What to Expect on Oral for Add-on Rating

[MauleSkinner]

Sure. That would be easy. Take off from TVL. Lose altitude. Land back at TVL. Easy peasy. Good thing there’s no terrain in the way to make that challenging and almost guarantee you’re going to hit something solid.

So you’re going to plan a takeoff that will result in collision with terrain in the event of an engine failure? You have substantially different safety of flight criteria than I do.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Hey buddy, you’re the one advocating trying to land back at TVL after losing an engine. That being said, I probably do have substantially different safety of flight criteria than you do. Even though a property I own is only 10 minutes from TVL I fly into MEV instead.

Sorry the logic escapes you that in most light twins on a hot day at gross weight, if you lose an engine coming out of TVL you’re going to crash. Magical thinking like you’re displaying about somehow making it back on one engine gets people killed—but maybe your airmanship is so vastly superior to mine that I wholeheartedly encourage you to try it. You do your thing, I’ll do mine.

Taking off “in most twins on a hot day at gross weight” out of TVL does not constitute planning, nor does it demonstrate any consideration for safety of flight. The logic that escapes me is why that would even be part of the discussion.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Please take your morning meds, then come back and continue this discussion when you are able to pay attention and think clearly.

I don’t see anything about “most light twins”, I see discussion about an airplane that can possibly “maintain airspeed somewhere around Vyse”, which implies continued flight. Impacting terrain would not allow continued flight, therefore it’s an airplane that can clear the initial terrain enough to get out over the water, and if it can do that, has enough performance to return to TVL.

 

[Tantalum]

Except you hit the ground going faster and with more energy than with a single which makes it more likely that you’ll be seriously injured or die.

this is true if you fall into the Trap that many do is leaving one engine at full tilt and attempting to force it to fly when it clearly does not want to.. with some exceptions most of the twins I'm familiar with will stall somewhere between 60 and 70 knots.. I might at least be able to extend my glide to the water or a beach or a field or Road and then pull them both to idle and attempt a landing off Airport

There is no “legit airport” you can get to from TVL without being able to climb.

I guess it depends on where and what altitude.. Reno, Columbia, etc are better alternatives than having to deadstick it into a bunch of trees over the Sierras

 

[schmookeeg]

I'll never understand why this topic generates so much heat, but I always enjoy the banter. It's like a super-collider where the inputs are ticked-off pilots and occasionally it throws off lessons and insights.


My thoughts are:

1. Generally, a single will be significantly more survivable in a crash than a twin due to a lower landing/stall speed. There are fast-wing singles and slow-wing twins.

2. Generally, the twin will handle loss of an engine with more options than the single due to an ability to either vastly extend glide in a drift-down scenario, or maintain its single-engine ceiling, *if* proper training/skill can be employed by the pilot, a massive caveat.

3. In cases where the twin will still crash after loss of an engine, like the TVL example in a non-turbo twin or the twin pilot reacting imperfectly to the engine loss, see point 1 and collect your crash with increased odds of fatality.

$0.02

 

[Tantalum]

Taking off “in most twins on a hot day at gross weight” out of TVL does not constitute planning, nor does it demonstrate any consideration for safety of flight.

So is taking off in any single engine airplane at any airport the same irresponsible flight planning? People have different margins of safety, there are people who fly single engine at night over mountains and water and others who consider that irresponsible.. in my opinion flying single engine airplanes over water or mountains out of glide range is crazy, but plenty of people do that without batting an eye. In the TVL example a competent pilot should be able to make it back to the airport or at least not die.. I don't see yourself being any worse off than losing the one engine on a single engine.. if that happens at 200-300 agl you're basically screwed in any single or twin at max gross on a hot day departing Tahoe.. losing it at 3000 agl, now you have a lot more time and options in a twin.. if you're over SPOOK you are basically golden by that point

Please take your morning meds, then come back and continue this discussion when you are able to pay attention and think clearly.

Aggressive

I guess I'm just not sure why you would rather have zero running engines as opposed to at least one running engine.. you can still pull the good one back and/or buy yourself a little bit of time looking for a landing spot

 

[Doc Holliday]

Hey buddy, you’re the one advocating trying to land back at TVL after losing an engine. That being said, I probably do have substantially different safety of flight criteria than you do. Even though a property I own is only 10 minutes from TVL I fly into MEV instead.

Sorry the logic escapes you that in most light twins on a hot day at gross weight, if you lose an engine coming out of TVL you’re going to crash. Magical thinking like you’re displaying about somehow making it back on one engine gets people killed—but maybe your airmanship is so vastly superior to mine that I wholeheartedly encourage you to try it. You do your thing, I’ll do mine.

