Dual engine failure on approach

[WindSheer]

I am not a commercial pilot, but am a pretty able airman.
If you are flying a twin jet (a230 e.g.) and suffered a dual engine out on approach....say 5 mile final, what would you do?

I know the BA 777 stirred debate on training etc, is it something that is covered in the sim, or is it deemed the probability is not worth excessive discussion or training?

Merry Christmas all...:ok:

[Agaricus bisporus]

We tend not to practice crashes in the sim.

[bucket_and_spade]

Not practiced in the sim (unless you have time at the end of the mandatory exercises and fancy it!).

5 mile final will be just under 2000 feet above the ground and about 2-3 mins from touchdown. There'd be time to attempt restarts. You'd probably not quite have full landing flaps out yet. You could consider reducing the flap setting (as the BA 777 did) to stretch the glide. I imagine most would aim to land as close to the airport as possible as it tends to be flatter and more sparse the closer you get to most airports jets fly in to, plus the emergency vehicles are that bit closer.

Failing that (e.g. if it's an airport surrounded by water, terrain, buildings, etc.) you might consider aiming for the most appropriate piece of ground to land on that you think you can make i.e. one that has the softest and cheapest things to hit and offers the greatest prospect of maximum survivability!

Time permitting, you'd want to advice ATC and the cabin of what to expect.

I think Ryanair had an incident awhile back where they hit a flock of birds on short final which caused thrust 'issues' on both engines. Think it was Rome. Also, of course, the ditching in the Hudson River by an A320 was a bird strike resulting in loss of thrust on both engines. Good clips on YouTube if you want to get a feel for the time available etc.

[Desert185]

I have heard (unsubstantiated by me) that had the Hudson glider not been an Airbus, sufficient power would have been available on one of the engines to continue flight for a powered landing on concrete.

My feeling is that given time at the end of sim check/training, one should practice a two-engine failure and "landing" in a two-engine airplane. The chance of that happening in the real world is mighty slim, but learning to manage energy in any airplane you fly is a definite advantage, and skills that can practically be applied in that real world that we live in.

Chesly was/is Chesly because of practice, knowledge and commitment to his craft, which certainly contributes to and enhances ability.

[BOAC]

There'd be time to attempt restarts. - only a 'hot' relight and then extremely tight. Absolutely no chance of a relight using the APU (which would probably be off)I have heard - tell your 'informant' that is rubbish.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Desert 185...I"ve heard the same thing. And from a pretty good source ( in Washington DC at the FAA building). And to the poster who said, RUBISH, well , enjoy your views.

Alot can be suggested to avoid the problems oulined by the origninal poster. Losing all engines on final...wow.

First, try not to lose all engines on final...make sure you have fuel and can use it. Protect the engines by running the ignition system. Protect the engines with anti ice as appropriate.

I was flying with a really good friend in a dC9 about 20 years ago...He looked at me and said: where would you set down if we lost all engines...and we both pointed to the same field. It was like magic...just the perfect place to land.

So, a good pilot will always be looking for a place to land, and not just a single engine general aviation plane. I can think of half a dozen major airports in the US and where I would land if we lost both/all engines. You can ask specifically at which airport. But one of the only ones without much of an option is KMDW (chicago midway)

And again, Desert 185...I'm with you...I would argue and put money on it...if SULLY were flying a DC9 he would have made Charlotte on time. If he were flying a 737-200 he could have made a runway. If he were flying a 737-300 he could have made a runway.

[westhawk]

I have heard (unsubstantiated by me) that had the Hudson glider not been an Airbus, sufficient power would have been available on one of the engines to continue flight for a powered landing on concrete.

I've not seen this discussed before. Any idea why this might be so?

The only thing that springs to mind for me is FADEC preventing overtemp by limiting f/f. If that's the reason then since Airbus isn't the only builder installing FADEC controlled engines on it's airframes other types may face similar issues. Is that it?

[sevenstrokeroll]

hi westhawk


there are a couple of parts of the equation and the FADEC is part of the theory...notice I didn't say the more advanced 737's as I'm not sure they havent got FADEC.

As to the DC9...the position of the engines and smaller inlets on the P&W JT8D's make it a bit tougher to get geese into the mighty inlet...the inlet on the 737-2 is still open enough under the wing, but the inlet is smaller and the bird might have missed. (compared to airbus).

But I will say this...a very good pal is a well known aviation correspondent/journalist. He got some stuff off the record from the DOT/FAA...and that's just it, off the record.

Who is going to pay for a massive comparison of engine types and aircraft types and their birdiness? Though it might be P&W's advantage...oh well, you know airplanes well enough to get my off the record gist.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I can remember some meritorious reports that didn't see the light of day until after another crash.

[ANCPER]

SSRoll,

Really, what are the reports are you referring to?

[sevenstrokeroll]

?

well...an F28 crashed at LGA...ice on the leading edge during takeoff...great mystery

oh, the same thing happened in Canada three years before and it really was not made a part of common knowledge in the US

hard wing refers to no slats or other LEDs.

[WindSheer]

I find it comforting that the early 'pick a field' airmpanship is still present on the automated flight deck of today!

I find it strange that this thread has turned into an airbus bash!
To add my two pence worth, the hudson incident displayed ultimate airmanship, along with a fatality free landing on a river by a 77 ton jet. We can argue that the engines bailed out when others may have lasted a little longer, but in that particular incident, the ease of handling and the structural integrity of the machine saved the day (along with Sully's ability of course).

