Asymmetric Commital Height.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asymmetric Commital Height.
Please - for the purposes of this discussion - no comments on "don't do asymmetric go-arounds".
Assume you are teaching student pilot to fly in a light piston twin - what do you deem to be a suitable asymmetric commital altitude, and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??
I've heard figures of 500' agl for new pilots on the class (6hrs training).
I've heard 300' for good daylight, good visibility - with an extra 100' for night or IMC/low vis. conditions.
I've also heard 200' agl (for the new student) "because that will lead them into the instrument rating decision altitude".
What do you teach - and how do you justify the figure? Just curious.
(Wonder how many self confessed experts will try to steer away from the original question, or insist that their opinion is the only correct one).
Assume you are teaching student pilot to fly in a light piston twin - what do you deem to be a suitable asymmetric commital altitude, and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??
I've heard figures of 500' agl for new pilots on the class (6hrs training).
I've heard 300' for good daylight, good visibility - with an extra 100' for night or IMC/low vis. conditions.
I've also heard 200' agl (for the new student) "because that will lead them into the instrument rating decision altitude".
What do you teach - and how do you justify the figure? Just curious.
(Wonder how many self confessed experts will try to steer away from the original question, or insist that their opinion is the only correct one).
My only asymmetric flight instruction has been on heavy jets. On the 4-engined VC10 we used to teach both 3-engined and 2-engined go-arounds, of which only the 2-engined had any engine-out allowance. We would add not less than 200 ft to any 2-e precision approach DH/DA, but had an absolute 350 ft a.g.l. 'Visual Commital Height' below which no go-around would be flown. At VCH, the pilot was required to make a very positive decision; if 'LAND' was called it would be followed by flap selection direction, rudder trim orders and some precise flying. It was practised repeatedly in the simulator and we used to do it for real with new captains on their conversion course under strict weather conditions. Only training captains were otherwise permitted to practise unsupervised double asymmetric flying in the air.
Does the concept of engine-out allowance apply in the MEP world?
Personally I feel that asymmetric training is one of the key flying training areas where certainly the RAF has pretty firm and very sensible rules in place concerning mandatory go-around heights. And that's for folk who have all had extensive aptitude testing....
Does the concept of engine-out allowance apply in the MEP world?
Personally I feel that asymmetric training is one of the key flying training areas where certainly the RAF has pretty firm and very sensible rules in place concerning mandatory go-around heights. And that's for folk who have all had extensive aptitude testing....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should be a personal thing for the student , take them up to a safe altitude and from the normal Vref at a normal approach ROD with the gear down and the flaps set for the normal approach setting for the aircraft get the student to "go-around" and observe the loss of altitude before a positive rate of climb is established.
Add the loss of altitude to a safety factor of lets say 200ft and you have a basic number to start with. more demanding airfields may require an additional safety factor.
The altitude that you select for this demo should reflect the aircraft performance at MLW WAT limit.
This will assure that the commital height is within the ability of the student and as more practice is undertaken the exercise can be repeated to lower the limit as the students performance improves.
Add the loss of altitude to a safety factor of lets say 200ft and you have a basic number to start with. more demanding airfields may require an additional safety factor.
The altitude that you select for this demo should reflect the aircraft performance at MLW WAT limit.
This will assure that the commital height is within the ability of the student and as more practice is undertaken the exercise can be repeated to lower the limit as the students performance improves.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always taught 200'agl, as that was the height the examiner for the MEP told me me he was going ask for a go around SE. I've always found that a comfortable height, and the students have never complained.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Assume you are teaching student pilot to fly in a light piston twin - what do you deem to be a suitable asymmetric commital altitude"
As A and C says it will depend on the student. ACH is designed to allow the aircraft to sink whilst going through the go-arround drills. Initially the student will be slow, may make mistakes and will inevitably loose some height.
As the student progresses the drill should be performed in a way that minimises the height loss. In any event the exercise is flown visually at the rating training stage.
"and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??"
Yes
When the student reaches the IR skill test level he will be required to demonstrate an approach to minimums on instruments and demonstrate an asymmetric go arround from that height; so ACH becomes the same as the minima used.
