4:10. “To make sure that all 12 cylinders were getting as close to the same EGT as possible”. This is a common misconception regarding the utility of monitoring EGTs. As a social media influencer (and a darn good one), it is important to deliver accurate information. EGTs are not going to be uniform or equal. There is too much variability in exhaust flow and probe placement to expect temps to be the same. For leaning, the value in monitoring EGTs is to determine how rich or lean you are when compared to peak, but the absolute temps will be quite different. The “normalizing” feature on a multiprobe engine analyzer is designed to take the different temps and to make them appear the same by adjusting the visual bars to the same “relative” position on the instrument despite the different temps. Once normalized, now you can easily spot changes in EGTs across all cylinders and more easily diagnose problems such as single mag operation, plugged fuel injector, fouled plug, etc. GAMI teaches a nice course on the subject and I recommend it. You will abandon the widely held misconception that EGTs are supposed to be the same. Great content here. Keep the vids coming.
In the ideal world, it would be nice if you could get equal EGT's. However, in the real world, I think you'd need a separate adjustment of some sort for each cylinder. I getting equal cooling air flow over each cylinder would be a real nightmare for some unfortunate engineer.
Question, if the engine failed like that, and the CHTs were so high, why continue on to palm springs? Why not do a precautionary landing and take a look at things. 500 is way too hot.
“Statistically when you lose an engine in a twin it’s more dangerous than a single”. Man, I’ve watched your content for a long time and this shocks me coming from you. That’s an awfully broad brush you’re painting with. As a guy that had a catastrophic failure in my Saratoga and barely walked away after a very tough forced landing (that totaled my plane) I am happily enjoying my new venture in a Piper Aztec.
So best I can tell it wasn’t an engine failure at all. You leaned it too much and it coughed and you enriched the mixture and it ran fine and you flew for another hour. I respect you and your work but your title leads us to believe something that is not true. Your engine did not fail. What gives? Honesty lends credibility to your work.
Dude... almost 500deg CHT? Why you would let a cylinder get anywhere near that temp is mind boggling. 400 CHT on a continental is hot.... I saw a lot in this video that makes me go hmmmm.
I am a low-hours recreational pilot who is super safety conscious, and my wife even more so. She was looking over my shoulder when I was watching your great video. Her instant reaction was: “why didn’t he turn back or divert?” Any comment Jason? Cheers.
My question would be if that incident had happened in a single engine plane would you have continued the flight? As others have mentioned a cylinder running that hot is in the process of destroying itself. It could be as simple as baffling out of place, which could be corrected with a quick stop at the nearest airport. Or it could be a cracked intake manifold at #2 ,leaning that cylinder, which could be detected by a visual inspection with a quick stop at the nearest airport. Or it could be a warning of imminent failure which could be detected with an oil filter inspection after a quick stop at the nearest airport. The point is not knowing means that engine is now unreliable. That engine was talking. As pilots we need to listen, at the nearest airport, on the ground.
Yes. :) In an airliner (well an airbus) emergency checklist you generally have three conditions - 1. Problem dealt with, continue. 2. Land ASAP Amber - problem is continuing, not imminently dangerous, but land at the nearest "safe" airport (i.e. No need to try and drive it into a grass strip, or bust an IFR minimum, but you are no longer going to your destination). 3. Land ASAP Red - problem is a continuing immediate threat to safety, land at the nearest place you can. This was a condition two situation, I think. CHT redline on a Continental is 460ºF, if you can't get it below that then you should be on the ground. Good pilots aren't only good at flying an aircraft - they also should be comfortable (i.e. mentally prepared) organising onward travel or accommodation at an unplanned intermediate stop.
I've had a near identical situation to this in a twin I was familiar with but not as PIC, and of course a passenger carrying flight. Also instinctually went for mixture which solved it right away (had too lean). Lucky for me 2/3 of my passengers were also pilots. Takes guts to post this sort of thing. I notice some armchair pilots leaving negative comments, I also notice none of them have 130 instructional videos on their profile. Keep it up man.
I have a relatively low time pilot friend who is considering moving to a twin from a Cherokee 235. Tried to explain to him my take on the hazards of flying multi engine small aircraft. This in addition to the expense of course. I sent him the video and he enjoyed it. He commented back that he’s looking into faster larger single engine airplanes for multiple reasons after watching. With money not in the equation I do like the idea of owning a multi. I also believe that more experience and regular training would be needed to safely operate. Thanks for the video Jason
One of the biggest problems in GA the last 6 years, lack of pilot currency and training in anything. The 3 take offs and landings every 90 days is not neae enough to stay current or safe. Half that possibly.
Great video, Jason! Thanks for sharing that experience. I did pause for a moment when it sounded like you were saying that the risks involved in flying a twin seemed greater than a single because of the workload involved following a catastrophic engine failure. But consider this: your engine failed AND you flew the entire remaining route. That would never have happened in a single.
Former Aztec and current Baron pilot. High temps could be faulty probe or exhaust gas leak. But and no punt intended, you could have considered that after brief engine ’stutter’ and now one hot cylinder to get to the closest airport - could be imminent engine failure after you loose one cylinder. Glad all went well and please continue to fly twins. So much more fun. Please let us know what you find out when it comes to your engine.
Fly more twins, 😅. Twice the potential problems, 4x more fuel, more oil, more maint, etc, etc. I dont think he'd want ro try and own one, you gotta have a nice 6 figure yrly salary to even think about owning. Just a trip like this probably cost him 2700 just in fuel and and close to 2200 for the rental. Almost 5k, no thx. I'd leave this work to tbe pros. Although a old moo n dawg 201 will push 180 kts true at 12 gph which is faster than the 310 except for the turbo plus one engine in annual vs two. I got a buddy with a 78' 310 and his yrly annual is in the 32-36k range!!! And his previous 310 averaged 28 to 33k a yr on annuals and this was at a shop with great rep and or two master a&p techs.. I'd love a light twin but no thx. I earn 70k and very little in bills, I'd say possibly 11-13k total yrly leaving 48k-54k. If annuals were under 25k a yr and plane flew 50 hrs, I could swing a 1958 310. Better off with a c152 but I am 6'2 and a 172 is almost to small and not firgivibg in cross wind landings because of its "high wing" configuration which tends to be in and out of ground affect at landing.
A light twin flown properly will give you, at least, time to act. But, fatal accidents in light twins are higher due to the fact that people tend to think that it can fly single engine under any circumstance
We had a local twin crash after losing an engine, continuing away from the airport, then deciding to come back to the airport 5 miles later (passing up an excellent rural road to land on) while never getting higher than 900 ft. Crashed 3 miles short of the runway, the student died but the CFI lived. So many bad decisions.
I own & fly a light twin. The light twin mishaps are NOT because those pilots think it can fly well with a single engine in all circumstances...rather it's because some ME pilots become complacent about the asymmetric thrust risks during takeoff & fail to keep current on emergency procedures.
Now that's an interesting statement , that i also heard on the video . My conception was that you could maintain altitude on one engine , even climb though often marginally . To be honest , i always figured they could be more work , but to hear that sentence is a bit of a shock , and leaves me to wonder , what the point of a twin is . I mean they have like no safety value at all .
Singles safer than twins is a bunch of crap. Without proper initial and recurrent training, there is an increased risk in any aircraft. I will NEVER put my family in a single engine anything (piston) during night time or ifr with ceilings below 2000 agl. The one statistic that can never be accurately calculated is how many twin engine aircraft land safely with one engine inop. One cylinder getting that hot can be a partially clogged injector (making cylinder run lean) or a loose spark plug. Very curious to what is found wrong. Great channel, Jason. Working towards my CFI presently and using your channel content more towards “methods of teaching”. The little tips, tricks, and exercises definitely gives alternate perspectives on how to teach certain aspects of training
Thanks for sharing, I really enjoy your teaching style and competence. An observation: I would have canceled the trip/RTB, ESPECIALLY with my kids on board. Each engine on its own is no different than a high performance single and in no case is a CHT at 500 a non-emergency (redline is below that I believe...although the 760 isn't a primary instrument per the FAA is is far better than the factory instrument). Couple that with an engine cough and excessive mixture settings and I think you've got evidence of a significant problem. There is zero chance I would have flown on to my destination, played, and taken off again without an A&P signoff that the engine is safe.
No. No no no no NO!!! A twin engine plane on one engine is not a high performance single. It’s a very heavy, underpowered, and awkwardly configured aircraft ready to kill you at any moment.
Very interesting! Given that Juan Browne just got a 310 (and he flies multi-engine professionally) I would love to see an extended discussion between you two about the pros/cons of light twins and the practical factors while flying them from your perspectives.
Maybe that’s actually happening, twice as many engines means twice as many engine hours, so twice as many problems. Although the twin is still safer, because a problem causes 90% less drama
@@-caesarian-6078 Not necessarily. You can have a lot more drama if you get below Vmc, I think. Going in straight, under control, at a lower speed, has to be better than a loss of control accident. I guess if the pilot had fresh enough training and enough skill, a twin might be safer. (Not a full scale pilot, but have been interested for decades.)
You know, with a Continental engine, fuel flow isn't really an indication of fuel flow. It's a pressure gage. That's the key to the confusion you experienced.
