Engine failure on approach

[Dufwer]

Hi all,

I've been reading about the Fokker 50 crash in Luxembourg in another forum and part of the discusion was about training in the situation of an engine failure on approach. This got me thinking about the training I've received during my PPL. I can't think of a single occurance when my instuctor/s have mentioned this type of emergency, neither do the flying training books I have. Let say you are approaching the runway in a C-152, 70 knots, 2 stages flap, 400 feet agl, 1700rpm, nicely on the glide slope. If the engine fails at this point is it such a hopeless situation that it's not worth including in the training? Anybody got any thought on this?

Regards
D

[long final]

As a PPL you should have been taught glide approaches. If you were within glide range of the airfield then that is one option, if not, a forced landing would be called for, also taught.

There are differences with multi A/C engine failures, resulting in different characteristics of flight (or lack of), sometimes making multi engines failures much more life threatening than single engines A/C.

Regards,
LF

http://www.thebarlick.com/stuka2.gif

[Dufwer]

LF,

As you suggest I have been taught both glide approaches and forced landings, just not in direct relation to the final minute of flight. I'm thinking it would make sense to look at the final approach and if there isn't a convinient field make the approach a bit steeper to give a better chance of gliding in. I've never seen that in a manual. I'll leave the exciting twin engine stuff to the more experienced pilots for now.

Regards
D

[2Donkeys]

There are approaches, and approaches.

A PPL in a C152 should probably not be taught to fly visual approaches as if they are 3 degree ILSes. In the US, it is usual for schools to teach steeper approaches, flown closer in to the field, off tighter circuits, than is customary here in the UK. The result of this is that the chances of gliding to a safe landing are somewhat higher in the event of an engine failure than would be the case in the typical UK extended circuit.

[Note I make no distinction whether the extended circuit is for noise abatement, or is down to poor pilot technique - Gravity makes no distinction either!]

A light twin flying an instrument approach is a slightly different kettle of fish, but I would have perhaps a slightly different perspective to that of "Long Final" about the dangers of engine failures in twins.

Self-evidently, if an aircraft loses power whilst on a three degree approach, it will require additional power if it to maintain the correct descent profile, and reach the field. However, in the initial stages of the approach, the aircraft will not normally have full flap down, will have a reasonable margin of speed over blue line, and may well not have its gear down. As a consequence, it will be using a reduced level of power compared to the cruise, and the consequences of an engine failure on the aircraft's immediate controllability will be less. Contrast this with the situation immediately after take-off, where the margine between IAS and blue line will be much less (if not negative occasionally).

The issues associated with the loss of an engine on finals in a light twin are then:

1) The difficulty in identifying which engine has failed (because of the reduced effect that the failure has on the aircraft's controllability)

2) The realisation of the the failure and the associated need to add power will often come at the same time as additional flap is lowered, making he discovery of the failure coincide with the lower and slower parts of the approach.

3) Many light twins are not blessed with a massive excess of available power.

This can make reaching the field very doubtful, unless the pilot quickly cleans the airframe up (including feathering the dead engine, retracting the gear and raising unnecessary flap) and recovers from the condition.

HTH

[Chuck Ellsworth]

2Twodonkeys:

It is not that difficult to determine which engine has failed.

Move both throttles up, watch which way it yaws, use rudder to control yaw. :D

If you are stabalized on the approach it will not need a great amount of power to finish the landing, unless you have really let the airplane get ahead of you.

Cat Driver:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Chuck

Well yes you are off course correct when it comes to reciting the textbook.

However real life is usually a bit different, otherwise no-body would ever make a mistake.

Furthermore on the approach you would be flying with a low powersetting so the signs are likely to be less obvious.

If appropriate I will be more than happy to bow to your greater knowledge and experience, but you may find reading the following report as sobering as I and more experienced twin-drivers did.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm

FD

[QDMQDMQDM]

If you watch light singles landing at any airport, I bet fewer than one in a hundred make an approach where they could actualy get in if the engine failed on final. Glide approaches are really steep, especially into headwinds. It's completely different to the way we are taught: revs to 1700, half flap, etc. etc. If you're motoring in at all and there's a headwind you won't make it if the engine quits.