:ok::ok::ok::ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

structural integrity...well other ditchings have allowed the plane to be pulled out and used again. should say water landings I think.

airmanship...the landing on the hudson was like any other landing...wings level, nose up ...that's pretty much like other landings so there is no loss of skill set there.

and yes, looking for a place to land should be high on the list of priorities...and really to be very good, you have to know where to set down when you can't see out the window.

[Exaviator]

There was a time when the chance of a multiple engine failure was considered to be statistically a none event, until within a few days of each other two Boeing 747s (BA & SQ) flew into volcanic ash and suffered multiple failures.

From that time on all engines failure became a regular item to be practiced during sim sessions.

[ZFT]

structural integrity...well other ditchings have allowed the plane to be pulled out and used again. should say water landings I think.

Can you educated me with a modern airliner that's been 'reused' after this type of event?

[Centaurus]

My feeling is that given time at the end of sim check/training, one should practice a two-engine failure and "landing" in a two-engine airplane

If you accept a double engine failure and forced landing is a serious exercise that requires proper training in the simulator, then you don't treat it as a "fun" exercise only if time permits at the end of the sim session. It is either worth training for or it is not. The captain of the Air Canada Gimli glider B767 that dead sticked his aircraft flapless on to a abandoned airstrip, made a good point when he stated that if only Air Canada had allowed practice of dead stick landings in simulator training, he would have felt better in the real dead stick landing he performed.

Too many instructors relegate this sort of real hands on flying to "if time allows at the end of the session". Make no mistake about it, but it takes real flying skill to successfuly perform a dead stick landing from cruise altitude. I say that because in my simulator experience, pilots usually crash on their first or second attempt. That being the case, it shows that they need more training until they get it right. There is no second attempt in the real event.

But invariably, if done as a mere "fun" exercise at the end of a sim session, there is no time to have another go if you stuff it up and crash. Personally, I would prefer to be confident at hacking a successful dead stick landing rather than waste sim time on monitoring the automatics in a holding pattern and a coupled approach to autoland.:ok:

[Takeoff53]

We had this scenario once as a planned part of a training session for all pilots in the fleet (EMB 145, training session, check was done already). The instructor briefed us properly and set us about 10NM final in IMC, clean, no APU, standby instruments only. With good coordination in the cockpit and some inputs from the instructor, we made it to the runway and to a survivable stop. All crews where fascinated by the experince and, as far as I remember, everybody made it to the runway with more or less fancy landings without crashes. However, I will not count all the virtual tyres we blew...;)

[sevenstrokeroll]

I consider a DC8 a modern airliner...A Japan Air Lines DC8 flying into KSFO with gear down fully configured for landing ended up in the bay...stable approach right into the bay. everyone was ok...no one hurt. And it was at night!

Plane was pulled out, dried out fixed up and flew another 20 years or more. I encourage you to look it up.

I want to add one other thing to this threaed...on final if you are clean and at 250 knots or so, you might be able to glide to the runway if you don't change configuration...or wait till landing is assured if you have lost all engines.

we were req'd to spool up the engines at 3000' agl /afe to make sure they responded...and if they didn't, you might make the field clean at speed.

[ZFT]

Point taken but that was into very shallow water with gear down. Somewhat unusual circumstances.

[Centaurus]

If practicing a dead stick landing in the simulator (you should be so lucky) - setting it up on a long final is relatively easy. But engines don't always fail at 10 miles from the airport.

The real skill is judging and planning the excercise from cruise altitude. The aircraft may be in IMC at time of dual engine failure. Allowing a compromise between available simulator time and probability of the need for a second attempt, starting the excercise from 20,000 ft allows more flexibility in runway selection depending on weather, wind etc and speed selection.

Forget attempts to re-start engines since that can be done as a separate exercise at another time. Keep in mind the aim is to become competent
at glide distance v height judgement, speed, flap and gear optimum selection and importantly runway selection in the case of multiple runways available. It is no `fun` exercise and should not be scheduled as such.

[Desert185]

I just did a power to idle descent from 72NM out to land without adding power in a DC-8 last May (a demo to prove a point). Certainly doable if one is familiar with one's particular aircraft and energy management.

[nick14]

As a company that has first hand experience of this type of event, it is built into our recurrent training schedule so that we practice this at least once very 3 year cycle. We have guidance from Boeing regarding how to fly it and company guidance.

It's a challenging event although if you make it to the airport boundary you have a significantly higher chance of survival as a previous poster stated. Do not change gear or flap position, fly vref but not below, start the apu if you have time and try the relight. Inform cabin crew, ATC and then prepare for the touchdown.

It's great to see this done in the simulator as it helps with the startle factor and preparation of the crew for all eventualities!

[de facto]

Desert185

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 126
I just did a power to idle descent from 72NM out to land without adding power in a DC-8 last May (a demo to prove a point). Certainly doable if one is familiar with one's particular aircraft and energy management.


Idle descents are quite normal and easy if ATC does not interfere.:hmm:

I guess idle thrust and no thrust makes quite some difference..
By the way,did your airline pick up on your point proving unstabilised approach?:E

We have guidance from Boeing regarding how to fly it and company guidance.
Nick,would you be so kind and share such guidance with us?

[BOAC]

There certainly is 'guidance' around on heights/ranges/key points etc engine out for 737.

You may want to look at Chris Brady's excellent 737 site?

Loss of Thrust on Both Engines (http://www.b737.org.uk/lossofthrust.htm)

[de facto]

Thank you BOAC, I am aware of this website,I am interested in the Boeing guidance that he apparently has...

[WindSheer]

Nick14
I am interested in your comment of not to move gear or flap positions. It is apparent that reduction of flap saved the day with the BA777 incident. Is this discussed in training? I am not doubting your quote, just curious.