw is added at the top. When the nose yaws around where does the airplane end up pointing?

To apply that extreme case to a twin, imagine the aircraft is nose up slightly and an engine is lost, the propeller on the side of the lost engine becomes a pretty effective air brake when it’s windmiling, and it’s out there far enough, it just fights with the force created by opposite rudder, if the pilot even put in any rudder yet.

Yaws right around and as the inside wing slows it doesn’t produce as much lift, and the outside wing produces more, creating a rolling motion along with the yaw.

Roll and yaw together, and it’ll easily end up nearly vertical in a very short timeframe.

Now start that slow enough to stall the inside wing, and begin a spin entry, the wing and the nose will drop even faster than the previous example.

You can usually exacerbate a stall and intentional spin in a single with pro-spin rudder and aileron (especially to the left) and the drop will be much more pronounced and the nose will fall further nose down at the start of the spin.

I try to get the point across to pilots that airplanes are three dimensional machines whether they want them to be, or try to operate that way, or not. What we deem “unusual attitudes” these days, really aren’t. They’re “unexpected attitudes”, and perhaps with more “unusual attitude” training, they wouldn’t be nearly as “unexpected”.

There’s things that can happen aerodynamically to put you vertical and coming down at a (to the untrained pilot) horrendous rate. It’s just physics fact when it comes to airplanes.

When airplanes were a lot less stable dynamically, and the idea of loops, rolls, and spins wasn’t in any way a special thing, or foreign concept to the training regime, we did lose a number of pilots to poor training decisions about altitudes and airspeeds and some airplanes that didn’t like to recover well... but we never had anyone who hadn’t experienced “unusual attitudes”, and we didn’t call them that.

I think it makes a significant difference in that instinctive understanding that airplanes are three dimensional, that we call these things airplanes naturally do, “unusual”.

An example... take the FAA version of the Commercial chandelle. Now do it at 45 degrees of bank. Next do it at 60. It can be done (with enough power) at both. It’s a completely different experience. Same with the Lazy 8. Or even the venerable “steep spiral”. These can all be done quite differently than the FAA checkride versions.

(Aerobatic airplane rated for spins in in the correct CG envelope, highly recommended, but that’s mostly for when the learner botches the speed and spins out of the top of the maneuver.)

Flight training has both gotten better and worse since the “good old” or “bad old” days, depending on your perspective. A whole lot of pilots have never encountered maneuvers where the airplane is significantly nose up or down, or bank angles ever exceed 60. And we’re (as a whole) worse off for that, I think.

Plus I need to type all of that so I have more reasons to go rent the Decathlon. :) LOL.

No but seriously... you probably see where this is headed in relationship to maybe this accident but surely some of them... if you’ve nerve seen the ground completely filling the windshield in any airplane and you find yourself there on a beautiful VFR day in your nice twin... isn’t it going naturally to take you at least a second or two longer to contemplate your next move? If you even have time?

Here’s a shocker of an idea. Instead of just a spin endorsement for CFIs, shouldn’t there be a full demonstrated basic number of aerobatic maneuvers? Doesn’t have to be advanced stuff. A loop, an aileron roll, things that will really show that airplanes are three dimensional creatures? Just one flight at least where someone has seen what 90 degrees nose down looks like?

You talk to anyone past a certain age who flew a post war taildragger, and this stuff was often in their private curriculum. Instrument and stabilized approaches and straight and level with the occasional nudge up/down, left/right was well after you saw the edges of the flight envelope.

Sorry, just meandering thoughts about how to properly prepare pilots for the day when the nose *is* straight down... longer than I intended at first. It’s just bugs me.

Maybe I don’t need to just go rent the Decathlon, I need to go learn how to teach aerobatics in the damned thing. Then get some folks up and call it “not that unusual attitude flying training”. There’s some marketing wonk for y’all.

But seriously. Airplanes do stuff vertically. Sometimes they can get there very very fast. And it isn’t that hard to get them to do it. It’s natural. Gravity always wins.
 
This little sequence shows the potential for how fast that nose can come down:

 
gsengle said:
Singles are scary in different ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You got that right.

I’ve had two engine events in the last 6 months.

One was a failed exhaust valve in the Beech 18. The other was a carb issue on the T6.

The Beech 18 involved elevated concern, but was otherwise a non-event.

But when the T6 started shaking and I had lost 12” of MP, you could say I was a bit freaked out....
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
But it's really simple with a single. When the engine quits, you've got a glider...glide accordingly. Twins introduce a whole set of problems with an engine out that can catch the unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot. That second running engine can create more problems than it solves, and we've see it countless times, sadly.

I like that binary nature of a single, but then I'm always flying VFR over land, most often in the wide-open-spaces Southwest.
Click to expand...
Yes, we hear about twins with one-engine-out augering in due to poor flying. But you must keep in mind that if a twin lands with only one engine running, there is no record of it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Yes, we hear about twins with one-engine-out augering in due to poor flying. But you must keep in mind that if a twin lands with only one engine running, there is no record of it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My issue in the Twin Beech was a non-event.

I declared an emergency and ended up dealing with the FSDO for the T6.

That hasn't stopped me from flying singles. But there is a whole different level of pucker factor when you start experiencing engine abnormalities in a single.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. My issue in the Twin Beech was a non-event.

I declared an emergency and ended up dealing with the FSDO for the T6.

That hasn't stopped me from flying singles. But there is a whole different level of pucker factor when you start experiencing engine abnormalities in a single.
Click to expand...

What I enjoy about flying twins is how the anxiety about what is below you during cruise melts away...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
What I enjoy about flying twins is how the anxiety about what is below you during cruise melts away...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s what I’m looking forward too...
 
sarangan said:
Or it could be some catastrophic elevator failure just as he was extending gear and flaps, which would be consistent with a full nose down dive.
Click to expand...

I agree. The only way to get the nose down that far is by some failure of the horizontal stab or trim runaway. Simple engine failure does not cause that degree of pitch change. Way back when, we had a fatal at a local uncontrolled airport when a plane on final overtook another plane on final, but at a lower altitude, and chewed off its tail feathers...the irreversible effect is a pitch down.

Bob
 
pmanton said:
I declared an emergency and ended up dealing with the FSDO for the T6.

The FAA got involved because you declared???
Click to expand...
Yes. My guess is that it was a slow day at the Atlanta FSDO.

Basically, I was heading home near Columbus, GA and all fo the sudden the engine started heavy vibration and I lost 12" of MP. I declared an emergency and was able to make a straight in landing to CSG a few miles ahead of me. Aside from fear factor, it was a non-event. Landed on the runway and had sufficient power to taxi clear. Nothing further said from tower and didn't even have to fill out any paperwork with the airport FD guys who had been on standby. I ended up leaving the plane with the on field maintenance shop and flew home commercial. This all happened on a Friday afternoon.

Then Monday morning, I get a phone call from an ASI at the ATL FSDO wanting to know more about what happened. Asking for a written statement…etc. The ASI explained they wanted to follow up on it to see if they needed to send out any emergency bulletins/ADs…etc. The guy literally called the shop once a week to see if they had found anything.

Fortunately, it was a non-event, but the fact that I had to deal with the FSDO was a little unsettling.
 
denverpilot said:
The elaborate on this a little more for @sarangan , you can think of a way to do this in a single pretty easily if you think back to your last airshow you watched.

A hammerhead stall is just a straight up stall where yaw is added at the top. When the nose yaws around where does the airplane end up pointing?

To apply that extreme case to a twin, imagine the aircraft is nose up slightly and an engine is lost, the propeller on the side of the lost engine becomes a pretty effective air brake when it’s windmiling, and it’s out there far enough, it just fights with the force created by opposite rudder, if the pilot even put in any rudder yet.

Yaws right around and as the inside wing slows it doesn’t produce as much lift, and the outside wing produces more, creating a rolling motion along with the yaw.

Roll and yaw together, and it’ll easily end up nearly vertical in a very short timeframe.

Now start that slow enough to stall the inside wing, and begin a spin entry, the wing and the nose will drop even faster than the previous example.

You can usually exacerbate a stall and intentional spin in a single with pro-spin rudder and aileron (especially to the left) and the drop will be much more pronounced and the nose will fall further nose down at the start of the spin.