QDM

[2Donkeys]

Hi Chuck

The theory is sound...


The failure of an engine is only infrequently as clear-cut as is the case when we simulate a failure. The clear cut movement of the ball to permit a "dead leg dead engine" diagnosis is not so readily apparent when the engines are developing lower levels of power, such as during an intermediate descent. In fact simply identifying that an engine has failed may cause problems under these circumstances

Similarly, engine failure on approach tends to coincide with the throttle movement that frequently accompanies the dropping of the final stage of flap, and at this stage, the margin of speed over blue line will often be minimal.

There are sadly a number of accidents in which the real-world problems of identifying an engine failure in precisely these circumstances have had a fatal outcome in types as diverse as the Seneca and the B737.

Keep with the theory, but don't overlook some of the real-world problems

[long final]

2D's

That’s what I was trying to point out in my first post. Sometimes (perhaps "much" was too excessive) it would be better to be in a single, IFR not being in the original questions remit.

QDM, must agree, keep them high and tight is my philosophy (traffic permitting - before I get lambasted)

LF

[Chuck Ellsworth]

twodonkeys & Flyn'Dutch:

I don't know why I get myself into these no win discussions.

However the accident report was very long and indepth as to what the board could confirm. Also it is a very unusual accident in that it seems to be a one pilot decision making process, however we will never know.

When I give a pre take off brief I state.

" In the event of an engine problem below VR I will reject the take off. If we have an engine problem after lift off I will fly the airplane straight ahead. We will identify the problem. We will agree on a solution to the problem. We will solve the problem as agreed upon."

The briefing remains the same which ever pilot is pilot flying.

The safety factor with this briefing is we know in advance what we will do. " FLY THE AIRPLANE STRAIGHT AHEAD " until the problem is identified and solved.

Engine failure during the approach should not result in a loss of the airplane. Period.


Cat Driver:

[2Donkeys]

Chuck

I can't speak for Flying Dutch, but I think that we are violently agreeing.

It is a fact that any conventional aircraft will glide at an angle somewhat steeper than 3 degrees. As a result, should a powerplant fail during an instrument approach, the remaining power plant(s) will need to provide additional power to maintain the 3 degree descent. To a greater or lesser extent, this will cause increased yaw with increased handling issues. These issues will be made worse by any drag caused by the configuration of the airframe.

When we fly an approach visually, other considerations notwithstanding, it is not a bad thing to fly a somewhat steeper approach, minimising this effect.

There is more to identifying a real life (as opposed to simulated) engine failure than pushing the throttles forward though, as those of us who have had one or two will confirm. Not least, because in real life, engine failures are rarely complete engine deaths. Rather, they tend to take the form of intermittent loss of power, or surging in the first instance. The ball (and rudder) will often ricochet from one side to the other, making dead-leg dead-engine tough to work through.

Finally, worth recalling that Vr (and V1 and V2) is of little relevance to a light twin. If the engine fails when you are on the deck, you are going to stay there.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Chuck

The sallient points of the AAIB report:

The crew was:

1. Well trained
2. Fresh
3. Experienced

I appreciate what you are saying about pre-take off brief but merely stating it, is not going to make it work!

Chuck stated:

Engine failure during the approach should not result in a loss of the airplane. Period.

I think the operative word here is: Should.

Reality is different from the textbook, again, I am afraid.

Take it you never make a mistake?

