Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft!

[turboplanner]

Asked and answered in post 1

In that case I don't think you remotely understand the question.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Ab

 

Do you have a reference for this statement?

It may not be part of the exemption but its certainly part of the engine manufacturers requirements.

 

I'll follow up with the raa opps manual.

 

It may well say the same thing in continental and Lycoming manuals for all i know. But either way the rules dont help you much after your deceased.

 

From operators manual (all versions rotax 912)

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

This discussion would not even happen in the US, UK, Canada or NZ. Any pilots from these areas must be quite bemused by it all. The answer is simple. Australia needs to do the same as these countries. Allow access to CTA for any aircraft that has an appropriate transponder, VHF radio & qualified pilot. To enter CTA you request permission with intentions, get a squawk code, press ident, become identified & follow instructions. What could be easier & safer. They know where you are, your height, speed & direction. Maintaining separation is their job. If traffic is getting a bit busy near the airport you will be told to orbit or change course & sometimes altitude.

 

When I first got my PPL (I was trained at a busy RPT airport with a Tower) I was so used to it it felt weird when I went to a non controlled aerodrome. In the aero club bar I would talk to lots of other pilots who had some sort of aversion to flying in CTR which I could never understand. I made a point of flying IN controlled space where possible as it was safer. When they weren't busy they'd even give you course corrections to keep you on track. This was in pre GPS days. I got to personally know a number of controllers & they couldn't be more helpful. The local ones used to come in for a beer & a yarn at the club bar. This was not in Australia.

 

Ab

It may not be part of the exemption but its certainly part of the engine manufacturers requirements.

 

I'll follow up with the raa opps manual.

 

It may well say the same thing in continental and Lycoming manuals for all i know. But either way the rules dont help you much after your deceased.

 

From operators manual (all versions rotax 912)

 

[ATTACH=full]53704[/ATTACH]

A standard statement to cover their arce in case of litigation.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not going to differentiate about the abilities of GA vs RAAus.. There would be good and bad in both. I particularly mention radio work as it's more required (obviously) in CONTROLLED airspace. Flying into places like Bankstown gives little chance of a non spectacular off field landing, IF it has to be. That is applicable to any Piston single engined plane. The very slow ones might fare batter. Hoxton Park is long gone but you aren't high enough anywhere to get far in any lane of entry. So over built up areas has it's own obvious hazards similar to treed or rocky places. but the EXTRA will be the SENSATION. You can bet the headlines for "Little " planes won't be little..

 

COMMENT. Golf courses would be more likely suitable for RAAus than other category (heavier /faster stall speed) types. In these traffic congested places, the workload is higher, the navigation/reporting more stringent, more likely more damage if something goes wrong. I NEVER liked flying over large areas of houses at low levels even when I was younger and more stupid than I am now. I (sort of) believed good engines don't stop. You have to think like that don't you or you wouldn't do it.

 

PS when permissions were granted by the RAAus over populous areas gliding clear was a requirement if a suitable landing area not available. You do this anyhow except when taking off or landing. Nev

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Ye

 

A standard statement to cover their arce in case of litigation.

Yes it may well be a standard statement for legal reasons as you say, but our engines can and do stop regardless and we knowingly choose to fly them to the places we are when the engine stops, so in relation to the original post "engine failure does not cause a fatal accident in an Ultralight" i say it's up to the pilot and where they chose to be when the engine failed.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I guess like most conversations, this has started on one subject and meandered onto others before it will close.

 

I had a quick look through ICAO annexes 1, 2 and 11; there was no mention that only ICAO standard licensed pilots were to access airspace.. There was mention of the rules under which flight is permitted and the level of ATS provided.. Of course, there may something buried in another annex or docs... but as @kgwilson mentioned, it would mean most European and a good deal number of other countries would fall foul of ICAO. Non ICAO pilots can even cross international flight boundaries where there are agreements in place. As mentioned, I see many RAAus pilots navigating throughout Australia - navigating remote outback regions is not as easy as more populated areas. And with GPS, which admittedly is not infallible, but for me, anyway, has been pretty reliable, it is easier to navigate.

