Singe engine stall in a twin near gross

[Ted]

I believe you're right, how long until FADEC on gas motors, sheesh.

We'll talk about the realities of that over a beer next time I'm in Dallas.

I don't believe I'm talking about anything out of the ordinary flight regime here. Piston twin leaves higher altitude/DA airport, loses one, pitches for Vmc, stalls on one trying to get engine secured, adios. If I have that right, it seems like a training failure that it isn't even discussed as part of OEI work in many cases. Also, as nice as SIM training would be most non-pressurized light twin pilots don't do that or it isn't available for their type.

Ahh, think I see part of the confusion here. Vmc is slower (by usually 20-40 mph) than Vyse, which is blue line. You should never get near towards Vmc, you shouldn't pitch for it. If you fail one on takeoff it's nose down. In many cases if you're below Vyse when the engine fails, your best bet is pulling the other back and landing straight ahead.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't believe I'm talking about anything out of the ordinary flight regime here. Piston twin leaves higher altitude/DA airport, loses one, pitches for Vmc, stalls on one trying to get engine secured, adios. If I have that right, it seems like a training failure that it isn't even discussed as part of OEI work in many cases.

That's because many if not most light twins aren't able to do this at high DA. Don't stall the airplane after takeoff, especially on one engine. If you can't maintain altitude it's better to hit the ground under control.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ahh, think I see part of the confusion here. Vmc is slower (by usually 20-40 mph) than Vyse, which is blue line. You should never get near towards Vmc, you shouldn't pitch for it. If you fail one on takeoff it's nose down. In many cases if you're below Vyse when the engine fails, your best bet is pulling the other back and landing straight ahead.

...which might be the point we're trying to make in the PTS Vmc demo -- stay away from Vmc in light twins! There's just no reason to be anywhere near it in the air (other than in the flare to land).

 

[bobmrg]

That is completely incorrect.

VMC demos are often done with the MEI limiting rudder travel in order to simulate the loss of control simply due to the fact that these days because we do our engine failure training at altitude, the actual VMC at altitude is typically well below stall speed in the majority of light trainer-type twins.

If you were to try a real VMC demo without limiting rudder travel in a Travel Air or Duchess for example at 5000', you would stall the airplane well before you ever reached VMC.

There was an article in an edition of the Designee Update telling examiners that while blocking the rudder during training was OK, on checkrides they were to keep their feet off of the rudders (or out from behind them). Their thinking was that an MEI could start introducing demos with blocking but should gradually reduce the amount of blocking until the applicant could do the demo with no blocking at all.

Insofar as stalling before reaching Vmc is concerned, the PTS says "...recovery should be made at the first indication of loss of directional control, stall warning, or buffet."

Bob Gardner

 

[TMetzinger]

What's the consensus on reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc?

In light twins like the seminole I got my ME in, I planned on pulling BOTH engines back if I had an engine fail on departure and just treat it like a failure in a single, until I got high enough for more options, just because the OEI climb performance typically sucked and I was worried about being tempted to keep climbing and not focusing enough on airspeed.

I've always thought that the most important thing was maintaining control, and that means not getting into a Vmc situation, even at the cost of becoming a glider.

 

[Fearless Tower]

What's the consensus on reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc?

In light twins like the seminole I got my ME in, I planned on pulling BOTH engines back if I had an engine fail on departure and just treat it like a failure in a single, until I got high enough for more options, just because the OEI climb performance typically sucked and I was worried about being tempted to keep climbing and not focusing enough on airspeed.

I've always thought that the most important thing was maintaining control, and that means not getting into a Vmc situation, even at the cost of becoming a glider.

Tim,

I think the real answer depends on the airplane, gross weight and DA.

Yes, maintaining control is the most important thing, and if pulling the throttles back is what you gave to do, then that is what you have to do.

In most (but not all) twins, the general thought is that once you select gear up, you go, but ultimately I think you really need to know what SE climb rate is predicted to be in order to properly make that decision.

My personal thought for most light twins is that if I have selected gear up and I am between red and blue line I am going to push the nose down and try to make blue line and if I can't clear terrain and climb out, then I will reduce power and point it in the safest place possible.

Now, the B-25 is a whole 'nother animal. If I don't have 145 mph then I'm pulling both back and setting it down.

 

[Ted]

What's the consensus on reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc?

