Go-around after engine failure in light twin
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
This aircraft has a max landing roll of 1400ft.
Don't know what this means. Did you mean MIN landing roll?
Engine failure is a mayday situation.
Sounds like he had time to make the call (failure whilst en-route) - and this may or may not have changed the outcome, depending on what balked him into trying to go-around from such a low height
sycamore,
Your DH on an ILS must reflect the fact that you may have to go-around ,and most normal DH`s on ILS`S are around 2-300 agl; you must descend whilst cleaning -up and getting power on and controlling the a/c first. That should never be taught at 2-300 ft -never..
The CAAFU will expect you to do an ILS to height 250' simulated assymetric (assuming a normal cat1 ILS with 200' DH and having explained to them that ACH would be 350')
You learn that way, and you're examined that way for IR.
CaptAirProx,
Something I see very frequently in Multi Training (Senecas) is that pilots come in high and fast on a simulated single engine approach
Do you have an ILS they could use for the approach (even in VMC) so they can see that engine-out 3 degrees is still do-able?
Keef,
...light twin the failure of one engine means that the other engine will take you all the way to the crash.
Surely the first part of that sentence is: "An improperly handled..."?
Handled appropriately could mean accepting a forced-landing cf an SEP, descending to engine-out ceiling (and planning that's above MSA) - or it may not mean either of these things...
This aircraft has a max landing roll of 1400ft.
Don't know what this means. Did you mean MIN landing roll?
Engine failure is a mayday situation.
Sounds like he had time to make the call (failure whilst en-route) - and this may or may not have changed the outcome, depending on what balked him into trying to go-around from such a low height
sycamore,
Your DH on an ILS must reflect the fact that you may have to go-around ,and most normal DH`s on ILS`S are around 2-300 agl; you must descend whilst cleaning -up and getting power on and controlling the a/c first. That should never be taught at 2-300 ft -never..
The CAAFU will expect you to do an ILS to height 250' simulated assymetric (assuming a normal cat1 ILS with 200' DH and having explained to them that ACH would be 350')
You learn that way, and you're examined that way for IR.
CaptAirProx,
Something I see very frequently in Multi Training (Senecas) is that pilots come in high and fast on a simulated single engine approach
Do you have an ILS they could use for the approach (even in VMC) so they can see that engine-out 3 degrees is still do-able?
Keef,
...light twin the failure of one engine means that the other engine will take you all the way to the crash.
Surely the first part of that sentence is: "An improperly handled..."?
Handled appropriately could mean accepting a forced-landing cf an SEP, descending to engine-out ceiling (and planning that's above MSA) - or it may not mean either of these things...
Last edited by rustle; 28th Dec 2002 at 15:57.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rustle,
The CAAFU will expect you to do an ILS to height 250' simulated assymetric (assuming a normal cat3 ILS with 200' DH and having explained to them that ACH would be 350')
You learn that way, and you're examined that way for IR.
In the perfect world everybody would learn this in a decent simulator. Problem is, it's expensive, but then so is flying a twin, and so are funerals
When flying on a moonless night over mountains or the desert in a single, or being low and slow in a twin with only one engine producing power - you are really betting on engines being as reliable as they are.
You are correct in saying that if properly handled a twin should be safe. Recurrent sim training is the only real way to ensure you can properly handle a twin, you cannot practice dangerous situations in a real light twin because they are too dangerous!! Especially if the person training only has a few more hours than the student which was very common when airlines would hire instructors with only 100 hours multi time.
If you are engine out in a twin and ceilings are low at your destination, a properly handled engine out trip to your alternate might be better airmanship.
regards
The CAAFU will expect you to do an ILS to height 250' simulated assymetric (assuming a normal cat3 ILS with 200' DH and having explained to them that ACH would be 350')
You learn that way, and you're examined that way for IR.
In the perfect world everybody would learn this in a decent simulator. Problem is, it's expensive, but then so is flying a twin, and so are funerals
When flying on a moonless night over mountains or the desert in a single, or being low and slow in a twin with only one engine producing power - you are really betting on engines being as reliable as they are.You are correct in saying that if properly handled a twin should be safe. Recurrent sim training is the only real way to ensure you can properly handle a twin, you cannot practice dangerous situations in a real light twin because they are too dangerous!! Especially if the person training only has a few more hours than the student which was very common when airlines would hire instructors with only 100 hours multi time.
If you are engine out in a twin and ceilings are low at your destination, a properly handled engine out trip to your alternate might be better airmanship.
regards
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I'm worried by all the talk about ILS DHs and one-engine-out flying. The two are completely separate!
There is nothing wrong with flying the ILS to DH with one engine simulated failed. There is a lot wrong with thinking you can go around with an engine genuinely failed at 200ft. I'm not a CAAFU man, so I won't comment on their procedures, but when I do ILS training and testing in light twins I always have in the back of my mind that if an engine fails for real below about 600ft, then it's straight into the single-engine approach configuration, attitude, and power setting, and with the intention of landing on whatever is available when we see the runway. It's no trouble provided you've got Cat 1 conditions or better.
Similarly, there's nothing to stop you carrying on to your destination if the weather is good enough to carry out an approach and landing. You simply fly the approach with the decision to land already made. This is where a Mayday will get you a sterile runway etc. (at most places).
It's the big picture, guys and girls!
There is nothing wrong with flying the ILS to DH with one engine simulated failed. There is a lot wrong with thinking you can go around with an engine genuinely failed at 200ft. I'm not a CAAFU man, so I won't comment on their procedures, but when I do ILS training and testing in light twins I always have in the back of my mind that if an engine fails for real below about 600ft, then it's straight into the single-engine approach configuration, attitude, and power setting, and with the intention of landing on whatever is available when we see the runway. It's no trouble provided you've got Cat 1 conditions or better.
Similarly, there's nothing to stop you carrying on to your destination if the weather is good enough to carry out an approach and landing. You simply fly the approach with the decision to land already made. This is where a Mayday will get you a sterile runway etc. (at most places).
It's the big picture, guys and girls!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo de Pista
Don't worry, no confusion between DH and ACH here
Merely highlighting the expectation from CAAFU - simulated (read zero thrust) assymetric, go-around at "normal" DH.
and thanks for not correcting my deliberate cat 3 error...
(now edited and corrected)
I meant cat 1
DOH!
Don't worry, no confusion between DH and ACH here
Merely highlighting the expectation from CAAFU - simulated (read zero thrust) assymetric, go-around at "normal" DH.
and thanks for not correcting my deliberate cat 3 error...
(now edited and corrected
)I meant cat 1
DOH!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo
Most of the people here just have not got the pictue yet and it is simple......A light twin will NOT go around from ILS minimums on one engine if you try you will crash if you are lucky it will be a soft crash onto the flat ground near the runway if not it will be an object that you cant clear because you cant clean up the aircraft and pick up speed or as you try to climb the speed drops off and you go below Vmca roll on your back and hit the ground inverted.
So this having been said you have to pick a height at which you can clean the aircraft up while trading height for speed and then climb away at blue line speed this height is not likley to be much below 600ft AGL (for pilots new to twins) now that is about 350 ft above an ILS DH so if you have a cloud base below 600ft then you are landing at the wrong airfield.
Think about this hard guys with an engine not working you lose about 80% of the aircrafts performance.
I am sure that the CAA dont expect you to go around from ILS DH with one engine (simulated ) out because they know the aircraft wont do it and they value there lives to much ,the CAA may seem daft some times but they are not stupid !.
From my IR test I remember that the engine was failed on the go around from an ILS and once the aircraft was clean ,the single engine approach was an NDB with a MDH of about 450 ft ,not a lot of room to play with but workable for those of you who are in practice.
Most of the people here just have not got the pictue yet and it is simple......A light twin will NOT go around from ILS minimums on one engine if you try you will crash if you are lucky it will be a soft crash onto the flat ground near the runway if not it will be an object that you cant clear because you cant clean up the aircraft and pick up speed or as you try to climb the speed drops off and you go below Vmca roll on your back and hit the ground inverted.
