Go-around after engine failure in light twin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go-around after engine failure in light twin
Sorry if this topic has been covered, but a recent accident in my area is bothering me, and I have some questions.
To summarize, the aircraft was a Piper PA-34-220T Seneca, with optional 3 blade props. It departed a North Texas airfield in route to Missouri. An hour out, the left engine failed, and the pilot requested a landing at an Oklahoma airfield, but did not declare an emergency. A witness noted the left prop not turning when the aircraft made what seemed to him to be a fast approach. The witness then noted that about halfway down the 5600 ft. runway at an altitude of 5-10 feet, the pilot applied power to the right engine for a go-around. This aircraft has a max landing roll of 1400ft.
The witness observed the pilot retract the gear and start a shallow climb to about 200agl, but he observed the flaps were still extended. Then the pilot banked and turned left to start a go-around circuit. The witness said that almost immediately after the pilot started the left turn, the aircraft rolled completely to the left, and nose dived right into the ground behind a line of trees, killing all 5 aboard including the pilot's entire family. All 3 props of the left engine were found in the fully feathered position by the accident investigators. The main landing gear was found fully down and locked, and the flaps were found to be fully retracted (???).
So here are my questions. Why did the pilot try a go around at this runway's midspan at 5 ft altitude, when the rollout distance of his aircraft was only 1400ft max? Why did the pilot not declare an emergency? Why did the pilot try a left hand circuit with a dead left engine, instead of a right hand circuit?
There seems to be several things wrong here, but what's bothering me the most is the low and slow left hand turn into a dead left engine. Won't this kill you in a light piston twin? Wouldn't you rather want to turn right instead? Also, what should you do, if you absolutely have to perform a go-around under these circumstances?
What do you guys think?
PS - I forget, the weather was clear afternoon, 10 miles vis, winds 3kts and variable. The temp was 6C, dew point -6C, altimeter 30.35, airfield altitude of 770ft.
(edited to add additional weather data)
To summarize, the aircraft was a Piper PA-34-220T Seneca, with optional 3 blade props. It departed a North Texas airfield in route to Missouri. An hour out, the left engine failed, and the pilot requested a landing at an Oklahoma airfield, but did not declare an emergency. A witness noted the left prop not turning when the aircraft made what seemed to him to be a fast approach. The witness then noted that about halfway down the 5600 ft. runway at an altitude of 5-10 feet, the pilot applied power to the right engine for a go-around. This aircraft has a max landing roll of 1400ft.
The witness observed the pilot retract the gear and start a shallow climb to about 200agl, but he observed the flaps were still extended. Then the pilot banked and turned left to start a go-around circuit. The witness said that almost immediately after the pilot started the left turn, the aircraft rolled completely to the left, and nose dived right into the ground behind a line of trees, killing all 5 aboard including the pilot's entire family. All 3 props of the left engine were found in the fully feathered position by the accident investigators. The main landing gear was found fully down and locked, and the flaps were found to be fully retracted (???).
So here are my questions. Why did the pilot try a go around at this runway's midspan at 5 ft altitude, when the rollout distance of his aircraft was only 1400ft max? Why did the pilot not declare an emergency? Why did the pilot try a left hand circuit with a dead left engine, instead of a right hand circuit?
There seems to be several things wrong here, but what's bothering me the most is the low and slow left hand turn into a dead left engine. Won't this kill you in a light piston twin? Wouldn't you rather want to turn right instead? Also, what should you do, if you absolutely have to perform a go-around under these circumstances?
What do you guys think?
PS - I forget, the weather was clear afternoon, 10 miles vis, winds 3kts and variable. The temp was 6C, dew point -6C, altimeter 30.35, airfield altitude of 770ft.
(edited to add additional weather data)
Last edited by Flight Safety; 27th Dec 2002 at 22:45.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am struggling to think of a situation that would cause me to try a go around, if I were in the flare on a long runway after an engine failure.
Even in the case of suspected gear failure, with a dead donkey surely it's better to be on the deck with a bent aircraft than struggling to go around and clean up from 5 feet on a single engine.
Even in the case of suspected gear failure, with a dead donkey surely it's better to be on the deck with a bent aircraft than struggling to go around and clean up from 5 feet on a single engine.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
single engine commital height
A light twin will not climb unless all the conditions are right , the aircraft has to have the prop on the dead engine feathered ,the gear UP, 5 degrees of bank into the live engine , flaps up , cooling flaps in the correct position and the WAT conditions also have to be met ,above all blue line speed must be maintained to climb or reduce the rate of descent to a mimimum.