Depends on your airplane. The issue with most Vmc accidents I believe is that people either don't realize they're approaching Vmc, or else they realize it and are trying desperately to maintain altitude, while forgetting their training.

In light twins like the seminole I got my ME in, I planned on pulling BOTH engines back if I had an engine fail on departure and just treat it like a failure in a single, until I got high enough for more options, just because the OEI climb performance typically sucked and I was worried about being tempted to keep climbing and not focusing enough on airspeed.

That sounds like a good idea given that you were flying a POS.

I've always thought that the most important thing was maintaining control, and that means not getting into a Vmc situation, even at the cost of becoming a glider.

That is correct, and how you should do it. Fearless gave a good summary of the typical way it's determined, but the reality is that shortly after gear up a lot of people would be better off pulling both back after an engine failure. If it's hot and you're heavy, that's probably your best option for many underpowered twins. But there's a lot of variability, know your plane.

 

[Alexb2000]

Ahh, think I see part of the confusion here. Vmc is slower (by usually 20-40 mph) than Vyse, which is blue line. You should never get near towards Vmc, you shouldn't pitch for it. If you fail one on takeoff it's nose down. In many cases if you're below Vyse when the engine fails, your best bet is pulling the other back and landing straight ahead.

I'm losing my mind today, I meant Vyse.

I know there is a gap between Vyse and Vmc, but only if every condition is perfect for OEI ops. For example I read a report where a B55 with wings level increased Vmc 19 knots above the red line vs. banked into the operating engine. This is the kind of thing I found surprising and potentially dangerous.

 

[poadeleted20]

What's the consensus on reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc?

It's necessary if the airplane starts yawing after you reach full rudder travel. It's against the standard if you do it before you reach that point during the Vmc demo on the PTS, and it defeats the purpose of the exercise if you do it during training for the Vmc demo.

In light twins like the seminole I got my ME in, I planned on pulling BOTH engines back if I had an engine fail on departure and just treat it like a failure in a single,

In that situation, it's probably your best option if you haven't reached Vsse with the gear up (or Vyse in the older twins which have only that number published).

 

[Fearless Tower]

It's against the standard if you do it before you reach that point during the Vmc demo on the PTS, and it defeats the purpose of the exercise if you do it during training for the Vmc demo.

It may be against the PTS 'standard', but in some of the more powerful twins, that is exactly what you must do if you get caught in that danger zone. While an exteme case, the B-25 is a good example of that. You don't want to get to the point where you start to lose control. I have seen enough videos of actual VMC rollovers involving high performance twins to know that when it goes, it goes quickly.

Not disagreeing with your point Ron, just saying that how we train for ME rating in light twins is not necessarily the same way to fly the bigger higher performance birds.

 

[Ted]

I'm losing my mind today, I meant Vyse.

I know there is a gap between Vyse and Vmc, but only if every condition is perfect for OEI ops. For example I read a report where a B55 with wings level increased Vmc 19 knots above the red line vs. banked into the operating engine. This is the kind of thing I found surprising and potentially dangerous.

That's an interesting number and I hadn't heard it before. But then I'd also ask what is Vyse in that plane?

On the 310, Vmc is 82 mph and Vyse is 112 mph. Even if you have things quite imperfect, you shouldn't be near Vmc.

Looking at a Vmc crash, it is a very preventable condition. I'll give an example that fits your subject line.

A Cessna 421 a bit over a year ago lost an engine in the flight levels at night. I believe there were 6 or 7 people on board total. The pilot elected to land at the nearest airport, descending rapidly and as I recall picking an airport without a control tower or any facilities. I don't recall the runway length, but it wasn't huge for a 421.

In the course of the rapid descent, he ended up very low in the pattern. There was a ping from his transponder that showed 600 AGL. He had flaps and gear out, which in a 421 means you can't maintain altitude. He tried to maintain altitude, an suffered a Vmc roll into a stall spin into the ground, killing everyone on board (which happened to be his family).

What could he have done differently? Unless you have a risk of fire, an engine failure at altitude is not a reason to hurry down. Maintain blue line or better, make sure the plane is properly configured with the dead engine fully caged. Fuel shut off, etc.

Use ATC to your advantage. Declare an emergency and you want vectors to the biggest airport with the longest runway. Ask for the fire trucks to be standing by. Then shoot an ILS in so you have a predetermined glide path (especially at night). Don't worry about putting extra drag out until you need it, because you've opted for a long runway that gives you plenty of room.