So this having been said you have to pick a height at which you can clean the aircraft up while trading height for speed and then climb away at blue line speed this height is not likley to be much below 600ft AGL (for pilots new to twins) now that is about 350 ft above an ILS DH so if you have a cloud base below 600ft then you are landing at the wrong airfield.
Think about this hard guys with an engine not working you lose about 80% of the aircrafts performance.
I am sure that the CAA dont expect you to go around from ILS DH with one engine (simulated ) out because they know the aircraft wont do it and they value there lives to much ,the CAA may seem daft some times but they are not stupid !.
From my IR test I remember that the engine was failed on the go around from an ILS and once the aircraft was clean ,the single engine approach was an NDB with a MDH of about 450 ft ,not a lot of room to play with but workable for those of you who are in practice.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
Trust me on this one.
IRT wasn't that long ago that I have forgotten, nor was the renewal
Simulated EFATO after NDB approach - handle it, then back to two engines...
Then, simulated assymetric before RV for the ILS, assymetric ILS to DH (having explained to examiner that ACH was 350'), go around from 250' (plus 50 minus nothing - usual tolerance) into the visual circuit for assymetric bad-weather circuit to land.
Trust me on this one.
IRT wasn't that long ago that I have forgotten, nor was the renewal
Simulated EFATO after NDB approach - handle it, then back to two engines...
Then, simulated assymetric before RV for the ILS, assymetric ILS to DH (having explained to examiner that ACH was 350'), go around from 250' (plus 50 minus nothing - usual tolerance) into the visual circuit for assymetric bad-weather circuit to land.
A light twin will NOT go around from ILS minimums on one engine if you try you will crash if you are lucky it will be a soft crash onto the flat ground near the runway if not it will be an object that you cant clear because you cant clean up the aircraft and pick up speed or as you try to climb the speed drops off and you go below Vmca roll on your back and hit the ground inverted.
There are many light twins that, at some or all weights, will go around quite capably from ILS DH on one engine -- some do so with rather more alacrity than a single doing a go around. To rule out the idea of a go around in all circumstances may turn a perfectly manageable situation into a an accident.
It's also undoubtedly the case that many light twins at or close to max weight cannot safely carry out a go around from ILS DH.
The pilot needs to know the performance that can be expected from the aircraft in the prevailing conditions and at the actual weight. Ignorance of that can lead to some poor risk management in either direction. Perhaps it did so in Oklahoma.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it depends on the a/c load, wx, pilot´s skills etc.
I often fly on C303 and C421. The C421 makes a se-go around, the C303 not. I beleive with a Seneca it is the same problem..!?
Even our KingAir C90 doesn´t like ga´s at full load... ;-)
I often fly on C303 and C421. The C421 makes a se-go around, the C303 not. I beleive with a Seneca it is the same problem..!?
Even our KingAir C90 doesn´t like ga´s at full load... ;-)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the rudder trim?
As the engine failure happened a long time before the approach could he have trimmed out the rudder force, and then not removed it – combine this (maybe) with a high approach speed and stress maybe resulting in confusion just above the runway (what’s it doing?) “forcing” him into applying full power?
Or
If he didn’t trim out the rudder holding it could cause tiredness and associated judgement error
Or
He may have trimmed it then removed the trim before starting the approach
I know my leg killed me after doing a join, hold and NDB approach on one engine (IRT)
As the engine failure happened a long time before the approach could he have trimmed out the rudder force, and then not removed it – combine this (maybe) with a high approach speed and stress maybe resulting in confusion just above the runway (what’s it doing?) “forcing” him into applying full power?
Or
If he didn’t trim out the rudder holding it could cause tiredness and associated judgement error
Or
He may have trimmed it then removed the trim before starting the approach
I know my leg killed me after doing a join, hold and NDB approach on one engine (IRT)
The problem is not just whether it will/will not go around.
The available climb gradient capability will often not be sufficient to meet the missed approach min. obstacle clearance gradient.
You may be climbing, but not steeply enough to follow the charted missed approach.
