"Light Twin" fatal at Hawarden

[captplaystation]

BBC News - Two die in light aircraft crash at Hawarden Airport, Flintshire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24958766)

[HS125]

Another tiny picture from News North Wales:
- BREAKING: light aircraft crashes at Hawarden Airport (http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/128320/breaking-man-and-woman-killed-after-plane-crashes-at-hawarden-airport.aspx)

And another from Wrexham.com
Two Die After Small Plane Crashes At Chester Hawarden Airport | Wrexham.com (http://www.wrexham.com/news/small-plane-incident-at-chester-hawarden-airport-38417.html)

[JDA2012]

Just came on to post that. It's so much worse (at least for me) when it's somewhere you've visited and knew people. Hopefully said people were not involved here, but our small community has lost another two members, and barely a year since the last accident at Hawarden.

Edit: link already posted. Nothing in the photos available with identifiable detail. I see the BBC have updated their story with a larger picture also, reg still not identifiable (possibly legible with image enhancement or prior knowledge, but seems a stretch)

Daily Mail:
Man and woman killed in plane crash at Airbus UK Broughton, Hawarden Airport | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507918/Man-woman-killed-plane-crash-Airbus-UK-Broughton-Hawarden-Airport.html)

Blue skies...

[ETOPS]

Sadly I recognise that as one of the twins based at Hawarden. A distinctive type with highly swept tip tanks........

Condolences.

[Beech_Boy]

Anyone any idea what aircraft it is, looking a 340 possibly?

[M-ONGO]

My guess is a 1970 C310Q.

[Beech_Boy]

Thank M-ONGO, very sad

[HS125]

Pretty sure I know who it was too, RIP :(

There is some instructive yet rather chilling footage here:
Hawarden Airport crash: Dramatic picture shows the moment plane 'landed nose first' killing man and woman - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hawarden-airport-crash-dramatic-picture-2795425)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

circling the airfield....

I don't think so.

[HS125]

I don't think so.

I don't think so either.

[F900 Ex]

Pure speculation from the pictures published so far,

1. May have died at the controls prior to impact.

2. Or loss of control on one engine.

Either way a very sad event.

[rustle]

My speculation on this from looking at the pictures from the Mirror, and numbering them 1,2,3 from the top picture... The only way it could have ended up facing "backwards" in position in pic 2 is if it had forward momentum from pic 1; and the pic 1 position looks like a missed-approach, go-around, "efato"*, roll, pic 3, pic 1, pic 2.

Dreadful.

* I know it wasn't taking-off.

[Trim Stab]

Agreed - looks like aircraft was below Vmca on very short finals with No1 engine producing zero or even negative thrust, and No2 engine suddenly produced full thrust for unexplained reasons.

[M-ONGO]

It was G-BXUY, a C310Q, sadly. The aircraft was piloted by Gary Vickers.

ASN Aircraft accident 15-NOV-2013 Cessna 310Q G-BXUY (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=162300)

Two dead after aircraft comes down at Hawarden Airport in North Wales - Wales Online (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/two-dead-after-aircraft-comes-6309782)

[Will Hung]

Fuel starvation ???

Looks eerily similar to one I saw at Denham 5 or so years ago.

Condolences.

Actually 7+ years ago, August 2006 !!

[Pace]

Very sad and highlights the dangers of flying twin engined light aircraft with their minimal performance.

For me it also highlights the importance of keeping the aircraft flying and trading energy for speed and flight control.

It is better to crash in control than to crash out of control.

Horrific pictures which shows how ruthless our mistress and passion can be.
One minute the pleasure of what we do. One mistake sometimes even a small mistake of judgement with such unforgiving and cruel results! :(

Pace

[fireflybob]

It's when you're near the ground in an aircraft that you are vulnerable.

[welkyboy]

G-AXUY is not a Cessna 310 it is a Jodel, possibly GAZUY?
Asymmetric flap?

[arem]

or even G-BXUY??

[PapaEchoNovember]

Deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who perished in the accident.

[talkpedlar]

Pretty rare for there to be reasonable quality photographs of an aircraft in the seconds before impact.. no doubt will be of great interest to AAIB.

Horizontal vis at the surface looks ok(ish) but of course could have been very different a few hundred feet higher. Obviously a fairly substantial vertical impact yet no sign of fire/explosion. Fuel exhaustion maybe but not starvation IMHO

Still very sad.

[Bearcat]

No fire post impact....no fuel?

God bless them......a horrific accident

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Glad to see we've solved the cause of the accident from the comfort of our armchairs… :ok:

Anyone remember the C310 accident at Norwich, asymmetric flap deployment on finals……??

[F900 Ex]

'Chuffer' Dandridge
Glad to see we've solved the cause of the accident from the comfort of our armchairs…

Anyone remember the C310 accident at Norwich, asymmetric flap deployment on finals……??


Yes Chuffer, it seems that you have now solved the cause. :D

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Thanks. Can I now become an AAIB inspector too?:E

[rustle]

Chuffer, with ADR, as long as the discussion is respectful remembering this was a fatal accident I see no harm with informed speculation whilst we await the AAIB report.

There aren't many reasons a light twin rolls upside down, and looking at scenarios might not 'solve' it but what does it hurt?

For anyone not familiar with C310s the flaps are practically invisible from the cockpit as they are under-wing (split flaps) so if there were to be an asymmetry in flap deployment/retraction it wouldn't immediately be visually apparent.

I do not know this pilot, however I have a keen interest in the type, so would like to be able to speculate, respectfully, about possible failure modes.

[AdamFrisch]

There are multiple reasons possible, of course. Maybe he didn't enrich coming down from altitude and then had to execute a go around - one engine sputtered, the other didn't.

[rustle]

That he was going-around seems fairly evident from the pictures, and to roll through 90 degrees would take more than a "splutter" on the portside - this is an experienced pilot with lots of twin-time; not a GFT.

In my mind I can visualise the aircraft on approach, going-around, *something* happens, rolls left through 90 degrees, yaws left 90 degrees (to nose down) and hits the ground nose down slightly past the vertical then the tail drops and the whole thing slides to a halt.

No fire: But then there was nothing to ignite one and the fuel was on the wing tips in any event.

So I then think about what caused that port wing to drop (or starboard to rise) quite rapidly (all assuming the photo sequence I alluded to previously).

Whether he was asymmetric in the [missed] approach I don't know but will be important and is the only time ACH becomes relevant.

Reasons for a wing drop [in a twin] we all know - wing stalled, asymmetric power/lift, wrong rudder, structural fail of wing, flap deployed asymmetrically. Some of those can possibly be ruled-out by looking at the pictures.

[Ulster]

In my mind I can visualise the aircraft on approach, going-around, *something* happens

Could that *something* have been a sudden, catastrophic, incapacitation ? (ie massive stroke, heart attack, or something similar).

The loss of control appears to have been total ; and so far I haven't read anything about any Mayday call.

All we know is that the unfortunate pilot was pronounced dead at the scene ; but death (or at least unconsciousness) could actually have happened several minutes earlier.

Information may be available from autopsy. Luckily there was no fire, which often cremates evidence when it does occur.

[phiggsbroadband]

Looking at the location of the aircraft on the airfield, I would think he had over 1.5 - 2.0 km of airfield left to manage an engine off landing. It is puzzling why he chose to fly on under power...

I wonder if turbulence from the A380 building might have caused a wind rotor, if the wind was from the west.

[Ulster]

It is puzzling why he chose to fly on under power...

Brings me back to the thoughts in my post just a few minutes ago . . . . .

If he was unconscious he would not have made any choices at all :sad:

[hesperus]

Shocking loss of life, very sad. Another classic 1960 designed aircraft lost as well. Beautiful lines don't make them like this anymore. Terrible loss of a "three ten".

[Pace]

To go vertically into the ground like that there is only one realistic cause.
The aircraft stopped flying! stalled.
Whatever lead up to it stopping flying is the questionable bit.
Hence why it is so important in any scenario to keep the wing flying ie trade altitude for energy.If assymetric and loosing control pull both back and keep flying.
Better to crash in control than to crash out of control

Pace

[mad_jock]

Not saying this is a actually what happened.

But please all you twin drivers go and read up on Vmca.

You need to know how it changes depending what you are doing.

And also know how to sort it out if you have issues with it. Mind you on a low level GA there isn't a lot of time or energy to sort it.

To be honest even with commercial twin drivers its a relatively ignored subject Everyone thinks V2 is some sort of get out of jail card and if your above that your sorted. Even if you tell them well actually you can be at Vyse and be below Vmca they start scoffing that your talking rubbish.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'm not a twin driver but I know what VMCA is and what happens if you get a single engine failure below that speed. How is V2 related to VMCA? Are they not the same?

[rustle]

V2 doesn't really exist in terms of light twin ops. Sometimes people mistakenly refer to it, but they actually mean Vsse

[F900 Ex]

To go vertically into the ground like that there is only one realistic cause.
The aircraft stopped flying! stalled.
Whatever lead up to it stopping flying is the questionable bit.
Hence why it is so important in any scenario to keep the wing flying ie trade altitude for energy.If assymetric and loosing control pull both back and keep flying.
Better to crash in control than to crash out of control

Pace


Assuming of course he was not already incapacitated as I suggested in post 11, then no amount of energy is of any use.

[F900 Ex]

SSD
How is V2 related to VMCA? Are they not the same?


They are not, V2 is best angle of climb on a Perf A aircraft.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

They are not, V2 is best angle of climb on a Perf A aircraft.

Thanks for that. :ok:

[captplaystation]

Just a thought, do they have movements by large commercial aircraft at Hawarden, as wake turbulence on short final would certainly put you in that attitude.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hawarden has the Beluga and maybe some HS125s, but it also has the very large A380 building only a few hundred yards from the runway, which does cause turbulence / wind shear / rotor if the wind is from the wrong direction.

I don't think it has been measured, with smoke tests, but it certainly gives a light aircraft a good shake up on some approaches. The flying schools don't like flying if the wind is 12 kts or more.

[Pace]

900

Sadly it will be pilot error as the vast majority are ; ( incapacitation while possible is very unlikely!
Having lost 7 pilot friends in air crashes all pilot error that has to be the most likely case! Some of those lost friends have been extremely experienced pilots so we all have to be aware!
Light twins ? They are a ball game of their own!
The second engine gives more options and with more options more choices!
With more choices the option to make the wrong choice : (

Pace

[A and C]

That is exactly why you make all your go or no go decisions before you release the light twins park brake.

[F900 Ex]

Pace
Light twins ? They are a ball game of their own!
The second engine gives more options and with more options more choices!
With more choices the option to make the wrong choice : (


I am not implying anything in this particuliar case because we will not know the real reason until the AAIB have completed their investigations, but to sum up Pace's statement above in two words, "Proper Training"

[englishal]

To me this looks like a classic "Vmc" incident - Full power on one engine only and below the red line speed. That is what I'd put my money on. Why this happened is another matter......Anyone who as done a "Vmc demo" knows how quick the thing can roll on its back if not corrected and the only way to correct is to close the throttle.

I don't think this is asymmetric flap deployment for the reason that normally you wouldn't wait until you are over the airport for the final stage of flaps, and probably it would be more controllable with an approach speed.

[NQWhy]

Pace - do you mean human error? Pilots don't make errors because they are pilots, they make them because they are human!

[rustle]

englishal, I am guilty of looking at those pictures having already made my mind up what I thought was happening immediately before they were taken.

i.e. I visualised a 3 degree straight-in approach. Text book stuff. Asymmetric or both running I didn't know.

However something Michael posted (another place) made me think about what else might have happened

For example, if the pictures in the Mirror were the last 3 in a set of 7, and the first 4 (we haven't seen, I made these up) showed the aircraft on downwind then making a curved final approach, say 45 degree bank, would we automatically assume engine failure control issue? More likely we'd suspect aileron jammed or flap extension (you'd drop the flaps/gear in this turn) asymmetry - no time to react to that.

Not enough data in the public domain to know, but it shows how fixated you can become on one root-cause.

It also shows IMO why it is worth discussing these things - we may not have all the answers but sometimes the questions can be just as illuminating.

[mad_jock]

They are not, V2 is best angle of climb on a Perf A aircraft.

See what I mean?

Its is actually related as V2 has to be more than 1.1 of Vmca.

V2 is a safety speed related to a very specific configuration.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

See what I mean?

Its is actually related as V2 has to be more than 1.1 of Vmca.

V2 is a safety speed related to a very specific configuration.

Ah! From clear victor mike back into the fog! :confused:

Please elaborate!

[TheiC]

At risk of thread drift, but to help correct some misunderstanding: V2 is not well grasped. The following relates to Class A aircraft.

Swatton's excellent 'Aircraft performance' takes one-and-a-half pages to describe V2, but perhaps the most succinct sentence in there (hoping the author doesn't minds a one-line quote) is: 'It is the lowest speed at which it is deemed safe to climb the aeroplane with one engine inoperative'.

Notably, it is neither the best angle nor best rate of climb speed; hence why some obstacles are best tackled with a substantially increased climb speed, provided runway length etc permit.

[mad_jock]

They don't have one Vmca. Which is the problem.

And TheiC has it right.

And also in our Pref Machines it is only calculated for a specific set of conditions. If you bank the aircraft more than 5 deg's it quite rapidly goes through the roof.

And V2 isn't your best angle of climb unless it satisfies another 4 conditions first. Then it maybe if your lucky.

As I said twin drivers go and find out about Vmca, once you do, you might not be as willing to do certain things close to the ground that you were happy to do before.

[maxred]

What I am gleaming from this interesting discussion, and respect to the individuals who were involved in this incident, is the non understanding of certain aspects of twin operation. I am also always intrigued about the single verses twin arguement where the 'two are better than one' scenario is always given as better. I have rarely agreed with that sentiment.

