OEO at Final App.

[RACEPILOT69]

Dear TRIs, TREs :
In case of engine failure at final approach what's the right procedure, continue for landing or go around?
I Appreciate your comments.
Thank you !

Ro.

[parkfell]

Continue the approach to land, if it is safe to do so.

Critically important that the thrust/power is increased sufficiently to maintain a safe speed.

If the approach becomes unstable, you need to consider a G/A.

Comes down to AIRMANSHIP, and what advice is given by the manufacturer.

What does your THREAT & ERROR MANAGEMENT tell you.?

[Duchess_Driver]

If the approach becomes unstable, you need to G/A

There you go, fixed that for you. Most (if not all) SOPs would dictate an unstable approach should be abandoned.

Again, this is very situational as Parkfell states, comes down to TEM/Airmanship/SA.

[parkfell]

DD has misquoted what I said regarding the G/A. I actually said it should be CONSIDERED.

Whilst the SOP may mandate a G/A, you may find that the situation is such that a G/A may present a far greater hazard than attempting to land. Approaching TS might be one scenario with associated windshear and other nasties.

One very wise old hand once said to me that SOP in reality means
"SUGGESTED OPERATING PROCEDURE".........

At the end of the day good old fashioned common sense is the deciding factor.

[what next]

Whilst the SOP may mandate a G/A...

Ours don't. And why on earth would you take a problem back up into the air if you can land safely? On approach one typically flies with reduced power. An engine failure will cause much less asymmetry than during take-off or cruise. Easily handled. No need to abandon the landing.

[parkfell]

I think WHAT NEXT needs to appreciate that if you are unstable by the prescribed point, then the landing may be in jeopardy. Hence a G/A is the normal SOP, as landing well past the touchdown zone negates the landing performance calculation.
Some might say that it really depends just where on the unstable spectrum you find yourself.
Accident reports are full of over runs.

So for a light aircraft it could by 200ft AGL: B737-800 (MLW 66+MT) ~500ft AGL
Heavy by 1000ft AGL.

Judgement call as ever.

As for the engine failure on final, it takes most 737-800 students three attempts to perfect the technique in the simulator.

[what next]

As for the engine failure on final, it takes most 737-800 students three attempts to perfect the technique in the simulator.

And how many attempts does it take them to perfect the technique of a single engine go-around from low level? And why should an engine failure on final result in a long landing anyway? All the accident reports I am aware of are about touchdown into the approach lights...

[parkfell]

Two separate themes are now being discussed:

ENG FAIL on final (stable with increased thrust/ power applied)
Unstable approach with decision to G/A
Unstable approach with decision to land


OEI to G/A : usually by attempt three, students are getting the idea, with improved technique.

Landing longer than ideal is invariably a function of speeds exceeding Vref+5 on final. Adjusted Flare height & landing pitch attitude selected also critical.
If the OEI was occurs prior to the approach, then flap15 is often used (depends upon ac spec) with higher approach speed. Visual clues subtle changes & increased LDR.
What you can "get away with" is often a function of ac mass. Inertia adds to the mix and is a critical factor.

Let us put this discussion to bed & move on.............