Cessna Twin Down, Middlefield, OH 10/13

Kenny Phillips said:
You can even tell which engine was inop!
Click to expand...

I noticed that as well.

Did this happen right after departure.?? Prop not feathered makes me want to think everything happened too fast to feather. A lightly loaded 310 is able to at least hold altitude if not a shallow climb.

But most importantly no one injured.
 
5:30am, eesh. I might have elected to say "oh, F naw" and just put the thing down also.

Bravo to the pilot. Hoping they find some Jet-A in his tanks so he can request a shiny new 310 from the FBO. Would also validate the decision to slide into home plate.
 
Good job by the pilot,no injuries is always a good thing.
 
Question - I really haven't dug into twin pistons much... Is it a misnomer that having a twin piston and if one engine fails, you have the other that can fly you to the nearest airport? Or does this just vary according to the specs/characteristics of a particular twin piston (ie, lightly loaded you might be fine, loaded up you're screwed, some are underpowered so having the extra engine is pointless, some will get you to the next airport no issue, etc.?)? I see the comments of "The second engine carried them safely to the scene of the crash" and then I get to wondering...
 
1000RR said:
Question - I really haven't dug into twin pistons much... Is it a misnomer that having a twin piston and if one engine fails, you have the other that can fly you to the nearest airport? Or does this just vary according to the specs/characteristics of a particular twin piston (ie, lightly loaded you might be fine, loaded up you're screwed, some are underpowered so having the extra engine is pointless, some will get you to the next airport no issue, etc.?)? I see the comments of "The second engine carried them safely to the scene of the crash" and then I get to wondering...
Click to expand...
Depends on the twin and loading
 
schmookeeg said:
5:30am, eesh. I might have elected to say "oh, F naw" and just put the thing down also.

Bravo to the pilot. Hoping they find some Jet-A in his tanks so he can request a shiny new 310 from the FBO. Would also validate the decision to slide into home plate.
Click to expand...

engine failure could mean both!!
 
1000RR said:
Question - I really haven't dug into twin pistons much... Is it a misnomer that having a twin piston and if one engine fails, you have the other that can fly you to the nearest airport? Or does this just vary according to the specs/characteristics of a particular twin piston (ie, lightly loaded you might be fine, loaded up you're screwed, some are underpowered so having the extra engine is pointless, some will get you to the next airport no issue, etc.?)? I see the comments of "The second engine carried them safely to the scene of the crash" and then I get to wondering...
Click to expand...
..flown competently just about any twin will be able to execute a shallow climb on one engine. Typical single engine service ceilings are around 8K.. some lower, some higher. For that to work you have to be well above Vmc, and flying at Vyse, and the plane has be free of unnecessary drag, this means flaps and gear need to be up, or come up ASAP. You also need to do everything right in that first few seconds of failure

I have been flying twins almost exclusively for the last 2 years.. the duchess and Aztec will fly along merrily all day long at at least 6K. Once you retrim flying on one engine is really a non event. My DPE was a big fan of the Aztec, he had a fully loaded one lose an engine over Brazilian forest and they flew on for 3 more hours on one engine. All lived.

People get burned, and you have the whole "second engine only flies you to the scene of the accident" because, and this is just my opinion:
(A) people don't practice true single engine ops enough (or ever). They do their multi training and check ride, buy their 310 or Baron.. and then 25 years later when it happens in real life they screw up. I was talking with an aerostar pilot and instructor, even that will fly just fine on one engine.. if you are competent

(B) sometimes it's better to just pull the power back in both engines and do a controlled crash, as in this case. If you JUST took off and have the gear down there's no sense in forcing the thing to fly and risking a Vmc roll, pull the power back, and put her down



As a statistical anomaly, you don't hear about all the successful single engine airport landings. Our own club had one a few months ago no issues. For a while there was an Aerostar at Ramona with a blown apart cylinder, they made it down safe. Talk to lifelong twin pilots and most will have some story about a shut down. When I'm flying over water, at night, or over mountains I'd much rather have a second engine with redundant systems and at least have a chance at surviving.. vs a near guaranteed death sentence
 
Zeldman said:
Did this happen right after departure.
Click to expand...

