Engine Failure during G/A. The reason why is because the eng.failure during approach normally asks you to select a lower flap setting (less drag) and increase you approach speed 15 to 20 Kt (in order to keep an speed appropriated to the new flap config.). In your case, you don't have the time to accelerate the aircraft.
The Eng. Failure on approach is designed to give you a better G/A performance. Let's say you are landing with Flaps 40. If you follow the Eng. Failure on App., you'll set flaps 15 while increasing your speed 15 to 20 Kt (depending on the ACFT). With this new speed and flap config. if you have to G/A, you'll select flaps 5, which will give you a much better performance. However if you Retract the Flaps to 5, but with a speed of Vref 40 + 5, you'll stall.
In your scenario, you don't have the time to acelerate this 15 or 20 Kt, therefore you have to retract the Flaps to 15 during the G/A and maintain the Vref 40 + 5.
I flew 737 many years ago, but I remember that Vref 30 + 5 = V2 of F15 Vref 15 + 5= V2 F5. This is why we can retract the flap one position during the G/A while maintaining the App speed.
I find that episode absolutely extraordinary. The whole aim of training is to practice you in separate procedures. Where procedures may overlap, discretion should be shown on your decision making process. In short, either is right. It boils down to: 1-Engine failure during a 2-eng go-around- ensure 2-eng go-around procedure is actioned, climb at Vref+5 to Aa, then clean up as for eng failure on Flap 15 take-off or 2- Engine failure on final approach- immediately prepare for GA. Inc thrust to GA thrust (note: IMO, not anywhere near needed if landing is possible), retract to Flap15, leave gear down and accel to Vref+20 (top bug+5). If decision is then to GA, confirm GA thrust set, rotate, select flaps 1, retract gear at pos climb, climb out at Vref+20 (top bug+5) to Aa.
I think either is justifiable, but I would plump for (1) as it is a more rapid reaction- (2) takes you first to a decision point of land/GA before committing to a GA as you need to do immediately anyway. However, you were caught in the gray area between 2 procedures leading to the same outcome, but enacted differently.
I think you should raise merry hell with your Chief Training Captain. If it was the Chief Training Captain involved, get your head down quietly and knock off the retake well! But my sympathies- that was very rough. The last thing you need on a check is a pedantic, PITA checker out to trap you on the letter of the law. This checker had an adverse effect on your confidence and training pulling that one on you, for no benefit to your training. Disgraceful.
I think what happend to you is extreme, but is an example of very good use of the simulator. As a TRE myself, I would not so much be looking for the correct answer here, but whether you were able to make a clear decision and stick with it.
The fact that you have now faced this extreme in the simulator, that you and your examiner discussed it afterwards and you are provoking a discussion on this thread is all good stuff because it may help you to be better prepared for the time that this, or something like it, occurs in the real world.
I often say to our guys, "When in Command - COMMAND" take what action you think is approrpiate, be prepared to review your decisions and stay flexible.
The hard thing to do (but the right thing) is to listen to your examiner for the positives and the negatives and test that against you internal experience and beliefs but be prepared to modify your position as other people offer advice and explanation.
The simulator, used to the max, will create conflicts especially when the instructor/examiner is pushing you to your limit. That is what it is there for. How we react is not the issue, the greater issue is do we learn from how we reacted. That is the true benefit of training and checking.
From my reading of your post you are conducting an autoland. An engine failure on an autoland requires a go-around (both engines need to be operating to conduct an autoland). So the option to continue with any flap configuration is no longer available to you. In your case the engine failed at decision, so you are going around with a failed engine, I would therefore propose that option (B) "Engine failure during a go around" would be the correct procedure. Either way a a tough call.
Location: In some hotel downroute or in some hotel doing union negotiations.
Actually you do not need both engines for an autoland, especially below 200ft. However he was probably doing training in the "normal" CAT IIIa plane scenario where it is required. Personally i would tend to do the engine failure during G/A in that case.
I'm a simple bloke; and I'm confused by the threads, and by the TRE's discussion. It sounds like a trap to me, but if you didn't bury it, I'd say good job well done.
"During an LVP approach (flap 40) at our DA of 50 feet rad alt right engine failed at the precise moment it became clear we could not land."
From the above you are going to execute a G/A. From F40, on 1 or 2 engines, there is only 1 option select F15. Surely no-one is suggesting going from F40 to F1 having noticed the engine falure and controlled the a/c, and called for a different flap setting than briefed before the approach; all IMC very close to the ground. The situation will be like a F15 takeoff. Vref40 = V2 F15. Vapp is minimum Vref+5, thus you are above V2 F15. Due to the engine failure, the MCP speed window should stay open at Vapp. The FD pitch bar will then maintain this speed. Climb out to 1000', bug up, select F5, F1, Fup at appropriate speeds. Until you are above white bug, V2F15 +15/20, limit bank angle 15degrees.
To answer the questions/points made
-Yes it was from an autoland.
-No it didn't crash...but it wasn't pretty.
-No it didn't touch down (was a close thing though)
-Yes did make an immediate decision and called for the go around flap 15.
- From the feedback though it looks like it was the wrong decision as I accelerated to Vref +20 at very low level and completed the engine failure during approach.
-Passed it at second attempt using the engine failure during go around procedure and flying at Vref flap 40.
One other thing (this relates to the policy of the report items). The LVP items were done on day two. Day one all items passed (including the "conventional" single engine go around).
On the final report not only was a second attempt marked against the LVP section but also against the "single engine go around at decision" which I had passed? Is this standard ? It makes it look like I had a second attempt at two separate items?
Unfortunately our reports are issued on line after the debrief so I couldn't ask the question at the time.
CFM… take your case to your head of training, and inquire as to whether or not this is an approved task during the course of a LPC. I too am a TRE and will discuss and demonstrate this scenario for training purposes only!
I think maybe your manual is missing the 'Engine Failure on Final Approach' Procedure pages where you are intended to follow the procedure I outlined on post 4! It is indeed a very scrappy procedure. If you follow the recommendation to whang on GA power whilst descending when you spot the engine failure, you find the speed takes off on you and you are yawing uncomfortably. You need no more than about 15%N1 at the most. Retract to Flap 15, leave gear and accelerate to Vref+20, then, decide: continue/GA. If you GA, retract Flap to 1 and raise gear.
I think the decider between the 2 drills at that point is: are we going around NOW or are we going to wait until decide point land/GA. A simple immediate GA is Flap 15, a GA from an approach engine failure where you may have landed is at Flap 1. I don't know why they are different procedures, but they are.
The simulator, used to the max, will create conflicts especially when the instructor/examiner is pushing you to your limit. That is what it is there for
Wrong. This is known as brutalising and serves no purpose apart from causing pilots to loathe simulator sessions instead of looking forward to increasing personal handling skills and increase confidence.
CFMFan, Google CAA Doc 24. "Section 6 is for pilots employed by comapnies holding approval for LVO. It is a stand alone item and does not affect the LST/LPC" It sounds like your TRE has misunderstood the rules. If you fail something you have already passed during the 1st attempt it is changed to a fail, and must be retaken. However LVOs are treated as a separate item. Suggest you drop a line to the head of training for clarification. IMHO the trainer is incorrect.
Thanks very much Rainboe, but I can read. It was an LVP approach and at 50' RA there was an engine failure at the same time a GA was required.
What are you going to do at 50' RA? "Add about 15%N1 at the most. Retract to Flap 15, leave gear and accelerate to Vref+20, then, decide: continue/GA"? Of course not. You do the same as after a single engine approach where a GA is required.
The hard thing to do (but the right thing) is to listen to your examiner for the positives and the negatives and test that against you internal experience and beliefs but be prepared to modify your position as other people offer advice and explanation. The simulator, used to the max, will create conflicts especially when the instructor/examiner is pushing you to your limit. That is what it is there for. How we react is not the issue, the greater issue is do we learn from how we reacted. That is the true benefit of training and checking.
My compliments, sir. The kind of professionalism and awareness demonstrated by your comments are, unfortunately, not as common as we would all like to think. My suspicions are that you are a most respected TRE - and well deserved. I hope others read your post and take your comments to heart.