|
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. http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gobme/gobmerep.htm and shows the the failure occurred as the aircraft was in the climb through FL283. The incorrect engine was shut down, and the other throttled back to flight idle. Only shortly after the reapplication of power to the bad engine (as the aircraft turned onto the localiser) did the problem become apparent. When the aircraft was 13 nm from touchdown on this new heading, and descending to 3,000 feet amsl, ATC advised a right turn to bring the aircraft back to the centreline. At 2020.03 hrs, during this turn, power was increased on the No.1 engine to level the aircraft momentarily at 3,000 feet and maximum indicated vibration was again recorded on the FDR. The aircraft was then cleared to descend to 2000 feet and the commander began a slow descent, calling successively for 2° and then 5° of flap. After joining the centreline, at 2000 feet above ground level (agl), the commander called for the landing gear to be lowered and, as he passed the outer marker at 4.3 nm from touchdown, called for 15° of flap. One minute later, at 2023.49 hrs, when the aircraft was 2.4 nm from touchdown at a height of 900 feet agl, there was an abrupt decrease in power from the No 1 engine. Interestingly, misidentification of the failed engine is not uncommon in *real life*, amongst professional pilots. The tragic accident that befell the 404 Titan ferrying Airtours aircrew is a good example. http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/gilgw/gilgw.htm The report makes sobering reading, particularly if you fly twins regularly, and your only experience of having to identify an "engine failure" is on your annual MEP renewal, when the engine conveniently fails totally, quickly and cleanly. |
Ah Chuck, lets guess. First find dirt strip.
Depart, gentle left turn to a few hundred feet, "stall turn-back" to right and runway. Depart, gentle right turn to a few hundred feet, "stall turn-back" to left and runway. Never get high enough to see white lights on visual glide slope (not that dirt strip has them) etc etc 500 hour instructors were too busy spending money on their multi engine instructors ticket so they could get a hundred hours for the airlines. All gone pear shaped now unfortunately. They could have got a tailwheel endorsement for less than the cost of their multi rating of course, but it wasn't on the career path back then. Now the airlines are nowhere near hiring, and they are bored senseless teaching primary students in warriors. Too bored and broke now to get tailwheel endorsement. Shame really. some are really nice people. 'Bumps on logs' is what a DE buddy calls them. |
2D
In the interest of accuracy I did not suggest the Kegworth plane was on approach, I merely used it as an example that even professional pilots can mis identify which engine is faulty, then I continued to suggest a procedure to try to ensure correct identification before precipitous action is taken, particularly when shutdown is more than likely not called for. Having said all that, I am more than grateful I was not in one of the Kegworth pilots seats. However I have experienced engine power loss on approach in a twin, fortunately without any drama. |
I've pondered this one alot.
On the way I've been taught, you are essentially going to be sticking it in the mud - i.e. you set up such that you are dependent on engine to make the runway. If the fan stops, you won't make it if you are on final (vs. cutting in from downwind) The other method I've seen, used in 'non-gliding' aircraft like the T6, Pitts etc, is run it in quite high and close (i.e. curve into the runway rather than fly a linear approach) then zoom it down late... in the T6 it was "500ft over the numbers" !! So, err, why don't we fly like that generally? i.e. always keep the option to glide it? There's probably good answers (yuck approach to fly generally, much more skilll required, 'non standard' pattern) |
Slim_Slag:
Actually we are lucky, we have an airport in our area that has a four thousand foot paved runway, it has no built up area within several miles and is two hundred feet above sea level. And no obstacle's near the airport. The great part is no traffic, maybe two airplanes a day. The circuit is a normal rectangular circuit, just very small, the turn from down wind to final is one curved decending change of direction ending with touch down on one wheel just as the turn is finished. Sounds difficult but is really no big deal when you get in the groove so to speak. Learned that way back in the fifties when I was taught crop dusting. Those were the days,,,sigh... :D :D Cat Driver: |
I'm surprised, Chuck, that your one minute circuits are wheel landings as they take me longer. The one minute circuits I do in my Cub are three pointers, climbing to not more than 200 ft for the circuit. Good fun and you get lots of landings for your money.
QDM |
QDM:
Hmmmm. Several points that I find make wheel landings faster. ( 1 ) A curving approach to touch down to a one wheel landing is easier to perform accurately. ( 2 ) Wheel landings are performed at a higher airspeed and you depart faster due to the higher speed. ( 3 ) There is no transition from flight attitude to the stall attitude and consequently no time lag waitinfg for airspeed to decay from the flare speed to the stall speed. But hey, if you are more comfortable with the way you do it that is great, after all having fun is why we fly these little bug smashers. :D :D Hey next time I am at North WEald drop by and I can maybe give you some free time. Cat Driver: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.