Timothy wrote:
All from the same school?
I suspect so. My concern is twofold: firstly, they may well throw away an aircraft that didn’t need to be thrown away (together with physical risk); secondly, they just rattle-off a standard phrase without thinking about what they are saying. Taken to the extreme “……in the event of an engine failure after take-off I’m going to complete a LH visual cct to land…” when the cloud base is 200ft, there is a puppy farm, school, hospital, high ground & an SSSI to the left and they will happily take an unnecessary turn towards a dead engine.
Timothy wrote:
Yes and no. In an EFATO in a twin, there is only one “right” airspeed, Blue Line; you can be too fast or too slow.
Ah OK that makes sense, my natural reaction is that airspeed suggests speed is slow, but I can see it could be either, and that you were seeing whether the pilot was aware which way to correct, and that he could equally have been faster than blue line. Interesting. Out of interest was this a twin with original or retro fit glass? I am guessing the former.
Brand new – so G1000 from the factory.
Cobalt – yes definitely the Baron, my question was more directed at Timothy and the twin he was instructing in when the pilot pulled instead of pushing.
DA42, from new.
Thanks. Yep in my experience the 42 doesnt exactly climb like a fallen angel on 1 engine in any event.
Can’t contribute much, but flying a Baron (C55 with IO520s) myself I can say that
1) unlike a Seminole (or most other typical training twins) a lightly loaded Baron with 520s or 550s climbs fine on one engine even on a warm day (and a Baron with only 2POB is light).
2) it accelerates quickly so if the gear comes up as soon as positive rate of climb is established it will be a blue line before the gear cycle finishes.
Also the photos don’t look like this accident is caused by loss of control in flight.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
in my experience the 42 doesnt exactly climb like a fallen angel on 1 engine in any event.
It depends on the model. The NG is excellent.
maehhh wrote:
Also the photos don’t look like this accident is caused by loss of control in flight.
If FR24 is to be believed (a big If, I know) the first EFATO, in the go around, did not go well, possibly due to mishandling, but possibly due to a malfunction:
I havent flown the NG but glad to hear that, the non NG version felt a little short of power.
Having looked at the photos, it seems surprising that the outcome was so dreadful, as the aircraft doesnt look in too bad condition. Very sad news. Given the different accounts it will be interesting to read some more detail.