Passengers on board can be a little bit like a second engine. In virtually every way it's better, but passengers are one extra thing to "manage" during an emergency.
I was fortunate to do my multi rating in a DA-42. They definitely are pricey, but those fadec controlled, turbo-normalized, engines are worth every penny. Two power levers on a twin, prop and mixture automatically set to optimum (and yes they have their own redundancies as well). The DA-62 is a better family aircraft, just being a larger cabin and uprated engine version of the 42. What is nice is the fact that since my airport is a 5000ft field elevation, most light twins will struggle to maintain altitude on one engine, but the diamond , depending on OAT, can reach a single engine ceiling anywhere between 10000 and 16000 ft (typically in the 12-14000 range). That said, 310s and barons are still great aircraft, just entirely different beasts.
I got my PPL 4 months ago, trained in a Piper. Not a big fan of the pilot workload with mixture / carb heat even on a single, can’t image on a twin. My family and I are looking at getting a plane and have looked into the DA40 NG and the DA42 and other than the price point to buy one, they seem a safer aircraft with modern systems, especially the automated systems on the twins (DA42 / DA62). Would love to hear your thoughts or see a video with a Diamond aircraft. Thank you for the great videos and easy to consume information 👍👍
Hi great video and very interesting to watch , I too had my first twin engine failure in a Seneca last year IFR. I was intrigued to know more about your decision making process and why you elected to continue to fly for another hour rather than landing immediately?
Fortunately for me afterward (not really helpful at the time) during my initial twin training the twin Comanche I was flying did not really have the controls matched for power settings. Just like in your video, to get the cruise settings right the the mixture, propeller and throttle levers needed to be set at different positions to get the required fuel flow, RPM and manifold pressure. Thus through primacy I have always treated each engine as you say "as different beasts." My simple procedure for maintaining the delicate balance is to only make course engine settings for climb (25",2500 RPM) and rich of peak mixture until cruise. Once at cruise altitude the "magic" happens. The trick to lowering the work load is to only change the following settings one engine at a time. First, set the manifold pressure to desired setting (left then right). Next, set the RPM to desired setting (left then right). Then, go back to manifold pressure (left then right). Note that the propeller levers and throttle levers may not be at the same positions. Only after making very slight taps and bumps to all control levers will the props be in sync and the manifold pressures equal. Last thing to set is the fuel flow via the mixture controls (left then right). You lower the mixture to the desired fuel flow rate looking a the fuel flow gauge and the EGT gauge, as you did in the video. The mixtures can be lowered until the EGT temperature is below red line by 50-100 degrees which will give you the lowest fuel burn (if you are not trying to do lean of peak) for the throttle and RPM settings you have. By breaking each setting to left then right it makes flying the twin much easier especially when the control lever settings can be all over the place relative to the other engine.
I remember that flight you took down to Disney World with Steve and his daughter. The DA42 would be an ideal airplane. In fact, I'm not a multi-engine rated pilot, I'm not Instrument rated, in fact, I don't have my medical anymore and haven't been current in literally decades. Still, if I was in a position where I could buy a multi-engine airplane (single, no kids) the DA42 is a very attractive choice for me, provided I get the one with the Austro engines. Lower fuel cost per gallon, way lower fuel burn and still a pretty good speed, although it may not be as fast as a 310, you aren't burning nearly as much fuel.
Twin Cessnas are also much bigger planes on the inside so better for families. Also since he mentioned wanting a larger weight carrying ability for luggage the Cessnas would be much better. Only tradeoff would be twin Cessnas fuel as you said and higher maintenance costs.
@@RandomName841 The DA42 is a four seat aircraft versus the six seats of a Cessna 310R. Here are some numbers. The DA42 has a useful load of 1,300 pounds, and carries 512 pounds of fuel, leaving a 788 pound full fuel payload. That's almost 200 pounds per seat. The 310 has a useful load of 2,083 pounds and with max fuel, 996 pounds, a full fuel payload of 1,105 pounds of about 15 pounds less per seat, 184 pounds. Yes, you can fit more luggage and stuff in the 310, to the amount of about 320 pounds total. The DA42, with the Aux tank, can travel 1,215 miles at 60% power burning less an 11 gallons of fuel per hour total. The 310R, at 55% power, can with full fuel, do 1,083 miles burning almost 25 gallons of fuel per hour total. At 60% power in the DA42, I can cross the U.S. Seattle to Philadelphia in one fuel stop. At 75% power, I can do it in two, and if I have a good tail wind, I can probably do it on one. You can't get a new 310R, you can get a new DA42. The DA42 gives you a canopy and a door for the rear seats. In the 310, everyone gets in via the copilot's door. The DA42 uses Jet-A, which is available everywhere in the world, whereas 100LL is becoming harder to find and even in the U.S., is still more expensive than Jet-A For Jason's family, right now, and for the foreseeable future, the DA42 is the clear winner in my book.
@@GaryMCurran Thanks for all the info. Although the payloads per seat don't really count because he is flying with only 4 people so it is really more like 250lbs per person for 4 people in a 310. You are sort of right about Jet A (100ll is pretty prohibitively expensive) but many small airports you might go to travel across the country might not offer jet A. The fuel costs are definitely high in a twin Cessnas and I can say in turbo twins at least they are run at closer to 65% power which will burn about 34gal/hr. The biggest thing that you are right about though is definitely the age factor. Twin Cessnas are all getting old and they are getting harder and harder to maintain and there are few experts who know how to for example maintain the gear systems(at least at a reasonable cost). I think that I would ultimately agree with you if not for the high initial purchase price of new planes. Old twin Cessnas can be had for pretty cheap(but the maintenance won't be)
I feel your stress! I was there a couple of weeks ago when I lost the right engine in turbulent IMC over the mountains in NY with the family in the back. All ended well after a declared emergency and a diversion to an airport with services where we changed out the engine fuel pump. I've been flying the same Baron for 20+ years now and never had an incident like that other than in practice. The training and practice is key. Everything went into automatic mode for me when I felt that first yaw surge. Foot went down first and autopilot came off at same time as I banked into good engine and started troubleshooting. About 10 minutes later or so, I remembered I had the family in the back and turned off the intercom isolate to fill them in. My eagle eyed daughter told me they already knew what was going on because after things got quieter outside, she saw the right engine fuel flow (pressure gauge) was at zero and saw me load the diversion airport. Told me to keep focused on what I was doing. I got it running again after 10-15 or so minutes with an aux pump. It was before we got too low so I never feathered it. ATC at Boston Center was great by the way. Noticed my altitude loss at about 400 feet below assigned and called me first to find out what was going on. ( I was above single engine max altitude for the conditions and drifting down as I worked to get things figured out). One thing I recognized in your video was the initial confusion. I felt the same way even though instinct to fly the plane kicked in as it did for you. For me, I was 3 hours into a 3.5 hour flight and planning my descent when the surprise happened. I made a post flight note to self that I need a memorized flow for "confusion resolution". We always drill a flow for take off failure and have the hand in position for a quick shutdown but enroute when all is normal, we are not as primed to respond. Two of the first things I did when I bought the Baron way back 20 + years ago was 1) install the engine monitor as you have and 2) went down to Oklahoma to take the APS class that the GAMI folks put on so I would know more about what it was telling me. BTW, their course is online now. It's a complicated topic and I recommend the class. One thing I liked was their description of an engine being a "6 pack of cylinders flying loosely together". Part of that is that EGT differences between cylinders are not a big deal. (unless one is zero and it's not a bad sensor!) But that CHT of your's being above 400 is certainly a big deal. Don't let that happen. I completely agree that it is more work to manage 2 engines but we have taken lots of routes that I would not have flown with the single I had before. When my wife looked down at the Adirondack mountains and could not see roads or fields as we descended below IMC, she was darn happy for that expensive 2nd engine. However, statistics being what they are, I don't recommend flying a twin if one isn't able to commit to a lot of work to be ready for "the test" when it happens. You do have twice as much chance of having an engine failure! Thanks for posting the great video! Keep it up!
Flying stuff aside, what really got me was something funny, and us married guys all get it. When the wife says “what’s wrong” despite doing your best to keep a poker face. They all have us pegged LOL. Now on the pilot stuff, good deductive analysis of the engine and gauges following the engine problem. I’ve had 5 go out on me (4 singles and a twin) and every one feels like the first one.
500 degrees on a CHT, something needs changed insanely quickly, not good at all. Every time a CHT gets that high a Mike Busch in this world cries a little :)
Twins are riskier right up to the moment you lose a motor in a single at night or lower IMC and you get to play “hope I like what I see when I can see the ground at about 100 AGL.” It’s fun to roll those dice with your family onboard, right? Also a motor coughing while you’re leaning it isn’t a failure.
Jason, I’m looking forward to hearing what the issue was on the right engine. Even though you had some engine issues, you completed your flight safely, good job. 👍🏾 It’s nice to have choices when you encounter issues. You either could have turned around, found another suitable airport close by, or keep flying and trouble shoot to try and fix the issue. With more time flying that twin you might find your proficiency increase, and future issues may not be as taxing mentally. Compare that to flying a single, what would your choices have been? Yes, initially you’re managing a lot more in a twin, but you’ll get used to it in time. Keep flying that twin as much as you can. It’s hard to beat their speed, roominess, load hauling, climb performance, etc… If you decide to buy one, consider either a turbo or a Colemill conversion if your gonna be flying in high density altitudes. Both give you significantly better single engine performance. I love my 310Q Colemill 600.
