One-engine landing with C525; flaps setting???

[Cecco]

The emergency checklist calls for Flaps-to-land when landing is assured but would you do that or land with Flaps 15 to avoid the low speed, high power situation with a considerable yaw (assuming you have a 2000m+ runway, which makes you not worry about landing distance)?

Reason I ask is that I stumbled upon an accident report involving a Lear45, which had to do a one-engine landing at EDDN. The crew lost control in short final due to the situation described above, flaps being in the down position. The aircraft crashed and nobody survived. As in the C525 emergency checklist, it says to put the flaps in the land position when landing is assured. However, FIs etc. recommend to use Flaps approach for landing with one engine out.

Cecco

[His dudeness]

First that was a 35, not a 45...relevant as the older design/wing of the 35 is less forgiving than a 45.

Next...the CJ is such an easy to fly airplane... if you compare it to say, a KingAir in a single engine landing, I´d say there is no problem whatsoever in flying the CJ SE.

Lastly, I wouldn´t recommend inventing your own procedures. Imagine you do and then have a tire bursting -> the insurance will love the fact that you did not follow the emer checklist...

I´m 525 CRI/CRE, 2000+ hrs on CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ2A, CJ3.

[BizJetJock]

Whereas I with similar qualifications would say exactly the opposite.

We spend ages trying to teach people to fly stabilised normal approaches, why on earth would you want to destabilise an abnormal? :ugh:

As for not following the checklist, that doesn't hold water. When is landing assured? In my book it's once the wheels are on the runway :ok: particularly if you want to follow the letter of the checklist which has the "Flaps - 35 once landing assured" item after "Speedbrakes - retracted by 50 feet"!! :ooh:

[robbreid]

I've no idea why it posts it twice?, but here's a Citation (not CJ)

Single engine landing Cessna Citation- Touch and go - YouTube

[Pressure Error]

"I´m 525 CRI/CRE, 2000+ hrs on CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ2A, CJ3."

What's a CJ2A?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

CJ2+ with Proline

[Cecco]

His Dudeness is under attack !!!

[Cecco]

Ok, on YouTube, they are landing with Flaps 15 (btw, the "too low-flaps" warning can be inhibited...). What do other CJ drivers say?

[His dudeness]

CJ2A -> me being stupid = CJ2+ (C525A/C25A / CJ2/CJ2+ mixed up)

His Dudeness is under attack !!!

So what ? Ask 5 pilots how to fly right and you`ll get at least 6 different answers...

BJJ seems to be unable to fly stabilized approaches (or do you never land with Flaps in "LAND" ? Oh, forgot, these do destabilize your approaches...), apparently uses Speedbrakes down to 50ft in an SE approach (you brought them in, remember? we both know its just to cover the limitation) and thinks a landing is only assured when his wheels have touched down.

I define it differently, but hey, everyone as they please. Pick the best answer for you...

BTW if setting full flaps destabilizes your approach, then you have no business being in the front end of a CJ. At all.

In my current aircraft (also a Cessna), the checklist does tell you NOT to land with full flaps in case of SE, but with 15° (0°/7°/15°/35° are the available settings). Its even a memory Item in case of engine failure during final approach to go back to 15° (if not there).

[Ayrton]

you said "when landing is assured", I personally hate this...I think that landing is only assured when you are driving home or you are with your legs under the dinner table...
I've discussed this with many FSI instructor...and noone could give me a clear answer..

Thinking about myself, I wouldn't change anything in a plane perfectly flying under control below 1000 ft...

[BizJetJock]

His Dudeness,
I land with flaps 35 all the time; a stabilised approach is one where the configuration is not changed below 1000', and by 500' the speed is steady at Vref +15/-0 with the engines spooled up. This or something similar has been industry standard for about the last 20 years - perhaps you haven't caught up with recent developments in safety, though.
My point about the speedbrakes is exactly what you said; the checklist is written to cover legal a*ses and two can play at that game.