FD

[Skylark4]

It gives me the willies to see SEPs doing a 3 degree approach at Kidlington. I was in an aircraft doing just that at Kidlington once and the approach was over woods with no alternative should the donk quit. I raised it with the pilot, an instructor, after the flight and his basic response was`Our engine is regularly serviced and replaced every 2000 hours, it cannot fail.`I did not proceed with the conversation.
On the few times I have flown in the RAF Tutors I work with, the circuit is probably tight enough on the downwind leg to get in but I doubt that you would by the time you turn onto the crosswind leg and some power is used all the way down.
In my Motorglider, when possible, the circuit is kept tight enough to get in from any point and `circuit power` is maintained until a point is reached where the engine is throttled right back and forgotten about. The approach is then controlled with a combination of attitude and airbrake. If you get it right, you effectively pull virtually all the airbrake and leave it there. If you are going `long` you can just stick the nose down a bit. With those big paddles the speed doesn`t build up much and is soon bled off once you raise the nose. Alternatively, you can feed in more and more brake as you descend, keeping the airspeed constant. This method is surely applicable to an aircraft fitted with flaps. Start your approach clean and aiming long then feed in flap as you get closer and safer.
Who am I to say? I`m only an amateur.

Mike W

[Chuck Ellsworth]

2donkeys:

I agree we are really not getting anywhere with this.

As to real life engine failures in multi engine aircraft I understand what they can and will do. In the last forty five or so years of flying multi engine aircraft for a living both fixed and rotary wing I think I have experienced about every problem you can think of, or almost every problem. I have had turbines fail as well as small piston and large radials fail in flight. In fact I had a failure one day just at the moment of lift off with an over gross of about two thousand pounds. It was in a waterbomber, punched the load out and feathered, then flew 75 miles to an airport and changed the engine.

As to your comment on light twins and engine failure on the deck, I guess it all depends on what light twin you are flying. A Seneca 1 will probably not get to far if you are heavy, however an Aerocommander 790B will climb like hell on one, if you are flying it correctly.

Anyhow this thread was about approaches, not take offs.

So I guess I am out of this. :D

Take care.

Cat Driver:

Flyin'Dutch':

I was not being critical of the pilot in the accident report, I merely commented on what was written in the report. None of us know what exactly happened during those few moments when his problems started.

As to your remarks about pre take off briefs.

I don't have any idea of what you do in an airplane, however we use pre take off briefs based on the factors relating to every take off. I can assure you we do not just state it, we follow them. That is what CRM and trained crews are all about.

Anyhow this is not going to get better so you fly your way and I will fly my way.

Oh by the way, yes. I have made many, many mistakes flying aircraft and learned from every mistake.

I also know enough to understand that we canno't be in control of everything, all it takes is wrong place wrong time and its all over.

Cat Driver:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oh it does feel good to hear so many esteemed individuals re-enforcing one of my favourite hobby-horses. 2Donkeys, you're a pilot after my own heart.

I was taught doing my microlight PPL (before my GA/SEP PPL) that it's only got one engine and you always fly as if it was about to stop. Flying in the back of a Hawk on my ETPS course we applied the same principle, albeit that we did at-least have an opt-out. This is good practice, and even some GA instructors understand the principle.

Yet this apparently goes out the window in the standard GA circuit where a flat 3° approach is considered more important than the risk of engine failure. The problem (at most airfields anyway) is utterly avoidable through a combination of a steep approach and [shock from the audience as I speak a civil heresy) a constant aspect circuit.

On the odd occasions (about half a dozen a year) that I fly new homebuilts I always try and fly constant aspect, tight, circuits so that if the engine coughs I'll make the runway from anywhere in the circuit. Middle of this year I proved it worked as a Jabiru decided to stop going in the middle of base. Tighten the finals turn a little, sweat a little, don't bend an aeroplane!

3° approach, combined with a civil rectangular circuit, and this is absolutely impossible.



If at Kidlington they are teaching 3° approaches to their baby ATPLs I can understand the rationale. IF they have properly assessed the risk - which in my book means only doing it on runways where there's an option if the engine conks.

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Genghis:

Amen:
Amen:

:D :D

Cat Driver:

[sharpshot]

Agree wholeheartedly.
Just to add with another query - how do you feel about your ability to recognise certain symptoms when wearing a very good ANR headset.