After a go-around as been decided apon it will take time before the aircraft can be re-configered for the climb and during this time the aircraft will be going DOWN.
It is therefore important that a single engine commital height be decided apon taking into account all the above factors and the objects around the airfield that may have to be avoided.
A typical commital height for a low time pilot would be 600ft AGL ,the aircraft should be flown at blue line speed untill this height is reached , from that point on the aircraft MUST land should be slowed to Vref and the landing flap deployed.
It is quite simple once below the commital height the aircraft has NOT got the performance to go around and so must land even if this means going off the far end of the runway at a slow speed or putting the aircraft on a part of the airfield not normaly used for landing aircraft.
To go around below the commital height will mean that the aircraft will be unable to climb clear of some close in object and hit it or the pilot will pull the nose up to try to avoid the object , the speed will bleed off untill the aircraft reaches Vmca and yaw control is lost the aircraft will then yaw and roll towards the dead engine very rapidly and will usualy hit the ground inverted.
I can only speculate that the left turn in this case was the pilot starting to lose control in yaw as to try to turn would have further reduced the allready very small ,if any rate of climb.
After a go-around as been decided apon it will take time before the aircraft can be re-configered for the climb and during this time the aircraft will be going DOWN.
It is therefore important that a single engine commital height be decided apon taking into account all the above factors and the objects around the airfield that may have to be avoided.
A typical commital height for a low time pilot would be 600ft AGL ,the aircraft should be flown at blue line speed untill this height is reached , from that point on the aircraft MUST land should be slowed to Vref and the landing flap deployed.
It is quite simple once below the commital height the aircraft has NOT got the performance to go around and so must land even if this means going off the far end of the runway at a slow speed or putting the aircraft on a part of the airfield not normaly used for landing aircraft.
To go around below the commital height will mean that the aircraft will be unable to climb clear of some close in object and hit it or the pilot will pull the nose up to try to avoid the object , the speed will bleed off untill the aircraft reaches Vmca and yaw control is lost the aircraft will then yaw and roll towards the dead engine very rapidly and will usualy hit the ground inverted.
I can only speculate that the left turn in this case was the pilot starting to lose control in yaw as to try to turn would have further reduced the allready very small ,if any rate of climb.
Last edited by A and C; 26th Dec 2002 at 23:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you foghorn and A&C, very sobering stuff. This pilot had 10 years experience, but I'm not sure of his accumulated hours, he was a businessman pilot.
It seems to me a pilot who buys a light twin has to be aware of the performance limitations of his/her aircraft on one engine, including the parameters A&C discussed. Buying a light twin is not a decision to be made lightly, especially by a low time pilot. I, like many, also feel that light twins were certified to an inferior standard.
The really sad thing, is this pilot seems to have done everything right (except for not declaring an emergency), with a good showing of piloting skills, up until the point where he decided to perform a go-around. If he had just flown the a/c to touchdown and stood on the brakes, everything would have been just fine, to the joy off all.
At certain times you are just one bad decision away...
It seems to me a pilot who buys a light twin has to be aware of the performance limitations of his/her aircraft on one engine, including the parameters A&C discussed. Buying a light twin is not a decision to be made lightly, especially by a low time pilot. I, like many, also feel that light twins were certified to an inferior standard.
The really sad thing, is this pilot seems to have done everything right (except for not declaring an emergency), with a good showing of piloting skills, up until the point where he decided to perform a go-around. If he had just flown the a/c to touchdown and stood on the brakes, everything would have been just fine, to the joy off all.
At certain times you are just one bad decision away...
A turn towards the dead engine isn't a problem in itself, as long as the usual caveats are observed such as above Vmc etc.
Sounds like a fast approach, speed not bleeding off in the flare as fast as the end of the strip seems to be approaching so a go-around started.
As has been said, without the correct configuration the only altitude gain will be by trading off airspeed. If persisted then a Vmc departure is the likely outcome.
Sounds like a fast approach, speed not bleeding off in the flare as fast as the end of the strip seems to be approaching so a go-around started.
As has been said, without the correct configuration the only altitude gain will be by trading off airspeed. If persisted then a Vmc departure is the likely outcome.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my ME training my instructor took me through some go around on a single engine, I was not aloud to use trim. The alt where I was told that the r/w was blocked was about 400’, with one engine shut and the other at full power it was very hard on the leg, after one circuit and one go around the leg started to shake. Hard to say why the pilot did what he did but he made one bad mistake, he has tried to go around.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC-DC:
When you were given the single engine go around were you using simulated zero thrust on the "failed" engine?
