final approach commitment

[MD83FO]

I would like to know your opinion on what would you consider to be unsafe about continuing an approach after an engine failure or reduced thrust at a late stage, and let's say CAT 1 minima. rvr 550.

below what altitude would you say let's continue or why would you go around.

thanks for sharing!

[Wizofoz]

At no point. You can continue to land after an engine failure at any stage of the approach, and it is in fact preferable to now doing an anannounced, unexpected single-engine go-around.

Boeing have procedures on some types to reduce flaps and increase Vapp if performance is lacking at landing flap, but on some types (like the 777) yu just keep on trucking.

[BOAC]

unsafe about continuing an approach - err - when the approach becomes unsafe? EG it is less dangerous to go round than to continue with full localiser deflection when not visual for example or if I am visual and I can see I am going to land on top of the aircraft at the hold? Is it not simple?

[aterpster]

Wizofoz:

At no point. You can continue to land after an engine failure at any stage of the approach, and it is in fact preferable to now doing an anannounced, unexpected single-engine go-around.

ATC has to be ready for "unexpected" missed approaches, especially when the weather is at minimum CAT I conditions as set forth in the OP's hypothetical.

First and foremost, like BOAC states, the LOC and GS better continued to be "nailed" both during and after the engine failure. If, on the other hand, the pilot is now chasing an unstable approach while continuing to descend on the G/S he is creating a far unsafer condition than a one-engine inoperative missed approach.

[MD83FO]

i see, and what about securing the engine and things of this sort below 1000 feet in IMC.

[Old Smokey]

This one's going to be a bit type-specific.

Like our fellow Prooner Wizofoz, I too fly the B777 with "Auto Rudder" (OK, yeah, I know that Boeing call it TAC, a cr@ppy term), Auto Throttle, and no Flap configuration required to continue the approach, there would be negligible (if any) deviation in Localiser or Glide Slope, so, as he says..... keep on truckin!:ok:

If there's no "Auto Rudder" and / or a Flap configuration is necessary, yaw and/or sink is very likely and manual throttle, ILS deviation could become necessary as BOAC has pointed out, so a Go-Around might be very desirable.

For a jet, no engine "securing" is an urgent matter, leave it alone until on the ground. For a Prop aircraft, feathering actions etc., might again necesitate a G/A/

It's all type-specific, and in accordance with company SOPs.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Denti]

Probably one of the reasons why we are supposed to always do dual-AP approaches as that provides single engine autoland capability and "auto-rudder" below a certain height (around 1500'AGL) in the 737. However, any competent pilot should be able to cope with an engine failure on final at least in the 737 and continue the approach, no reconfiguration necessary (if in F30), simply add a bit of power and rudder and your all set.

[gatbusdriver]

If I stay stable (757), not a problem to keep on going.

A/Thr Arm switch off and double the EPR setting, stay Flap 25/30 or land Flap 20.

If you review company OFDM, the G/A is the most frequently messed up (normal) manouvre, so to now perform a S/E G/A at the last minute could well be interesting!

[Wizofoz]

Yes, let me re-phrase.

After an engine failure, you go-around for any of the same reasons you would go-around on two engines- out of tolerence, runway occupied, not visual at minimum etc.

What I'm saying is there is no point at which you would go-around BECAUSE of an engine failure.

[blind pew]

There is no short answer but in the three flag carriers I worked for it was go around and sort it out in the stack except for one operator when below 200ft.
Considerations were;

aircraft configuration.

crosswind limitation.

WAT limitations in the event of a low go around (know one crew who got it wrong in Madrid who had a low missed approach caused by ATC and found that they couldn't climb!) (cleaned up/accelerated to 200+ and followed the valleys)

runway state.

New approach speeds./minimums (and poss runway length rgd.)

Auto-throttle not certified.

Auto pilot not certified.

depending on the engine/type - no anti skid and limited nosewheel steering.

Auto brake?

Auto ground spoilers?

No doubt I have forgotten some other considerations like start the apu.........

Not forgetting who is reading the checklists , monitoring the flying, calculating the speeds, talking to atc......

[MD83FO]

thank you for the replies, should've specified about the A320, but its good to have a global view.

[MD83FO]

ok I'll push my luck and change the scenario a bit.

actions (below 1000') with engine fire on A320 to cat 3a approach.

on my company all down grade options to be taken above 1000 feet.
can i exercise authority and continue to land in this scenario?

[Mach E Avelli]

I know nothing about the A320 except that it's an aeroplane certified to modern standards. Presumably, like any other transport category aeroplane, it must be capable of completing any flight from V1 speed to touchdown with the loss of a powerplant at any stage of that flight?
All fire drill checklists that I have seen have a statement 'land as soon as possible', so how could anyone justify a go-around unless due to a loss of visual contact or to prevent a collision? If an engine runs down on the A320 is autoland lost? If so, then I can understand that if the weather is Cat 3 and you don't get visual you will have a diversion on your hands. Obviously having a very bad day. But I can't think of any modern jet aircraft type where you could not continue to Cat 1 minima, doing very little other than increasing thrust and perhaps raising flaps one stage (depending on configuration and type) and on becoming visual carry on to touchdown.
Ditto with turbo prop aeroplanes - when flown to transport rules they must be able to sustain a failure on final approach and provided that the crew take the required action, must be able to continue to either a landing or a go-around. In Cat 1 or better weather the landing would normally pose the lesser risk. Some turboprops are more demanding than a jet in that the propeller may have to be manually feathered without delay, but that is a matter for the training department to address. If the exercise is practiced in the simulator, and if crew procedures are properly co-ordinated, it is not such an issue. If it were, the aircraft could not be certificated.