PDA

View Full Version : Land or missed, what's the right call in this situation?


rmac2
23rd Jul 2019, 16:59
Incident: Qatar A332 at Islamabad on Jul 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4caab9ef&opt=0)

The Ancient Geek
23rd Jul 2019, 18:26
Engine fail during approach. Definitely not a stable approach so go around.
Why is there any question?

pilotchute
23rd Jul 2019, 18:31
How does it make the approach unstable? Bit of power on the remaining engine and some rudder is all you need to stay on track.

CanadianAirbusPilot
23rd Jul 2019, 18:47
My airline states above 1000 agl go around and deal with it. Below continue for a landing. I think it hits the sweet spot.

Mcdubh
23rd Jul 2019, 18:51
Absolutely, if you can stay on track

sonicbum
23rd Jul 2019, 18:52
Engine fail during approach. Definitely not a stable approach so go around.
Why is there any question?

Because it depends on the reason of the malfunction. If you hit a flock of birds you might very well have the same issues on the good engine in a matter of a few seconds/minutes. An engine failure on the 330 already stable and in landing conf is barely noticeable, especially if on autopilot. From 1200ft to 500 ft you have about 1 min flight time, You can secure the engine till you reach 500 ft and call stable with flaps 3.

testpanel
23rd Jul 2019, 18:55
And can somebody copy or state what Airbus says in their (training-) manuals.........

cappt
23rd Jul 2019, 19:22
Mine and I think most airline SOPs have a procedure for engine failure during approach. Start APU, Flaps set for S.E. APP, Vspeeds set, continue for landing.

M.Mouse
23rd Jul 2019, 22:42
As someone who was actually hand flying an aircraft at around 1,000' on a visual approach at night onto the northerly runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport when an engine went bang in a big way I can assure you the decision whether to go-around or land was made very quickly. The choice was go-around with an unknown but clearly major failure or land around 60 seconds later.

D-OCHO
24th Jul 2019, 01:31
What my company advises (B737NG)
Engine Failure On Approach

Control A/C smoothly with RUDDER and TRIM the A/C
Adjust thrust on operating engine to maintain speed
If unable to maintain speed
Flaps 15
Speed VREF30 + 15 (Fly outer bug)
FLAP INHIBIT switch to INHIBIT

If necessary Go-around

Atlas Shrugged
24th Jul 2019, 02:52
Engine fail during approach. Definitely not a stable approach so go around.
Why is there any question?

Because almost nothing in aviation, be it machinery or people, ever gives you a complete picture...you fill in the gaps by whatever means you can think of.

vilas
24th Jul 2019, 06:28
Every engine failure is not a catastrophy requiring to land on the same approach. When you are still doing ECAM the approach cannot be called stabilized. Approach starts at IAF. If you complete the actions by 1000ft (at least engine secured) you could go ahead and land. Otherwise discontinue the approach complete the procedure come back and land. Unless there is a good justification to do little bit of this and little bit of that together is not a good idea.

16024
24th Jul 2019, 09:04
Every engine failure is not a catastrophy requiring to land on the same approach. When you are still doing ECAM the approach cannot be called stabilized. Approach starts at IAF. If you complete the actions by 1000ft (at least engine secured) you could go ahead and land. Otherwise discontinue the approach complete the procedure come back and land. Unless there is a good justification to do little bit of this and little bit of that together is not a good idea.

I think that's a bit black and white.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.

Hotel Tango
24th Jul 2019, 09:11
As a retired aviation professional and a frequent SLF it is quite fascinating to read the above opinions. I'd feel a lot safer if you all gave the same answer! ;)

sonicbum
24th Jul 2019, 10:07
@Mods : should we merge the thread with the same one on Techlog ?

sonicbum
24th Jul 2019, 10:19
As a retired aviation professional and a frequent SLF it is quite fascinating to read the above opinions. I'd feel a lot safer if you all gave the same answer! ;)

There is no right or wrong answer in this scenario, as long as any crew action does not infringe the manufacturer's / company rules, which is not the case in this situation. There can be arguments as to whether option A is better than option B based on a set of circumstances but both of them are safe.
For example in my company we do have provisions for engine failures on final approach and provided we do have VMC conditions, we can secure the engine through the ECAM down to 500 ft AGL, last gate. Procedures in other companies can be different for many very valid reasons.

vilas
24th Jul 2019, 10:29
I think that's a bit black and white.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.
I said as long as you can justify to do it differently it's OK.

Meester proach
24th Jul 2019, 10:45
Iím going to land, unless there is a good reason to not to.

DaveReidUK
24th Jul 2019, 11:29
As a retired aviation professional and a frequent SLF it is quite fascinating to read the above opinions. I'd feel a lot safer if you all gave the same answer!

Given that the only definitive information given in the AvHerald article on which to reach a judgement was that the aircraft "was on final approach to Islamabad's runway 10R when the RH engine emitted a bang and streaks of flames", I'd suggest that a fair number of other variables also went into the crew's decision that we're not party to, so varying opinions on what to do from PPRuNers shouldn't come as a surprise.

The Ancient Geek
24th Jul 2019, 12:03
Given that the only definitive information given in the AvHerald article on which to reach a judgement was that the aircraft "was on final approach to Islamabad's runway 10R when the RH engine emitted a bang and streaks of flames", I'd suggest that a fair number of other variables also went into the crew's decision that we're not party to, so varying opinions on what to do from PPRuNers shouldn't come as a surprise.

It depends on what they are calling final approach, they could still be 10 miles out with time to sort it out.
OTOH it could mean they are at the final 500 foot call which would be rather hairy.

double_barrel
24th Jul 2019, 14:42
If you hear a bang and/or get fire indications, and the approach remains stable, and I am in the back, I think I would like you to continue the approach please!

(OK, in reality of course I would like you to use your professional judgement, but I wonder when it's better to go back into the sky with unknown damage, possible fuel or hydraulic fluid leaks, possible fire developing, even possible puncture to the fuselage and passenger injury, if the landing still appears possible, just because you lost an engine. Let's go back up there and work another bunch of checklists so that we can do a 1 engine out landing by the book, seems a bit dubious)

bill fly
24th Jul 2019, 18:44
Youíve done all the hard work. You are set up on approach - a nice runway ahead.

Unless you are in a Cat111 situation (and in some a/c even then) it makes sense to adjust flaps and speed and get down.

If you GA you throw away the expedient landing opportunity, perform an engine out GA, with possible further complications (fire?) perform the abnormal / Emer procedures and briefings and burn some fuel and line up all over again to get back to where you were 25 minutes or more before.

Thats the theory. Who knows what is going on in someone elseís case?

MathFox
24th Jul 2019, 21:09
Donít know I wasnít there !
Fully agree, it depends on the circumstances which plan of action is appropriate. The two main alternatives are "continue to landing" or "go around." Both can be appropriate. If you're close to landing and the approach remains stable, continuing is a proper option. If the approach becomes unstable, a go around would be appropriate; but "engine out" is an emergency and a captain is legally allowed to opt for a "not great" ;) landing... (He needs a mechanic to take a look at the engine anyway; another to check the airframe is only marginal cost.)

In this case the captain chose for the go around and I have no reason to attack his decision.