When I took my MEI ride, the DPE said that you should fly a normal approach when OEI because too many people go off the end of a runway. Well, most people don't die for runway excursions. They do die for stall/spin Vmc rolls.

You can set yourself up to fail, or you can set yourself up to succeed.

 

[poadeleted20]

It may be against the PTS 'standard', but in some of the more powerful twins, that is exactly what you must do if you get caught in that danger zone. While an exteme case, the B-25 is a good example of that. You don't want to get to the point where you start to lose control. I have seen enough videos of actual VMC rollovers involving high performance twins to know that when it goes, it goes quickly.

Not disagreeing with your point Ron, just saying that how we train for ME rating in light twins is not necessarily the same way to fly the bigger higher performance birds.

Next time you hear of someone taking their initial ME rating ride in a B-25, you let me know. Otherwise, they're going to have to do it by the PTS for that Vmc demo Task, and if they pull the power back on the good engine before running out of rudder, they are not going to pass the test. That said, what you do if you lose one on takeoff before reaching Vyse/Vsse with the gear up in a light twin is not the same as what you do at 4000 feet on the Vmc demo on your ME ride -- and that is the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Fearless Tower]

A Cessna 421 a bit over a year ago lost an engine in the flight levels at night. I believe there were 6 or 7 people on board total. The pilot elected to land at the nearest airport, descending rapidly and as I recall picking an airport without a control tower or any facilities. I don't recall the runway length, but it wasn't huge for a 421.

In the course of the rapid descent, he ended up very low in the pattern. There was a ping from his transponder that showed 600 AGL. He had flaps and gear out, which in a 421 means you can't maintain altitude. He tried to maintain altitude, an suffered a Vmc roll into a stall spin into the ground, killing everyone on board (which happened to be his family).

Ted, thanks for posting that. I hadn't heard any updates/details since the original reports came out. Getting too low with everything hanging out is sad, but explains it.

 

[Ted]

Next time you hear of someone taking their initial ME rating ride in a B-25, you let me know. Otherwise, they're going to have to do it by the PTS for that Vmc demo Task, and if they pull the power back on the good engine before running out of rudder, they are not going to pass the test. That said, what you do if you lose one on takeoff before reaching Vyse/Vsse with the gear up in a light twin is not the same as what you do at 4000 feet on the Vmc demo on your ME ride -- and that is the point I'm trying to make.

Ron, nobody's arguing what's written in the PTS. But as you should know better than us, the PTS doesn't necessarily apply to reality for all aircraft. As such, one is wise to adjust procedures for the plane he or she is flying.

 

[Ted]

Ted, thanks for posting that. I hadn't heard any updates/details since the original reports came out. Getting too low with everything hanging out is sad, but explains it.

It was sad when it happened, and sadder once they found out more.

When I thought the 310 was going to lose an engine, we declared an emergency, went to an 8,000 ft runway, trucks standing by. Did we need any of it? Nope. Sure glad it was there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, nobody's arguing what's written in the PTS. But as you should know better than us, the PTS doesn't necessarily apply to reality for all aircraft. As such, one is wise to adjust procedures for the plane he or she is flying.

...and to the task at hand and to the circumstances. You just can't make a blanket statement about "reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc."

 

[Ted]

...and to the task at hand and to the circumstances. You just can't make a blanket statement about "reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc."

It seemed pretty obvious to me that Tim was asking the question with respect to the real world and safety therein, and Fearless was backing that up.

Your point on the PTS is noted and concurred with.

 

[Fearless Tower]

...and to the task at hand and to the circumstances. You just can't make a blanket statement about "reducing power on the operating engine as you near Vmc."

Ron....I think we are all in agreement and all essentially saying the same thing.

 

[wabower]

We've been watching that investigation closely for different reasons, but last I heard (IIRC) the engine problem he encountered in cruise was a bad mag.

Ted, thanks for posting that. I hadn't heard any updates/details since the original reports came out. Getting too low with everything hanging out is sad, but explains it.

 

[bobmrg]

That's an interesting number and I hadn't heard it before. But then I'd also ask what is Vyse in that plane?

On the 310, Vmc is 82 mph and Vyse is 112 mph. Even if you have things quite imperfect, you shouldn't be near Vmc.