Sir, I've been flying 58 barons for the last 25 years. This is your first cross country flight. Just give it time and you just become super familar with the plane and the engines. In time the workload is quite low and comfortable, you know exactly what the fuel flows should be for everything and there are really no surprises. It takes experience. My 2005 BE-58 will fly comfortably at 8000 feet on one engine at gross and will climb on one at gross on a standard day at about 400 fpm at sea level. Have go to power settings, standard procedures, take care of your engines and practice flying around with just one running until you are completely comfortable with flying on one. When the right engine started losing power the first thing I thought of was you didn't lock the throttle quadrant friction and the right mixture shook back to a leaner setting killing the engine. Btw, you said when you lost the right engine it was the worst thing that could have happened. Losing the right is a piece of cake, losing the left is more challenging,
I got my multi in a Cessna 310 and went on to flying cancelled checks in 310s a few years later. That was years ago, and to this date the 310 is still one of my favorites. Good job restoring power to the engine.
In a few months I plan on getting my multi rating. This is good information. Even though you may feel during daylight a single is safer, I'd definitely prefer to be in a multi during night flying.
Haa! The joy of rentals and learning the nuances of each engine… we ran the aux tank dry on the right engine of Harvey (1959 C310C) while testing the accuracy of the gauge- like spilling a bowl of soup initially. Once the fuel flow drops, the engine quits within a second. BTW the right aux tank on Harvey reads 2 gallons when it is in fact empty, therefore stick to using time instead of the gauges, 35 minutes on the aux tanks with 5 minute separation between engines so you don’t flame em BOTH out simultaneously. ;-) Much higher workload - no AP=Day VFR only. 1 leg per day with passengers. Jb.
It’s like two different children for sure! I love the idea of running a tank dry to confirm accuracy. 🙌🏻 The old school in me always goes with time anyway, but still … good to know
Did you consider returning to Auburn rather than going on to your destination to determine the problem? You got it running, yes, but without knowing exactly what the situation was, it may have occurred again or worse. Especially since you had the family with you. CFI-MEI.
How can it be riskier flying a twin? with a single, if the engine fail, you are going down no matter how good of a pilot your are. Please explain???? In the air, if something happens, you better have a backup. In case of the engine, either another engine or a parachute. I dont comprehend how is this even a debate. Thank you.
Per hour flown.. more private pilots die in twin engine planes than singles. A twin engine plane means you’re twice as likely to have an engine failure.. and that engine failure is very likely to flip the plane over and make a huge hole in the ground. For a private pilot.. a small single engine plane is far safer. Glide it in to almost any terrain and you will survive. The ones that don’t are the ones that panic and stall or spin it in. A parachute is probably the best as it prevents pilots from being stupid.. but for a lot of years Cirrus fatalities were higher than planes without a parachute because it encouraged pilots to take higher risks and then they refused to pull the parachute.
I fly a C310R...great airplane...spent a sh,,,,,t load of money refurbishing it,,,both engines...airframe...interior,,,landing gear etc,,,,,was down for about 3 months fixing everything that was needed...flies great now...enjoy the speed and the space...Happy Trails
Jason, I’m nearing my checkride and was up with my instructor. We were setting up for turns around and point and s turns and it occurred to me when my instructor told me to set the maneuver up that I wasn’t prepared for that. He suggested a bcgumps checklist and to select a landing spot. There are tons of videos out there on doing the physical maneuvers but none to set them up. Thanks.
1) (5:32) ...It's slightly riskier than flying around in a single...huh? Do what?!? 2) This wasn't a REAL engine failure. Your right engine didn't "Fail"...a real engine failure is when something goes wrong that is BEYOND your control. In this case - "you" just got it too lean to run for an instant and you got a slight yaw, but you knew what the problem was and advanced the mixture and life was good again. Love ya brother, but kinda disappointed that you made this more dramatic than it really was (that's my job...) . This wasn't a thing. Dan
I have been flying singles for over a decade and I was just looking into getting a twin just for that redundancy... how could a twin be riskier? more stuff to go wrong?
Mostly because of the asymmetric thrust aspect of the twins. If you have an engine failure and handle it improperly, especially at a critical time, it can lead to a loss of control that is less survivable than a single-engine plane having an engine failure and having to glide to a forced landing.
Total novice here, just an interest in flight: I have never even heard a twin is harder… my assumption was that it was just safer w/ built in redundancy of the second engine. I never even considered the extra workload…
Yes, the biggest issue with twins is that you will have twice as many engine failures per flight hour and, in many conditions, a twin on one engine is fairly dangerous as you mention. I am not against twins and if I was wealthy, I would likely own one, but people need to really understand the risks.
Thanks for video. I own a Colemill Baron with VG’s which I feel offsets some of the single engine dangers for my family. I’d bet twins are in your future🤗
Mike Busch says in his Mixture Magic videos NOT to use EGT as a means of leaning, but rather CHT. In a single, I use EGT, since it corresponds more easily to CHT in a single, but will pay closer attention to watching CHTs for leaning purposes.
A twin managed right, can be safer. However when choosing a "light" twin you have to have the ability to climb when loaded on a single engine. If you don't, you need a "bigger" twin.
You don't have the ability to climb when you lose an engine on a single engine aircraft :) At hot/high airports this is an issue but most Barons do just fine on a single engine at the lower density altitudes.
Wow, Jason, please update us on the failure mode. The multiple irregularities, FF, mixture, CHTs, I bet caused your mind to be racing searching for answers, especially in a relatively new to you aircraft with the family on board. It's easy to see how fixation and saturation could happen without proficiency
Great video - I almost felt the engine cut out! Curious why you decided to continue the flight to PSP and not return to AUN? Were you sure you’d identified the issue enough that it wouldn’t happen again? No indictment, just wondering your thought process during the event. Thanks!
Light twins are great when you are VERY current and proficient on them. It takes some getting used to. Best way is if you could teach some students on it. If you don’t fly it very regularly it can get you into a tough spot really quickly. Not just the big failures and emergencies, that’s obvious, and in a way easier because this is what you practice the most and everybody gets on a different mode really quickly. But just your everyday flight with one distraction followed by the next, one slight problem followed by another very soft nit so certain decision, and it can quickly go above the reasonable workload management abilities of even a good pilot.
I fly 337s...if an engine fails you get to your destination a half hour later (i kid...sort of. seriously, engine failures in a 337 make it fly like a 182).
In the hands of a competent and experienced twin eng pilot,,realistically once you "maintain control,configure",the odds are definitely in your favor ,,stick with it,,enjoy,Double G..
So the “two is better then one” may be a myth? You hear everyone say that they want the multi rating to be safer. Keep this conversation going in the next clip. Thanks Jason!
Apparently Charles Lindbergh before he made his solo transatlantic flight was asked if he wanted to solo in a multi engine and he refused. He stated that he would rather have one engine that has proved itself versus two engines that were still questionable. The engine on the spirit of St. Louis had hundreds of hours on it without fail.
Okay, I'm not multi-rated, in fact I haven't been current in decades, but I'll offer my two cents on this. The old adage is that a twin will fly you to the scene of the crash. Sadly, that may be true, but it's also a bunch of crap. Flying a twin engine aircraft is about knowing how to fly it on one engine. I'm sure Jason would agree. You can fly a twin engine aircraft safely and get your and your passengers back on the ground safely, IN MOST CASES. There are some scenarios where that's not happening. Let's talk about an engine failure on take off. In a single engine airplane, it's pounded into your head that if you are below a certain altitude, say 1,000' AGL, you find a spot somewhere ahead of you, and put the airplane down. Above 1,000' AGL, you might be able to land back at the airport. An engine failure in a twin on take off, you know what, you might be limited to the same choices, use the good engine to find a place ahead of you and set it down. The working engine might give you a little more choice in where you set it down, but you're still looking at an off-airport landing. If you're empty, lightly loaded, you might be able to climb, but I wouldn't count on it. Most pilots don't practice a real engine out failure in a twin. How long does it take to recognize the failure, how long does it take to react to one, to identify the dead engine, feather the prop, clean the airplane up, and all the other things necessary for sustained one engine flight? How many twin pilots take off thinking 'what am I going to do if the engine fails below 2,000'?' Two IS better than one, but only if you have the proper training, practice and are ready to put that training to use without referring to a check list. Do it, do it now, do it right, every time. You may still end up landing off airport, but your chances of survival are a lot better.
@@GaryMCurran It is hard to know if this is true or not. The statistics show that twins have a higher fatality rate than singles. Now you can argue that this is a training issue, but if you increase training for pilots of both singles and twins, the accident rate for singles would like get better also and it still isn’t clear that twins would come out better. Another issue to consider is that if you do need to land a twin off airport, you will almost certainly have to land at a higher speed and landing/crash speed is a major determinant in survivability. So, I don’t think it is at all clear that twins are safer than singles, no matter the training of the pilot.
