Engine Fire on short final
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Classic case of "Fly the aircraft", imho.
If you get the chance to carry out the engine fire drills on the way in, all the better (and I think that must have been what the instructor wanted to see, hence the demand to go-around).
However, correct diagnosis of the affected engine is obviously a very high priority before pulling levers. The tragic Kegworth accident was a case of where the crew got this wrong, on their way in to EMA, although the mistake was made before final approach.
If the aircraft was a single, then I can't imagine what the instructor was thinking.
If you get the chance to carry out the engine fire drills on the way in, all the better (and I think that must have been what the instructor wanted to see, hence the demand to go-around).
However, correct diagnosis of the affected engine is obviously a very high priority before pulling levers. The tragic Kegworth accident was a case of where the crew got this wrong, on their way in to EMA, although the mistake was made before final approach.
If the aircraft was a single, then I can't imagine what the instructor was thinking.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 79
From: Denver
The appropriate response to the go-around request:
"Unable - fire emergency! Mayday Mayday Mayday!"
Obviously knowing about the traffic is a plus, and taking steps to avoid it a necessity (land short, land long, sidestep to a parallel, a taxiway, the grass) if it can't clear the runway in time.
If the instructor doesn't get that - (s)he's dangerous.
"Unable - fire emergency! Mayday Mayday Mayday!"
Obviously knowing about the traffic is a plus, and taking steps to avoid it a necessity (land short, land long, sidestep to a parallel, a taxiway, the grass) if it can't clear the runway in time.
If the instructor doesn't get that - (s)he's dangerous.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Queensland
There are just so many sequences that need to be covered in sim training. Your required go-around might be based more on expediency than a formal procedure. There could be a circumstance where a go-around is appropriate with an engine fire, but I feel that would be less likely than a double engine failure from separate events on a twin.
In the sim, your continuing attempt to land would have been followed by zero vis, ILS fail or similar to ensure the instructor got his way.
It will be vital that you make good command decisions. All previous good and bad experiences prepare you for that one really important decision. That go-around is just part of your data base and in the real world, you are not hard wired for such a procedure.
In the sim, your continuing attempt to land would have been followed by zero vis, ILS fail or similar to ensure the instructor got his way.
It will be vital that you make good command decisions. All previous good and bad experiences prepare you for that one really important decision. That go-around is just part of your data base and in the real world, you are not hard wired for such a procedure.
Last edited by autoflight; 12th January 2013 at 12:11.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 305
From: All at sea
We appear unanimous that one should continue to land.
If the instructor wants you to demonstrate dealing with a fire in a missed approach, the realistic scenario would have the fire warning kick in with the application of TOGA power.
Setting a trainee up the way he did, then wrongly assessing the trainee's subsequent decision-making, is counter-productive to instilling airmanship.
If the instructor wants you to demonstrate dealing with a fire in a missed approach, the realistic scenario would have the fire warning kick in with the application of TOGA power.
Setting a trainee up the way he did, then wrongly assessing the trainee's subsequent decision-making, is counter-productive to instilling airmanship.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
From: fl
Sim instructors aren't any smarter than line pilots. A lot of them have their agendas but know I would never do their technics in a real aircraft. Hopefully other pilots feel the same way and don't believe the BS stuff.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 134
From: USA
I'm going to re-examine it from the instructor's point of view. Bear in mind that my only instructional experience comes from the GA flight training environment.
It's likely that the instructor had a box that needed to be checked, and forgot to do so. It happens. In that case I'd have gone about it in one of 2 ways:
-I'd have told you before activating the failure that there would be a fire, and I would like to see you do a GA notwithstanding.
-I'd confess my mistake in the debrief, and point out that what he requested you to do was contrary to good judgement.
It's likely that the instructor had a box that needed to be checked, and forgot to do so. It happens. In that case I'd have gone about it in one of 2 ways:
-I'd have told you before activating the failure that there would be a fire, and I would like to see you do a GA notwithstanding.
-I'd confess my mistake in the debrief, and point out that what he requested you to do was contrary to good judgement.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: uk
This instructor was wrong, plain and simple .............
.......... Why was he wrong? Because there is no SOP for such an event, ergo you can't be "wrong" in such a situation.
It is a judgement call and what he did during the debrief was give his opinion and that is all it was and he should have made that clear and backed it up with sound logic, not simply, its designed to fly on one engine. And that is the problem with some (perhaps too many?) They often state opinion as fact. Whereas, a good instructor would, if he felt there was any value in his opinion, open it up for a "facilitative" debrief.
Like many of these situations it's a Captain call and he/ she is only wrong if that decision results in a worse scenario than other options.
It is a judgement call and what he did during the debrief was give his opinion and that is all it was and he should have made that clear and backed it up with sound logic, not simply, its designed to fly on one engine. And that is the problem with some (perhaps too many?) They often state opinion as fact. Whereas, a good instructor would, if he felt there was any value in his opinion, open it up for a "facilitative" debrief.
Like many of these situations it's a Captain call and he/ she is only wrong if that decision results in a worse scenario than other options.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: uk
Engine Fire on short final
Onceapilot.
Let me turn it back on you please. Are you saying you are aware of an SOP that tells you what to do with an engine fire at 200 ft as original post.
The best I have come across are recommendations for failures below 1,000 ft and specifically no actions below 400ft (or 500ft). Often taken to mean on takeoff but actually applies on approach as well.
I have worked for several airlines in UK and abroad and not one specifically had an SOP to suggest landing or Go Around.
Guidance yes but SOP no.
Let me turn it back on you please. Are you saying you are aware of an SOP that tells you what to do with an engine fire at 200 ft as original post.
The best I have come across are recommendations for failures below 1,000 ft and specifically no actions below 400ft (or 500ft). Often taken to mean on takeoff but actually applies on approach as well.
I have worked for several airlines in UK and abroad and not one specifically had an SOP to suggest landing or Go Around.
Guidance yes but SOP no.
Last edited by Starbear; 12th January 2013 at 15:24.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
No actions below 400ft (or 500ft) doesn't just apply on takeoff.
I was given an engine fire while within about 1 or two minutes of landing with the runway in sight.
