Engine Failure in Cruise - Inflight Decision Making

[Ozgrade3]

Just wanted to see what the pros opinion would be given the situation.

Aircraft in cruise
Heavy(ish) twin, Chieftain, 402/404 or something similar.
In IMC by day.
Aircraft is controllable and maintains SE service ceiling after engine feathered and other actions done.

Your options

A...return to base which is 100ft above minums for an NDB approach so you would need to do the NDB letdown almost to mimumums.

B...another airport is 40nm away similar distance but VMC but no facitites.

My instinct would be for option B, get clear of cloud and then make an approach in VMC, but with the added $$ of being at an off base airport.

Or

Would some chief pilots expect you to go plan A and you would get chewed out for doing plan B.

Talking about real happenings rather than a ME Training scanerio.

Thoughts anyone?

[Delta_Foxtrot]

Option B. Every time in the weather conditions described.:)

[ejectx3]

B b b b b b b b b b

[Flying Mechanic]

B.
You have already had a bad day, so make it an easier one and land ASAP.

[flyer69]

As a retired DO, I would hope my pilots would choose B. Always pick the safer of the options.

[waren9]

but with the added $$ of being at an off base airport.

This should be the very last of your considerations. Your employers wallet should be the last thing on your mind.

B.

[AdamFrisch]

There pretty much is no go-around on one engine, so B would be my choice unless the minimums were high.

[captwawa]

Nearest suitable, would be B. By the time you fly the approach etc holding patterns, you would have landed at B

[Wally Mk2]

It's pretty obvious & common sense to most that it's a no brainer going where yr chances of survival are the highest.
What concerns me more is the fact that the other option was based more on commercial reasons, now that's the real worry!
Sure from a commercial point of view going where there is maint etc is preferred but not under a SE scenario in bad WX.

Some years ago now a C404 had a donk take an unplanned rest (****e itself) almost at the start of an NDB App so the driver continued the App as he was all set up but never got in due low cloud & made a missed App diverting to another Vic drome about half hr away where he did an NDB there & just got in, all on ONE engine ! Almost hero stuff that's for sure & bloody scary!
Returning to base where maint was available was over some higher terrain & much further so even under extreme duress the pilot did what I think most would have done. We are talking about piston Eng's at there max output for periods that would make me scream if I had to run faster than I could for even a few minutes.
The other piston donk still keeping you from yr maker is there to help not guarantee anything!

CMD decision making is all about NOT letting commercial pressure come first like a certain pilot did (my assumptions only here & possibly not fact) where his A/C is now part of an underwater aviation museum off some Is!
Save yourself FIRST!:ok:

Wmk2

[Angle of Attack]

Far out hopefully no one would even contemplate option A, 100ft above minimums is fark all! Now if it were 800ft above minimums, meaning you still need to start the approach but its fairly certain youll make it in ( but not 100%) it may be interesting, at the end of the day I still most would do a visual approach in vmc than commence an NDB in IMC with one donk out, especially in the battered old twins flying around these days. Good post though, should promote some healthy discussion.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Might I suggest you read the CAO on the subject !! After all, it is the law, as in LAW on the subject.
It is really quite comprehensive.
Tootle pip

[maxgrad]

Easy,B
Safety first

[PA39]

Crikey there is no option. Why put yourself thru the stress of and asymetric NDB to the minimas when you have an airfield with VMC not far away. Stuff the heirachy, its your life and your PAX lives. NO OPTION.

[Capt Fathom]

Ozgrade3.

I'm curious. Do you have an instrument rating? Do you carry passengers commercially, using that instrument rating?

Why would you ask such a question? With such an obvious answer!

:confused:

[Josh Cox]

Didn't pretty much this exact scenario play out about three years ago with a Mojave out of BK.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/501750-vh-pgw-atsb-report.html

[thorn bird]

"Talking about real happenings rather than a ME Training scanerio"

That's what disturb's me...what are they teaching you kids???
As a CP I'd ream you another ass...ole if you did option A.

