"Light Twin" fatal at Hawarden
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps in turns. Hmmmm, maybe we should also stop anyone fiddling with the engine(s) in a turn in case something spooky goes on? 
That said, I think it is really good teaching/learning practice to set flaps in isolation when Bloggs is struggling with Ex12/13. The student needs to become familiar with the effects of changing configuration - there needs to be a natural elevator input to counter any shenanigans caused by the flaps travelling or reaching their desired state.
They also need to get a routine going and we all know (don't we?) that in a C152, 1600-1700 rpm, level attitude, white arc, two stages of flap maintaining the level attitude until reducing below 70kts, lower the nose to three fingers and Bob is your uncle.
Whopity, I disagree. That looks like a classic critical engine-Vmca faff to me. Sure, there was probably a resultant stall/spin.
That said, I think it is really good teaching/learning practice to set flaps in isolation when Bloggs is struggling with Ex12/13. The student needs to become familiar with the effects of changing configuration - there needs to be a natural elevator input to counter any shenanigans caused by the flaps travelling or reaching their desired state.
They also need to get a routine going and we all know (don't we?) that in a C152, 1600-1700 rpm, level attitude, white arc, two stages of flap maintaining the level attitude until reducing below 70kts, lower the nose to three fingers and Bob is your uncle.
Whopity, I disagree. That looks like a classic critical engine-Vmca faff to me. Sure, there was probably a resultant stall/spin.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB I agree when teaching anything is fair game and breaking down into components is the way to go.
But honestly if someone can do it and can control the aircraft its not even worth a mention either way. Especially for some pish engineering reason which doesn't even apply to the aircraft being flown.
this business of FI's getting pissy knickers and try and retrain when pilots do it on checkouts just shows to the bulk of experienced pilots that they are clueless and shouldn't be FI's.
Do they really think because some low houred FI tells them that its a bad idea they aren't just going to ignore them?
But honestly if someone can do it and can control the aircraft its not even worth a mention either way. Especially for some pish engineering reason which doesn't even apply to the aircraft being flown.
this business of FI's getting pissy knickers and try and retrain when pilots do it on checkouts just shows to the bulk of experienced pilots that they are clueless and shouldn't be FI's.
Do they really think because some low houred FI tells them that its a bad idea they aren't just going to ignore them?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly for my biennial with a really good instructor in the Chippy - mostly we'd do aeros. But he also had a 'thing' about not lowering flaps in the turn.
Now I like to keep it tight in the circuit, so flaps go down (at least 2nd stage do) in the final turn and I also re-trim in the turn (I know the aeroplane very well so this isn't a problem and I can feel when the trim is right for the turn) before rolling out on short final. The Chipmunk can, as you may know, suffer asymmetric flap as each is individually actuated by a cable - which can snap. So he had a point. But I don't think that would be more of a problem for the experienced pilot than it happening in S&L flight.
But I think it was really a hangover from of his instructional flying with ab initio studes, which was his daily bread and butter.
Now I like to keep it tight in the circuit, so flaps go down (at least 2nd stage do) in the final turn and I also re-trim in the turn (I know the aeroplane very well so this isn't a problem and I can feel when the trim is right for the turn) before rolling out on short final. The Chipmunk can, as you may know, suffer asymmetric flap as each is individually actuated by a cable - which can snap. So he had a point. But I don't think that would be more of a problem for the experienced pilot than it happening in S&L flight.
But I think it was really a hangover from of his instructional flying with ab initio studes, which was his daily bread and butter.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
I will give you, it fits the bill which I described. But realistically if that's what you hanging your hat on its pretty poor.
This isn't a pissing contest - my only interest in this thread is discussing and possibly understanding causes of a 310 going-in.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take your point, but it wasn't even a flap deployment.
It was a drive unit going on the "good side" and dumping the whole lot. the only way your going to protect against that is by never using the flaps ever.
And again if you get asymmetric flap your into Vmca issues. It all about the balance of forces.
It was a drive unit going on the "good side" and dumping the whole lot. the only way your going to protect against that is by never using the flaps ever.
And again if you get asymmetric flap your into Vmca issues. It all about the balance of forces.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left engine is critical on the 310 IIRC which would lead to a left yawing tendency in the event of an EF which is supported by the pics. Of course to have Vmc above stall speed then the operating engine would need to be developing high power....And the only logical reason for going full power on one engine during an approach is a go-around....Or low and slow and engine happened to fail at a very bad moment just as the power was being brought up and wasn't caught straight away. This would be odd though, you'd have thought that if you advance the throttles and you start to get massive yaw then you'd do something about it pretty sharpish (like close the throttles again and a boot-full of rudder).
Still if you fly the approach at blue line speed, which you should always (as a minimum) do in a twin then there should be sufficient safety margin to go full power on the good engine to go around.