I have a friend who has bought a lovely Baron. I asked how often he flew it, once a month VFR, cannot find the time. I thought to myself, Dear God, sell it.

Does anyone happen to know the history of the particular 310? Airframe time was quite low.

[mad_jock]

For certification purposes they do have only one Vmca and that figure is published in the AFM and denoted on the ASI, for most light multi engine aircraft that is the minimum Vmca.

Its not actually all that's published is the blue line speed which is Vyse which will be above Vmca for both gear up and gear down hence more than one.

And V2 isn't your best angle of climb unless it satisfies the other criteria for segment 1.

So the statement

They are not, V2 is best angle of climb on a Perf A aircraft.

is rubbish. As a pilot you wouldn't have a clue how the V2 speed is defined by the OEM or what its limiting factor is but its more luck than anything else if it is.

[F900 Ex]

Maxred
I am also always intrigued about the single verses twin arguement where the 'two are better than one' scenario is always given as better. I have rarely agreed with that sentiment


You are correct because training and recencey in twin ops has been lacking in recent years, single engine ops is simple, engine fails find a landing place.

Multi engine ops, engine fails, decision, decision, decision, oh **** to late.


Mad_jock
Its not actually all that's published is the blue line speed


Mmmmm, ok then i will leave it there you know best.

[mad_jock]

To be honest even with commercial twin drivers its a relatively ignored subject Everyone thinks V2 is some sort of get out of jail card and if your above that your sorted. Even if you tell them well actually you can be at Vyse and be below Vmca they start scoffing that your talking rubbish.

No its fine you just proved my point about commercial multi engine pilots.

[F900 Ex]

Even if you tell them well actually you can be at Vyse and be below Vmca


Of course you can be, but that would be an interesting flight.

[mad_jock]

well actually it wouldn't be until one engine failed and you had both at full power at the time. And it is why a GA from low level slower than Vyse is quite often fatal when an engine fails as power is reapplied. They decrease the flaps which possibly increases Vmca and over they go. As Vyse only works with the engine feathered Vmca can be significantly higher until the engine is secured.

hence my advice that twin drivers read up on Vmca know what effects it, how it effects it and when the best course of action is to chop the power not increase it.

And its one of the reasons why turning the thing into a single and chopping the power on the good engine and turning it into a glider is quite good advice.

[TheiC]

Jock,

Another important factor is how dynamic things may be at low speed and with a sudden problem. Stalking gently up to VMCA for a demo to a student, or in testing, is one thing. Suddenly encountering a big yaw, funny noise, confusing sensation in long-G, and then glancing at the ASI, as the mental model departs dramatically from reality, is another.

And 'dynamic' in this context is of course a layman's term, and it covers everything-versus-time, stick-force-per-G, acceleration, and myriad other factors which might be analysed with the benefit of hindsight...

Learn how to plan. Think about how you'll plan. Plan. Stick to the plan. Hope it was good one.

[mad_jock]

completely agree TheiC.

Also know your Attitudes

[cockney steve]

What I am gleaming from this interesting discussion and when you've finished polishing up your knowledge base, you can start removing the odd grains of wisdom from the dross (or chaff) :}

[funmart]

A lot of info here The Kathryn Report: Cessna 310Q, G-BXUY: Accident occurred November 15, 2013 at Chester Hawarden Airport (EGNR), Flintshire, Wales - UK (http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2013/11/cessna-310q-g-bxuy-accident-occurred.html)

[AdamFrisch]

There is no doubt that an engine failure at takeoff in a twin is a high risk scenario. But in every other scenario an engine loss is pretty close to a non event. That the accident statistics are similar between singles and twins ignores the huge elephant in the room: that any time an engine fails in a twin it most likely makes it back onto the ground safely and doesn't end up in any statistics. Which is not the case with a single. So the numbers are hugely misleading.

[HS125]

There is no doubt that an engine failure at takeoff in a twin is a high risk scenario. But in every other scenario an engine loss is pretty close to a non event.

Except:

- When you're hot and high, and maybe heavy too so that it won't maintain altitude even at Vyse clean with full power on the live engine.
- In icing conditions when you might have other calls on the power from the live engine.
- Any time you need to go around
- In locations with challenging terrain where the climb gradient (especially missed approach climb gradient) is critical.
- In some older types that don't have duplicated systems (e.g hydraulic pumps) on each engine.

I could go on before we even get started about the failure mode…….

An engine failure can be benign, but it can be a very serious event in a variety of stages of flight in any type.

Talking as someone who has tried Gliders, Singles, Multis, Turboprops, 2 Engine Jets, 3 Engine jets, piston and turbine helicopters, 2 engine turbine helicopters; And someone who has taught people to fly various equipment I can attest that flying a light Multi-Engine piston is some of the most challenging flying going.

Talking as someone who once flew with the deceased (in a plane and a heli) I can also attest that he was extremely competent and a gentleman whom would have hired on a few occasions had he had a commercial license and been in the market. Bloody hell I wish he had been.

I think some conjecture and discussion in these hellish situations is healthy; I find that on recurrent courses at Flightsafety, CAE, Simcom etc; Groundschool often reverts to 'war stories' and I also recognize that sharing experiences is a good thing that probably saves as many lives as the rest of the training experience.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of being insensitive, calling anyone retarded or playing some nasty schoolmaster shouting anyone down: But if anyone thinks something that qualifies as an Emergency or even Abnormal procedure is mostly insignificant, or don't fully understand the relationship between the critical speeds for the type or class you're flying PLEASE PLEASE go back to school for the aircraft and change the school if you have to.

I was a young man when I first had to see a dead person in an aircraft and have too many friends either seriously injured or who went for a flight and never came home. In many cases there's been others similarly involved, and in some a very experienced and professional pilot lost their life in a perfectly serviceable piece of equipment. There are others out there that I am totally astounded keep getting away with it who won't listen and neither will anyone else.

Be safe out there people

Goodnight.

[172driver]

More likely we'd suspect aileron jammed or flap extension (you'd drop the flaps/gear in this turn) asymmetry - no time to react to that.

And this is why you should never deploy flaps in a turn. Or the gear, for that matter.

[mad_jock]

Thats aircraft dependent if the flaps are on a common shaft which most are there is zero chance they are going to be asymmetry problems.

And one main gear not going down doesn't give much problems.

Most if not all heavy hardware have no restrictions deploying flap or gear in the turn. And its done many thousands of times per day.

If you already had a engine gone most will configure while wings level mainly to make life easier with trim and power changes but not because of asymmetry issues.

[172driver]

Most if not all heavy hardware have no restrictions deploying flap or gear in the turn. And its done many thousands of times per day.

As we are discussing light a/c here, I wasn't referring to heavy iron. Just one more hole in the cheese to avoid, and easily done with a lightie.

[Whopity]

The pictures suggest this is a classic stall spin event not an engine failure!

[mad_jock]

Light aircraft there is even less reason to worry about it as they 99% have flaps on a single shaft with a single actuator be it electrical or mechanical.

Its only when the flaps are split away from each other that you need to be carefull.

Gear usually travels independently so you get one gear then the next and then the final one. Its very rare that they deploy symmetrically anyway.

The no flaps in the turn is an old wives tale to enforce an instructors personal preference. A lot of the time because they personally struggle while doing it maintaining the flight profile.

[rustle]

The pictures suggest this is a classic stall spin event not an engine failure!

Unless you have seen more pictures than me, I'm not sure you can be any more sure of that than about an engine failure...

Until we get more information (which could be a while) we can't even rule-out the possibility he was carrying a starboard engine failure for a while, had trimmed the rudder port to compensate, and only when he reduced power to land did this cause control difficulties.

[172driver]

Light aircraft there is even less reason to worry about it as they 99% have flaps on a single shaft with a single actuator be it electrical or mechanical.

Not all of them. Check your POH.

[mad_jock]

Exactly which is why I said 99%.

Most common training types its a solid bar which actuates them both at the same time.

And there is zero problem using them in the turn.

I say again

The no flaps in the turn is an old wives tale to enforce an instructors personal preference. A lot of the time because they personally struggle while doing it maintaining the flight profile.

The enforcing the no flaps in a turn in a common training type is just an indication of a talent limited instructor forcing their own personal belief down peoples throats. Usually the trying to retrain the pilot away from it screws up their normal circuit and causes way way more issues confusing them than the none issue which is deploying flaps in the turn.

[Piper.Classique]

Flaps in the turn.....
I'm an FI. If someone with a PPL drops flaps in the turn, I don't have a problem with that. When I'm training someone, I teach to drop first stage flaps, set power as required, trim, one thing at a time, then turn base leg. If they are low, I don't have a problem with them waiting until they are on final. I don't like flaps in the turn because most students can't do three things at once, and anyway trimming during the turn, which is a transient manouvre, will give you an incorrect trim once you are no longer turning.
The possibility of assymetric flap exists, but it isn't my prime reason for not liking students dropping flaps in a turn.

[172driver]

M_J, being in the same time zone, we are prob90 both having a wee dram right now - call it a truce ? ;)

My argument is not about the - shock, horror! - failure of flaps deploying asymmetrically on a regular basis. It is about removing one more hole from the cheese. Risk mitigation in management consultant :yuk: speak

[piperboy84]

The no flaps in the turn is an old wives tale to enforce an instructors personal preference. A lot of the time because they personally struggle while doing it maintaining the flight profile.

Now that's got me thinking, For pretty much the entire 2 decades i have been flying I never put much thought into whether the flaps were deployed in the turn or not, but depended more on natural feel depending on conditions UNTIL my last flight review last year when I was turning downwind to base I went to put a notch of flaps down and the FI made a kind of knee jerk reaction then settled back down and said "I suppose you have enough experience to deploy in the turn". Now I thought that was a weird comment, I never discussed the comment or issue with him but thought what kind off method would be deemed unsafe for a student but ok for a higher time pilot, surely best practices are applicable to all especially if its a supposedly risky maneuver. The upshot is I now try not to deploy in the turn but doing so definitely does knacker up the natural flow of things. I keep in my head the ballpark stall speeds for different degrees of bank and never get anywhere near them, but based on the FI reaction I,m hesitant to deploy in a turn.

[mad_jock]

No actually I was just out the door to fly 6 sectors everyone of which I put the flaps down in the turn. Infact 3 of them I did it twice once turning base and once turning finals.

Better write to the daily mail 120 pax in near death experience.

Its not a hole. Its a personal opinion for a personal preference. With no related science or statistics to back it up.

Go and find one accident report of asymmetric flap deployment which still involves both wings being attached in GA. Then we can discuss if its a hole in a bit of cheese or not.

piper its not anything special its FI's that don't have a clue what they are talking about and mostly don't have the handling skills themselves to deal with the trim change in the turn. There is a full range of bollocks excuses why you shouldn't do it. None of which carry any great weight.

If they just said sorry but I prefer if you deploy flaps with wings level because I am a bit pants at handling and can't do it myself I would have more respect for them.

[rustle]

Go and find one accident report of asymmetric flap deployment which still involves both wings being attached in GA. Then we can discuss if its a hole in a bit of cheese or not.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/7-1976%20G-APTK%20a.pdf

Asymmetric flap

Both wings attached

C310

Summary from that report below:

http://s23.postimg.org/o330zo4e3/Capture.png

[piperboy84]

What is the general opinion on retracting the T.O flaps on upwind to x wind turn on climb out at VY and above 500 agl in a spam can

[mad_jock]

1975 in a twin 310 turn onto final in an aircraft built in 1957.

And the outside flap went which rolled him wings level and through the opposite way and then he crashed.

And no mention at all of deploying the flaps in the turn.

Realistically you won't deploy the final stages of flap in a twin until you commit to the runway so I doubt very much they were travelling.

I will give you, it fits the bill which I described. But realistically if that's what you hanging your hat on its pretty poor.

Just for your information the more modern cessna's since about 1965 have a single actuator onto a drive bar.

I would definitely put a 1957 C310 into the 1% bracket.

[172driver]

Fly well PPrune Sky God......

[mad_jock]

I will don't worry, and I don't need to be a sky god.

I just need to understand engineering and cause and effect. As you example shows the outside flap went and gave the guy the most favourable longest time to recover and he still went in.

Maybe you shouldn't use flaps at all just in case.

piper I wouldn't think twice about it. But I am sure some will have a theory that you are risking life and limb of a stall and spin in. And its down right dangerous and even reckless to be even thinking about being able to handle the aircraft in such an exposed situation.

You might have to move the controls in a coordinated manner to keep the right attitude. Or god forbid take your hand off the throttle.

[Cows getting bigger]

Flaps in turns. Hmmmm, maybe we should also stop anyone fiddling with the engine(s) in a turn in case something spooky goes on? :p

That said, I think it is really good teaching/learning practice to set flaps in isolation when Bloggs is struggling with Ex12/13. The student needs to become familiar with the effects of changing configuration - there needs to be a natural elevator input to counter any shenanigans caused by the flaps travelling or reaching their desired state.

They also need to get a routine going and we all know (don't we?) that in a C152, 1600-1700 rpm, level attitude, white arc, two stages of flap maintaining the level attitude until reducing below 70kts, lower the nose to three fingers and Bob is your uncle.

Whopity, I disagree. That looks like a classic critical engine-Vmca faff to me. Sure, there was probably a resultant stall/spin.

[mad_jock]

CGB I agree when teaching anything is fair game and breaking down into components is the way to go.

But honestly if someone can do it and can control the aircraft its not even worth a mention either way. Especially for some pish engineering reason which doesn't even apply to the aircraft being flown.

this business of FI's getting pissy knickers and try and retrain when pilots do it on checkouts just shows to the bulk of experienced pilots that they are clueless and shouldn't be FI's.