[AdamFrisch]

To think it is legal to fly around in a twin which won't meet single-engine climb gradients whether after take off or in a missed approach, is ludicrous.

Not true. Depends on altitude. Others, like mine, can't raise the gear if the engine with the hydraulic pump fails. Some twins can't feather props etc.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Here is CAO, for those of you who are flying twins (not EDTO certified) I direct your attention particularly (d).
Except for EDTO operations ( and even then, most times) in a twin you must land at the nearest suitable airport.
Remember the Order is written to cover all multi-engine, not just twins
As Thornbird said ---- what the hell is being taught out there in some schools.
Tootle pip!!

Civil Aviation Order 20.6 (as amended)
made under subregulations 5.11 (2) and 303 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
This compilation was prepared on 9 August 2010 taking into account amendments up to Civil Aviation Order 20.6 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010.
Prepared by the Legislative Drafting Branch, Legal Services Division, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Canberra.
Contents
Section 20.6 (Continuation of flight with 1 or more engines inoperative)
Page

1 Name of Order 1
2 Application 1
3 Requirements 1
Notes to Civil Aviation Order 20.6 2
Section 20.6
Continuation of flight with 1 or more engines inoperative

1 Name of Order
This Order is Civil Aviation Order 20.6.
2 Application
This Order applies as a condition on the flight crew licence of the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft.
3 Requirements
3.1 When an engine of an aircraft fails in flight or where the rotation of an engine of an aircraft is stopped in flight as a precautionary measure to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must notify the nearest Air Traffic Services Unit immediately, giving all relevant information and stating the action he or she intends to take in regard to the conduct of the flight.
3.2 The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or its rotation is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable. Relevant factors must include the following:
(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(aa) the nature and extent of any city, town or populous area over which the aircraft is likely to fly;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain, including whether the flight is likely to be over water;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.

[GuilhasXXI]

Well that is hardly accurate.....:ugh:

A correct statement would be;

There is pretty much no adequate performance to conduct a go-around at the published minima on one engine
OR
To achieve the performance required in a missed approach, the minima would have to be raised to an amount which is higher than the ceiling at the aerodrome is at.

To think it is legal to fly around in a twin which won't meet single-engine climb gradients whether after take off or in a missed approach, is ludicrous.

Tottaly agree with this, It´s quite unthinkable to fly a supposed certified aircraft on one engine that can´t mantain a steady climb...

[AdamFrisch]

Depends. Most of the early Aero Commanders, the Piper Aerostars and a few others have only one hydraulic pump. They are certified with this. In my case, it's even on the critical engine. This means that you can not raise gear if that engine fails. Yes, at SL you might eke out a slight climb if you do everything right and the other engine is feathered, but you wont meet IFR climb gradients by any means. Add high altitude to this and you won't climb at all.

So the right answer is - it depends on what you fly and what the circumstances are.

[megle2]

Building on the original post and taking it back to departure
Lets say he/she departed somewhere with CB like features ( elevation / terrain )

He/she knows the cloud base is 100ft above the minima (atis)
The aircraft is a typical piston with a MTOW sea level max climb OEI of between 250 / 380fpm

What do schools teach these days on pre departure planning or is it just brushed over with the instruction of " make allowances "

- and so the tread continues where he/she reaches cruise and then the engine fails -

My edit - minor grammar

[Stacko]

Building on the original post and taking it back to departure
Lets say
he/she departed somewhere with CB like features ( elevation / terrain )


He/she knows the cloud base is 100ft above the minima (atis)
The
aircraft is a typical piston with a MTOW sea level max climb OEI of between 250
/ 380fpm



1/ what piston twin described above (402/pa31) actually climbs at 380 fpm on one engine at MTOW? You are mistaken.

2/ you've described departure out of Canberra yet qouted figures for OEI climb at mean sea-level. :ugh:

It's this lack of understanding - a clear inablity to look at 'the big picture' - which is why people like the OP need to ask in the first place and why people like yourself seem determined to give the wrong advice or confuse the issue.

