Engine failure in a twin - how soon do you land?

[Tantalum]

Could've made any number of class C or B airports

Read the accident info link you sent.. pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine.. sounds like the pilot did just about everything right up until the last few moments.. can a 421 not maintain level flight on one engine at 700 msl? Why even bother with a twin then? Really makes the case that twin <> safe

PS, just curious why you answered that he would have been safer going to a class Charlie or class Bravo airport? It seems like based on the aircraft's performance (or lack there of) and his abilities he would have come up about 1/2 mile short at any airport.. am I missing something that made the untowered nature of this airport more dangerous?

It appears the mention of the use of the word "excessive" implies that on one engine the plane is more or less in a semi controlled fall

 

[schmookeeg]

To be honest I kept my answers short & sweet earlier in the thread, as I was a little busy at the time.

This is an emergency, period. Closest suitable airport (time), for your particular situation should be based on:

1) available runways and length/lighting
2) weather
3) emergency equipment at airport

Nothing else will really matter in the Feds eyes.

To make a decision based on the availability of ground transportation is ludicrous IMO.

I can't argue, I've only put my default plan into action once, and the FAA did not make an inquiry. I need to look, but I recall overflying 2 or 3 little podunk fields on the way to my field choice -- somewhere in NW Arkansas, a place I am very unfamiliar with. I was busy studying the white smoke out of the RHE and making sure it was abating and not getting worse.

A question, though:

Let's say I lose an engine in cruise, per the OP's scenario. Which is a better use of my time:

1. Monitoring the remaining engine for additional shenanigans

2. Flipping around nearby airports to find the nearest one that I can land on within my plane's performance envelope, however inconvenient?

It's mostly hypothetical for my plane, as it can land quite short, but in a plane which may, say, need 3000 feet? 3500? Do you really spend that time looking around sectionals and landing at the nearest one, "come what may"? Only to be stuck there? What if you just sucked a valve and insurance is NOT coming to the rescue? Now you get to pay to ship a mechanic and parts to the airport out in MOFN. Seems equally ludicrous to me, as the one paying the bills, as that's an adventure surely to cost thousands or tens of thousands.

Twins, properly managed, should be able to cruise on one engine for some reasonable period of time. Does a 747 land on the nearest dinky atoll when it's down to 3 over the ocean, or does it have a canned set of alternate airports in its OpSpec? Why wouldn't we adopt similar ideas, tailored for 91/135 flights?

I think I could defend my class D procedure with the comms and equipment angle (definitely not the taxi and bar angle as you note ) if pressed to do so. Personally I value the reduced cognitive load in what is a critical but non-emergency situation. After all, if the plane is cleaned up and trimmed out -- you're in control, you can maintain some performance, and you can navigate. What's the emergency? You have a plane that is missing some of its inbuilt redundancy, and further loss will jeopardize the flight. Searching sectionals or other documents to find the absolute nearest passable runway seems like a mis-prioritization to me. I'd rather keep an eye on "the mechanical situation" than "the legal situation".

According to the FAA if I lose one of my vacuum pumps, my plane is unairworthy. Do I dive for the farm field when that happens? Do I consult my MEL? Same for recognition light at night? or I lose access to one of my 4 fuel cells?


I think this is a useful thought exercise, FYI. I do not think my answer is the right one, it's only my own solution. I also can invent plenty of scenarios where my plan is a poor one. I just think it's an easy default.

$0.02.

 

[Tantalum]

To make a decision based on the availability of ground transportation is ludicrous IMO.

I don't get the obsession with the class of airport either.. there are plenty of legit uncontrolled fields out there with multiple long runways, maintenance, services, etc...

I thought that's why we have engine instruments, and in many cases now engine monitors...so we can diagnose

Will an engine monitor tell you if you have contaminated fuel? I agree that engine monitors do a tremendous job in helping us keep on the health of our engines, but if I lose an engine I'm putting the plane on the ground as soon as I safely can

PS.. remember the British Air 747 that flew from Vegas to England on three engines after experiencing a flame out on take off? Nuts

 

[schmookeeg]

I don't get the obsession with the class of airport either.. there are plenty of legit uncontrolled fields out there with multiple long runways, maintenance, services, etc...