 

I have seen a/c without a transponder get a clearance - they make an orbit or two so the controller can identify their primary return and they are allowed in. If the controller is given reason to believe the pilot or a/c is not capable or there is concern of a conflict, they simply refuse permission. to enter. In the UK, the NPPL (and in EASA land, the LAPL) training requirements are lower than PPL. If you have a single engine piston rating (rather than balloon, etc), you now largely have the same privileges as a PPL holder. I think there is additional training (cut down version of RTF and actual exposure to controlled airspace), but it is optional. I was based at Fairoaks which is in Heathrow's control zone - then class A. There were a handful of LAA machines based there operated by NPPLs that never had a PPL and they seemed to manage pretty well. They happily flew to France, Germany, Italy and Austria; the did other European countries as well..

 

As an aside, this may or may not be good news: CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch - Australian Flying

[aro]

This discussion would not even happen in the US, UK, Canada or NZ. Any pilots from these areas must be quite bemused by it all. The answer is simple. Australia needs to do the same as these countries.

It's important to remember that the basis of RAA is CAO 95.55.

 

CAO 95.55 is an exemption from various civil aviation regulations. It exempts people from various airworthiness and maintenance standards, and most significantly the requirement to hold a pilots license, provided you comply with various conditions.

 

Conditions include

 

• Private or flying training operations
   
   
  
• The pilot is a member of RAA and has a RAA pilot certificate (which is not a pilot license)
   
   
  
• The aircraft is registered with RAA
   
   
  
• The aircraft has a MTOW up to 600KG and stall speed of 45 knots or less.
   
   
  
• Compliance with the RAA Ops manual
   
   
  

 

 

So the question really is: what types of flying should you be allowed to do without holding a pilot's license? If you want to do more than what is permitted, or you don't like the conditions applied, you can go down the path of getting a pilot's license - which is now easier than ever with the RPL transition.

 

Which of the US, UK, Canada and NZ allow you to pilot an aircraft without a pilot's license?

 

 

[farri]

...Due to the recent fatal accident, in the 95-10 Ultralight at Emerald, I started this thread in an attempt to discuss engine failure, in high-drag, low-momentum Ultralights` because some were speculating on that thread the accident may have been caused by engine failure.

 

I lost count a long time ago of the number of times I`ve heard " If the engine stop, those things fall out of the sky" and the times I`ve tried to explain, that is not correct, but perception is a reality for some people so I attempt to change their perception.

 

RA-Aus still have Ultralights registered in the CAO 95-10 category and those that were in the CAO 95-25 which are now in CAO 95-55, all rag and tube high-drag, low-momentum aircraft; there are still those who choose to fly these types and those who intend to fly them and need the appropriate training; I believe it`s extremely important that they get the correct information and not believe that if the engine fails they will die!

 

Over the Christmas period, I had a guy turn up at home here at Deeral looking for, in his words, "the Ultralight guy" I said, "that`s me".This guy trained in a high-performance AC and hadn`t long obtained his first RA-Aus certificate, which restricts him to 25 nm of the field he will fly from.

 

He was well aware and concerned about the fact he could get into a lot of trouble just within the area he would be flying over so one of the things I asked him was what he`d been taught on engine failure, he gave the reply I expected and dread to hear; 'If the engine stops, immediately setup best glide speed then look for somewhere to land". Unfortunately, in some cases, it`s too late by then.

 

 

 

He was up here on holidays, never flown in a Drifter so we did some flying together and by the time he went back home he was convinced to always look for a suitable place to land before the engine stops and remain within gliding distance of that place.

 

 

 

Choosing a suitable place for a forced landing and remaining within gliding distance of it is a skill in itself.