Would you go arround from 300, 400, or 500 ft if you have an engine out and a 250ft cloudbase?
As A and C says it will depend on the student. ACH is designed to allow the aircraft to sink whilst going through the go-arround drills. Initially the student will be slow, may make mistakes and will inevitably loose some height.
As the student progresses the drill should be performed in a way that minimises the height loss. In any event the exercise is flown visually at the rating training stage.
"and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??"
Yes
When the student reaches the IR skill test level he will be required to demonstrate an approach to minimums on instruments and demonstrate an asymmetric go arround from that height; so ACH becomes the same as the minima used.
Would you go arround from 300, 400, or 500 ft if you have an engine out and a 250ft cloudbase?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you go arround from 300, 400, or 500 ft if you have an engine out and a 250ft cloudbase?
Should they be taught - at THAT stage (i.e. during initial training ) to go all the way to 200agl before making the decision to go around for whatever reason?
Or, should they be taught, at initial rating stage, to go to 300, 400, 500 - maybe even their own (individual) figure - and then improve with time?
The more I hear about asymmetric work in light twins, the stronger my resolve never to go near one of the things.
I find it quite astonishing that there is no defined Engine Out Allowance or Visual Committal Height published for each MEP aeroplane in the POH, being:
EOA: An allowance made to cater for the height loss incurred when carrying out a single engine go-around. This should then be added to the relevant DH/DA, so that a pilot executing a SE go-around does so from a height/altitude which will not involve him descending further below the normal minimum had the go-around been conducted with all engines operating at the normal DH/DA.
VCH: The height below which the aeroplane is committed to land following an asymmetric approach.
These values should be based on the average performance of an average pilot rated on type following the failure of the most adverse engine. Quite why there should be any 'personal' flexibility to invent one's own allowances, I cannot quite understand. Of course initial training should be conducted prudently, but the student should be capable of executing a go-around at a properly defined minimum altitude specific to a/c model.
Bitter experience with asymmetric training on things like Meteors led HMFC to be very, very careful about SE go-arounds. I was once told that the VCH for the RAF's last Meteor 7 at Brawdy in the mid-'70s was 650 ft a.g.l. - and that it was rigidly observed!
I find it quite astonishing that there is no defined Engine Out Allowance or Visual Committal Height published for each MEP aeroplane in the POH, being:
EOA: An allowance made to cater for the height loss incurred when carrying out a single engine go-around. This should then be added to the relevant DH/DA, so that a pilot executing a SE go-around does so from a height/altitude which will not involve him descending further below the normal minimum had the go-around been conducted with all engines operating at the normal DH/DA.
VCH: The height below which the aeroplane is committed to land following an asymmetric approach.
These values should be based on the average performance of an average pilot rated on type following the failure of the most adverse engine. Quite why there should be any 'personal' flexibility to invent one's own allowances, I cannot quite understand. Of course initial training should be conducted prudently, but the student should be capable of executing a go-around at a properly defined minimum altitude specific to a/c model.
Bitter experience with asymmetric training on things like Meteors led HMFC to be very, very careful about SE go-arounds. I was once told that the VCH for the RAF's last Meteor 7 at Brawdy in the mid-'70s was 650 ft a.g.l. - and that it was rigidly observed!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, should they be taught, at initial rating stage, to go to 300, 400, 500 - maybe even their own (individual) figure - and then improve with time?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I agree with you that an EOA should be published for each aircraft but it is not.
I think that this is because the makers of these aircraft feel that a lot of the "variable factors" are out of there control and the legal implications of publishing such a "hard data" would lead to them being taken to the cleaners by a sharp lawyer.
This being the case the best way to protect your student is to get them to find there own personal ACH.
You should remember that light twins should be treated as single engined aircraft that can continue flight after an engine faiure if flown properly and that in some phases of flight the best course of action is simply to close both throttles and find a field.
In terms of flying skill and airmanship to fly safely a light twin is much more demanding than the B737-800 that I fly for the day job.