For the record. Revising the minima for the OEI best ROC was standard teaching as part of my instrument rating training. A quick bit of maths that I am sure many have forgotten. I find it hard to beleive that other schools wouldn't teach this.


In any case. The answer is B

[megle2]

Stacko did you fall outa bed this morning

1 I didn't specify a type, just a general statement of where they all fall, I think the Baron 58 by memory was one of the better ones at about 380fpm / sea level

2 Yes of course, most of the schools are at sea level, so thats what they talk about, I was wondering what the speel is for when they depart elsewhere

You may have had " revising the minima " at your school so put down the process they taught you to come up with an answer. Use CB an example with a figure

That should open up discussion

[Stacko]

Just re-reading my post... Sorry, I do sound like an arsehole.

It's a bad habit I seem to fall into.

Sincerely,

Stacks

As per your request:

In order to meet the PANS-OPS requirement of 2.5% in the missed approach sector, the PIC shall calculate the revised approach minima in the event of an engine failure as follows:

Calculate climb gradient available based on OEI climb performance in the AFM/POH using - Gradient = Rate of Climb / Airspeed

Use formula Actual Gradient ÷ 2.5 = XX

Subtract MDA from Missed Approach altitude. The difference being ALT

Subtract XX from 1. The difference being YY.

Multiply ALT x YY. Add this value to the MDA

Example:

Tamworth. MDA = 2000, missed approach altitude = 3500. Actual climb gradient = 2%

XX = 2 / 2.5 = 0.8

ALT = 3500 – 2000 = 1500

YY = 1 – 0.8 = 0.2

ALT x YY = 1500 x 0.2 = 300

Revised approach minima = 2000 + 300 = 2300ft.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Too many of you are missing the point --- this so called "decision making", after lots of entirely spurious calculations, is irrelevant.

Firstly, there is the plain commons sense ( increasingly less common) embodied in the CAO on page 1 of this thread.

Secondly, you are talking about aircraft that were certified to CARs mostly, not even FAR 23, all the single engine figures are no more than a guideline in the POH or whatever, and are certainly not "certified" performance.

There is no decision to make, if you have an engine failure in cruise in a light twin, you get on the ground at the nearest suitable airport.

Perhaps you should think of it as a failure of a single engine aircraft with an extended glide. The statistics are interesting, relatively there are more fatalities in a light twin after an engine failure than a single after an an engine failure.

It would seem that most of those fatalities are caused by deadly faulty "decision making" by a pilot who completely misunderstands the lack of performance and Vmca traps after an engine failure.

Forget all the fancy (and fanciful) calculations, and get on the ground at the nearest suitable.

Tottaly (sic) agree with this, It´s quite unthinkable to fly a supposed certified aircraft on one engine that can´t mantain (sic) a steady climb...

It seems this poster's knowledge of what "certification" is about, is of the same standard as his or hers spelling, and creates a lot of "unthinking" pilots, close to 100% of pilots who have flown a light twin.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I am speaking from experience, not theory.

[ZappBrannigan]

Re: expected performance - I know at least one person is going to shoot me down here, but here goes.

First off, I know the regs, I know what the aeroplanes are certified to, and on a purely regulatory level, in a near-perfect world, pilots would never fly an aircraft that they weren't assured could meet the climb requirements.

Take two "identical" aircraft, however, let's say PA31s with adjacent serial numbers, same book figures, same everything, built 30 years ago... Put them in the cruise at the same power settings... And one will TAS 20 kt more than the other, as its airframe isn't bent, and it has fresh engines and props.

Is anybody seriously contending that these aircraft should expect similar OEI performance, or indeed performance anywhere near the book figures? How many 100s of stories have you heard of PA31s skimming the treetops and struggling to climb with BOTH engines operating?

Again, before I get shot down too hard, I DON'T AGREE that we should accept this... But unfortunately it's the sad truth, and acknowledged by nearly every pilot I've flown with, especially in the really old bangers in ISA+20 conditions up north. And the really really sad truth is that if you did the "right" thing and refused to depart unless you were assured of meeting the book figures, you can expect a significant reduction in your flying hours.

