IT HAPPENED! REAL ENGINE FAILURE - flying with FAMILY - Engine fails on light twin engine airplane 

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.

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.

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.

From a long time listener/seldom a caller. Your candor and honesty is highly appreciated. Not just in this video, but all your others.

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.

It is always a bit scary when you have your family on board. Thank you for the lesson and information.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Glad to hear family is safe, and interesting lesson on twin mixture management.

Great video and informative. Keep us updated on what you find out was the problem.

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.

Losing one engine when you know what you are doing is not the worse thing possible.

What a LEGEND. Great video.

Great video. It definitely seems like engines in light twins sometimes "know" that they're not alone and act up accordingly.

I guess the next decision point is to evaluate the TBM … (ASMEL-IA)

Awesome, really appreciate the humility mate. Hard to find these days...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

great video!

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 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.

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.

Nice job handling that situation! Poor girls were scared. :(

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

Nice job!

Glad you are all ok.

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 :)

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

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.

Jason, thank you very much for putting this video out. I think your opinions mean a lot to many more people you might even suspect. There are probably many people right now considering upgrading from a single to a twin who are much much less experienced than you, who can really benefit from your advice. So I look forward to follow up thoughts on this a lot. Another thought; would the FADEC of the Diamond twins change these equations?

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

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!

Thanks for the video and lesson, Jason! Video request: How to switch between aircraft safely or how to approach learning a new plane.

Well handled 👌👍

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.

Glad you guys made it ok. Nerve racking I’m sure.

I'm not a pilot but follow aviation. It appears the engine failed at one of the safest points that could happen, level flight and pretty good altitude. I'm glad you are enjoying flying with your family. I would have done such a thing but have medical issue and can't fly. Plus it's expensive =D

Remember flying as a kid in a family friend's 310 across the English Channel. Close to 40 years ago.....

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.

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!

Great video learn a lot. Thank you for the video. Would like to know what happen to the engine?? Why so hot.

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.

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.

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.

Twin Cessnas scare the crap out of me…not enough power and always a fatal report once a year. Go single piston C210:)

Great chance to see how you deal with a real inflight kerfuffle. Nicely done. Was this after I saw you in San Carlos?-Ren

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..

Now add IMC ! love the 310 though! Good luck!

It's the first time I ear that loosing an engine in a twin is worse than loosing an engine in a single!

Might be a good idea to go through an early overhaul in a mechanic of your trust, especialy if you constantly fly with your family, might actually be something wrong with the maintenance work done previously before you got your hands on it. I know many people that had patchy work done to their planes before they bought it and it improved considerably after taking it to their mechanic.

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

I'm not multi-engine rated so whenever I fly a 310, I only turn one engine on to stay within regulation.

First time in that plane and with family and things start going south you should have diverted or returned back vs proceeding on. IMHO

Perhaps a Pilatus would be right up your alley!

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)?

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.

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.

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…

Have you flown a DA-62? I know they are pricey, but they look pretty easy to manage.

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.

Absolutely love your channel and all of the content you put out. Of course you were PIC and easy for us to second guess but given the sequence of event and the questionable reliability of the engine after the “failure” to use your words, I am trying to understand why you continued to your destination and risk the next take off and return flight when you could have possibly returned to your original point of departure which to me seemed like a safer option at the time. Did needing to complete the mission influence your decision despite what seem as riskier.

Piper Seneca has counter rotating props 👌🏻

You didn't say, but did you open the cowl flap on the right?

Wouaaa that was scary. I m not sure I did get what happened though. Was the engine lean too aggressively? You stepped on the mixture forward immediately which kept the engine running, right? That s weird how much difference of leaning between the left and right engine on the 310. I see this regularly also on Kevin's video (310 pilot YT channel). Were you flying LoP or RoP? 500° CHT is very high 😮 That is not a very comfortable situation to live shortly and freshly qualified on this plane, even more when flying with family! Fly safe and take care Jason.

I now know what EGT stands for. Thanks

The most dangerous thing with a twin is engine failure/loss of power on take off - you have moments to get that bad engine feathered.

Yeah, it's a new plane to you, and takes getting used to - switching from the single world to the twin world on top of it being a new airplane to you will complicate matters across the board unless you stay in that world for an extended time. Even after I did both an MEL private and an MEL commercial I still felt I wasn't completely comfortable with it. But over the last several years I've had the opportunity to time-build with two twins and, combined with sim work in between flights, I feel very comfortable with flying light twins now, as compared to several years ago. As with most things It's not hard to master, it's just hard to stay in that world if you're not working a full-time job flying them, or if you don't own one. Staying in that world is what's tricky obviously due to expense and opportunity. Glad you and your family are safe, though!

How about a Cessna 337, a Skymaster? Twin engines. Great hauling. High wing for good

Wow thanks for this interesting perspective maybe You’ll “settle in” over time

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.

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.

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?

Once you get this twin, and it's idiosyncrasies sorted out Jason, do you have any concerns about the OTHER engine having an issue?

Love that 310

Good job Jsson. Go with a twin you wont regret it

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?

Is it my imagination, or does it look like the right engine RPM was slower, compared to the left? IT’s the first thing I noticed when I started watching. Was there any indication on the engine monitor or EICAS that it wasn’t well, prior to cutting out?

What would have you done if you were IFR in IMC conditions? Would you continue with the increased workload or land?

Go check out a T210. Not quite as fast as a 310, but they have the payload, pressurized (FL27) and legs. Just my 2¢

Possible clogged injector on that one cylinder? Induction Leak?

Next video can show a Prop Overspeed on the twin (; Thanks for posting Maybe I missed it but did you have any joy slowly reducing the right throttle at all ?

No lie I flew that exact plane today as a part of my multi engine training

Just curious why you didn't just land at the nearest airport after that happened?

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.

Most engine fails occur due to air-fuel mix mismatch. Thats where fadec engines come in handy and are so much safer

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.