Do they really think because some low houred FI tells them that its a bad idea they aren't just going to ignore them?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I used to fly for my biennial with a really good instructor in the Chippy - mostly we'd do aeros. But he also had a 'thing' about not lowering flaps in the turn.

Now I like to keep it tight in the circuit, so flaps go down (at least 2nd stage do) in the final turn and I also re-trim in the turn (I know the aeroplane very well so this isn't a problem and I can feel when the trim is right for the turn) before rolling out on short final. The Chipmunk can, as you may know, suffer asymmetric flap as each is individually actuated by a cable - which can snap. So he had a point. But I don't think that would be more of a problem for the experienced pilot than it happening in S&L flight.

But I think it was really a hangover from of his instructional flying with ab initio studes, which was his daily bread and butter.

[mad_jock]

So we have chippies and C310's

But as SSD states even if it happened in S&L at circuit height you would be hard pushed to recover.

[rustle]

I will give you, it fits the bill which I described. But realistically if that's what you hanging your hat on its pretty poor.

FTAOD I wasn't 'hanging my hat' on anything at all, merely supplying you with an example of asymmetric flap deployment leading to a crash in reply to your request for such an example. :confused:

This isn't a pissing contest - my only interest in this thread is discussing and possibly understanding causes of a 310 going-in.

[mad_jock]

I take your point, but it wasn't even a flap deployment.

It was a drive unit going on the "good side" and dumping the whole lot. the only way your going to protect against that is by never using the flaps ever.

And again if you get asymmetric flap your into Vmca issues. It all about the balance of forces.

[englishal]

Left engine is critical on the 310 IIRC which would lead to a left yawing tendency in the event of an EF which is supported by the pics. Of course to have Vmc above stall speed then the operating engine would need to be developing high power....And the only logical reason for going full power on one engine during an approach is a go-around....Or low and slow and engine happened to fail at a very bad moment just as the power was being brought up and wasn't caught straight away. This would be odd though, you'd have thought that if you advance the throttles and you start to get massive yaw then you'd do something about it pretty sharpish (like close the throttles again and a boot-full of rudder).

Still if you fly the approach at blue line speed, which you should always (as a minimum) do in a twin then there should be sufficient safety margin to go full power on the good engine to go around.

Gear and flaps down plus a colder than ISA day may help reduce Vmc a bit too.

We can only guess at this one unfortunately. I guess though that they had an EF which the pilot didn't recognise quickly enough and at the same time encountered some situation which required more power, like a go-around or low-and-slow situation. Cheese, holes, lining up. Maybe he was just tired?!

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you grade skill required on a one to ten scale over every facet of aviation, IMO a GA piston twin operating on one engine close to the ground and at low airspeed; is a 10.

There is absolutely no margin for less than perfect aircraft control, and in the case of an EFATO, you must do all the vital actions in the correct order and very very quickly if you are going to live.

My personal observation is that of the half dozen or so private light twin owners I know personally, only one makes the required efforts to retain the necessary skills to safely handle a real world engine failure in his light twin.

Since I know nothing of this accident pilots history I do not want to imply that this was the case here, my comment was made as a general statement.

[HS125]

Still if you fly the approach at blue line speed, which you should always (as a minimum) do in a twin then there should be sufficient safety margin to go full power on the good engine to go around.

not correct at all.

There may be no margin whatsoever or even a negative one. Im talking there about the ideal case (Clean, Inoperative Engine Feathered, Steady unaccelerated flight, the lot.)

I've been in a light twin where the engine was unresponsive beyond idle power. Imagine that happened to you in a situation you decided you needed to go around, the aircraft was at low height in a low energy situation and the failure was insidious. Anyone want to give up yet?

Does anyone remember the accident to the Learjet G-MURI? I know it's a different aircraft but it doesn't mean we all don't have lessons to be learned.

Less than 24 hours after challenging a post basically claiming that an engine failure in a twin is ok I'm seeing practically the same attitude. Some of you don't need to see an aircraft again until you can get at least a working knowledge of performance theory. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you clearly can't take it the easy way so you'll have to be told to TAKE RECURRENT TRAINING especially in the classroom because there are situations out there where no matter how accurately you can fly the aircraft, it WILL crash.

@Big Pistons Forever
you clearly do know what you're talking about sir (or madam). My experience of Gary was that he always did actually enjoy talking what-if's and wanted to learn more all the time. He understood that having 2 engines could be a ticket to freedom or quite the opposite depending on the situation; I'm with you on your take on the challenges concerned.

[F900 Ex]

Or he was already or becoming incapacited prior to loss of control.

[mad_jock]

Then there is the case of low power on an engine and the pilot nursing the engine to get it home is actually creating more drag that it would when its feathered which thus increases the Vmca .

My turbine twin the simulated torque for feathered is 10-12% with the flight idle 4%. I should imagine a petrol engine would be quite a bit more for simulated feathered?

There have been loads of crashes due to people nursing engines below 10% not shutting them down.

[HS125]

MJ That's very perceptive…

A career of being trained via somewhat unscientific applications of 'Zero Thrust' can't exactly help the cause. I recall doing an IR renewal years ago where on the single engine missed everything was perfectly set up and the 'live' engine was rushing us to the scene of the accident. The examiner chimed in "Here, let me give you a little more zero thrust!"

It was an object lesson in just how marginal these aircraft can be in the one-engine inoperative case, and with something as none standard as that I wonder how a lot of good pilot's might react - [ sic. That running turning engine must be doing something?!]

I went on to do my FAA license in the same type, at Scottsdale AZ in the height of summer. I remarked to the instructor that a single-engine missed must be marginal in these conditions whereupon he asked if I was on crack and couldn't believe we had to attempt that in the type/class; The philosophy being that due to the laws of physics you probably won't make it in the takeoff case and to mess up the approach to the effect you have to do it to yourself will probably have similar consequences.

[AdamFrisch]

"There is no such thing as a single engine go-around"

[rustle]

"There is no such thing as a single engine go-around"

What does this actually mean? (Not the words, I understand English - what is the sentiment here?)

[HS125]

There are a bunch of references to the Airbus buildings (especially the A380 wing plant) in the earlier posts…

Here is a film shot from the accident aircraft which illustrates the approach and the runway environment generally:
Cessna 310 Q share for sale, Hawarden Chester. Landing 22 - YouTube

It is also apparent via cross reference to where the aircraft is [geographically] in the pictures already published just how close to the ground and how late in the day unmitigated departure from normal flight is likely to have taken place.

[englishal]

not correct at all.
It is correct in for far as you should have a buffer over Vmc to prevent loss of control - Going around is another matter of course and I very much doubt I'd try a go-around in a MEP aeroplane with one engine inop unless I had no other alternative. and only if I had had time to clean up the dead engine.

In fact all the FI's I've flown with in the USA say NOT to attempt a go-around. Accept a mid field landing, make sure you get it right first time, or land off airport if you can rather than risk a GA.

In the USA anyway there is a lot of emphasis being put on not losing control.My examiner even pulled one mixture on the take off roll to see what i would do and during the cross country, he distracted me and switched off the fuel to one engine when I was completely not expecting it.

At the end of the day, a MEP with one engine out, in control but not climbing, is in no worse situation than a SEP with engine out. When I did my training in the early 00's in California in the summer, the FI used to hold the mixture levers on take off....so that "he could turn us into a glider" if something went badly wrong. Blue line speed was hammered into me by the FI making me do 45 degree turns into and away from a dead engine (at altitude of course) to prove you could remain in control if you get the speeds right. He also made me shoot partial panel, single engine approaches in actual IMC which was quite a challenge (this was for my CPL).

By contrast an EF in the Citation when I did my Mustang training and SE ops was a lot less dramatic, as the centre of thrust is near the centre of the aeroplane. Of course there is less to decide there, V1 ROTATE, and your hands come off the throttles and you are going regardless.

Just my 2p's worth. I don't purport to be an expert, just passing on my experiences and of course it is a different matter completely when it happens for real. I also believe in training and whenever I go to the USA, which is quite often, I have no problem doing some time with an FI as there is always something new to learn. We normally make it fun though and have an adventure at the same time...

[Cows getting bigger]

I agree that it may be far better to become a glider than struggle with an assymetric aircraft which is barely performing.

That said, more recent twins such as the DA42 are absolute puppies with one engine out. You have to be really behind the drag curve, physically and metaphorically, to crash one of these from an engine failure (it has been done!)

[RatherBeFlying]

Single piston engine goarounds remind me of practicing how to die.

I've seen one Apache where that was attempted on a short runway with the engine that drove the hydraulic pump shut down; so, you had to work the manual pump to raise the gear:rolleyes: Very fortunately the crew survived the cartwheel.

In another case a Transport Canada inspector called for a single engine goaround that killed him and the examinee.

I would suggest a healthy altitude and speed below which you will not goaround. If something's on the runway, there's lots of grass alongside.

[mad_jock]

It is correct in for far as you should have a buffer over Vmc to prevent loss of control

At an approach power setting you have a huge buffer all the way down to Stall speed and you won't be near it. Its when you power up that it increases rapidly.

this is the problem everyone thinks there is just one Vmca its a dynamic speed which changes with virtually every variable in the aircraft. Some things reduce it and some things increase it.

[rustle]

Single piston engine goarounds remind me of practicing how to die.

MEP-IR renewal will require you to do an asymmetric approach to 200' DH go around every year. From memory (you can do your IR and MEP renewal same flight) MEP renewal requires asymmetric approach to 300' ACH (??) go around every year.

Over here it is part of the course, part of the test, part of flying a MEP.

mad_jock, I assume you instruct MEP and/or MEP-IR, so you must be doing these fairly regularly with students, practising for their MEP and/or IR tests, notwithstanding how often you must be doing them for your own renewals.

[mad_jock]

No I never got that far in instructing in GA.

I do however work as a line Training Captain flying an old heap twin Turbo prop which on paper is a Pref A. Well it was 35 years ago when it was released.

But realistically I think I would be in the same boat as a light twin at MTOW if one went.

I was very lucky to spend a shed load of sectors with the Empire Test pilot for my type. And as I had no interest in gardening I learned the vices of flying twin engine propeller aircraft.

Now commercial twins we get in general 2 sessions of 4 hours every year (6 monthly) mostly doing single engine work. Referred to as LPC and OPC. In each session we will do 8-10 engine failures on departure and approaches to GA. And 1 or two landings.

Mostly the low hour first officer pilots for the first two sessions tend to be nursed through the TRE is nice to them and gives them single failures and nice conditions. By the third session after getting there type rating. They get much better and the TRE starts applying pressure to increase their capacity giving them more lively conditions and multiple failures including killing the Captain.

Realistically we are talking 750-1000 hours on type and 1000-1500 normal approaches and 4-6 sim sessions before I would say they are "competent"

And my own sessions tend to get paired up with a lower experienced FO and once I get my required handling done they get to handle the rest of the session. So they get an extra hours handling. And at the end they get to play at being the Captain for 20 mins while I get my RHS qualification done.

[S-Works]

I failed a candidate on a MEP skill test 2 weeks ago for failing to clean the aircraft up on the asymmetric DH go around and staling the aircraft. A very real demonstration of the need for the correct recovery technique.

[mad_jock]

you MEP examiners must have big balls of stainless steel. Its bad enough sitting in a simulator with the bells and whistles going off and unusual attitudes under 500ft.

At least we know all we are going to hear is "well I think we better reset that and try again"

[F900 Ex]

MJ
Its bad enough sitting in a simulator with the bells and whistles going off and unusual attitudes under 500ft.


Unfortunately suitable motion simulators are not readily available for MEP aircraft.

[Meldex]

Just a question; does anyone know if this was a training flight, or was it a normal private flight?

[mad_jock]

There are but people won't pay for them.

I have been in a motion King air sim that you can swap the instrument panel and fit a set of mixture levels into some slots and turns into a generic MEP.

A FNPT II without any motion is horrible enough to be honest.

[rustle]

Just a question; does anyone know if this was a training flight, or was it a normal private flight?

If you are referring to the accident flight, he was returning from Paris with his partner.


mad_jock, thanks for the detailed reply too :ok:

[maxred]

I have been on the one at Dundee, King Air, multi, and frankly, whilst ok for doing some basic instrument procedures, and brushing up on IFR, I think it would be useless for any real upset recovery training and awareness.

I note you say people would not pay for them MJ. Do you know where any are situated within the UK?

[mad_jock]

I doud't its EASA legal so there won't be one.

Personally when I did my IR I spent literally hours and hours doing figure of 8's onto the runway at leeds in an FNPT I generic.

I was very lucky as the school gave me a key to the door and free solo sim time as part of the course. So every Sat and Sun and the sim wasn't being used I was in there for 5 weeks. Must of been getting on for 60 to 80 hours solo time just battering away at single engine NDB approaches to go-around into the hold a couple of times swapping the failed engine then out bound again. Do that 4 times land reset the fuel and the runway and wind and do it again. And repeat.

I don't to be honest think having a motion or visuals will actually give you that much extra benefit. Its just banging the actions into your head and getting them automatic.

I agree with upset training and unusual attitudes its way outside the normal envelope that the FNPT is designed to be in. Remember FNPT stands for Flight Navigation Procedure Trainer. Which it is very good at doing. When you try and bastardise it into doing something it isn't it won't work.

[fisbangwollop]

Reading all the posts here brings back memories of this....
ASN Aircraft accident British Aerospace 3201 Jetstream 32 G-SUPR Glasgow-Prestwick Airport (PIK) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921006-0)

[Pace]

At this point i do want to highlight the training in light twins as not being adequate and more designed to pilots moving onto bigger, more performance aircraft rather than these minimal performance light twins.
IMO the training should be specific to looking at a number of scenarios.

" A light twin gives you more options, with more options come more choices, with more choices the option to make the wrong choice"

Start with that sentence and the training should be more at looking at the various options available to a light twin pilot.
One option maybe to close both engines, treat the aircraft like a single and land straight ahead into the nearest landing area possible.
Another option maybe to go for blue line and climb away but maybe that may be a mistake?
Another option maybe not to attempt to climb at all but setup level flight the thing that most light twins do best on one.

Yes even at 300 to 500 feet, then with single engine cruise trim the aircraft up until speed drops to say 100 kts and level again.

Build to cruise speed and step climb again slowly on the trim.
it does work!

Blue line maybe great in some scenarios but not all. It is the failure to maintain blue line maybe due to down draughts turbulence, weight panic etc which is the biggest killer in light twins.

I blame the training which is not adequate or specific enough to light twins

Pace

[rustle]

Pace, your profile doesn't give much away in terms of where or when you did MEP (or IR) training, however all the things you mention:

Start with that sentence and the training should be more at looking at the various options available to a light twin pilot.
One option maybe to close both engines, treat the aircraft like a single and land straight ahead into the nearest landing area possible.
Another option maybe to go for blue line and climb away but maybe that may be a mistake?
Another option maybe not to attempt to climb at all but setup level flight the thing that most light twins do best on one.

were covered in both my MEP and IR training in the UK.

In what realm do you consider the training which is not adequate or specific enough to light twins

[mad_jock]

rustle not having a go just a few questions.

How current are you personally flying twins?
And how often do you practise single engine work?
And how do you go about it?

I really don't have a feel for what people do in private twins. I know the only MEP renewal I did was after having not flown one since the last initial test doing an IR renewal. Then I went on to a TP type rating and have been in the 6 monthly test regime ever since for 10 years now.

[Pace]

Rustle

I have about 3000 hrs in light twins of various types as well as an engine failure at grosse at 200 feet in the climb out in a Seneca 4 with 100 hrs total.
I now fly as a captain on Business Jets.
The Seneca failure was 3 sheared Rocker shafts, I estimated about 30% power and had awful vibrations.
Instinctively I knew with the weight if I feathered the prop and went for blue line the only way I was going was down.
Instead I elected to put one hand on the prop lever incase the whole shooting match blew and use that 30% power to coax a climb.
I got up to 800 feet agl very slowly by which time the unit was vibrating to bits and had to shut it down in level flight and then to a successful landing on one.
Was that taught to you to use every bit of available power or shut down?

Failure at 300 feet were you taught to ignore blue line and concentrate on level flight (most airfields are not in direct line of high terrain and will take a 300 foot circuit)

Unless the training has changed since the good old days I doubt it

There should be a whole host of possible scenarios looked at for training in light twins as well as the lateral thinking in making the right choice instead of the dogged blue line like a zombie at all costs which sadly lead to such a bad accident rate in multi engine light twins.
if you hold blue line you will be ok you may even descend at blue line but sadly most go short on blue and then its down hill all the way in every sense

Pace

[rustle]

Both, lots of excellent questions and I *will* answer them tonight if possible, but don't have time right now...

[silverknapper]

I remember when I did my UK mep rating there was very little discussion on options. The course was geared towards controlling it on one and climbing away at blue line. This was on a Cougar which was a very poor performer.

I train at flightsafety in the US on a Baron sim every year where there is much more discussion and demonstration of various options. It reinforces in me how uncontrollable the airplane is when the live engine is at max chat and the speed is too slow. We do practical demonstrations of Vmca and try various methods of getting out of a tight spot. I consider this invaluable and learn more here every year than I ever did on my initial training. I was reluctant to do it at first, I fly for a living and had considered my annual JAA mep renewal a formality given that it's just for weekend flying. However having done it for a few years this way I feel more prepared than I ever did doing just the basic box ticking exercise it has become. It also cements my opinion that mep flying is the most difficult of anything I have done be it in pistons, turboprops or jets.

The only mep I fly now is the Baron, in various guises from 55 up to brand new G58. I am grateful for this, as the difference between this and the old Cougar I learned on is night and day.

[UL730]

I was very lucky as the school gave me a key to the door and free solo sim time as part of the course. So every Sat and Sun and the sim wasn't being used I was in there for 5 weeks. Must of been getting on for 60 to 80 hours solo time just battering away at single engine NDB approaches to go-around into the hold a couple of times swapping the failed engine then out bound again. Do that 4 times land reset the fuel and the runway and wind and do it again. And repeat.

Slightly off topic MJ but was this Ernst Stogmuller's school - because it sounds very familiar to what I did but it took me an additional 100 hours of free Frasca sim time - mainly post midnight. I was called euphemistically "a slow learner" mainly because a good proportion of his students were FJ pilots transiting from military to civilian flying but it stuck and I totally agree with the statement you made.

It must be implicitly in a neural net and then refreshed often.

I hope the actual reasons for the accident become clear in due course but this thread is salutary and much can be affirmed in its contents from commentators who understand the critical issues concerning single crew IFR in light twins.

It has deeply affected me because I identify closely with the people who have lost their lives.

[mad_jock]

No it was at leeds flying school which is now shut after being sold by the owner at the time.

[justmaybe]

Whether single crew or multi crew, when engine failure occurs in light twin piston aircraft at a critical phase of flight you are going to be in a very challenging position, and particularly if operating at or near MTOM (and this equally applies to the DA42 series). Recurrent and relevant training will help, but ultimately you have only a very short time to get all your ducks in line. Remember the accident at Glasgow to G-ILGW? Even with two pilots it can all go wrong.

[UV]

Instead I elected to put one hand on the prop lever incase the whole shooting match blew and use that 30% power to coax a climb.

Was that taught to you to use every bit of available power or shut down?

You appeared to be somewhat surprised in the situation you found yourself!

What you describe is a partial engine failure. Of course there is no need to shut it down immediately if it is producing some useful power (all other things being equal e.g., no fire). Nothing new in that surely?

The same applies to singles. How often are pilots given a partial engine failure resulting in a slow descent (say 10 miles from base) during their PPL or even CPL training?

As you found out the hard way, not a scenario that is adequately covered in training!

[HS125]

Even the state of the art type specific 'Level D' sims that we see today have a limited design range of fidelity, for example the Hawker 850 sim I recently did my recurrent in is not designed to represent the aircraft above 20,000' speed below the stick shaker etc.

Even with this in mind nobody is going to build a bespoke Level D sim (and certify it) for a Cessna 310 particularly with the range of different mods that have been done to the different serial numbers over the years; especially to the instrument panels reducing the smoothness with which the sim translates to the real world flying experience.

[Pace]

What you describe is a partial engine failure. Of course there is no need to shut it down immediately if it is producing some useful power (all other things being equal e.g., no fire). Nothing new in that surely?

UV

Totally agree but that is my point! Most with an engine shaking itself to bits and producing very little power would kick into their training and zombie like shut down and kick into blue line mode and think ENGINE FAILURE.They would also want to get the prop feathered quickly

Lateral thinking is vital in light twins because they are so performance limited.
there are a host of options its having the training to know those options and to choose the right one for the situation which is vital.

That is where I blame the training as not being adequate. The training on multi engine seems to be designed for want to be commercial pilots who will jump into high performance aircraft and only use light twins to train with that goal in mind.

Take the Jet I fly. On one its a piece of cake but a light twin is not hence why in engine out situations most pilots do badly with the result of high accident and mortality rates

I train at flightsafety in the US on a Baron sim every year where there is much more discussion and demonstration of various options. It reinforces in me how uncontrollable the airplane is when the live engine is at max chat and the speed is too slow. We do practical demonstrations of Vmca and try various methods of getting out of a tight spot. I consider this invaluable and learn more here every year than I ever did on my initial training.

SilverKnappers piece above shows how the training should be not the archaic and inadequate system used for decades

For those interested my engine failure was 3 rocker shafts which completely sheared on a 100 hr aircraft. Continental discovered the fault was overtorquing of the shafts at manufacture and replaced the complete unit with a brand new unit within 2 weeks :ok:

Pace

[fireflybob]

Interesting statistic applicable to single engine aircraft - in Australia in a 10 year period there were 9 fatalities due to Partial engine failure and Zero due to total engine failure. I think this probably reads across to twin GA types too.

Answer? Pilots should be trained to deal with Partial engine failures as well as total ones.

My original instructor certainly taught me that but he only learned to fly on 1935 and instructed during the war so what would he know?

[mad_jock]

These old boys though when they were flying 50% of the flights they had some sort of engine issue.

I have always found early Europa pilots extremely good at dealing with engine failures. I suspect nobody taught them it was all self learned.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

...And GA singles! Partial failures are insidious in that the pilot's decision making isn't so clear cut as it is with sudden and complete engine failure. The engine's still running and producing power, but maybe a lot less than it should be.

When it happened to me in a Chipmunk off a short grass strip with a heavily built-up area under the climb-out (the only such runway at that field) the vibration and noise of mis-firing were attention-grabbing! I couldn't hear the radio above the racket from the engine and the panel was jumping all over the place. But most of all, we were down to about half power so I lowered the nose from the climb attitude instinctively to keep it flying, and found we could barely maintain level-ish flight.

Once I was happy it was still flying OK I began a VERY gentle turn in the circuit direction not least because there were fields that way! As it was, we made it round a very low circuit with me transmitting blind what we were doing (more or less "any other traffic get the hell out of the way - that is MY runway!"). And put it down on the numbers with a big sigh of relief.

I was pleased afterwards to note that the training had worked. I wasn't conscious of any decision making having taken place (just conditioned reaction) and there had been no time to worry about our situation until after we were on the ground! In fact time seems to slow down... both me and the guy in the back (an experienced Chippy pilot himself) noted, in the midst of this drama, 3 white swans flying past in the opposite direction - such grace in the air contrasting with our predicament!

[Steevo25]

The problem I have with an EFATO (having had one just a few hours after I passed my PPL skills test) is first admitting you have one. Although the training gives you an idea, it is, unfortunately, quite different to the real thing.

My failure was due to carb icing and happened just above 300feet from take-off. The time I had actually realised that I did, in-fact, have an engine failure, the stall warner was already screaming. The sound of the stall warner caused me to push the nose down and I was, fortunately, able to land just at the end of the runway. Fortunately for me, it was a longish runway and my aircraft has very good STOL performance so I was up very close to the beginning of the runway.

The other thing I noticed is that it didn't feel anything like all the training I had done. I can fully appreciate that even someone that had practised PFLs and EFATOs regularly could easily be caught out by a real one.

[rustle]

How current are you personally flying twins?
And how often do you practise single engine work?
And how do you go about it?


Late response, but better than no response!

Not current on anything at all at the moment, so I will answer for the time I was flying regularly...

Before I was a part-owner I used to hire from Cabair a lot, and their POB required (amongst other things, such as < 28 days or checkride) that to rent their twins you had to do a checkride every 3 months which included at least one asymmetric approach/go-around (VMC[weather], ACH 400')

When we bought the 310 2 of us had done our IR (not at Cabair) but all 4 had all been ex-Cabair MEP renters so we stuck to the same regime for each other - i.e. < 3 months practising EFATO/asymmetric in a rented plane*. Basically one of the others would RHS the flight, fail an engine and cover the rudder pedals to prevent wrong-rudder.

I always felt current at the time, and would have sought assistance if I felt rusty

Obviously renewing ME-IR annually meant quite a bit of EFATO and asymmetric work.

* GA7, BE76 or P68



Was that taught to you to use every bit of available power or shut down?

Failure at 300 feet were you taught to ignore blue line and concentrate on level flight (most airfields are not in direct line of high terrain and will take a 300 foot circuit)

Unless the training has changed since the good old days I doubt it


When I did my MEP (2000) *and* when I did my ME-IR (2001), it was hammered into me to be "quick but not rush" the engine failure drills, and to be sure that I wasn't getting anything useful from the "dead" engine before feathering it, and that if we couldn't maintain height at blueline we couldn't maintain height period.

My one (so far) EFATO was in the 310 at [height]400' and that was partial loss on port so we continued the climb at blueline to 1000' and circuit to land, complicated only by a 2-greens the first time I tried to drop the gear. Unrelated, but an extra distraction.

I know the instructors at Cabair were instructing until they got their dream jobs, but maybe I struck lucky as the guys who I did MEP training and exam with were both very keen not to just tick the boxes but to impart useful knowledge outside the norm - don't know how many MEP trainees now actually shut down an engine in flight (compared to just going through the drills) but I found that very instructional - I know this will be anathema to some! Come to think of it we did the same during IR training as well...

Because the training aircraft were all non-turbo, the Vmc demo stuff was all done quite low so the 'good' engine was developing near max.

[Pace]

Steveo

I agree with you that until you are in a real situation you do not really know what it is like.
Especially in twins where the instructor/examiner gives a simulated failure by throttling back rather than shutting down an engine.
I used to have an old school examiner who put you through the works.
We would climb to 10000 feet and do everything as close to real as possible scary sometimes but worth its weight in Gold.

I know like you that in the real situation your mind starts racing as to what has happened ? Is the severe vibration the engine or some structural fault? You scan the gauges, check the ball central or not and then work a plan.

You were lucky you pushed the nose over with the stall warning as many would not even notice that :confused:
Most important of all is to always keep the thing flying

Pace

[mad_jock]

That sounds a very sensible currency requirement rustle.

And I sure you were far more current than most CPL/MEP/IR holders who don't fly them for a job

[S-Works]

don't know how many MEP trainees now actually shut down an engine in flight (compared to just going through the drills) but I found that very instructional - I know this will be anathema to some!

I would hope all of them as it's a required part of the training and a required part of the LST......

[AdamFrisch]

I shut one down during my ME checkride in the Seneca. I also shut one down and landed during my conversion training for the Commander, even though it didn't have hydraulic accumulators which makes it hard to restart. But come to think of it, I've not shut down on the new plane, only simulated zero thrust. It would be a useful exercise. I'll try to that with an instructor next time I get one in the plane.