[tommoutrie]

I suspect the Cessna checklist is written the way it is to avoid the possibility of landing flaps15 and going straight to ground flap after touchdown which, as the flaps travel, may mean the wing gives enough lift to get airborne again unintentionally. Not a likely event but one that the legal eyes in Wichita probably want to have covered. To answer the original poster, in the case of a genuine OEI emergency I wouldn't take landing flap until I had good visual contact and I was cleared to land (which they would probably have done as soon as you commenced the approach on a mayday). There is no OEI landing climb gradient quoted in any of the CJ's (its only 2 engined data) so I really wouldn't want to risk going around against landing flap so for that reason I would probably not take the landing flap if I got visual at minima in very poor vis after an ILS. I would simply concentrate on landing. If you fly a private aircraft or for a slightly more broad minded public transport operation why don't you occasionally land the CJ with the flaps up or at 15 just so that you're used to it. The speedbrakes retraction at 50 feet is utter rubbish caused by a lack of money during certification - they simply didnt certify it with the speedbrakes out and then did a bit of a fiddle to certify it to land with the speedbrakes out off a steep approach. I really wouldnt fiddle with the speedbrakes at 50 feet..

I miss the CJ.. I don't miss folding myself into the cockpit but I do miss actually doing a bit of flying!

(I'm not as qualified as doody or the other chap - I just sit in the front when people let me)

[Pressure Error]

'CJ2A' sorry, I couldn't resist it.

"525 CRI/CRE" isn't that a TRI/TRE on the 525 under EASA.;)

Tom, I think it was you that gave me the FSI CJ books a few years ago, thanks again, I didn't waste them, I completed a rating that lead to the pleasures of flying with 'JCD':O

[tommoutrie]

its the "pay it forward" approach to aviation..

now if anyone has some global books I can have that would be great!

[His dudeness]

'CJ2A' sorry, I couldn't resist it.

No worries, you were right. Probably one of the first signs of me getting old, the brain not properly wired any more...?

"525 CRI/CRE" isn't that a TRI/TRE on the 525 under EASA.

This might very well be, however I do have a JAR-FCL ATP, on this it says:

CRI for the SEP (A) C525 and BE20 and on my Examiner Authorization it says CRE (A)...this was renewed only last July...

[First.officer]

now if anyone has some global books I can have that would be great!


Well, know of one person who soon will have some, and another who must already have some - want me to ask??.

F/o

[Sillypeoples]

I see we don't have any MEIs in here...

[tommoutrie]

Whats an MEI? Is it an FI ME? There's too many flipping TLA's in flying.

(oohh I really hope that sillypillock is going to tell us all that we're idiots and we're all doing it wrong..)

[sooty3694]

Lot of semantics being discussed here. In the Lear 45 incident cited the crew selected full flap well before the landing was assured, and as a result they needed to add thrust to make the runway. It was this that led to a departure from controlled flight.

Landing assured simply means that if all thrust is retarded the aircraft will be capable of gliding to a point on an unobstructed runway that provides sufficient distance within which to decelerate and stop the aircraft.

[tommoutrie]

You talk about semantics and then throw in an apparent fact that is just not true. There is no agreed definition of Landing Assured - this issue was raised at an instructors seminar in the UK and the only thing that was agreed is that there isnt a definition!
I am landing assured if the approach is stable, I can see that the runway is clear, and ATC have cleared me to land. I could baulk landing after that point for any number of reasons - brake failure, an unseen obstruction such as an animal, if the approach became unstable at any time. OEI I would consider taking landing flap once I have decided that the landing is assured but I definitely wouldn't leave it at the point where I could retard the throttles and complete a glide approach and take it then. ICAO does define a stable approach (in 8168) and one of those is that the aircraft is in the landing configuration. Taking the landing flap by definition destabilises the approach for a time and when you are OEI will require you to move the remaining thrust lever (s) more than you are used to and consequently you will have to move the rudder which may or may not mean you need to put in some aileron (you get the point). So the argument for landing in the approach flap config is fairly strong but the pilots in the plane with the dead engine must decide. Use the days when it doesn't fail to think about and practice what you will do when it does fail!

I think I consider Landing Assured to be a less wordy version of "Landing is really really likely and I'm happy to commit some extra drag to the situation and its pretty unlikely that I'm going to go around now but dont completely bin that idea because you never know, it is still a possibility".

But lets be clear. Thats me. I don't really care what anyone else does so long as there's a plan. I think its important to explain things as clearly as possible on here because some people with not a busting lot of experience actually read our waffle and may choose to incorporate whats said into their bank of knowledge.

come on Sillypeoples - give me your wisdom..