I try to get the point across to pilots that airplanes are three dimensional machines whether they want them to be, or try to operate that way, or not. What we deem “unusual attitudes” these days, really aren’t. They’re “unexpected attitudes”, and perhaps with more “unusual attitude” training, they wouldn’t be nearly as “unexpected”.

There’s things that can happen aerodynamically to put you vertical and coming down at a (to the untrained pilot) horrendous rate. It’s just physics fact when it comes to airplanes.

When airplanes were a lot less stable dynamically, and the idea of loops, rolls, and spins wasn’t in any way a special thing, or foreign concept to the training regime, we did lose a number of pilots to poor training decisions about altitudes and airspeeds and some airplanes that didn’t like to recover well... but we never had anyone who hadn’t experienced “unusual attitudes”, and we didn’t call them that.

I think it makes a significant difference in that instinctive understanding that airplanes are three dimensional, that we call these things airplanes naturally do, “unusual”.

An example... take the FAA version of the Commercial chandelle. Now do it at 45 degrees of bank. Next do it at 60. It can be done (with enough power) at both. It’s a completely different experience. Same with the Lazy 8. Or even the venerable “steep spiral”. These can all be done quite differently than the FAA checkride versions.

(Aerobatic airplane rated for spins in in the correct CG envelope, highly recommended, but that’s mostly for when the learner botches the speed and spins out of the top of the maneuver.)

Flight training has both gotten better and worse since the “good old” or “bad old” days, depending on your perspective. A whole lot of pilots have never encountered maneuvers where the airplane is significantly nose up or down, or bank angles ever exceed 60. And we’re (as a whole) worse off for that, I think.

Plus I need to type all of that so I have more reasons to go rent the Decathlon. :) LOL.

No but seriously... you probably see where this is headed in relationship to maybe this accident but surely some of them... if you’ve nerve seen the ground completely filling the windshield in any airplane and you find yourself there on a beautiful VFR day in your nice twin... isn’t it going naturally to take you at least a second or two longer to contemplate your next move? If you even have time?

Here’s a shocker of an idea. Instead of just a spin endorsement for CFIs, shouldn’t there be a full demonstrated basic number of aerobatic maneuvers? Doesn’t have to be advanced stuff. A loop, an aileron roll, things that will really show that airplanes are three dimensional creatures? Just one flight at least where someone has seen what 90 degrees nose down looks like?

You talk to anyone past a certain age who flew a post war taildragger, and this stuff was often in their private curriculum. Instrument and stabilized approaches and straight and level with the occasional nudge up/down, left/right was well after you saw the edges of the flight envelope.

Sorry, just meandering thoughts about how to properly prepare pilots for the day when the nose *is* straight down... longer than I intended at first. It’s just bugs me.

Maybe I don’t need to just go rent the Decathlon, I need to go learn how to teach aerobatics in the damned thing. Then get some folks up and call it “not that unusual attitude flying training”. There’s some marketing wonk for y’all.

But seriously. Airplanes do stuff vertically. Sometimes they can get there very very fast. And it isn’t that hard to get them to do it. It’s natural. Gravity always wins.
Click to expand...


Good explanation.

Bob Gardner
 
Many wives won’t fly in anything less than a twin as they’re convinced that it’s going to be safer than a single. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The most important safety feature is the nut that’s attached to the stick. If he’s not up to par in his training and ability, then he’s better off in a single with only one choice after engine failure...control the aircraft until you’ve touched down.
 
bobmrg said:
The only way to get the nose down that far is by some failure of the horizontal stab or trim runaway. Simple engine failure does not cause that degree of pitch change. Way back when, we had a fatal at a local uncontrolled airport when a plane on final overtook another plane on final, but at a lower altitude, and chewed off its tail feathers...the irreversible effect is a pitch down.
Click to expand...
The plane looks intact from the video.. and a failed horizontal stabilizer should not result in that.. unless both the trim and stab failed and he couldn't keep it coordinated, somehow the plane eventually pitched up from excessive airspeed, and then stall and spun. Even with full nose down trim it shouldn't start spinning like that. While the chain of events leading to that are possible, I find the Occam's razor at this point to be fuel starvation and dual engine failure leading to stall and then spin. He was at the tail end of a flight.. and may have squeezed his fuel rationing just a bit tight and didn't quite make it in. No one here has ever landed with minimal or below minimum reserves? I've heard of people running out of fuel as they taxi to the ramp... he did declare an emergency before this. Not sure if anyone has the recording, but that would be telling. My money is that he declared when he lost one engine, then lost the second one shortly after and it went downhill from there fast. Hell, even if he could glide the thing I doubt the glide ratio is any good on a big multi with dead engines.. and that urban area he was over would not have been forgiving either way