I wish there was symbology on a sectional chart to indicate MX. Maybe 8 "tangs" on the airport instead of the 4 indicating fuel availability?

For every untowered field I've landed at with long runways and mx, I've landed at three+ which exist solely as an unmonitored fuel tank and a few hangars and derelicts. Flying a wounded plane seems like a bad time to figure out who is who.

I've never landed at a class D without piston-level mx on-field. They may exist, I have no idea.

I can't imagine favoring a Class C/B airport unless I was in heavy iron or there were no Ds around, but that's the level I fly at. Someone in a King Air or Citation may think differently about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[farmrjohn]

To be honest I kept my answers short & sweet earlier in the thread, as I was a little busy at the time.

This is an emergency, period. Closest suitable airport (time), for your particular situation should be based on:

1) available runways and length/lighting
2) weather
3) emergency equipment at airport

Nothing else will really matter in the Feds eyes.

To make a decision based on the availability of ground transportation is ludicrous IMO.

I would use the same criteria Part 121 uses which as stated above is the nearest suitable airport in point of time. The only items I'd add to Kritchlow's list is airport familiarity and terrain. Convenience is not one of the criteria.

 

[Tantalum]

For every untowered field I've landed at with long runways and mx, I've landed at three+ which exist solely as an unmonitored fuel tank and a few hangars and derelicts. Flying a wounded plane seems like a bad time to figure out who is who.

true, but depending on the severity of the situation you have to decide if you're better off at a podunk derelict airport but alive, or ending up in the trees a few miles from a larger airport with maintenance

 

[woodchucker]

I wish there was symbology on a sectional chart to indicate MX. Maybe 8 "tangs" on the airport instead of the 4 indicating fuel availability?

For every untowered field I've landed at with long runways and mx, I've landed at three+ which exist solely as an unmonitored fuel tank and a few hangars and derelicts. Flying a wounded plane seems like a bad time to figure out who is who.

I've never landed at a class D without piston-level mx on-field. They may exist, I have no idea.

I can't imagine favoring a Class C/B airport unless I was in heavy iron or there were no Ds around, but that's the level I fly at. Someone in a King Air or Citation may think differently about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not a twin flyer, but I think field choice in an emergency type of situation applies to all of us. I also can’t imagine overflying a B/C airport to find a D. My preference, if the airplane isn’t fully functional due to whatever, I would rather have a towered field of any type. As was pointed out, I would consider the LOE in a twin to be an emergency because you don’t know how the other one is going to fare. Declare your emergency and ask whomever you are talking to for straight-in vectors until runway is in sight. I could be wrong, but that accident pilot who spiraled down to land sounded like he ended up flying a pattern, and on one engine with stuff out lost it.

If not, then I’ll take whatever has a decent runway, if there is a choice in the matter.

 

[Zeldman]

Bob Hoover used to do aerobatics on 0 engines. *shrug*
Can't argue with the master!

The master of energy control.

 

[Clip4]

Hoping to have some discussion here to fill a gap in my risk assessment.

Short version - your engine fails in a piston twin in cruise flight. Do you land immediately, continue to your destination, return home, or some other option?

Long version:

I have recently started flying a cabin-class piston twin, Part 91, for its owners, taking them to meetings and such. Typical flights are to places about 2 hours away.

Until this point, almost all of my multiengine flying has been in a training environment - either as trainee or instructor. In that environment, for engine failure scenarios, you train on how to initially respond and then generally head for the nearest airport to land. The engine typically "fails" on takeoff, or on approach, or on downwind, or otherwise really close to the runway.

But not a lot of time, in my experience, is spent on being up at cruise and discussing what to do after an engine fails. In training, in cruise you generally end up shutting it down, run some checklists, but then just restart it and carry on. So I admittedly haven't spent a lot of time thinking about "well, what now?" if I can't restart it in cruise. That is a shortcoming in my experience and training that I want to correct and am hoping for some discussion about.

