Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pretty cool clip of a PC12 on tiny uphill grass field - Locher, Italy

That’s bad luck! Maybe not for this thread, but how did those come about?

Luckily all in twins. One was a magneto which started firing in the wrong sequence (which results in a tremendous clattering of the engine and vibration), one was a broken valve rocker on a turbocharged engine which caused an almost total loss of manifold pressure (plus one cylinder without power) and one was a turbocharger that broke off the exhaust. That was by far the worst with flames and smoke and everything.
On the jet, a turbine blade broke off, caused by a manufacturing defect which took 3000 hours to show itself.

EDDS - Stuttgart

what_next wrote:

For me it would be absolutely unimaginable to make my life and that of my passengers entirely dependent on the well-being of an engine and each of it’s accessories.

Ok, so basically for you this rules out single engine flying with passengers.

At least IFR, NIT and off runways which do not offer a 100% plan B for EFATO.

That is fine, so I suggest you’d also gladly forego places like Courchevel or similar, no matter how many engines. Or take a passenger to mountain flying.

You are in good company with many in EASA and other CAA’s who feel that GA should be restricted to multi crew and multi engine and stop all the rest flying as it’s too dangerous. But I would be careful calling anyone who has a different opinion reckless and an accident waiting to happen. Locher field has been around for quite some time, nobody forces you to fly there.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 03 Nov 16:10
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

what_next wrote:

Downhill on grass or gravel is an absolute No for any accelerate-stop-distance calculation, unless the runway is very very very long.

And I just yesterday saw a Citation take off from Catalina (KAVX): https://skyvector.com/airport/AVX/Catalina-Airport. FYI, while the rwy is officially tramac, it is in very bad shape with potholes and loose gravel. I am hesitant to take an RG in there, but hey, someone decided to do it in a jet! The landing – which I didn’t see – must have been sporty. Alas, no pics, only had my phone with me.

If you land on the side closest to the terminal, it’s somewhat OK though… Just beware of possible downdrafts when landing on runway 22:

172driver wrote:

And I just yesterday saw a Citation take off from Catalina (KAVX): https://skyvector.com/airport/AVX/Catalina-Airport. FYI, while the rwy is officially tramac, it is in very bad shape with potholes and loose gravel. I am hesitant to take an RG in there, but hey, someone decided to do it in a jet! The landing – which I didn’t see – must have been sporty. Alas, no pics, only had my phone with me.

In the Meridian it was certainly interesting. Both takeoff and landing. Ok but a bit nerve wracking.

EGTK Oxford

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Ok, so basically for you this rules out single engine flying with passengers.

No. It just rules out getting myself into a position from which there is no escape. I do fly and instruct single engine IFR too, but I set my own minima which I strictly observe. Keep as many options as possible.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

That is fine, so I suggest you’d also gladly forego places like Courchevel or similar, no matter how many engines.

Why would that be? Corchevel in something like a KingAir which can safely land even if an engine fails during the approach, why not? I have flown to Elba dozens of times with different aeroplanes. But I would not depart from there towards the mountain in anything that will only descend after an engine failure.

172driver wrote:

And I just yesterday saw a Citation take off from Catalina (KAVX):…

I am not familiar with that airfield, but if the figures from the manual permit, then why not? On the other hand, Catalina Island has claimed a large number of victims already: http://islapedia.com/index.php?title=AIRPLANE_ACCIDENTS:_SANTA_CATALINA_ISLAND

Last Edited by what_next at 03 Nov 19:06
EDDS - Stuttgart

what_next wrote:

On the other hand, Catalina Island has claimed a large number of victims already: http://islapedia.com/index.php?title=AIRPLANE_ACCIDENTS:_SANTA_CATALINA_ISLAND

Yep, it’s an interesting albeit very beautiful place. I fly there 3-4 times a year for an – excellent! – bison burger and was REALLY surprised to see the jet there. According to the guy in the tower (FISO-type arrangement there), they get about one per year.

172driver wrote:

Yep, it’s an interesting albeit very beautiful place. I fly there 3-4 times a year for an – excellent! – bison burger and was REALLY surprised to see the jet there. According to the guy in the tower (FISO-type arrangement there), they get about one per year.

Yes although remeber a lot of jets have much stronger landing gears than light GA. I reckon landing the Mustang there would be easier than landing the Meridian so long as you could land uphill. Much stronger gear, trailing link.

EGTK Oxford

JasonC wrote:

Yes although remeber a lot of jets have much stronger landing gears than light GA. I reckon landing the Mustang there would be easier than landing the Meridian so long as you could land uphill. Much stronger gear, trailing link.

Good point, hadn’t considered.

I followed some kind of straight wing Citation around the pattern one day and was blown away by how slowly it could go. It looked not much faster than single engine pattern speed. So I guess the viability of flying a Citation into Catalina depends on the type of Citation! That aside I’ve flown in there three or four times and not felt it to be greatly challenging in a smaller light plane. The runway is rough, and slightly sloped but I think I’d rather fly to an airport on the top of a mountain than one in a valley. People fly Citations into Pauma Valley (50 miles east of Catalina) and I’m really not sure I’d want to do that, even in the cabin.

I couldn’t fly my planes if I was unable to accept the risk of being killed due to engine failure – I regularly take off over dense buildings. Risk is not as crtical to me as the product of time and risk.

Re “two different type of pilots”, I think that’s a reasonable concept as long as one type of pilot doesn’t refer to his type of plane as ‘a real plane, not some kind of ultralight’, or to other pilots as ‘needing to grow up’, especially when they outnumber him by 1000 to 1

Last Edited by Silvaire at 03 Nov 22:50
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top