Looking at a Vmc crash, it is a very preventable condition. I'll give an example that fits your subject line.

A Cessna 421 a bit over a year ago lost an engine in the flight levels at night. I believe there were 6 or 7 people on board total. The pilot elected to land at the nearest airport, descending rapidly and as I recall picking an airport without a control tower or any facilities. I don't recall the runway length, but it wasn't huge for a 421.

In the course of the rapid descent, he ended up very low in the pattern. There was a ping from his transponder that showed 600 AGL. He had flaps and gear out, which in a 421 means you can't maintain altitude. He tried to maintain altitude, an suffered a Vmc roll into a stall spin into the ground, killing everyone on board (which happened to be his family).

What could he have done differently? Unless you have a risk of fire, an engine failure at altitude is not a reason to hurry down. Maintain blue line or better, make sure the plane is properly configured with the dead engine fully caged. Fuel shut off, etc.

Use ATC to your advantage. Declare an emergency and you want vectors to the biggest airport with the longest runway. Ask for the fire trucks to be standing by. Then shoot an ILS in so you have a predetermined glide path (especially at night). Don't worry about putting extra drag out until you need it, because you've opted for a long runway that gives you plenty of room.

When I took my MEI ride, the DPE said that you should fly a normal approach when OEI because too many people go off the end of a runway. Well, most people don't die for runway excursions. They do die for stall/spin Vmc rolls.

You can set yourself up to fail, or you can set yourself up to succeed.

My one and only "shut it down, feather the prop, and land" situation was in a 421C. Biggest problem was taxiing to the ramp.

Bob Gardner

 

[Ted]

My one and only "shut it down, feather the prop, and land" situation was in a 421C. Biggest problem was taxiing to the ramp.

Bob Gardner

Most people have similar sentiments. Having 375 HP from the running engine sure helps.

 

[Everskyward]

When I took my MEI ride, the DPE said that you should fly a normal approach when OEI because too many people go off the end of a runway. Well, most people don't die for runway excursions. They do die for stall/spin Vmc rolls.

Similar to the accident you cited, it doesn't just happen on takeoff. I think I have mentioned this accident before which happened on the approach in a Cessna 340. The NTSB inspector interviewed me since I was the next airplane on the ILS. He said that if the pilot had been able to maintain control for just 30 more seconds he probably would have broken out of the clouds and had it made.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20020329X00423&key=1

The pilot was flying a three leg IFR cross-country, and was on an ILS approach in IMC weather conditions for his final stop. Radar data indicated that the pilot had crossed the final approach fix inbound and was approximately 3 nm from the runway threshold when he transmitted that he had "lost an engine." Radar data indicates that the airplane turned left approximately 180 degrees, and radar contact was lost. A witness said "the airplane appeared to gain a slight amount of altitude before banking sharply to the left and nose diving into the ground just over the crest of the hill." Postimpact fuel consumption calculations suggest that there should have been 50 to 60 gallons of fuel onboard at the time of the accident. Displaced rubber O-ring seals on two Rulon seals in the left fuel valve and hydraulic pressure/deflection tests performed on an exemplar fuel valve suggest that the fuel selector valve was in the auxiliary position at the time of impact. The airplane's Owner's Manual states: "The fuel selector valve handles should be turned to LEFT MAIN for the left engine and RIGHT MAIN for the right engine, during takeoff, landing, and all emergency operations." No preimpact engine or airframe anomalies, which might have affected the airplane's performance, were identified.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

the pilot not following procedures/directives (flying a landing approach with the left fuel selector in the auxiliary position). Contributing factors were the loss of the left engine power due to fuel starvation, the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control, and the subsequent inadvertent stall into terrain.

 

[Ted]

That's the real issue. We focus a lot about the V1 cut (which is the most challenging, certainly), but all engine failures need to result in a safe landing to be survivable. I remember reading about that 340 wreck - sad.

 

[Alexb2000]

Everyone may have seen this before, but look at this King Air video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNU

Hard to say from the video but, it certainly looks like it had some speed coming in. From the comments the pilot lost one on departure and was coming back in, just prior to the roll the aircraft was banked into the dead engine.

What is Vyse on a King Air 200 125ish vs a Vmc of 85ish? Thoughts?

 

[TMetzinger]

It seemed pretty obvious to me that Tim was asking the question with respect to the real world and safety therein, and Fearless was backing that up.

