Cirrus parachute fails to stop fatal crash

Oh, I agree that those statistics aren't the best. As you point out, you need to look at accidents per hours flown to be meaningful.

That said, the difference in a twin versus a Cirrus isn't the extra engine, per se-- a Seminole isn't going to be any better than the Cirrus for business travel in all weather. However, it's the things which go along with it. I'd much rather be flying a Seneca, for instance, with full deice, in weather, than a Cirrus, or any other piston single.

Why? For starters, if an engine fails in IMC in the Seneca, I'm going to be able to land at an airport. If I'm in icing, I'm going to have more time to get out of it, since the airplane is not only deiced but can carry a greater load. If I lose an engine at night, I can land at an airport...

In fact, many of the things the other poster said would cause him to use the parachute are now straightforward to handle in the Seneca (true, the Seneca isn't better off in a case of pilot incapacitation).

This really boils down to risk tolerance. Personally, I'm not willing to take the risk of flying a single piston airplane in low IMC or at night over rough terrain. If you're comfortable with that risk, have at it. Alternatively, if you can arrange your schedule such that you don't need to do those things, that's great as well.

 

You can still land in a twin when losing an engine if.......

1. Your training is up to snuff
2. You aren't close to MTOW
3. You're not below blue line

If twins are so safe, why is insurance so much more for equal hull value planes single vs. twin?

Cirrus has ice protection and half the chance of losing 1. Many single have ice protection nowadays.

There have been many twin crashes this year where the pilot just had a brain fart when he lost one and crashed. In other words, there was no reason he should've crashed other than work load was too high and he got behind the airplane.

I wouldn't fly in ice in a piston powered anything. Nobody needs to be flying at night over the mountains.

Twins are a dying breed because there has never been any evidence that you are safer in a twin than a single. There's absolutely no proof.

As for useful load, I have yet to find a twin with a higher useful load than a single. A twin requires carrying twice the fuel.

 

I do not know enough to add anything meaningful to this debate, but I just wanted to say that I am loving it! As someone just starting to think about getting my PPL, this is great knowledge to be soaking up. I find it very informative to hear both sides of this issue presented in such a well thought out manner by folks on both sides. Thanks everyone for your contributions so far, and keep it up!!

 

It truly comes down to doing your homework and deciding what works best for you. There is no "right" answer in aviation. It all depends on so many variables it's mind boggling.

I'm a hardcore single engine guy. I believe "less is more". There are hardcore twin guys also who will never see it my way. It's fun to debate none the less. I don't believe twins are less safe. I just don't think they are "more safe". Each type has it's pros and cons.

 

Your statements about multiengine safety are really only true on takeoff, and then only in a low-powered light twin. Once you are 1,000' AGL, you are much better off in a twin than a single.

It's funny that you and I are debating this, however, as it was the other poster who was advocating flying singles at night and IMC. I'm certainly not saying I wouldn't fly a piston single at night or IMC (and I've done plenty of both)-- only that I won't fly over rough terrain at night, or in IMC where I couldn't break out and find a place to land.

Also, in the northern part of the US, flying IMC for 9 months out of the year is basically flying in icing, and I wouldn't do that in a piston single either.

My point was that if you need to keep to a schedule, which involves flying at night and in most weather, a piston single isn't the airplane to use. If you don't have to fly at night and have flexibility regarding the weather, a single is great. Probably less of an issue if you live in the southwest, as well.

 

Only true on takeoff? If you're heavy, you're going down regardless. There is no difference between the performance of a single vs. a twin unless you lose an or the engine. So what difference does the weather make? You're twice as likely to lose 1 in a twin.

If all you had to do in a twin when you "lost 1" was sit there, do nothing and the plane kept flying I would agree with you. But that's not the case. I've got lots of ME time and ME rated. The training is boring and repetitive and must be done yearly or more to stay current.

If I'm wrong, then why do twins crash when the only thing wrong is engine loss?

 

There is a saying: If you lose an engine in a twin the good engine takes you to scene of the accident.

