Well, expect for the issue of making a dead stick landing. You seem to have wishfully ignored that difficulty.

You only get one chance at that and you are operating in a regime you normally do not experience.

There is no go around with one engine out.

This is what happens when you don't make the airport:

Video of the failed approach:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10158329530539516

Crash in April 2020 in Texas when the engine lost power and the pilot misjudged the approach to the airport.

People say flying a single engine airplane is easier. I disagree. With all engines operating, it is the same. With one engine out, the single is WAY harder to fly safely.

Mike C.

Well, expect for the issue of making a dead stick landing. You seem to have wishfully ignored that difficulty.

You only get one chance at that and you are operating in a regime you normally do not experience.

There is no go around with one engine out.

This is what happens when you don't make the airport:

Video of the failed approach:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10158329530539516

Crash in April 2020 in Texas when the engine lost power and the pilot misjudged the approach to the airport.

People say flying a single engine airplane is easier. I disagree. With all engines operating, it is the same. With one engine out, the single is WAY harder to fly safely.

Mike C.

Well, expect for the issue of making a dead stick landing. You seem to have wishfully ignored that difficulty.

You only get one chance at that and you are operating in a regime you normally do not experience.

There is no go around with one engine out.

This is what happens when you don't make the airport:

Video of the failed approach:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10158329530539516

Crash in April 2020 in Texas when the engine lost power and the pilot misjudged the approach to the airport.

People say flying a single engine airplane is easier. I disagree. With all engines operating, it is the same. With one engine out, the single is WAY harder to fly safely.

Mike C.

You’re right. That makes total sense. So in this case about 115kts is the 30* bank glide speed in a Meridian at gross weight.

Oh boy, I see where this thread is going.

Yes, best glide in the Meridian is 108 at gross, and there is a 1kt change in speed for every 100#s.

There probably shouldn’t be a go around with most pilots in METPs engine out either. That is a very abnormal situation as well and has ended poorly. There is really no statistical chance that SETP’s, the cross country types, will ever have as bad a fatal safety record as METPs with engine outs. Hardly a year goes by that a KA, Cheyenne, MU2, Twin Cessna or the like flips on its back with an engine out. The combined fleet hours of the Meridian/M500/M600/TBM/PC12 are somewhere between 10 and 20 million hours. Still no real body count. Time to let that one go . Emotion and feelings are important but data is reality.

Someone asked about glide speed and ratio of the M600. Glide speed for 6000/5500/5000 lbs is 115/110/105. The glide ratio is 2.7 nm per 1000 AGL.

Pilot misjudged his glide to the runway. This is the critical part of an engine out glide that is easy to screw up. Just because an airport is within gliding distance doesn't mean you are going to land there safely.

The stall was secondary effects from not making the runway.


Not really, you only have a critical exposure in a twin for a few seconds on takeoff. In a single, the entire flight is exposure to engine failure. Even in takeoff, the twin pilot has trained for that and can fly away if they handle it correctly. So the exposure is vastly higher in the single due to the relative seriousness of the consequence when it happens.

If an engine quits in a twin, then the outcome is dependent on the pilot rather than being partly or even wholly dependent on luck in the single.

I know of at least two ditchings of PC-12 in the ocean due to engine failure. One rescue was 5 hours, the other over 10 hours. A twin gets them home safe and dry. That's not "half as likely".

Mike C.

Nothing like spending four million dollars to save four hundred!

Pilot misjudged his glide to the runway. This is the critical part of an engine out glide that is easy to screw up. Just because an airport is within gliding distance doesn't mean you are going to land there safely.

The stall was secondary effects from not making the runway.

The picture looked like he pancaked it, left the wings behind, and skidded to a stop with the fuselage in remarkably good condition. Any injuries may have been compression injuries. By looking at the picture I'd say the PC-12 is built pretty stout.

Yes, it is quite a machine.

On fuel, I am surprised that I'm not burning that much more, maybe less, than 501 operators per mile. I fly higher (lower fuel burn, less traffic, less weather), fly faster (cuts headwind effects), and can fly longer legs (removes fuel stops sometimes) than they do.

You never hear of twin jets having VMC rollover when operating on one engine. Just doesn't happen. A single engine go around is no big deal, maybe you get 1000 FPM, too.


But that isn't the actual choice.

You can maintain your skills properly and avoid the VMC roll over entirely. It is not an inevitable outcome of engine failure, nor is it a common outcome actually. We just here about them more.

A single engine pilot gliding has to maintain their skills to avoiding stalling. That seems equivalent, and the pictured case shows what happens when you don't manage it.

I trained for the MU2 every 6 months with a heavy emphasis on engine failure scenarios. I was very proficient at them. I seriously doubt I would be one of those who end up in a VMC rollover.

The engine failure scenarios in the Citation are boring, so not an issue.

I like a twin because I transferred the risk from an unknowable latent mechanical fault to a pilot ability I can train for. In other words, my risk profile is different than the statistics because my situation is different.

Airliners have 2+ engines for the same reason. An airliner shuts down an engine somewhere in the world almost every day and nobody hears about them. Why? They have another engine and they have well trained crews.

Mike C.

Well, expect for the issue of making a dead stick landing. You seem to have wishfully ignored that difficulty.

You only get one chance at that and you are operating in a regime you normally do not experience.

Both were during ferry flights, one in 2001 and the other in 2020.

Not sure about the 2001 ditching; but it was reported that the pilot shut down the engine after noticing a rise in ITT ...

In the 2020 ditching it looks like to me that it was fuel starvation due a badly designed ferry fuel system installed by a friend of the ferry pilot; and followed by pilot error. On a first crossing attempt, the ferry fuel system did not perform and the ferry pilot turned back to have it fixed/modified. A week or two later, during the second crossing attempt, the pilot reported to have used the AFT ferry tank first during the climb, engine starved. Even though AFT ferry tank should only be used during cruise (or level flight). Pilot error!

Yeah, too bad.

It was a nice thread when it was detailed information about two competing airframes from a pilot who had extensive experience with both.

Now it's a pissing match with "I'm not gonna f up a deadstick landing" on one side and "I'm not gonna f up a Vmc cut" on the other.