I tried one last week for the first time and felt as though one of my senses had almost been removed. I do not have a "musical" ear and the props have to be pretty well out of synch at the best of times for me to twiddle the levers, however, the ANR just about totally deprived me.

Okay, hearing is not the bee all and end all of engine failure identification, far from it. But I felt uncomfortable nevertheless.

[Julian]

You arent the first peron I have heard say that Sharpshot, I know one instructor who if new students turn up with one takes it off them until they can fly the aircraft as he says they are a nightmare otherwise!

I have to say I get some comfort in hearing the engine, you never know it may give you that few extra seconds to sort something out before the fan at the front stops and you start to sweat.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm afraid my answer is rather simplistic. The only time I've ever flown with an ANR headset it annoyed me so much that I've never repeated the experience. I might break that rule if I was routinely flying a D-series Shadow, but I can't think of any other type where I wouldn't rather have a decent conventional headset.

G

[Aerobatic Flyer]

The steeper approach has so many advantages for smaller aircraft. To list just a few:

1. You stand a chance of making the airfield after an engine failure. (I once had one at the end of downwind leg. I was in a motor glider, so the only thing it changed was my stress level - but it brought home the fact that it can happen at any time.)

2. You spend less time at low level. At one airfield I regularly fly from, trees and terrain before the runway cause unpleasant and unpredicatble low-level turbulence in a crosswind. A flatish approach forces you to fly through it. A steep approach, and the problem vanishes.

3. It's more neighbourly to fly a bit higher at a low power setting.

Having said all of that, though, there are still plenty of places where you'd be stuffed if your engine failed on approach. Anyone been to Antwerp? Houses in every direction right up to the airport fence.

[bluskis]

If one engine out of two stops delivering its fair share on a visual approach, the ensuing swing, or yaw to the aero educated, should be easily detected both by the seat of the pants and visually.

The ensuing actions should not in my limited experience cause any dramas.

[LowNSlow]

I'm fortunate to fly from a small field that allows sensible approachs. I always try to stay as high as I can to allow for failure of my ancient engine. A great big sideslip takes the height away without speed increase and on the odd occasion I get it spot on, a satisfying 3-pointer is the end result. One or more kangaroo hops are the more normal result but at least I'd be safe if the engine stopped on finals.

This method of approach was drummed into me during my PPL, large chunks of which were done at WW and Soton in AA-5A's. You don't have to be in an aged taildragger to exploit the virtues of sideslipping to reduce height (within certain limits, especially on a C172 with full flap which will pitch down dramatically in a sideslip).

Stuka approaches are safer than junior airline pilot 3 deg approaches in singles IMHO. :D

[sharpshot]

Tks Julian and Ghenghis - glad its not just me. I lost 4-500 rpm in a Lance once and boy was it audible - not sure I would have noticed so rapidly with an ANR on.

Back to the initial point; if you have both levers almost closed in the descent, it's going to be pretty difficult to discern (other than from instrument cues which one has quit on you until you apply some more power. Let's face it, how much opposite rudder do you have booted in in the flare with one shut down.

[FlyingForFun]

Very interesting thread... I decided to let it develop a bit before I added my thoughts, and I'm glad I did, because it's turned up some interesting points.

The original question was re. single-engined aircraft. The only way to guarantee that you'd be able to make the field if you had an engine failure is not only to do a glide approach, but to use a bit of side-slip. If you plan a perfect glide-approach without side-slip and the engine quits, the extra drag from the stationary or windmilling prop will bring you down faster than you'd planned, and you'll land short. How many of us do this every time (tail-dragger pilots who need to side-slip to see the runway are excepted!)

How necessary this is depends on the field. As AF said, there are some airports/runways where there are no alternatives. I always try to be high on 25 at White Waltham, because if the engine quits on short finals and you're not high, you're in the houses. On other runways it's not so important, because there are places to land safely short of the runway - but even then, there's not really any advantage to a shallow approach. And a 3-degree airliner approach just seems really stupid in a PA28.

The mutli-engined situation is causing more arguments though. Before I give my thoughts, I need to say that I don't have a multi-engined rating - this based on just 5 hours of dual in a twin. But the point which people are arguing will make things difficult is the low power setting on the remaining engine. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was taught that the first actions on an engine failure are gear up, flaps up. Then, mixtures rich, props forward, and throttles open. Once you've opened the throttles, you should have no problems identifying the dead engine, but even so the next steps are to identify, verify and feather - so even if you get it wrong, you've got a chance to realise it and correct your error.

What I'm not sure about, and I'd appreciate some input from the experts here, is whether you'd have time to do all of these steps on short final. In fact, would you even want to put the gear and flaps up? Given the poor single-engine performance of many light twins, it may be that once an engine quits, you're commited to land, in which case you certainly wouldn't want the gear up. But I can't see any reason not to open the throttles, and then verify the dead engine by closing the relevant throttle, before feathering a prop - and it seems like these two steps would solve all the problems people are talking about here.

FFF
---------------

[2Donkeys]

FFF

On SE aircraft, I think you have made the same fine point that many others have made.


On ME aircraft, the issue you may have missed is the difficulty in determining that an engine has actually failed at all when on approach, because of the low power settings typically being used, and the resultant lack of significant yaw. Once it is determined that an engine has failed, the recovery actions will depend on how close you are to the field, and whether your position and speed actually require any significant increase in power on the live engine. If little or no increase in power is required, you really don't have to go through the drill of pushing all the levers forward a la EFATO. Sort the problem out on the ground.

The particular problem that I suggested earlier, is that when an engine is operating at low power, it is often only as you apply power to it, that the failure will become obvious. The most likely time for a ME pilot to be applying power on an approach is as the gear and flaps come down, and/or if he sinks below glide. In both cases this is not a good time to discover the loss of an engine.

[englishal]

On the subject of ANR headsets, I think they're the best thing since sliced bread and wouldn't fly without one now. Once you're used to them, you can still notice drop in RPM, they just filter out the background rumble. I had a 200RPM drop recently, which I picked up audiably, [dunno why, though at the same time the fuel pressure dropped to zero so I left the electric pump on which seemed to fix it ;) ].

If you lost an engine on short final, in a twin, then I don't really see a major problem so long as it is handled correctly and so long as you don't have to go around. In fact I think many of the ME POH's say that single engine go around is 'not recommended'. You would notice the yaw especially as you increased power to maintain the GS. Short final, your props should be forward, and you should have enough power on the remaining engine to remain on the glide slope, even in an under powered A/C. I would not put the gear up or flaps up on SF as I would now consider myself committed to land, though would feather the offending engine if I had identified and verified with time to spare. I was always taught that if flying an asymetric precision IAP, once at the FAF gear down and you're now committed to landing, anywhere on the field (taxyway, runway, midfield), rather than go around. Slightly different for a NPA, where I would leave the gear and flaps UP until I knew I had it made. Mind you I wouldn't attempt a NPA with one engine unless I knew that I could have field in sight well above minimums.

An engine failure on take off in a twin is far more serious than during landing.

Cheers
EA:)

[QDMQDMQDM]

On the subject of ANR headsets, I think they're the best thing since sliced bread and wouldn't fly without one now.

Agree. Much lower fatigue levels after a couple of hours in the cockpit and no problems hearing stuff that needs to be heard.

QDM

[poetpilot]

Back to the main subject (I think), the best instruction I ever had in this area was not from an instructor but from a safety pilot PPL checking me out in an Emeraude. We did about 10 simulated engine failures in various parts of the circuit, each time seeing what I'd do and where I'd go. By the time we got to circuit no.3 it was amazing how I'd tightened up my circuit...

..Interestingly this particular pilot had a bit of a reputation as a cowboy flyer, but I changed my personal opinion of him that day... he certainly wanted to keep all his bases covered, which can only be good.

[sharpshot]

So gentleman, have we decided that in visual conditions you fly one type of app. (extra ht.) and when IMC you follow the glidepath........in a single of course.