 

How often do twins crash after losing an engine during cruise or descent?

You'll never find that data, of course, because they rarely do so, especially in comparison to the times they land successfully. However, a successful landing won't be in any publicly searchable database (the FAA does track inflight shutdowns for air carriers).

And no, at cruise, you are not "going down regardless" in a twin-- even a light twin, assuming you use some common sense. Even if you are well above the single engine service ceiling, the drift down altitude is much higher, and you can cover a lot of ground.

I've been a multiengine instructor and check airman for many years, so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.

 

There are twins where that is the case, but generally that is nonsense.

 

Compare comparably sized planes. Don't be comparing a King Air to Cessna.

Just because you know how to fly a twin very well does not make you an expert on crash statistics. I'm sure with your background you are safer in a twin than most other twin pilots.

If nobody is recording the statistics, how can you be so sure?

If twins are so much safer, how come a comparably priced twin compared to a single will have a much higher insurance premium? Insurance companies know that a twin has a higher chance of being in an accident compared to a single.

Also, who even builds piston twins anymore? Beech is the only one left and even they do so reluctantly.

Like I said. I don't think piston twins are less safe. I just dont think they are safer.

 

Well, for starters, I wouldn't be flying a Seminole in the conditions we were talking about either. Maybe at night over rough terrain, but not in icing.

Secondly, I'm not-- a Seminole will do just fine on one engine once you are at cruise. I'd much rather be in a Seminole with an engine out at cruise than a Cirrus!

I don't know the answer on insurance. I suspect it has more to do with what the market will bear than actual loss ratios. I can't imagine the loss ratio on Barons is anything close to the Cirrus.

As for why no one except Beech is making light piston twins any more, I think there are a couple of reasons. First of all, there is no question that a modern single like a Cirrus or a Columbia is much more efficient, and costs less to operate. That's a big deal. Second, an older light twin with updated avionics is just as capable as a new one. That's not the case with singles, where a new Cirrus is much more capable than a decades old 172.

The same reasoning applies in turboprops-- Beech is the only one making new twins, while Pilatus, EADS, and Cessna don't seem to have much problem selling singles.

I'd still take a twin turboprop any day over a single, even though the twin costs more to operate (although a Garrett-powered twin comes pretty close to a single powered by a PT6).

Incidentally, I was in the back of a King Air a couple of years ago when we had a prop governor fail. While it was an inconvenience in the King Air (we didn't get to our destination), it was far less exciting than the same failure would have been in a Pilatus.

 

The Seminole is still 2x more likely to have an engine out compared to a Cirrus. Just because you lose 1 in a twin does not mean you would lose 1 in a single.

 

Diamond makes the DA42 twin piston.

 

Yes they do. Lot's of engine problems and it's too slow and there's no way that little engine is keeping that thing in the air with 1 turning.

 

As has been stated, the circumstances of the IL crash seems to be pilot error flying into instrument meteorologic conditions without sufficient training. From the data gleaned thus far, it is very unlikely that the CAPS was pulled at a reasonable altitude. If it had been, the occupants would most likely be alive today. So sad. Admittedly, the circumstances for a CAPS pull are quite rare. Nevertheless, attempting an airport or off airport landing with a loss of power is certainly fraught with many variables. What if you're too low or slow on approach and below CAPS pull altitude-you're screwed. Very few airports have landable area before the runway. Attempting an off airport landing is precarious. The fields look nice and flat from 2000 feet. However, on the ground they are often quite irregular precluding a smooth roll without tumbling tail over nose or cartwheeling. Pilots have indeed landed in a loss of engine scenario. Fatalities are overwhelmingly related to pilot error, often a pilot who thinks that they can make it. The CAPS, if used, prevents fatalities from circumstances beyond pilot control.

 

It's such a cool looking plane IMO and I love Diamonds' overall track record. I wish that plane made sense. It doesn't.

 

That's really just a multiengine trainer. Nothing wrong with that, but not relevant to the discussion about airplanes used for transportation.