@what_next On the account of V1 I just wrote that the concept makes sense even for single-engined aeroplanes. I wrote nothing about it being in the manual. The first part of the definition EASA uses has nothing to do with the number of engines or engine failure. Just for clarification:
‘V1’ means the maximum speed in the take-off at which the pilot must take the first action to stop the aeroplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the take-off, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the take-off and achieve the required height above the take-off surface within the take-off distance;
Taken from 965/2012. Please explain to me how that is not true. How the concept of being able to stop in time is not applicable to an aeroplane because it has just one engine.
@RobertL18C What I quoted applies to non-commercial operations of complex aircraft. And complex aircraft is defined as:
‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:
(i) an aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:
— for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
— for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
— for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;
Taken from 216/2008. As you can see MEPs are not complex so it doesn’t concern them.
Also a TBM/PC12 is not EASA-Complex… a subtle point which may be useful one day.
I think my confusion stems from V1, or critical engine failure speed, is a Class A concept where if an engine failure occurs above V1 the aircraft continues with the take off. Alternatively at V1 or below, an engine failure results in an abort, and this rejected take off should allow the aircraft to stop in the remaining runway.
Most light twin turbo props are Class B and require to have reached a minimum altitude (usually 200 feet) to continue OEI. A single engine would need divine inspiration to continue.
Presumably Cirrus will need to develop a V1 table, which by definition is below Vr or Vlof, but above Vef, to operate in Europe. Perhaps there is no reason why this speed should not be quite low as it is not a decision speed – failure of your single engine precluding any decision on your next action. Arguably V1 could be set at 5 knots! In any event it would be useful to see a SE V1 table.
The L39 and other vintage single engine turbojets presumably operate under Annex 2?
Obviously there are things short of an engine failure that can lead to a rejected take off. Master warning/master caution. Presumably Cirrus will need procedures for when to continue into the air in the event of a generator failure. I assume with one engine a single generator failure will have the same seriousness as a dual gen failure on a twin turbojet.
Thinking about the type rating traiing, It will, in some ways, be much easier to do than on twin engined jet. No V1 cuts with asymmetric power, no OEI go arounds.
Bird down the engine! Pull CAPS…
I guess that the jet CAPS envelope isn’t known yet but I would imagine it won’t be too useful between liftoff and 500’ – ie the prime bird strike zone. Too fast to stop, but unable to go is a bloody unpleasant place to be! I also wonder given the mass distribution of the engine, how the aircraft would fare in a forced landing.
Josh wrote:
Bird down the engine! Pull CAPS…
Makes the memory items nice and simple.
1. Pull CAPS
Procedure complete
I guess that the jet CAPS envelope isn’t known yet but I would imagine it won’t be too useful between liftoff and 500’ – ie the prime bird strike zone. Too fast to stop, but unable to go is a bloody unpleasant place to be!
If the CAPS system of the jet is like the one in the SR22, then we can expect:
- It will work at 500 ft AGL (lowest SR22 successful CAPS incident was 400 ft AGL)
- the speed will not be a limitation (fastest successful CAPS deployment to date was close to 200 KIAS)
I wonder if the SF50’s engine position will maybe prevent a bird strike directly into the engine at high angles of attack.
I guess you could always the pull the chute to get into a short strip or on an overshoot, à la Lear Jet 
JasonC wrote:
1. Pull CAPS
1. Pull CAPS
2. Brace ! Brace ! Brace !
I guess my concern is that in the non-CAPS part of the envelope, on a piston single your chances of a successful forced landing are fairly high as long as you attempt a landing straight ahead. You are also behind the engine, which is the heaviest bit of the airframe.
In the Cirrus Jet, it is going to be rather heavier than any SEP I imagine and the engine is behind you, with little structure ahead to absorb an impact. Given that EFATOs will happen, I’m not sure how effective the “sell it to your wife” campaign will be.