So, you're up at 10,000 - 15,000 - FL200 or whatever in cruise. An engine fails. You troubleshoot and end up shutting it down. Assume you can safely maintain an altitude that is still plenty high enough to not hit anything. And assume no fire. What do you do then? What's your thought process?

Do you land at the nearest available airport regardless of size or facilities?

Do you land soon, but try to find someplace close that might have appropriate maintenance?

If you're on the outbound leg (to go to the meeting or whatever), do you turn around and go home (where you know there will maintenance and the inconvenience is reduced)?

Do you continue to your destination (and possibly be stuck there)?

If you're on the inbound (back to home) leg, do you continue on home?

Do your answers depend on how far away you are?

If so, how long would you be willing to fly on one engine?

How heavily does the inconvenience of landing far from home, where there may be no maintenance or readily-available transportation, weigh on this decision?

I'm mostly looking for opinions from the standpoint of being a paid pilot, in other words, I'm not flying somewhere for personal reasons.

Thanks for the help!

As mentioned, by regulation you normally cannot proceed to your destination. The preferable procedure is to land at a VMC airport with a very long wide runway, IFR definitely a big runway with all the lights.

The single engine service ceiling is not going to be any where near the altitudes you listed - you will have to descend to a lower density altitude.

At high density altitude on takeoff, your only option may be to close both throttles and land beyond the runway because the aircraft will not climb and a turn back to the airport is a death sentence.

 

[GRG55]

...Will an engine monitor tell you if you have contaminated fuel? I agree that engine monitors do a tremendous job in helping us keep on the health of our engines, but if I lose an engine I'm putting the plane on the ground as soon as I safely can...

So, are we to interpret this to mean every time you may have the misfortune of an engine failure in a twin your actions to respond will be based on the assumption it must be fuel contamination...even if your on-board engine instruments are telling you something clearly different? Nuts.

And next time please quote enough of the post you are responding to so the context is clear.

"I thought that's why we have engine instruments, and in many cases now engine monitors...so we can diagnose, before it becomes necessary to revert to prayer."​

My point was prayer has its place, but if you are a pilot, responsible for the plane and it's passengers, by gawd you bloody well better have exhausted every possibility in your training and knowledge repertoire, using all the information available to you, to try to deal with the situation appropriately before placing everyone on board, including yourself, in the hands of the Fates.

​

 

[Tantalum]

So, are we to interpret this to mean every time you may have the misfortune of an engine failure in a twin your actions to respond will be based on the assumption it must be fuel contamination...even if your on-board engine instruments are telling you something clearly different? Nuts.

More detail below, but those onboard instruments are only giving you a handful of data points.. there are other elements that could kill both engines which may not manifest itself until only a just before (it at all) of failure

And next time please quote enough of the post you are responding to so the context is clear.

haha, I'm a short quote'r.. the point was to bring attention to the engine monitor and how much faith we can put in it. If I've lost an engine I'll be extra vigilant of what that last remaining engine is doing for health on EGT, CHT, temps, manifold, etc., but knowing I've lost one tells me that (A) losing another is catastrophic for me, statistically low change, but, that remaining engine is also just a stats coin toss.. it could fail.. just because the other failed doesn't suddenly make that engine safer, otherwise we'd resell those engines as extra reliable, and (B) there could be something potentially affecting both engines that just killed the other one first.. maybe #1 I lost oil press.. and it's only a matter of time before #2 loses oil press as well because the mechanic who did the oil last time only lightly hand tightened the oil filter.. thinking "hand tighten it now, wipe it clean, then I'll torque everything on correctly and safety wire it before putting the cowls back on" but in the meantime his wife called, yelled at him, and he forgot the tightening and safety wire... who knows?! What I do know is, I'll be landing as soon as I reasonably can. Will I put it down in the middle of nowhere... maybe if that's the only airport... will I fly an extra 15 minutes to a legit field if I can.. probably.. but we'll see when it happens what I'll actually do

