Go-around after engine failure in light twin
s/e apps
Formationfoto
I`m not sure you are getting the message.
You are operating a multi,out of a strip that is shorter than the recommended,adding all the factors,or even not! I think you have a rather large bag of "presson-itis".
What may have happened if you had been able to unfeather,but not able to restart the engine- would you still have tried to make it home?
If the engine fails ( and it`s not a pilot digital induced fault)
then shut it down and leave it alone--- except if you are somewhere you really need it,ie mountainous and as a last resort--see reason above!-I hope you were not out to impress your t/p friend- who incidentally should have strongly suggested you go elsewhere as he should know better!
I`m not sure you are getting the message.
You are operating a multi,out of a strip that is shorter than the recommended,adding all the factors,or even not! I think you have a rather large bag of "presson-itis".
What may have happened if you had been able to unfeather,but not able to restart the engine- would you still have tried to make it home?
If the engine fails ( and it`s not a pilot digital induced fault)
then shut it down and leave it alone--- except if you are somewhere you really need it,ie mountainous and as a last resort--see reason above!-I hope you were not out to impress your t/p friend- who incidentally should have strongly suggested you go elsewhere as he should know better!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
You wrote:
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.
and I'm sorry but you're wrong.
First, you won't, I hope, trade height for speed. You will dissipate your energy differently, perhaps, but to say you're trading one for the other gives the wrong impression.
Second, and more importantly, aviation safety relies upon statistical analysis of risk, and the probability of an engine failure occurring during the approach between 600ft and 250ft is so low, that it may be disregarded. Put it another way, if we addressed hazards at similar risk levels, we would never fly.
So what to do if you are on the approach into Cat 1 conditions and an engine fails at less than ACH but above DH? Well, depending upon the aircraft, you're certainly going to use lots of power, and rudder, you might retract some flap, but what you MUST do is continue to fly the approach accurately, whilst forgetting about DH. If Cat 1 RVR existed at the approach ban position, I am happy to guarantee that you will see the runway and lights in good time to land on it. I generally teach this drill in VMC, using the screens, and withdrawing them at 100ft or so. Everyone I've trained in this manner has landed safely.
So, there is nothing wrong, legally or practically, in operating a light twin into a destination on Cat 1 limits. (Indeed, I used to operate a light single to those limits, but do so no more alas - I wouldn't feel bad about doing so again!).
On accelerate-stop distances, I'm not certain that these need be specifically considered for a private operation? Again, an 'operator' might choose to acept that he cannot prove the accelerate-stop case (and that he will crash in these unlikely circumstances), but does so in order to derive safety benefits from flying a twin-engine aircraft. There would be no requirement to prove accelerate-stop in a single, after all...
You wrote:
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.
and I'm sorry but you're wrong.
First, you won't, I hope, trade height for speed. You will dissipate your energy differently, perhaps, but to say you're trading one for the other gives the wrong impression.
Second, and more importantly, aviation safety relies upon statistical analysis of risk, and the probability of an engine failure occurring during the approach between 600ft and 250ft is so low, that it may be disregarded. Put it another way, if we addressed hazards at similar risk levels, we would never fly.
So what to do if you are on the approach into Cat 1 conditions and an engine fails at less than ACH but above DH? Well, depending upon the aircraft, you're certainly going to use lots of power, and rudder, you might retract some flap, but what you MUST do is continue to fly the approach accurately, whilst forgetting about DH. If Cat 1 RVR existed at the approach ban position, I am happy to guarantee that you will see the runway and lights in good time to land on it. I generally teach this drill in VMC, using the screens, and withdrawing them at 100ft or so. Everyone I've trained in this manner has landed safely.
So, there is nothing wrong, legally or practically, in operating a light twin into a destination on Cat 1 limits. (Indeed, I used to operate a light single to those limits, but do so no more alas - I wouldn't feel bad about doing so again!).
On accelerate-stop distances, I'm not certain that these need be specifically considered for a private operation? Again, an 'operator' might choose to acept that he cannot prove the accelerate-stop case (and that he will crash in these unlikely circumstances), but does so in order to derive safety benefits from flying a twin-engine aircraft. There would be no requirement to prove accelerate-stop in a single, after all...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rumbo
I will reply to your post but I,v just had a very good lunch with a few glasses of red wine and i think that you deserve a much better reply than you will get out of me right now !