[sooty3694]

okay tommie, use whatever definition you like....as i said, all semantics anyway, and typical of the drivel and miniature often argued about here.

[tommoutrie]

actually, I've changed my mine sooty. You're right. Its all a load of drivel. Prune has got boring now that its all doom and gloom and I just want a return to the days when we all had a go at each other and it was funny.

Dear original poster. I don't give a toss what flap setting you use. :}

[sooty3694]

:ok: like so many threads here, drivel.

i blame the mods. when we had weaver's escapades to chat about there was far less drivel

[CaptainProp]

I completely agree with BizJetJock

We spend ages trying to teach people to fly stabilized normal approaches, why on earth would you want to destabilize an abnormal?

Most aircraft types I have flown calls for "Landing Flaps" / "Flaps 40" / "Flaps Full" etc, depending on type, not only "when landing assured" but also "AS REQUIRED". "AS REQUIRED" is the crucial statements on these check list. If I make the necessary corrections to my Vref and landing distance calculations for the lower flap setting BEFORE starting the approach then I think it is advisable not to make late flap changes. All aircraft I have flown so far have procedures in place to land with a lower than full flap setting, so the arguments seen here about "making up your own procedures" is simply not correct.

Also, when is "Landing assured" if you have weather right down to your minima? When you get visual contact with the runway environment? Because, as you all know, on a CAT 1 approach this would mean selecting flaps at 200'. Balloon just a tiny bit in this situation and you will find yourself going around, now with full flaps.

I have seen quite a few pilots doing this in the simulator so it is something that, apparently, is not very clear for a lot of pilots and also proves that the definition of "stabilized approach" is not clearly understood either.

CP

[His dudeness]

CP, as BJJ pointed out, I´m a dinosaur with no clue, however what would you do in an airplane that has a MEMORY ITEM (so no choice there IF you follow CLs) that requires you to go from full flap (35°) to 15° even at short final?

Or does doing so not destabilize an approach? Say you have the engine fail at 50ft above minima and the mem item says flaps 15? you move the flaps and risk "dropping" to or below minima? or just deviate below GS which might force a G/A as well (granted , you`ll do that with the flaps in G/A position...)

OTOH the original q was regarding the flaps when plenty of RWY is there, when staying in 15 is probably the better choice, especially for a touch'n'go, albeit not (IMO) necessarly following the CL.

I personally am a fan of the idea that a pilot should be able to familiarize himself and cope with changes in pitch, control forces and power requirements associated with an egine failure and/or flap setting changes.

Even more so, when the pilot has no choice ("IF REQUIRED" - > and the RWY IS short) and he now faces something he did not train for at all.

[CaptainProp]

Say you have the engine fail at 50ft above minima and the mem item says flaps 15?

You mean you are on the approach, flaps 35, get an engine failure 50' above your minimums, and your N-1 checklist calls for flaps 15 for landing?

When the engine failure occurs, as in example above, it does not (immediately) matter what your N-1 checklist (or equivalent) calls for, because in my opinion this is a mandatory go-around followed by a new approach that's been briefed and prepared as a single engine approach and landing.

The airbus is the exception (on the various aircraft I have flown, there may of course be more) to the go around in the above situation. If you are performing an autoland, and have an engine failure below 200' RA, you would continue and land. The difference with the airbus is also that there is a note in the QRH under "Straight-in approach with one engine inoperative" stating something along the lines of "For performance reasons, do not extend flap full until established on final descend.....if level off is required use flap 3....." and not "when landing assured" as many manufacturers states.

Remember, the stabilized approach criteria calls for "Aircraft in landing configuration" and any change to your landing configuration, below 500' / 1000' as per your company SOPs, makes it an unstable approach.

I would also add that if your aircraft type calls for a specific flap setting, when landing N-1, and the runway you are planning to land on is too short for that flap setting, then you have two choices (my opinion):

1. Divert and find an airport that allows you to land with your failure(-s) and associated flap setting. (Recommended option!!)

2. Use a flap setting that allows you to land within the runway length available. In this case could get you in to all sorts of performance issues in case of a go-around, and whatever you do make sure you can stand in front of a judge and explain your actions and that "it was in the interest of safety of the crew and passengers and as the Commander I decided to...etc etc".