What? No.. lol. You’re twice as likely to have an engine failure. In fact.. you’re more than twice as likely to have an engine failure due to things like complex fuel systems on twins and the need to manage two engines. Then there’s the possibility of losing _both_ engines to things like running out of gas, incorrect fuel type, contaminated fuel, bird strike, volcanic ash, incorrect maintenance done on all engines, and of course.. shutting down the wrong engine. And you have a plane that wants to go into a fatal spin on one engine if it’s mishandled and has massive liabilities of higher weight, higher stall speeds, and higher landing speeds if you have to do a forced approach. No.. there is a massive uncanny valley in General Aviation that starts descending as you get into high performance singles and its absolute nadir is the light piston twin. It starts climbing back up with turbine singles and doesn’t actually get safer until you have a twin turbine pressurized known icing two crew aircraft.
In the hands of a qualified, experienced pilot, yes, a twin engine aircraft IS safer.. the problem is there are too many people that are not capable of operating one as safe as they could..
First of all I am very glad to hear that you and your family are ok. Though I am not a pilot I keep studying about aviation and a few questions popped up after seeing your video and I hope you or somebody else can answer them: 1. You mentioned that it is riskier to fly a twin than a single and that quite does not make sense to me. After all you have a good backup engine in the twin. Do you have or know where can I find statistics on that? 2. I have always heard that if you have an engine failure in flight, for safety reasons, you just put the airplane on the ground as soon as possible and in the nearest suitable airport. If the engine failed to start with or ran rough for sometime it is a matter of when not if for it to do it again (I am pretty sure you heard of the Cessna 310 accident that kept flying to it's destination with only one engine and ended crashing into a building). You continues flying for an hour or so "managing" the problem instead of landing and that sounds very unsafe to me. Am I wrong on this one?
For the first question, twins can be dangerous to fly on one engine because they are essentially twice the speed, weight, and complexity(or more) of something like a Cessna 152/172. Additionally, when a twin loses one engine you might think that performance is reduced by half, but it is actually reduced by about 80%. This is because of drag introduced by the failed engine and the loss of lift from that wing(the airflow over the wing from behind the engine also produces lift). Also, the plane must be banked into the good engine and you must use rudder to correct the turn into the dead engine, doing this is called "zero sideslip". This can make it harder to fly just because it's awkard to control the plane flying like this and you can definitely feel you aren't producing thrust on one side. As for your second question, it is really just up to the pilot. If he completely lost the engine he probably would have landed as soon as possible, but since the mixture seemed to fix the problem (possible fuel flow issue?) And he was at cruise he safely continued on to his intended destination on two engines.
I would have landed as soon as practical. I would not have continued with the flight. The amazing weather (clear, high pressure, and calm) was a big part of the decision to continue.
Workload shouldn’t be much higher. Sounds like you just had a poorly maintained twin. But the throttle/prop/mixture quadrants are basically always split in every twin I’ve flown. Needing to run a boost pump definitely seems way wrong though.
Did you fly back home or drive? Sounds like possible contamination in the fuel system. Might be corrosion. I had that happen to me in PA-30 Twin Comanche. One engine went to idle because corrosion blocked fuel flow divider screen.
I learned a lot from this little video. Managing EGT, different personalities of the engines sometimes in a twin, the high workload flying a twin, and the fact that those 2 engines mess up the airflow over the wings leading to higher stall and less glide. And yet, I want one. Ever since 1957, the 310 has been a great-looking machine; the family express. But it's not a plane for weekend warriors - it's one for the serious-minded pilot or industry insider.
Hey Jason, Thank God you had practice one engine failure earlier and yes it is a lot of workload but, if I have to buy a twin-engine for my family I would prefer a DA-42 or 62 in which everything is controlled by the ecu.
I love my JDM 760, it can save your plane and maybe you life. Love your analogy about two engines being like two children. My C414's TSIO's are SO different.
The fact that egts are correlated but fuel flow is not makes me think he just had a fuel pump failure the ff measures pressure, it doesn’t directly measure flow. if the pumps aren’t performing identically this could be telling you. I’m going to guess that a pump diaphragm got a crack in it. The CHT is a red herring, but still needs to be checked out, probably a bad sensor, but I’d still boroscope and compression test that right engine! Oil change and analysis plus filter cut to be sure.
my EXACT thoughts, and here, 7 months later i don't see where Jason actually addressed that. New to the plane, family aboard, engine "stumbles" in established cruise, hot cyl, fuel flows questionable.. land the thing. best answers are on the ground.
What about teaching your 11 year old daughter or your wife how the basic "Stick and rudder" works so there is always 2 pilots on a family trip. It will add to the feeling of security that they know just the basic I think 😊
Other than a power loss prior to reaching a safe altitude or achieving Blue Line, I felt better off in a twin than in a single. I have experienced power losses and power issues in singles. Twins are definitely more complex and more demanding for the Pilot. There is little question about that. So if your head is not fully “in the game” or you are inclined lah-tee-dah it, you would be better off sticking with simpler, slower and less demanding aircraft to fly. Twins do offer so much more in performance and load carrying capabilities but they also demand more from the Pilot. That is the price you have to pay to fly light twins safely.
Great comment, I fly a 340A and the trades offs are worth it; just need to bring my A game to the cockpit as it will bite me if I don’t tame it swiftly, need a lot of proficiency to stay sharp on a twin.
I respect your much more experienced opinion but I have trouble with the statement that it is more dangerous to lose one of two engines than to lose the only engine in a single engine. If you lose your only engine in a single, you are going down and will be lucky to find a safe place to land. Obviously in a dual engine you just have difficulty with control but are likely to reach an airport. Statistics can be used to prove nearly everything but give me an asymmetrical power situation over no power.
I hope I never experience this but hearing that (it's okay daddy got it ) that's when you know people trust you with their life. I'm always safe when I take my wife and daughter up there but that shows that doesn't matter how experienced you are, expect the unexpected. Great job!
Great to see and alternative to declare an emergency I think working through it and especially with your experience what is the best scenario good job thank you
A friend of mine had a twin but he never flew it full IFR. It didn't have a full coupled autopilot so after an experience like yours but in IMC, the work load was intense and from then on he might file IFR to get into and out of someplace that otherwise was VFR then continue in VFR conditions. He also noted that the costs tended to be not double of what a single would be but more like triple.
VisArma, what a fantastic creation by Ted Smith. The structural integrity is amazing among other features. What is the “real” total hourly operating cost of the 601/700?
Don't they have Cessna singles that are considerably larger than a 182? I seem to recall having a ride in one years ago, though I forget the model number. Maybe a 206? Are they unaffordable because they make a lot of sense? I remember being in a 182 with three large people on board, at Marlborough Airport in Massachusetts. That was a pretty short runway and I remember starting to get scared at how much runway we were using, so I can understand wanting something with a bit more room and more oomph. I would have preferred if we'd been in the old Stinson that used to give sightseeing flights out of Ptown. Much slower, but in this case that would have been comforting. That was a really roomy plane, as I recall. Probably a real pain to take care of.
4:10. “To make sure that all 12 cylinders were getting as close to the same EGT as possible”. This is a common misconception regarding the utility of monitoring EGTs. As a social media influencer (and a darn good one), it is important to deliver accurate information. EGTs are not going to be uniform or equal. There is too much variability in exhaust flow and probe placement to expect temps to be the same. For leaning, the value in monitoring EGTs is to determine how rich or lean you are when compared to peak, but the absolute temps will be quite different. The “normalizing” feature on a multiprobe engine analyzer is designed to take the different temps and to make them appear the same by adjusting the visual bars to the same “relative” position on the instrument despite the different temps. Once normalized, now you can easily spot changes in EGTs across all cylinders and more easily diagnose problems such as single mag operation, plugged fuel injector, fouled plug, etc. GAMI teaches a nice course on the subject and I recommend it. You will abandon the widely held misconception that EGTs are supposed to be the same. Great content here. Keep the vids coming.
There should be a follow up on this point. I hope he makes more vids while he is moving into more complex systems.
This. I've literally never seen equal EGTs, or CHTs.
Agreed, clearly a complete misunderstanding of EGTs. The GAMI course is a good recommendation.
Thank you!
In the ideal world, it would be nice if you could get equal EGT's. However, in the real world, I think you'd need a separate adjustment of some sort for each cylinder. I getting equal cooling air flow over each cylinder would be a real nightmare for some unfortunate engineer.
From a long time listener/seldom a caller. Your candor and honesty is highly appreciated. Not just in this video, but all your others.
Question, if the engine failed like that, and the CHTs were so high, why continue on to palm springs? Why not do a precautionary landing and take a look at things. 500 is way too hot.
“Statistically when you lose an engine in a twin it’s more dangerous than a single”. Man, I’ve watched your content for a long time and this shocks me coming from you. That’s an awfully broad brush you’re painting with. As a guy that had a catastrophic failure in my Saratoga and barely walked away after a very tough forced landing (that totaled my plane) I am happily enjoying my new venture in a Piper Aztec.
So best I can tell it wasn’t an engine failure at all. You leaned it too much and it coughed and you enriched the mixture and it ran fine and you flew for another hour. I respect you and your work but your title leads us to believe something that is not true. Your engine did not fail. What gives? Honesty lends credibility to your work.
Dude... almost 500deg CHT? Why you would let a cylinder get anywhere near that temp is mind boggling. 400 CHT on a continental is hot.... I saw a lot in this video that makes me go hmmmm.
That would’ve been a good cause to abort the flight instead of going all the way to Palm Springs.