[mad_jock]

How do you find out the zero thrust on your MEP's?

And how much is it ruffly?

[fireflybob]

On your average light twin zero thrust was about 12 " MAP.

Feather an engine (at a safe height!) and trim a/c to fly hands and feet off, restart engine without changing trims - assuming successful start set power (MAP) so that a/c flies hands and feet off - read MAP and this is zero thrust

[AdamFrisch]

Yeah, I went on type instructors setting of 14". He said that was close, but I have no idea if it is.

[Big Pistons Forever]

, I've not shut down on the new plane, only simulated zero thrust. It would be a useful exercise. I'll try to that with an instructor next time I get one in the plane.

Not with your freshly overhauled engines I hope :eek:

Go to SIMCOM and do the recurrent course. The sim is quite realistic and you can practice all the stuff that you would be crazy to do in the airplane like engine failures at liftoff, partial failures, turbo failure, double engine failures etc etc ; or can't be simulated like a prop overspeed.

[F900 Ex]

fireflybob

On your average light twin zero thrust was about 12 " MAP.

Feather an engine (at a safe height!) and trim a/c to fly hands and feet off, restart engine without changing trims - assuming successful start set power (MAP) so that a/c flies hands and feet off - read MAP and this is zero thrust


That will only be zero thrust for the altitude you did this at.

Vmca that is published in your AFM is calculated at sea level, some aircraft AFM's provide a chart to establish accurately zero thrust for various altitudes to be used during training.

To be more clear you should configure the aircraft as near as possible to the conditions used to establish Vmca by the manufacture with one engine feathered climbing at single engine climb speed, then restart and set a MAP or Torque that will not change the trim setting.

[fireflybob]

F900 Ex - yes there are refinements I agree.

[Pace]

Adam

With the aircraft you have purchased the AeroStar it is vitally important to keep current and on top of the game with engine failures.
I am far from an expert with them but know there were a number of fatalities after loosing an engine.
Believe (and i stand to be corrected ) that it is a lack of rudder authority and the need to reduce power on the live engine or you get into a mess?

Pace

[A and C]

You raise some interesting points about the training but the problem with low timers is that they don't have the experience and spare mental capacity to analyze the very dynamic situation.

The biggest fear of the training system is that while trying to sort out the problem the tyro pilot lets the airspeed fall to Vmca and rolls into the ground or fails to feather the prop due to the engine RPM falling to the point at which the centrifugal latches engage and the prop won't feather, at which point we return to scenario one or hit the ground another mile or two down range.

All in all it is usually better for the tyro pilot to shut the engine down, nail blue line speed and collect his thoughts while climbing very slowly away....... It is the lowest risk option for most situations.

Also please can you tell me about the Continental valve gear failure, I think I might know of an aircraft loss from the same issue, in this case fortunately no one was hurt.

[fireflybob]

In most airline operations the crew will revise the drills and procedures in the event of an engine failure on every departure as part of the take off brief every time they fly. They also (typically) have to demonstrate their continued competence at least every six months. And these are pilots flying on a regular basis.

Skip now to the average pilot in GA flying a light twin (and please I say this with all respect since I know quite a few who are responsible flyers) and unless they have had first rate training and they are disciplined have to be prompted to do any form of take off brief, only have to demonstrate competence in engine failures every two years or so (working from memory here - maybe changed under EASA) and who are intermittent flyers and add the demanding situation of a flying a light twin after an engine failure on take off (or Go Around etc) and we have all the holes in the swiss cheese lining up.

When I did my original MEP training at Hamble in 1970 we would feather an engine in the circuit for real on a regular basis and we even did this solo (it really focused the mind to say the least) but we did have the Baron which had good performance on one engine at the weights we were operating but you had to quite prompt with the rudder in the event of total and sudden engine failure. Of course feathering for real at low level was eventually discontinued as it was considered too hazardous in training.

All in all it is usually better for the tyro pilot to shut the engine down, nail blue line speed and collect his thoughts while climbing very slowly away....... It is the lowest risk option for most situations.


A and C - I agree with your sentiments here. For those with less experience it's best to keep it simple methinks.

Finally the one thing my MEP instructor drummed in to me all those years ago was that if you've got full rudder applied and the aircraft is still yawing you have to reduce power on the live and lower the nose to maintain airspeed and if necessary close the throttle(S) completely and conduct a forced landing.

[Pace]

A&C

Yes quite happy to fill in some detail. The aircraft was a seneca 4 not a five and hence not waste gated so you had to control power to avoid over boost.
The aircraft was almost new with about 100 hrs airframe and engines.
I had a full load of PAX and right on MTO.
One of the PAX was an avid film maker and filmed the takeoff from behind the pilot seats.
At 200 feet in the climb the aircraft started shaking very badly and the ball was way off centre.
My first thoughts were to revert to training and feather the prop for reasons you mentioned but my instincts said NO! i had a little power and the aircraft felt awful.
I knew shutting down even with the prop feathered meant I was going down.
So i put one hand on the prop lever in case there was a large bang and kept the thing going until i had coaxed enough height to fly a circuit and land.
Once level with a bit of speed everything became more manageable and the landing was uneventful.
A representative from Continental came to take a report and at first stuck to his line that the rocker shafts 3 of them had sheared because of over boost on the take off run.
My Film fanatic friend showed the takeoff with the needles exactly where they should be and the representative went quiet.
A Week later Continental came back and reported that the wrong torque settings had been used at manufacture apologised and sent a complete brand new engine replacement in a matter of a week.

After that I started experimenting on the advice of an ex lightning pilot with going for level flight not a climb.
most twins fly level very well but climb badly. The problem with Tyro twin Pilots is getting them to maintain blue line.
they get some sinking air see at blue they are going down and instinctively pull back to coax a climb.
before you can sneeze everything goes pear shaped.
For me going for level flight allowing the speed to climb level to say 120 Kts on one (Seneca) and then trimming up until the speed drops to 100 kts again letting the speed increase again works well in these step climbs.
Even at 300 or 400 feet this works at most airports are not surrounded by terrain.
If there is terrain chances are you won't climb out a blue line anyway.
Different horses for different course and I am not convinced there is one horse called blue line

Pace

[mad_jock]

After that I started experimenting on the advice of an ex lightning pilot with going for level flight not a climb.
most twins fly level very well but climb badly. The problem with Tyro twin Pilots is getting them to maintain blue line.

Funny you should say that, my opening of my eyes with twin props was also with an ex lightning pilot, and also OEM test pilot after empire and coming out the mob.

You could learn heaps off him but he was consistently the hardest landing pilot I have ever flown with. They never changed mind what ever the conditions.

[Lightning Mate]

That's what Lightning pilots can do for you.

[Pace]

regardless of all this going back to the original tragic crash which has claimed 2 lives it has highlighted the appalling mortality rate that light twins have with a failed engine.

They are unique creatures with minimal performance and should attract a unique type rating specifically directed at operating minimal performance twins!

Yes keep the original multi rating for aspiring commercial pilots who will never fly a minimal performance twin again but then have a multi PLUS rating specifically designed for light twins

Pace

[HS125]

Gary Vickers and Kaye Clarke: Double funeral for couple killed in Hawarden Airport plane crash - North Wales Weekly News (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/gary-vickers-kaye-clarke-double-6327469)

Those of you who know the deceased will be interested in this. Unfortunately, as this industry often dictates, Many miles shall separate me form this desperately sad event but I shall be represented.

[Pace]

Very sad and having lost 7 friends some very experienced pilots these sort of accidents make you realise how vulnerable we all are.

May I add that in these discussions we discuss likely scenarios which may not be what caused this aircraft to crash.

Sadly of my 7 friends who have tragically lost their lives! 4 were very experienced capable and careful pilots but all were pilot error of one type or another.

Because of that fact it is important that we do discuss these accidents and likely causes which may or may not be the actual cause in this case.

Pace

[AdamFrisch]

Pace - the Aerostar's engines sit closer together than on most twins, so it's actually quite well behaved on one. It doesn't need a big tail. It does have a high-ish Vmc, so it's not good to get slow in it. But as long as you protect for that, you're good.

[Pace]

Adam

I always loved the concept of the AeroStar especially the Machen version and do not have any real experience in them so my comments are more based on stuff I have picked up.
As far as i know they did have a naughty reputation engine out but I stand to be corrected :ok:

Pace

[F900 Ex]

Pace

I used to fly one of the original Ted Smith Aerostar's constructed in 1976, it flew great on two engines and well on one engine, the one engine flights were during testing for the CAA so they where shut down for single engine climb performance calculations. :)

[Pace]

900

Ok Corrected :ok: It was originally designed to eventually become a small jet and the thought of that with two baby williams :ok:

Pace

[F900 Ex]

Pace

You mean this one that flew :ok:

Aerostar Jet demo flight AOA Oct 2012 - YouTube

[Pace]

fantastic :ok: I want one!!!

5000 fpm climb at 210 KTS IAS.

Not sure would want to land on stoney runway with engines underslung :E

but as a personal Jet ??? Adam you should never have had those engines rebuilt look what you could have done :ok:

Pace

[mad_jock]

That's proper pilot porn

[Pace]

MJ

Apart from the EASA rubbish we see eye to eye on so many things ;)

Agree on the Pilot Porn thing :ok:
Now all I need to do is buy a cheap AeroStar sell the engines and nick a couple of Williams units one dark night from a Mustang ( could always leave the Mustang owner the knackered pistons from the AeroStar to keep him flying ) and Bingo I am away :E
World tour here I come

Pace

[HS125]

Here is a very instructive article on the subject I'd urge anyone who flies or is interested in flying a light twin to read, It covers a lot of the technical and certification aspects we looked at in this thread earlier on:

Accident Prevention Program (http://www.safeaero.net/accident_prevention_program.htm)

It has some specifics related to certification and even the type concerned.

Also looking back to the accident pictures, look at the one in the daily mail with 2 officials sat in front of the right engine. In front of the left engine you can see one blade of the propeller pointing straight up, apparently with little damage and apparently unfeathered [you can see the face of the blade]. It also looks as if the ailerons are still deflected hard against the roll to the left… I can only imagine this went from normal to very nasty very quickly indeed.

[maxred]

Thank you HS, that made for some sobering, Sunday evening reading.

I wonder how many regular twin drivers, even knew of some of those numbers and stats. I wonder how many will now go out and try some of the articles test points?

I have 310R, and Aztec time, but fly my Beech Bonanza as preference. The POH that came with the aircraft, is, well basic, to say the least. I went and bought a couple of books, specifically written by others to gain real insight to the actual numbers, John Ecklebar Flying the Beech Bonanzas, was one. As per the article posted, the books look at real time situations, and drill the numbers into real time actuals. Interesting when you go up to altitude and try the scenarios.

Interesting stats about the Seneca.....

[piperboy84]

I guess the title of article HS linked kind of sums it up in a nutshell

While single-engine aircraft may not be safer, twins can be more dangerous/Richard N. Aarons

[Pace]

The Article is good but then I stress why the obsession in climbing? We all know the vast majority of light twins do a very bad job of climbing we all know that a large percentage of pilots do not hold things together well attempting a climb.
even this article is obsessed with climb performance or lack of it?

the other point to consider is that these figures are at Grosse weight on a standard day.

The obvious is to not carry excess fuel weight especially on hot days.
To go heavy or even overweight is asking for it?
i stress this statement

A light twin gives you more options! With more options come more choices! With more choices the option to make the wrong choice.

In my stupid days ( has anything changed :E ) I took off in a Seneca Five twin from Bournemouth in the days of Anglo A when I was doing some demo flights for them and completely shut one engine down! I then even more stupidly decided to fly all the way across the pond to France in such a state restarting the other side and landed.

Trimmed out the seneca was as happy as Larry albeit with an IAS of 120 Kts!

Why the obsession with climbing? Only you know you are at 300 or 400 feet?
The aircraft does not have a clue.
Go for establishing level flight or if it all goes pear shaped shut them both back and treat like a single!
Once established in level flight step climb gently on the trim wheel!!!

Here is where I do not like the training which spends too much time drumming into pilot the idea of climbing at all costs!!! Yes that maybe an option if your weight and temperatures are good but may also be the worst thing you can do.

Pace

[rustle]

Pace, that "one solution" you keep on about is super in VMC when everything you might hit is visible, but not such good advice if in IMC (below MSA) - so your one size fits all solution suddenly isn't any more.

[S-Works]

It would be a failure on a skill test and I would like to see it work at somewhere like Annecy!!

[mad_jock]

The training even the VMC part of it is all geared towards an engine failure on departure in solid IMC and the need to get above MSA.

There is only so much they can do in 5 hours. And the EASa way of thinking is that the vast majority of MEP holders are never going to fly the things. Which also screws with the stats because on paper MEP might be one of the safest ratings going. The fact that only 1-2% of the holders actually fly the things isn't taken into account.

[Pace]

Frankly if you lost it at 200 feet going IMC at gross weight in mountainous areas your100 to 150 fpm aint going to get you up to MSA very fast and will more than likely stuff you into a mountain anyway! You would probably be better pulling both back and landing on what remains of the runway!
400 to 500 feet you would be better flying a low level circuit in level flight and staying VMC.

But this is my point that no one solution is THE only SOLUTION different horses for different course and all the horses are not called Blue Line.

Yes the multi engine course is short but it drums the climb at all costs option into a pilots head with the result that most do not maintain blue line and hence the awful accident rate with engine failure.
Until it actually happens to you no one has any real idea with the extra stress of PAX descending air and all the other distractions which lull the pilot into loosing blue line and getting into a fatal mess.