Ok at some airfields eg Sumburgh & others that have lots of ocean over which to climb. Not so good at others that have nasty mountains around.
The available climb gradient capability will often not be sufficient to meet the missed approach min. obstacle clearance gradient.
You may be climbing, but not steeply enough to follow the charted missed approach.
Ok at some airfields eg Sumburgh & others that have lots of ocean over which to climb. Not so good at others that have nasty mountains around.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Beagle
Not sure what you mean by your statement:
May be you can elaborate a bit and I will have a look and see if I can find what you are looking for.
Formationfoto I can only echo Sycamore's sentiments:
If things would have gone wrong that would have made interesting reading in the AAIB report.
'The experienced pilot encountered a problem with the feathering mechanism which he tried to sort out by flying on one engine for an hour.
Version 1. He then suffered an engine failure on the live engine and had to make a forced landing in a field the aircraft was a write off in the subsequent landing.
Version 2. After he established that the problem could not be sorted out in the air he flew back to the home base a 800 meter grass strip............................
BTW what is the accelerate-stop distance for a 310?
MHO of course
FD
Not sure what you mean by your statement:
But I was even more surprised to learn that there is apparently no published POH engine out allowance for the Seneca even at sea level and ISA
Formationfoto I can only echo Sycamore's sentiments:
Why did you try to get into an 800m strip when there are lots of civil/mil airfields around the UK, AND not declaring a Mayday either? I would hope that you would not repeat that again..
'The experienced pilot encountered a problem with the feathering mechanism which he tried to sort out by flying on one engine for an hour.
Version 1. He then suffered an engine failure on the live engine and had to make a forced landing in a field the aircraft was a write off in the subsequent landing.
Version 2. After he established that the problem could not be sorted out in the air he flew back to the home base a 800 meter grass strip............................
BTW what is the accelerate-stop distance for a 310?
MHO of course
FD
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyin'Dutch'
BTW what is the accelerate-stop distance for a 310?
There's a page of gubbins about this in the POH depending upon weight and temp, but here's one example of a 310R Turbo (with assumptions):
2700rpm/32" MP
Full power before brakes released
Nil headwind/tailwind
Flaps up
Level hard surface
Engine fails at Vr
Live to Idle and heavy braking at Vr
5500lbs AUW (= MAUW)
10 degrees C ambient
Sea level
Vr (this weight) 92KIAS
Accel/Stop distance is 3150 feet.
Not a list of variables you want to figure "on the fly" so to speak...
BTW what is the accelerate-stop distance for a 310?
There's a page of gubbins about this in the POH depending upon weight and temp, but here's one example of a 310R Turbo (with assumptions):
2700rpm/32" MP
Full power before brakes released
Nil headwind/tailwind
Flaps up
Level hard surface
Engine fails at Vr
Live to Idle and heavy braking at Vr
5500lbs AUW (= MAUW)
10 degrees C ambient
Sea level
Vr (this weight) 92KIAS
Accel/Stop distance is 3150 feet.
Not a list of variables you want to figure "on the fly" so to speak...
Last edited by rustle; 29th Dec 2002 at 09:18.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rustle,
Thanks for your reply.
IIRC the CAA advice a factor of 1.3 for short dry grass which takes this number to 4200ft which if my maths is correct is only 502 meters or 1600 more than available at that strip. 
Interesting to see how people are happy to paint themselves in corners.
FD
Thanks for your reply.
Accel/Stop distance is 3150 feet
Interesting to see how people are happy to paint themselves in corners.
FD
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur with rustle regarding the IRT - I know that at least certain examiners in the Leeds CAAFU require the assymetric approach to be down to minima for the respective approach followed by an assymetric go around from DA/MDA.
Ditto on the renewal test with an IRRE.
Ditto on the renewal test with an IRRE.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daft aha ?
So Bookworm a daft statment by me ?.
I see little point in writing about what a lightly loaded aircraft will do on a day when the pressue is high and the temp is low.
This is a thread about aircraft performance at the legal maximum weight at an airfield that has the temp and pressue at the WAT limit.