I am a low-hours recreational pilot who is super safety conscious, and my wife even more so. She was looking over my shoulder when I was watching your great video. Her instant reaction was: “why didn’t he turn back or divert?” Any comment Jason? Cheers.
If you can’t turn around or divert or cancel a trip.. you have no business being a pilot.
I respect how calmly you reacted to the engine, which in turn kept your family calm. Good job!
My question would be if that incident had happened in a single engine plane would you have continued the flight? As others have mentioned a cylinder running that hot is in the process of destroying itself. It could be as simple as baffling out of place, which could be corrected with a quick stop at the nearest airport. Or it could be a cracked intake manifold at #2 ,leaning that cylinder, which could be detected by a visual inspection with a quick stop at the nearest airport. Or it could be a warning of imminent failure which could be detected with an oil filter inspection after a quick stop at the nearest airport. The point is not knowing means that engine is now unreliable. That engine was talking. As pilots we need to listen, at the nearest airport, on the ground.
Yes. :) In an airliner (well an airbus) emergency checklist you generally have three conditions - 1. Problem dealt with, continue. 2. Land ASAP Amber - problem is continuing, not imminently dangerous, but land at the nearest "safe" airport (i.e. No need to try and drive it into a grass strip, or bust an IFR minimum, but you are no longer going to your destination). 3. Land ASAP Red - problem is a continuing immediate threat to safety, land at the nearest place you can.
This was a condition two situation, I think. CHT redline on a Continental is 460ºF, if you can't get it below that then you should be on the ground.
Good pilots aren't only good at flying an aircraft - they also should be comfortable (i.e. mentally prepared) organising onward travel or accommodation at an unplanned intermediate stop.
I've had a near identical situation to this in a twin I was familiar with but not as PIC, and of course a passenger carrying flight. Also instinctually went for mixture which solved it right away (had too lean). Lucky for me 2/3 of my passengers were also pilots.
Takes guts to post this sort of thing. I notice some armchair pilots leaving negative comments, I also notice none of them have 130 instructional videos on their profile. Keep it up man.
I have a relatively low time pilot friend who is considering moving to a twin from a Cherokee 235. Tried to explain to him my take on the hazards of flying multi engine small aircraft. This in addition to the expense of course. I sent him the video and he enjoyed it. He commented back that he’s looking into faster larger single engine airplanes for multiple reasons after watching. With money not in the equation I do like the idea of owning a multi. I also believe that more experience and regular training would be needed to safely operate. Thanks for the video Jason
One of the biggest problems in GA the last 6 years, lack of pilot currency and training in anything. The 3 take offs and landings every 90 days is not neae enough to stay current or safe. Half that possibly.
Great video, Jason! Thanks for sharing that experience. I did pause for a moment when it sounded like you were saying that the risks involved in flying a twin seemed greater than a single because of the workload involved following a catastrophic engine failure. But consider this: your engine failed AND you flew the entire remaining route. That would never have happened in a single.
It breifly failed, and was restarted.
Former Aztec and current Baron pilot. High temps could be faulty probe or exhaust gas leak. But and no punt intended, you could have considered that after brief engine ’stutter’ and now one hot cylinder to get to the closest airport - could be imminent engine failure after you loose one cylinder. Glad all went well and please continue to fly twins. So much more fun. Please let us know what you find out when it comes to your engine.
Fly more twins, 😅. Twice the potential problems, 4x more fuel, more oil, more maint, etc, etc. I dont think he'd want ro try and own one, you gotta have a nice 6 figure yrly salary to even think about owning. Just a trip like this probably cost him 2700 just in fuel and and close to 2200 for the rental. Almost 5k, no thx. I'd leave this work to tbe pros. Although a old moo n dawg 201 will push 180 kts true at 12 gph which is faster than the 310 except for the turbo plus one engine in annual vs two. I got a buddy with a 78' 310 and his yrly annual is in the 32-36k range!!! And his previous 310 averaged 28 to 33k a yr on annuals and this was at a shop with great rep and or two master a&p techs.. I'd love a light twin but no thx. I earn 70k and very little in bills, I'd say possibly 11-13k total yrly leaving 48k-54k. If annuals were under 25k a yr and plane flew 50 hrs, I could swing a 1958 310. Better off with a c152 but I am 6'2 and a 172 is almost to small and not firgivibg in cross wind landings because of its "high wing" configuration which tends to be in and out of ground affect at landing.
It's the first time I ear that loosing an engine in a twin is worse than loosing an engine in a single!
A light twin flown properly will give you, at least, time to act. But, fatal accidents in light twins are higher due to the fact that people tend to think that it can fly single engine under any circumstance
We had a local twin crash after losing an engine, continuing away from the airport, then deciding to come back to the airport 5 miles later (passing up an excellent rural road to land on) while never getting higher than 900 ft. Crashed 3 miles short of the runway, the student died but the CFI lived. So many bad decisions.
I own & fly a light twin. The light twin mishaps are NOT because those pilots think it can fly well with a single engine in all circumstances...rather it's because some ME pilots become complacent about the asymmetric thrust risks during takeoff & fail to keep current on emergency procedures.
Now that's an interesting statement , that i also heard on the video . My conception was that you could maintain altitude on one engine , even climb though often marginally . To be honest , i always figured they could be more work , but to hear that sentence is a bit of a shock , and leaves me to wonder , what the point of a twin is . I mean they have like no safety value at all .
Singles safer than twins is a bunch of crap. Without proper initial and recurrent training, there is an increased risk in any aircraft. I will NEVER put my family in a single engine anything (piston) during night time or ifr with ceilings below 2000 agl. The one statistic that can never be accurately calculated is how many twin engine aircraft land safely with one engine inop. One cylinder getting that hot can be a partially clogged injector (making cylinder run lean) or a loose spark plug. Very curious to what is found wrong. Great channel, Jason. Working towards my CFI presently and using your channel content more towards “methods of teaching”. The little tips, tricks, and exercises definitely gives alternate perspectives on how to teach certain aspects of training
Thanks for sharing, I really enjoy your teaching style and competence. An observation: I would have canceled the trip/RTB, ESPECIALLY with my kids on board. Each engine on its own is no different than a high performance single and in no case is a CHT at 500 a non-emergency (redline is below that I believe...although the 760 isn't a primary instrument per the FAA is is far better than the factory instrument). Couple that with an engine cough and excessive mixture settings and I think you've got evidence of a significant problem. There is zero chance I would have flown on to my destination, played, and taken off again without an A&P signoff that the engine is safe.
No.
No no no no NO!!!
A twin engine plane on one engine is not a high performance single.
It’s a very heavy, underpowered, and awkwardly configured aircraft ready to kill you at any moment.
@@calvinnickel9995 you didn’t read the whole comment. i was talking about engine management and not the dynamics of a me aircraft.
Very interesting! Given that Juan Browne just got a 310 (and he flies multi-engine professionally) I would love to see an extended discussion between you two about the pros/cons of light twins and the practical factors while flying them from your perspectives.
Someone always has to name drop Jaun for attention.
Great video. It definitely seems like engines in light twins sometimes "know" that they're not alone and act up accordingly.
That’s what I was thinking … if there’s two brothers, one is a slacker … lol
Maybe that’s actually happening, twice as many engines means twice as many engine hours, so twice as many problems. Although the twin is still safer, because a problem causes 90% less drama
@@-caesarian-6078 Not necessarily. You can have a lot more drama if you get below Vmc, I think. Going in straight, under control, at a lower speed, has to be better than a loss of control accident. I guess if the pilot had fresh enough training and enough skill, a twin might be safer. (Not a full scale pilot, but have been interested for decades.)
You know, with a Continental engine, fuel flow isn't really an indication of fuel flow. It's a pressure gage. That's the key to the confusion you experienced.
Pretty sure that he's flying lycomings. Red line CHT is 500 for lycoming, 460 for continental.
It is always a bit scary when you have your family on board. Thank you for the lesson and information.
Passengers on board can be a little bit like a second engine. In virtually every way it's better, but passengers are one extra thing to "manage" during an emergency.
Losing one engine when you know what you are doing is not the worse thing possible.
Didn't even lose the engine.
I was fortunate to do my multi rating in a DA-42. They definitely are pricey, but those fadec controlled, turbo-normalized, engines are worth every penny. Two power levers on a twin, prop and mixture automatically set to optimum (and yes they have their own redundancies as well). The DA-62 is a better family aircraft, just being a larger cabin and uprated engine version of the 42. What is nice is the fact that since my airport is a 5000ft field elevation, most light twins will struggle to maintain altitude on one engine, but the diamond , depending on OAT, can reach a single engine ceiling anywhere between 10000 and 16000 ft (typically in the 12-14000 range). That said, 310s and barons are still great aircraft, just entirely different beasts.
I got my PPL 4 months ago, trained in a Piper. Not a big fan of the pilot workload with mixture / carb heat even on a single, can’t image on a twin. My family and I are looking at getting a plane and have looked into the DA40 NG and the DA42 and other than the price point to buy one, they seem a safer aircraft with modern systems, especially the automated systems on the twins (DA42 / DA62). Would love to hear your thoughts or see a video with a Diamond aircraft. Thank you for the great videos and easy to consume information 👍👍
Hi great video and very interesting to watch , I too had my first twin engine failure in a Seneca last year IFR. I was intrigued to know more about your decision making process and why you elected to continue to fly for another hour rather than landing immediately?