Of course, as soon as you start flying aircraft under 20.7.1B, that attitude completely disappears (as it rightly should).

PLEASE NOTE. I'm not disagreeing with anybody in particular here. Just making the point that, as bad as it is, there are plenty of (piston) aircraft out there doing IFR CHTR every day, that in conditions they regularly fly in will NOT perform as per the requirements. Not sure how this can be denied.

[LeadSled]

--- that in conditions they regularly fly in will NOT perform as per the requirements.

ZappBrannigan,
As you know all the "requirements", would you like to spell them out, starting with the "certification" requirements that these small twins are required to meet --- by FAA, and for IFR operation is AU.
Tootle pip!!

[ZappBrannigan]

Actually the only "requirement" I was thinking of is the missed approach climb gradient, as that's what the thread is about (sort of). I know we can adjust minima... But if the aircraft can't actually guarantee a climb in the first place, or performance is "unknown"...

[SHVC]

Just make sure you shut the correct engine down before anything else!

[scavenger]

Revising the minima in most situations is idiotic.:ugh:

If you're inbound somewhere OEI with weather close to the minima and you have fuel and performance to go to an alternate - then go to the alternate.

If you don't have fuel or performance to go to an alternate, you are committed to land at the destination - so either hold until the weather is better or land irrespective of the minima if weather is getting worse.

How does raising the minima help in either case?

Pretty much the only time i would raise any minima is if i was doing an AEO approach (in training) where weather is close to minima and i was planning a missed approach anyway. That way, i could suffer the engine failure anytime and still achieve terrain clearance.

The diversion to the good weather location in the OPs question is bleedingly obvious.

[AdamFrisch]

Slam Click - you might have to eat those words.

Any single engine climb certification is done with gear up at MTOW, and one engine feathered. Furthermore, FAR part 23 doesn't hardly require any climb gradient below 6000lb MTOW (which is most twins) - only 1.5 percent climb at a VSO (stall speed landing configuration, "stuff out") above 61kts. Below 61kts (more light twins in this category than the other, is my guess), there are no climb requirements at all. Here's FAR 23:

(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine- powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, the following apply:

(1) Except for those airplanes that meet the requirements prescribed in Sec. 23.562(d), each airplane with a VSO of more than 61 knots must be able to maintain a steady climb gradient of at least 1.5 percent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet with the--

(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2 VS1.

(2) For each airplane that meets the requirements prescribed in Sec. 23.562(d), or that has a VSO of 61 knots or less, the steady gradient of climb or descent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet must be determined with the--

(i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
(ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
(iii) Landing gear retracted;
(iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
(v) Climb speed not less than 1.2VS1.

If you have gear down on many of the twins, or they can't feather (Miles Gemini and many other older designs) chances are they wont meet climb gradient, not even at SL. Nor are they required to. As simple as that. You're welcome to try to my Aero Commander and see if you can do it.

It's all academical, but if the gear is down and you have any of these scenarios above - you're landing no matter what.

[Tinstaafl]

Don't forget the rules vary by jurisdiction. US FAR requirements are a bit different to Oz requirements eg light twin climb performance specs. FARs specify what Adam... wrote, but Oz rules require an ability to either maintain altitude at 5000' (VFR), or climb at 1% at 5000' (IFR). Oz even imposes an IFR climb weight limit on some aircraft that doesn't exist in the US.

[LeadSled]

Tins,
Australian CASR 23 is FAR 23 by adoption, unique Australian certification standards went in mid-1998.
I'm not eve sure the "old" 5000' climb gradient for IFR (think early model Aztec with one seat removed) applies any longer.
Tootle pip!!

[Tinstaafl]

I knew the unique Flight Man. was ditched, but I thought the climb requirements were still extant. See what happens when you leave the country!

[Ozgrade3]

In some cases the safety first mantra only exists duringe monthy safety meeting, at other times its $ first.