Brad Smith said:
Many wives won’t fly in anything less than a twin as they’re convinced that it’s going to be safer than a single. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The most important safety feature is the nut that’s attached to the stick. If he’s not up to par in his training and ability, then he’s better off in a single with only one choice after engine failure...control the aircraft until you’ve touched down.
Click to expand...
You're totally right, even "dangerous" planes like some Aerostars, MU2, some of the Lancairs, etc., are dependent on that pilot. Interestingly, all the non flying people I've met seem to prefer the chute over having a second engine. In my experience people who don't fly aren't just afraid of an engine out, they're also afraid of wings falling off, turbulence, stuff breaking, the pilot dying, etc., all sorts of fairly irrational things. The chute give them that ultimate piece of mind. I remember showing my wife the DA62 thinking how cool of a plane it was, her first response was "yeah but it doesn't have a parachute"
 
bobmrg said:
I agree. The only way to get the nose down that far is by some failure of the horizontal stab or trim runaway. Simple engine failure does not cause that degree of pitch change. Way back when, we had a fatal at a local uncontrolled airport when a plane on final overtook another plane on final, but at a lower altitude, and chewed off its tail feathers...the irreversible effect is a pitch down.

Bob
Click to expand...

The mostly intact remains of the fuselage and the empennage indicate to me the video might be a bit misleading. With the apparent extreme vertical descent, complete destruction of the aircraft would be expected.

Of interest is the manner in which it hit the parked car. It must have hit directly with the cockpit, and the car almost fully arrested its vertical energy. However, it appears from the displacement of the car of about thirty feet from its original location there was some horizontal component in the aircraft's impact.

The wings were torn off and ended up some distance from the fuselage. Photos show one wing with the classic leading edge accordion bending appearing to result from the rather low energy impact of a stall, instead of the extensive fragmentation one might expect.

It's all very confusing.
 
Last edited:
I'll wait for some facts. Been through this before for a plane departing our airport a few years ago. Low altitude airborne LOC resulting in stall-spin crash into a field on a perfectly nice day with an apparently perfectly functioning airplane. The speculation was rampant, but pretty much totally inaccurate and uninformed.

The NTSB folks will figure out some things that will hopefully help understand this incident, which on the surface seems somewhat inexplicable. Unfortunately, when the airplane experiences significant damage due to impact, some things, like which parts were or were not functioning and control settings, may not be able to be determined precisely. But the NTSB investigators are pretty good at this. If they do an initial briefing, we might learn something, but the final report will take 12-14 months, probably.
 
3393RP said:
The mostly intact remains of the fuselage and the empennage indicate to me the video might be a bit misleading.
Click to expand...

I noticed that as well. My first thought was this is the wrong picture for the story, but apparently it is the correct picture. I saw the video first and I thought man, there won't be anything left of that plane.


Tantalum said:
even if he could glide the thing I doubt the glide ratio is any good on a big multi with dead engines..
Click to expand...

Think flying in formation with a brick....

One time in Alaska I wanted to test the limits of the Navajo I was flying. I was empty, just finished a charter and was returning to base. I climbed up to 10,000 agl and trimmed it up as good as a beat up Navajo in Alaska will trim. With the props in cruise, I pulled both throttles to near idle and that thing started down. I mean the nose went down, the air speed started dropping and we were about to really go down hill. After about 2 or 3 seconds I pushed the throttles up and went back to flying. I did not want to try that again. With the props feathered it might have been different, but I really did not want to try that.

