Reliable Transport?

Mmmm, maybe. Theoretically, a loaded Seneca should be able to maintain a 100 fpm climb at 50 degrees F at 10,000 feet. Not award-winning, I'll agree, but enough to maintain most of the MEAs around here. Anyway single engine performance is supposed to give you options for approach and landing. It's enough to make me feel OK about operating in most of the conditions we'll find.
 
The numbers I quoted are from the Seneca II manual, and are fairly conservative since, for example, it's unlikely that you'd be at max gross at cruise altitude on the average trip. Nevertheless, it pays to view charted numbers with a healthy dose of skepticism: They're for a new airplane with tight engines and expert technique (we're all experts, right? :p). I'm comfortable that the airplane's single engine performance would give me the breathing room I need in the circumstances I'm likely to face here. Of course the airplane has limitations. Sure, I'd like to have a Merlin 3B with radar, certified de-ice, and pressurization; I'd like to climb to 22K, cruise at 400 mph for 4 hours, and make my old Midwest stomping grounds in one hop. But I said this is the MINIMUM needed to turn hobby transportation into something I can count on -- and still afford.

Thus far, this thread has bent toward a discussion of risk management and it's relationship to reliable transportation. This must be one of the oldest, thorniest debate topics in aviation. Just what is the nature of acceptable and unacceptable risk? It's different for everybody -- just as experience, comfort level, and proficiency are different for everybody. I'm sure there are risks we would all agree are unacceptable (like the guy I once knew who used to sniff glue and then go out in a CE-150 and do low level acro -- even if it could be guaranteed that he'd always do it alone over open water, I'd still vote him "off the island" forever for the effect his notoriety has on the rest of us). And there are risks we'd all agree are acceptable (or else we wouldn't be doing this).

The devil is in the details, of course. For me, it begins with a simple question: Whatever happens, do I have an "out?" Is there somewhere else I can go -- something else I can do -- if things don't work out or go terribly wrong? If there isn't, you're entering a zone of unacceptable risk -- you're beginning to place reliability before safety in a way that may someday cost you both. Inevitably, there are times when you have no good "out." The place where I live and fly, for example, is surrounded by high, rocky terrain and big, hard trees. For a while on takeoff I have no good alternative if the engine fails -- something is going to get broken. But if I want to fly here, I am forced to trust my airplane -- at least for a while -- accept that risk, and do what I can to pass through that zone as quickly as possible. I am always looking for, and working toward my "out." I do this everywhere and everywhen. And I think that if you always keep an "out" in your back pocket, know where it is, and work to stay within its range, safety and reliability will stay in their proper relationship, and BOTH will improve.

ej
 
This is a very powerful point. You guys have no idea how forcefully this thread has convinced me that I want to get my multi add-on ASAP. The suckiest part about it is the cost, but cost is something I can manage. I can take on a few more students--shoot, I love teaching anyway--I can lean down in other areas. That redundancy is worth it, especially when I think of my wonderful wife flying with me. I know it also varies with where you fly. For instance, flying out of TKI, I feel very good about forced landings. But it isn't just about the extra engine, per se, as it is about what twins usually bring with them--more areas of redundancy (electrical, for example), better weather avoidance equipment, and even a stabler ride. I know that the requirement to be proficient and the level of that proficiency rise in direct proportion to complexity, but I'm willing to do what it takes to meet that challenge.

In the long run, one has to make decisions about what one wants out of life, and how one is going to live it. I love flying, but I am very averse to risk. I realize that flying a twin means lessening some risks while increasing others, but the one kind--engine failure, electrical failure--is harder for me to manage, while the other--not being able properly to handle flying and landing on one engine, I can learn to handle and stay that way.
 
Well, if it feels right to you then you've made a good choice. There are more fun ratings maybe (seaplane), and ratings that build more confidence (glider), but there are no ratings other than CFI (which isn't technically a "rating," anyway) that are more important to your professional development. ATP maybe, but that'll come when it comes (and that's likely to be a multiengine ATP, anyway, since most people never bother with the single engine version). Good luck, and clear skies!
 
Ben, get the Seneca II and equip it with Upper Deck Pressure Controllers (Merlyn). At gross, the book is 230 fpm to 13,500. And always fly it 200 undergross unless you have a looonnng runway. Flyaway OEI.
 
Thanks, Eric!

ejborg said:
Well, if it feels right to you then you've made a good choice. There are more fun ratings maybe (seaplane), and ratings that build more confidence (glider), but there are no ratings other than CFI (which isn't technically a "rating," anyway) that are more important to your professional development. ATP maybe, but that'll come when it comes (and that's likely to be a multiengine ATP, anyway, since most people never bother with the single engine version). Good luck, and clear skies!
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
Ben, get the Seneca II and equip it with Upper Deck Pressure Controllers (Merlyn). At gross, the book is 230 fpm to 13,500. And always fly it 200 undergross unless you have a looonnng runway. Flyaway OEI.
Click to expand...
Man, yet again you and my CFI share the same viewpoint. He told me the same thing, the Seneca should fly away 200 undergross!
 
bbchien said:
The aircraft has to be capable of MEA on a single engine, somewhere around 13,000 feet is what's needed. If you have that, you have bought some reliability, in addition to systems redundancy. But you need fire-breathing engines to get this.
Click to expand...
Do the Rajay turbonormalizers for the Seneca I do any good in this regard?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good general odds it would seem in your predictions. But in flying scheduled flights over the knarly North Cascades twice per week for two years we were surprisingly able to keep a 100% on schedule rate in SkyHawks.

This was accomplished by flying IFR into/out of Seattle about 15% of the time, scud running before or after IFR legs, or for the whole flight ~40% of the time, where there were no IFR approaches or to evade known icing conditions or T-Storms. One time only a replacement C172 was ferried in for alternator problems.
 
Ben,

I'm glad you are pointed in the multi direction. I think we share some cautious thinking and having the other engine makes it possible to make go-decisions without fear in many conditions.

I think to do it safely you must commit to SimCom or FlightSafety every six months. That's what I'm doing, and asking for an IPC on every visit, as well as a BFR whether I need it or not. I believe that level of proficiency (at least for me) makes up for the 'negatives' about flying twins...leaving (safety wise) only the positives.

Henning and I joke and have fun about the cost to maintain an 310, but there is much truth in what he says. My latest list: Turn & Slip ($1,200 because of the yaw-damper computer), oil leak on right engine, left prop cable sticking, right brake soft, cigar lighter which never worked finally addressed, new battery because mine was over 2 years old and getting weak, ... the list goes on...

There are limits to what I'll ask it to do. I just took my family to Big Mountain Montana for a skiing trip. I guess I could have FedEx'ed the luggage and stopped many times for fuel, but it sounded miserable; so we booked first class tickets through Delta on NorthWest. We got to the check-in counter 44 minutes before the flight left and were not allowed to board. I had used frequent-flyer miles (225,000 of them) and only had the option of buying last-minute-coach award tickets (or spending more than my 310 for coach tickets). I actually had to pay 25,000 more miles and $500 to go coach.

That trip was so terribly miserable, it makes the money spent on my 310 an easy choice.

Keep going. I've been where you are, and I think you are on the same path. It's awesome when you get there!
 
Sorry Ken, I pushed the wrong button on your message...and tried to undo it.

You would think that the Seneca Is would do OK with 200 hp at altitude with rajays. But it turns out that it's just NOT enough power. The IIs make 210 at 10,000 and the IIIs make 220 hp. When you're down to one engine, 10 hp is a big difference.

Also, the Lycoming-rajays at 100% power- jeepers you think the spar is going to shake apart...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top