[Lookleft]

Lead Sled you are suggesting that the rules would mandate an option A but you haven't stated what you would actually do?


he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable


Far from being irrelevant operational decision making is what that particular CAO is all about. The scenario given is a bit thin on detail but to take a piston twin into an airport S/E with only 100' minimum on an NDB approach is just asking for trouble. If it also had a VOR with a straight-in approach thats a different proposition.

If you find yourself in such a position you do what you have to do to land safely and any other consideration is now irrelevant e.g. cost to the company, media attention,Chief Pilot's view of your flying ability, paperwork to be filled, family commitments etc etc.

I have no idea what the pilot of PGW was basing his decision on but if it was to save the company some time and inconvenience then he paid too high a price.

[cam]

Pa 31 series aircraft Option B everytime, I flew these aircraft when they were new, and was not too impressed then, I am no longer a CPL, and could not imagine that they would too impressive now being that most of them would be possibly older than the people flying them:ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

Ozgrade3

Having started this thread, what have you learned so far?

[Wally Mk2]

Many years ago in another life I departed Roxy Downs (****e hole)on a hot day with a full load at MTOW in a PA31 (I'll never exactly how heavy we where as no one ever does) & the gear wouldn't retract after T/Off. Both donks where performing well getting max pwr (as far as I could tell) & the A/C barely held level flight in the circuit whilst maneuvering back to land. If I had have had a magneto failure I was doomed never lone an engine failure so I basically accepted that any piston plane was essentailly a SE machine with it's associated non existent performance capabilities when one donk went out for a bex ! Plan yr escape with that in mind then you might live to tell the story.


Wmk2

[T28D]

Yep I can but agree, out of Meeka hot day density altitude close to the Himalayas,, full load. gear won't retract. landed on cross strip complete with white crosses, problem a little rock had wedged itself into the squat switch actuating lever. No retract =no bloody performance, lucky escape from the coroners attention, it really doesn't take much to turn a good day into crap.

[ravan]

With respect Leadsled, I think Tinstaafl is referring to CAO 20.7.4, which is still in force, due mainly to the snail's pace of the regulatory reform process in Australia.

[Old Akro]

WM2. Lukily the LSALT there is 10 ft.

[LeadSled]

Wally Mk.2,

A very good example of the brutal fact: A Light twin is a single engine aircraft with twice the chance of engine failure.
Tootle pip!!

PS: And never forget, there are more fatal accidents after an engine failure in a twin than in a single --- FAA.

[RadioSaigon]

I really don't understand why there is all this discussion of rules/regs... when I last studied Av Law (admittedly some time ago, in NZ) there was a rule that said essentially: in a time of emergency, biff the rule-book out the window and just do whatever you need to do to recover safely -but be prepared to have to justify your decisions and actions. To my way of thinking that was all just PinC responsibility -the PinC is always the final arbiter of the flights' conduct. Commercial pressures should never figure into your thinking in an emergency situation.

[megle2]

Stacko, fair enough and no one has tried to ditch your thinking :ok:
Unusual for Pp

[LeadSled]

Radio Saigon,
That's what the rules should be, but are not in Australia.
The CAO covering continuation of flight after an engine failure is reasonably specific, and reasonable of itself, and all too often ignored in favor of commercial considerations.
The authority of the pilot in command here is not as clear-cut as the NZ or FAA regulations.
Tootle pip!!

[The Green Goblin]

Leadsled,

I was taught, and would do the same. CASA can stick the rule book up their arse.

If I declare a mayday or even a pan pan, the sky is mine. I will tell ATC what I am doing, I certainly won't be requesting it.

If I never flew again, but got everyone home in one piece, then that is what I signed up to do. I'd post my licence to them with compliments.

There is a reason why the best and brightest are usually in the Airlines and Airforce, while the blithering idiots end up in the regulator.

[Old Akro]

The reality is that whatever you do, if there is a happy ending you'll be declared a hero. If there's not a happy ending - no matter what you do - ATSB &/or CASA will find a way to blame you.

But I think a clear lesson from the PGW incident is to declare the emergency and dictate to ATC rather than vice-versa. Then go and see lawyers when you get on the ground.