PS, I left the prayer part out because, well, the point was about the diagnosing power of the engine instrument data. Prayer may be an option eventually, but it wasn't a prayer omission out of an atheistic crusade, was just not relevant to the point I was making

Cheers

 

[Grum.Man]

I can guarantee you that an A320 down to 1 engine isn't going to overfly another major airport in favor of getting to one of it's hubs. Everyone's risk management is different but if I were the pilot I would secure the failed engine after a brief troubleshoot and attempted restart then declare an emergency and start looking for the closest suitable landing spot. I can promise you the last thought on my mind is whether or not they will have maintenance on the field. There is an A&P at just about every airport or one close by. That's not to say that if I had an idea of what happened to the failed engine and was having no problem maintaining altitude and control of the aircraft that I might pass up a 3k foot runway for a 6k foot one 5 miles further away.

 

[mryan75]

Read the accident info link you sent.. pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine.. sounds like the pilot did just about everything right up until the last few moments.. can a 421 not maintain level flight on one engine at 700 msl? Why even bother with a twin then? Really makes the case that twin <> safe

PS, just curious why you answered that he would have been safer going to a class Charlie or class Bravo airport? It seems like based on the aircraft's performance (or lack there of) and his abilities he would have come up about 1/2 mile short at any airport.. am I missing something that made the untowered nature of this airport more dangerous?

It appears the mention of the use of the word "excessive" implies that on one engine the plane is more or less in a semi controlled fall

Regarding the Bravo/Charlie question - bigger runway, and emergency services. Thing is, this guy did it the right way. He'd had recurrent training, had just done single-engine drills with an instructor. But my guess is he did it with just him and the instructor. When it actually happened he had 5 more people and all their baggage in the plane.

 

[Tantalum]

Thing is, this guy did it the right way. He'd had recurrent training, had just done single-engine drills with an instructor

That's what seemed so crazy to me... he seemed to be doing everything by the textbook. That's a great example of how flying a twin doesn't make you safer in an engine out. I wonder if he'd been gliding down from FL210 in a Piper Malibu, or had been in a Cirrus where he could position over the field and pull the chute (or attempt a landing) he'd be alive... granted, he also wouldn't have been able to carry that many people in the plane. It's all about compromises

 

[MauleSkinner]

Read the accident info link you sent.. pretty crazy that a 421 can't land on one engine.. sounds like the pilot did just about everything right up until the last few moments.. can a 421 not maintain level flight on one engine at 700 msl? Why even bother with a twin then? Really makes the case that twin <> safe.

The accident report says the airplane was “configured to land”. I’m assuming the gear was down, which decreases the climb capability by around 500 fpm. Cowl flaps open another 200. Flaps? Dunno. But subtract 500-700 fpm from a single engine climb rate of maybe 400-500 fpm, and you find that down is the only direction of flight in the landing configuration. Misjudge the approach to a relatively short runway with trees, and it can get ugly.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

PS.. remember the British Air 747 that flew from Vegas to England on three engines after experiencing a flame out on take off? Nuts

Why? In a 3+ engine aircraft, an engine failure isn't an emergency item checklist, it's an abnormal item checklist. They had the fuel to continue, no reason not to.

 

[texasclouds]

L A N D T H A T B I T C H !

 

[Mtns2Skies]

L A N D T H A T B I T C H !

Okay, but what to do about the airplane?

 

[Tantalum]

Why? In a 3+ engine aircraft, an engine failure isn't an emergency item checklist, it's an abnormal item checklist. They had the fuel to continue, no reason not to.

I meant "nuts" in a bad#ss way

 

[mryan75]

That's what seemed so crazy to me... he seemed to be doing everything by the textbook. That's a great example of how flying a twin doesn't make you safer in an engine out. I wonder if he'd been gliding down from FL210 in a Piper Malibu, or had been in a Cirrus where he could position over the field and pull the chute (or attempt a landing) he'd be alive... granted, he also wouldn't have been able to carry that many people in the plane. It's all about compromises

Completely agree. I have 0.0 hours in twins, but I've always thought it was the difference in weight between his training scenario and the actual event that doomed him. It also firmly instilled in me a belief that it's better to be too high than too low, and it's better to run off the end of a runway slowing down than to come up short of one.