The engine wasen't actually feathered was it?
Cat Driver:
When you were given the single engine go around were you using simulated zero thrust on the "failed" engine?
The engine wasen't actually feathered was it?
Cat Driver:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it not make more sense to make a very shallow climb,gain alot of airspeed (more aerodynamic stability=easier to control) and get out of the circuit..trim out..them go and land your plane?Then I`d make sure I have the altitude (when you eventually reach the airfield again),come in fast with the throttle closed an the live engine and it will handle alot better will it not??
ME training scares me as they seem teach you howto fly the aircraft like a turboprop,and drum it into you that you must chase the blue line speed all the time..when there are better options?
ME training scares me as they seem teach you howto fly the aircraft like a turboprop,and drum it into you that you must chase the blue line speed all the time..when there are better options?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always easy to speculate and criticise a decision after the event. When things go wrong it is often difficult to make the right decisions and this is why minor problems turn into catastrophic disasters. Despite having loads of runway ahead I guess he just felt he had got it wrong and wanted to give it another go. In the cool clear air of sitting in front of a computer screen I would opt to land and take an overrun unless there was a sheer cliff ahead of me (or a major highway).
Only flown Cessna 310 and 340 and Seneca. Had one engine failure to date and flew on to next airfield to land declaring dead engine but not calling mayday.
The Cessna 310 would want me to put it on the ground ASAP in the case of failure of one power unit. In feathered condition the climb is very S L O W.
Did an airtest on it once and the feathering linkage stuck so had to fly around for an hour trying to get it right (assumed it was iced up). In the end went for feathered engine approach into our 800 mtr strip. Not much room to get it wrong and I don't think a low go around would have been good news.
I would rather take the certainty of almost right and safe than maybe better or maybe worse but the voice inside your head says "I can do it better next time".
Only flown Cessna 310 and 340 and Seneca. Had one engine failure to date and flew on to next airfield to land declaring dead engine but not calling mayday.
The Cessna 310 would want me to put it on the ground ASAP in the case of failure of one power unit. In feathered condition the climb is very S L O W.
Did an airtest on it once and the feathering linkage stuck so had to fly around for an hour trying to get it right (assumed it was iced up). In the end went for feathered engine approach into our 800 mtr strip. Not much room to get it wrong and I don't think a low go around would have been good news.
I would rather take the certainty of almost right and safe than maybe better or maybe worse but the voice inside your head says "I can do it better next time".
I was astonished recently to learn that a light twin loses something like 80% of its performance with a single engine failure. But I was even more surprised to learn that there is apparently no published POH engine out allowance for the Seneca even at sea level and ISA. Is that really true? If so, I wouldn't go near one with a barge pole.
Why is there no twin PT6 centreline thrust aeroplane with contra rotating, independent props? Darn sight safer than these 'conventional' twins, I'd have thought?
Why is there no twin PT6 centreline thrust aeroplane with contra rotating, independent props? Darn sight safer than these 'conventional' twins, I'd have thought?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with EtOPS that a shallow climb all the way upto a safe altitude would be a must prior to turning. However, being that I fly a senecca all the time I would not recommend a single engine go around feathered por not, especially with 5 people on board. That aircraft was probably pretty close to gross wt. What is a huge factor missing is what was the density altitude. If it was a hot day then we can expect relly bad performance.
As to why would he go around. That would be second guessing, but I would rather belly up down a runway into the grass and even knock into a fence/trees at the end of the runway at 10kts than try and climb in one of them. Yes you can, and I simulate feather for my students during a Single engine ILS and make them Go-around from the DH. If they don't clean up quickly that rate of decent doesn't reduce much. I think the left turn if intentional may have been a bad idea as you further lose climb performance due to increased Drag. What I see a lot of here in the US is that people own there own plane and fly around 10years, but when do you think was the last time they practiced a lot of engine failures. I see this when I give people the required two year flight review.
Beagle, most light twins lose about 80% of its climb performance when they lose an engine. The senecca is 83%. The FAA only requires aircrafts over 6000lbs to have a single engine climb performance. It is published in the POH on seperate tables what the multi and single engine performance should be at different altitudes.
