Re: A 777 with four engines.

Date:         10 Sep 98 03:04:32 
From:         k_ish <>
Organization: ICGNetcom
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Don Stauffer wrote:
> James Matthew Weber wrote:
> > In a light aircraft, this is a different story, but  the truth be know in a
> > light aircraft, you are probably safer with 1 engine than with 2...
> >
> > I am reminded of a comment a friend made about the CAA in Australia. They
> > used to require light twin pilots to demonstrate landing skills with engine
> > out on a regular basis, until it was pointed out to them that far more
> > pilots were getting killed being trained and practicing to deal with the
> > problem, than the problem was causing...
> I have heard many people claim that the statistics prove that more fatal
> crashes result from an engine failure on a twin than an engine failure
> on a single.  Does anyone know of a reliable reference for such a
> statistic?

I don't have any references, but I do recall reading in "Flying" or
"AOPA Pilot" that the fatal accident rate in piston twins after one
engine fails is something like 4x the fatal accident rate in piston
singles once one engine fails.  An old maxim in light aircraft is the
purpose of the second engine is to fly you to the scene of the accident.

Also, ferry pilots (people who take light aircraft on long distance
delivery flights) would much prefer a single to a twin.  The reason is
that the chance of an engine failure in a twin is slightly more than 2x
of a single.  If the engine does fail in a twin, it leaves you in a
high-drag situation where you will not have enough fuel to make
landfall.  So you have twice the chance of an engine failure, and in
either case you are going to get wet.

Of course, the entire subject is very different for turbine aircraft.

Ken Ishiguro