Nope, over 2 hours into flight, but near destination.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N62368

Look like cruising at 7000. But a lot of altitude loss. Looks like 6 minutes from 7000 to touchdown

Strange, it was doing about 160, then the altitude started dropping and airspeed fell to 109, but was doing 148 at touchdown.
 
Tantalum said:
..flown competently just about any twin will be able to execute a shallow climb on one engine. Typical single engine service ceilings are around 8K.. some lower, some higher. For that to work you have to be well above Vmc, and flying at Vyse, and the plane has be free of unnecessary drag, this means flaps and gear need to be up, or come up ASAP. You also need to do everything right in that first few seconds of failure

I have been flying twins almost exclusively for the last 2 years.. the duchess and Aztec will fly along merrily all day long at at least 6K. Once you retrim flying on one engine is really a non event. My DPE was a big fan of the Aztec, he had a fully loaded one lose an engine over Brazilian forest and they flew on for 3 more hours on one engine. All lived.

People get burned, and you have the whole "second engine only flies you to the scene of the accident" because, and this is just my opinion:
(A) people don't practice true single engine ops enough (or ever). They do their multi training and check ride, buy their 310 or Baron.. and then 25 years later when it happens in real life they screw up. I was talking with an aerostar pilot and instructor, even that will fly just fine on one engine.. if you are competent

(B) sometimes it's better to just pull the power back in both engines and do a controlled crash, as in this case. If you JUST took off and have the gear down there's no sense in forcing the thing to fly and risking a Vmc roll, pull the power back, and put her down



As a statistical anomaly, you don't hear about all the successful single engine airport landings. Our own club had one a few months ago no issues. For a while there was an Aerostar at Ramona with a blown apart cylinder, they made it down safe. Talk to lifelong twin pilots and most will have some story about a shut down. When I'm flying over water, at night, or over mountains I'd much rather have a second engine with redundant systems and at least have a chance at surviving.. vs a near guaranteed death sentence
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Tantalum said:
People get burned, and you have the whole "second engine only flies you to the scene of the accident" because, and this is just my opinion:
(A) people don't practice true single engine ops enough (or ever). They do their multi training and check ride, buy their 310 or Baron.. and then 25 years later when it happens in real life they screw up. I was talking with an aerostar pilot and instructor, even that will fly just fine on one engine.. if you are competent

(B) sometimes it's better to just pull the power back in both engines and do a controlled crash, as in this case. If you JUST took off and have the gear down there's no sense in forcing the thing to fly and risking a Vmc roll, pull the power back, and put her down
Click to expand...
A lot of the “second engine only flies you to the scene of the accident” comes from certification requirements…light twins, up to maybe 6000 pounds MTOW aren’t required to demonstrate any single engine climb performance. Many don't have climb capability at max weights (or often much lighter), although we see fewer and fewer of them flying.

The other aspect, related to your (B), is that the climb they may be able to make isn’t necessarily enough to outclimb terrain, even cleaned up and feathered.
 
MauleSkinner said:
A lot of the “second engine only flies you to the scene of the accident” comes from certification requirements…light twins, up to maybe 6000 pounds MTOW aren’t required to demonstrate any single engine climb performance. Many don't have climb capability at max weights (or often much lighter), although we see fewer and fewer of them flying.

The other aspect, related to your (B), is that the climb they may be able to make isn’t necessarily enough to outclimb terrain, even cleaned up and feathered.
Click to expand...
Is there a short list of light twins that can climb and/or maintain at/near max flown correctly?
 
schmookeeg said:
5:30am, eesh. I might have elected to say "oh, F naw" and just put the thing down also.

Bravo to the pilot. Hoping they find some Jet-A in his tanks so he can request a shiny new 310 from the FBO. Would also validate the decision to slide into home plate.
Click to expand...
Unless he self-fueled.
 