Do you even have a multi rating? What experience?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So is taking off in any single engine airplane at any airport the same irresponsible flight planning? People have different margins of safety, there are people who fly single engine at night over mountains and water and others who consider that irresponsible.. in my opinion flying single engine airplanes over water or mountains out of glide range is crazy, but plenty of people do that without batting an eye. In the TVL example a competent pilot should be able to make it back to the airport or at least not die.. I don't see yourself being any worse off than losing the one engine on a single engine.. if that happens at 200-300 agl you're basically screwed in any single or twin at max gross on a hot day departing Tahoe.. losing it at 3000 agl, now you have a lot more time and options in a twin.. if you're over SPOOK you are basically golden by that point

None of my posts have anything to do with flying single engine airplanes. They are solely directed at flying multi engine airplanes, and I wouldn’t plan a flight in a multi engine airplane such that I’m “basically screwed” in the event of an engine failure.

 

[Tantalum]

I wouldn’t plan a flight in a multi engine airplane such that I’m “basically screwed” in the event of an engine failure.

Which is the prudent thing to do, my point with all this was that in many situations the twin offers redundancy and a margin of safety that a single does not

 

[Tantalum]

PS.. most of the airports around here you're going to be screwed if you lose the engine at under 500 ft.. few suitable landing sites. At least in a twin you can come back to the pattern and land.. people just accept that as a fact of life in singles

 

[Tantalum]

..and my last reply (for a bit).. but this is why Piper should have gone with the 3 engine Seneca, or why Monsted Vincent should have pressed ahead with their 4 engine design




The MV1 had 150 mph cruise, 57 mph stall, I can't find if it was 4 or 6 place though. 5K max gross though and 3,2K empty

 

[Doc Holliday]

I got my multi engine instrument rating in 1996. What experience would satisfy you?

Just trying to follow your inane diatribes here.

 

[Shepgt]

So is taking off in any single engine airplane at any airport the same irresponsible flight planning? People have different margins of safety, there are people who fly single engine at night over mountains and water and others who consider that irresponsible.. in my opinion flying single engine airplanes over water or mountains out of glide range is crazy, but plenty of people do that without batting an eye. In the TVL example a competent pilot should be able to make it back to the airport or at least not die.. I don't see yourself being any worse off than losing the one engine on a single engine.. if that happens at 200-300 agl you're basically screwed in any single or twin at max gross on a hot day departing Tahoe.. losing it at 3000 agl, now you have a lot more time and options in a twin.. if you're over SPOOK you are basically golden by that point


Aggressive

I guess I'm just not sure why you would rather have zero running engines as opposed to at least one running engine.. you can still pull the good one back and/or buy yourself a little bit of time looking for a landing spot

There is a fine line between risk management and fear of flying. If you let these fears take you over you will miss many great flying experiences. If you do not asses risk management you are a fool. If you are flying a well maintained airplane single or twin, low level, night and mountain flights are all in the norm of flight operations. Yes, things will always happen but that is what you train for and pray for. Thanks to God, I have experienced single engine low level engine failure (landed on freeway), cruise altitude single engine failure twice (partial power, made the closest airport each time) and one engine failure twice in a twin over the Sierra Nevada's. Once on takeoff - once at cruise. Piper Apache - Lol you are a glider on one engine! In all cases, airspeed is the answer. Maintain best glide speed until suitable place to land on or off field. God does play a part in it. There are some places you will fly over that an engine loss just might not have a suitable place to land without damage or injury. Bottom line, maintain your engine well, don't let thoughts of failure stop you.

 

[Tantalum]

There is a fine line between risk management and fear of flying. If you let these fears take you over you will miss many great flying experiences. If you do not asses risk management you are a fool. If you are flying a well maintained airplane single or twin, low level, night and mountain flights are all in the norm of flight operations. Yes, things will always happen but that is what you train for and pray for. Thanks to God, I have experienced single engine low level engine failure (landed on freeway), cruise altitude single engine failure twice (partial power, made the closest airport each time) and one engine failure twice in a twin over the Sierra Nevada's. Once on takeoff - once at cruise. Piper Apache - Lol you are a glider on one engine! In all cases, airspeed is the answer. Maintain best glide speed until suitable place to land on or off field. God does play a part in it. There are some places you will fly over that an engine loss just might not have a suitable place to land without damage or injury. Bottom line, maintain your engine well, don't let thoughts of failure stop you.

Welcome to PoA!