Dog, out of all the posts on this thread, I think yours contain the most inaccuracies.
What do you fly Doc? Are there any single points of failure on it? EVERY aircraft has potential single points of failure.
The design standards for twin engine aircraft don’t allow for any single points of failure that would prevent continued safe flight and landing. The standards make an exception for single engine aircraft but declare them as meeting a lower level of safety. So why don’t the operating rules follow accordingly?
Your reply reminds me of a I won't fly in helicopters because there are so many moving parts argument.
The vast majority of rotorcraft in Canada do not meet IFR requirements for much the same reasons single engine aircraft don’t.
Flying will alway be inherently dangerous.
Wrong. That statement isn’t supported by statistics or any risk assessment. I’m surprised how often that statement is uttered on this forum. If flying is inherently dangerous then so is walking or taking a shower.
How many twins have fatal accidents after an engine failure? You might as well ban human pilots if that is the logic you're using.
Lots. Now check out how many commercially operated twins have fatal accidents after an engine failure. Very very few. The accident rate of twin engine airplanes is seriously skewed by the large amount of private morons with too much money that buy an intermediate performance twin and don’t invest in training. Commercial operators are not only forced to train flgihtcrews but the guy flying the airplane typically has more experience than the average private pilot.
The bottom line here is that, once again, TC made a rule and failed to enforce it. They got spoon fed bad data and ate it up without question. That's really nothing new and it wont change until there is some personal accountability in TC.
Here’s the funny thing. TC tries to do what the public demands. The public demanded SEIFR so after a great deal of negotiation and study they implemented it after applying what they felt were reasonable constraints. The experiment, in my opinion should never have begun and I hope they either blow it away or control it even more tightly.
So then you would let them fly on a piston twin vs. turbine single? Risk management is a complex animal. I'm personally more comfortable in a single turbine than a light twin. There is the whole argument about flying singles in the mountains but I don't know a propeller twin that will maintain MEAs out here with one caged and any ice on it... where do we draw the line?
The standard already draws the line. If you’re in a twin and can’t maintain MEA on one, you are breaking the rules.
Enroute Limitations
703.32 No person shall operate a multi-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the weight of the aircraft is greater than the weight that will allow the aircraft to maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown.
I feel that with one engine failure every 100 000 hours is roughly less than the other factors (CFIT, Structural failure, pilot error, etc.) that we readily accept.
Not even close. As a matter of fact, the design standard for any failure that prevents the aircraft from continued safe flight and landing requires no more than one failure per billion flight hours.
Applying your logic, airplanes would be falling out of the sky at a horrendous rate.
For example, if you say CFIT happens every 100,000 fight hours and structural failure happens every 100,000 hours and pilot error (etc) that means that the airplane will have a fatal crash no later than 33,000 hours. Add in your engine failure and you have a crash every 25,000 hours. If that were the case, I wouldn’t step on any airplane.
). Why do so many high time pilots choose to retire on the Pilatus?