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm FOR people getting clearance through CTA. (Transiting). We don't have the primary radio cover we used to so THAT means of identification you mention is less available. Our "Certificate" is worthless in most countries. but Who cares?" It works here (at the moment) That's ALL most people want and it could be used to bring in new ideas, by using exemptions not wait to follow others on the other side of the world like Europe where different rules apply for their circumstances. That's how it used to work.. People on IFR flight plans in CTA are not flying around looking out the window for other traffic with some exceptions where it might expedite clearances through altitudes. "Report sighting and passing opposite direction traffic," being one.. Visibility out of Jet transport cockpits is not all that flash in some circumstances so mixing it with outback traffic, like Gove is a fairly concentrating moment especially if the other end of the strip is experiencing a heavy shower, etc Non controlled RPT is not what I would call desirable standard by any measure. The fact it happens is not a good reason to accept it as OK. Operating into aerodrome with extensive low hour chopper and 3 axis flying training going on , needs looking at as well. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Couldn't agree more Franco. As you fly over areas you should be evaluating the suitability of what's below you if the fan stops. Some draggy planes slow up quickly. That's the basis for the LP adjustment to, thingy. If you pull the stick back (a possible reaction?) you will really slow up, as the motor stops you should be shoving the stick forward it you have no speed margin to use the extra energy from. That's the FLY the plane thing. The best field might be the one you have just passed overhead of. If you can definitely reach it you NAVIGATE the thing so flying away from it isn't helping you so fairly quickly get tracking towards it. You air time is the height divided by your average sink rate which may be as high as 800 fpm so at 1200 feet you have only a max time of 1.5 minutes to land into the field rather than a few feet short of the creek, mound row of trees wire fence etc which will ruin your day if it turns out that way. You will have to estimate height( and know where the wind is from) as you won't have that exact information on a cross country, so practice, practice and know your planes performance and how much height you lose in a turn., etc. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Which of the US, UK, Canada and NZ allow you to pilot an aircraft without a pilot's license?

The RAANZ Pilot Certificate allows you to use controlled airspace with the appropriate endorsements. I assume something similar exists in the other countries

 

 

[farri]

I`ve always believed in telling true stories as part of teaching.

 

My very first flight in an Ultralight was in the back seat of a home built copy of the Canadian Chinook WT 2 which I later copied from to build mine; the owner was an experienced Ultralight pilot and treasurer of our recently formed club the F.N.Q.U.A., he asked me if I would like to go for a flight with him to Mission beach, on the weekend, me being me at that time, I couldn`t say no.

 

The flight from our property here at Deeral, down to Mission beach went without incident but the flight back not so, the track the pilot chose was coastal, just inland from the beach and we were approaching a 220 m ridge, just south of Bramston beach; even with no flying experience at that stage and from the back seat I could see we would clear the ridge dangerously low; 500 m before the ridge the Fuji Robin 440 twin cylinder single ignition engine completely lost power but kept running; Mr. Cool (not his name) at the controls had the, " Oh Sh!t I Don`t Believe This", moment, fortunately! he`d lowered the nose but couldn`t quickly decide what to do.

 

With nothing but trees below, the ridge ahead and the AC losing height, I could see we were in big trouble if he didn`t act quickly, so I yelled out to him to do a descending turn to the right and head for the beach, which he did, at least we would live a little longer and maybe even make the beach; as soon he lowered the nose enough the engine picked up RPM; we got to the beach with about 50` of height left (I kid you not) but instead of landing on the beach (it was low tide) he decided to do a 90 degree left turn and continue flying about 20` above the water; with nothing but rocks to our left for a kilometer or so, all I could do was prepair myself for the swim if we had to ditch in the water and he got it right.

 

We made it to Bramston beach, landed on the beach and looked for the power loss; the engine was rear mounted, inverted and a spark plug lead had fallen off; the spark plug type were those with the screw on cap that the plug lead held onto, from the vibration, one of the caps had worn out the thread and the lead fell off. Pilot went and found another spark plug cap, put the lead back on and we flew home...The Fuji Robin 440 had pushed us a total of 9 kilometers, 20 feet above the water, on one cylinder.

 

That day, I very quickly learned several lessons but it didn`t deter me from wanting to fly, nor have the engine failures I`ve had since; because of that day, with my own Fuji Robin 440, 2 Rotax 503 and 4, 582, all inverted, I have always had a simple device I used to stop spark plug leads coming off, even though I`ve been using spark plugs without the screw on caps for a long time, I still use it.

 

 

Frank,

 

 

[facthunter]

Something quite cheap and simple can bring you unstuck. Those threaded terminals on plugs are a disaster. Tiger moths used clips on a champion plug thread only. They didn't use a shielded Harness (NO radio or electrics). These things are aeroplanes not lawnmowers.. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Couldn't agree more Franco. As you fly over areas you should be evaluating the suitability of what's below you if the fan stops. Some draggy planes slow up quickly. That's the basis for the LP adjustment to, thingy. If you pull the stick back (a possible reaction?) you will really slow up, as the motor stops you should be shoving the stick forward it you have no speed margin to use the extra energy from. That's the FLY the plane thing. The best field might be the one you have just passed overhead of. If you can definitely reach it you NAVIGATE the thing so flying away from it isn't helping you so fairly quickly get tracking towards it. You air time is the height divided by your average sink rate which may be as high as 800 fpm so at 1200 feet you have only a max time of 1.5 minutes to land into the field rather than a few feet short of the creek, mound row of trees wire fence etc which will ruin your day if it turns out that way. You will have to estimate height( and know where the wind is from) as you won't have that exact information on a cross country, so practice, practice and know your planes performance and how much height you lose in a turn., etc. Nev

As a glider pilot, you sometimes have to consider traversing un-landable, or at least, very hostile, country. There's no question of trusting an engine; you have to make your decisions according to a quick mental calculation of the 'minimum' safe flight profile vs what is actually being achieved. If you hit massive sink, then you are rather quickly in trouble unless you have excess height to 'run' through the sink.

 

I have seen no mention in this thread of 'the ground behind you'. IF you have been attentive, you know what areas were reasonable AND you have a pretty good idea of the conditions you have left. It should be a 'known option' in your flight management - whereas what is in front is an unknown. I have several times scooted for the known, and outlanded safely, when the forward option dropped below my threshold of confidence.

 

 

[Gravity]

I

I guess like most conversations, this has started on one subject and meandered onto others before it will close.

 

I had a quick look through ICAO annexes 1, 2 and 11; there was no mention that only ICAO standard licensed pilots were to access airspace.. There was mention of the rules under which flight is permitted and the level of ATS provided.. Of course, there may something buried in another annex or docs... but as @kgwilson mentioned, it would mean most European and a good deal number of other countries would fall foul of ICAO. Non ICAO pilots can even cross international flight boundaries where there are agreements in place. As mentioned, I see many RAAus pilots navigating throughout Australia - navigating remote outback regions is not as easy as more populated areas. And with GPS, which admittedly is not infallible, but for me, anyway, has been pretty reliable, it is easier to navigate.

 

I have seen a/c without a transponder get a clearance - they make an orbit or two so the controller can identify their primary return and they are allowed in. If the controller is given reason to believe the pilot or a/c is not capable or there is concern of a conflict, they simply refuse permission. to enter. In the UK, the NPPL (and in EASA land, the LAPL) training requirements are lower than PPL. If you have a single engine piston rating (rather than balloon, etc), you now largely have the same privileges as a PPL holder. I think there is additional training (cut down version of RTF and actual exposure to controlled airspace), but it is optional. I was based at Fairoaks which is in Heathrow's control zone - then class A. There were a handful of LAA machines based there operated by NPPLs that never had a PPL and they seemed to manage pretty well. They happily flew to France, Germany, Italy and Austria; the did other European countries as well..

 

As an aside, this may or may not be good news: CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch - Australian Flying

 

I see Peter White will be involved, this ought to be good!!

[Gravity]

As a glider pilot, you sometimes have to consider traversing un-landable, or at least, very hostile, country. There's no question of trusting an engine; you have to make your decisions according to a quick mental calculation of the 'minimum' safe flight profile vs what is actually being achieved. If you hit massive sink, then you are rather quickly in trouble unless you have excess height to 'run' through the sink.I have seen no mention in this thread of 'the ground behind you'. IF you have been attentive, you know what areas were reasonable AND you have a pretty good idea of the conditions you have left. It should be a 'known option' in your flight management - whereas what is in front is an unknown. I have several times scooted for the known, and outlanded safely, when the forward option dropped below my threshold of confidence.

I would like to think that a switched on driver would be aware of his

 

surroundings 360 degs especially what he/she has just traversed!

 

 

[facthunter]

Turn back applies where high terrain en route is ahead on twins and other multi's. Performance is well calculated these days for that situation. A good glider is something very unlike some U/Ls that would have a still air glide angle of less that 10 : 1 at best.. You end up with a sink rate of around 800 FPM at highest weights engine out.. . bit like a brick.. Extending the glide?? Don't even try. Got a strong head wind? The Field would have to be sitting under the nose to make it. Nev

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

It's important to remember that the basis of RAA is CAO 95.55.CAO 95.55 is an exemption from various civil aviation regulations. It exempts people from various airworthiness and maintenance standards, and most significantly the requirement to hold a pilots license, provided you comply with various conditions.

 

Conditions include

 

• Private or flying training operations
   
   
  
• The pilot is a member of RAA and has a RAA pilot certificate (which is not a pilot license)
   
   
  
• The aircraft is registered with RAA
   
   
  
• The aircraft has a MTOW up to 600KG and stall speed of 45 knots or less.
   