Here's the POH single engine page from the one I fly. Note that this is clean. If you have just rotated and the gear is out or you are just starting a full flap go around... or are landing at L35 in the summer (6,700' field elevation) just retard the throttles and fly it controlled into the ground

The POH paints an okay picture, actually not too grim as most people aren't usually at max gross, at least not a plane like this. But if you add the 30% to 50% 'marketing-POH' safety factor then.. umm. Yeah.

upload_2022-10-13_16-33-43.png
 
Oh, 2 hours in... that's less cool and way way less likely to get him a free plane from the FBO

Now I'm wondering why he didn't do the needful drill. Hoping something like the prop wouldn't come out of feather, but I suspect... it will be a different answer. I'd imagine a light 310 could even out-fight a windmilling prop or certainly only drift down gently.

(glances at countdown to next insurance renewal... sigh)
 
Yikes! Would certainly explain the field...
 
Pinecone said:
Nope, over 2 hours into flight, but near destination.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N62368

Look like cruising at 7000. But a lot of altitude loss. Looks like 6 minutes from 7000 to touchdown

Strange, it was doing about 160, then the altitude started dropping and airspeed fell to 109, but was doing 148 at touchdown.
Click to expand...

That plane flew a lot the last two days!
 
It is interesting that the previous poster showed high speed, but lot of altitude drop. It seems from my studying that you want to be at VYSE, properly configured, and you shouldn't have been going 148kts close to the ground. I would expect VYSE on a 310 is what, 90 ish? So unless this is where they preferred to land, it seems like you would want to pitch/configure for 90 or 90+5 and then control your descent to take you to a big long airport with lots of emergency crews present. (air force base with a 15,000 foot runway?)

Now, it is interesting, if he was unable to feather the dead engine, how would the emergency procedure change. Is VYSE HIGHER when the dead engine is windmilling? I would think VMCA increases with the dead engine windmiling, as you have more drag on that side to create adverse yaw, and you want to avoid a fin stall. Am I thinking of this correctly?

Not criticizing the PIC, he got everyone down with only bent metal, and that's a major win, but I am trying to understand the aerodynamics.
 
MIFlyer said:
Now, it is interesting, if he was unable to feather the dead engine, how would the emergency procedure change. Is VYSE HIGHER when the dead engine is windmilling? I would think VMCA increases with the dead engine windmiling, as you have more drag on that side to create adverse yaw, and you want to avoid a fin stall. Am I thinking of this correctly?
Click to expand...

Your train of thought is good. Vyse is already computed with the dead engine's propeller windmilling though, so I would expect Vyse to still be in play, even in a drift-down.

SMACFUM is the adored acronym for configuration when determining Vyse. :)
 
This is really interesting. I’m eager to hear some more info. Could this have been a run out of fuel in both engines, ultimately? One and then the other. Would explain the field / gear up landing? At night if I was ditching / it would likely be gear up .
 
Shut down and feathered the good engine? Run out of gas? At 6-7,000 feet an engine shutdown in a 310 should be a non event. On to the nearest suitable airport.
 
schmookeeg said:
Your train of thought is good. Vyse is already computed with the dead engine's propeller windmilling though, so I would expect Vyse to still be in play, even in a drift-down.

SMACFUM is the adored acronym for configuration when determining Vyse. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll look at that. HOping to do my AMEL later this month not far from you!
 
MIFlyer said:
Thanks, I'll look at that. HOping to do my AMEL later this month not far from you!
Click to expand...
Good luck! It was a fun rating to get. The climb performance is great and there's something that feels cool about starting two engines and taxing out with spinning props out there on the wing
 
I have just a little time in a Travel Air.. great airplane.

There's one at CRQ up the road from me. I've been tempted to switch clubs but my airport drive would go from 12 to 30-45 depending on traffic

https://www.pcflyers.org/fleet?ResID=N8595M
 
Another note about twins and engine failures..

Not every engine failure is a catastrophic loss of power. Just as realistic might be a stuck valve, steady decreasing loss of oil pressure, bad magneto, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top