 

[stratobee]

Had partial engine failure in the old Twin Commander. Continued to destination in Chicago 45min away (Palwaukee), as all the nearer airports were very small and would not be able to fix problem. But in the end it created a different problem.: PWK is mainly jets and it was really hard to find a maintenance facility that could deal with a piston.

 

[Tantalum]

difference in weight

This is actually a fantastic point..! I wonder if filling the plane seats with sandbags to replicate a max gross scenario would have provided better training...

It also firmly instilled in me a belief that it's better to be too high than too low, and it's better to run off the end of a runway slowing down than to come up short of one.

Totally agree. My first few flights where in gliders with my brother in law and that was his point as well

 

[jsstevens]

My primary instructor had me do a few things with a passenger along (which was pretty much gross in a C-712) for just that reason. Stalls are different feeling (not grossly, but some), slow flight, take off and especially landing. He also had me fly in some pretty stiff crosswinds (some exceeded the demonstrated cross wind of the airplane). I'm a better pilot for it.

John

 

[GRG55]

That's what seemed so crazy to me... he seemed to be doing everything by the textbook. That's a great example of how flying a twin doesn't make you safer in an engine out. I wonder if he'd been gliding down from FL210 in a Piper Malibu, or had been in a Cirrus where he could position over the field and pull the chute (or attempt a landing) he'd be alive... granted, he also wouldn't have been able to carry that many people in the plane. It's all about compromises

I'm sorry, but I find this statement ridiculous.

If the plane, any plane, is flown within the design envelope for the specific configuration (this of course assumes nothing on the airplane has broken to preclude this), it will bring you down to the ground intact. Clearly he did NOT do everything by the textbook...because if he had it most likely would have ended much differently.

As for twins, versus singles, three observations:

• It would appear certain death is far from assured in the event of a single engine failure in a piston twin; some people survived at least long enough to post about their experience on this thread.
• There have been fatal accidents in piston Malibus after an engine failure (I know of two with airplanes based at my home field), and more than a few Cirrus fatalities trying to fly the plane outside the design envelope (with the engine running, no less).
• We just had a young lady fatally stuff a CAP Cessna 172, apparently trying to fly it outside the design envelope for the specific configuration at the time. I don't see anybody here exclaiming "That's a great example of how flying a single doesn't make you safer in an engine out." Single or twin piston, turboprop or jet, assuming you won't ever have to fly your airplane near the limits of the full range of its design envelope is not a sufficient reason not to know exactly where those boundaries are (unless you are able to afford the luxury of the parachute to bail you out, in which case that level of knowledge may be entirely optional).

 

[Tantalum]

CAP

That says it all. The worst pilots I've ever known were CAP people... which is odd, because it requires reams of paperwork to even get in a CAP plane. The handful of meetings I attended seemed to always have one of their planes out for maintenance for some reason, as a result of poor airmanship, even if that meant just pushing it into a hangar wall. So that example says more about CAP than about a C172. Do we know that the mryan noted accident plane was being operated outside its design envelope?

If the plane, any plane, is flown within the design envelope for the specific configuration (this of course assumes nothing on the airplane has broken to preclude this), it will bring you down to the ground intact. Clearly he did NOT do everything by the textbook...because if he had it most likely would have ended much differently.

This guy seemed smarter than the average dude who VMC rolls it right after losing an engine. The other poster mryan added some insight that with a heavier load than he was used to, and in a landing configuration, the aircraft basically could not maintain level flight at 700 AGL.. which honestly, is a little crazy. Eventually you have to configure the plane to land, and if the POH says you need "excessive" altitude to get it configured and on the ground intact then you're getting into an environment which may be in the plane's envelope, but outside of the pilot's typical landing set up.. so is he really any safer in that case? I mean what exactly is "excessive" altitude..? I would have thought that at full tilt, even if fully configured to land, the plane would be able to sustain level flight... I mean how the hell are you supposed to go around? Or is a go around simply not an option during an engine out piston twin scenario? Are you committed to land once you're on final and have gone to gear and flaps down?