Gear and flaps down plus a colder than ISA day may help reduce Vmc a bit too.
We can only guess at this one unfortunately. I guess though that they had an EF which the pilot didn't recognise quickly enough and at the same time encountered some situation which required more power, like a go-around or low-and-slow situation. Cheese, holes, lining up. Maybe he was just tired?!
Still if you fly the approach at blue line speed, which you should always (as a minimum) do in a twin then there should be sufficient safety margin to go full power on the good engine to go around.
Gear and flaps down plus a colder than ISA day may help reduce Vmc a bit too.
We can only guess at this one unfortunately. I guess though that they had an EF which the pilot didn't recognise quickly enough and at the same time encountered some situation which required more power, like a go-around or low-and-slow situation. Cheese, holes, lining up. Maybe he was just tired?!
If you grade skill required on a one to ten scale over every facet of aviation, IMO a GA piston twin operating on one engine close to the ground and at low airspeed; is a 10.
There is absolutely no margin for less than perfect aircraft control, and in the case of an EFATO, you must do all the vital actions in the correct order and very very quickly if you are going to live.
My personal observation is that of the half dozen or so private light twin owners I know personally, only one makes the required efforts to retain the necessary skills to safely handle a real world engine failure in his light twin.
Since I know nothing of this accident pilots history I do not want to imply that this was the case here, my comment was made as a general statement.
There is absolutely no margin for less than perfect aircraft control, and in the case of an EFATO, you must do all the vital actions in the correct order and very very quickly if you are going to live.
My personal observation is that of the half dozen or so private light twin owners I know personally, only one makes the required efforts to retain the necessary skills to safely handle a real world engine failure in his light twin.
Since I know nothing of this accident pilots history I do not want to imply that this was the case here, my comment was made as a general statement.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[b]They are round and they might bounce[/b]
Still if you fly the approach at blue line speed, which you should always (as a minimum) do in a twin then there should be sufficient safety margin to go full power on the good engine to go around.
There may be no margin whatsoever or even a negative one. Im talking there about the ideal case (Clean, Inoperative Engine Feathered, Steady unaccelerated flight, the lot.)
I've been in a light twin where the engine was unresponsive beyond idle power. Imagine that happened to you in a situation you decided you needed to go around, the aircraft was at low height in a low energy situation and the failure was insidious. Anyone want to give up yet?
Does anyone remember the accident to the Learjet G-MURI? I know it's a different aircraft but it doesn't mean we all don't have lessons to be learned.
Less than 24 hours after challenging a post basically claiming that an engine failure in a twin is ok I'm seeing practically the same attitude. Some of you don't need to see an aircraft again until you can get at least a working knowledge of performance theory. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you clearly can't take it the easy way so you'll have to be told to TAKE RECURRENT TRAINING especially in the classroom because there are situations out there where no matter how accurately you can fly the aircraft, it WILL crash.
@Big Pistons Forever
you clearly do know what you're talking about sir (or madam). My experience of Gary was that he always did actually enjoy talking what-if's and wanted to learn more all the time. He understood that having 2 engines could be a ticket to freedom or quite the opposite depending on the situation; I'm with you on your take on the challenges concerned.
Last edited by HS125; 19th Nov 2013 at 05:11.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there is the case of low power on an engine and the pilot nursing the engine to get it home is actually creating more drag that it would when its feathered which thus increases the Vmca .
My turbine twin the simulated torque for feathered is 10-12% with the flight idle 4%. I should imagine a petrol engine would be quite a bit more for simulated feathered?
There have been loads of crashes due to people nursing engines below 10% not shutting them down.
My turbine twin the simulated torque for feathered is 10-12% with the flight idle 4%. I should imagine a petrol engine would be quite a bit more for simulated feathered?
There have been loads of crashes due to people nursing engines below 10% not shutting them down.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ That's very perceptive…
A career of being trained via somewhat unscientific applications of 'Zero Thrust' can't exactly help the cause. I recall doing an IR renewal years ago where on the single engine missed everything was perfectly set up and the 'live' engine was rushing us to the scene of the accident. The examiner chimed in "Here, let me give you a little more zero thrust!"
It was an object lesson in just how marginal these aircraft can be in the one-engine inoperative case, and with something as none standard as that I wonder how a lot of good pilot's might react - [ sic. That running turning engine must be doing something?!]
I went on to do my FAA license in the same type, at Scottsdale AZ in the height of summer. I remarked to the instructor that a single-engine missed must be marginal in these conditions whereupon he asked if I was on crack and couldn't believe we had to attempt that in the type/class; The philosophy being that due to the laws of physics you probably won't make it in the takeoff case and to mess up the approach to the effect you have to do it to yourself will probably have similar consequences.