Looked to me that it was a restart after he enrichened the mixture on the right.
This guy is a perfect example why you shouldn’t rent your airplane.
Fortunately for me afterward (not really helpful at the time) during my initial twin training the twin Comanche I was flying did not really have the controls matched for power settings. Just like in your video, to get the cruise settings right the the mixture, propeller and throttle levers needed to be set at different positions to get the required fuel flow, RPM and manifold pressure. Thus through primacy I have always treated each engine as you say "as different beasts."
My simple procedure for maintaining the delicate balance is to only make course engine settings for climb (25",2500 RPM) and rich of peak mixture until cruise. Once at cruise altitude the "magic" happens. The trick to lowering the work load is to only change the following settings one engine at a time. First, set the manifold pressure to desired setting (left then right). Next, set the RPM to desired setting (left then right). Then, go back to manifold pressure (left then right). Note that the propeller levers and throttle levers may not be at the same positions. Only after making very slight taps and bumps to all control levers will the props be in sync and the manifold pressures equal. Last thing to set is the fuel flow via the mixture controls (left then right). You lower the mixture to the desired fuel flow rate looking a the fuel flow gauge and the EGT gauge, as you did in the video. The mixtures can be lowered until the EGT temperature is below red line by 50-100 degrees which will give you the lowest fuel burn (if you are not trying to do lean of peak) for the throttle and RPM settings you have. By breaking each setting to left then right it makes flying the twin much easier especially when the control lever settings can be all over the place relative to the other engine.
I guess the next decision point is to evaluate the TBM … (ASMEL-IA)
HAHA -- Wouldn't that be awesome? Maybe someday ...
Way more expensive
I remember that flight you took down to Disney World with Steve and his daughter. The DA42 would be an ideal airplane. In fact, I'm not a multi-engine rated pilot, I'm not Instrument rated, in fact, I don't have my medical anymore and haven't been current in literally decades. Still, if I was in a position where I could buy a multi-engine airplane (single, no kids) the DA42 is a very attractive choice for me, provided I get the one with the Austro engines. Lower fuel cost per gallon, way lower fuel burn and still a pretty good speed, although it may not be as fast as a 310, you aren't burning nearly as much fuel.
Twin Cessnas are also much bigger planes on the inside so better for families. Also since he mentioned wanting a larger weight carrying ability for luggage the Cessnas would be much better. Only tradeoff would be twin Cessnas fuel as you said and higher maintenance costs.
@@RandomName841 The DA42 is a four seat aircraft versus the six seats of a Cessna 310R. Here are some numbers. The DA42 has a useful load of 1,300 pounds, and carries 512 pounds of fuel, leaving a 788 pound full fuel payload. That's almost 200 pounds per seat. The 310 has a useful load of 2,083 pounds and with max fuel, 996 pounds, a full fuel payload of 1,105 pounds of about 15 pounds less per seat, 184 pounds.
Yes, you can fit more luggage and stuff in the 310, to the amount of about 320 pounds total.
The DA42, with the Aux tank, can travel 1,215 miles at 60% power burning less an 11 gallons of fuel per hour total.
The 310R, at 55% power, can with full fuel, do 1,083 miles burning almost 25 gallons of fuel per hour total.
At 60% power in the DA42, I can cross the U.S. Seattle to Philadelphia in one fuel stop. At 75% power, I can do it in two, and if I have a good tail wind, I can probably do it on one.
You can't get a new 310R, you can get a new DA42. The DA42 gives you a canopy and a door for the rear seats. In the 310, everyone gets in via the copilot's door. The DA42 uses Jet-A, which is available everywhere in the world, whereas 100LL is becoming harder to find and even in the U.S., is still more expensive than Jet-A
For Jason's family, right now, and for the foreseeable future, the DA42 is the clear winner in my book.
@@GaryMCurran Thanks for all the info. Although the payloads per seat don't really count because he is flying with only 4 people so it is really more like 250lbs per person for 4 people in a 310.
You are sort of right about Jet A (100ll is pretty prohibitively expensive) but many small airports you might go to travel across the country might not offer jet A. The fuel costs are definitely high in a twin Cessnas and I can say in turbo twins at least they are run at closer to 65% power which will burn about 34gal/hr.
The biggest thing that you are right about though is definitely the age factor. Twin Cessnas are all getting old and they are getting harder and harder to maintain and there are few experts who know how to for example maintain the gear systems(at least at a reasonable cost).
I think that I would ultimately agree with you if not for the high initial purchase price of new planes. Old twin Cessnas can be had for pretty cheap(but the maintenance won't be)
@@GaryMCurran you are absolutely right. Only Problem: the price-gap between a DA42 and a C310 is at least 200 k$ 😳
I feel your stress! I was there a couple of weeks ago when I lost the right engine in turbulent IMC over the mountains in NY with the family in the back. All ended well after a declared emergency and a diversion to an airport with services where we changed out the engine fuel pump. I've been flying the same Baron for 20+ years now and never had an incident like that other than in practice. The training and practice is key. Everything went into automatic mode for me when I felt that first yaw surge. Foot went down first and autopilot came off at same time as I banked into good engine and started troubleshooting. About 10 minutes later or so, I remembered I had the family in the back and turned off the intercom isolate to fill them in. My eagle eyed daughter told me they already knew what was going on because after things got quieter outside, she saw the right engine fuel flow (pressure gauge) was at zero and saw me load the diversion airport. Told me to keep focused on what I was doing. I got it running again after 10-15 or so minutes with an aux pump. It was before we got too low so I never feathered it. ATC at Boston Center was great by the way. Noticed my altitude loss at about 400 feet below assigned and called me first to find out what was going on. ( I was above single engine max altitude for the conditions and drifting down as I worked to get things figured out).
One thing I recognized in your video was the initial confusion. I felt the same way even though instinct to fly the plane kicked in as it did for you. For me, I was 3 hours into a 3.5 hour flight and planning my descent when the surprise happened. I made a post flight note to self that I need a memorized flow for "confusion resolution". We always drill a flow for take off failure and have the hand in position for a quick shutdown but enroute when all is normal, we are not as primed to respond.
Two of the first things I did when I bought the Baron way back 20 + years ago was 1) install the engine monitor as you have and 2) went down to Oklahoma to take the APS class that the GAMI folks put on so I would know more about what it was telling me. BTW, their course is online now. It's a complicated topic and I recommend the class. One thing I liked was their description of an engine being a "6 pack of cylinders flying loosely together". Part of that is that EGT differences between cylinders are not a big deal. (unless one is zero and it's not a bad sensor!) But that CHT of your's being above 400 is certainly a big deal. Don't let that happen.
I completely agree that it is more work to manage 2 engines but we have taken lots of routes that I would not have flown with the single I had before. When my wife looked down at the Adirondack mountains and could not see roads or fields as we descended below IMC, she was darn happy for that expensive 2nd engine. However, statistics being what they are, I don't recommend flying a twin if one isn't able to commit to a lot of work to be ready for "the test" when it happens. You do have twice as much chance of having an engine failure!
Thanks for posting the great video! Keep it up!
You didn't say, but did you open the cowl flap on the right?
Flying stuff aside, what really got me was something funny, and us married guys all get it. When the wife says “what’s wrong” despite doing your best to keep a poker face. They all have us pegged LOL.
Now on the pilot stuff, good deductive analysis of the engine and gauges following the engine problem. I’ve had 5 go out on me (4 singles and a twin) and every one feels like the first one.
500 degrees on a CHT, something needs changed insanely quickly, not good at all. Every time a CHT gets that high a Mike Busch in this world cries a little :)
Yep, this is fast approaching catastrophic failure if true and not a probe failure.
Twins are riskier right up to the moment you lose a motor in a single at night or lower IMC and you get to play “hope I like what I see when I can see the ground at about 100 AGL.” It’s fun to roll those dice with your family onboard, right?
Also a motor coughing while you’re leaning it isn’t a failure.
Jason, I’m looking forward to hearing what the issue was on the right engine. Even though you had some engine issues, you completed your flight safely, good job. 👍🏾 It’s nice to have choices when you encounter issues. You either could have turned around, found another suitable airport close by, or keep flying and trouble shoot to try and fix the issue. With more time flying that twin you might find your proficiency increase, and future issues may not be as taxing mentally. Compare that to flying a single, what would your choices have been? Yes, initially you’re managing a lot more in a twin, but you’ll get used to it in time. Keep flying that twin as much as you can. It’s hard to beat their speed, roominess, load hauling, climb performance, etc… If you decide to buy one, consider either a turbo or a Colemill conversion if your gonna be flying in high density altitudes. Both give you significantly better single engine performance. I love my 310Q Colemill 600.
Good tip! Lots of flying helps iron out the squawks in both the plane and pilot.
Sir, I've been flying 58 barons for the last 25 years. This is your first cross country flight. Just give it time and you just become super familar with the plane and the engines. In time the workload is quite low and comfortable, you know exactly what the fuel flows should be for everything and there are really no surprises. It takes experience. My 2005 BE-58 will fly comfortably at 8000 feet on one engine at gross and will climb on one at gross on a standard day at about 400 fpm at sea level. Have go to power settings, standard procedures, take care of your engines and practice flying around with just one running until you are completely comfortable with flying on one. When the right engine started losing power the first thing I thought of was you didn't lock the throttle quadrant friction and the right mixture shook back to a leaner setting killing the engine. Btw, you said when you lost the right engine it was the worst thing that could have happened. Losing the right is a piece of cake, losing the left is more challenging,
I got my multi in a Cessna 310 and went on to flying cancelled checks in 310s a few years later. That was years ago, and to this date the 310 is still one of my favorites. Good job restoring power to the engine.
First time in that plane and with family and things start going south you should have diverted or returned back vs proceeding on. IMHO
Just curious why you didn't just land at the nearest airport after that happened?
In a few months I plan on getting my multi rating. This is good information. Even though you may feel during daylight a single is safer, I'd definitely prefer to be in a multi during night flying.
Haa! The joy of rentals and learning the nuances of each engine…
we ran the aux tank dry on the right engine of Harvey (1959 C310C) while testing the accuracy of the gauge- like spilling a bowl of soup initially. Once the fuel flow drops, the engine quits within a second.
BTW the right aux tank on Harvey reads 2 gallons when it is in fact empty, therefore stick to using time instead of the gauges, 35 minutes on the aux tanks with 5 minute separation between engines so you don’t flame em BOTH out simultaneously. ;-)
Much higher workload - no AP=Day VFR only. 1 leg per day with passengers.
Jb.
It’s like two different children for sure! I love the idea of running a tank dry to confirm accuracy. 🙌🏻
The old school in me always goes with time anyway, but still … good to know
@@TheFinerPoints Given that fuel gauges in GA aircraft only have to show empty when the tank is empty, how does running a tank dry confirm accuracy?
I'm not multi-engine rated so whenever I fly a 310, I only turn one engine on to stay within regulation.
Did you consider returning to Auburn rather than going on to your destination to determine the problem? You got it running, yes, but without knowing exactly what the situation was, it may have occurred again or worse. Especially since you had the family with you. CFI-MEI.
How can it be riskier flying a twin? with a single, if the engine fail, you are going down no matter how good of a pilot your are. Please explain???? In the air, if something happens, you better have a backup. In case of the engine, either another engine or a parachute. I dont comprehend how is this even a debate. Thank you.
Per hour flown.. more private pilots die in twin engine planes than singles.
A twin engine plane means you’re twice as likely to have an engine failure.. and that engine failure is very likely to flip the plane over and make a huge hole in the ground.
For a private pilot.. a small single engine plane is far safer. Glide it in to almost any terrain and you will survive. The ones that don’t are the ones that panic and stall or spin it in.
A parachute is probably the best as it prevents pilots from being stupid.. but for a lot of years Cirrus fatalities were higher than planes without a parachute because it encouraged pilots to take higher risks and then they refused to pull the parachute.
I fly a C310R...great airplane...spent a sh,,,,,t load of money refurbishing it,,,both engines...airframe...interior,,,landing gear etc,,,,,was down for about 3 months fixing everything that was needed...flies great now...enjoy the speed and the space...Happy Trails
A little baffled…..why not land right away? Misbehaving engine usually gets worse.
Nice job handling that situation! Poor girls were scared. :(
Jason, I’m nearing my checkride and was up with my instructor. We were setting up for turns around and point and s turns and it occurred to me when my instructor told me to set the maneuver up that I wasn’t prepared for that. He suggested a bcgumps checklist and to select a landing spot. There are tons of videos out there on doing the physical maneuvers but none to set them up. Thanks.
HASSELL
Height-
Airframe configuration
Speed
Security - passengers/baggage secure
Engine: configured mixture/electric fuel pumps
Location: suitable places to land
Lookout: clearing turns complete.
Hope this helps 👍
@@alecthurber6647 thanks it is helpful.
1) (5:32) ...It's slightly riskier than flying around in a single...huh? Do what?!? 2) This wasn't a REAL engine failure. Your right engine didn't "Fail"...a real engine failure is when something goes wrong that is BEYOND your control. In this case - "you" just got it too lean to run for an instant and you got a slight yaw, but you knew what the problem was and advanced the mixture and life was good again. Love ya brother, but kinda disappointed that you made this more dramatic than it really was (that's my job...) . This wasn't a thing. Dan
I have been flying singles for over a decade and I was just looking into getting a twin just for that redundancy... how could a twin be riskier? more stuff to go wrong?
Mostly because of the asymmetric thrust aspect of the twins. If you have an engine failure and handle it improperly, especially at a critical time, it can lead to a loss of control that is less survivable than a single-engine plane having an engine failure and having to glide to a forced landing.
Total novice here, just an interest in flight: I have never even heard a twin is harder… my assumption was that it was just safer w/ built in redundancy of the second engine. I never even considered the extra workload…
Great video and informative. Keep us updated on what you find out was the problem.
It makes me wonder, why hasn't a push/pull twin like the Cessna 337 ever gained in popularity?
Because of the Cessna 337. It was trash.
Yes, the biggest issue with twins is that you will have twice as many engine failures per flight hour and, in many conditions, a twin on one engine is fairly dangerous as you mention. I am not against twins and if I was wealthy, I would likely own one, but people need to really understand the risks.
Great video learn a lot. Thank you for the video. Would like to know what happen to the engine?? Why so hot.
An engine running hot can be from lean mixture. So until problem is checked by Engine tech running mixture on rich side is a good idea
Thanks for video. I own a Colemill Baron with VG’s which I feel offsets some of the single engine dangers for my family. I’d bet twins are in your future🤗
I can see how it's easy to fall in love and get hooked. The performance was awesome. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't browsing older Barons :-)
Possible clogged injector on that one cylinder? Induction Leak?
Mike Busch says in his Mixture Magic videos NOT to use EGT as a means of leaning, but rather CHT. In a single, I use EGT, since it corresponds more easily to CHT in a single, but will pay closer attention to watching CHTs for leaning purposes.
A twin managed right, can be safer. However when choosing a "light" twin you have to have the ability to climb when loaded on a single engine. If you don't, you need a "bigger" twin.
You don't have the ability to climb when you lose an engine on a single engine aircraft :) At hot/high airports this is an issue but most Barons do just fine on a single engine at the lower density altitudes.
Wow, Jason, please update us on the failure mode. The multiple irregularities, FF, mixture, CHTs, I bet caused your mind to be racing searching for answers, especially in a relatively new to you aircraft with the family on board. It's easy to see how fixation and saturation could happen without proficiency
Great video - I almost felt the engine cut out! Curious why you decided to continue the flight to PSP and not return to AUN? Were you sure you’d identified the issue enough that it wouldn’t happen again? No indictment, just wondering your thought process during the event. Thanks!
Light twins are great when you are VERY current and proficient on them. It takes some getting used to. Best way is if you could teach some students on it. If you don’t fly it very regularly it can get you into a tough spot really quickly. Not just the big failures and emergencies, that’s obvious, and in a way easier because this is what you practice the most and everybody gets on a different mode really quickly. But just your everyday flight with one distraction followed by the next, one slight problem followed by another very soft nit so certain decision, and it can quickly go above the reasonable workload management abilities of even a good pilot.
Have you flown a DA-62? I know they are pricey, but they look pretty easy to manage.
The only thing I would add is to land immediatly when stuff like this happens.
How about a Cessna 337, a Skymaster? Twin engines. Great hauling. High wing for good
I fly 337s...if an engine fails you get to your destination a half hour later (i kid...sort of. seriously, engine failures in a 337 make it fly like a 182).
Awesome, really appreciate the humility mate. Hard to find these days...
In the hands of a competent and experienced twin eng pilot,,realistically once you "maintain control,configure",the odds are definitely in your favor ,,stick with it,,enjoy,Double G..
So the “two is better then one” may be a myth? You hear everyone say that they want the multi rating to be safer. Keep this conversation going in the next clip. Thanks Jason!
Apparently Charles Lindbergh before he made his solo transatlantic flight was asked if he wanted to solo in a multi engine and he refused. He stated that he would rather have one engine that has proved itself versus two engines that were still questionable. The engine on the spirit of St. Louis had hundreds of hours on it without fail.
Okay, I'm not multi-rated, in fact I haven't been current in decades, but I'll offer my two cents on this. The old adage is that a twin will fly you to the scene of the crash. Sadly, that may be true, but it's also a bunch of crap. Flying a twin engine aircraft is about knowing how to fly it on one engine. I'm sure Jason would agree. You can fly a twin engine aircraft safely and get your and your passengers back on the ground safely, IN MOST CASES. There are some scenarios where that's not happening. Let's talk about an engine failure on take off. In a single engine airplane, it's pounded into your head that if you are below a certain altitude, say 1,000' AGL, you find a spot somewhere ahead of you, and put the airplane down. Above 1,000' AGL, you might be able to land back at the airport. An engine failure in a twin on take off, you know what, you might be limited to the same choices, use the good engine to find a place ahead of you and set it down. The working engine might give you a little more choice in where you set it down, but you're still looking at an off-airport landing. If you're empty, lightly loaded, you might be able to climb, but I wouldn't count on it.
Most pilots don't practice a real engine out failure in a twin. How long does it take to recognize the failure, how long does it take to react to one, to identify the dead engine, feather the prop, clean the airplane up, and all the other things necessary for sustained one engine flight? How many twin pilots take off thinking 'what am I going to do if the engine fails below 2,000'?'
Two IS better than one, but only if you have the proper training, practice and are ready to put that training to use without referring to a check list. Do it, do it now, do it right, every time. You may still end up landing off airport, but your chances of survival are a lot better.
@@GaryMCurran It is hard to know if this is true or not. The statistics show that twins have a higher fatality rate than singles. Now you can argue that this is a training issue, but if you increase training for pilots of both singles and twins, the accident rate for singles would like get better also and it still isn’t clear that twins would come out better. Another issue to consider is that if you do need to land a twin off airport, you will almost certainly have to land at a higher speed and landing/crash speed is a major determinant in survivability. So, I don’t think it is at all clear that twins are safer than singles, no matter the training of the pilot.
Wait, aren't dual engine airplanes supposed to be "safer" than single engine airplanes due to the redundancy?
What? No.. lol.
You’re twice as likely to have an engine failure. In fact.. you’re more than twice as likely to have an engine failure due to things like complex fuel systems on twins and the need to manage two engines.
Then there’s the possibility of losing _both_ engines to things like running out of gas, incorrect fuel type, contaminated fuel, bird strike, volcanic ash, incorrect maintenance done on all engines, and of course.. shutting down the wrong engine.
And you have a plane that wants to go into a fatal spin on one engine if it’s mishandled and has massive liabilities of higher weight, higher stall speeds, and higher landing speeds if you have to do a forced approach.
No.. there is a massive uncanny valley in General Aviation that starts descending as you get into high performance singles and its absolute nadir is the light piston twin. It starts climbing back up with turbine singles and doesn’t actually get safer until you have a twin turbine pressurized known icing two crew aircraft.
In the hands of a qualified, experienced pilot, yes, a twin engine aircraft IS safer.. the problem is there are too many people that are not capable of operating one as safe as they could..
First of all I am very glad to hear that you and your family are ok. Though I am not a pilot I keep studying about aviation and a few questions popped up after seeing your video and I hope you or somebody else can answer them: 1. You mentioned that it is riskier to fly a twin than a single and that quite does not make sense to me. After all you have a good backup engine in the twin. Do you have or know where can I find statistics on that? 2. I have always heard that if you have an engine failure in flight, for safety reasons, you just put the airplane on the ground as soon as possible and in the nearest suitable airport. If the engine failed to start with or ran rough for sometime it is a matter of when not if for it to do it again (I am pretty sure you heard of the Cessna 310 accident that kept flying to it's destination with only one engine and ended crashing into a building). You continues flying for an hour or so "managing" the problem instead of landing and that sounds very unsafe to me. Am I wrong on this one?
For the first question, twins can be dangerous to fly on one engine because they are essentially twice the speed, weight, and complexity(or more) of something like a Cessna 152/172. Additionally, when a twin loses one engine you might think that performance is reduced by half, but it is actually reduced by about 80%. This is because of drag introduced by the failed engine and the loss of lift from that wing(the airflow over the wing from behind the engine also produces lift). Also, the plane must be banked into the good engine and you must use rudder to correct the turn into the dead engine, doing this is called "zero sideslip". This can make it harder to fly just because it's awkard to control the plane flying like this and you can definitely feel you aren't producing thrust on one side.
As for your second question, it is really just up to the pilot. If he completely lost the engine he probably would have landed as soon as possible, but since the mixture seemed to fix the problem (possible fuel flow issue?) And he was at cruise he safely continued on to his intended destination on two engines.
What would have you done if you were IFR in IMC conditions? Would you continue with the increased workload or land?
I would have landed as soon as practical. I would not have continued with the flight. The amazing weather (clear, high pressure, and calm) was a big part of the decision to continue.
Go check out a T210. Not quite as fast as a 310, but they have the payload, pressurized (FL27) and legs. Just my 2¢
Workload shouldn’t be much higher. Sounds like you just had a poorly maintained twin. But the throttle/prop/mixture quadrants are basically always split in every twin I’ve flown. Needing to run a boost pump definitely seems way wrong though.
Remember flying as a kid in a family friend's 310 across the English Channel. Close to 40 years ago.....
What a LEGEND. Great video.
Most engine fails occur due to air-fuel mix mismatch. Thats where fadec engines come in handy and are so much safer
Glad to hear family is safe, and interesting lesson on twin mixture management.
No lie I flew that exact plane today as a part of my multi engine training
Did you fly back home or drive? Sounds like possible contamination in the fuel system. Might be corrosion. I had that happen to me in PA-30 Twin Comanche. One engine went to idle because corrosion blocked fuel flow divider screen.
I learned a lot from this little video. Managing EGT, different personalities of the engines sometimes in a twin, the high workload flying a twin, and the fact that those 2 engines mess up the airflow over the wings leading to higher stall and less glide. And yet, I want one. Ever since 1957, the 310 has been a great-looking machine; the family express. But it's not a plane for weekend warriors - it's one for the serious-minded pilot or industry insider.
Hey Jason, Thank God you had practice one engine failure earlier and yes it is a lot of workload but, if I have to buy a twin-engine for my family I would prefer a DA-42 or 62 in which everything is controlled by the ecu.
I have to ask, after the issue, why did you carry on to your destination? Why not divert or return to base (sounded like you were still close)?
I love my JDM 760, it can save your plane and maybe you life. Love your analogy about two engines being like two children. My C414's TSIO's are SO different.
The fact that egts are correlated but fuel flow is not makes me think he just had a fuel pump failure the ff measures pressure, it doesn’t directly measure flow. if the pumps aren’t performing identically this could be telling you. I’m going to guess that a pump diaphragm got a crack in it. The CHT is a red herring, but still needs to be checked out, probably a bad sensor, but I’d still boroscope and compression test that right engine! Oil change and analysis plus filter cut to be sure.
Did you consider diverting or declaring an emergency? Just wondering.
my EXACT thoughts, and here, 7 months later i don't see where Jason actually addressed that. New to the plane, family aboard, engine "stumbles" in established cruise, hot cyl, fuel flows questionable.. land the thing. best answers are on the ground.
Perhaps a Pilatus would be right up your alley!
Did U LAND immediately for a Mechanic?
What about teaching your 11 year old daughter or your wife how the basic "Stick and rudder" works so there is always 2 pilots on a family trip. It will add to the feeling of security that they know just the basic I think 😊
Other than a power loss prior to reaching a safe altitude or achieving Blue Line, I felt better off in a twin than in a single. I have experienced power losses and power issues in singles. Twins are definitely more complex and more demanding for the Pilot. There is little question about that. So if your head is not fully “in the game” or you are inclined lah-tee-dah it, you would be better off sticking with simpler, slower and less demanding aircraft to fly. Twins do offer so much more in performance and load carrying capabilities but they also demand more from the Pilot. That is the price you have to pay to fly light twins safely.
Great comment, I fly a 340A and the trades offs are worth it; just need to bring my A game to the cockpit as it will bite me if I don’t tame it swiftly, need a lot of proficiency to stay sharp on a twin.
I respect your much more experienced opinion but I have trouble with the statement that it is more dangerous to lose one of two engines than to lose the only engine in a single engine. If you lose your only engine in a single, you are going down and will be lucky to find a safe place to land. Obviously in a dual engine you just have difficulty with control but are likely to reach an airport. Statistics can be used to prove nearly everything but give me an asymmetrical power situation over no power.
Glad you are all ok.
I hope I never experience this but hearing that (it's okay daddy got it ) that's when you know people trust you with their life. I'm always safe when I take my wife and daughter up there but that shows that doesn't matter how experienced you are, expect the unexpected. Great job!
Yeah, it's a lot of responsibility. That's not lost on me for sure
What are your thoughts on the 206 as a step up from the 182?
I like the 206 but am hoping for something slightly faster ...
Great to see and alternative to declare an emergency I think working through it and especially with your experience what is the best scenario good job thank you
A friend of mine had a twin but he never flew it full IFR. It didn't have a full coupled autopilot so after an experience like yours but in IMC, the work load was intense and from then on he might file IFR to get into and out of someplace that otherwise was VFR then continue in VFR conditions. He also noted that the costs tended to be not double of what a single would be but more like triple.
Why triple?
Once you get this twin, and it's idiosyncrasies sorted out Jason, do you have any concerns about the OTHER engine having an issue?
great video!
Fly an Aerostar…. They can climb at 600’ on one engine…. I have the 700.. best piston twin out there.
VisArma, what a fantastic creation by Ted Smith. The structural integrity is amazing among other features. What is the “real” total hourly operating cost of the 601/700?
Don't they have Cessna singles that are considerably larger than a 182? I seem to recall having a ride in one years ago, though I forget the model number. Maybe a 206? Are they unaffordable because they make a lot of sense?
I remember being in a 182 with three large people on board, at Marlborough Airport in Massachusetts. That was a pretty short runway and I remember starting to get scared at how much runway we were using, so I can understand wanting something with a bit more room and more oomph. I would have preferred if we'd been in the old Stinson that used to give sightseeing flights out of Ptown. Much slower, but in this case that would have been comforting. That was a really roomy plane, as I recall. Probably a real pain to take care of.