@Mooney_Driver
Would you reconsider things if you could fit a parachute / BRS to your aircraft ?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Part of that comes from the fact that with the mix of cultures in our country we see more crashes that were and are commonplace elsewhere as the driving styles are imported with the people.
One can really imagine yourself sitting in your car and mumbling “darn foreigners” every time you get upset. But statistics don’t support your perception.
Ibra wrote:
That weather looks super-VFR tough,
I think Robert has the right energy and outlook. It was a cold and rather breezy day yesterday. Definitely he will have the same conditions for the trip home over the sea. Wind 16kts + on the nose in a 90hp Cub is full-on 
Robert probably won’t admit it but he is more skilled than the average banana.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Would you reconsider things if you could fit a parachute / BRS to your aircraft ?
I would reconsider things such as night flying and IMC to the ground yea. Those are not really comfortable in a SEP without them. If I could afford it, I would rather opt for a twin though. As for the fire risks, I am investigating fuel bladders, as they obviously help and would also mean 10 USG increase in capacity. Two birds with one stone.
Rwy20 wrote:
One can really imagine yourself sitting in your car and mumbling “darn foreigners” every time you get upset. But statistics don’t support your perception.
What, that there are less fatal crashes today than before? That has a lot to do with the way cars have been made safer too. In the last 15-20 years however driving here has become much more aggressive and unpleasant, not unknown if at times you drive in other countries where this is normal. And no, I am not sitting in my car uttering profanities but I find driving less pleasurable as it used to be… And I try to avoid hotspots. But it is not always easy…
@Mooney_Driver wrote:
I would reconsider things such as night flying and IMC to the ground yea. Those are not really comfortable in a SEP without them.
Without considering riskier missions, such as night and imc to the ground, would BRS help you take away your fears related to flying « in general » ?
I don’t get the rational behind switching to a light twin.
I don’t want to trigger the debate, but we (globally), more or less, agree that, without loads of time to keep on perfect currency, light twins are probably less safe than singles.
So, rather quite counter productive to solve your case of conscience.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Without even considering night flying and imc to the ground, would it help you take away your fears ?
It would make it more comfortable in the event of an engine failure sure.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
I don’t get the rational behind switching to a light twin
I have not got great confidence in the 1950 style engines anymore despite the fact that I never had a failure. And apart, for travelling, particularly over water, twins give you more options. I have flown twins and felt ok with them then. As Timothy has done and some others I don’t really susbcribe to the 2nd engine to the crash site moniker, but I think twins are genuinely better for this kind of thing.
Yes, it collides with my time problem and it does collide with my financial possibilities so it won’t happen. If I could, had the time and money, I would fly like Peter does, IFR first and VFR if necessary, but with a twin like a Seneca II and upwards. Obviously this would mean a much higher currency is needed. I would say 100 hours a year for a twin.
It is one of the great ironies of life that only the young ones act as if they are invulnerable, and that the fewer years we have to lose, the less we are willing to risk them…
And this is completely fine. The risks in aviation have declined slightly and price of reducing them (parachute, twins etc.) is very high, the risk driving a car has reduced hugely in the same time and for almost everyone, so the relative risk of flying is higher than it used to be.
So with risk aversion increasing and relative risk also increasing, there will be a few who decide quite rationally that this no longer works for them.
Others will, also quite rationally, decide to keep taking that risk because they think it is worth it.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
I don’t get the rational behind switching to a light twin.
My sentence was not clear.
What I tried to say was: in your case, would being in a twin, would improve the insecurity feeling you have ?
for example, most of the accidents you listed in the beginning, would have not been avoided in a light twin.
I dont want to be critical, because you have the courage to elaborate what some would prefer to bury deeeep into themselves.
My feeling (and personal experience) is that we often believe that security will be granted in the next upgrade step.
And at some point, we realize that upgrading is not the key for being confident.
Jason and Timothy, I don’t personally know, may have not passed through such a crisis. their upgrade process could have been dictated by higher mission profile to reach, rather than uneasiness to cure.
They may contribute about their personal story.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
What I tried to say was: in your case, would being in a twin, would improve the insecurity feeling you have ?
for example, most of the accidents you listed in the beginning, would have not been avoided in a light twin.
Well, the Acclaim accident as well as the two engine failures which went well would have been a different story for sure. Obviously also in BRS/CAPS equipped plane.
Having flown twins, I know what the 2nd engine can do and what not, that has been discussed here for a long time. For longer trips over water, at night and in IMC, they are a different scenario. In a single, you depend on that one engine. If it breaks down, 99% of the time that means an off airport landing. With a twin, I’d say 90% of the time it will mean you will land at an airport unless this happens in the worst moment, namely after take off before you are cleaned up.
In daytime and VMC below say 2000 ft AGL, SEP’s can and are landed with engine out most of the time without too much ado as well, but over water for instance, CAPS won’t do much either. However, even the measliest light twin will fly on one engine over the sea and most other water.
That is my reasoning behind it.
I know for a fact that there are pilots who have had single engine failures and went Twin as a consequence. I believe Timothy is one of them, another one is Jan Bril and another guy I know from the PnF Forum.
In terms of mission profile, my “dream” planes are the Mooney Ovation (SEP) and the Twin Commanche (MEP) for their increadible range. But this obviously collides with my lack of time even to do small flights right now, as well as the fact that Twins need a lot more currency and recurrency training to stay safe.
It is one of the great ironies of life that only the young ones act as if they are invulnerable, and that the fewer years we have to lose, the less we are willing to risk them…
Indeed Cobalt, well said. I’ve noted for a few years that now that I grow a bit older I experience this as well and see it around me. Another piece of proof that humankind is not that rational as it likes to see itself. So in an attempt to be rational I decided to accept the increase of risk from flying a twin to ‘become single’ again.
It’s clearly a mix of things that drives MD to seriously consider giving it up. But he’s a real aviation addict so that won’t be easy. An option would be to sell the plane, let the license go, save a lot of time, hassle and money and use that time/money budget to occasionally fly RHS with another competent pilot with an as-safe-as-possible machine (twin or BRS) on a cost-sharing basis. If I would lose my medical for instance that would be my route..
