[ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree with you on your point. We all know that many of the Duchess/Apache/Seminole/Aztec aircraft have little, if any, climb rate available in many conditions (atmospheric/altitude etc). Knowing this, it's imperitive that you know the abilities and limitations of your aircraft at any given time. Setting a limitation on yourself to apply to
each and every situation is as unrealistic as overestimating the abilities of your aircraft at all times. There are times when you can make a SE go, and times you can't. The onus is upon you as the PIC to know when those times are, and flex accordingly depending on the situation.
If you have the ability to make an SE go in a situation that warrants one, and you fail to and end up cracking up the plane or worse, that'll be labled bad judgement on the PICs part. Same holds true for if you don't have the ability to make an SE go, and you attempt one, then end up cracking up the plane (or worse), that'll be labled the same bad judgement as before.
I can agree that setting a limitation, or baseline of some sort, is a good conservative thing to keep in the back of your head. Going farther than that, though, is knowing the numbers for your aircraft in any given situation, whether you use a chart or some sort of quick reference. Nothing that has to be specific, like "right now, I have a 427.3+ FPM ability", but a ballpark or WAG of some sort is better than nothing "I should have at least 200 FPM climb rate", and will instantly tell you where you stand in a given situation. From there, you then can plan your options available. You may or may not have the option of an SE go, but at least you have an idea ahead of time. It comes down to experience in your particular aircraft and knowing it's limitations. The A-10 isn't 14 CFR 23 certificated, but I know when it can and when it can't make an SE go. Example: A left engine out (no left hydraulics) is far different from a right engine out (no right hyd). With the left engine out, I have to figure in things like the inability to raise the landing gear (unable with left hyd out)....much differnent from the right engine out where I don't have that problem. Combine that with the atmospheric conditions, and I have a pretty good ballpark idea of what my limitations are on landing based on experience in the aircraft and quick reference charts in the checklist. It comes back to knowing the systems, performance, and limitations of your craft.
That being said, I fully agree that many people (some I've even talked to) overestimate the capabilities of light twins. They figure the other engine there is full-up insurance from losing one motor, completely forgetting that one engine out is something like loss of 80% available power. In many instances, a light twin can be more dangerous than a single-engine, not through any fault of the plane itself, but through fault of the pilot. At least with a single-engine, your options are pretty cut and dried. From what I've seen personally, some mishaps that occur from an SE go, the aircraft could've performed it with not too much problem. But poor pilot technique (no zero sideslip, etc) exacerbated the already-fine margin for error, and an accident occurred. My whole point is that we need better training of multi-engine pilots to learn their aircraft and what it can and can't do at any given time, rather than impose limitations at all times as an artificial crutch. There are times when limitations will apply, and it's the job of the PIC to know when those times are. Then, putting into effect the degree of limitation (500 AGL for example), would easily apply.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that you are right... The FARs still leave a margin for the PIC to operate within, and knowing your airplane limitations is well within the PIC responsibilities.
What I was trying to point out, is despite what someone said here, doing a single engine low altitude go-around is not allways the safest action. Surely there are situations where I would opt for a go around on 1 engine, and like you said the PIC has to know his airplane.
I was also trying to caution people with too much confidence in those multi engine, that when operate such an airplane at max gross weight, you may be far off the numbers given on the POH. Just as a prevention, I would say: on a light twin, that is not Part 23, be extremely vigilent when (in terms of conditions and weight and altitude) to intiate a go-around.
Anyways, I am going on 2 1/2 weeks of paid vacation tomorrow morning, so you won't have the displeasure to read me again!
I will see y'all in a couple of weeks!