Reg Braithwaite
Contributor
The following is highly unqualified blather, posted for entertainment purposes only. You have been warned.
Most small planes you see have a single engine. Twin-engine planes are faster and offer some redundancy: if one engine quits, the pilot can continue to fly on the other engine. This can be handy if there isn't a safe place to land within the immediate glide radius of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, many pilots prefer single-engine planes, even when ignoring the sticker price difference. Two engines actually means twice the maintenance, and twice as many things to go wrong, cutting the Mean Time Between Failures substantially.
When something goes wrong in a single engine plane, the "self-rescue" is simple: put the plane on the ground immediately. It's true that there will be edge cases where that is difficult, such as in mountainous terrain. But overall, there is less for the pilot to think about and lower task loading. Loss of power? Shut the engine down, put the plane down now.
In a twin-engine, there's more to think about. If one engine cuts out, the pilot must shut it down. But wait... which engine's out? In the heat of the moment, pilots sometimes shut the working engine down.
If the shut the right engine out, the remaining engine offers a seductive illusion of security. Pilots sometimes fly right over a good landing zone looking for a better one, or perhaps thinking they can get to an airport on the remaining engine. Alas, sometimes the cause of failure to one engine is not independent of the other, and planes have been lost when the second engine quit shortly after the first one. If the pilot has passed up a good landing spot hoping for a perfect landing spot when the second engine quits, there may be serious consequences.
Remember the greater maintenance required for twin engine planes? Most pilots are fanatics for details like this. But they are also human, and from time to time someone will push things a little. Of course, there is scheduled maintenance and pilots all adhere to the schedule. But if a pilot feels something unusual or unsettling, there is the option of checking it out or shrugging it off.
When there's twice as much engine to inspect, twice as much work to do, and twice as much delay involved, some pilot become a little less conservative, meaning each of their two engines is actually less reliable than the average single-engine plane's engine. And they have two engines to go wrong.
For these three reasons--more complex task loading in an emergency, overconfidence stemming from having a redundant engine and lower overall reliability--many pilots shun twin-engine planes.
Say, this is a Scuba board, not a flying board. What say you about moving up from singles to singles + pony or doubles?
Most small planes you see have a single engine. Twin-engine planes are faster and offer some redundancy: if one engine quits, the pilot can continue to fly on the other engine. This can be handy if there isn't a safe place to land within the immediate glide radius of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, many pilots prefer single-engine planes, even when ignoring the sticker price difference. Two engines actually means twice the maintenance, and twice as many things to go wrong, cutting the Mean Time Between Failures substantially.
When something goes wrong in a single engine plane, the "self-rescue" is simple: put the plane on the ground immediately. It's true that there will be edge cases where that is difficult, such as in mountainous terrain. But overall, there is less for the pilot to think about and lower task loading. Loss of power? Shut the engine down, put the plane down now.
In a twin-engine, there's more to think about. If one engine cuts out, the pilot must shut it down. But wait... which engine's out? In the heat of the moment, pilots sometimes shut the working engine down.
If the shut the right engine out, the remaining engine offers a seductive illusion of security. Pilots sometimes fly right over a good landing zone looking for a better one, or perhaps thinking they can get to an airport on the remaining engine. Alas, sometimes the cause of failure to one engine is not independent of the other, and planes have been lost when the second engine quit shortly after the first one. If the pilot has passed up a good landing spot hoping for a perfect landing spot when the second engine quits, there may be serious consequences.
Remember the greater maintenance required for twin engine planes? Most pilots are fanatics for details like this. But they are also human, and from time to time someone will push things a little. Of course, there is scheduled maintenance and pilots all adhere to the schedule. But if a pilot feels something unusual or unsettling, there is the option of checking it out or shrugging it off.
When there's twice as much engine to inspect, twice as much work to do, and twice as much delay involved, some pilot become a little less conservative, meaning each of their two engines is actually less reliable than the average single-engine plane's engine. And they have two engines to go wrong.
For these three reasons--more complex task loading in an emergency, overconfidence stemming from having a redundant engine and lower overall reliability--many pilots shun twin-engine planes.
Say, this is a Scuba board, not a flying board. What say you about moving up from singles to singles + pony or doubles?
