If one engine out of two stops delivering its fair share on a visual approach, the ensuing swing, or yaw to the aero educated, should be easily detected both by the seat of the pants and visually.

The ensuing actions should not in my limited experience cause any dramas.

I'm fortunate to fly from a small field that allows sensible approachs. I always try to stay as high as I can to allow for failure of my ancient engine. A great big sideslip takes the height away without speed increase and on the odd occasion I get it spot on, a satisfying 3-pointer is the end result. One or more kangaroo hops are the more normal result but at least I'd be safe if the engine stopped on finals.

This method of approach was drummed into me during my PPL, large chunks of which were done at WW and Soton in AA-5A's. You don't have to be in an aged taildragger to exploit the virtues of sideslipping to reduce height (within certain limits, especially on a C172 with full flap which will pitch down dramatically in a sideslip).

Stuka approaches are safer than junior airline pilot 3 deg approaches in singles IMHO. :D

Tks Julian and Ghenghis - glad its not just me. I lost 4-500 rpm in a Lance once and boy was it audible - not sure I would have noticed so rapidly with an ANR on.

Back to the initial point; if you have both levers almost closed in the descent, it's going to be pretty difficult to discern (other than from instrument cues which one has quit on you until you apply some more power. Let's face it, how much opposite rudder do you have booted in in the flare with one shut down.

Very interesting thread... I decided to let it develop a bit before I added my thoughts, and I'm glad I did, because it's turned up some interesting points.

The original question was re. single-engined aircraft. The only way to guarantee that you'd be able to make the field if you had an engine failure is not only to do a glide approach, but to use a bit of side-slip. If you plan a perfect glide-approach without side-slip and the engine quits, the extra drag from the stationary or windmilling prop will bring you down faster than you'd planned, and you'll land short. How many of us do this every time (tail-dragger pilots who need to side-slip to see the runway are excepted!)

How necessary this is depends on the field. As AF said, there are some airports/runways where there are no alternatives. I always try to be high on 25 at White Waltham, because if the engine quits on short finals and you're not high, you're in the houses. On other runways it's not so important, because there are places to land safely short of the runway - but even then, there's not really any advantage to a shallow approach. And a 3-degree airliner approach just seems really stupid in a PA28.

The mutli-engined situation is causing more arguments though. Before I give my thoughts, I need to say that I don't have a multi-engined rating - this based on just 5 hours of dual in a twin. But the point which people are arguing will make things difficult is the low power setting on the remaining engine. I don't know about the rest of you, but I was taught that the first actions on an engine failure are gear up, flaps up. Then, mixtures rich, props forward, and throttles open. Once you've opened the throttles, you should have no problems identifying the dead engine, but even so the next steps are to identify, verify and feather - so even if you get it wrong, you've got a chance to realise it and correct your error.

What I'm not sure about, and I'd appreciate some input from the experts here, is whether you'd have time to do all of these steps on short final. In fact, would you even want to put the gear and flaps up? Given the poor single-engine performance of many light twins, it may be that once an engine quits, you're commited to land, in which case you certainly wouldn't want the gear up. But I can't see any reason not to open the throttles, and then verify the dead engine by closing the relevant throttle, before feathering a prop - and it seems like these two steps would solve all the problems people are talking about here.

FFF
---------------

FFF

On SE aircraft, I think you have made the same fine point that many others have made.


On ME aircraft, the issue you may have missed is the difficulty in determining that an engine has actually failed at all when on approach, because of the low power settings typically being used, and the resultant lack of significant yaw. Once it is determined that an engine has failed, the recovery actions will depend on how close you are to the field, and whether your position and speed actually require any significant increase in power on the live engine. If little or no increase in power is required, you really don't have to go through the drill of pushing all the levers forward a la EFATO. Sort the problem out on the ground.

The particular problem that I suggested earlier, is that when an engine is operating at low power, it is often only as you apply power to it, that the failure will become obvious. The most likely time for a ME pilot to be applying power on an approach is as the gear and flaps come down, and/or if he sinks below glide. In both cases this is not a good time to discover the loss of an engine.

On the subject of ANR headsets, I think they're the best thing since sliced bread and wouldn't fly without one now. Once you're used to them, you can still notice drop in RPM, they just filter out the background rumble. I had a 200RPM drop recently, which I picked up audiably, [dunno why, though at the same time the fuel pressure dropped to zero so I left the electric pump on which seemed to fix it ;) ].

If you lost an engine on short final, in a twin, then I don't really see a major problem so long as it is handled correctly and so long as you don't have to go around. In fact I think many of the ME POH's say that single engine go around is 'not recommended'. You would notice the yaw especially as you increased power to maintain the GS. Short final, your props should be forward, and you should have enough power on the remaining engine to remain on the glide slope, even in an under powered A/C. I would not put the gear up or flaps up on SF as I would now consider myself committed to land, though would feather the offending engine if I had identified and verified with time to spare. I was always taught that if flying an asymetric precision IAP, once at the FAF gear down and you're now committed to landing, anywhere on the field (taxyway, runway, midfield), rather than go around. Slightly different for a NPA, where I would leave the gear and flaps UP until I knew I had it made. Mind you I wouldn't attempt a NPA with one engine unless I knew that I could have field in sight well above minimums.

An engine failure on take off in a twin is far more serious than during landing.

Cheers
EA:)

Agree. Much lower fatigue levels after a couple of hours in the cockpit and no problems hearing stuff that needs to be heard.

QDM

Back to the main subject (I think), the best instruction I ever had in this area was not from an instructor but from a safety pilot PPL checking me out in an Emeraude. We did about 10 simulated engine failures in various parts of the circuit, each time seeing what I'd do and where I'd go. By the time we got to circuit no.3 it was amazing how I'd tightened up my circuit...

..Interestingly this particular pilot had a bit of a reputation as a cowboy flyer, but I changed my personal opinion of him that day... he certainly wanted to keep all his bases covered, which can only be good.

So gentleman, have we decided that in visual conditions you fly one type of app. (extra ht.) and when IMC you follow the glidepath........in a single of course.

FFF - Wasn't it "Power Up, gear up, flaps up in the normal course of events? (Twins)

But I have to agree, with an engine out, who wants/needs to fly another circuit if the app. is stable.

Yeah. As you know I'm a relative newbie in the world of twin engine flying, but I do wonder about this "push everything forward" thing. If you are at full power, you're at full power, so pushing ain't gonna help. If you're not at full power, the odds are that you're at a stage of flight where climb performance is not critical. "Climb power" on one engine is enough for level flight or better at blue line. Full asymmetric power is going to buy you a little extra rate of climb and a lot of extra control problems.

Discuss :)

Edited

In all the discussions about engine failure on twins, I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Asymmetric Committal Height.

For the uninitiated, this is the height below which, if an engine has already failed or subsequently fails, you are commited to landing. For light twins it varies from 200ft AGL to about 400ft AGL. You are committed because below that height you are unlikely to be able to achieve a positive rate of climb before you reach Zero feet. The conditions I use and teach for descending below ACH (even with both engines working) are :

- On slope and centreline
- Runway clear
- Cleared to Land by ATC (if relevant)
- 3 greens.

If any of these elements are missing by ACH then prudence suggests a go-around. In some cases you might vary them (eg someone just vacating and obviously going to be clear), but the general rule is a sound one.

In some light twins, a failure below ACH with gear and landing flap will require full power on the good engine just to make the runway. For that reason, on a practice asymmetric approach I will not deploy landing flap until ACH is passed or all the above criteria are met (if earlier).

With regard to singles, it would be nice to be able always to reach the runway if the donk quits, but sadly the Nimbys and other issues make this impossible. It should be part of every approach to spot escape routes (football pitches etc) in case of dire emergency.

I was taught to judge appraoched by aspect only at PPL, but at CPL level was taught to nail the PAPIs when available.

Even three whites going uncorrected for any appreciable length of time got a comment from the instructor.

From comments above it looks like this is also being taught to commercial students at Oxford.

Maybe it's just the instructors, or maybe it's because CAAFU examiners are expecting to see the PAPIs nailed during the CPL skills test?

I suppose the theory is that you may have forgotten something, or pushing it may help (props, mixtures, throttles);)

As far as coming in high in a single in case you have EF....I have just been browsing the AAIB website, and there are quite a few accidents caused by steep approaches, people mucking it up, landing too long, ballooning and stacking it into the hedge at the end or the runway....just a word of caution;) I'm a firm believer in a nice stabilised approach on the PAPI, VASI, GS or whatever :)

Cheers
EA

On a single it would have to be pretty serious for me to go missed, else I would adjust power if needed and go for the rwy.

People screw up on landing for many reasons, not having a stabilised approach is probably the root cause of most. You can happily have a stabilised approach above the visual glide slope. Commercial practical standards in the US require ... a stabilised approach. The FARs allow for being above the visual glide slope, but not below.

Went out playing with a cute young instructor yesterday. When returning to land I got a bollocking from her for being too close to the runway on downwind, and for cutting power to idle when abeam the numbers.

I told her if she didn't like it she could land the plane herself, but she declined as she didn't have a tailwheel endorsement.

New breed! :D :D

Slim_Slag:

Yup, new breed.

Maybe they should be issued with a limited instructor rating?

Or, beginner instructor rating?

It just does not make sense that any Instructor is unable to fly a simple, basic tailwheel airplane.

I offer an advanced flight training package that includes one minute circuits alternating left hand right hand. Oh by the way to make it comfortable to fly the one minute touch and goes all landings are wheel landings.

That helps sort out the how to handle the airplane
problem. :D :D

Oh, by the way we don't use the VASI. :D :D

Cat Driver:

Chuck asks:

Well (a)

If you are already below the glide, you will be looking to add more power. More power delivered in an asymmetric form may well give the inexperienced pilot handling problems. Not least because I am suggesting that the attempt to add more power may be the first indication that the pilot gets of an engine problem.

(b)

I am sure that I do not know as much as you clearly do about flying multi-engined aircraft. So far as the stabilised approach is concerned, I agree. However, all sorts of factors can contrive to cause problems for an approach however stabilised. Windsheer, runway incursions, navaid failure, instrument failure, pilot error. My point was that should any of these events occur, a pilot may need to start moving the throttles. As I have now written on numerous occasions, it is as he moves the throttles that the failure will tend to make itself known. Low level, correcting for a departure from a stabilised approach is a bad time to discover that you have an engine problem. The Kegworth 737 accident is a variation on this very theme, although the causes are numerous and complex. The essential problem was that the correct diagnosis of the engine failure only occurred as the aircraft was on very short finals and needed power that was only available from a good engine that had been shut down in error some minutes earlier. The vibrations associated with the bad engine had subsided as the power levers had been brought back to flight idle for the descent.

Hey 2Donkeys:

I am sorry for my stupid post.

Sometimes I get careless with this damn keyboard and post stupid comments.

Chuck E:

However on approach there should not be the need to add a fistfull of power, just a power adjustment, when the lack of power on one will be noticable, but not dramatic.

I have zero turbine time, but I believe they have a rather different aspect, namely time to spool up from low power to higher power.

The incorrect shut down of the Kegworth professionally flown plane gives weight to the view that, destructive levels of vibration excluded, a shutdown or feathering on approach is inadvisable.

Personally I believe the action to take before feathering a prop should be to throttle back that engine to check you have the correct one.

An error can then be quickly remedied