As to why would he go around. That would be second guessing, but I would rather belly up down a runway into the grass and even knock into a fence/trees at the end of the runway at 10kts than try and climb in one of them. Yes you can, and I simulate feather for my students during a Single engine ILS and make them Go-around from the DH. If they don't clean up quickly that rate of decent doesn't reduce much. I think the left turn if intentional may have been a bad idea as you further lose climb performance due to increased Drag. What I see a lot of here in the US is that people own there own plane and fly around 10years, but when do you think was the last time they practiced a lot of engine failures. I see this when I give people the required two year flight review.
Beagle, most light twins lose about 80% of its climb performance when they lose an engine. The senecca is 83%. The FAA only requires aircrafts over 6000lbs to have a single engine climb performance. It is published in the POH on seperate tables what the multi and single engine performance should be at different altitudes.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least with a single you know you're always going down when the engine quits. With a light twin, the possibility of remaining in the air on one is definitely a double-edged sword. And, of course, you have twice the chance of an engine failure.
We had a good thread on this a while back in which I vented similar prejudices. (Jeez, I've turned into a pprune old bore.)
QDM
We had a good thread on this a while back in which I vented similar prejudices. (Jeez, I've turned into a pprune old bore.)
QDM
S/ ENG. APPS
N4S23,
I assume you are using an artificially high DH (or simulated committal height) for your s/e ILS,as you are putting yourself right into the scenario of the subject crash. Your DH on an ILS must reflect the fact that you may have to go-around ,and most normal DH`s on ILS`S are around 2-300 agl; you must descend whilst cleaning -up and getting power on and controlling the a/c first. That should never be taught at 2-300 ft -never..
Formationfoto,
Why did you try to get into an 800m strip when there are lots of civil/mil airfields around the UK, AND not declaring a Mayday either? I would hope that you would not repeat that again..
I assume you are using an artificially high DH (or simulated committal height) for your s/e ILS,as you are putting yourself right into the scenario of the subject crash. Your DH on an ILS must reflect the fact that you may have to go-around ,and most normal DH`s on ILS`S are around 2-300 agl; you must descend whilst cleaning -up and getting power on and controlling the a/c first. That should never be taught at 2-300 ft -never..
Formationfoto,
Why did you try to get into an 800m strip when there are lots of civil/mil airfields around the UK, AND not declaring a Mayday either? I would hope that you would not repeat that again..
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that a little knowledge is a dangerous thijng, (and a multi-engine rating on a PPL is certainly 'a little knowledge').
A few FACTS about flying light twins:
1. Most of the flying done in light twins is at low AUWs - even an old Seneca 1 will climb on one engine with only 2POB and a light fuel load. In this condition, they're quite safe.
2. If you've any brains at all, you will declare a single-engine committal height prior to any approach, below which you will land or crash, but not attempt a go-around. How low you set that height is largely down to the aircraft. It should be about 500-600ft for a competent pilot in a good aircraft.
3. What sort of airfield you will land at with an engine out is down to you - I wouldn't go into an 800m strip with an engine out, but then I've only got half-a-dozen thousand hours or so.
4. The comments above about 'not declaring a Mayday' demonstrate a weak understanding of the big picture. What do you think this will achieve? Calling Mayday doesn't get you any more thrust, height, or speed - and those are the things you need! Yes, the little red land rover might come out to meet you at a small airfield. At a larger airport, the fact that you're on one engine (assuming that you bother to mention it to ATC at all - and you should, because you're not going to be able to taxi far after landing!) will prompt the controller to get the AFS out.
The main point, I think, is that a Performance E aircraft is not a performance A aircraft. that's why you don't buy a ticket from an airline and find yourself on a Seneca. I believe that pilots of light twins know far too little about the real performance of their aircraft. Yes, you can go-around on one engine in a light twin, provided you start at the right height and do the drills correctly whilst flying accurately. No, you can't do it lower than that, or if you get those things wrong.
A few FACTS about flying light twins:
1. Most of the flying done in light twins is at low AUWs - even an old Seneca 1 will climb on one engine with only 2POB and a light fuel load. In this condition, they're quite safe.
2. If you've any brains at all, you will declare a single-engine committal height prior to any approach, below which you will land or crash, but not attempt a go-around. How low you set that height is largely down to the aircraft. It should be about 500-600ft for a competent pilot in a good aircraft.
3. What sort of airfield you will land at with an engine out is down to you - I wouldn't go into an 800m strip with an engine out, but then I've only got half-a-dozen thousand hours or so.