I think that this is because the makers of these aircraft feel that a lot of the "variable factors" are out of there control and the legal implications of publishing such a "hard data" would lead to them being taken to the cleaners by a sharp lawyer.
This being the case the best way to protect your student is to get them to find there own personal ACH.
You should remember that light twins should be treated as single engined aircraft that can continue flight after an engine faiure if flown properly and that in some phases of flight the best course of action is simply to close both throttles and find a field.
In terms of flying skill and airmanship to fly safely a light twin is much more demanding than the B737-800 that I fly for the day job.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please accept this as a purely personal viewpoint. The "decision" height depends on several inter-related factors such as airspeed and flap setting at the time of go-around and expected climb performance on single engine clean.
The instructor should demonstrate the most critical scenario which is landing flap down, and Vref speed. Obviously this should be demonstrated at a safe height such as 1500 feet agl.
When the student has demonstrated consistent competency at this manoeuvre, then various other configurations can be shown, such as no flap and say 10 knots above normal Vref. Clearly this allows more latitude in terms of decision height.
The results usually reveal that a competent well trained student can safely execute a single engine go-around at sea level from 2-300 feet with full flap and Vref at point of go-around, and if flapless and Vref plus 10 knots then 100 feet. These are realistic figures.
Whether the pilot has low hours or not, he must demonstrate a high level of competency before being signed out. There should be no question of adding altitude for Mum and the kids just because of a low level of experience. He is either totally competent to execute a single engine GA or he is not. If not, then more dual until he reaches a safe standard.
It is also important to brief the student what actions he can take to minimise the chances of a bad pile up if he is forced to place the aircraft on to the ground in event of being below safe GA height. This vital point is often inadequately covered.
The instructor should demonstrate the most critical scenario which is landing flap down, and Vref speed. Obviously this should be demonstrated at a safe height such as 1500 feet agl.
When the student has demonstrated consistent competency at this manoeuvre, then various other configurations can be shown, such as no flap and say 10 knots above normal Vref. Clearly this allows more latitude in terms of decision height.
The results usually reveal that a competent well trained student can safely execute a single engine go-around at sea level from 2-300 feet with full flap and Vref at point of go-around, and if flapless and Vref plus 10 knots then 100 feet. These are realistic figures.
Whether the pilot has low hours or not, he must demonstrate a high level of competency before being signed out. There should be no question of adding altitude for Mum and the kids just because of a low level of experience. He is either totally competent to execute a single engine GA or he is not. If not, then more dual until he reaches a safe standard.
It is also important to brief the student what actions he can take to minimise the chances of a bad pile up if he is forced to place the aircraft on to the ground in event of being below safe GA height. This vital point is often inadequately covered.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments - all quite correct in their own way.
x38 seems to be the nearest to what I've been taught through the years - but that may not be the correct (or modern) answer, hence my question.
BEagle was, not surprisingly, spot on with what should happen in the ideal World - but A and C is probably correct in terms of "product liability".
BlueLine was perfectly correct in the IFR go around scenario - if the DA for an approach is 200' agl then, by that time, the pilot needs to be able to do the go around at that level - but by the time the pilot is carrying out asymmetric missed approaches in IFR then I would hope they have had more training than four to six hours on a light piston twin.
What I was saying about "personal minimums" was because there isn't a published figure in the POH for the average pilot (indeed, who could work out an "average" - and what factors would the below average pilot apply to that figure [assuming that they would even class themselves as 'below average']).
It was the discovery of the fact that certain schools want the commital height to be mandated as 200' agl for a brand new student on the aircraft - with only four or five hours on the class and type of aircraft when this part of the course comes up.
Would we expect the 4 hour multi engine piston student to carry out a go around as neatly and safely as a multi engine instructor with, perhaps, a few thousand hours on light piston twins??
This is where I wonder about the idea of a higher ACH until the individual has gained some experience - both of themselves as a pilot and of the performance capabilities of the aircraft (neither of which I think they have the brain power for when first confronted with the multi engine conversion course).
Would 500' agl be too high for the six hour muppet? Whilst the 200' is the ultimate aim for every individual (for all the reasons above) - should we teach it as a mandatory figure from approach number one??