Don't get me wrong, I think big twins are cool, and I've been told the Aerostar is an unforgiving plane if not flown competently, but for the most part an engine shut down in a twin seems like a fairly major event, and we make excuses for the airframe design blaming the pilots.. but at some point though you have to acknowledge that piston twins are, statistically speaking, not necessarily safer

But we're all the best pilots we know, right?

And surely there is a mission these planes fit, but, the idea that buying a twin engine piston is going to be safer than a single, the numbers just don't really prove that, at least not to me

The DA62 however, at least from the videos I've seen online, do seem remarkably docile in an engine out scenario... so advances in aviation may be helping on that front

Cheers

 

[GRG55]

That says it all. The worst pilots I've ever known were CAP people... which is odd, because it requires reams of paperwork to even get in a CAP plane. The handful of meetings I attended seemed to always have one of their planes out for maintenance for some reason, as a result of poor airmanship, even if that meant just pushing it into a hangar wall. So that example says more about CAP than about a C172. Do we know that the mryan noted accident plane was being operated outside its design envelope?...

Come now. I understood she was a low time, relatively recent private pilot. How would that set her apart from so many others just like her? Does CAP prey on recent private pilots, deliberately recruiting "the worst pilots..."?

The probabilities are almost overwhelming the accident investigation is going to find there was nothing wrong with the airplane.

The DA62 however, at least from the videos I've seen online, do seem remarkably docile in an engine out scenario... so advances in aviation may be helping on that front

...

So is my Aztec. And it's a derivative of a plane designed in the 1950s.

It's not the planes that are killing people, it's mostly the pilots. Still.

 

[Finnelly]

Much worse. The airplane's performance is greatly diminished, and your one operating engine may follow the fate of the other, depending on what caused the first shutdown.
I would land at the first airport with good facilities if it wasn't much farther than the nearest one with a decent runway.

I disagree, let's say you shut it down for low oil pressure and it's flying just fine on one engine, now you're flying a single engine plane and can continue until you need fuel or you are somewhere to get it repaired. Flying 131 or 135 is different, all the checklists like the 777 I fly end with "land at nearest sutible airport".

Dan

 

[Tantalum]

Does CAP prey on recent private pilots, deliberately recruiting "the worst pilots..."?

Doubtful, but I wonder if being part of a large official organization might have a psychological effect on the overall flight qualities of some of the crew.. these people are still flying the same GA 172 / 182 that many of us fly. The maintenance may be better in some cases, but I think it [CAP] may [unintentionally] cultivate a commercial airline / military level of perceived proficiency and skills..

It's not the planes that are killing people, it's mostly the pilots. Still.

This is absolutely true. I'm still surprised that the mryan dude died, he seemed to fit the profile of someone who should have walked away from that easily. I know, at least personally, it makes me view my whole future step up path differently. For my mission the Cirrus is perfect in almost every category, I just wish it carried more, was pressurized, and didn't give me anxiety flying over water

 

[Tantalum]

"land at nearest sutible airport"

I think that was a big part of this thread, how do you define "suitable" - very few will continue on for hours on one engine it seems, from this thread.. but not everyone is going to start panicking and putting it down at the first air strip they see..

 

[Palmpilot]

I would have thought that at full tilt, even if fully configured to land, the plane would be able to sustain level flight...

I would not assume that a piston twin with one engine inoperative would be able to maintain level flight with the gear and flaps down unless the POH said you could.

I mean how the hell are you supposed to go around? Or is a go around simply not an option during an engine out piston twin scenario? Are you committed to land once you're on final and have gone to gear and flaps down?

During my multiengine training, I was taught not to count on being able to do a go around with one engine out. At max gross at sea level on a standard day, the POH of the first twin I learned in (a Duchess) only promises about 250 fpm of climb, and that's with gear and flaps up.

