Lost One Yesterday

[Orval Fairbairn]

We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the
ground, through a small grove of trees.

According to reliable sources, the gear was down an locked, flaps in
takeoff position and fuel selectors on "Aux".

Fortunately, he was the only one aboard.

Condolences to the family.

[Jim Macklin]

Take-offs are prohibited using the aux-tanks in the C55 and
all other Baron models.
The old style handbook for those Barons did not specify that
take-off be at Vmc+5 .

Gear retraction is part of the after take-off procedure.

Poorly trained pilots destroy many good airplanes./



"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
...
| We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the
left engine on
| takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted
into the
| ground, through a small grove of trees.
|
| According to reliable sources, the gear was down an
locked, flaps in
| takeoff position and fuel selectors on "Aux".
|
| Fortunately, he was the only one aboard.
|
| Condolences to the family.

[James Sleeman]

On Mar 6, 2:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
> takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the

Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the twin jockeys,
to practice those engine outs.

[Denny]

On Mar 6, 6:15 am, "James Sleeman" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
> > We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
> > takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the
>
> Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the twin jockeys,
> to practice those engine outs.

The Baron is known to be a handful if an engine poops near Vmc... You
have to be immediate in chopping both throttles in that situation...
In a more perfect world Barons would be flown only by pro pilots (who
are assumed to be current on engine cuts)

denny - who is too old and too slow to be flying a Baron...

Actually, I should be a heavy iron pilot, who when faced with an
engine out, will set his coffee cup down (carefully), nudge the
copilot awake, point at the engine instruments, and say, "Did you see
that?"....

[Ash Wyllie]

James Sleeman opined

>On Mar 6, 2:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
>> takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the

>Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the twin jockeys,
>to practice those engine outs.

During take off, it is best to think of a light twin as a very expensive, and
unreliable single. If an engine stops, land straight ahead.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Jim Macklin]

The Baron is a pussycat, you've got to be a dolt to screw it
up.


"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| On Mar 6, 6:15 am, "James Sleeman" >
wrote:
| > On Mar 6, 2:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:
| >
| > > We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the
left engine on
| > > takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn
darted into the
| >
| > Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the
twin jockeys,
| > to practice those engine outs.
|
| The Baron is known to be a handful if an engine poops near
Vmc... You
| have to be immediate in chopping both throttles in that
situation...
| In a more perfect world Barons would be flown only by pro
pilots (who
| are assumed to be current on engine cuts)
|
| denny - who is too old and too slow to be flying a
Baron...
|
| Actually, I should be a heavy iron pilot, who when faced
with an
| engine out, will set his coffee cup down (carefully),
nudge the
| copilot awake, point at the engine instruments, and say,
"Did you see
| that?"....
|

[Mxsmanic]

James Sleeman writes:

> Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the twin jockeys,
> to practice those engine outs.

If you fail at practice, you die just as surely as if you had never practiced.

Dangerous things should be practiced in a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tim]

I spoke a while ago to a friend who had a Baron (I think a B58) - he
eventually sold it looking to get a pressurized one - but that is
another story.

He was trained very well - and went for flights with many CFIs who just
wanted twin time and with other pilots in their Barons. Without fail he
had horror stories of those pilots and CFIs.

No checklists, not caring about vmc, no callouts, nothing. It is no
wonder people kill themselves - the training and checkrides are a joke.

Same goes for the instrument checkride around here.

Sad to hear, but it is a lesson for the rest of us. Be prepared and train.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
> takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the
> ground, through a small grove of trees.
>
> According to reliable sources, the gear was down an locked, flaps in
> takeoff position and fuel selectors on "Aux".
>
> Fortunately, he was the only one aboard.
>
> Condolences to the family.

[Dan Luke]

"Tim" wrote:

>I spoke a while ago to a friend who had a Baron (I think a B58) - he
>eventually sold it looking to get a pressurized one - but that is another
>story.
>
> He was trained very well - and went for flights with many CFIs who just
> wanted twin time and with other pilots in their Barons. Without fail he
> had horror stories of those pilots and CFIs.
>
> No checklists, not caring about vmc, no callouts, nothing. It is no wonder
> people kill themselves - the training and checkrides are a joke.

Yep. I have two acquaintences who own twins; a Baron and a C-310. They've
been flying a lot longer than I with no problems. I'd as soon sit on a
toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of them.

> Same goes for the instrument checkride around here.
>

That sounds familiar, too, alas.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 6:33 am, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
> James Sleeman opined
>
> >On Mar 6, 2:42 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >> We lost a friend yesterday in a Baron C55. He lost the left engine on
> >> takeoff, apparently stalled, went inverted and lawn darted into the
> >Let it serve as a reminder to all pilots, especially the twin jockeys,
> >to practice those engine outs.
>
> During take off, it is best to think of a light twin as a very expensive, and
> unreliable single. If an engine stops, land straight ahead.
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu in 2007!
> Why wait for nature?