Curious at BEagles comment about never going near a light twin - if you are prepared to fly single engine aircraft then there is no difference - for the reasons stated by A and C (if it's not working nicely as a single engine twin - then make it into a glider).
x38 seems to be the nearest to what I've been taught through the years - but that may not be the correct (or modern) answer, hence my question.
BEagle was, not surprisingly, spot on with what should happen in the ideal World - but A and C is probably correct in terms of "product liability".
BlueLine was perfectly correct in the IFR go around scenario - if the DA for an approach is 200' agl then, by that time, the pilot needs to be able to do the go around at that level - but by the time the pilot is carrying out asymmetric missed approaches in IFR then I would hope they have had more training than four to six hours on a light piston twin.
What I was saying about "personal minimums" was because there isn't a published figure in the POH for the average pilot (indeed, who could work out an "average" - and what factors would the below average pilot apply to that figure [assuming that they would even class themselves as 'below average']).
It was the discovery of the fact that certain schools want the commital height to be mandated as 200' agl for a brand new student on the aircraft - with only four or five hours on the class and type of aircraft when this part of the course comes up.
Would we expect the 4 hour multi engine piston student to carry out a go around as neatly and safely as a multi engine instructor with, perhaps, a few thousand hours on light piston twins??
This is where I wonder about the idea of a higher ACH until the individual has gained some experience - both of themselves as a pilot and of the performance capabilities of the aircraft (neither of which I think they have the brain power for when first confronted with the multi engine conversion course).
Would 500' agl be too high for the six hour muppet? Whilst the 200' is the ultimate aim for every individual (for all the reasons above) - should we teach it as a mandatory figure from approach number one??
Curious at BEagles comment about never going near a light twin - if you are prepared to fly single engine aircraft then there is no difference - for the reasons stated by A and C (if it's not working nicely as a single engine twin - then make it into a glider).
OK - I'll exclude the Wing Derringer and Diamond TwinStar from my 'avoid' list!
In something like a typical commercial FTO operated Seneca, flying an approach at the correct POH approach speed and configuration is there:
1. Any modification in IAS or configuration applied when asymmetric?
2. Any additional height loss in the event of an asymmetric go-around when compared to a go-around with both engines operating?
If the answer to 2. is "Yes", then whatever that value is should be added to the normal DA.
In something like a typical commercial FTO operated Seneca, flying an approach at the correct POH approach speed and configuration is there:
1. Any modification in IAS or configuration applied when asymmetric?
2. Any additional height loss in the event of an asymmetric go-around when compared to a go-around with both engines operating?
If the answer to 2. is "Yes", then whatever that value is should be added to the normal DA.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ACH depends on aircraft type, WAT and pilot experience.
For the brand new MEP rated pilot in general we teach an ACH of 400ft. At the subsequent renewal 1 year later, again depending on type and experience there may be a reduction in this figure but the lowest used is 200ft.
However, we teach that an engine failure in a twin is an emergency and a mayday call must be made. This can help to reduce the chances of making a missed approach.
For instrument pilots (including IMC rated pilots who fly MEP) the same ACH applies.
Our and the CAA's policy is that if possible an engine out approach in IMC should be avoided. If that is not possible then the minima to be used are the higher of the procedure minima or the ACH. In other words we do not change the ACH just because the pilot is instrument rated it depends on their experience on class and type.
BEagle.....basically don't reduce below blue line or extend landing flap until a landing is assured (or comitted) is the only requirement......thus having an ACH of 400ft not only ensures that a missed approach can be made safely but it also gives time and height for the inexperienced pilot who is landing to extend the landing stage of flap and get things set up without being in a rush which they could end up in if 200ft was used.
Regards,
DFC
For the brand new MEP rated pilot in general we teach an ACH of 400ft. At the subsequent renewal 1 year later, again depending on type and experience there may be a reduction in this figure but the lowest used is 200ft.
However, we teach that an engine failure in a twin is an emergency and a mayday call must be made. This can help to reduce the chances of making a missed approach.
For instrument pilots (including IMC rated pilots who fly MEP) the same ACH applies.
