Singles versus Twins

You need 30 hours PiC multi to begin a multi FI course. Might not be adequate but there is some PiC requirement.

You need 30 hours PiC multi to begin a multi FI course. Might not be adequate but there is some PiC requirement.

On paper yes. Counting SPIC time that is part of the integrated course already take away 10 of the thirty hours. And then, every type of multi-engine time (not only piston!) counts. I know people who flew on Kingairs after getting their license and came back to get their MEP FI rating. With no MEP time other than that of their own training. Legally possible.

To prevent further Vmca accidents when instructing MEP we recently had to sign a form in which we declare that we have familiarised ourselves with the dangers involved. I wonder if this will change the statistics…

I found on the bfU the Croatian training accident (the FI had accumulated 330 pic mainly in training), but could not find the second accident. Worth reading.

I guess this has not helped the SEP statistics

It would be useful to seperate tailwheel loss of directional control accidents from the SEP list. And also flying into things at low level. And maybe bending the nosewheel. And for both SEP and MEP, accidents when using “backcountry” type runways.
That US Pa28 road landing seems to have been a good one.Even with SEPs there are huge variations in fatalities – I Googled an aircraft type on seeing 3 for sale on Afors – one at a very good price. The proportion of fatal accidents startled me. About 50% were fatal.

I think it’s down to attitude. I have flow with numerous twin owners over the years. Some are trained to airline pilot standards and their insurance requires annual training at SimCon or Flight Safety (e.g. mate is owner of a Cessna 340). I have also flow with guys who are 150 hours straight out of a four-seat fixed gear and go out and purchase a twin. The one lad I am thinking of trained a a ‘good old boy’ flight school in the States and had no professionalism or structure to his flying.

I’d love to see more training organisations provide structure from the start, even in a SPAM can. Some do, some don’t.

-Jason

I started flying a Seneca II to make my MEP/IR. I like it very much, it’s more stable than the Archers, Cessnas and Diamons I fly and I would fly with it much more if it wasn’t that expensive.

Personally, it’s mostly because the regulators aren’t happy with us flying singles over big cities with a Rule 5/6 (or whatever SERA calls it) exemption. Would I choose to fly one? Not really.

Now, in my other existence, I’m certainly very happy having two donks driving the rotor blades.

I don’t fly twins currently, because, frankly I can’t afford one. And I am very happy with the single I can afford, but it is also clear that for the fact that it is a non-turbo carburetted single it has it’s limitations.

If I could, I would probably fly either a Turbo Twin Commanche or a Seneca II/III.

Why?

Generally, these Piper twins which have the power to fly safely on one engine just give you a lot more security for night and over water flying. And they are still a lot cheaper to get and fly than the obvious alternative, which is the Cirrus with its parashute. A pretty good Seneca II/III can be bought for between 50 and 70 k Euros these days, Twin Coms as well, which leaves about 100-150k in difference to a worthwile Cirrus for flying and maintenance.

My favorite small twin is the Twin Commanche, primarily the one with the Rajays. It is a real long range plane with up to 10 hours range, 180 kts speed and the consumption of a high performance single. At the same time, if you loose one engine enroute you can in most cases still drift down to a safe diversion. Again, at night and in IMC that is hard to beat. What the Twin Com lacks is FIKI, even though some have de icing boots.

I used to fly the Seneca I, II and III in my training days and still like it a lot. If I wanted a FIKI plane, that would probably be it.