Don't get me wrong, I think big twins are cool, and I've been told the Aerostar is an unforgiving plane if not flown competently, but for the most part an engine shut down in a twin seems like a fairly major event, and we make excuses for the airframe design blaming the pilots.. but at some point though you have to acknowledge that piston twins are, statistically speaking, not necessarily safer

My understanding is that you have to practice engine-out procedures regularly, and have realistic expectations of your single-engine performance, in order to fly twins safely.

 

[Tantalum]

At max gross at sea level on a standard day, the POH only promises about 250 fpm of climb, and that's with gear and flaps up.

That! is rather sobering..

I just read the Flying Mag article on the DA62.. at 8,000 ft they were getting 450 fpm climb on one engine, granted, that was clean, and not at max gross

 

[Palmpilot]

That! is rather sobering..

I just read the Flying Mag article on the DA62.. at 8,000 ft they were getting 450 fpm climb on one engine, granted, that was clean, and not at max gross

The POH performance charts make it clear that weight makes a substantial difference in single-engine climb performance. So does altitude, with normally-aspirated engines, but the DA-62 is turbocharged.

By the way, I forgot to mention this until I went back and edited my post (while you were writing your reply): I was talking about a Duchess, which is a lot lower horsepower than the Cessna 421 that was being discussed. Of course, the weight is a lot lower too. I don't know what the numbers are for the 421, but my understanding is that the FAA's certification requirements for piston twins don't demand all that much in the way of single-engine performance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think that was a big part of this thread, how do you define "suitable" - very few will continue on for hours on one engine it seems, from this thread.. but not everyone is going to start panicking and putting it down at the first air strip they see..

Hawker Beechcraft (at the time) uses a couple of different terms...

Land Nearest Suitable Airport means “a landing should be accomplished at the nearest suitable airport considering the severity of the emergency, weather conditions, airport facilities, ambient lighting and gross weight.”

This is more urgent than

Land As Soon As Practical, which means “emergency conditions are less urgent, although the mission is to be terminated, and the degree of emergency is such that an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airport may not be necessary.”

So while Nearest Suitable doesn’t specify immediately, As Soon As Practical implies that Nearest Suitable IS immediately.

 

[Tantalum]

The POH performance charts make it clear that weight makes a substantial difference in single-engine climb performance. So does altitude, with normally-aspirated engines, but the DA-62 is turbocharged.

Actually, to your point, I was expecting the DA62 to be superior than 450 fpm.. I can imagine fully loaded, with gear and flaps down, the modern DA62 is probably not much of a performer either. I've learned a lot from this thread..

the FAA's certification requirements for piston twins don't demand all that much in the way of single-engine performance

Apparently!

 

[Tantalum]

So let's say I'm flying Fresno KFAT to Vegas, KHND, in my brand new Aerostar (yahoo!). I'm loaded to the gills but proud to be showing off my new (to me) plane.. I'm cruising at FL190, I'm cleared through the restricteds, and I'm basically direct.. one of the following scenarios happens

Scenario 1:
-Somewhere between Lone Pine and Death valley I notice that I start, slowly, seeing oil pressure drop in one of my engines.. and eventually I have to shut it down due to a complete loss in oil pressure. The other engine stays smooth and healthy.. I'd probably continue to Vegas.. why continue, even if KFAT is a hair closer? Well I'm not looking to cross the Sierra Nevadas again on one engine...