Our and the CAA's policy is that if possible an engine out approach in IMC should be avoided. If that is not possible then the minima to be used are the higher of the procedure minima or the ACH. In other words we do not change the ACH just because the pilot is instrument rated it depends on their experience on class and type.
BEagle.....basically don't reduce below blue line or extend landing flap until a landing is assured (or comitted) is the only requirement......thus having an ACH of 400ft not only ensures that a missed approach can be made safely but it also gives time and height for the inexperienced pilot who is landing to extend the landing stage of flap and get things set up without being in a rush which they could end up in if 200ft was used.
Regards,
DFC
The answer, as usual, is: "it depends".
After Asymm2 the stude should be convinced that it will take him/her 100-200ft to sort out an engine failure and get the beast climbing again - and this was when they were expecting a failure because it was the asymm part of a ME course! Ask them how they think they would cope in 11 months and 25 days on a hot day at MLW! I was taught to teach a Vach of 300 ft and this seems to work well for the average stude in a Seneca 1 (with an addition of 100ft or so if an asymm approach is unavoidable in IMC) but in a Duchess (e.g.) 300ft would probably be excessive (but safe). As always: know your horse and stay in practice.
On a slightly different tack...
I recently had a candidate for his first MEPL renewal who (he said) had not been given the full asymm long brief during his training or shown the advantage of 5 deg bank towards the live - I won't mention the airfield for fear of libel suits
Please peeps, give your studes the long asymm brief and teach them about the bank attitude for zero side-slip.
And on an even different tack...
I tend to end an MEPL course by failing an engine below Vach - it's surprising how many people try to go-around despite having said LAND, lowered full flap and started slowing down as they go through 300ft. It leads to some interesting aircraft attitudes before self preservation leads to an "I have control".
RAGA before Vach, commit after Vach.
HFD
After Asymm2 the stude should be convinced that it will take him/her 100-200ft to sort out an engine failure and get the beast climbing again - and this was when they were expecting a failure because it was the asymm part of a ME course! Ask them how they think they would cope in 11 months and 25 days on a hot day at MLW! I was taught to teach a Vach of 300 ft and this seems to work well for the average stude in a Seneca 1 (with an addition of 100ft or so if an asymm approach is unavoidable in IMC) but in a Duchess (e.g.) 300ft would probably be excessive (but safe). As always: know your horse and stay in practice.
On a slightly different tack...
I recently had a candidate for his first MEPL renewal who (he said) had not been given the full asymm long brief during his training or shown the advantage of 5 deg bank towards the live - I won't mention the airfield for fear of libel suits
Please peeps, give your studes the long asymm brief and teach them about the bank attitude for zero side-slip.And on an even different tack...
I tend to end an MEPL course by failing an engine below Vach - it's surprising how many people try to go-around despite having said LAND, lowered full flap and started slowing down as they go through 300ft. It leads to some interesting aircraft attitudes before self preservation leads to an "I have control".
RAGA before Vach, commit after Vach.
HFD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I used to teach on the proverbial FTO-operated Seneca I which we also used pretty regularly for ATOs VFR (and IFR if we had to but the door leaked, as did the windows and we used to get ice forming inside but that's a different story). The answers to your questions from our organisation were 1. Yes and 2. Yes.
1. The change in configuration when flying visual or IFR approaches 2-eng vs 1-eng was that instead of steadily reducing through Vyse at 300' and making the decision to land at 300' 2-eng, that decision would be made through 350' when 1-eng. The profile was also flown 50' higher all the way in to allow for a bit of height loss to help accelerate to Vyse (the one operating engine would very rarely produce a noticeable acceleration without height loss). The net result was that the speeds were the same at a given distance from touchdown but with 1-eng we flew 50' higher. Power settings were basically standard 18" for 2-eng approaches in the descending part (base and final) but with 1-eng it was whatever you need, count on another 4-5".
2. Extra height loss? Gimme a hell yeah! Standard first-go-around height loss for our students was about 50' 2-eng from their "going around" call, but on their first asymmetric go-around it was more like 150-200' before they got stabilised. And that with two of us and three hours fuel. Once they got a bit more proficient they could normally get it down to 100' but the poor old Seneca just couldn't accelerate without losing height while you get the gear up.