The training was designed for wanna be airline pilots who would not look at a light twin again. The light twin needs a number of options which maybe to climb at blue but may also be to shut both down and glide into a field.

pace

[mad_jock]

Not arguing with you about that PAce honestly.

We are both hairy arsed enough in the LHS to know its a rare day that anything happens in the same way as the training says it should occur.

[S-Works]

The problem is that in order to reach hairy arsed status you need to train to a baseline.....

In my aircraft my biggest issue in losing an engine is making sure I don't put TOO MUCH power on as there is a good chance I will turn it over not to mention over torque it or over ITT it.

So the training industry teaches a set of drills that are generic and if followed should cover most eventualities. The instructor training on a specific type is required to have experience of the type so that they can further enhance that skill to cover even more eventualities. Standarised testing then makes sure they reach a baseline.

[mad_jock]

its sounding like a base line rating followed by a type rating is required.

making sure I don't put TOO MUCH power on as there is a good chance I will turn it over not to mention over torque it or over ITT it.


Again we are back to this bastard effect of Vmca

[Pace]

So the training industry teaches a set of drills that are generic and if followed should cover most eventualities.

Hence why light twins have such an awful survival /accident rate if the engine goes bang. The generic training maybe great for an aircraft which climbs like the citation at 900fpm on one but 100 fpm :ugh:

Sorry the training in my opinion for what its worth is sadly lacking for light twins with their idiosyncrasies. as they say proof of the pudding is in the eating and engine out the survival rate in a twin is atrocious and hard to stomach:ouch:

pace

[S-Works]

I don't see it that way. Statistically the number of twin fatalities is actually quite low. Analysis generally shows where they have occurred its been pilot error ignoring the baseline rules. An example would be an attempt to go around single engine below committal height.

The number of fatalities from an EFATO strike me as actually being very low. Most incidents I am looking at seem to be IMC related or fuel starvation.

[Pace]

Bose

5 hrs is very low to set someone off in a twin! Costs are high and too many get the rating as another notch on the belt flying minimal hours a year.
there are so many things that should be looked at! Low weight takeoffs, high weight takeoffs Blue line a speed you should not go below in a climb or level flight or descending flight! More on when to close both and take to the remaining runway or nearest field. far more looking at all the other options rather than climb and maintain blue line at all costs

Pace

[mad_jock]

realistically PACE nobody is going to get insurance below 50 hours.

And if they can afford the insurance below that and to privately buy the twin paying for an instructor is the least of their worry's.

The couple of millionaires that I know always take a commercial pilot with them. Both in Helicopters and twins.

There are a few out there that don't, the most notable is the Duke of Westminster, who is known as Monty airside with his very able wee dog as his FO. But he is definitely into the hairy arse category of PIC.

[S-Works]

5 hrs is very low to set someone off in a twin! Costs are high and too many get the rating as another notch on the belt flying minimal hours a year.

I don't disagree. MJ has it quite right that generally insurance dictates who can fly one.

However.... In the limited time that we are given to train students we have to set a baseline. If that baseline is followed then it is my belief that the student is as safe as anything else in GA. If they want to expand their operating envelope then training is available as well as there being no shortage of qualified safety pilots.

You can do a Type rating in 10hrs in our Turboprops but no pilot is sent off on their own without another 25-30hrs of line training and at that point they have restrictions placed on them through our ops manual on things like runway selection in event of a turbine failure etc.

[F900 Ex]

MJ
The couple of millionaires that I know always take a commercial pilot with them. Both in Helicopters and twins.

There are a few out there that don't, the most notable is the Duke of Westminster, who is known as Monty airside with his very able wee dog as his FO. But he is definitely into the hairy arse category of PIC.


I don't know were you got that info, the Duke of Westminster definitely does not fly himself.

[mad_jock]

I spoke to him on the apron while his dog was taking a dump on the taxiway.

He is an old boy so he might have given up these days.


Or I have the wrong Duke only ever spoken to him when he is in Monty mode. Nice bloke to be honest. The where he is a Duke of never came up in conversation and why should it waiting for the fuel bowser to turn up.

[F900 Ex]

For the last 20 + years he has only owned jets and I can assure you he never flies them.

[mad_jock]

Must be a different Duke then, this one owns and flys his own Lear single crew apart from his dog.

looking at Wikipedia that's definitely not him.

Its one of the other family's that's owns most of London.

[F900 Ex]

Its one of the other family's that's owns most of London.


That is the Duke of Westminster, and he definitely does not fly himself.

[mad_jock]

Well there one of them from down there that has a lear and a wee dog that craps on the taxiway.

And by the picture I agree its not the D of W. this bloke is about 15 years older when I last saw him.

There are 4 familys which own London 5 if you count the Winsors.

D of W does own the bulk of the expensive stuff.

[phiggsbroadband]

To just go back onto the discussion of climb rates... The local terrain at Hawarden starts to climb beyond the fence, to 300ft at 3 miles then to over 1000ft at 4 miles. Also there is a directive not to fly over the local village, which generally means no left hand turn onto crosswind before 1000ft.

[mad_jock]

Engine failure; the not to fly over the village would get an ignoring by me in the unlikely event I would even think about it.


It would be a 5 deg banked turn towards low ground. Or back to the airfield

[Pace]

I would go with MJ on that 5 degree bank away from high ground and stuff the village ;)
One point about high ground you really need to have spatial awareness and be aware of your surroundings then act accordingly!

Remember too that a climb rate is not guaranteed at blue line if there are down draughts turbulence can easily negate any climb or even give you a descent!
Blue line should not be regarded as a climb speed but a speed you will not go below whether you are climbing descending or trying for level flight!

Pace

[rustle]

Which is why you are taught, examined, re-tested and badgered into nailing blueline. You seem to contradict yourself sometimes, so I think I am out of this thread now until we hear from AAIB or something else reliable about this accident.

[S-Works]

Also there is a directive not to fly over the local village, which generally means no left hand turn onto crosswind before 1000ft.

You know reading that made me feel a little queasy at the thought people would be considering bollox like that in a emergency situation.

I don't give a flying rats ass who gets upset in an emergency situation. Sanctity of life before NIMBY........

[Pace]

Which is why you are taught, examined, re-tested and badgered into nailing blueline. You seem to contradict yourself sometimes, so I think I am out of this thread now until we hear from AAIB or something else reliable about this accident.

Rustle

I am not contradicting myself at all where have I said its ok to go below blue line speed in an engine out situation? I have said we are conditioned to attempt to climb at blue line rather than going for level cruise hopefully in level cruise you will be blue line plus 30 kts and in a descent way above blue line too.
But it is possible to be attempting to climb at blue line and find you are flying level or even descending etc etc etc.
Throttling back both engines and treating the twin like a single engine out and blue line becomes irrelevant.

Pace

[F900 Ex]

Pace
I have said we are conditioned to attempt to climb at blue line


Question, what do you do in the Citation you fly, attempt to climb at V2 or fly level and make it up as you go along ?

[Pace]

F900 Ex

My Citation is a doddle on one engine and climbs at 900 fpm more than a lot of light twins will do with two healthy engines.
It is the lack of single engine performance on light twins which is the problem.

A light twin has minimal climb if everything is right ( weight temperature and weather) with a bad fatality rate after loss of an engine.

if my Citation only climbed at 100 fpm then yes i might not attempt to climb but setup a situation which it is good at IE one engine level cruise.

But there is no comparison between a high performance jet and a minimal performance light piston twin.

If I had half tanks a couple of PAX ie light without doubt I would go for a climb at blue line as I would probably get a half decent climb rate.
Somewhere I remember reading a good ballpark is 400 fpm climb on one engine as being manageable?

Pace

[S-Works]

But there is no comparison between a high performance jet and a minimal performance light piston twin

Apart from a set of rules that govern what should be done in an emergency.......

[Miserlou]

Sorry Pace. If you're going to play high balls, they are going to get smashed.

And there is no comparison between a high performance jet and a Citation!!!

[Pace]

Apart from a set of rules that govern what should be done in an emergency.......

And hence we will continue having such awful accident statistics in light twins far worse than single piston engine aircraft engine failure rate mortalities

until they are regarded as unique with a new set of rules to govern what should be done in an emergency we will continue with such bad fatality rates.

i do not want to judge what went wrong in this tragic accident which took two lives and will await the accident report with interest.

Pace

[Miserlou]

Is "flying the blardy aeroplane" not what should be taught in all situations?

I find the stall/spin/loss of control statistics for SEPs quite alarming.

The 5 degree banked turn mentioned earlier seems a bit odd to me. Anyone like to calculate the radius of a 5 degree banked turn?
Sounds like a confusion of 'up to 5 degrees bank into live engine'.

I certainly wouldn't, correction, DIDN'T limit myself to 5 degrees of bank when I had to shut down an engine in anger on a missed approach (Beech Travelair).

[Pace]

Sorry Pace. If you're going to play high balls, they are going to get smashed.

Quite happy to discuss engine location on high performance jets compared to the Citation and other factors but for me minimal single engine performance is anything below 400 fpm on one. Happy to discuss why too ;)

The 5 degree banked turn mentioned earlier seems a bit odd to me. Anyone like to calculate the radius of a 5 degree banked turn?

Ok I used MJs figures meaning "shallow turns" which I am happy with 5 degrees 6 degrees 8 degrees :ugh: keep them shallow :ok: God if I had a hill in front I would drop the nose and bank 25 degrees or more to avoid hitting it:E


Pace

[Miserlou]

To be fair Pace, and not having flown any Citation, the joke is purely a standard tease.

On the rear engined jet I fly, an engine flame out is only an abnormal situation to be dealt with AFTER normal checklists. Only fire or damage suspected require the emergency checklist and only reverser unsafe/deployed require immediate action (memory items).

On the bank issue, I recently exercised all of my admittedly rusty gliding skills in the sim with a dual engine failure out of Innsbruck. 45 degrees of bank, turn away from the wind even though it was toward the more steeply rising ground and managed to land back on the numbers, fully configured after a 260/80 type base turn.

[Pace]

Miserlou

Just for interest there has never been an engine fire recorded on a Citation :ok:
Reverse thrust "selected" (when it wasn't) on the master warning and a frozen thrust lever that is getting too close to a situation I had a week ago :E

Pace

[Miserlou]

Pace, you've seen the video of the danish guy with his Citation in the lake in the US?

I reckon those engines are pretty unbreakable.

Citation Runway over shoot into Atlanta Bay - YouTube

The reverser unlocked scenario is as critical as it gets.

[Pace]

Seen that before :ok: What an idiot! think I would vanish down a hole and never come up with such bad piloting skills :{
Poor little jet felt quite sorry for it :( It should be a beautiful creation in the Sky not humiliated chugging its last breaths around a lake desperate to live ? and then it dies :{

Yes the reverse thrust indications and jammed frozen thrust lever caused a serious look at the emergency checklist and headache and an abandoned jet in Spain luckily next to a Cessna service centre

Pace

[mad_jock]

rustle I think we have quite rightly moved on from the incident in question.

Yes I know its thread drift, but is that really a crime?

Pace and I have our different opinions about him being a stubborn dick refusing to do the EASA exams but I would like to think we are actually on a pretty level understand about everything else in the aviation world.

We don't suffer fools and we want people to learn for our screw ups. I know I have screwed up so many times I can't remember the number, I am sure Pace has as well (to be honest he is a lot more experienced than me due to him being a skinny auld fart). We aren't proud of the fact we have screwed up we just don't want anyone else to do the same mistakes. And are both happy to admit we screwed up.

We do have a mish mash of commercial ops and private twin stuff here but to be perfectly honest the commercial pref A stuff flys with exactly the same laws of physics as the light twins. There is a force on one wing which is opposed by the rudder. Its just that the pref A hardware has an excess of power which guarantees a climb . But the issues don't really change.


My comments are to make people think. And if I succeed in that I am happy. I really don't care and a don't think Pace does either if people have an opinion of if we are sky god prats or not, we just want people not to get caught out and pay the ultimate price. Our advice is free we normally charge tripe figure sums per day for training commercial pilots. I have never in the last 7 years charged any private pilot for instruction outside PPL training. And I have never refused a request for help either.

[Pace]

MJ :ok: 7 friends lost to aviation and many of them far better pilots than me I just have a very good overworked guardian Angel ;)


Pace

[mad_jock]

The 5 degree banked turn mentioned earlier seems a bit odd to me. Anyone like to calculate the radius of a 5 degree banked turn?

the 5 deg turn is a certification standard for Vmca once you go more than that you into uncharted territory that a test pilot hasn't been in.

Yes you can use more and most will get away with it. But if over 5 degrees its anyone's guess when Vmca may bite your arse. If you need more to avoid yes fair enough use it as your dead anyway. If you don't need it try not to be a test pilot.

[F900 Ex]

Pace
But there is no comparison between a high performance jet and a minimal performance light piston twin.


What's the only jet to have had a bird strike from behind ? answer a Citation. :E

[Pace]

F900 :)

I would think a jet which climbs at 900 fpm engine out where the engines are set close together would be classified as High Performance in comparison with a light twin engined piston which climbs if all is right at 100 to 150 fpm?

As for the SLOWTATION ??? The amount of times we are turned right or left to allow some Hot Rod Easy Jet to pass is unbelievable :ugh: think they should all form a queue behind and reduce speed ( Think of the fuel saving :ok:

As for Bird strikes? the things will not stay still long enough for us to hit them! far to quick for us :E but I am practising so who knows a bird strike one day??? ;)

Pace

[S-Works]

I would be a bit unnerved at flying something that only does 900fpm single engine. I might feather an engine and being the torque back on the live engine to see what it feels like.

