Adam that is an easy one, the statistics show a SE EFATO accident has a higher probability of a non fatal outcome.
80% were due to water in the tank, how much training you need to check fuel?
No it does not. It only reflects the twins that crashed. How many didn’t?
AdamFrisch wrote:
Where would you rather be from a purely statistical outlook?
If I wasn’t current in EFATO procedures I would prefer to be in a single. The reason I haven’t taken the MEP rating is that I know I wouldn’t fly multi-engine aircraft enough to feel comfortable that I could handle an engine failure at takeoff.
Adam that is why I used the word accident. There are 100,000’s MEP EFATOs carried out every year in the training environment, not all without incident, every year a poor instructor/student(s) has an accident, so you are correct in that sense that the vast majority are without incident. The statistic for EFATO accidents in non training environment are not possible to establish, however where an EFATO involves an accident the MEP has around an 80% fatality rate.
however where an EFATO involves an accident the MEP has around an 80% fatality rate.
I dont understand your comment?
It’s just a statistical fact, if the EFATO is not handled correctly and there is a resulting accident, the outcome historically has around an 80% fatality rate. This is a combination of loss of control (Vmc roll over at low level, or spin during Vmc demonstrations), high kinetic energy which contrasts with SEP engine failure accidents where the accident usually is under control and at relatively modest speeds.
I was questioning what you meant by when an “EFATO involves an accident”? Do you simply mean when an EFATO results in an accident (in other words an impact) that impact in a twin will carry an 80% fatality risk? That in itself makes sense, because a miss handled EFATO will most likely result in a spiral dive or spin and since the aircraft is not landing “flat” the consequences are unlikely to be good.
EFATOs in a twin require discipline – working to the process, correctly and efficiently, added together with a twin with sufficient power and the danger is over exaggerated. On the other hand EFATOs in a single require much less discipline or process. Chances are even ham fisted you may well get away with it as long as you dont manage to stall the aircraft. Twin pilots should be much “better” pilots than those flying SEPs, but in reality they are not, hence the higher risk.
How do EFATO accidents in Twins relate to the total number of accidents that happen in Twins? The moment you rotate and take-off in a Twin is a critical phase in flight but also a short period of less than a minute before you are (hopefully) at altitude.
I think, as has been said many times before, to be meaningful statistics must be understood in terms of the factors that influence the numbers. Twins undoubtedly undertake many more missions that many would not fly in a single, so the risk is higher, but mitigated by redundancy. Without this understanding, the numbers are easily misunderstood, in exactly the same way as the EFATO accidents.