   
  
• Compliance with the RAA Ops manual
   
   
  

 

 

So the question really is: what types of flying should you be allowed to do without holding a pilot's license? If you want to do more than what is permitted, or you don't like the conditions applied, you can go down the path of getting a pilot's license - which is now easier than ever with the RPL transition.

 

Which of the US, UK, Canada and NZ allow you to pilot an aircraft without a pilot's license?

Substitute CAO with the correct section of the ANO and RAA with LAA and you basically have the same for the NPPL(A) here in the UK. I think the stall speed is lower (but maybe thing VLA and ULA). I think the UK allow an extra few kilos for a/c fitted with a BRS system. The problem here is licensing (or certification) is a dogs breakfast thatnks to the CAA's preoccupation with bureaucracy and useless rules - CASA certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. The BGAA operate the glider pilot certificate regime, the BMAA operate the microlighting licence regime (I think its NPPL(M), etc. It is called a National Private Pilots Licence for political reasons - it is sub ICAO and you cannot fly CoA aircraft in it - for the NPPL(A) only those that are permit (permit to fly) aircraft all operated under the LAA (although I think some a/c can be registered under either category and they allow one to fly a CoA version of those a/c - but don't quote me on that one).

 

I recently went to a microlight school and asked what a PPL has to do to be able to fly microlights. His response was even the CAA couldn't tell him so he does differences training and puts them through the flight test and if they pass, they are issued a NPPL(M).

 

The NPPL is as equally useless in other countries as is the pilot cert... However, in Europe, the UK, France, Germany, Spain,, Austria and I think Italy have reciprocal agreements to allow each other's country national rated (rather than PPL) in permit aircraft, ULA, VLA and I think ML. In all countries, they can transit at least class D. I believe other countries provide the ability for one to request permission to fly through their airspace on such licenses/certificates and such a/c.. at a cost (Belgium, from memory, is about EUR60 per application and each entry into their airspace requires a separate permit.

 

The reality is that their is an overlap between the higher end of the permit category at least (and some microlights - I understand the Ikarus C42 is quite a little beast in terms of range and speed, for a microlight) and the lower end of the GA spectrum - but if one wants to be able to operate in controlled airspace, they can (class D at least) subject to conducting necessary additional training. As I mentioned above, certain permit types with the necessary equipment can individually be approved for IFR (using the IMC rating - a sub ICAO instrument endorsement available for many years to PPLs here because of the wx variability - it has higher minima and I think can't be used in class A airspace). One doesn't have to kit their permit steed out with the gear, nor do they have to do the IMCr, but they now have the option to. Its permission is not extended to other countries.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft

 

NOTE the word ULTRALIGHT IN the headline of the “ farri “ POST.

 

To get back to the original question of this post and not transform to a free for all, and for the GA and RAA pilots or those learning on or flying nothing other than Tecnam, Slings, Jabs, BRM, ETC. and who have never flown a true Ultralight.

 

You guys don’t know what you are missing.

 

Some background and digression.

 

First Problem to remember, ultralights have a very small - take-off, stall to max cruise speed range envelope. Some early and very BASIC single seat ULTRALIGHTS only have around a 0 TO 60-kilometre speed range, which is 32.5 kts! That’s flat out, to stall at half that. So your margin or flight envelope was about 15 kts all with about 20 to 30 HP two stroke motor.

 

True Ultralights (commonly referred to as rag wings (sailcloth) with two stroke engines) are a very different animal and can have some nasty spots that can bite, (even the well trained high time GA pilot) that the aloof, types that look down on our actual heritage.

 

It amuses me no end years ago, to watch GA pilots, for first time flying a rag wing. The initial shock on the faces of the speed washing off as fast as they pull the power back is almost the same as the rpm gauge unwinding. Also, GA pilots first flights initial reaction to no momentum (weight and speed to punch through wind gusts and turbulence).

 

Real Example - if you got hit by a 20kt gust flying along straight and level – you felt the whole aircraft tighten up, it climbed like you were riding a thermal, you could actually feel and see the wing wire bracing tighten and the wing bend slightly at the tip but it was not sharp thump like turbulence

 

Next the scary bit, flat out cruise straight and level say 40 to 45kts – the ASI would suddenly go up a lot, and hold for a second or two then the gust would be passed and suddenly your airspeed would drop 25 to 30 kts. No weight to punch through it with more drag. The lighter the rag wing or a single seat the more pronounced the effect. You were a true butterfly.