I learned that a double engine failure with a loaded Navajo is gonna hurt.....
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes. My guess is that it was a slow day at the Atlanta FSDO.

Basically, I was heading home near Columbus, GA and all fo the sudden the engine started heavy vibration and I lost 12" of MP. I declared an emergency and was able to make a straight in landing to CSG a few miles ahead of me. Aside from fear factor, it was a non-event. Landed on the runway and had sufficient power to taxi clear. Nothing further said from tower and didn't even have to fill out any paperwork with the airport FD guys who had been on standby. I ended up leaving the plane with the on field maintenance shop and flew home commercial. This all happened on a Friday afternoon.

Then Monday morning, I get a phone call from an ASI at the ATL FSDO wanting to know more about what happened. Asking for a written statement…etc. The ASI explained they wanted to follow up on it to see if they needed to send out any emergency bulletins/ADs…etc. The guy literally called the shop once a week to see if they had found anything.

Fortunately, it was a non-event, but the fact that I had to deal with the FSDO was a little unsettling.
Click to expand...

Did the guy think he was going to find a design problem in a 80 year old design? Government employees..........

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
Did the guy think he was going to find a design problem in a 80 year old design? Government employees..........

Bob
Click to expand...

There can be issues that affect multiple types, maintenance procedure problems, fuel problems, all kinds of things. This is why aviation is as safe as it is, I don’t knock it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
There can be issues that affect multiple types, maintenance procedure problems, fuel problems, all kinds of things. This is why aviation is as safe as it is, I don’t knock it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I do, if you look at a lot of the ads and sbs coming out, the lawyers are running the show, not engineers.....
 
unsafervguy said:
I do, if you look at a lot of the ads and sbs coming out, the lawyers are running the show, not engineers.....
Click to expand...

I do. It happens. But by and large the system works. It’s easy to be against something. Hard to come up with something better. And you don’t know anything at all unless you take a look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
3393RP said:
The mostly intact remains of the fuselage and the empennage indicate to me the video might be a bit misleading. With the apparent extreme vertical descent, complete destruction of the aircraft would be expected.

However, of interest is the manner in which it hit the parked car. It must have hit directly with the cockpit, and the car almost fully arrested its vertical energy. However, it appears from the displacement of the car of about thirty feet from its original location there was some horizontal component in the aircraft's impact.

The wings were torn off and ended up some distance from the fuselage. Photos show one wing with the classic leading edge accordion bending appearing to result from the rather low energy impact of a stall, instead of the extensive fragmentation one might expect.

It's all very confusing.
Click to expand...

Video can be quite misleading. Think of an airplane at 1000 ft AGL, but at some distance from you, in a straight line 45 degree descent, but moving directly away from you. It'll film and look like it's coming down vertically.
 
Brad Smith said:
Many wives won’t fly in anything less than a twin as they’re convinced that it’s going to be safer than a single. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The most important safety feature is the nut that’s attached to the stick. If he’s not up to par in his training and ability, then he’s better off in a single with only one choice after engine failure...control the aircraft until you’ve touched down.
Click to expand...

And my contention would be if he is not up to par in his training and ability he's no safer flying a single.

Why would anybody who does not maintained proficiency flying the twin they are rated for be any more conscientious maintaining proficiency in anything else? Lack respect for a Cessna 150 and it'll kill you.

Here's another example, in addition to that in post #59, of a seemingly perfectly good single engine airplane, with no apparent problem, being flown into the dirt within sight of the runway. This one had an instructor on board in addition to the owner/pilot who had 230 hours in type.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20080206X00142&ntsbno=DFW08FA060&akey=1
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
But it's really simple with a single. When the engine quits, you've got a glider...glide accordingly. Twins introduce a whole set of problems with an engine out that can catch the unwary/poorly trained/inexperienced pilot. That second running engine can create more problems than it solves, and we've see it countless times, sadly.

I like that binary nature of a single, but then I'm always flying VFR over land, most often in the wide-open-spaces Southwest.
Click to expand...

Engines have been known to partially fail, I. E., only operate at partial power.

Kritchlow said:
Just curious... would you like to see single engine airliners?
Click to expand...

What is the engine out procedure for a turbofan powered aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top