Ash,

That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

Dean

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I have about 500 hours in light twins, mostly in a Baron. They are a great
handling airplane, and mine has known ice. No it does not fly as nicely or
is as responsive as a Bonanza or Extra, but it is a stable IFR platform that
cruises at 175K. I have no problem flying it over Lake Michigan. Dual
electrical systems and vacuum supplies are also nice- in other words the
same arguments of single versus twin.

Yes, you do have to stay on top of it if you lose an engine when you're
rotating. I did a number of these at Flight Safety, and it was clearly a
worthwhile experience. Losing an engine during other times of flight is more
of a procedural problem than an true emergency.

Besides, flying upside down isn't a challenge- it's recovering that can be
difficult.

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
> them.


"Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom


Montblack

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
> takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
> landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
> out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought
down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved?
--
Jim in NC

[Tim]

Montblack wrote:
>
> "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."
>
nice. I was thinking the same thing, Indy.

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
>> them.
>
>
> "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."

Heh! I thought that one would draw some comment. It's an expression my dad
used to use; I think he picked it up in the Air Force.

> http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
> Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom

Cool.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Dohm]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
> > I'd as soon sit on a toilet full of snakes as fly again with either of
> > them.
>
>
> "Snakes. Why did it have to be snakes."
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/j.socha/video/video.html
> Flying snake movies - Gliding footage at bottom
>
>
> Montblack
>
>
It is quite a word picture!

It also reminds my of my feelings about a Twin Comanche owner I knew about
25 years ago. He was quite comfortable with his own assessment that there
was no need to maintain proficiency in single engine operations--he needed
only to climb out 10 knots above the recommended speed.

A ride was never offered, and would not have been accepted.

Peter

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
> takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
> landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
> out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.

It's been a while since I've flown a B-55, but I do remember that with just
1 person onboard, the single-engine performance at sea-level is adequate.
Poor technique and/or the fuel selectors being on the aux tanks is more
likely to be the cause.

D.

[Peter Dohm]

> > That is pretty much my take on light twins. If you lost an engine on
> > takeoff at low altitude you are better off chopping both throttles and
> > landing it. Only turbine twins typically have enough power to climb
> > out on a single engine without having to operate near VMC.
>
> Do they have enough power to get safely above VMC, if the nose is brought
> down, so only a 100 or 200fpm climb rate is achieved?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
I left this question wait until evening, mostly in the hope that one of the
multi-engine instructors on the group would pick it up and respond--so as
not to leave it for a lowly former student pilot. (sigh)

In any case, the answer to the question as specifically phrased is probably
"no". However, that may be trivial, since AFAIK it should mainly apply in
the special case of a "go" decision with an engine failure at rotation--many
twins be flown successfully from that situation and the parameters should be
covered in the POH. My recollection is that is was covered for the 301D, as
an example.

There are some considerations:
1) For most light twins, V-speeds are only published for maximum
permitted weight, but will actually vary with weight and CG.
2) For most light twins, VMC is only published for standard sea level
density altitude, but will vary with density altitude.
3) Light twins are not required to have a single engine ceiling above
standard sea level, although many do. However, twin owners are generally
quick to point out that a twin with one engine operating will typically have
a favorable "drift down" profile when operating above the single engine
ceiling.
4) Some (perhaps many--I don't know the statistics) light twins have a
best twin engine angle of climb speed less than VMC, and some _may_ have a
best twin engine rate of climb speed below VMC as well. (That possibility
scares the crap out of me!)

In the scenario suggested by the question--of an in flight failure at VMC
during the initial climb--it would probably be necessary to lower the nose
sufficiently for a 100 to 200 fmp NEGATIVE climb to achieve the best rate on
climb speed. It could also be necessary to temporarily reduce power on the
operating engine in order to regain yaw control--especially if you were not
VERY quick with the rudder.

The best source that I know of for good information on the actual correct
procedures is to attend one or more of the FAA seminars. The so-called
"Pilor/Controller" forums are frequently hosted by the local Safety Program
Coordinator for Flight Standards--who are very accomplished pilots in
addition to their other qualifications. They really are the ones to ask,
and they are not involved in enforcement during the years that work as
Safety Program Coordinators.

To find an event near you, visit http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/default.aspx
and enter your zip code and the distance you are willing to travel. You
will gain excellent information, meet your fellow pilots and enthusiasts,
and also be elegible for credit under the "Wings" program.

Peter