[Pace]

Bose

you can actually do a single engine landing and what more a single engine touch and go :ok:
the swing is quite strong on the touch and go bit so firm on the rudder but max N1 :E
try that in a light piston twin :E Not the max N1 bit ;)

Pace

[Miserlou]

MJ.
I don't recall seeing anything about turning in Vmca definition, only up to 5 degrees BANK into live engine.

Vmca is about controllability not performance.

[mad_jock]

If you get hold of that swatton book I gives the certification standards for Vmca.

Now I hesitate to give this link because it refers to heavy tin and has some pretty heavy maths in it.

http://www.avioconsult.com/downloads/Effect%20of%20Bank%20Angle%20and%20Weight%20on%20Vmca.pdf

What you need to do is scroll down to page 5 with the graphs.

Yes I know its a 747. But it doesn't make any difference we are still dealing with a force on a wing giving a moment being opposed by a force by the rudder.

So to make the 747 into a twin we just fail two engines on the same wing.

So if you look at the graph in the top right corner effect of bank angle and weight on Vmca With engines 1&2 gone. Your aircraft will have different speeds but the form of the graph will be the approximately the same. As you can see the graph only goes up to 15 degs bank angle and in that time the Vmca more than doubles.

Unfortunately I haven't managed to find a paper which deals with twin propeller aircraft. As I said that 747 won't be exactly the same and the rates and gradients and obviously the numbers won't be the same. But it does show that you can be safe at xxx speed at -5 degree bank but if you go to -10 you going to have issues as the Vmca has increased by a reasonable amount if its over xxx speed. But as there isn't a series of speeds given for different bank angles you can only stay inside the certification standard of up to 5 degs of bank.

[fireflybob]

I thought the 5 degrees with reference to VMCA was to do with being able to contain heading within 5 degrees in event of engine failure etc?

There is also the issue of applying a small amount of bank towards the live (typically 5 degrees) for better performance.

The accident I recall was the B707 at PIK many years ago. Lots of factors but one thing which came out of the report was that the difference between VMCA wings level and 5 degrees of bank towards live was 40 kts! If they had cranked a bit more bank towards the live they would have regained directional control but as to how much it would have affected the outcome is debatable.

[rustle]

I thought the 5 degrees with reference to VMCA was to do with being able to contain heading within 5 degrees in event of engine failure etc?

No, that is MEP test standard or IR test standard, can't remember which, however it is nothing to do with Vmca.

[Pace]

Flying High Performance Singles and Twins - John Eckalbar - Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tBr_WxhjCtUC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=vmca+and+bank+angle&source=bl&ots=wN0HYZhktm&sig=gVLIDqCtYwCjlE-oMC1qxJQdnbM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RkaXUoGHDMuVhQfNxoCYCA&ved=0CIEBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=vmca%20and%20bank%20angle&f=false)

Now weird but this article claims the opposite infact it claims that the more you bank into the live engine the more VMCA goes away ???

just a discussion point for you more intelligent guys unlike wot i am ;)

pace

[dirkdj]

John is a very experienced professor of mathematics and Bonanza/Baron instructor. I would very much consider what he is saying. I have this book and several others written by him.

[Pace]

It makes sense that the more you bank towards the live engine the more you will negate those forces requiring rudder but with limited engine power on one engine you would I presume have to trade potential energy in the airframe to do so i.e. trade altitude for energy in anything other than a small bank towards the live engine.

Pace

[rustle]

My understanding of the "bank into live" theory is that it means less rudder required (due bank) so more rudder 'available' (ergo lower Vmca)

Also means the aircraft is not flying quite so "sideways" with a lot of airflow into deadside fuselage, and therefore has a performance benefit.

Vmca is predicated on banking maximum 5 degrees for this reason.

[mad_jock]

You will learn all about this when you do your ATPL theory exams Pace :E :p :ok:

[Pace]

Naah

Theory is one thing anyway both articles yours and this one contradict each other so prefer to fly highly tuned to FEEL ; )
Theory is for nimbies and armchair pilots ; )

[fireflybob]

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Aviation:
VMCA /Vmca

The minimum control speed in the air. The minimum flight speed at which the airplane is controllable with a maximum 5° bank when the critical engine suddenly becomes inoperative with the remaining engines at takeoff thrust. The conditions for calculations of VMCA are (i) critical engine at idle power setting, (ii) critical propeller windmilling, (iii) operating engine producing maximum thrust, (iv) landing gear and flaps up, (v) aircraft loaded at the most aft allowable center of gravity, (vi) aircraft loaded to the maximum gross weight, (vii) up to 5° of bank toward the operating engine, and (viii) atmospheric conditions normalized to standard day at sea-level pressure.

rustle, thanks for the correction with reference to 5 degrees of heading

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

Rolling back to an earlier comment you made I am far from convinced regarding the need for special training.

Any training on type should consider the specific limitations of the twin. Of course you can chose to ignore the training, or the training can be poor or inadequate in the first place. However the former is your own fault, and the later is the instructor's fault. Changing the training requirements will not alter those facts.

Far more relevant is the dexterity of handling on marginal twins which only comes from flying time. The DA42 will climb at MTOW but, at least in my experience, the performance is hardly sparkling, and, if ham fisted, that margin is quickly eroded. Fly the aircraft out of balance and the margin is gone.

On the other hand an Aztec performs relatively well with one out perhaps unless full to the gunwales, albeit unlikely it will be flown in that configuration all that often. However if you disregard a critical engine the outcome may not be as good, and it is all too easy to do when confronted with an engine failure and a circuit to land.

Aviation Safety Letter 4/2001 - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp185-4-01-310-3807.htm)

[mad_jock]

I can see the Vmca decreasing with more angle of bank but that means you will have to circle which is a bit of an issue when you want to land. For the plane to go in a straight line you need to input more rudder with angle of back so the Vmca will go back up. There will be a sweet spot when you have minimum rudder input When Vmca is the lowest.

Also as well the more Angle of bank you have means the more lift you require to maintain Straight and level which means more drag which then takes you closer to the stall. So you have multiple variables that are in effect. Once you have dealt with one of the issue then others become denominate.

Also there is the fact the more you fly cross controls side slip the more drag you have and any excess energy will quite quickly be wasted by drag and you may very well have no Vmca problems but you will be heading towards the ground at a great rate of decent.

[Pace]

Rolling back to an earlier comment you made I am far from convinced regarding the need for special training.

Fuji without pointing out which statement I cannot comment :)

Pace

[fireflybob]

Good explanation here of forces during asymmetric flight and effects on Vmca etc:-

Asymmetric Flight (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1629.pdf)

[Miserlou]

MJ,
The 747 is not really relevant as such types are perf A and required to demonstrate positive climb performance in the failure situation.
Vmca vs bank angle is still relevant to them as SID's will be calculated with a maximum of 15 degrees of bank. beyond this there is a marked decrease in climb angle, sorry, can't remember the percentage.

So back to the MEP, Vmca is effectively only there so you don't lose control by using full throttle below this speed while you accelerate to Vxse or Vyse and that is all you should be doing at that time.

[mad_jock]

There is nothing magical about perf A. The world doesn't have Perf A aerodynamic laws and GA flight laws.

You will be just as dead in either type if Vmca bites your bum.

The point about if your climbing or descending when you get everything right is a pretty much mute point in this discussion.

[Sir George Cayley]

Sorry, I've come late to this thread but having flown in and out of Hawarden I wonder about the option of closing the throttles and accepting a bit of a rough landing.

If I read the initial reports correctly the crash occurred near the upwind threshold which is nearly 2 km from the threshold.

All the discussion about minimum control speed seems to indicate a shorter timescale than an a/c flying around 100 kts along the length of the runway.

Apologies if this has already been aired I haven't had time to digest every post.

SGC

[mad_jock]

I think we have moved on from the usual arm chair sport of working out what happened before the AAIB.

I certainly haven't been making any comments about the incident in question.

[Pace]

Sir Georgie C

These threads tend to drift sometimes right off subject, come back then go again.

The discussions have circled around the subject of minimal performance light twins and from my perspective whether the training is too specific to wannabe airline pilots who train in them then never touch light twins again,

or whether they are unique and the training should consider other options rather than a climb at all costs at blue line which seems the flavour of the day and the big killer when blue line is dropped or no climb achieved.

Very bad accident and fatality statistics on loosing an engine.

Yes I go with your statement about closing both engines and a controlled crash rather than falling vertically nose first into the tarmac which this twin and its poor occupants appear to have done.

Pace

[Miserlou]

MJ,
My point is not about the magic of Perf A but the folly about a max 5 degree banked turn in the engine failure situation.

I hoped to get over the point that lowering the nose and aiming for the correct speed (for therein lies the magic) rather than farting around trying to avoid a critical speed is the far safer mindset. And having achieved Vyse, manouvering should not be a problem.

Having achieved Vyse one can assess the performance available and begin to examine your options. Before that time nothing else matters.

[mad_jock]

And having achieved Vyse, manouvering should not be a problem.


That's is completely wrong. And fundamentally shows you don't understand Vmca.

[Pace]

So much comes down to energy management and control forces. When I was involved in developing a MSFS flight model I took measurements in a Seneca to try and get better flight dynamics and control feel in a gamey MSFS.
Trimmed in the cruise 1/2 inch deflection on the yoke was required with quite a force to pitch the aircraft 10 degrees.
We all know at just above the stall on landing the column will come back several inches to its stops and to almost its maximum deflection.
the same goes with the rudder the faster you go the less movement of the rudder for a given effect the slower you go the more movement is required for a given effect until there is no more rudder movement available for a desired effect!

We have two energy sources to tap into! From the engines and from the potential energy in the airframe.
with any minimal performance aircraft whether it be a single or twin the less energy source available from the engines the more pilots are reqired to tap into the potential energy in the airframe by pitching for energy or speed.

Hence the old argument of pitching for speed or power for speed. Low time pilots are taught to pitch for speed in low powered draggy aircraft.
neither argument is correct as you have two throttles one to the engine/s and one to the airframe in the form of a column and it is a blending of the two sources not one which maybe required.

What has this got to do with VMCA and engine out on twins? Quite a lot really.
VMCA is literally the point like the elevator where the speed of air over the surface of the rudder is so slow that maximum rudder movement is required for a given effect.IE to counteract the effects of asymmetric power from one side of the aircraft only.

In this case to counteract the effects of unequal power from one engine rather than two. In that situation there are only two choices increase the speed i.e. pitch for it or reduce the power from the live engine or bank against those forces to reduce the requirement for rudder.

but banking brings its own problems especially in a minimal power (engine out in a twin)
We all know what happens if you take a 150 and go into a 45 degree level bank maintaining altitude without adding power from a low power setting?

so for me its all about energy management especially like in draggy low powered singles where you need to pitch for potential energy in the airframe.
The Twin engine out is the same, a low powered draggy aircraft where the pilot needs to tap into the airframe potential energy more and not get into high drag situations.

Hence why I see light twins as minimal performance aircraft especially engine out and why far greater lateral thinking needs to come into the equation rather than climb at all costs at blue line. That is great if the pilot can peg blue line regardless of a climb level flight or descent but sadly few rarely do.

Pace

[rustle]

Pace, there are far too many occurrences within this tread for me to quote each one, however you keep on about

That is great if the pilot can peg blue line regardless of a climb level flight or descent but sadly few rarely do.

Very bad accident and fatality statistics on loosing an engine[sic]

but I cannot find any statistics to back this up.

In fact, if we were to even consider your comment for a moment we would expect to see far more ME aircraft appearing in the AAIB bulletins each month as every MEP training flight, exam and renewal; every [ME]IR training flight, exam or renewal, contains a considerable element of asymmetric flight, EFATO (possibly at 200') etc.

But they aren't.

...and to take this consideration even further...

Does this mean lots of instructors or examiners (including CAAFU examiners) are signing people off who cannot hold blueline (Vyse)?

That these same examiners are actually having to take control but *still* signing people off?

Hell of a supposition!

The records are not bulging with MEP fatalities, they are 'news' because they are very rare events.

Sensible discussion about Vmca, blueline, banking-to-live etc all very good, useful discussion

Dubious "statistics" don't help anyone except headline writers or Russell Brand and, when I last checked, we ain't either...

[Miserlou]

MJ.
Check your dictionary as to the definition of 'should'.

I say 'should' because you 'may' encounter reduced control authority, especially rolling towards the live engine.

As PACE wrote the emphasis 'should' be on energy management. However, blue line is the magic speed in terms of best lift/drag ratio performance. But one should not be focussed on actually climbing: that may not be possible.

Rustle,
I suspect that that is not the case. Just that the initial learning has not become automatic and proficiency is not maintained.
That is where i came in on the thread, the SEP stall/spin accident rate is also rather poor.

[Pace]

Rustle


Fatal accident rate single engined aeroplanes: 0.31 per 100,000 hours.
Fatal accident rate multi-engined aeroplanes: 0.98 per 100,000 hours.
(Note that a fatal accident for the purpose of the rate above is an accident in which there was at least one fatality. It does not reflect total people killed)
Total accident rates were similar at 9.54 per 100,000 hours for singles and 8.39 per 100,000 hours for multis. The difference is that accidents in multi-engined aeroplanes were around 3 times more likely to result in a fatality.
Total reported hours flown were 1,299,900 for singles, and 2,647,300 for multis.

historically in engine failure accidents you were more likely to be killed in a twin engine than single (maybe that has changed)

Pace

[mad_jock]

Nope you still don`t get it. There is nothing reduced about a Vmca incident. Its total uncontrollable aircraft. Until you reduce power on the good engine.

The handling up to thst point will be nothing different until you run out of rudder.

But crack on with your more than 5 bank i won`t be on board and it will give us something to talk about for a couple of weeks afterwards.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, very much my point. In the UK at any rate I think the vast majority of twin pilots are well trained, and I think the frequency of the re-currency check goes a long way to help keep these skills current. Of course a low hours twin pilot, particularly one not current, and in difficult conditions, will find an unexpected engine failure at a critical flight phase challenging, BUT in many twins it really isnt the event it is made out to be.