I think that most of us have worked out that if an aircraft is light it will climb better than if it is at its MTOW.
The fact is that a light twin at a with a typical load on an average english summers day with a low time pilot is unlikly to make a safe go around from less that about 600ft.
Yes bookworm you can pick perdantic holes in some of my statments but you look at the performance graphs and you will see that these aircraft will make 150-200ft/min while crossing the ground at 95ish KT when the aircraft is clean , its not a lot of up for a lot of distance across the ground.
Now will you please tell me how you clean the aircraft up and increase the speed from the final approach speed to blue line from an ILS DH of aprox 250 ft without going down and trading height for speed ?.
I have had to do a single engine go around in a light twin for real fortunatly I had nominated a very conservative committal height of 500ft AGL and it was not to much of a drama but if I had nominated 250ft AGL I would be dead it is as simple as that .
A and C may well be daft, but stupid ? no , and very much alive !.
I see little point in writing about what a lightly loaded aircraft will do on a day when the pressue is high and the temp is low.
This is a thread about aircraft performance at the legal maximum weight at an airfield that has the temp and pressue at the WAT limit.
I think that most of us have worked out that if an aircraft is light it will climb better than if it is at its MTOW.
The fact is that a light twin at a with a typical load on an average english summers day with a low time pilot is unlikly to make a safe go around from less that about 600ft.
Yes bookworm you can pick perdantic holes in some of my statments but you look at the performance graphs and you will see that these aircraft will make 150-200ft/min while crossing the ground at 95ish KT when the aircraft is clean , its not a lot of up for a lot of distance across the ground.
Now will you please tell me how you clean the aircraft up and increase the speed from the final approach speed to blue line from an ILS DH of aprox 250 ft without going down and trading height for speed ?.
I have had to do a single engine go around in a light twin for real fortunatly I had nominated a very conservative committal height of 500ft AGL and it was not to much of a drama but if I had nominated 250ft AGL I would be dead it is as simple as that .
A and C may well be daft, but stupid ? no , and very much alive !.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SE rate of climb of a PA34-200T (don't have the data for a 220T) at sea level is in the region of 200' per minute, at 4570 lbs (max T/O weight), gear up, flaps up, inop engine feathered. At 10,000' this is in the region of 140' per min at standard temp. SE ceiling is around 14,000'.
So its not always the case that a light twin won't climb on one engine, though the POH for the 200T states that a SE go-around "should be avoided if at all possible" and that under "some conditions of loading and density altitude a go-around may be impossible"....
I was always taught to commit myself to landing when at the FAF of a precision approach and the gear goes down, whether it is on a runway, taxyway or midfield, rather than go around. There is nothing wong with practicing asymetric landings all the way down so long as the 'simulated' engine failure is carried out with the throttle, and that if a go-around becomes nescessary then both throttles are used.
Cheers
EA
So its not always the case that a light twin won't climb on one engine, though the POH for the 200T states that a SE go-around "should be avoided if at all possible" and that under "some conditions of loading and density altitude a go-around may be impossible"....
I was always taught to commit myself to landing when at the FAF of a precision approach and the gear goes down, whether it is on a runway, taxyway or midfield, rather than go around. There is nothing wong with practicing asymetric landings all the way down so long as the 'simulated' engine failure is carried out with the throttle, and that if a go-around becomes nescessary then both throttles are used.
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sycamore and Dutch
The 800 mtr strip is my home base and one which I have regularly practiced single engine approach to land, and on singles engine off to land (simulated). So I knew what to expect as I had practiced it many times. The time spent trying to free the feathering mechanism (to get to unfeather and to restart the engine) was all spent at 2000 ft overhead the field from which a full engine out glide could be achieved.
Oh yes forgot to mention that I also had a test pilot with me so my confidence in achieving the landing safely (which incidentally I did with around 200 mtrs of paved runway to spare - an a day with a helpful 15 kts of head wind) was not entirely the result of blind faith in my own abilities.
