On 4/25/07, pete@petertodd.ca wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:50:18AM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine > > > > Some twin-engine designs try to eliminate the "critical engine" > > scenario by mounting counter-rotating engines on each wing. > > Makes me think that in engine failure scenarios the poor pilot would > suddenly have to deal with all those pesky rotational induced effects... > right when he would rather think about something else. That's why you're trained NOT to think about anything else. :-) Multi-engine pilots are drilled, then drilled, then drilled some more on the emergency procedures for a dead engine, hopefully in the specific aircraft type and aircraft they are flying. "Dead foot, dead engine"... e.g. the foot that's not pushing on a pedal is the side the engine's dead on... (you'd be amazed how may accidents pilots have caused via shutdown/feather the OPERATING engine!) Fly at MCA (minimum controllable airspeed) or faster (preferably faster!) or you'll find yourself yawing dramatically or rolling upside down in worst-case scenarios... Confirm... Confirm... Confirm... Attempt restart/relight if possible. If not possible, feather dead engine propeller, etc... All depends on the aircraft. Bigger aircraft have auto-feather systems, etc. But generally, yes... an engine out in a light twin is a bigger "emergency" than in a whiz-bang do-everything-for-the-pilot bigger aircraft. The morbid joke about light twins is: "What's the second engine for in a light twin aircraft? To get you to the scene of the crash." An engine failure in a light twin of the critical engine requires your full uninterrupted attention, immediately. Nate -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist