Peter wrote:
Quite a few people successfully ferry families in piston twins, but they tend to be people who have always had twins, right back to the days when twins were the post-PPL fashion. Not many people are getting into twins today, for various reasons, starting with them being a money pit. The Aztec crash guy posted that his annual maintenance was £20k which is absolutely outrageous
Twins are notably cheaper than similarly-sized singles on planecheck, which should make anyone wary of why that is.
Also, pilot wives usually do not easily appreciate the additional margins provided by a second engine, whereas the chute of the Cirrus is immediately recognised as additional safety. But we’ve discussed that a thousand times. I will never get my head around why my wife is worried of me having an inflight heart attack as an under 40 non-smoker of normal weight with a family history where nobody ever had significant coronary heart disease before they died 
@gallois you are correct that in the marketing literature you get quoted 1250 feet to a 50 foot barrier, but anyfulekno if you check the actual, legal, performance charts for Part 91 (no safety factors), you get 490m TODR and 670m ASDR. It only takes a few google searches to check this.
An AOC with regulator approved performance charts is probably requiring 1000m balance field to operate.
I don’t think the Aztec crash at EGHE was related to the runway length
Apart from the fact the aircraft was not stabilised at MDA and touched down 200m from the threshold of a 600m LDA, it didn’t meet runway requirements (ignoring public transport/AoC factors) given the tailwind component, slope and wet runway condition.
We have various twin threads but I can tell you from my 22 years in this game that for most of those years a twin would be valued at the time left on the two engines 
And I think, like other GA aircraft values, things will soon return to their “normal status”.
I will never get my head around why my wife is worried of me having an inflight heart attack as an under 40 non-smoker of normal weight with a family history where nobody ever had significant coronary heart disease before they died
Probably the psychology of feeling totally helpless IF it happened. One can’t rationalise it – same as there is no way I can convince Justine (PhD) that a pilot makes decisions and manages risks as he goes along, and there is a straightforward procedure to make sure there is always a Plan B. She has heard about too many crashes…
there’s way more SEP than MEP around, and one might argue that MEP captains might be more conservative, so observation is not the key
We are talking average pilots & average aircraft
Somehow true,
- MEP captains tend to use more than CAT formulas with conservative public transport addon
- SEP captains tend to use less than NCO formulas (get under POH numbers by flaring before thresholds or approaching slower than POH)
There is 1.4-1.8 factor between the two
I know of an Aztec 235 that when flown with 3 Adults and half fuel would use about 300m on departure and about 400 back in.
A cessna 210 with 4 medium/small adults and Full fuel will need 400 each way if there’s a helpful 5kts+ on the nose.
It was not my intention to start a twin v singles debate. As @Peter has said, this has been done many times before.
Yes the cost of twin ownership is prohibitive.
The rental market is limited.
Most twins on the market are old.
Need for currency is perhaps a little more essential.
Yes flying twins can become addictive.
And a whole host of other reasons why one should not own or fly a twin.
But my reason for posting was simply in response to Robert’s post #504 which was a response to Ibra’s post #503 regarding runway limitations being a factor in the choice of aircraft.
Nothing more intended I assure you.🙂
RobertL18C wrote:
Apart from the fact the aircraft was not stabilised at MDA and touched down 200m from the threshold of a 600m LDA, it didn’t meet runway requirements (ignoring public transport/AoC factors) given the tailwind component, slope and wet runway condition.
Both according to the accident report and the pilot’s own statement (also here in EuroGA) the reason was that the pilot commenced a missed approach but aborted it when he got the runway environment in sight. The report doesn’t make any mention of the runway being too short. (It does mention that the pilot did not compute the runway requirements.)
@Airborne_Again I suspect we are now quite deep into thread drift zone :) and perhaps a chunk of this should be moved to what factors do MEP apply when carrying out performance calculations. I started by only pointing out that the Cherokee Six, used extensively for light cargo in Alaska etc, had just as creditable performance as a C206.
By the pilot’s own statement the approach was not stabilised. Using Aztec E POH LDR calculations you get an answer of around 600m before applying tailwind component or wet runway conditions. LDA is 602m. Public Transport safety factors and other AOC type factors not applied.
As @lbra points out, if you are going to fly an MEP it is to provide your passengers with ideally conservative, AOC type SOPs and performance criteria. Some MEPs can be operated with very short take off ground roll. A Baron E55 with approach flaps and ignoring Take off safety speed probably is airborne in less than 250 yards! That isn’t how it is supposed to be operated.
I will never get my head around why my wife is worried of me having an inflight heart attack…
The usual case is partners are just as worried about the harm a related pilot can cause while alive. The „heart attack“ argument is absolute and „politically correct“.
Hence, a chute is calming, as it offers (perceived) control.