Regards A and C hic !
Regards A and C hic !
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo,
You are absolutely correct when you state that there is no requirement to take the accelerate stop distance into account when operating as a private person.
However they do demonstrate something (IMHO of course)
Legal does not always equate to best practice. Or does it?
FF
'fraid I have to side with Sycamore on this one, you are obviously quite happy to operate with what some would consider to be tight margins.
Nothing wrong with that as long as you only expose yourself to the resulting risks.
As always, MHO of course.
FD
You are absolutely correct when you state that there is no requirement to take the accelerate stop distance into account when operating as a private person.
However they do demonstrate something (IMHO of course)
Legal does not always equate to best practice. Or does it?
FF
'fraid I have to side with Sycamore on this one, you are obviously quite happy to operate with what some would consider to be tight margins.
Nothing wrong with that as long as you only expose yourself to the resulting risks.
As always, MHO of course.
FD
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
Looking forward to your reply. Next time, set a place for me too, and I'll bring a little something from my cellars!!
Dutch,
No it doesn't, and in fact, I have 'issues' with 'best practice' anyhow (if it's good enough to be 'best practice', it should be mandatory, if not, we shouldn't do it).
By extension of your other argument, I gather that you only ever fly Performance A aircraft, and only off dry runways...?
Looking forward to your reply. Next time, set a place for me too, and I'll bring a little something from my cellars!!
Dutch,
No it doesn't, and in fact, I have 'issues' with 'best practice' anyhow (if it's good enough to be 'best practice', it should be mandatory, if not, we shouldn't do it).
By extension of your other argument, I gather that you only ever fly Performance A aircraft, and only off dry runways...?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo,
If postings like the one from FF appear I think it is not unreasonable to point out that there could have been different options.
One of the functions that these forums have is to have some substance to them so that folk can not only entertain themselves but also (if so desired) learn something about aviation.
Not necessarily those that contribute but I think a fair few lurkers (nowt wrong with that) may also benefit.
As you can gather from my posting I have no problem with people narrowing their margins, be it at their peril.
So I dont see how you conclude that I would only be happy to fly perfomance A aircraft from dry paved runways.
Anyway on both counts your assumptions were wrong.
Pass over that bottle!
FD
If postings like the one from FF appear I think it is not unreasonable to point out that there could have been different options.
One of the functions that these forums have is to have some substance to them so that folk can not only entertain themselves but also (if so desired) learn something about aviation.
Not necessarily those that contribute but I think a fair few lurkers (nowt wrong with that) may also benefit.
As you can gather from my posting I have no problem with people narrowing their margins, be it at their peril.
So I dont see how you conclude that I would only be happy to fly perfomance A aircraft from dry paved runways.
Anyway on both counts your assumptions were wrong.
Pass over that bottle!
FD
Paid up
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an anecdote, I was Stateside doing my MEP Rating last month.
During our last touch and go of the day at the training airfield, we decided to do a simulated single engine go around at 500' - and see how far it took to reach 1000' whilst enroute to our home airport - this was in a PA-44, set at zero thrust, at blue line speed, 2 POB and with less than 1/2 tank of 100LL, cowl flaps closed, clean configuration, 5 deg of bank towards the live engine and the rubber trimmed out. It took 10.5 nm!
Thankfully, this was a simulation, over the Florida swamps, not a real engine failure in Colorado! Or Surrey! Sobering stuff.
During our last touch and go of the day at the training airfield, we decided to do a simulated single engine go around at 500' - and see how far it took to reach 1000' whilst enroute to our home airport - this was in a PA-44, set at zero thrust, at blue line speed, 2 POB and with less than 1/2 tank of 100LL, cowl flaps closed, clean configuration, 5 deg of bank towards the live engine and the rubber trimmed out. It took 10.5 nm!
Thankfully, this was a simulation, over the Florida swamps, not a real engine failure in Colorado! Or Surrey! Sobering stuff.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo
To answer your post , A committal height is a very personal thing and should consider things such as pilot skill , WAT limit , aircraft weight , which engine has failed , runway avalable , local Geography (ref gin slinnger above) WX conditions, and I,m sure that we could think of some more but I wont go on.
I would think that a low time pilot who had just got a multi engine rating would be looking at around 600ft AGL some one who is just about to do a CPL/IR should be able to bring that down and depending on conditions 350 ft AGL might work but I dont think that I would go below 400ft.
