Can you legally...?

JayB

JayB

New Member
I had a test question recently in school that basically asked:

It is IFR and you are operating under Part 91. After calculating the accelerate-go, accelerate stop, runway available, etc. you notice that the aircraft will not safely perform if it were to lose an engine, would you be legal to takeoff?

Any thoughts on the issue?

--Jay
 
Yes. As far as I know, no single engine aircraft will safely perform if it loses an engine.
smile.gif


Even if you were in a multi engine plane, I would think that it would not be a problem (legally). Obviously, losing an engine and having no climb rate/ability to hold altitude throws any legal ramifications out the window!
 
I got the question wrong, and it is currently being debated with the professor, but this is my thought:

I believe that you are not legal. Operating under Part 91 does not mean that you are not regulated. I believe that if you comply with Part 91.103 and actually calculate the takeoff distances, and upon finding that your aircraft cannot safely climb should it lose an engine, elect to continue anyway, then you are in violation of 91.13 - careless operation of an aircraft.

If you fail to calculate your distances, then you are in violation of 91.103 and are not legal. Either way, you aren't legal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. As far as I know, no single engine aircraft will safely perform if it loses an engine.
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, when I edited the question I left out the part about it being a multi engine airplane.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that if you comply with Part 91.103 and actually calculate the takeoff distances, and upon finding that your aircraft cannot safely climb should it lose an engine, elect to continue anyway, then you are in violation of 91.13 - careless operation of an aircraft.


[/ QUOTE ]

91.13 is exactly what I was going to mention. Even though there may not be a specific reg. that applies to this situation, 91.13 is the FAA's catch-all, and if you decided to take off and for some reason crash or something, I'd be willing to bet that they'd go after the PIC with 91.13 in their hands.
 
I guess it is a classic question on a Multi-engine checkride.

I would most definately take off. As was stated earlier, a single engine plane has a negative climb performance when it loses an engine.

Take some light twins to Denver in the summer and see how many have positive single engine climb performance.
 
Heck, you can bring most light twins to PHX on an average spring/summer day and see how well they do on a single engine!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would most definately take off. Take some light twins to Denver in the summer and see how many have positive single engine climb performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in Denver and have done the majority of my training at high altitude, mountainous airports, and I can assure you that a light, normally aspirated multi-engine aircraft will not climb on one engine on hot days. Fortunately, I typically only fly turbocharged airplanes, but you know what they say, "the spare engine will only take you to the scene of an accident."
 
[ QUOTE ]
I got the question wrong, and it is currently being debated with the professor, but this is my thought:

I believe that you are not legal. Operating under Part 91 does not mean that you are not regulated. I believe that if you comply with Part 91.103 and actually calculate the takeoff distances, and upon finding that your aircraft cannot safely climb should it lose an engine, elect to continue anyway, then you are in violation of 91.13 - careless operation of an aircraft.

If you fail to calculate your distances, then you are in violation of 91.103 and are not legal. Either way, you aren't legal.

[/ QUOTE ]



When you are personally flying around in a normally aspirated multi-engine plane...what part of the FARs are you flying under?


I don't know if I am reading this wrong...but it sounds like you are saying it is illegal to takeoff with a negative single engine climb performance in a multi engine airplane.
 
Doug -

I received my multi at Williams-Gateway on an 115 degree day. I distinctly remember having trouble maintaining blue line on an ILS! Talk about heat (it's a dry heat though, right
cool.gif
?) I also remember being #2 in an E300L at IWA with the canopy shut - think gerbils in microwaves, folks...

J.
 
[ QUOTE ]
When you are personally flying around in a normally aspirated multi-engine plane...what part of the FARs are you flying under?

[/ QUOTE ]

91!


[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I am reading this wrong...but it sounds like you are saying it is illegal to takeoff with a negative single engine climb performance in a multi engine airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not at all. I did it all the time back at ERAU in Prescott, Arizona.

Heck, even with a positive rate of climb single engine in a light twin, I might still consider landing straight ahead on a road somewhere if it was day, VMC and not congested.
 
This is like the IFR question that if the ceilings and visibility are below minimums can you legally attempt the approach under Part 91. Answer is yes, since you are 91. Can you land legally? No, but you can sure try the approach. As for the Multi t/o-go with one engine, yeah it's legal under Part 91. Good idea? Probably not, but legal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Good idea? Probably not, but legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it isn't a good idea.

A single engine plane won't perform if it looses one engine at this field.
A twin engine plane won't perform if it looses one engine at this field.

-So there should be NO single engine aircraft allowed at all! They can't safetly operate after loosing one engine on ANY field! Training costs are going to skyrocket
crazy.gif
 
I wouldn't. I am not even sure it is legal, because of careless and reckless , but also because you are supposed to be familiar with your airplane performance, all preflight calculations that will help you in making a go/no go decision.
Clearly, if you take off and loose one and cause an accident, you are in violation of the FARs. But like Doug said, even if the book tells me I can climb, I would be looking for a road or something else, down the runway. I know for a fact the FAA will not violate you for making that decision...
 
Difference being you don't run the risk of a single engine flipping over or going out of control if the engine fails. Multi's are known to do that if you go airborne below Vmc with one engine. Add that to the severe aerodynamics disadvantage of a multi on one engine, and I think it might not be a "good idea."
 
[ QUOTE ]
but you know what they say, "the spare engine will only take you to the scene of an accident."


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't meant as a bash on you JayB but ... that has got to be one of the most ignorant and moronic mis-truths in the entire aviation world and I really hate that it continues to persist.

The only time a multi-engine aircraft is inherently more "dangerous" than a single engine aircraft is when an engine fails immediately after takeoff – in the gray zone of 50ft AGL to about 500ft AGL) and then it's only such if the pilot isn't prepared or proficient. An engine failure at any other point in the flight is really, almost, a non-event.

What kills people or what "takes them to the scene of the accident first" is a non-proficient pilot. Someone who is proficient at flying twins greatly, greatly reduces the "danger" of a twin.

Answer me this ... what happens in a single when the engine dies? Yup, that's right, You are SOL. Now answer me this one? How many times have you had an engine quit on a single? Not too often. So why, then, does everyone assume that if you slap a second engine on an aircraft it's somehow magically transformed into a POS-timebomb just waiting to ruin your day?

We look for redundancy in every system on an aircraft: dual vac pumps are better than a single pump, dual radios (some of us carry transceviers because we're so paranoid about it), dual alternators, back up gear extension systems yet when we start talking about a second engine all of a sudden it's bad juju.

It just irks me because the people who generally espouse that stupid sayng are single-engine pilots who know very little about multi-engine operations.
smirk.gif


Again, this is NOT directed AT you JayB ... just a rant.
cool.gif


[/rant]
 
[ QUOTE ]
Difference being you don't run the risk of a single engine flipping over or going out of control if the engine fails. Multi's are known to do that if you go airborne below Vmc with one engine. Add that to the severe aerodynamics disadvantage of a multi on one engine, and I think it might not be a "good idea."


[/ QUOTE ]

That's, like Pilot602 said, a pilot proficency issue. Plane's don't just flip over when they feel like it, if the engine fails, and you're below Vmc, cut the power to the working engine and land straight ahead - same as a single. Some twins have Vmc below Vs, so that could be a non-issue.

There's a severe aerodynamic disadvantage of a single on NO engine too...

EDIT - Also, multi engine planes departing ANY field below Vmc have the chance to do the formentioned roll. If the feild is 10,000 ft, and the engine quits below Vmc at 50'AGL, the roll is still possible if the pilot's reactions are not quick enough.

The twin engine still is not less safe then a single going out of that field.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The only time a multi-engine aircraft is inherently more "dangerous" than a single engine aircraft is when an engine fails immediately after takeoff – in the gray zone of 50ft AGL to about 500ft AGL) and then it's only such if the pilot isn't prepared or proficient. An engine failure at any other point in the flight is really, almost, a non-event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly, and this obviously applies to the situation above because we are in a multi-engine airplane on takeoff in IMC. I would say that unless the pilot is proficient, his reaction time to an engine failure is greatly reduced.



[ QUOTE ]
Answer me this ... what happens in a single when the engine dies? Yup, that's right, You are SOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a given, but the question doesn't refer to singles.

[ QUOTE ]
Now answer me this one? How many times have you had an engine quit on a single? Not too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have had an single engine die on takeoff. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Pilots who think that their engines won't die, are pilots looking for an accident.

[ QUOTE ]
So why, then, does everyone assume that if you slap a second engine on an aircraft it's somehow magically transformed into a POS-timebomb just waiting to ruin your day?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because accident statistics show that pilots have killed themselves entering IMC in multi-engine aircraft when suddenly they lose an engine on take-off. Not to forget the effects of altitude and temperature on stall speed and Vmc, reducing the amount of time a pilot has to respond.

[ QUOTE ]
It just irks me because the people who generally espouse that stupid sayng are single-engine pilots who know very little about multi-engine operations.
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what kind of flight time you have in multi-engine aircraft. You probably have more experience than I do, and I don't claim to know everything there is to know about aviation, and I'll be the first to tell you that I am still a wet behind the ears aviator. I have about 107 hours of multi time in high performance turbocharged twin engine aircraft. I am also an MEI, I took my initial multi-engine and MEI checkrides in a Turbocharged C-310R, an aircraft that NASA has determined to have one of the highest pilot workloads of any light twin in aviation.

I first heard that saying from a 17,000+ hour pilot who has more time in multi-engine turbine aircraft than he does in single engine airplanes. I have flown with him and can assure you that his respect for multi-engine aircraft is not something that he takes lightly, and you shouldn't either.

But, your comments are well noted, and thank you for not directing it at me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top