CP

[sooty3694]

You mean you are on the approach, flaps 35, get an engine failure 50' above your minimums, and your N-1 checklist calls for flaps 15 for landing?

When the engine failure occurs, as in example above, it does not (immediately) matter what your N-1 checklist (or equivalent) calls for, because in my opinion this is a mandatory go-around followed by a new approach that's been briefed and prepared as a single engine approach and landing.

Captain Prop, every time you take off I am sure you brief for the engine failure. From the above I can only assume that you don't do this for every approach. I can't speak for your SOPS, but ours are pretty clear on this and we brief to cover the eventuality of an engine failure during the approach. This means that both crew members know exactly what will be done should it happen either before DH, or at and after DH. The considerations you mention are therefore discussed and computed at or soon after TOD when time permits, and judgements need not be rushed in the heat of an abnormal situation.

Digressing very slightly, consider this. A previous poster (maybe you) pointed out that a stabilized approach featured a speed of between Vref -0/+15 at the appropriate "gate." I am of the opinion that there is no need to rush to get to Vref, and unless one is flying a steep approach Vap should be maintained for as long as possible, but then be bled off slowly so that Vref is achieved at the threshold. If this is done in practice there is no danger in reducing full flap by one notch at any point in the approach should an engine lose thrust - which is exactly what our checklist calls for.

Of course there is no "one fits all" answer, but IMHO briefing for the eventuality of an engine failure during the approach, and the considerations of it, is a wise precaution that you may like to consider...as you wish of course.

[clivewatson]

Brief in advance what will be done in event of engine failure during approach - yes of course. If this is not a sop, then I wonder what else is missing.

The meaning of landing assured is pretty self explanatory I would have thought. Common sense should be allowed to prevail, or do you need EASA to define everything? Imagine the exam question bank if they did! :ugh:

[tommoutrie]

So let me get this absolutely straight in my mind. You're in your plane, trundling down the ILS, the engine fails, and you immediately command a go-around and pitch the nose up and stick a load of power on and you've just got time to apply the power before the other one fails because you're in BA038.... We train as pilots and practice as pilots so that when that day arrives and it actually happens there are instincts and skills as well as rules that mean you make good decisions.

Has anyone else noticed that the bloke that started this thread has gone really quiet and started another on with a similar "does a siphon work on the moon" theme? 95% of whats on prune is drivel and I am beginning to suspect that the majority of the other 5% is trolling bollox.

There's got to be more to life than sitting in Brazzaville fannying around on Prune... I'm off to find a HIPPO!!

[sooty3694]

So let me get this absolutely straight in my mind. You're in your plane, trundling down the ILS, the engine fails, and you immediately command a go-around and pitch the nose up and stick a load of power on .....

Yep, this is the stuff that instructors dream up at their conventions, while trying to re-invent the wheel, and squeezing it in with discussing important matters like why is "landing assured" not defined.:ugh:

Maybe they get brownie points for finding something new to re-invent, and extra points for adding it to the syllabus?

[jtelling]

As the UK's only TRTO I thought I would say my bit as I spend a great deal of my time flying around on one engine!

The CJ is a simple aeroplane and can quite happily cope on one engine and full flap. The issue is usually what the operators SOPs are. Most will require a fully stabilised approach to be flown from 1000' agl. You cannot be fully stabilised if you still have a stage of flap to lower. In my opinion landing is never assured until you have landed!

In an aircraft such as the B200 (King Air) going around single engine fully configured is demanding but is very straight forward in the CJ. Unlike the King Air the CJ eats runway especially flapless so my advice is that you should always be fully configured by 3nm or 1000'agl.

[CJ Driver]

The CJ is sufficiently easy to fly in the various configurations that it baffles me why people don't just do what the designers and factory test pilots intended you to do. The reason for going full flap before you touch down is - as was briefly mentioned a bunch of posts ago - because that is the only way to "arm" the lift dump that you need after you have landed.

You are already dealing with an engine failure. Why turn an incident into an emergency by using a non-standard configuration for the landing?

[Ayrton]

never landed with flap not fully extended?

Why turn an incident into an emergency by using a non-standard configuration for the landing?