Scenario 2:
-Same area as above, but the engine is running rough, CHTs and EGTs are all over the place, and I can't figure it out. Bad fuel? Weird magneto issue? Again I secure the engine but consider maybe landing at KIYK... it's very close, and while in the middle of no-where per Foreflight there are some services, and I know for fact you can rent a car from there as I've had friends rent from there.. or I also have Bishop to the north, also a (somewhat) legit airport. Depending on what the remaining engine is doing, what kind of fuel I have left (since I don't want to use the fuel I was feeding into the bad engine) I would consider scrapping the flight and landing at KIYK or Bishop.. it would take a lot of careful planning and diligent decision making to continue on

Scenario 3:
-Engine is on fire... I put it down at whatever is closest... even if that means Shoshone (L61)

 

[Tantalum]

^and if I'm VFR where I am at, but KLAS is IFR then I land at KIYK or Bishop

 

[GRG55]

...This is absolutely true. I'm still surprised that the mryan dude died, he seemed to fit the profile of someone who should have walked away from that easily. I know, at least personally, it makes me view my whole future step up path differently. For my mission the Cirrus is perfect in almost every category, I just wish it carried more, was pressurized, and didn't give me anxiety flying over water

I doubt anything that gets written here is ever going to dispel your irrational anxiety about twin engine airplanes.
Every airplane out there will try to kill you if you do not respect its limits. And they ALL have limits, even the much vaunted Cirrus (as so many unfortunate Cirrus pilots and passengers learned early on).

There's ample possibility the pilot that could not fly the twin within its limits in a single engine configuration, when it really counted, might not have walked away if it had been a single either.

In the August 2002 edition of Flying, Peter Garrison published an instructive Aftermath column about an A36 Bonanza pilot that suffered an engine failure after a bearing spun and the crankshaft broke in two places. The pilot had 6000 ft of altitude and needed only 3500 vertical feet to reach the nearest airport, which is where he headed when the controller vectored him. The pilot did everything right to begin with: immediately slowed the plane at constant altitude to best glide speed, however, by 1800 ft AGL he was at 88 kts, at 1200 ft down to 81 knots, held the airplane momentarily at ~1000 ft at 77 kts, temporarily trading airspeed for altitude, and then decelerated steadily to 60 kts at 200 ft. The pilot and his daughter in the front seat did not survive, the two rear seat passengers did.

We were all taught in private pilot ground school that being appreciably faster or slower than the best glide speed brings the airplane down more steeply. So why do pilots make that mistake?

Ironically, the very year and month the above referenced article was published, the accident described below occurred. And three years later, to the month, Flying published Garrison's equally instructional article below. This fatal Malibu engine loss accident is not one of the two others I am personally familiar with. One of those was almost a repeat of the one below - trying to stretch the glide.

Tell me again how much more "dangerous" twin engine airplanes are compared to high performance singles, when an engine fails.
It is not the planes that are dangerous.
But as I wrote at the beginning of this post, nothing is ever likely to change your belief system.

The Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you.

— Max Stanley, Northrop test pilot.​

What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery.

— Wilbur Wright, letter to Octave Chanute, 13 May 1900
​

I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit.

— General Chuck Yeager
​

Prepare for the unknown, unexpected and inconceivable … after 50 years of flying I’m still learning every time I fly.

— Gene Cernan
​

If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it. Ride the bastard down.

— Ernest K. Gann​

​

 

[schmookeeg]

Scenario 3:
-Engine is on fire... I put it down at whatever is closest... even if that means Shoshone (L61)

Possibly not even L61 -- probably the straightest hiking trail you can make out. Fire, particularly in a turbo plane, is time to throw out the anchor before your wing detaches. Talking gear out, some flaps, 45 degree bank... I can get about 7500fpm down. It's fun to practice. Your ears pop.

Light twins aren't required to climb at all on one engine. I think the 150hp (135? I forget) Apaches were notorious non-climbers. I was also taught not to do single engine go-arounds. Once you're under blue line, you're never getting that energy back, so don't screw up, or plan to merge with traffic at the far fence.

Can I interest you in a Baron ride yet? Twins are rad.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

We got up early to fly 135 customers to Sun Valley in a King Air 200.

Wow. 135 people in a King Air?

 

[bbchien]

It depends. In my aircraft, if light, I can maintain altitude at 75% power if I can get it cleaned up. That means more ability to find a 3500 ft runway rather than 2,500. But if I have to run 100% power on the turning engine, i’m Choosing NEAR and paved over far, length, service. That engine just reached TBO, IMO.

Trucking it out is much cheaper then wrecking it.