 

Then the best bit, and I did have some fun with GA pilots, and this is what we did every day back in the AUF days (and as far as I am concerned criminal that we can’t now) – we turned off the engine without warning to the victim. This was of course over head, with somewhere to land and usually over a thousand feet or two so they could understand the OUTSTANDING lack glide ratio, compared to a brick!! – and how fast the ALT, could unwind in its best glide speed compared to todays slick toys.

 

The biggest thing we had to drum into these guys was with an engine failure – “stick the nose down now before you do or look at anything”. This was a problem, because people having their FIRST real engine failure as the prop was not rotating were in stunned that it was happening to them.

 

So having the ability of the early rag wing, two seat, two stroke training ultralights allowed us to turn off the engine in controlled conditions? for the students including GA guys, and reduce the “frozen shock and disbelief period” before they acted. They may not have liked it but it saved lives. Not like the snowflake rules we have now.

 

So back to the question – “Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft” Frank has cheekily posted.

 

Frank the answer is

 

Of course an engine failure wont kill you – you are my proof - (how many have you had?????. However - You must have to have the right training – self-taught correct? and survived, but always have a plan to put it down without power!

 

 

[farri]

I have seen no mention in this thread of 'the ground behind you'.

Fair point!

 

It didn`t take me long to learn that the ground behind me was as important for a forced landing as the ground in front of me! Allowing for wind speed, direction, and turbulence, I will not leave gliding distance of the ground behind me until I`m as certain as I can be that I will glide to the ground either ahead or to the sides of me, recognising a suitable landing area though is not as simple as it sounds and the higher the altitude, the more challenging it becomes to be sure that what you`re looking at is in fact what you think it is.

 

Example: I`ve done a lot flying over the Atherton Tablelands; the area around Atherton, Dimbulah, Mareeba is fairly flat with large areas being used for agriculture; to the south of Atherton,all around Malanda, Milla Milla, down the Palmerston until you get to Innisfail, is mostly dairy country that consists of very high hills and hollows that are extremely steep with fence lines running along a lot of the ridges and very little flat country between them; not terrain you would like to have to make a quick decission on a suitable landing area.

 

Frank.

 

 

[M61A1]

I would like to think that a switched on driver would be aware of hissurroundings 360 degs especially what he/she has just traversed!

Exactly....especially if you have a stiff headwind or crosswind... 10 or 15 kts on the nose in a Drifter will shorten the distance you can glide in front considerably, and conversely will lengthen your glide if you turn 180. If I'm crossing ranges (usually at at least 3500'), I am usually consciously deciding at what point I will turn back, and at what point I will proceed should things go bad.

 

 

[Gravity]

I think everyone is over thinking this too much ( just my opinion no more so keep ur shirt on!) it's all about acceptable risks, no more no less, we each have our own limits. If you chose to fly over tiger country in an "ultralight" type engine powered machine then that's yr choice. There's no guarantees, there never will be regardless of airspace usage or any other feel good rating/certificate, again it's all about risk! You got yr RAA certificate full knowing its limitations, if you now don't like them then you should have gone for a proper full license!

 

Do what YOU feel is right. I chose to fly only behind reliable certified engines and I avoid tiger country like the plague even in a proper aircraft. If & when I visit the RAA world of flying ( which may come to that some day) then I'll adjust my way of self preservation accordingly. All I can say is know the machine that yr ass is in, the rest is up to fate & destiny!

 

 

[M61A1]

A safety poster on the wall of a military helicopter training unit:

 

"If you fly single engine aircraft over water for a period of time, sooner or later you will get wet"

 

 

[Happyflyer]

A safety poster on the wall of a military helicopter training unit:"If you fly single engine aircraft over water for a period of time, sooner or later you will get wet"

A well know saying about engine failure in small twin engine aircraft. "The remaining engine will take you to the scene of the accident"

 

 

[Gravity]

A well know saying about engine failure in small twin engine aircraft. "The remaining engine will take you to the scene of the accident"

That's very true indeed The one advantage of a twin is that if IFR then at least you still have yr vacuum Flt instruments to make sure you arrive upright at the crash scene!