4. The comments above about 'not declaring a Mayday' demonstrate a weak understanding of the big picture. What do you think this will achieve? Calling Mayday doesn't get you any more thrust, height, or speed - and those are the things you need! Yes, the little red land rover might come out to meet you at a small airfield. At a larger airport, the fact that you're on one engine (assuming that you bother to mention it to ATC at all - and you should, because you're not going to be able to taxi far after landing!) will prompt the controller to get the AFS out.
The main point, I think, is that a Performance E aircraft is not a performance A aircraft. that's why you don't buy a ticket from an airline and find yourself on a Seneca. I believe that pilots of light twins know far too little about the real performance of their aircraft. Yes, you can go-around on one engine in a light twin, provided you start at the right height and do the drills correctly whilst flying accurately. No, you can't do it lower than that, or if you get those things wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo,
By calling a Mayday or Pan gives you free airspace and therefore extra brain cells to fly the aircraft.
Its called load shedding. I would rather tell air tragic so that I know I will have the runway for me and everyone will get out my way. Also the R/t drops dramatically.
This has to be a good thing for low houred pilots in particular. They need all the brain power to fly the aircraft.
Something I see very frequently in Multi Training (Senecas) is that pilots come in high and fast on a simulated single engine approach. They are frightened to get "low" and "slow" on the approach (a good thing) but fail to achieve the correct approach angle. They then find themselves over the grass strip going at warp factor ten. If they had made a definate decision at commital they would have the option of go-around. But they very rarely do. They are hell bent on salvaging a balls-up approach.
By calling a Mayday or Pan gives you free airspace and therefore extra brain cells to fly the aircraft.
Its called load shedding. I would rather tell air tragic so that I know I will have the runway for me and everyone will get out my way. Also the R/t drops dramatically.
This has to be a good thing for low houred pilots in particular. They need all the brain power to fly the aircraft.
Something I see very frequently in Multi Training (Senecas) is that pilots come in high and fast on a simulated single engine approach. They are frightened to get "low" and "slow" on the approach (a good thing) but fail to achieve the correct approach angle. They then find themselves over the grass strip going at warp factor ten. If they had made a definate decision at commital they would have the option of go-around. But they very rarely do. They are hell bent on salvaging a balls-up approach.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etops773
I dont think that you understand the lack of performance that you can expect from a light twin with only one engine working.
The climb will be very shallow when the aircraft is flown at "blue line " speed , above that speed and the aircraft will not climb and below that speed the aircraft will not climb and you run the risk of the speed decaying towards Vmca , on a good day dont expect more than 2-300ft/min ROC.
Light twins require far more in the way of stick and rudder skills than larger aircraft and a deep understanding of aircraft performance (or rather the lack of ) it is clear from some of the posts above that people expect far more in the terms of performance from a light twin than it can give.
The climb will be very shallow when the aircraft is flown at "blue line " speed , above that speed and the aircraft will not climb and below that speed the aircraft will not climb and you run the risk of the speed decaying towards Vmca , on a good day dont expect more than 2-300ft/min ROC.
Light twins require far more in the way of stick and rudder skills than larger aircraft and a deep understanding of aircraft performance (or rather the lack of ) it is clear from some of the posts above that people expect far more in the terms of performance from a light twin than it can give.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rule of thumb I was given, by a very wise and experienced instructor, was that in a light twin the failure of one engine means that the other engine will take you all the way to the crash.
Some will climb on one engine, some won't, he said. Persuaded me to go for high-peformance singles rather than twins. I have no regrets on that score.
I've had my engine failure (are we only allowed one each under JAA?) in mid-channel - made it to land. That was in a single.
Some will climb on one engine, some won't, he said. Persuaded me to go for high-peformance singles rather than twins. I have no regrets on that score.
I've had my engine failure (are we only allowed one each under JAA?) in mid-channel - made it to land. That was in a single.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airprox,
You're absolutely right, if we're talking about CAS. Outside CAS, calling Mayday may help, but it's certainly not a priority. How often, when instructing, do you see the stude get the RTF call out in near-perfect style whilst forgetting to fly the aircraft? This is something that really used to worry me - studes forget that we survive by 'aviating, navigating, and communicating', in that order, whatever aircraft we're in.
You're absolutely right, if we're talking about CAS. Outside CAS, calling Mayday may help, but it's certainly not a priority. How often, when instructing, do you see the stude get the RTF call out in near-perfect style whilst forgetting to fly the aircraft? This is something that really used to worry me - studes forget that we survive by 'aviating, navigating, and communicating', in that order, whatever aircraft we're in.