'cause you will turn into a non stabilized approach?

[roadrash]

I am a mei, part 142 TCE w/certificate action, Part 135/121 check airman.
I would never change the flap setting in any multi aircraft single engine.
You have the data, (you can use 0 flap data which is more conservative), why do you want to de stabilize the approach, be distracted at low altitude, give up the go around ability, for what gain, landing 200' shorter, REALLY.
There are many reasons to land at approach setting and few if any to land at full. Large aircraft cannot change settings, ask yourself why not????
AND as far as the checklist goes, you ARE following it, it says "flaps full WHEN landing assured" or something very close to that. When is a limiting word, you cannot proceed until the when is meet, therefore if you believe the landing is in question, (and i also do, until coming to a stop) then landing at app setting is following the checklist to the "t".

** systems reasons - (i noticed the CJ lift dump system) don't fly CJ's but the hawker has the lift dump which you have to be in full flaps to access, we still land with app then upon touchdown go to full flaps and get the dump ability, IF you fly an airplane which it is not feasible to do something like that THEN you may have no choice, very poor design by manufacturer, shame on them but what can you do, don't lose an engine.

i have logged some 6000+ landings, i will tell you only 3 were assured. period. we could not have gone around, 2 fuel and 1 weather, and no i don't cut my fuel short but when crossing oceans and un-forecast wind and weather you don't have much choice.

i have not had a CAA or FAA have a problem with this logic.

This landing assured crap dates back to the boot icing thing and the 400' min 3rd segment thing, both of which have been changed for good reason, this is the next one that needs to be addressed, if you look at where these rules came from they made sense 60 years ago, but not today.....

Just my 2 cents......

[surplus1]

I know nothing about these Cessna aircraft that you all are discussing but find your discussion "interesting" (for want of a better term).

Here's a dumb question: Is it safe to assume that these aircraft are certified in the "Normal" category under FAR Part 23?

The question is asked because your conversation appears to indicate a great deal of guessing and confusion about what your aircraft can be expected to do (or be capable of doing) with regard to proper aircraft configuration(s) and procedures during engine-out operations.

[Bucket]

No landing is ever assured.

[First.officer]

I think I will just remain airborne indefinitely.......

F/o

[Pace]

It is a matter of picking the VREF for the landing flap you have! i know that re currents I have flown in the past, my examiner would like full flap flaps approach and flaps land.

Obviously clean you will land flatter and faster and single engine for real you would take landing flap when landing is assured bar an act of God!
But for training purposes all configurations work.

I must say i am talking about the 500/550/560 but would not expect the CJ to be miles apart.

No landing is ever assured.

I think landing (IE coming back to earth) is assured albeit not in the way you are suggesting;) You cannot stay up there forever :{ but yes take your point as no one knows that a startled Deer will not run across the runway as you are flaring

it is surprising how many Deer collisions there are see the sad remains of a Citation deer collision below :{
PLANE CRASHES AFTER HITTING DEER - GwdToday - Greenwood, SC (http://www.gwdtoday.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=27&ArticleID=22662)

[JonDyer]

No landing is ever assured.

Actually, I think you'll find they all are...
(c)AY

******

We talked about this recently with our TRI/E and we reasoned it as follows:

Only gash fools reconfigure on one engine at 200ft (ie - when you break out and see the lights) so that option is not available.

Therefore it's a question of either, F35 at 3 miles / 1000ft, or staying with F15 to the runway.

If you're AOC you've factored the runway by 1.67. Under an emergency (which by definition is not planned) that ceases to be an issue so the 1.25 factor for a F15 landing is already assured - even in the wet.

So, given no landing distance issues and no requirement to reconfigure on approach or on go-around single engine - it seems like a no-lose solution to leave the flaps in 15 and carry on down.

YMMV.

[Bucket]

Had to smile and chuckle at your reply Pace; thats exactly what happened to me and a student in a PA28. Scared the bejesuss out of me. And we had just touched down. :)

[tommoutrie]

F**k me! Jon and Tom agree!

[Bucket]

JonDyer, agree completely

This matter has come up in LPC/OPC in sim before. A good discussion ensued. The F15 option all the way down seems wise; no last minute re-configs at cloud break. That option simply doesn't sit well with me.