A career of being trained via somewhat unscientific applications of 'Zero Thrust' can't exactly help the cause. I recall doing an IR renewal years ago where on the single engine missed everything was perfectly set up and the 'live' engine was rushing us to the scene of the accident. The examiner chimed in "Here, let me give you a little more zero thrust!"
It was an object lesson in just how marginal these aircraft can be in the one-engine inoperative case, and with something as none standard as that I wonder how a lot of good pilot's might react - [ sic. That running turning engine must be doing something?!]
I went on to do my FAA license in the same type, at Scottsdale AZ in the height of summer. I remarked to the instructor that a single-engine missed must be marginal in these conditions whereupon he asked if I was on crack and couldn't believe we had to attempt that in the type/class; The philosophy being that due to the laws of physics you probably won't make it in the takeoff case and to mess up the approach to the effect you have to do it to yourself will probably have similar consequences.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AdamFrisch
"There is no such thing as a single engine go-around"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual Aid
There are a bunch of references to the Airbus buildings (especially the A380 wing plant) in the earlier posts…
Here is a film shot from the accident aircraft which illustrates the approach and the runway environment generally:
It is also apparent via cross reference to where the aircraft is [geographically] in the pictures already published just how close to the ground and how late in the day unmitigated departure from normal flight is likely to have taken place.
Here is a film shot from the accident aircraft which illustrates the approach and the runway environment generally:
It is also apparent via cross reference to where the aircraft is [geographically] in the pictures already published just how close to the ground and how late in the day unmitigated departure from normal flight is likely to have taken place.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not correct at all.
In fact all the FI's I've flown with in the USA say NOT to attempt a go-around. Accept a mid field landing, make sure you get it right first time, or land off airport if you can rather than risk a GA.
In the USA anyway there is a lot of emphasis being put on not losing control.My examiner even pulled one mixture on the take off roll to see what i would do and during the cross country, he distracted me and switched off the fuel to one engine when I was completely not expecting it.
At the end of the day, a MEP with one engine out, in control but not climbing, is in no worse situation than a SEP with engine out. When I did my training in the early 00's in California in the summer, the FI used to hold the mixture levers on take off....so that "he could turn us into a glider" if something went badly wrong. Blue line speed was hammered into me by the FI making me do 45 degree turns into and away from a dead engine (at altitude of course) to prove you could remain in control if you get the speeds right. He also made me shoot partial panel, single engine approaches in actual IMC which was quite a challenge (this was for my CPL).
By contrast an EF in the Citation when I did my Mustang training and SE ops was a lot less dramatic, as the centre of thrust is near the centre of the aeroplane. Of course there is less to decide there, V1 ROTATE, and your hands come off the throttles and you are going regardless.
Just my 2p's worth. I don't purport to be an expert, just passing on my experiences and of course it is a different matter completely when it happens for real. I also believe in training and whenever I go to the USA, which is quite often, I have no problem doing some time with an FI as there is always something new to learn. We normally make it fun though and have an adventure at the same time...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that it may be far better to become a glider than struggle with an assymetric aircraft which is barely performing.
That said, more recent twins such as the DA42 are absolute puppies with one engine out. You have to be really behind the drag curve, physically and metaphorically, to crash one of these from an engine failure (it has been done!)
That said, more recent twins such as the DA42 are absolute puppies with one engine out. You have to be really behind the drag curve, physically and metaphorically, to crash one of these from an engine failure (it has been done!)
Single piston engine goarounds remind me of practicing how to die.
I've seen one Apache where that was attempted on a short runway with the engine that drove the hydraulic pump shut down; so, you had to work the manual pump to raise the gear
Very fortunately the crew survived the cartwheel.
In another case a Transport Canada inspector called for a single engine goaround that killed him and the examinee.
I would suggest a healthy altitude and speed below which you will not goaround. If something's on the runway, there's lots of grass alongside.
I've seen one Apache where that was attempted on a short runway with the engine that drove the hydraulic pump shut down; so, you had to work the manual pump to raise the gear
Very fortunately the crew survived the cartwheel.In another case a Transport Canada inspector called for a single engine goaround that killed him and the examinee.
I would suggest a healthy altitude and speed below which you will not goaround. If something's on the runway, there's lots of grass alongside.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is correct in for far as you should have a buffer over Vmc to prevent loss of control
this is the problem everyone thinks there is just one Vmca its a dynamic speed which changes with virtually every variable in the aircraft. Some things reduce it and some things increase it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
Single piston engine goarounds remind me of practicing how to die.
Over here it is part of the course, part of the test, part of flying a MEP.
mad_jock, I assume you instruct MEP and/or MEP-IR, so you must be doing these fairly regularly with students, practising for their MEP and/or IR tests, notwithstanding how often you must be doing them for your own renewals.