I think the concern of Pax worrying about IMC is overstated.
In my experience they generally have no idea how hazardous it is considered to be, and have never heard of ‘178 seconds to live’
I have twice done weekends away with a possible poor wx return, that was significantly worse than expected, resulting in the final sector being IMC with an approach to a divert airfield. The pax only know it’s a big deal because I’ve mentioned it. (After ensuring I’ve got all bases covered).
A big concern, is that my pax are briefed on the dangers of GA and still decide to come, but how will this work with colleagues? Maybe if it’s only the same few each time then they will be equipped to make a decision.
It can be quite stressful when the wx gets ugly and worrying about your pax will be a distraction. The best way to mitigate that is avoid that wx at all costs (affects dispatch) get a hard-core machine (affects costs) or get very experienced (time consuming) plus set sensible margins.
I wish you well.
If you’re able to flip this, to we’ll carry-on as before, but may just add GA as a tool for expediency and convenience on beautiful days, it may be easier to navigate.
If this is a business only tool, I’d get the business to pay for 2 engines, if it will be a shared use aircraft then when not on Business with colleagues a Cirrus would be a great machine as well.
UdoR wrote:
You start with an idea, having thought about it very thoroughly, and then all converges to “at least turbine”.A FIKI DA42 or DA62 is a very capable aircraft – in the hands of a skillful and non-hotrod-pilot.
Add experience on type to it and yes.
The main reason I went into that direction are the airports they indicate as their main destinations. If you operate in the flat lands of Germany or benign weather in some parts of Europe, you can easily do this with either an SR22 or a Diamond. Unfortunately though the Balkans have some very unpleasant weather particularly in the winter half year which will make flying with anything less than an airplane which can get out of low terrain with one engine out REALLY fast or, alternatively, has a shute to pull.
Silvaire wrote:
If the plane is carrying multiple non-pilots around for business purposes, I think the experience of piston engine flying is too much for passengers who may have no interest in flying and are just trying to do their job.
I think the biggest concern is how much they have to stick to a given schedule. The more you need to be capable of “all weather ops” in particularly the terrain where the OP wishes to operate, the more you end up needing airliner capabilities. If you can move the flights by a few days and respect higher minimas taking into account performance and particularly one engine out performance, you can do with almost everything, even though in the case of those two airports, this may well end up moving the trips by weeks rather days in winter.
Oh yea btw: regarding the alternate for LWSK if it’s in bad weather, Sofia is usually a much safer option than Ohrid will ever be unless OHD is VMC
First, to be honest, for GA I would say Cirrus will be a safer option than a twin. It must sound weird, but in an engine failure scenario, a twin can become very dangerous and unstable if not handled properly.
Second, DA42 is basically a glorified trainer aircraft which is unusable for anyone with basic necessities of comfort. DA62 is way overrated and overpriced. You’re much better off getting a Meridian turboprop for the same money, with pressurized cabin, 270ktas up to FL270 and so on.
Lastly, I wouldn’t choose either aircraft for your mission. Go with something like Saratoga or Bonanza if you are looking for reliability and cost control, or step up to Meridian to fly any whether like an airliner.
I’ve zero hours piloting the DA42 but from my IRE (and another pilot flying it) I hear that a one engine out in it is a non-event. Maybe others here can report.
Given the comparably low power of the engines and the mounting position with respect to the long wingspan in comparison with the big bores in the rather short-winged antique twins it sounds totally reasonable, that OEI is nothing to really bother.
I would choose a Twin a million times over a chute. But to each his own.
Given the performance and the type of fuel I think a DA42 is indeed a good touring aircraft. I do see a lack of fuel quantity for long-distance flights. About level of comfort would be interesting to hear more.
For the present case where most of the flights are around an hour long, the “level of comfort” is maybe not the highest point on the list.
UdoR wrote:
I’ve zero hours piloting the DA42 but from my IRE (and another pilot flying it) I hear that a one engine out in it is a non-event. Maybe others here can report.
Heard the same about DA42 – engine failure is a non-event.
UdoR wrote:
I would choose a Twin a million times over a chute. But to each his own.
And agree with that one as well. Chute is not going to help with flights over North sea. But, as you say “to each his own”.
Heard the same about DA42 – engine failure is a non-event.
Correct. The 155/170 HP per side version obviously climbs a bit better than the 135 HP version, but it terms of controllability there is really no issue. In cruise, the GFC autopilot activates the yaw damper which makes it even less of an event.
The DA-42 has had accidents in the training environment – probably in the Vmc demonstration exercise for the class rating. Not sure the total, but possibly only a few, less than half a dozen.
There are sensible procedures to demonstrate Vmc without speed going below Vsse, which has a healthy safety margin above the types Vmc, which is very close to stalling speed.
If there is a LOC event and the airplane departs it is unlikely to recover, unfortunately. High aspect ratio wings, mass of the diesel engines, results in very high gyroscopic forces.
One training accident the crew survived, but rear passenger injured when the type landed on a Norwegian pine in a flat spin and rotated round the pine like an olive on a cocktail stick.
RobertL18C wrote:
One training accident the crew survived, but rear passenger injured when the type landed on a Norwegian pine in a flat spin and rotated round the pine like an olive on a cocktail stick.
This happened not that far from my place. It was a training flight for the CPL with — IIRC — 4 persons on board. It was at night, over a solid low cloud cover. The instructor demonstrated an accelerated stall and the aircraft went into a flat spin. They were incredibly lucky, not just that the tree cushioned the fall, but also that it struck in the middle of the cabin and not under a seat. I’m truly surprised that the Swedish CAA didn’t shut down the ATO.
In any case the whole thing was so incredibly stupid that you can’t blame it on the aircraft type.
UdoR wrote:
I’ve zero hours piloting the DA42 but from my IRE (and another pilot flying it) I hear that a one engine out in it is a non-event
It may well be for someone who does this all the time. OEI is very much a practice thing. Many twin LOC accidents happen to pilots who have plenty of hours on the airframe but have not done serious OEI training in a while.
Also as a trainer for MEP, if it was really a non event, one has to question if the plane is a good trainer then. What if someone makes their rating on something like this and then goes on to fly a Seneca, Navajo or Twinco, just to name a few, where OEI is anything but a non event.
Personally, having flown twins in the past, I would suggest that particularly light twins are inherently dangerous to people who don’t keep meticulous OEI training as they give a false sense of security. They are benign enough if you have to do a shut down in cruise but can bite badly in an EFATO scenario, where most of them are not better than a single. By contrast, light jets with engines at the tail like the Citation 500 and similar, while not stellar in performance either, are much easier to control in such an event and a lot less stressful. That imho is one of the interesting bits particularly in Europe where jets are still regarded as inherently difficult to fly and require a lot of bureaucracy to keep current, while the imho much more demanding twins don’t.
And with regards to the OP: In the area he wishes to fly there is not a lot of water other than lake Ohrid but there are a lot of mountains. So a light twin which does not climb OEI can be a much higher risk than either a plane with a shute or a twin which still climbs with 1500 fpm on one engine. And that is usually either turboprops or jets.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I would suggest that particularly light twins are inherently dangerous to people who don’t keep meticulous OEI training as they give a false sense of security.
That was the reason I never took multi-engine training in the 1980s, which would at that time have been a natural step after the IR. I realised I would not fly MEPs enough to keep current on OEI procedures.
