Hi,

With all the headlines nowadays about various objects being shot down over Alaska as well as Russian aircraft intercepted in the Arctic, I've always wandered about the use of single engine fighter jets in very remote areas, such as Alaska or Northern Canada (see link below):

American F-16 jets intercept 4 Russian warplanes near Alaska
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/am ... 8e02f94ba4

I have a bit of experience flying in the high Canadian Arctic as an air ambulance pilot. I flew in that area for 5 years, the majority being on B200 King Air, but I've also flown a few cargo versions of the B1900C, as well as LR35 medevacs (Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Churchill). All the airplanes were twin turbopropos / jet. It was very comforting to know you had that 2nd engine.

My old company also had a PC-12 going to very remote areas, such as the northernmost (civilian) town (Grise Fiord, Nunavut). I was offered a left seat spot on it, but turned it down, not being a fan of single engine operations. I'm not putting down Pilatus, but in those areas, a single engine turboprop is not exactly a comforting thing to fly. Often remember my G1000 PFD showing "No Aiirports within 200nm range". Imagine having an engine failure there. Where would you even land that plane. It's hard to distinguish a hill from flatland... nevermind the ICE, snow, etc.

I understand an F-16 or F-35 are highly advanced aircraft, but single engine is .... single engine. Why not have F-18s, F-15s or other twin engine aircraft operating in very remote areas? On a side note, I'm surprised Canada picked only the F-35 as it's new fighter jet.

Anyone have any insight on this?

Military aircraft play by entirely different rules than civil ones. As you said the aircraft themselves are highly advanced, the pilot is highly trained (not only in air combat but also survival skills), and the fact that the fighters aren't carrying passengers. The last point is the biggest one as there are no safety rules (outside of military regs) affecting the operation of the aircraft for it's mission.

If the plane goes down for some reason, the pilot knows how to survive for a few hours until a Blackhawk can pick them up. If they run low on fuel (unlikely over US/Canadian airspace with proper planning) a tanker can meet up with them.

As for the specifics of Alaska, the F15 and now F22 have been the front line fighters there for a long time now. Both are double engine aircraft which the AF probably agrees with you for safety and the remoteness for the region, but also are the fastest aircraft in the inventory which is necessary to intercept Russian incursions.

I'm just an armchair observer though so this is just a SWAG. The resident current/former military pilots on this board will definitely give you a better answer than I can.

TWA772LR wrote:

Military aircraft play by entirely different rules than civil ones. As you said the aircraft themselves are highly advanced, the pilot is highly trained (not only in air combat but also survival skills), and the fact that the fighters aren't carrying passengers. The last point is the biggest one as there are no safety rules (outside of military regs) affecting the operation of the aircraft for it's mission.

If the plane goes down for some reason, the pilot knows how to survive for a few hours until a Blackhawk can pick them up. If they run low on fuel (unlikely over US/Canadian airspace with proper planning) a tanker can meet up with them.

As for the specifics of Alaska, the F15 and now F22 have been the front line fighters there for a long time now. Both are double engine aircraft which the AF probably agrees with you for safety and the remoteness for the region, but also are the fastest aircraft in the inventory which is necessary to intercept Russian incursions.

I'm just an armchair observer though so this is just a SWAG. The resident current/former military pilots on this board will definitely give you a better answer than I can.

Very good points. Trying to compare civilian flying with military flying is probably a bit silly on my part. That's true too, about the F22 (being a twin engine). I forgot about that. Our Arctic Survival training was just an online course, although detailed, I'm sure it was very inadequate if we were to end up on the ice somewhere. I imagine military survival training is a bit more extensive.

Another factor is that like the civilian world reduction to twin engine jets, military engines have undergone the same increases in power and reliability.

For example the F-135 has thousands of hours of intense stress testing on the stand, in all environmental conditions. All of that was necessary for the Navy and Marines to certify the F-35 for carrier service.

Vulnerabilities are either minimized with engineering, or closely monitored by the engine controllers. They will switch to reduced power limp modes, and alert the pilot, rather than allow a catastrophic failure of the engine.

Also for each flight, the maintenance crew receives a complete readout of engine performance data. This enables them to see issues that may be developing, before they become safety of flight issues. The jet can be grounded until the engine is performing nominally.

