You really believe that? Flying an “old” Archer, which is really one of the most benign and safe airplane types anyway cannot be compared to flying any piston twin in IMC. And we are not talking about flying “over water, or Paris”, but in general.
I had a MEP rating for many years, even with IFR. But I gave it up when I realized that I could never become good enough to safely fly my family in IMC, well at least not for my standards, and for € 800 /hour anyway … I did my MEP training with a highly qualified instructor and at Flight Safety in Florida (refresher) but after ten years I realized that I could not become safe enough with five or ten hours per year in a rented Seneca. In the meantime the MEP disappeared from my licence .. I still keep the old copy for sentimental reasons ;-)
(edited)
Alexis – I do believe that but you have overlooked my caveat – current and trained.
I dont think you would be safe enough with 5 or 10 hours and definitely not in IMC. Actually I have my doubts that a SEP would manage an engine out with that amount of time, but that is another discussion.
I fly a MEP and do a great many more hours than that. I will have done that many hours this week. I fly with an instructor at least twice a year. I have my own IFR restrictions because I think I am aware of my own limitations and recognise that I dont do enough “hard” IMC to fly the twin in “anything”. My twin has traffic, excellent avionics and for a number of reasons I am much “happier” flying a twin than a single, but I dont pereceive one more or less risky as I know that my happiness has too much of an emotional basis.
Copied!
Yes, I do agree so far as that a well trained pilot (like you) with a modern airplane can fly a piston twin safely in IMC, and that (of course) it provides some extra safety over water or over big cities. And then you also added that you follow your personal limitations strictly, which I do aswell, in the single.
But an Archer, no matter how old, in VMC, is really as safe as personal flying can be.
The taper wing Archer and Warrior enjoy a superior safety record, based on a statistically robust sample of hours flown. I would venture no piston twin comes close.
Why is a twin that has climb away performance on one engine inherently safer.
1. An engine failure is manageable,
2. It is more stable in the landing configuration,
3. It will probably have icing capability (but I accept some singles will have that as well).
The stats. suggest otherwise for other reasons including pilots requiring more training and more currency to fly a twin.
It is therefore all about an appreciation of the factors that drive the stats.
Take a random population of Archers and twins and I am sure you are correct. Take a random slection of Archers and twins both flown by pilots truly current and trained on type and both operating in the same variety of flying conditions and I would suggest the twin will be marginally safer.
in IMC? Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing!
In my profession, medicine, this topic is very important and makes up a significant portion of our work as doctors: Explaining and quantifying the risk a patient is under when undergoing medical procedures (or, equally important, when refusing to do so).
The knowledge gradient between the doctor and the patient is so large that it is almost inevitable that the patient does not fully grasp the risks, either over- or underestimating them. I’d say this even has increased in modern times: While the internet has much increased the availability of medical information to laypeople, they are almost always completely unable to assess this information. This is especially true with patients who usually are in charge or know better than others in their own professions, notably teachers. But I guess many of you would make terrible patients as well :P
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? A lot, because the knowledge gradient between pilot and passenger is often similarly large. So every good pilot should
*Avoid undue risks to passengers or
*Explain the risks of riskier than average flights beforehand so that the passenger can make an informed decision
Because one option that we often don’t really have in medicine, doing nothing, is almost always available in GA. You can always choose not to fly. In recreational GA especially but even for commercial ops there are almost no situations were not flying is riskier than flying (being surrounded by enemy forces or impending natural disasters being a rare exception). It is only fair to let everyone flying along make an informed decision beforehand.
BUT, and this is also very important: Everyone has the right NOT TO KNOW about their risks! Don’t force such information on anyone. In recreational GA you will usually not need to do a detailed risk assessment together with your passengers beforehand. If they trust you to fly them safely, that trust should not be risked light-heartedly. If they don’t want to know any specifics, fine.
So, as is often the case in life, a “golden middle” kind of compromise when dealing with this usually works best I think.
VFR into IMC per se isn’t what kills. The cloud doesn’t kill. It’s the VFR training mindset that clouds have to be avoided like the devil which leads to people trying to get below the ceiling which then kills.
What really is fatal is then either CFIT or loss of control in IMC. But not with a Cirrus. The guy should have just continued the flight on autopilot, gotten himself vectors into duPage and intercepted the ILS. It didn’t help that ATC always said ‘field is IFR’. He was perhaps intimidated by that and his trying to find a VFR field in IMC is what killed him.
Any VFR pilot even if not IR rated should at least practice approaches into IR fields as much as possible and should know how to activate the autopilot if there is one. I was stunned the other day when I heard that many people fly planes (i.e. chartered or from clubs) they don’t fully understand. There are a couple incidents here in Germany where people crashed after VFR into IMC when they just could have activated the autopilot.
@EuroFlyer
Sorry, which incident are you referring to?
There will be circumstances where the superior performance and equipment of say, a piston twin will make it more mission capable than an Archer, but I would argue not safer. Hopefully the Archer pilot will recognise the mission is inappropriate for the type, while, I would argue, the piston twin pilot might underestimate the statistical risk of carrying out the mission in the better equipped, higher powered twin piston.
The study of performance graphs/tables in an approved flight manual for a piston twin approved for AOC use, compared to the marketing in the POH, may suggest the regulators share this view.