FFF - Wasn't it "Power Up, gear up, flaps up in the normal course of events? (Twins)

But I have to agree, with an engine out, who wants/needs to fly another circuit if the app. is stable.

[bookworm]

On ME aircraft, the issue you may have missed is the difficulty in determining that an engine has actually failed at all when on approach, because of the low power settings typically being used, and the resultant lack of significant yaw. Once it is determined that an engine has failed, the recovery actions will depend on how close you are to the field, and whether your position and speed actually require any significant increase in power on the live engine. If little or no increase in power is required, you really don't have to go through the drill of pushing all the levers forward a la EFATO. Sort the problem out on the ground.

Yeah. As you know I'm a relative newbie in the world of twin engine flying, but I do wonder about this "push everything forward" thing. If you are at full power, you're at full power, so pushing ain't gonna help. If you're not at full power, the odds are that you're at a stage of flight where climb performance is not critical. "Climb power" on one engine is enough for level flight or better at blue line. Full asymmetric power is going to buy you a little extra rate of climb and a lot of extra control problems.

Discuss :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Edited

[eyeinthesky]

In all the discussions about engine failure on twins, I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Asymmetric Committal Height.

For the uninitiated, this is the height below which, if an engine has already failed or subsequently fails, you are commited to landing. For light twins it varies from 200ft AGL to about 400ft AGL. You are committed because below that height you are unlikely to be able to achieve a positive rate of climb before you reach Zero feet. The conditions I use and teach for descending below ACH (even with both engines working) are :

- On slope and centreline
- Runway clear
- Cleared to Land by ATC (if relevant)
- 3 greens.

If any of these elements are missing by ACH then prudence suggests a go-around. In some cases you might vary them (eg someone just vacating and obviously going to be clear), but the general rule is a sound one.

In some light twins, a failure below ACH with gear and landing flap will require full power on the good engine just to make the runway. For that reason, on a practice asymmetric approach I will not deploy landing flap until ACH is passed or all the above criteria are met (if earlier).

With regard to singles, it would be nice to be able always to reach the runway if the donk quits, but sadly the Nimbys and other issues make this impossible. It should be part of every approach to spot escape routes (football pitches etc) in case of dire emergency.

[foghorn]

I was taught to judge appraoched by aspect only at PPL, but at CPL level was taught to nail the PAPIs when available.

Even three whites going uncorrected for any appreciable length of time got a comment from the instructor.

From comments above it looks like this is also being taught to commercial students at Oxford.

Maybe it's just the instructors, or maybe it's because CAAFU examiners are expecting to see the PAPIs nailed during the CPL skills test?

[englishal]

If you are at full power, you're at full power, so pushing ain't gonna help
I suppose the theory is that you may have forgotten something, or pushing it may help (props, mixtures, throttles);)

As far as coming in high in a single in case you have EF....I have just been browsing the AAIB website, and there are quite a few accidents caused by steep approaches, people mucking it up, landing too long, ballooning and stacking it into the hedge at the end or the runway....just a word of caution;) I'm a firm believer in a nice stabilised approach on the PAPI, VASI, GS or whatever :)

Cheers
EA

[Julian]

On a single it would have to be pretty serious for me to go missed, else I would adjust power if needed and go for the rwy.

[slim_slag]

People screw up on landing for many reasons, not having a stabilised approach is probably the root cause of most. You can happily have a stabilised approach above the visual glide slope. Commercial practical standards in the US require ... a stabilised approach. The FARs allow for being above the visual glide slope, but not below.

Went out playing with a cute young instructor yesterday. When returning to land I got a bollocking from her for being too close to the runway on downwind, and for cutting power to idle when abeam the numbers.

I told her if she didn't like it she could land the plane herself, but she declined as she didn't have a tailwheel endorsement.

New breed! :D :D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Slim_Slag:

Yup, new breed.

Maybe they should be issued with a limited instructor rating?

Or, beginner instructor rating?

