Scudrunners

I see that single engine flight is viewed as crazy by the Brain Trust.



According to the Brain Trust, anyone who takes on less risk than them
is a loser, and anyone who takes on more risk than them is a loser.



The young, the stupid and the Left (the self-appointed Brain Trust) tell us
that we can measure our IQ by how much we agree with them, because
they have virtue.

At the risk of hurting the feelings of the young, the stupid and the Left,
I don't think I will use their brain instead of mine. If as a result, the young,
the stupid and the Left opine that I have no virtue, hey, that's cool.


This guy is a hero of mine. An old, bold pilot:




These people have no virtue, whatsoever.




Yeah, single engine airplanes are dangerous. Twin engine airplanes are
much safer, because if one engine fails, you can keep flying on the other:



The kerosene snobs will respond to the above, and tell us that we are losers
if we fly piston, and that turbines are so powerful, this is not a problem in a
"real airplane" like say a King Air:

Meh, we all draw our lines somewhere.

Yes, but they are frequently irrational and subjective, and often curiously violently defended.

People don't examine first principles. They do what some randomly selected
250TT instructor told them, instead of acting rationally.

Here's a secret, unknown to the Brain Trust:

The airframe (and engine!) have no eyeballs.

The airframe and engine cannot directly sense pitch attitude or the presence or absence
of daylight, or see the terrain being flown over.

If you look at the inside of an engine during operation, it will appear the same during
both daytime and nighttime, and regardless of what terrain the engine is over.

This revolutionary fact is because the metal case of the engine is solid, and no daylight
that peeks into the engine compartment through the cowls, can permeate to the innards
of the engine, and somehow mysteriously affect it's operation, by making it brave or afraid,
functional or broken.

This extremely esoteric mechanical engineering knowledge is kept secret in aviation.
Only a few, very stupid people such as myself that are severely lacking in virtue, are
aware of this hidden fact.

Corollary of the above:

The reliability of your engine has far more to do with maintenance
and the quality of parts used, and not the terrain being flown over,
or the time of day.

Despite this inarguable truth, pilots don't give a fuck about maintenance
and like little children are instead obsessed by the terrain they fly over, and
the time of day.

See, if you have virtue, you are irrational and proud of it.

Why does it have to be one or the other exclusively?

It seems to me that one should consider all potential risks, and the weight given to them for any given flight.

Many pilots do not do their own maintenance. They rely on others to do it. To deduce that as not carrying is a bit of a stretch. In the grand scheme of things, the majority of flight time is in aircraft owned and maintained by other people.

Careful analysis of a number of plane crashes has identified five main reasons,

human error,
mechanical defects,
weather problems,
air traffic controller/other ground staff error, and
other causes.

Human Error
This is by far the most common cause of air crashes, accounting for about 50% of accidents.

Mechanical Failure
mechanical failure still accounts for around 20% of aircraft accidents.

Ok. Pilots fucking up leads the short list. That, with mechanical failure (uninteresting
to you, of extreme interest to me) account for 70% of accidents.

There is no rationality whatsoever in pilot risk assessment.

They are literally the weakest link.

If the pilot doesn't fuck up, and the airplane doesn't break, you have gotten rid of 70%
of the accident causes. That's interesting to me, because all my friends are dead.



Unlike the snowflakes of today, who are always searching for more learning experiences,
I try very very very hard not to fuck up in the cockpit. And I try very very very hard to have
the finest parts and maintenance, and KEEP THE METAL HAPPY.

I presume that given the above, it is merely coincidence that I am still alive?

“(uninteresting
to you, of extreme interest to me) “

A spurious claim. Exactly on what are you basing this claim?

From this completely unsubstantiated and incorrect claim, you go on to demonstrate whatever conclusion you wish.

I am older than you. Probably have more flight time. And am still alive, current, and flying.

Perhaps your logic needs to be revisited, before you make a claim that I am not interested in something.

I will state my opinion. Pilots need to be concerned about many things. And challenging retired fighter pilots with distinguished careers like Mr Swallow , to demonstrate a rather useless low level maneuverers shows
a disrespect and disregard for their flight experience .

But, he and others of us with military backgrounds would not call ourselves “Colonel,” unless we achieved that rank.

Thank you.

If you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger.

I thought a large number of the human error accidents was fuel mismanagement? either running out, or not being selected to a tank with fuel, or running out and not changing to a tank that has fuel... ?
Who was going crazy about single engine flight? i miss something?

One thing I find bizarre is GA's aversion to single engine IFR. I have maintained that flying above the crap at 6000 feet or whatever shooting an approach is much safer than scudrunning (irony eh).

Although I want a Piper Malibu as a family SUV after my last flight across the rocks looking down I thought maybe a spare engine would be nice. Risk management comes in many forms.

This is from the guy who hopped in a Pitts that hadn't flown in 7 years and having never flown one myself gaver shit across the country from ontario to Vancouver.......so maybe don't listen to me.

Trust your gut and just stick to your comfort zone.