Had I regarded this as beyond my experience or close to the margin for the conditions / aircraft I would indeed have elected for a lengthier runway and more options.
One of the advantages of a relatively short runway for regular operations is that you get used to handling the aircrast in those conditions.
The 800 mtr strip is my home base and one which I have regularly practiced single engine approach to land, and on singles engine off to land (simulated). So I knew what to expect as I had practiced it many times. The time spent trying to free the feathering mechanism (to get to unfeather and to restart the engine) was all spent at 2000 ft overhead the field from which a full engine out glide could be achieved.
Oh yes forgot to mention that I also had a test pilot with me so my confidence in achieving the landing safely (which incidentally I did with around 200 mtrs of paved runway to spare - an a day with a helpful 15 kts of head wind) was not entirely the result of blind faith in my own abilities.
Had I regarded this as beyond my experience or close to the margin for the conditions / aircraft I would indeed have elected for a lengthier runway and more options.
One of the advantages of a relatively short runway for regular operations is that you get used to handling the aircrast in those conditions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
Now will you please tell me how you clean the aircraft up and increase the speed from the final approach speed to blue line from an ILS DH of aprox 250 ft without going down and trading height for speed ?.
The approach to DH was flown at (min) Blue Line.
Normally you're at blue line to ACH, so during the IRT/renewal you're at blue line to DH.
Remember that Vat in a GA7 is 75KIAS and Blue Line is 85KIAS, losing 10 knots in a Cougar in 200-odd feet (or 3/4 mile) isn't hard
PS, check your PMs
Now will you please tell me how you clean the aircraft up and increase the speed from the final approach speed to blue line from an ILS DH of aprox 250 ft without going down and trading height for speed ?.
The approach to DH was flown at (min) Blue Line.
Normally you're at blue line to ACH, so during the IRT/renewal you're at blue line to DH.
Remember that Vat in a GA7 is 75KIAS and Blue Line is 85KIAS, losing 10 knots in a Cougar in 200-odd feet (or 3/4 mile) isn't hard
PS, check your PMs
Last edited by rustle; 29th Dec 2002 at 11:04.
A and C
I apologise for my use of the word "daft". It was unnecessarily emotive.
Nevertheless, I disagree with you.
But it's not. Neither in the thread leading up to your statement nor in the statement itself do you qualify your "a light twin will NOT go around from ILS minimums on one engine" line. You make it sound as if it applies at any weight.
To take an example, my own aircraft manages a lamentable 150 fpm at MTWA, even at ISA sea level. I wouldn't dream of attempting a go around below 600 ft. With just me on board at the end of a journey, I get at least three times that. To "crash" in preference to a go around in an aircraft capable of more than 400 fpm may be your call, but it's not mine.
In answer to your question, I aim to reach ILS DH at no less than blue line speed (91 kt) anyway. It's not hard to lose the extra few knots required in the half mile from there to the threshold. Flying a single engine ILS, I'd probably fly at 100 kt to DH anyway. Though it's not ideal, most ILS-equipped runways are long enough for that to be fine.
I apologise for my use of the word "daft". It was unnecessarily emotive.
Nevertheless, I disagree with you.
I see little point in writing about what a lightly loaded aircraft will do on a day when the pressue is high and the temp is low.
This is a thread about aircraft performance at the legal maximum weight at an airfield that has the temp and pressue at the WAT limit.
This is a thread about aircraft performance at the legal maximum weight at an airfield that has the temp and pressue at the WAT limit.
To take an example, my own aircraft manages a lamentable 150 fpm at MTWA, even at ISA sea level. I wouldn't dream of attempting a go around below 600 ft. With just me on board at the end of a journey, I get at least three times that. To "crash" in preference to a go around in an aircraft capable of more than 400 fpm may be your call, but it's not mine.
In answer to your question, I aim to reach ILS DH at no less than blue line speed (91 kt) anyway. It's not hard to lose the extra few knots required in the half mile from there to the threshold. Flying a single engine ILS, I'd probably fly at 100 kt to DH anyway. Though it's not ideal, most ILS-equipped runways are long enough for that to be fine.