737 NG Sim disagreement

[CFMFan]

Just came out of the sim having encountered what I considered to be a clear failure. My sim instructor disagrees and I am interested to hear peoples views to see if I have actually got this wrong.

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.

The question is (in this configuration) which of these two very different procedures is correct.

A - Engine failure on final approach.

B - Engine failure during the go around.

Thanks in anticipation.

[TckVs]

Did it crash?
Did you go around?
Did you touch?

[pitoss]

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.

That's my 0.02

Pitoss

[Rainboe]

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.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CFM FAN

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.

[Capt Chambo]

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.

[Denti]

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.

[RAT 5]

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.

Or am I missing something?

[CFMFan]

Thanks for the feedback so far.

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.

[aerostatic]

CFM you got it right the second time. Go around, select flap 15 and fly the bug (approach speed). At min acceleration alt accelerate and clean up. Difficult exercise but well worth the exposure to it.

[captjns]

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!

[Rainboe]

RAT 5
Or am I missing something?

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.

[A37575]

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.

[eagerbeaver1]

The correct action is always hard to judge.

However if it was me I would almost certainly go-around because:

1)Autoland
2)Not visual
3)The aircraft has the performance


Get clarification if you want otherwise let it go, "learn from it" as the saying goes.

[Rainboe]

There was no option not to go around! That is not the issue. It is a case of RTFQ. The problem was exactly how to go around.

[One Outsider]

At 50 feet RA, what exactly is the problem in choosing how to go around? If you can't control a single engine go around you should not be there in the first place.

[Right Way Up]

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.

[Rainboe]

Why are people posting here evidently not understanding the quandary CFMfan was in? One Outsider, 25 July 2009
It should be mandatory to read a thread before being able to post on it. That should reduce the number of times the same questions are being asked over and over again by people who couldn't be arsed.
Chaps, try and understand what the thread is about before you post your 'gung ho' suggestions!

[One Outsider]

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.

[AirRabbit]

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.
:D
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.

[Busserday]

Hey, they put you in a tight situation and you did your best. Was there choices, yes! Did it result in a learning experience, a big yes and the added benefit is because more than just you have had the opportuniy to think about that scenario, and I want to thank you for putting it out on the forum.
BD

[muduckace]

"LVP" approach

Hell 50 feet you are allready in flare mode, even if visibilty is rediculously low and you are dual land/cat IIIB, sounds like a recipe for a safe landing.

50 Ft. RA, your instruments are worth more than the engines are. Better both engines fail at 50 feet than ILS and RA in 0 vis. assuming you were IIIB. A rough landing is a good landing assuming you did not incounter windshear or an expected heavy crosswind in said scenario..

[CFMFan]

One outsider - As Rainboe says it is not the fact that I can't do a single engine go around flap 15/ 200' (read the second half of post 9). Nor the fact that I can't do a single engine G/A from 50' / flap 40 which was described as "well flown" when I actually knew that was the procedure I should be implementing.

The issue was which procedure do you implement at 50' rad alt -the threshold for (potentially) three different decisions.

(1) If visual contact is made then the decision on an engine failure after 50' rad alt is to land. I suspect this is because a go around from flap 40' at Vref 40 is recognised as being a more risky manoeuvre than landing with the slight yaw/roll associated with a rundown. As I said this was not an option open to me as there was no visual contact...it is mentioned for completeness.

(2) Before 50' rad alt the decision could be to implement the engine failure on approach procedure (non normal procedure 7). You say "of course not" to implementing this procedure at 50'. Fair enough and that is the concencus....you clearly know much more about this than I do so let me ask you WHEN would you implement NNP7? At 51' rad alt? at 100' rad alt...when do you consider that you have a fair chance of achieving Vref 40 plus 20?

(3) At 50' rad alt it seems my instructor was correct to insist on a go around . You must accept however the drag / speed / height margins at 50' Vref 40 with flap 40 selected are not as favourable as with 200' baro /flap 15 / Vref 15.

Air Rabbit / Double Boegy - Having seen the posts here I have accepted my response was not the right one ...but I never take the word of one trainer (however well qualified) on such a safety critical issue. I like to get things verified and find PPRUNE a great way of tapping into an excellent body of knowledge.

[Rainboe]

I think either procedure is right, with full immediate GA Flap 15 being more right. But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with following the engine failure on approach procedure- increase power, select Flap 15, accel to Vref+20, select GA power, select Flap 1, gear up. I have done both in the past. It is fairly startling- in seconds you go from Flap 40 to Flap 1. However, if you identified the engine failure at 51' Radio or earlier, it is technically the right thing to do.

IMO, it was an obscene use of Trainer discretion (or lack of!). If you did either procedure correctly, I do not see in any way how that is a 'fail' in view of the short time factor available to you. I would be kicking off at the Chief Training Captain.

[CFMFan]

Thanks for the clarification guys. Would really appreciate your thoughts on another worm from the same can (regarding the flap retraction schedule assoaciated with a go around following an engine failure on final approach).

Our FCOM Part B states the procedure is -
"Retract the flaps to 15
Maintain high thrust. Increase approach to the speed tape generated speed of Vref +20 then adjust thrust to maintain this speed.

If the speed and approach path still cannot be maintained, or if a go-around is subsequently required:

CALL GO AROUND FLAP 5 AND CLIMB AWAY AT FINAL APPROACH SPEED.
ACCOMPLISH THE ENGINE INOPERATIVE GO AROUND PROCEDURE."

The Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual says - "If the approach is continued and sufficient thrust is not available for landing flaps, retract the flaps to 15 and adjust thrust on the operating engine. Speed should be increased to 20 knots over the previously set flaps 30 or 40 Vref. This is equal to at least Vref for flaps 15.

IF A GO-AROUND IS REQUIRED, FOLLOW THE GO-AROUND AND MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURES EXCEPT USE FLAP 15 INITIALLY IF TRAILING EDGE FLAPS ARE AT 30 OR 40. SUBSEQUENT FLAP RETACTION SHOULD BE MADE AT A SAFE ALTITUDE AND IN LEVEL FLIGHT OR A SHALLOW CLIMB"

As Rainboe says though from a flap 40 approach Vref 40 + 20 represents the minimum speed for a one engine go around (V2 flap 1). So is there an objection to selecting flap 15 initially followed rapidly by flap 1 ?