I think that a lot of the posts here are relying on flying the aircraft at blue line right down to the ILS DH this is just fine if you have the runway to stop on but you wont meet the flight manual landing distances , If the aircraft is at ILS DH at Vref with the gear and flaps down then it will not climb away while you clean it up , If you are flying the aircraft at blue line then yes you have a fighting chance of doing so but this also may change your approach cat from A to B.
As to the engine failure between SE committle height and ILS DH i agree it is very remote but you just have to land , you have no choice in the matter after all that is what a committal height is all about.
I would think that a low time pilot who had just got a multi engine rating would be looking at around 600ft AGL some one who is just about to do a CPL/IR should be able to bring that down and depending on conditions 350 ft AGL might work but I dont think that I would go below 400ft.
I think that a lot of the posts here are relying on flying the aircraft at blue line right down to the ILS DH this is just fine if you have the runway to stop on but you wont meet the flight manual landing distances , If the aircraft is at ILS DH at Vref with the gear and flaps down then it will not climb away while you clean it up , If you are flying the aircraft at blue line then yes you have a fighting chance of doing so but this also may change your approach cat from A to B.
As to the engine failure between SE committle height and ILS DH i agree it is very remote but you just have to land , you have no choice in the matter after all that is what a committal height is all about.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sycamore
Thank you for your advice and deep criticism of my flying decisions. This is part of the benefit of participating in this forum.
Had I been able to operate the unfeather mechanism but not restart the engine my decision would have been just the same... to land at the nearest airfield which was 2000 ft below me. The flight conditions would have been just the same - a single engine approach to land. Had the engine started then stopped with the prop unfeathered I might have taken a different decision as I had not extensively practiced landing on a relatively short strip with the additional drag of one unfeathered prop.
This was a positive decision to shut down the engine, feather, and restart, to pre test prior to a full test flight for C of A issue.
This was not pushonitis nor was it attempting to impress the test pilot with whom, I fly frequently and would not see a wrong decision as something to impress him, and he would certainly have intervened if he felt anything was being done wrong (given that he intervenes on a lunch trip to Le Touquet if the ball ever moves more than half a ball width on the slip indicator!).
I accept that I will have an 'irresponsible pilot' mark in your index of aviators but there was no other traffic in the circuit, the wind was known, the visual cues to the approach were known, this was a manouvre I had practiced many times, and I have not yet had to perform a go round from not getting the speed / height correct.
Of course there was a greater risk than opting for a runway twice as long but I would also have been increasing the risk of the second engine failing in the cruise en route to the diversion field. How do these two risks play against each other and any other risk factors - probably leaving only a small margin either way. In any event I took an informed decision which given the circumstances I regarded as appropriate as did the other occupant of the aircraft. If we had got it wrong we would have damaged / injured / killed only ourselves (not that this justifies bad decisions!).
I am prepared to accept advice. I am prepared to have it suggested to me that with all the circumstances known a decision might have been better had it been different - after all this is how we learn and all pilots still have something to learn.
Thank you for your advice and deep criticism of my flying decisions. This is part of the benefit of participating in this forum.
Had I been able to operate the unfeather mechanism but not restart the engine my decision would have been just the same... to land at the nearest airfield which was 2000 ft below me. The flight conditions would have been just the same - a single engine approach to land. Had the engine started then stopped with the prop unfeathered I might have taken a different decision as I had not extensively practiced landing on a relatively short strip with the additional drag of one unfeathered prop.
This was a positive decision to shut down the engine, feather, and restart, to pre test prior to a full test flight for C of A issue.
This was not pushonitis nor was it attempting to impress the test pilot with whom, I fly frequently and would not see a wrong decision as something to impress him, and he would certainly have intervened if he felt anything was being done wrong (given that he intervenes on a lunch trip to Le Touquet if the ball ever moves more than half a ball width on the slip indicator!).
I accept that I will have an 'irresponsible pilot' mark in your index of aviators but there was no other traffic in the circuit, the wind was known, the visual cues to the approach were known, this was a manouvre I had practiced many times, and I have not yet had to perform a go round from not getting the speed / height correct.
Of course there was a greater risk than opting for a runway twice as long but I would also have been increasing the risk of the second engine failing in the cruise en route to the diversion field. How do these two risks play against each other and any other risk factors - probably leaving only a small margin either way. In any event I took an informed decision which given the circumstances I regarded as appropriate as did the other occupant of the aircraft. If we had got it wrong we would have damaged / injured / killed only ourselves (not that this justifies bad decisions!).
I am prepared to accept advice. I am prepared to have it suggested to me that with all the circumstances known a decision might have been better had it been different - after all this is how we learn and all pilots still have something to learn.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent thread! Keep it up, guys!
With my incredible 5 hours of multi-engine time, I'm not in much of a position to be able to add to a superb debate. However, I would like to add one thing: from the (relatively small) selection of types that I've flown, I have learnt that you can never make general statements that apply to all aircraft in all cases.
From what I've read, and from my limited experience, multi-engine aircraft don't climb well on a single engine. And if you're at anything other than blue-line speed, they won't climb at all. This is the general case, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to apply it to a particular aircraft on a particular day, because I don't know the aircraft concerned. If I regularly flew a multi-engined aircraft, I'd make sure that I knew what kind of single-engine performance I can expect from that aircraft, in the forecast weather conditions, and at the expected weight, on the day I was flying it.
To say that light twins can't go around from two hundred feet, or that they can go around from two hundred feet, on one engine is very brave..... to make such a statement about a specific type is a little more sensible, but it only really makes sense to make a comment like that about a specific aircraft, and even then only on a specific day.
FFF
-----------
With my incredible 5 hours of multi-engine time, I'm not in much of a position to be able to add to a superb debate. However, I would like to add one thing: from the (relatively small) selection of types that I've flown, I have learnt that you can never make general statements that apply to all aircraft in all cases.
From what I've read, and from my limited experience, multi-engine aircraft don't climb well on a single engine. And if you're at anything other than blue-line speed, they won't climb at all. This is the general case, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to apply it to a particular aircraft on a particular day, because I don't know the aircraft concerned. If I regularly flew a multi-engined aircraft, I'd make sure that I knew what kind of single-engine performance I can expect from that aircraft, in the forecast weather conditions, and at the expected weight, on the day I was flying it.
To say that light twins can't go around from two hundred feet, or that they can go around from two hundred feet, on one engine is very brave..... to make such a statement about a specific type is a little more sensible, but it only really makes sense to make a comment like that about a specific aircraft, and even then only on a specific day.
FFF
-----------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, thanks for an outstanding thread, I've learned a great deal.
I can see that a marginal situation can get very complicated in regards to the decision making, when you have to fly at or near the margin. SE performance on a light twin certainly qualifies as "marginal" in regards to available power and climb performance.
I just hate the fact that the authorities allowed light twins to be certified with marginal power on one engine. These aircraft are often used by part time pilots with skills that usually aren't as sharp as full time pilots, yet they're required to deal with the complex marginal situations of committed landings and possible go-arounds on a single engine.
In my opinion, this situation should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, from the authority that "promotes" aviation (read FAA). But since it has, all pilots of light twins are left with no option, but to understand this SE performance problem thoroughly, especially in regard to the approach and landing complications.
Once again my thanks for such an outstanding thread.
I can see that a marginal situation can get very complicated in regards to the decision making, when you have to fly at or near the margin. SE performance on a light twin certainly qualifies as "marginal" in regards to available power and climb performance.
I just hate the fact that the authorities allowed light twins to be certified with marginal power on one engine. These aircraft are often used by part time pilots with skills that usually aren't as sharp as full time pilots, yet they're required to deal with the complex marginal situations of committed landings and possible go-arounds on a single engine.
In my opinion, this situation should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, from the authority that "promotes" aviation (read FAA). But since it has, all pilots of light twins are left with no option, but to understand this SE performance problem thoroughly, especially in regard to the approach and landing complications.
Once again my thanks for such an outstanding thread.
I think you're equating light twins and their certification requirements as if they should be the same as transport category a/c.
That's not appropriate. Light twins have never had to demonstrate that level of redundancy.
In terms of redundancy they should be considered to be a single engine a/c but one where the pistons on the 'single engine' are separated, protecting one 'bank' of cylinders from a problem that has affected the other 'bank'.
If you like, think of it as a way of ensuring an engine failure will only be a partial failure. One that still leaves you with some amount of power available, along with services such as hydraulics, electricity, pneumatics etc.
You may have sufficient power to continue flight. Or you may not, depending on WAT, configuration & handling skill.
Just like a real single.
That's not appropriate. Light twins have never had to demonstrate that level of redundancy.
In terms of redundancy they should be considered to be a single engine a/c but one where the pistons on the 'single engine' are separated, protecting one 'bank' of cylinders from a problem that has affected the other 'bank'.
If you like, think of it as a way of ensuring an engine failure will only be a partial failure. One that still leaves you with some amount of power available, along with services such as hydraulics, electricity, pneumatics etc.
You may have sufficient power to continue flight. Or you may not, depending on WAT, configuration & handling skill.
Just like a real single.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety
In my opinion, this situation should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, from the authority that "promotes" aviation (read FAA). But since it has, all pilots of light twins are left with no option, but to understand this SE performance problem thoroughly, especially in regard to the approach and landing complications.
Along with what Tinstaafl has just posted, you must also consider the reasons people fly twins.
Single engine go-arounds and engine failures are things you learn about, practice, and should be regularly re-examined on.
However, the benefits of dual/redundant alternators, suction pumps etc. as well as (typically) greater speed and altitude capabilities (there are notable exceptions
) cannot be overstated when long water crossings, high altitude MSAs, inhospitable terrain might be in your planned route...
Have a look at this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=70104
We discussed this in October
In my opinion, this situation should never have been allowed to develop in the first place, from the authority that "promotes" aviation (read FAA). But since it has, all pilots of light twins are left with no option, but to understand this SE performance problem thoroughly, especially in regard to the approach and landing complications.
Along with what Tinstaafl has just posted, you must also consider the reasons people fly twins.
Single engine go-arounds and engine failures are things you learn about, practice, and should be regularly re-examined on.
However, the benefits of dual/redundant alternators, suction pumps etc. as well as (typically) greater speed and altitude capabilities (there are notable exceptions
) cannot be overstated when long water crossings, high altitude MSAs, inhospitable terrain might be in your planned route...Have a look at this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=70104
We discussed this in October
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to formationfoto's C310 problem. So what if he landed it in an 800m strip. he has done it before so why not under the added stress of an engine out?
I fly and teach multi from 740ms grass. I've known this strip for years. I know the wind effects on approach and the visual clues on approach. A good thing to have when landing into blinding sun!
I would "prefer" to land a stricken aircraft capable of landing in there under those circumstances without shadow of a doubt. However I may want to land elsewhere for a hard runway if the gear is not symmetric or I needed massive emergency cover (unlikely).
I say thumbs up to the man.
Plus it can be commercially better to take the problem home. We have to weigh this up in all emergencies in the commercial world. And I would do to in a light twin. Its risk management. Nothing new there me thinks.
Someone asked me if my students get to see that a twin can fly a 3 degree ILS successfully. Well we don't have ILS. The students do and can fly the approach correctly. But as soon as they are on test or first circuit of the training detail, everytime I sit and watch the power never coming off the good engine until its too late! Maybe its my teaching, but I don't think so as most candidates from here there and everywhere show similar signs.
Regarding another comment re Aviate Navigate Communicate. yes I totally agree. And in most cases I would suggest that informing ATC soonest is low priority, particularly if your not on a published SID. However, all checks and drills completed and plan decided upon - why not tell air traffic so that there should be no reason to go around unless you cock it up yourself. Even at A/G airfields someone declaring their predicament usually gets the red carpet from the typical weekend ex wartime "I've flown for years let me cut you up" lot! Or indeed "I'm important and have a faster plan than you" brigade! Oh I just love weekends at A/G fields! hehe
I fly and teach multi from 740ms grass. I've known this strip for years. I know the wind effects on approach and the visual clues on approach. A good thing to have when landing into blinding sun!
I would "prefer" to land a stricken aircraft capable of landing in there under those circumstances without shadow of a doubt. However I may want to land elsewhere for a hard runway if the gear is not symmetric or I needed massive emergency cover (unlikely).
I say thumbs up to the man.
Plus it can be commercially better to take the problem home. We have to weigh this up in all emergencies in the commercial world. And I would do to in a light twin. Its risk management. Nothing new there me thinks.
Someone asked me if my students get to see that a twin can fly a 3 degree ILS successfully. Well we don't have ILS. The students do and can fly the approach correctly. But as soon as they are on test or first circuit of the training detail, everytime I sit and watch the power never coming off the good engine until its too late! Maybe its my teaching, but I don't think so as most candidates from here there and everywhere show similar signs.
Regarding another comment re Aviate Navigate Communicate. yes I totally agree. And in most cases I would suggest that informing ATC soonest is low priority, particularly if your not on a published SID. However, all checks and drills completed and plan decided upon - why not tell air traffic so that there should be no reason to go around unless you cock it up yourself. Even at A/G airfields someone declaring their predicament usually gets the red carpet from the typical weekend ex wartime "I've flown for years let me cut you up" lot! Or indeed "I'm important and have a faster plan than you" brigade! Oh I just love weekends at A/G fields! hehe
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
55 replies and nobody gives any emphasis to the difference betwen the witness observations and the investigators findings.
The witness stated gear retracted flaps extended, and the investigator stated gear down, flaps retracted.
Many correspondents then lump all light twins together as if they are all Seneca 1's.
Regardless of whether an approach at an airspeed above blue line is sensible or not, and I personally think it is, the question is why did the pilot decide to go round.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
The witness stated gear retracted flaps extended, and the investigator stated gear down, flaps retracted.
Many correspondents then lump all light twins together as if they are all Seneca 1's.
Regardless of whether an approach at an airspeed above blue line is sensible or not, and I personally think it is, the question is why did the pilot decide to go round.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
55 replies and nobody gives any emphasis to the difference betwen the witness observations and the investigators findings.
Eye witness reports are typically unreliable - we all know that, so it's no real surprise no-one mentioned the discrepancy.
Remember the Airbus crash in Queens? There were as many versions of what happened as there were "witnesses".
Regardless of whether an approach at an airspeed above blue line is sensible or not, and I personally think it is, the question is why did the pilot decide to go round.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Possibly because no-one can know the answer to this except the pilot, and sadly he's not around to tell us.
Perhaps he was fast, thought he was running out of runway and decided he could go around and do it better;
Perhaps he was distracted on finals, didn't notice he only had two greens until he was just about to land and decided to go around and save the aircraft;
Perhaps a passenger had been quizzing him for the past 30 minutes about single engine performance, so he decided to demonstrate a go around on one engine, but too low.
More often than not the investigators know all the answers (mechanical, weather, other traffic) but can never know the pilot's mind...
55 replies and nobody gives any emphasis to the difference betwen the witness observations and the investigators findings.
Eye witness reports are typically unreliable - we all know that, so it's no real surprise no-one mentioned the discrepancy.
Remember the Airbus crash in Queens? There were as many versions of what happened as there were "witnesses".
Regardless of whether an approach at an airspeed above blue line is sensible or not, and I personally think it is, the question is why did the pilot decide to go round.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Possibly because no-one can know the answer to this except the pilot, and sadly he's not around to tell us.
Perhaps he was fast, thought he was running out of runway and decided he could go around and do it better;
Perhaps he was distracted on finals, didn't notice he only had two greens until he was just about to land and decided to go around and save the aircraft;
Perhaps a passenger had been quizzing him for the past 30 minutes about single engine performance, so he decided to demonstrate a go around on one engine, but too low.
More often than not the investigators know all the answers (mechanical, weather, other traffic) but can never know the pilot's mind...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think that rather too much emphasis is being placed on some of the lower-end twins.
I went out practicing for my IR/MEP renewal last year in my Aztec E and took four large friends with me. At least three of the five of us were rugby player types, two others were smaller, but adult. We had full tanks, but no baggage. I calculated the weight as being about 140lbs under MTOW.
On a moderately cold day (ISA -5) and everything handled according to the book we climbed at 800fpm from 250ft after a simulated EFATO.
We executed two go-arounds from 250ft and climbed perfectly well. By the time I had burned an hour's fuel and honed my technique, we were closer to 900fpm.
I believe that at least two of the pax are on this forum and can stand witness.
Pilots need to take responsibility for knowing the performance of their aircraft. I agree with everyone that I would be very nervous indeed in a Seneca I, Twin-Comm or Cougar at or near MTOW, and indeed agree that these are singles with their engines split in two, but once you are looking at aircraft with excess power (PA31, C4xx, PA23-250 etc) the whole business of SE operation looks rather more rosy.
There is another factor which no-one seems to have mentioned. Days with 250ft cloudbases on the whole tend to be cold, which is helpful.
So I suppose I am saying let's not generalise with too many sweeping statements, but try to encourage twin pilots to learn about their aircraft, be observant about their immediate circumstances and take the best decision in the prevailing situation.
I went out practicing for my IR/MEP renewal last year in my Aztec E and took four large friends with me. At least three of the five of us were rugby player types, two others were smaller, but adult. We had full tanks, but no baggage. I calculated the weight as being about 140lbs under MTOW.
On a moderately cold day (ISA -5) and everything handled according to the book we climbed at 800fpm from 250ft after a simulated EFATO.
We executed two go-arounds from 250ft and climbed perfectly well. By the time I had burned an hour's fuel and honed my technique, we were closer to 900fpm.
I believe that at least two of the pax are on this forum and can stand witness.
Pilots need to take responsibility for knowing the performance of their aircraft. I agree with everyone that I would be very nervous indeed in a Seneca I, Twin-Comm or Cougar at or near MTOW, and indeed agree that these are singles with their engines split in two, but once you are looking at aircraft with excess power (PA31, C4xx, PA23-250 etc) the whole business of SE operation looks rather more rosy.
There is another factor which no-one seems to have mentioned. Days with 250ft cloudbases on the whole tend to be cold, which is helpful.
So I suppose I am saying let's not generalise with too many sweeping statements, but try to encourage twin pilots to learn about their aircraft, be observant about their immediate circumstances and take the best decision in the prevailing situation.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading, there sure is a lot of confusion about how to fly multi engine airplanes in these replys.
I fail to see anything wrong with formationfoto's decision making.
Is it possible that formationfoto has figured out that it is really quite simple to guide any aircraft down toward a landing versus up to go around?
Last time I landed a twin there was no control problems with both throttles closed.
Good reading here though.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
I fail to see anything wrong with formationfoto's decision making.
Is it possible that formationfoto has figured out that it is really quite simple to guide any aircraft down toward a landing versus up to go around?
Last time I landed a twin there was no control problems with both throttles closed.
Good reading here though.
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w collins
It is a well and documented fact that a light twin will lose about 80% of its performance with an engine properly shut down and if it is flown in the correct manor ,that means that you Aztec E must make over 3000 f/m on two engines , this has got me thinking and I,m of to look at the Aztec flight manual after the new year as the Aztec my well be a much better aircraft than I had first thought.
I would also like to ask what effect you think having to pump the gear up by hand might have on the ROC during a single engine go around ?
I would also like to ask what effect you think having to pump the gear up by hand might have on the ROC during a single engine go around ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some speculation
Perhaps the following facts MIGHT (and I repeat "might") shed a little light on why this pilot made the decision to go around.
When the pilot started flying 10 years ago, his wife made him promise that he would never fly at night, and never fly in bad weather. To my knowledge he kept this promise, even though he was IR rated. His wife also had a very bad car accident last year, and only recently recovered from it. The plane was occupied by his entire family, including his wife and 3 children.
My wife and I have spoken at length about this accident. She thinks that maybe the engine failure terrified the wife, because she was afraid of her husband's flying in the first place, and had also recently experienced a bad traffic accident with a very painful recovery. My wife thinks that maybe she was panicked by the emergency, and maybe thought they were going to crash at the end of the runway as he neared touchdown, and maybe she frantically talked her husband into a go-around.
Anyway that's my wife's opinion, and of course this is pure speculation. Fear in the cockpit couldn't be a good thing, but again, pure speculation on my part.
When the pilot started flying 10 years ago, his wife made him promise that he would never fly at night, and never fly in bad weather. To my knowledge he kept this promise, even though he was IR rated. His wife also had a very bad car accident last year, and only recently recovered from it. The plane was occupied by his entire family, including his wife and 3 children.
My wife and I have spoken at length about this accident. She thinks that maybe the engine failure terrified the wife, because she was afraid of her husband's flying in the first place, and had also recently experienced a bad traffic accident with a very painful recovery. My wife thinks that maybe she was panicked by the emergency, and maybe thought they were going to crash at the end of the runway as he neared touchdown, and maybe she frantically talked her husband into a go-around.
Anyway that's my wife's opinion, and of course this is pure speculation. Fear in the cockpit couldn't be a good thing, but again, pure speculation on my part.