This is a new capability that has not existed before, and is part of why the F-35 requires a network overhaul on the ships and bases from which it flies. The JPO is also developing a suitcase-sized data terminal that can be transported to austere bases for this purpose.

That capability has been a security concern for some program partners, because some of that data is also sent back to JPO and P&W for monitoring and evaluation. This means an engineer at P&W may flag an issue on an F-35 operating from a carrier on the other side of the world.

Increasingly, VR and digital twins are being used to both investigate anomalies remotely, and assist maintenance technicians on-site. The net result is a significant increase in reliability and safety.

Note that procedures for a single and twin engine fighters are different when it comes to engine issues; in a twin engined fighter, the flight manual will usually call for the pilot to shut down the problem engine, while in a single engined fighter, the flight manual will call for maintaining a constant power setting, and avoiding major changes to the throttle when possible.

In addition, look at the Class A mishap rates between the F-15 and the F-16, both with the F100-PW-229 engine:

F-16:
https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/do ... PW-229.pdf

F-15
https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/do ... PW-229.pdf

The F-15 has had multiple Class A mishaps related to the engine, while the F-16 has zero.

When I was flying it, there was an A-10 lost after a false fire light. Pilot shutdown the engine, as per the checklist, ATC advised him Ellsworth, IIRC, was 12 o’clock and 30-something miles. Being relatively new, he set max boards and dove toward hot and humid South Dakota. Well, the heat couldn’t keep and the canopy frosted over. He forgot the speed brakes were out, keep losing airspeed and did a silk letdown. As the chute opened, he noted his airplane with the speed brakes out. DUH!

The board did find there were something like 70+ fire lights, the vast majority were false. In the ensuing single engine landing, several planes were lost. Multi-engine only increase your options, handle them well, good. Not so well, bad outcomes.

Eagle drivers I talked to said they loved to have two engines iso one, over remote and other scary places they operated over.

Make engines as robust and reliable as possible, using all available monitoring, predictive maintenance and redundancy, then put in two.

keesje wrote:

Eagle drivers I talked to said they loved to have two engines iso one, over remote and other scary places they operated over.

Make engines as robust and reliable as possible, using all available monitoring, predictive maintenance and redundancy, then put in two.

Couldn’t agree more, I’d take an old, well maintained Baron over any SE Turboprop

I’d like to see the stats on piston engine failures vs. PT-6. I’d bet a lot the single PT-6 designs have a far better safety record than any light twin, even after an engine failure. Dick Collins decades ago did a lot of research and found twins weren’t that good after an engine failure.

The 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson AFB, Fairbanks now operates single engine F-16s (in the aggressor role) and F-35s -- all single engine. I don't think they're too worried about it. There are no F-15s in Alaska anymore. F-22s are at Elmendorf. But they may pull detachment alert at Eielson..don't know.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to see the stats on piston engine failures vs. PT-6. I’d bet a lot the single PT-6 designs have a far better safety record than any light twin, even after an engine failure. Dick Collins decades ago did a lot of research and found twins weren’t that good after an engine failure.

I’ve seen those statistics, I still prefer to have two engines, with proper training and currency it gives you substantially safer odds of survival with an engine out, especially over unforgiving terrain or overwater

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to see the stats on piston engine failures vs. PT-6. I’d bet a lot the single PT-6 designs have a far better safety record than any light twin, even after an engine failure. Dick Collins decades ago did a lot of research and found twins weren’t that good after an engine failure.

I’ve seen those statistics, I still prefer to have two engines, with proper training and currency it gives you substantially safer odds of survival with an engine out, especially over unforgiving terrain or overwater

Often, what kills your engine in an single engined aircraft will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

ThePointblank wrote:

Often, what kills your engine in an single engined aircraft will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

The close proximity of the engines on many fighter jets means that they're considered equivalent to a single engine with regards to safety analysis. A failure on one engine has a high risk of damaging your other engine as well.
Exceptions would be those with some separation, e.g. the A-10.

ThePointblank wrote:

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to see the stats on piston engine failures vs. PT-6. I’d bet a lot the single PT-6 designs have a far better safety record than any light twin, even after an engine failure. Dick Collins decades ago did a lot of research and found twins weren’t that good after an engine failure.

