EuroFlyer wrote:
Isn’t a twin (with sufficient single engine performance) better to fly in that weather ?
Yep.
You sometimes have to ask yourself if you really NEED to go.
Sure, but then again, it’s so inconvenient to scrap an entire flight just due to the occasional low fog layer…
I agree with those pointing out that exposure is the most important factor.
If you live on an island, and fly all year ’round, it might make sense to get a twin (or a turbine). If you only cross waters twice a year, it is very unlikely going to hit you.
Still, honestly, fog takeoffs make me a little bit nervous, because I do think the risk of a total engine failure is at it’s highest one minute or two after applying full power on a cold engine.
But isn’t a twin in this case better because you can at least continue to climb ?
It depends on the twin. In a Seminole, Duchess or Seneca I, I think that the “double the chance of engine failure” argument might apply.
In a newer Seneca, Aztec, Baron, 310, PA31, King Air and up, it is nonsense. I have been with students in both Aztec and Navajo where they have forgotten to raise the gear in an EFATO and it has still gone up as fast as a Cherokee does normally.
Depends on all sorts of criteria. I’ve been in a PA31-350 which has struggled to climb at anything more than 30ft/min, lightweight, prop feathered and clean. Mind you, the OAT was 47 Celcius at 1500ft (5250ft DA).
Was it foggy?
Very, in a dusty/sandy sort of way. Certainly not VMC :)