As I recall none of this was in the POH but we had operated them since the eighties so had a bit of experience with the type.
And yes, when we taught ILS approaches later on, we had the DH discussion and got them to tell us that 350' was a committal height whether you could see where you were going or not, so if it's an ILS to minima, you are physically committed below 350' so that is the effective decision height. Below that the pilot has to be sure of making a landing using normal techniques.
I used to teach on the proverbial FTO-operated Seneca I which we also used pretty regularly for ATOs VFR (and IFR if we had to but the door leaked, as did the windows and we used to get ice forming inside but that's a different story). The answers to your questions from our organisation were 1. Yes and 2. Yes.
1. The change in configuration when flying visual or IFR approaches 2-eng vs 1-eng was that instead of steadily reducing through Vyse at 300' and making the decision to land at 300' 2-eng, that decision would be made through 350' when 1-eng. The profile was also flown 50' higher all the way in to allow for a bit of height loss to help accelerate to Vyse (the one operating engine would very rarely produce a noticeable acceleration without height loss). The net result was that the speeds were the same at a given distance from touchdown but with 1-eng we flew 50' higher. Power settings were basically standard 18" for 2-eng approaches in the descending part (base and final) but with 1-eng it was whatever you need, count on another 4-5".
2. Extra height loss? Gimme a hell yeah! Standard first-go-around height loss for our students was about 50' 2-eng from their "going around" call, but on their first asymmetric go-around it was more like 150-200' before they got stabilised. And that with two of us and three hours fuel. Once they got a bit more proficient they could normally get it down to 100' but the poor old Seneca just couldn't accelerate without losing height while you get the gear up.
As I recall none of this was in the POH but we had operated them since the eighties so had a bit of experience with the type.
And yes, when we taught ILS approaches later on, we had the DH discussion and got them to tell us that 350' was a committal height whether you could see where you were going or not, so if it's an ILS to minima, you are physically committed below 350' so that is the effective decision height. Below that the pilot has to be sure of making a landing using normal techniques.
Thanks for all your education, everyone.
It seesm to me then, that, for the Seneca:
1. A 150' EOA should be applied to the 'symmetric' DA/DH.
2. A VCH of 350' should be used; at 350' a.g.l the IAS and configuration should be progressively adjusted to achieve Vref and full flap at the threshold.
Thus, if landing criteria have not been achieved on an asymmetric ILS (with a 'normal' DH of 200 ft), an asymmetric DH of 350 ft must be used and a go-around initiated if landing criteria have not been achieved at 350 ft.
No attempt at an asymmetric go-around should be flown below 350 ft.
It seesm to me then, that, for the Seneca:
1. A 150' EOA should be applied to the 'symmetric' DA/DH.
2. A VCH of 350' should be used; at 350' a.g.l the IAS and configuration should be progressively adjusted to achieve Vref and full flap at the threshold.
Thus, if landing criteria have not been achieved on an asymmetric ILS (with a 'normal' DH of 200 ft), an asymmetric DH of 350 ft must be used and a go-around initiated if landing criteria have not been achieved at 350 ft.
No attempt at an asymmetric go-around should be flown below 350 ft.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moderator you asked
Assume you are teaching student pilot to fly in a light piston twin - what do you deem to be a suitable asymmetric commital altitude, and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??
I assume you are talking about what we used to call perf group c twins which only guarantee climb with the engine feathered and the gear in the bay and generally seem to take pilots to the scene of the accident after a real engine failure!
interesting to see that no one mentioned go around flight path obstacles. a big difference in a ga at lydd then say at mull!
everyone will have a different height i would imagine. surely the most important thing is to have a limit and stick to it.
if i was writing a pilots order book these are some of the things i would consider
my first consideration would be that in an a/c of marginal SE climb performance a ga has to be fully warranted and a last resort. certainly better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air scenario etc.
I would also take the following into consideration.