It just does not make sense that any Instructor is unable to fly a simple, basic tailwheel airplane.

I offer an advanced flight training package that includes one minute circuits alternating left hand right hand. Oh by the way to make it comfortable to fly the one minute touch and goes all landings are wheel landings.

That helps sort out the how to handle the airplane
problem. :D :D

Oh, by the way we don't use the VASI. :D :D

Cat Driver:

[2Donkeys]

Chuck asks:

You state. Quote: " or if he sinks below glide, in both cases this is not a good time to discover the loss of the engine>

( a ) Why is it not a good time to discover the loss of the engine.

( b ) What do you know about flying multi engine airplanes that the rest of us haven't figured out, I just do not understand how the loss of an engine during a stabalized approach is such a big problem, at least for someone who understands how to fly the damn things.

Well (a)

If you are already below the glide, you will be looking to add more power. More power delivered in an asymmetric form may well give the inexperienced pilot handling problems. Not least because I am suggesting that the attempt to add more power may be the first indication that the pilot gets of an engine problem.

(b)

I am sure that I do not know as much as you clearly do about flying multi-engined aircraft. So far as the stabilised approach is concerned, I agree. However, all sorts of factors can contrive to cause problems for an approach however stabilised. Windsheer, runway incursions, navaid failure, instrument failure, pilot error. My point was that should any of these events occur, a pilot may need to start moving the throttles. As I have now written on numerous occasions, it is as he moves the throttles that the failure will tend to make itself known. Low level, correcting for a departure from a stabilised approach is a bad time to discover that you have an engine problem. The Kegworth 737 accident is a variation on this very theme, although the causes are numerous and complex. The essential problem was that the correct diagnosis of the engine failure only occurred as the aircraft was on very short finals and needed power that was only available from a good engine that had been shut down in error some minutes earlier. The vibrations associated with the bad engine had subsided as the power levers had been brought back to flight idle for the descent.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hey 2Donkeys:

I am sorry for my stupid post.

Sometimes I get careless with this damn keyboard and post stupid comments.

Chuck E:

[bluskis]

However on approach there should not be the need to add a fistfull of power, just a power adjustment, when the lack of power on one will be noticable, but not dramatic.

I have zero turbine time, but I believe they have a rather different aspect, namely time to spool up from low power to higher power.

The incorrect shut down of the Kegworth professionally flown plane gives weight to the view that, destructive levels of vibration excluded, a shutdown or feathering on approach is inadvisable.

Personally I believe the action to take before feathering a prop should be to throttle back that engine to check you have the correct one.

An error can then be quickly remedied

[2Donkeys]

The incorrect shut down of the Kegworth professionally flown plane gives weight to the view that, destructive levels of vibration excluded, a shutdown or feathering on approach is inadvisable.

In the interests of accuracy, the Kegworth shutdown did not occur on the approach. The formal report is available to read at:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gobme/gobmerep.htm

and shows the the failure occurred as the aircraft was in the climb through FL283. The incorrect engine was shut down, and the other throttled back to flight idle. Only shortly after the reapplication of power to the bad engine (as the aircraft turned onto the localiser) did the problem become apparent.

When the aircraft was 13 nm from touchdown on this new heading, and descending to 3,000 feet amsl, ATC advised a right turn to bring the aircraft back to the centreline. At 2020.03 hrs, during this turn, power was increased on the No.1 engine to level the aircraft momentarily at 3,000 feet and maximum indicated vibration was again recorded on the FDR. The aircraft was then cleared to descend to 2000 feet and the commander began a slow descent, calling successively for 2° and then 5° of flap. After joining the centreline, at 2000 feet above ground level (agl), the commander called for the landing gear to be lowered and, as he passed the outer marker at 4.3 nm from touchdown, called for 15° of flap. One minute later, at 2023.49 hrs, when the aircraft was 2.4 nm from touchdown at a height of 900 feet agl, there was an abrupt decrease in power from the No 1 engine.