I’ve seen those statistics, I still prefer to have two engines, with proper training and currency it gives you substantially safer odds of survival with an engine out, especially over unforgiving terrain or overwater

Often, what kills your engine in an single engined aircraft will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

Well that would be a fuel problem usually


However, engines fail for several different reasons, even the most reliable PT6 can do so


Having a second engine in that case can literally save your life

The PT-6 has 1/100th the in-flight failure rate of the traditional piston engine. The fatal accident rate of singles, after an engine failure, is better than in a twin. Quite a few KingAirs have come to grief after an engine failure. Yes, the second engine gives more chances for a safe arrival, it also doesn’t have anything like a Part 25 design’s performance and requires some careful handling.

Probably the numbers explain why FDX went to Caravans. I’ve known some very experienced, check runners who were killed after an engine loss, one good friend in a Navajo.

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2 ... n-singles/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The PT-6 has 1/100th the in-flight failure rate of the traditional piston engine. The fatal accident rate of singles, after an engine failure, is better than in a twin. Quite a few KingAirs have come to grief after an engine failure. Yes, the second engine gives more chances for a safe arrival, it also doesn’t have anything like a Part 25 design’s performance and requires some careful handling.

Probably the numbers explain why FDX went to Caravans. I’ve known some very experienced, check runners who were killed after an engine loss, one good friend in a Navajo.

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2 ... n-singles/

You raise some good points, that’s why I emphasize that twins are only safer with appropriate training, competence and currency

F16 and F18 have been in service many years. It would be interesting to study aircraft loss rates due solely to engine failure. I'll bet that there have been many times an F18 came back on one engine. Every single one of those would have been an airplane lost in the F16. 20 or 30 is many to me, I'll bet its many times more than that. Does anyone have access to this data?

Of course, you can always claim that the F16 engines are maintained to a higher standard since there is only one.

I've long felt the primary weakness of the F35 is the single engine.

Here’s F-16.net list, 522 and I’m not sure if it has the latest reports. Engine failure is a minor portion of fighter accidents. Read mishap reports, grasp the environment, the experience levels, the threats and you’ll see engine failure is hardly considered.

A twin engine, jet borne fighter has huge risks in the engine failure case. See AV-8/Harrier.

https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/ ... orce/USAF/

Deleted, duplicate copy.

The F-16s, F-22s, and F-35As operated at Eielson AFB and JBER in Alaska all have special provisions for operating in the arctic. The same goes for the CF-18s at 4 Wing Cold Lake. I've seen video of F-22s in their individual heated hangars at JBER have special blowers blowing hot air towards the engine intakes (think of it as a massive preheater) to assist in getting them fired up without too much stress from the insanely cold outside air temperatures.

A bunch of years ago I asked a CF-18 pilot at Cold Lake about cold weather operations. He replied with "It's really not as bad as you think; you just take extra effort to get the engines started and once they're going you're pretty much operating normally. After that, the jet doesn't care if the outside air temperature on the ground is -40C or 20C."

For a historical perspective, both the RCAF and the USAF have operated CF-104s and F-104s in those climates; CF-104s were also based up in Cold Lake where it does get damn cold there in the winter!

Max Q wrote:

keesje wrote:

Eagle drivers I talked to said they loved to have two engines iso one, over remote and other scary places they operated over.

Make engines as robust and reliable as possible, using all available monitoring, predictive maintenance and redundancy, then put in two.

Couldn’t agree more, I’d take an old, well maintained Baron over any SE Turboprop

Statistics don't agree with you, at all. The likelihood of a complete failure on a PT6 is so low that there is basically no scenario where a piston twin can be considered safer, especially considering the Vmc risk

N1120A wrote:

Max Q wrote:

keesje wrote:

Eagle drivers I talked to said they loved to have two engines iso one, over remote and other scary places they operated over.

Make engines as robust and reliable as possible, using all available monitoring, predictive maintenance and redundancy, then put in two.

Couldn’t agree more, I’d take an old, well maintained Baron over any SE Turboprop

Statistics don't agree with you, at all. The likelihood of a complete failure on a PT6 is so low that there is basically no scenario where a piston twin can be considered safer, especially considering the Vmc risk

Except when that piston twin continues flying after shutting down one engine

Max Q wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Couldn’t agree more, I’d take an old, well maintained Baron over any SE Turboprop

Statistics don't agree with you, at all. The likelihood of a complete failure on a PT6 is so low that there is basically no scenario where a piston twin can be considered safer, especially considering the Vmc risk

Except when that piston twin continues flying after shutting down one engine

Which, again, is far less likely in a turbine

N1120A wrote:

Max Q wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Statistics don't agree with you, at all. The likelihood of a complete failure on a PT6 is so low that there is basically no scenario where a piston twin can be considered safer, especially considering the Vmc risk

Except when that piston twin continues flying after shutting down one engine

Which, again, is far less likely in a turbine

When it fails it fails, what kind of engine is irrelevant, the odds of losing both engines on a piston twin are even lower

Max Q wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Except when that piston twin continues flying after shutting down one engine

Which, again, is far less likely in a turbine

When it fails it fails, what kind of engine is irrelevant, the odds of losing both engines on a piston twin are even lower

Like I said earlier, if something kills your engine in an single engined aircraft, there is a very strong chance it will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

ThePointblank wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Like I said earlier, if something kills your engine in an single engined aircraft, there is a very strong chance it will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

Somehow that principle does not seem to have been clearly explained to the masses, if it was, I do not think ETOPS on twins would be looked at in a favorable light.

par13del wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Like I said earlier, if something kills your engine in an single engined aircraft, there is a very strong chance it will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

Somehow that principle does not seem to have been clearly explained to the masses, if it was, I do not think ETOPS on twins would be looked at in a favorable light.

Which is why ETOPS is essentially two completely independent power systems operating in formation. Everything is done independently, including maintenance.

To the recent discussion, I am pretty sure the fatal accident rate after loss on ONE engine is worse in twin turboprops that on PC-12s. Any Part 23 twin is a pretty rickety design.

par13del wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Like I said earlier, if something kills your engine in an single engined aircraft, there is a very strong chance it will also kill your twin engined aircraft as well.

Somehow that principle does not seem to have been clearly explained to the masses, if it was, I do not think ETOPS on twins would be looked at in a favorable light.

As I noted earlier, the Class A mishap rates due to engine issues between the F-16 and F-15 with the F100-PW-229 engine leans towards the F-16 being the safer option with zero incidents.

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/do ... PW-229.pdf

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/do ... PW-229.pdf

The F-15 has had several aircraft losses due to the engine.

I brought an F-15 from Lakenheath to Robins for repairs after an eng8ne explosion during the line-up for take-off. One engine took out the other, holes all over the aft fuselage. As usual, no matter how hard they tried to drain out the tanks, inevitably on the climb, it leaked. A year or more later, I was picking up a C5 at the depot and was my old friend patched up with dozens of new panels and patches.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I brought an F-15 from Lakenheath to Robins for repairs after an eng8ne explosion during the line-up for take-off. One engine took out the other, holes all over the aft fuselage. As usual, no matter how hard they tried to drain out the tanks, inevitably on the climb, it leaked. A year or more later, I was picking up a C5 at the depot and was my old friend patched up with dozens of new panels and patches.

Side-question: we're you piloting the F-15 across the pond, or was it cargo in the back of the C-5?

Strapped down on pallets—fuselage, wings and tail feathers separate. It was no condition to fly.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Strapped down on pallets—fuselage, wings and tail feathers separate. It was no condition to fly.

So definitely not an option for a single-engine military flight across the pond.

Not after an engine blew up. Prior to C-5, I flew both F-100 and A-10 across the Atlantic. I was once asked about breaking down and loading F-16s from Williamtown to the US. The unit was deployed there, but couldn’t get tankers after the Kosovo started. I laughed and sent them to the F-16 SPO who wasn’t as courteous as I was. Eventually found a tanker to support the 6 Vipers back to the States. An ugly deployment was that, too. Guam, Wake, Hickam, where the tanker crew said enough, we want 36 off.

Citing uncontained engine failures on twins as evidence that twins aren't safer than single engine airplanes seems a little big disingenuous when an uncontained failure on a single engine plane is by definition an accident.

Then again, perhaps engines on single engine airplanes are maintained to tighter tolerances than the engines on twin engined airplanes so the failure would be far less likely.

I've watched the topic of number of engines ever since I got interested in ETOPS in the 90s. My favorite quote on the topic was from Lindbergh (not exact words but something like this), by flying a single engine airplane he reduced his chances of engine failure to the minimum.

Yes

If single engine aircraft are as safe or safer than aircraft with two or more engines then we should have single engine widebodies

It’s a nonsense argument

I don’t care how exotic or reliable that one engine is if it fails your only option is a forced landing which may well not be survivable


I would take an old Baron over a PC12 any day

Huge difference in risk analysis between public carrier and private operator. The statistics don’t lie, in the realm of private operations a single engine turboprop has a better record of safety than a piston twin for a lot reasons other than the power plants. Part 23 and Part 25 are two very different animals

SteelChair wrote:

Citing uncontained engine failures on twins as evidence that twins aren't safer than single engine airplanes seems a little big disingenuous when an uncontained failure on a single engine plane is by definition an accident.

Then again, perhaps engines on single engine airplanes are maintained to tighter tolerances than the engines on twin engined airplanes so the failure would be far less likely.

I've watched the topic of number of engines ever since I got interested in ETOPS in the 90s. My favorite quote on the topic was from Lindbergh (not exact words but something like this), by flying a single engine airplane he reduced his chances of engine failure to the minimum.

An uncontained failure in a fighter when both engines are next to each other and surrounded by fuel, hydraulic and flight controls is a different proposition than a Part 25 plane with an uncontained failure. Again, different risk acceptance.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Huge difference in risk analysis between public carrier and private operator. The statistics don’t lie, in the realm of private operations a single engine turboprop has a better record of safety than a piston twin for a lot reasons other than the power plants. Part 23 and Part 25 are two very different animals

Except when you’re over the ocean or a built up area when that one engine fails


Statistics don’t matter much then

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Huge difference in risk analysis between public carrier and private operator. The statistics don’t lie, in the realm of private operations a single engine turboprop has a better record of safety than a piston twin for a lot reasons other than the power plants. Part 23 and Part 25 are two very different animals

Except when you’re over the ocean or a built up area when that one engine fails


Statistics don’t matter much then

If you lost an engine in a Baron, you're going down regardless. And there's a higher chance of that because the failure rate of the Baron's engines is on an order of magnitude higher than a PC-12's single turbine.

ThePointblank wrote:

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Huge difference in risk analysis between public carrier and private operator. The statistics don’t lie, in the realm of private operations a single engine turboprop has a better record of safety than a piston twin for a lot reasons other than the power plants. Part 23 and Part 25 are two very different animals

Except when you’re over the ocean or a built up area when that one engine fails


Statistics don’t matter much then

If you lost an engine in a Baron, you're going down regardless. And there's a higher chance of that because the failure rate of the Baron's engines is on an order of magnitude higher than a PC-12's single turbine.

Have you flown a Baron ?

If you had you would know your statement is complete nonsense

I flew several different Barons professionally and during training we practiced engine failures repeatedly, I could always get 2-300 fpm climb on one engine

You’re certainly not ‘going down regardless’


If you lose your single engine in a PC12 you definitely are however

Max Q wrote:

I flew several different Barons professionally and during training we practiced engine failures repeatedly, I could always get 2-300 fpm climb on one engine.

Just curious, in training usually would have two or three persons on board. Would that also work (2-300 fpm climb) with four or five on board, including one's vacation luggage (ski/scuba etc.)?

PW100 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I flew several different Barons professionally and during training we practiced engine failures repeatedly, I could always get 2-300 fpm climb on one engine.

Just curious, in training usually would have two or three persons on board. Would that also work (2-300 fpm climb) with four or five on board, including one's vacation luggage (ski/scuba etc.)?

I never flew the Baron recreationally so didn’t carry those sorts of things, I was carrying cancelled bank checks often at maximum gross weight so we never had full fuel


During training we had full fuel and one instructor plus ballast if necessary to bring us to max gross weight, with the correct technique applied with no delay those climb rates were achievable, the heavier you were the lower the rate but it was still positive


A much better option than descending for a forced landing in an engine failure in a single no matter what is underneath you