As to the stats., as ever, they cant be taken in isolation. We have well rehearsed the accident stats for the Cirrus in the past. Yes, it was higher than most light singles for some time. Yes, pilots used the Cirrus to fly further, higher, and in more challenging conditions than many other like singles. Twins are the same. Pilots use twins to fly further and in more challenging conditions, and they are more complex, you are simply not comparing like with like.

[Miserlou]

MJ.
You're not making any sense. Tell me please, how are you maintaining 5 degrees of bank into the live engine?
With aileron? Thought so. So there is more aileron available (control deflection) away from the live engine than into it. Thus, reduced authority to the live side. I think you'll find it rolls quicker to away from the live engine too.

I have, in 25 years of flying NEVER heard anyone advocate limiting turning bank angle to 5 degrees in an engine out situation.
I have however, heard much discussion of whether it is best to turn into or away from the live engine if there is a choice.

[Pace]

Fuji

The thread was about a very sad and tragic light twin accident with an experienced pilot at the controls!

The aircraft dived vertically into the ground here in the UK killing both occupants!

Barring some unlikely but possible catastrophic failure usually all these accidents come back to pilot error.

As I stated earlier in the thread I have now lost several friends in flying accidents 4 of which were better pilots than I am so we have to look at why or what can be learnt or improved to stop such things happening to some of us in the future.

it is easy to bury ones head in the sand and state that all in the garden is wonderful but it obviously is not!

I have over 3000 hrs in a variety of piston twins in every bit of **** you could imagine and on numerous occasions you could be talking about me but for luck or whatever I am still here ? I am not portraying myself as some sort of know it all Sky God far from it!!

Now flying Jets exclusively albeit a variety of Slowtations the single engine performance is as different as chalk and cheese and light twins are a unique breed which should have unique training in dealing with them rather than training directed at high performance machine like I fly now!

Personally I do not think a paltry 5 hours practicing climbing at blue line is adequate i STRESS THE WORD CLIMBING (many want 10 hrs to convert to a single engine Cirrus)! :ugh:

With that its better I shut up :E


Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace as always you make a good point.

However, lest we forget this is GA. Of course in an ideal world every pilot would have a work out in the sim every six months, but its not possible. GA is fragile enough as is. So we must balance risk with reward.

I have said before give 10 pilots a PFL and 8 will not perform well, but the majority would survive were it for real. Most pilots flying twins will survive an engine failure, may be about the same number as will survive a tyre blowing at 70 mph on the motorway, but at least pilots are trained to deal with the emergency better than motorists.

So as always there are choices to be made. Increase the training significantly and there will be almost no private pilots left flying twins. Strangely in a "bad" accident year the fatality rate might actually be higher because the population is so small.

No, I think the risk reward analysis is about right. Of course the bar should be higher for commercial ops. - who ever said trust the average GA pilot with your life ;).

Ps I have a go at a few engine failures about every six months. If they arent up to standard I do some more and I know my instructor would insist if I didnt. Actually I think most instructors are pretty aware of the responsibility they have in letting loose a twin rated pilot, and on the whole do a pretty good job. Of course potentially the dangerous pilot is the one flying almost no hours between renewals who sets off in the 11 month and his luck runs out. However fortunately we are still asked to accept some element of personal responsibility. Inevitability some exbit less and fall into the low time high risk category.

[F900 Ex]

I do believe there is an amount of confusion here as to exactly what Vmca is.

It is a minimum IAS airspeed in the air given a defined set of conditions of which one is using 5 deg of bank towards the live engine in light multi engine aircraft, below this speed loss of directional control will occur, this is a certification speed.

The same applies to jets however the 5 degrees of bank is not as relevant given there is no aerodynamic critical propellor and there is usually a far greater excess of thrust for climb performance.

There are many factors that will increase this minimum Vmca IAS. Turning the aircraft into or away from the live engine for manoeuvring purposes has nothing to do with using 5 degrees of bank for Vmca certification as you should not be flying close to Vmca during normal operations either using 2 engines or with one failed in a light multi engine aircraft.

For manoeuvring purposes then use the recommend figures from your AFM.

[mad_jock]

There is no difference between the different propulsion devices. apart from with props we have feathered and un-feathered to add to our list of variables.

The is the plane climbing or descending is just a function of excess power.

You just need to think of the aircraft with a force out to the side with an opposing force countering it at the tail.

Turning the aircraft into or away from the live engine for manoeuvring purposes has nothing to do with using 5 degrees of bank for Vmca certification as you should not be flying close to Vmca during normal operations either using 2 engines or with one failed in a light multi engine aircraft.

Well unfortunately it does and is what kills people turning onto final with one engine powered up and S&L. But according to the TP the reason for this in the main is the nursing of one engine to get them home and having a power setting on the bad one which is below zero thrust.

there was actually a video on here which I can't find of an aircraft flying towards an airport with audible farting of an engine. Then all of a sudden it just rolls on its back and 5 seconds later turns into a fire ball as it impacts.

As I said if there is no reason to do more than 5 degrees of bank ie hitting the ground etc try not to do it. But if you have to yes you can do it and just hope that your not going to have problems and be ready to reduce power on the good one as you come to the extreme of your rudder travel.

[Miserlou]

So are you saying rudder is what stops the aircraft rolling on its back below Vmca, Jock? Surely you mean aileron.

And just so as you understand the criteria for Vmca, it will be set at the point where the maximum force on either rudder or ailerons is reached. This may or may not be at full deflection.

In my long ago youth, I was taught (in a glider) final turn MINIMUM 30 degrees of bank. This is precisely to avoid stalling/spinning.

And it is exactly why your MAXIMUM 5 degree banked turns are dangerous.
If you are as hairy-arsed as you said a while back then I fear you are suffering from the over-conservatism which often afflicts the old. Over-conservatism to the point where it becomes dangerous.

[mad_jock]

I mean rudder its the only thing that stop the out of balance yaw from the live engine. Once you have no more force to oppose your into a spiral dive.

And unless you have one air brake up and one down I struggle to see how you can have Vmca issues in a glider.


The 5 degrees is only a limit unless other things preclude it when you on one engine not with normal ops with both donks working.

[dirkdj]

MJ,

Spiral dive is high-G, high speed, coordinated descending turn, not likely to be your problem near Vmca. Stall-spin is more like it. Different beast.

[Miserlou]

MJ,
It seems you have seriously misunderstood the dynamics of the situation.
The rudder is there to maintain directional control (secondary effect, yaw).
The ailerons controls roll (secondary effect, roll).

In the 'max power below Vmca' case it is the roll which is uncontrollable.

Gliding relevance? Well, apart from that I have yet to fly a type which doesn't fly the same way, not banking more than 5 degrees brings you closer to a more critical situation.

Dirk,
I suggest it is just loss of control. May also result in stall or spin of course.

[Pace]

And the biggest rule of all

Keep the bloody thing flyiing !! far better to crash under control that fall out of the sky like a stone!Do not fixate on having to climb at all cost and do not forget the 3 rd engine in twins or the 2nd engine in singles i.e. shove the nose over and trade altitude for energy

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

It is certainly true whether it be a single, twin or I guess even more engines, never give up on keep the thing flying. The one thing that has always impressed me when reading the accident reports is even if you plough through the odd roof, hedge and fence as long as you have remained in control and not allowed the aircraft to stall you have a reasonable to good chance of walking away.

- unless of course you fly a Cirrus (for Pace's benefit). ;)

[Pace]

fuji

I am going to rent time on a Cirrus for next year really miss the private piston flying so after Christmas will look at the best deal i can get :ok:

Pace

[mad_jock]

It seems you have seriously misunderstood the dynamics of the situation.

No I haven't a spiral dive starts by letting the nose yaw. In a Vmca incident you can't correct it because you have no more rudder left. Which is why the Vmca goes through the roof in high angles of bank.

In the 'max power below Vmca' case it is the roll which is uncontrollable.

The roll is only there because you have run out of rudder to oppose the force on the wing. The secondary effect of that yaw is roll. You can have full opposite aileron input and you will be in a sideslip which will eat up the remaining of you pretty poor excess power so its either pitch down or the airspeed comes back even more which will increase the yaw and make your ailerons less responsive and over you go. Either way once you hit the rudders limits your dead.

Yes as the speed increases you get more rudder authority in a spiral but by which point your a fire ball.

And yes glider experience is valid because when the theory isn't there and you put your self in a situation ie being a test pilot over 5 degrees of bank and get your arse bitten you chop the power to the good engine and turn it into the glider and you might if your very lucky live. BUt as most of these things happy at circuit alt you won't have time or the potential energy to sort it out.

[F900 Ex]

F900 Ex
It is a minimum IAS airspeed in the air given a defined set of conditions of which one is using 5 deg of bank towards the live engine in light multi engine aircraft, below this speed loss of directional control will occur, this is a certification speed.

The same applies to jets however the 5 degrees of bank is not as relevant given there is no aerodynamic critical propellor and there is usually a far greater excess of thrust for climb performance.

There are many factors that will increase this minimum Vmca IAS. Turning the aircraft into or away from the live engine for manoeuvring purposes has nothing to do with using 5 degrees of bank for Vmca certification as you should not be flying close to Vmca during normal operations either using 2 engines or with one failed in a light multi engine aircraft.

For manoeuvring purposes then use the recommend figures from your AFM.





MJ

I don't believe you are reading my post correctly, look at it again and check the wording "Certification" " Minimum" "Manoeuvring Figures AFM"

If you really believe that limiting all turns to a maximum of 5 degrees towards the live engine during one engine out ops while manoeuvring at safe speeds above Vmca is normal, then you are wrong, how on earth for example would you comply with OEI routes or SID's having just departed in minimum RVRs and remaining IMC so not being able to manoeuvre visually.


Pace

And the biggest rule of all

Keep the bloody thing flyiing !! far better to crash under control that fall out of the sky like a stone!Do not fixate on having to climb at all cost and do not forget the 3 rd engine in twins or the 2nd engine in singles i.e. shove the nose over and trade altitude for energy

Pace


Yes maintain blue line speed = Best Lift Drag.

[mad_jock]

Nobody has those figures the only figure you have is the Vmca figure in the AFM which is valid with 5 degrees of bank.

As soon as your over that your into test pilot zone.

Personally I can see no reason at all for doing more than 5 deg bank turn with the good engine going at full chat unless your about to hit a hill.

[F900 Ex]

MJ
The roll is only there because you have run out of rudder to oppose the force on the wing. The secondary effect of that yaw is roll. You can have full opposite aileron input and you will be in a sideslip which will eat up the remaining of you pretty poor excess power so its either pitch down or the airspeed comes back even more which will increase the yaw and make your ailerons less responsive and over you go.


Correct :ok:

[Pace]

F900

Totally agree ; ) but we are not talking about pilots who maintain blue line whether climbing level or descending at that speed we are talking about those who don't for one reason or another!
In a perfect world ?

Hence tap into the other engine the potential energy in the airframe ! Keep the thing flying :ok: at all cost

Pace

[F900 Ex]

MJ
Nobody has those figures the only figure you have is the Vmca figure in the AFM which is valid with 5 degrees of bank.

As soon as your over that your into test pilot zone.

Personally I can see no reason at all for doing more than 5 deg bank turn with the good engine going at full chat unless your about to hit a hill.


So published Vyse, Vxse, V2, VFR, VFT etc are all test pilot zone speeds ???? and using personal interpretation of speeds, OEI, etc is exactly what is going to make you hit a hill in IMC.

[rustle]

Nobody has those figures the only figure you have is the Vmca figure in the AFM which is valid with 5 degrees of bank.

As soon as your over that your into test pilot zone.

Personally I can see no reason at all for doing more than 5 deg bank turn with the good engine going at full chat unless your about to hit a hill.

I don't agree with this either I'm afraid - this 5 degree bank thing is about Vmca certification.

Once safely at blueline (on one engine) there is nothing wrong with turning (in either direction) at reasonable bank angles exceeding 5 degrees - as a rule of thumb we used 20 degree as a maximum -still maintaining blueline.

Nailing blueline is paramount unless you are committed to landing IMO.

[F900 Ex]

Rustle

Correct :ok:

[Pace]

Nailing blueline is paramount unless you are committed to landing IMO.

Rustle

This is the bit I would not totally agree with and maybe I am being pedantic.
Blue line is a base line not to go below rather than a speed to nail!
There are other options which could mean speeds higher than blue line i.e. setting up level flight rather than attempting a climb. In a Seneca level flight will eventually give you blue line plus 30 kts

Pace

[F900 Ex]

Pace
F900
Totally agree ; ) but we are not talking about pilots who maintain blue line whether climbing level or descending at that speed we are talking about those who don't for one reason or another!
In a perfect world ?



Exactly pilots who don't for one reason or another.

That is exactly why there is a defined training syllabus and set of operating procedures for all aircraft that have been designed taking in to account the lowest common denominator = the worst performing pilot.

Now if the worst performing pilot then goes of half cocked using procedures outside of the recommended then accidents happen, so everyone has to be trained to a known datum based on the manufactures procedures and recommendations, not hear say.


Pace
This is the bit I would not totally agree with and maybe I am being pedantic.
Blue line is a base line not to go below rather than a speed to nail!

Pace


Vxse is below blue line speed, so you are saying don't use best angle of climb even if needed. !!!

Blue line speed on the aircraft I operate can be as high as 195 Kts depending on weight, best angle for the same weight is 135 Kts but using your logic I could hit a hill !!!! because I shouldn't go below blue line speed.

And yes it's a jet but using Madjocks logic it doesn't make any difference anyway being a jet or piston, so where do you draw the line now ?