Velocity 6 place down

Pilot and passenger survived with injuries. Expected to recover. Plane was taking off after an overnight stop.
 
In theory, twins are safer. In practice, I am not sure.
This is super frustrating and will probably make future ones very difficult or impossible to insure.
 
MountainDude said:
In theory, twins are safer. In practice, I am not sure.
This is super frustrating and will probably make future ones very difficult or impossible to insure.
Click to expand...
In practice, the FAA should mandate that any in-flight engine stoppage be reported, with indemnity, so we can get the stats.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In practice, the FAA should mandate that any in-flight engine stoppage be reported, with indemnity, so we can get the stats.
Click to expand...
During IFR when unable to climb at least 500 fpm, a report should be made to ATC.
This should cover most small twins (in terms of single engine outage) during IFR flight and should already be providing a decent amount of data.

AIM. 5-3-3. Additional Reports.
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of at least 500 feet per minute.
or
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
During IFR when unable to climb at least 500 fpm, a report should be made to ATC.
This should cover most small twins (in terms of single engine outage) during IFR flight and should already be providing a decent amount of data.

AIM. 5-3-3. Additional Reports.
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of at least 500 feet per minute.
or
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.
Click to expand...
But I can't look that up anywhere.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
During IFR when unable to climb at least 500 fpm, a report should be made to ATC.
This should cover most small twins (in terms of single engine outage) during IFR flight and should already be providing a decent amount of data.

AIM. 5-3-3. Additional Reports.
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of at least 500 feet per minute.
or
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.
Click to expand...
Reports to ATC are not reports to the FAA that anyone would track. The purpose of the report to ATC is to alert them that the aircraft might not be able to provide the minimum performance that ATC would expect. Not applicable VFR and not helpful to figuring out whether twins are safer than singles.
 
Kristin said:
Reports to ATC are not reports to the FAA that anyone would track. The purpose of the report to ATC is to alert them that the aircraft might not be able to provide the minimum performance that ATC would expect. Not applicable VFR and not helpful to figuring out whether twins are safer than singles.
Click to expand...
What ATC & the FAA choose to collate into reportable data is on them. There is obviously a lot of data that ATC has which is collated into something that is able to be further reported on and there is a lot of data that ATC has which is not used further. That choice is on the FAA.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
What ATC & the FAA choose to collate into reportable data is on them. There is obviously a lot of data that ATC has which is collated into something that is able to be further reported on and there is a lot of data that ATC has which is not used further. That choice is on the FAA.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in this case it would be very limited value. I had an engine alert flying my Aerostar, one engine had oil temp that was climbing and then went to zero oil pressure. I shutdown the engine, and continued the flight home (I was ten minutes from home, and it was the closest airport). The problem was caused by a short due to chaffing on the engine sensors. So not a big deal.
I therefore had roughly 10 minutes of OEI experience for a preventive shutdown. By that point I had hours flying OEI in training.

Tim
 
"The pilot tried to make it back to the runway, but the plane went down in a wooded/marshy area around half a mile off the roadway" https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/343081
The passenger of the plane that crashed in a marshy area of Sandersville died in a Macon hospital on Friday, according to Washington County Sheriff Joel Cochran.
Timothy Fisher, 69, was from Ohio, and he was in the plane when it went down near Kaolin Road in Sandersville Tuesday morning at around 9:30 a.m.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In practice, the FAA should mandate that any in-flight engine stoppage be reported, with indemnity, so we can get the stats.
Click to expand...
reported to whom? And what about intentional engine stoppages, like during training?
 
Salty said:
Why would you report it if it's intentional?
Click to expand...
Because the desired mandate says any in-flight engine stoppage be reported without consideration to intentional or not.
 
martym said:
Because the desired mandate says any in-flight engine stoppage be reported without consideration to intentional or not.
Click to expand...
oops. I missed inflight.
 
martym said:
Because the desired mandate says any in-flight engine stoppage be reported without consideration to intentional or not.
Click to expand...
I consider a "shut down" to be distinct from a "stoppage". I had an engine stoppage at 50' once. I've had many, many shut downs.
 
Hmmmm.... One night I shut down an engine due to loss of oil pressure.

I had to write it up in the maintenance log and the POI, principle operations inspector, talked to me about the incident. He warned me that I should have written it up earlier than I did.