Your point on the PTS is noted and concurred with.

yes. I was thinking about actual departures not the vmc demo.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Ted]

Everyone may have seen this before, but look at this King Air video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNU

Hard to say from the video but, it certainly looks like it had some speed coming in. From the comments the pilot lost one on departure and was coming back in, just prior to the roll the aircraft was banked into the dead engine.

What is Vyse on a King Air 200 125ish vs a Vmc of 85ish? Thoughts?

It did look like he had decent speed (again hard to say), but it didn't look like he had good control nor was set up well. He does appear too low and is making hard turns from what I can tell. It also looks like he was banking into the bad engine, which is a big no no, especially doing hard banks.

 

[wabower]

~121 vs Vref of ~103. All this talk about maintaining blue line can cause big trouble for an unwary pilot, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Once a normal S/E approach can be made to the airport, maintaining a higher speed or altitude than normal can put a pilot in position where he's too high and/or too fast to land and then faced with a S/E miss and go-around that his plane won't perform.

For those and other reasons, none of the training centers teach blue line as anything other than a take-off/climb speed, although in some cases the VAPP speed and blue line are ~equal.

Everyone may have seen this before, but look at this King Air video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNU

Hard to say from the video but, it certainly looks like it had some speed coming in. From the comments the pilot lost one on departure and was coming back in, just prior to the roll the aircraft was banked into the dead engine.

What is Vyse on a King Air 200 125ish vs a Vmc of 85ish? Thoughts?

 

[JHW]

For those that have been flying twins and training prior to the letter (1981), I am curious if that was the impetus for changing the ME PTS to stop the VMC demo at the stall warning or buffet if they occur prior to actual loss of directional control?

It had to be changed because there was fear of the twin Comanche being put on the endangered species list.

 

[poadeleted20]

For those that have been flying twins and training prior to the letter (1981), I am curious if that was the impetus for changing the ME PTS to stop the VMC demo at the stall warning or buffet if they occur prior to actual loss of directional control?

The change did not have to do with when the Vmc demo was stopped, but rather how it was started. The old procedure was to establish flight at book Vmc with both engines running, and then chop power on the critical engine. The pilot had react instantly to chop the good engine before the plane went out of control. To top it off, this demo was conducted as low as 400 AGL. Quite a few trainees, instructors, and examiners got killed trying to do this in training and on practical tests. Eventually, the FAA saw the light. The big change, then, was to start at about Vyse with the critical engine already powered back (but not feathered) and then to approach Vmc fairly gradually at 1 knot/sec until the first sign of loss of control (yaw or stall) occurred, and then to reduce power on the good engine and recover -- a much more controlled event.

 

[Ted]

~121 vs Vref of ~103. All this talk about maintaining blue line can cause big trouble for an unwary pilot, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Once a normal S/E approach can be made to the airport, maintaining a higher speed or altitude than normal can put a pilot in position where he's too high and/or too fast to land and then faced with a S/E miss and go-around that his plane won't perform.

For those and other reasons, none of the training centers teach blue line as anything other than a take-off/climb speed, although in some cases the VAPP speed and blue line are ~equal.

This is a good point, but I also think it depends on what we're talking about. A 310 at a 5000+ ft runway is not a King Air 200. Even with the extra power in the version I fly, I wouldn't expect to be able to maintain altitude with drag out on one. I've not flown a KA200, but in the Commander 690A an engine failure was only marginally more exciting than running out of coffee, and maintaining altitude with all the drag out is no big deal.

So I'd expect the training centers, especially focusing on turbine aircraft, would do that and I would consider it prudent in those aircraft.

In piston aircraft, at least the ones I've flown (having the most time in Navajo, 310, and Aztec), staying at blue line or a bit better gives me a bit of extra margin without much concern for a runway overrun. But it does depend on the overall situation and setting yourself up properly all around.

 

[ronnieh]

This discussion has been very interesting. My 1 cents worth. Wayne makes an excellent point in that turbine aircraft must be flown closer to correct speeds in engine out situations to insure a good outcome. However, this does depend on the turbine. If you are talking about a C90, you do not want to do a single engine go around nor do you want to get too slow on final. Blue line MIGHT be a good idea in this case. In the IIIA, ( a turbine I am familiar with) 700 FPM climb is no problem at or near gross on one engine. In this case you might want to fly Vref and make a normal approach. As Ted said it is not that big of a deal. You must know your airplane.
I think one of the problems is that most multi training is in light twins and
the FAA's position is that if you pass a checkride in a Duchess you are then qualified to fly a 200. We know that is silly and for the most part the insurance companies handle that problem. Thorough training in make and model is essential in twins, IMO. Generic training to PTS is going to have little application in a Conquest II.
As Ted has pointed out in light piston twins excess speed (in reason) might be the only thing going for you. A 20 MPH departure from the runway may very well be better than a Vmc roll that results from getting behind the aircraft. I believe precise flying is more important in light twins with OEI than most anything else we see. Might be the reason light twins do not fare well in engine out situations?
The points I am trying to make are that proceedure depends on the aircraft performance. One size does not fit all. Also you must know what proceedure works for the particular aircraft you are flying. Back in another life, one thing I liked to do with multi students is take them up to say 2500 feet (at least 2000 AGL). Have them put the aircraft in a normal take of configuration. Full power, gear down. Tell the student that going through 3000 feet to raise the gear and establish a blue line climb. At 3500 I pulled an engine without comment and just observed. They almost never prevented the plane from descending back below 3000 feet. It is an eye opener.
One other thing (not picking on Ted) there is no V1 or for that matter Vr or V2 on the aircraft we are discussing. By definition V1 must < Vr. I know of no piston twin below 12,500 pounds that can continue a take off while still on the runway after losing the critical engine. Transport and turbojet only.

It is a shame that sims do not exist for light twins. I feel it could be very useful for pilots of light twins to be able to explore what their aircraft can not do. The only piston twin I have any sim experience in is the Navajo at Lakeland. It is a very good FTD. One thing you learn very quickly is that if you lose and engine in a Chieften at the instant you select gear up you have a large problem. Anything less than perfect will end up as a smoking hole. Also, on a single engine approach, most likely you will only get one shot, make it count.
Good discussion. Any pilots thinking of moving to a light twin would do well to read this discussion very carefully.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Agree with everything you said Ronnie, but a couple of minor points:

By definition V1 must < Vr.

To be a little more precise, "Vr may not be less than V1 or 105% of VMC". In other words Vr and V1 can be the same as they are in the DC-3.

I know of no piston twin below 12,500 pounds that can continue a take off while still on the runway after losing the critical engine. Transport and turbojet only.

Minor quibbling point....the BE-76 Duchess actually has been tested and has published Accelerate-Go tables.....personally I don't train that way due to the very narrow comfort margin.

 

[Ted]

The Navajo has published accelerate-go tables as well. It's pretty clear that the folks at Piper who came up with them were living in a parallel universe.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The Navajo has published accelerate-go tables as well. It's pretty clear that the folks at Piper who came up with them were living in a parallel universe.

You don't like to live dangerously???

 

[Ted]

And I should be more technically correct for the planes I fly and point out it's an engine failure right after pulling the gear up. Different than a true V1 cut, just a term that is more easily understood I think.

 

[Ted]

You don't like to live dangerously???

In the Navajo an accelerate-go will guarantee you go right into the trees.

Number of Navajos have crashed after an engine has failed when heavy. It's a marginal plane on one.

 

[Everskyward]

And I should be more technically correct for the planes I fly and point out it's an engine failure right after pulling the gear up. Different than a true V1 cut, just a term that is more easily understood I think.

It might be an easier term for you or people who only fly non-transport category airplanes to understand, but it confuses the issue for people who are used to V1 meaning a specific thing. You won't find a "blue line" or Vmc "red line" on airspeed indicators of transport category aircraft either. The speeds to be used while single-engine are expressed in different terms.

 

[Ted]

It might be an easier term for you or people who only fly non-transport category airplanes to understand, but it confuses the issue for people who are used to V1 meaning a specific thing. You won't find a "blue line" or Vmc "red line" on airspeed indicators of transport category aircraft either. The speeds to be used while single-engine are expressed in different terms.

Poinnt taken. I don't fly anything the size of my house.

 

[Everskyward]

Poinnt taken. I don't fly anything the size of my house.

There are some pretty small transport category aircraft. I wouldn't want to live in a Lear 35.

 

[Ted]

There are some pretty small transport category aircraft. I wouldn't want to live in a Lear 35.

I live in a different transport category world than you these days.