Problem-- fly the a/c to a safe place, if your on fire a safe place is generally the runway not the GA! Instructors always talk engine failure but engine fire happens too(happened to me on a GA in france on an aztec for real and its very unpleasant!) (in fact thinking about it I have never had an engine failure as such but only engine fires, one exactly at V1 at Jersey, christ that dosnt alf concentrate your mind!)
Wx.
obvious one but also consider nav aids do you really want to to come back for another NDB let down on one engine!
Obstructions
consider what you are climbing into.
dosnt matter how perfect your GA is, a hill or mountain will serious alter the profile of both you and the a/c!
Experience/ability
Who rembers the citation that ended up in the garden on the right of 27 at jersey off a low level IMC GA and that was with both engines running!
who remembers the BMA viscount at manc were the first officer stuck in a bootful of wrong rudder and the a/c went right over on its back during an assymetric training exercise.
A/C
i seem to remember on ceratin aztecs you had to pump the gear up if a certain engine failed. I think I would like to have a few more feet under my backside in that situation for real.
PS One of the most dissapointing features i found in twin instruction is the belief by students and some instructors is that a perf C twin a/c would always climb away on one engine.
the company i worked for even used to close the cowl flaps for t.o. to improve single engine perf.
Personally if I had an engine fire i would be landing off the approach on a perf c a/c not considering a go around unless landing was physically impossible.
Assume you are teaching student pilot to fly in a light piston twin - what do you deem to be a suitable asymmetric commital altitude, and does it change with time, experience and rating they hold or are training for??
I assume you are talking about what we used to call perf group c twins which only guarantee climb with the engine feathered and the gear in the bay and generally seem to take pilots to the scene of the accident after a real engine failure!
interesting to see that no one mentioned go around flight path obstacles. a big difference in a ga at lydd then say at mull!
everyone will have a different height i would imagine. surely the most important thing is to have a limit and stick to it.
if i was writing a pilots order book these are some of the things i would consider
my first consideration would be that in an a/c of marginal SE climb performance a ga has to be fully warranted and a last resort. certainly better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air scenario etc.
I would also take the following into consideration.
Problem-- fly the a/c to a safe place, if your on fire a safe place is generally the runway not the GA! Instructors always talk engine failure but engine fire happens too(happened to me on a GA in france on an aztec for real and its very unpleasant!) (in fact thinking about it I have never had an engine failure as such but only engine fires, one exactly at V1 at Jersey, christ that dosnt alf concentrate your mind!)
Wx.
obvious one but also consider nav aids do you really want to to come back for another NDB let down on one engine!
Obstructions
consider what you are climbing into.
dosnt matter how perfect your GA is, a hill or mountain will serious alter the profile of both you and the a/c!
Experience/ability
Who rembers the citation that ended up in the garden on the right of 27 at jersey off a low level IMC GA and that was with both engines running!
who remembers the BMA viscount at manc were the first officer stuck in a bootful of wrong rudder and the a/c went right over on its back during an assymetric training exercise.
A/C
i seem to remember on ceratin aztecs you had to pump the gear up if a certain engine failed. I think I would like to have a few more feet under my backside in that situation for real.
PS One of the most dissapointing features i found in twin instruction is the belief by students and some instructors is that a perf C twin a/c would always climb away on one engine.
the company i worked for even used to close the cowl flaps for t.o. to improve single engine perf.
Personally if I had an engine fire i would be landing off the approach on a perf c a/c not considering a go around unless landing was physically impossible.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try to not comment to often on the instructor forum, but occaisonally I am facinated by the different thought patteren of people who teach flying.
So I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can answer for me as I seem to have difficulty with understanding the need for trying to fly low performance twin engine airplanes close to the ground on one engine.
Do any of you do this with the non operating engine actually feathered?
Chuck
So I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can answer for me as I seem to have difficulty with understanding the need for trying to fly low performance twin engine airplanes close to the ground on one engine.
Do any of you do this with the non operating engine actually feathered?
Chuck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatunion says, hey chuck this is a forum for bull****, anybody that got that near to the ground on one of these kites with an engine feathered can only be spoken to through a medium!