So here we have a mis-identification (for all sorts of reasons) when the engine was under high power. The results of the misidentification were then masked by the aircraft being throttled back and entering into a descent to land at a nearby airport. The signs of the misidentification only becoming apparent once the aircraft was attempting to apply power on the final stages of the approach.

Interestingly, misidentification of the failed engine is not uncommon in *real life*, amongst professional pilots. The tragic accident that befell the 404 Titan ferrying Airtours aircrew is a good example.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm

The report makes sobering reading, particularly if you fly twins regularly, and your only experience of having to identify an "engine failure" is on your annual MEP renewal, when the engine conveniently fails totally, quickly and cleanly.

[slim_slag]

Ah Chuck, lets guess. First find dirt strip.

Depart, gentle left turn to a few hundred feet, "stall turn-back" to right and runway.

Depart, gentle right turn to a few hundred feet, "stall turn-back" to left and runway.

Never get high enough to see white lights on visual glide slope (not that dirt strip has them)

etc etc

500 hour instructors were too busy spending money on their multi engine instructors ticket so they could get a hundred hours for the airlines. All gone pear shaped now unfortunately. They could have got a tailwheel endorsement for less than the cost of their multi rating of course, but it wasn't on the career path back then. Now the airlines are nowhere near hiring, and they are bored senseless teaching primary students in warriors. Too bored and broke now to get tailwheel endorsement. Shame really. some are really nice people. 'Bumps on logs' is what a DE buddy calls them.

[bluskis]

2D
In the interest of accuracy I did not suggest the Kegworth plane was on approach, I merely used it as an example that even professional pilots can mis identify which engine is faulty, then I continued to suggest a procedure to try to ensure correct identification before precipitous action is taken, particularly when shutdown is more than likely not called for.

Having said all that, I am more than grateful I was not in one of the Kegworth pilots seats.

However I have experienced engine power loss on approach in a twin, fortunately without any drama.

[paulo]

I've pondered this one alot.

On the way I've been taught, you are essentially going to be sticking it in the mud - i.e. you set up such that you are dependent on engine to make the runway. If the fan stops, you won't make it if you are on final (vs. cutting in from downwind)

The other method I've seen, used in 'non-gliding' aircraft like the T6, Pitts etc, is run it in quite high and close (i.e. curve into the runway rather than fly a linear approach) then zoom it down late... in the T6 it was "500ft over the numbers" !!

So, err, why don't we fly like that generally? i.e. always keep the option to glide it? There's probably good answers (yuck approach to fly generally, much more skilll required, 'non standard' pattern)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Slim_Slag:

Actually we are lucky, we have an airport in our area that has a four thousand foot paved runway, it has no built up area within several miles and is two hundred feet above sea level. And no obstacle's near the airport.

The great part is no traffic, maybe two airplanes a day.

The circuit is a normal rectangular circuit, just very small, the turn from down wind to final is one curved decending change of direction ending with touch down on one wheel just as the turn is finished.

Sounds difficult but is really no big deal when you get in the groove so to speak.

Learned that way back in the fifties when I was taught crop dusting.

Those were the days,,,sigh... :D :D
Cat Driver:

[QDMQDMQDM]

I'm surprised, Chuck, that your one minute circuits are wheel landings as they take me longer. The one minute circuits I do in my Cub are three pointers, climbing to not more than 200 ft for the circuit. Good fun and you get lots of landings for your money.

QDM

[Chuck Ellsworth]

QDM:

Hmmmm.

Several points that I find make wheel landings faster.

( 1 ) A curving approach to touch down to a one wheel landing is easier to perform accurately.

( 2 ) Wheel landings are performed at a higher airspeed and you depart faster due to the higher speed.

( 3 ) There is no transition from flight attitude to the stall attitude and consequently no time lag waitinfg for airspeed to decay from the flare speed to the stall speed.

But hey, if you are more comfortable with the way you do it that is great, after all having fun is why we fly these little bug smashers. :D :D

Hey next time I am at North WEald drop by and I can maybe give you some free time.

Cat Driver: