Wondering: did this pilot risk his family's life?

N

not-a-pilot-at-all

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
Not a pilot
I recently heard an old story, and I would love input from actual aviation professionals as to if the pilot's behavior was as terrible as it sounds to me, a total non-expert.

The year is 1983, give or take. Steve has his pilot's license and owns his own 6-seater plane, which he uses both for business and for family travel. This time, Steve has his wife and children with him.

Steve takes off from a rural airfield in a heavily forested area, one he's used before. One of the plane's two engines goes out. Steve tells everyone onboard to put their heads between their legs. Steve manages to save the takeoff, and the plane does not crash.

Rather than land at the rural airfield, Steve flies on to his destination, a major airport about 100 miles away. (Perhaps the closest major airport.) He flies on one engine, with his entire family in the plane.

Is this as crazy as it sounds to me? Did Steve recklessly risk the lives of his entire family? Or is there some reason why Steve made a reasonable choice?
 
Wow, a plane that only flies with ONE engine?...never heard of such a thing.

Hmmm, getting stranded at a heavily forested rural strip with the whole family or fly to safety?

See this is why twins are MORE dangerous...TWICE a likely to have an engine failure! :stirpot:
 
Could be lots of reasons, without knowing the facts presented to the pilot, it is impossible to second guess his actions.

Given that he safely got the family to a destination, it is unnecessary to second guess his actions.

I would bet, in the following 32 years, he has done more to endanger his family than fly with one engine.
 
The only relevant question is whether he logged it as single or multi time.
 
Under the bridge a comfy place to live????

He put 'risked their lives when he drove them to the airport, when he took 'em to Disneyland, and when he got them flu shots, and served their steaks rare. . .
 
To ignore the retards that think every question is a troll and have chimed in so far,

No, he did not risk his, nor the life of his family. I would also choose a larger facility. The runways are longer, the approaches to landing are free of obstacles comparatively, and in case something else might go wrong, you've most likely got fire and rescue at the major airport. There are many reasons to land at a larger field in such a situation, and flying for less than an hour on one engine in a twin engine aircraft is not a big deal.

The most dangerous part was when the engine first quit. After that it all was routine.
 
{OP}

FFS. I am not a troll, I am just someone who doesn't know a **** thing about planes, who heard a story about a family member, and wanted a more enlightened perspective.

Thank you very much to those who tried to actually answer my question -- your answers were so useful.

Everyone who's not an expert who hears the story thinks that Steve was wrong. I am glad to hear from actual experts that, in fact, Steve may have made the right call. Just wanted to know. Not trying to troll or feed the snarks.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
To ignore the retards that think every question is a troll and have chimed in so far,

No, he did not risk his, nor the life of his family. I would also choose a larger facility. The runways are longer, the approaches to landing are free of obstacles comparatively, and in case something else might go wrong, you've most likely got fire and rescue at the major airport. There are many reasons to land at a larger field in such a situation, and flying for less than an hour on one engine in a twin engine aircraft is not a big deal.

The most dangerous part was when the engine first quit. After that it all was routine.
Click to expand...

Yep.

If it was a very technical bush strip with little margin for error, why not fly to a nice big airport and make a less pucker factor approach and landing.

I'm guessing as everyone survived he made a OK choice :wink2:
 
James331 said:
Yep.

If it was a very technical bush strip with little margin for error, why not fly to a nice big airport and make a less pucker factor approach and landing.

I'm guessing as everyone survived he made a OK choice :wink2:
Click to expand...

Plus, he can probably more easily repair the engine if he can get it to the airport. If he landed again he'd be stuck in the field.

Shouldn't be a factor but it probably is in quite a few cases.
 
Perhaps he felt it was safer to get to a good runway, rather than try to shoe horn the 6 seat twin into a back country airport on one engine. Screw it up and he may not have much of a go around option, screw it up with two turning he's got options.

Taking a single engine twin into a nice long paved runway, there is room to work out the mistakes on the approach.
 
Too much info is left out. Was he flying something like a normally aspirated Seneca or something bigger like a 414 or King Air 90? All of them fit the 6ish seat twin description and all perform differently on one engine.
 
If true I don't see a problem at all going to a better airport. It is mentioned that it was 'about 100 miles away', that can be rather far.

I do know a guy who is somewhat proud of flying several hours on one engine(twin A/C) to get to home maintenance. His engine quit because of a fueling issue. I just can't see bragging about that, at least he was solo.
 
EdFred said:
To ignore the retards that think every question is a troll and have chimed in so far,
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone said it before me.

Some people apparently think it's cute to be a smart assed MF'er to every new person who comes here. Not very inviting. And sad really.

But, hey, if it makes them feel good about themselves.

Nice, well reasoned and insightful answer, Ed. Actually productive.

Refreshing for this place.
 
If you're already in the air, and your choice is either land in an inhospitable strip or a nice long one with services and medical access, it doesn't matter much whether you're one mile away or a hundred miles away. It's a no brainer to me.
 
not-a-pilot-at-all said:
{OP}

FFS. I am not a troll, I am just someone who doesn't know a **** thing about planes, who heard a story about a family member, and wanted a more enlightened perspective.

Thank you very much to those who tried to actually answer my question -- your answers were so useful.

Everyone who's not an expert who hears the story thinks that Steve was wrong. I am glad to hear from actual experts that, in fact, Steve may have made the right call. Just wanted to know. Not trying to troll or feed the snarks.
Click to expand...
What does Steve say?
 
James331 said:
If it was a very technical bush strip with little margin for error, why not fly to a nice big airport and make a less pucker factor approach and landing.

I'm guessing as everyone survived he made a OK choice :wink2:
Click to expand...

That was the first thing I was thinking about too. If the remote airfield was truly surrounded by trees and would be difficult to make an OEI approach and landing at I'd definitely fly to the bigger airport. Odds are that the big airport doesn't have any major obstacles in the approach path to clear and someone would likely be around to help out if there happened to be an accident or fire during the landing.

I've taken an Aztec into a 2500' grass runway that had a lake at one end of the runway and was more or less surrounded by 70' tall trees on the other three sides. There really isn't any good, safe out at this airport if something were to happen so you really have to place some faith in the equipment you're flying. There is no way I'd try landing at that airport again in the OP's situation if I had cleared the trees and could maintain altitude since there is an attended airport with multiple runways that is about 40 miles away.

Given the limited information, I'd say the pilot in the original story made a reasonable choice.
 
not-a-pilot-at-all said:
....Steve takes off from a rural airfield....
....One of the plane's two engines goes out....
....Steve tells everyone onboard to put their heads between their legs....
....Steve manages to save the takeoff, and the plane does not crash....
....Rather than land at the rural airfield, Steve flies on to his destination, a major airport about 100 miles away. ....
Click to expand...

my question is.......does the family have their heads between their legs for the entire 100 mile single-engine-oohhh-my-god-we're-gonna-craaaaash-oh-wait-a-minute-we're-good trek?

cause, that would be kinda funny to me.
 
eman1200 said:
my question is.......does the family have their heads between their legs for the entire 100 mile single-engine-oohhh-my-god-we're-gonna-craaaaash-oh-wait-a-minute-we're-good trek?

cause, that would be kinda funny to me.
Click to expand...

I LOVE Eman! That whole head between the legs thing had me thinking TROLL.

And Steve saved the take-off? So, on the roll, the engine failed and he didn't abort the take-off, he instead said "get your heads between your legs" and everyone did, so rule out a 6 seat twin with shoulder harnesses.... and then proceeded to a bigger airport for the single engine landing (that he may not have practiced since he got the Multi-ticket)

I think in the movie version he'll tell his 5 year old to fly the plane while he jumps out with a pocket knife and fixes the whatcha-ma-bolt so the engine restarts.
 
Takeoff doesn't terminate when the wheels leave the ground.

Ever heard of a start stop distance? Planes made before 1978?

When did this place become such a good ol boys club filled with *******s?

Oh, yeah, and that's coming from me.
 
Easy there Ed.

I'm sure if "Steve" exists he'd be happy to give an accurate narrative of the incident. Probably including things like the actual airplane, airport, phase of flight when the outage occurred, landing airport, his total time and currency.

We'd all likely read it and say... "yah, that seems reasonable and I'm glad it worked out"

But as written? First post? You really don't find it suspect?
 
Whether it's suspect or not doesn't give the *******s carte blanche.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself...

And we wonder why the general public thinks pilots are arrogant dicks.
 
rolivi said:
Easy there Ed.

I'm sure if "Steve" exists he'd be happy to give an accurate narrative of the incident. Probably including things like the actual airplane, airport, phase of flight when the outage occurred, landing airport, his total time and currency.

We'd all likely read it and say... "yah, that seems reasonable and I'm glad it worked out"

But as written? First post? You really don't find it suspect?
Click to expand...

No. You're paranoid, or just a giant asshat - along with everyone else who jumped down his throat. I get all kinds of "troll" questions from non-pilots in person that are actually legitimate questions, because they honestly don't know aviation. As far as as a first post? Where the **** else do you think someone is going to ask the question when this forum is often the very first search result when you punch in various combinations of pilot message board.

Why don't they ask pilots they know in real life they ask? Oh, I don't know before I started flying I knew exactly 0 pilots. But hey, keep representin'

And lastly, who gives a **** if it's a "troll"? Answer the question and move on. What's the worst if it is? Oh, no I got fooled on the innerwebz, the horror!
 
Last edited:
rolivi said:
that he may not have practiced since he got the Multi-ticket
Click to expand...

Kinda like the SEA pilots that don't practiced enigine outs after they get their tickets???:yikes: Com'on, just because there are more than one engine doesn't automatically mean training has been lacking...

Just saying!!!:yes:
 
Thank you so much Ed, and the others who have chimed in with useful info.

I can understand why you all would be nervous about trolls, but many of you were awful quick with that assumption. It was my first post because I'm not a pilot, and have never needed an aviation forum before. Then I heard this story -- which has been causing some scandal within my family -- and really wanted input from professionals.

I searched the web, and this really seemed like the best place. I'm sure most of the time, this space is experts-only, and I don't want to intrude on that. But sometimes, non-experts have questions.

Again, a real thanks for the serious answers. Very much appreciated.
 
not-a-pilot-at-all said:
I searched the web, and this really seemed like the best place. I'm sure most of the time, this space is experts-only, and I don't want to intrude on that. But sometimes, non-experts have questions.
Click to expand...

Most of us are not experts or professionals.
Some are.

I think the majority of us are hobbyists for lack of a better term.
 
EdFred's post was right on. Some additional information that would go into the decision is obstacles, length of runway, width of runway, elevation, weather in the area (winds, clouds, visibility) and even the thought of burning off some fuel to reduce weight. Maybe even the thought of gaining some altitude and attempting a restart.

Only on aviation boards is the answer to complicated problems always simple.

Ernie, not a professional pilot in a long time
 
not-a-pilot-at-all said:
Thank you so much Ed, and the others who have chimed in with useful info.

I can understand why you all would be nervous about trolls, but many of you were awful quick with that assumption. It was my first post because I'm not a pilot, and have never needed an aviation forum before. Then I heard this story -- which has been causing some scandal within my family -- and really wanted input from professionals.

I searched the web, and this really seemed like the best place. I'm sure most of the time, this space is experts-only, and I don't want to intrude on that. But sometimes, non-experts have questions.

Again, a real thanks for the serious answers. Very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Let me be the first to say Welcome to POA!!! Yes, trolling has been and still is an issue for us, but not everyone has the need to be a***s about it.:mad2: That is not the best way to promote GA.

If you have additional questions please feel free the post them...:yes:
 
timwinters said:
Whether it's suspect or not doesn't give the *******s carte blanche.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself...

And we wonder why the general public thinks pilots are arrogant dicks.
Click to expand...
I am not arrogant !

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
The OP got a rough reception 'cause it read like a troll. Still does, though me judgement may be impaired, considering my reduced intellectual capacity. Or, maybe we git our antennas up from decades of hearing imbeciles characterize GA from a position of astounding, and usually willful, ignorance?

In fairness to the OP, maybe he just doesn't turn a phrase well. Then again, do you walk into a police station and ask if a jet turn on the interstate is safe? Or not? I think the range of responses would be about the same. . .
 
not-a-pilot-at-all said:
I recently heard an old story, and I would love input from actual aviation professionals as to if the pilot's behavior was as terrible as it sounds to me, a total non-expert.

The year is 1983, give or take. Steve has his pilot's license and owns his own 6-seater plane, which he uses both for business and for family travel. This time, Steve has his wife and children with him.

Steve takes off from a rural airfield in a heavily forested area, one he's used before. One of the plane's two engines goes out. Steve tells everyone onboard to put their heads between their legs. Steve manages to save the takeoff, and the plane does not crash.

Rather than land at the rural airfield, Steve flies on to his destination, a major airport about 100 miles away. (Perhaps the closest major airport.) He flies on one engine, with his entire family in the plane.

Is this as crazy as it sounds to me? Did Steve recklessly risk the lives of his entire family? Or is there some reason why Steve made a reasonable choice?
Click to expand...

If he made the decision just because he didn't want to be stuck out in that rural location I'd think the decision is questionable. However, if that rural airport was pushing the envelope to deliberately attempt a single engine landing, then his decision to go to a safer airport to land was a good decision. The other engine is still working. Thousands of airplanes every day fly a hundred miles with one engine.
 
EdFred said:
No. You're paranoid, or just a giant asshat - along with everyone else who jumped down his throat. I get all kinds of "troll" questions from non-pilots in person that are actually legitimate questions, because they honestly don't know aviation. As far as as a first post? Where the **** else do you think someone is going to ask the question when this forum is often the very first search result when you punch in various combinations of pilot message board.

Why don't they ask pilots they know in real life they ask? Oh, I don't know before I started flying I knew exactly 0 pilots. But hey, keep representin'

And lastly, who gives a **** if it's a "troll"? Answer the question and move on. What's the worst if it is? Oh, no I got fooled on the innerwebz, the horror!
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Giving this the serious consideration it so obviously deserves:

"Steve" was probably correct to go to the other airport

Also, pick one of:
a) "Steve" needs a refresher on emergency procedures
b) the story is being retold poorly
c) Rolivi needs to brush up on emergency landing procedures that include the putting of heads between legs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top