I wrote it up a few hours later after being ''rescued'' by another company plane and in the office. Still, it was before the office opened later that morning.
 
Zeldman said:
Hmmmm.... One night I shut down an engine due to loss of oil pressure.

I had to write it up in the maintenance log and the POI, principle operations inspector, talked to me about the incident. He warned me that I should have written it up earlier than I did.

I wrote it up a few hours later after being ''rescued'' by another company plane and in the office. Still, it was before the office opened later that morning.
Click to expand...
Certainly that would be the type of thing to be reported, in my view, if you were in the air when you shut down.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Certainly that would be the type of thing to be reported, in my view, if you were in the air when you shut down.
Click to expand...

But it was an intentional shut down, distinct from stoppage
 
martym said:
But it was an intentional shut down, distinct from stoppage
Click to expand...
But it resulted in landing with fewer working propulsion units than on takeoff.
I don't want to argue semantics, I want the stats for safety calculations.
 
Anyone know any more info on this crash? I cannot find anything besides the initial news stories. Velocity website is silent on this.
 
You’ll have to wait for the final. No way the factory would publish anything at this point.
 
DAMN. This sucks. This is my dream plane. Very curious what happened... any reason to believe the nature of it being a "twin" was a factor? Seems the sentiment here is that maybe it was?

MountainDude said:
This is super frustrating and will probably make future ones very difficult or impossible to insure.
Click to expand...
For sure. Not that I have the time, space, or money if I'm being honest to buy/build this now. But it was (still is?) the quasi attainable dream plane.

MountainDude said:
In theory, twins are safer. In practice, I am not sure.
Click to expand...
I'm so torn on this also. We are only as safe as we allow ourselves to be.



My personal sample size is tiny, but I've been around airports and airplanes for 20 years and know three different people who've lost engines and they were 'non events' for them. One was a duchess post fuel starvation, one was a 421 loss of oil pressure, and the other was a catastrophic cylinder loss in a Death, err, Aerostar(!). All landed, in one piece, on runways. But it's true. You have to be proficient and know when it's better to pull them both to idle. I also know two people who failed at least one ME ride for poor airspeed management in singe engine ops... so I mean. Yeah I guess it's totally possible to lose sight of things with an engine out.

Losing an engine under 500' AGL is a tough prospect really in anything piston. Side note - this is why I was surprised in the other thread with the guy looking for "cheap and fast" twin training with a DPE who wouldn't make him shut an engine down because his engines were past TBO and he didn't trust them.. WOW
 
PS.. I meant to add this above, but maybe better asked in a separate statement: there already are multi Velocities out there. Is Vmc still a factor in these? Sounds like a stupid question but does the canard design have any impact on this? IE, the canard stalls before the Vmc so no real threat? @donjohnston any ideas?
 
Vmc mathematically exists in any twin with possible asymmetric thrust; e.g. Examples of non asymmetric thrust are the Cessna Skymaster or Defiant.
However, with the standard engines of 160HP, the Vmc number was very much below the stall speed of the plane so as a practical matter you could not hit Vmc.
Memory from almost a decade ago when I went on a demo flight, says that the Vmc was still below stall speed even when the engine power was increased to 200HP with most builders at the time per the factory seeming to be interested in the 180-200HP range.
I have not gone back and checked what the HP of the plane in the accident.

Tim
 
I’ve been told from other V-twin builders is that VMC is at or below the canard stall speed. So basically the canad stalls before you hit VMC. However, that’s with the prop on the failed engine feathered.

But… this plane had 220hp engines and electric constant speed props which can take up to 15 seconds to feather. Saunderson airport has a service center for UL engines and apparently work was performed on the engine(s) prior to the accident flight.

So my guess is when the engine failed at that altitude, there was insufficient time/altitude to feather the prop. The additional HP probably exacerbated the situation.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In practice, the FAA should mandate that any in-flight engine stoppage be reported, with indemnity, so we can get the stats.
Click to expand...
See, 49 CFR Part 830. (Slightly Bowlderized by yours truly)

The operator of any civil aircraft, ... shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office, when:

(a) An aircraft accident ... occur:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which ... in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

I think an engine failure fits the rule, whether a single or a light twin. Many are educated that only the laundry list of occurrences specified in 830.5(a) trigger a reporting requirement, but the text says "aircraft accident OR ..."
 
MountainDude said:
In theory, twins are safer. In practice, I am not sure.
This is super frustrating and will probably make future ones very difficult or impossible to insure.
Click to expand...

Zeldman said:
Curious, can you expand on this.??
Click to expand...
MountainDude said:
I have read about many twin crashes when they lose one engine, even by very experienced pilots.
Click to expand...
On the subject of piston twins, reliability & safety, I'll add a few points:
A twin is twice as likely to have an engine failure, compared to a single engine.
When an engine fails in most twins, you get asymmetric thrust which adds to the risk, requiring immediate and correct action by the pilot.
Many twins have marginal performance with a single engine, especially if an engine fails when operating in a manner that actually uses the extra power (high DA, heavy payload).
Overall accident stats for GA twins are not significantly better than singles.
 
I don't think it's fair to attribute known proficiency deficiencies of many private multi pilots to an accident in a completely new and unconventional aircraft type. Maybe it was an engine failure that caused the crash, maybe it wasn't. But a dude in a Baron who wrecks a twin because he hasn't practiced a shut down in 35 years because it's 'hard on the engines' and gets pencil whipped flight reviews by his buddy really shouldn't be a valuable data point in the 'twins are inherently riskier designs' argument
 
Such a beautiful airframe... a real GenAv Starship for the masses. The V-twin seems snakebit, however. One of the earliest 4-place builds went down as well.
 
@DJTorrente

As long as you land without damage, in a single or a twin, it is considered an incident. NOT an accident. As such, engine failures are not required reporting. (This is what I was taught, and have not bothered to check since I got my MEL a decade ago).

In terms of the V-Twin; this is still a fairly young design. Yes, it is an outgrowth of an existing model. But no E-A/B gets as much testing before first flights as a certified plane does. As such, expect accidents; that is the nature of E-A/B. From what I have seen watching E-A/B over the years, I think but have no data to prove it, that E-A/B accident rates on newer plane designs have declined compared to the 70s and 80s. I believe this is because there is more available CAD software.

@MRC01

There is basically no data to prove whether a twin or single is safer. That is the crux of the argument made a number of years ago challenging the traditional wisdom that twins are safer. The math behind twice as likely for engine failure is not actually true. There are a number of common points between single and twin engine planes (e.g. fuel system, electrical systems, vac/air...) which affect the way engine failure calculations happen. e.g. the presence of one or two engines does not affect the likely hood of contaminated fuel blowing up the engine. Therefore, the chance for engine failure on a twin is very likely lower than twice as likely, how much is a matter of debate, and is about as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Tim
 
DJTorrente said:
(emphasis added)

I think an engine failure fits the rule, whether a single or a light twin. Many are educated that only the laundry list of occurrences specified in 830.5(a) trigger a reporting requirement, but the text says "aircraft accident OR ..."
Click to expand...
You quoted the first part of the definition for "Substantial Damage." The last part of the same definition says:

"...Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered
‘substantial damage’ for the purpose of this part."

(emphasis added)

I certainly read that to mean that an ordinary engine failure, with a successful forced landing, does not meet the reporting criteria for NTSB Part 830.

Ron Wanttaja
 
tspear said:
... There is basically no data to prove whether a twin or single is safer. That is the crux of the argument made a number of years ago challenging the traditional wisdom that twins are safer.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that is my point.
tspear said:
The math behind twice as likely for engine failure is not actually true. There are a number of common points between single and twin engine planes (e.g. fuel system, electrical systems, vac/air...) which affect the way engine failure calculations happen. e.g. the presence of one or two engines does not affect the likely hood of contaminated fuel blowing up the engine. Therefore, the chance for engine failure on a twin is very likely lower than twice as likely, how much is a matter of debate, and is about as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...
Sure, two engines doubling the risk of failure is just a rough rule of thumb. Yet the fact remains, the overall likelihood of engine failure in a twin is higher than in a single. And when it happens, asymmetric thrust kills pilots who are complacent or rusty.
 
A pilot is part of the entire airplane system. If it takes a certain incremental proficiency to fly a certain plane, then that’s an additional risk factor of that particular plane. We can take the pilot out of the picture for discussions, but that’s just not reality when real blood & guts are involved in the accident statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top