Land or missed, what's the right call in this situation?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bali, Scotland, Slovakia
Age: 60
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land or missed, what's the right call in this situation?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it depends on the reason of the malfunction. If you hit a flock of birds you might very well have the same issues on the good engine in a matter of a few seconds/minutes. An engine failure on the 330 already stable and in landing conf is barely noticeable, especially if on autopilot. From 1200ft to 500 ft you have about 1 min flight time, You can secure the engine till you reach 500 ft and call stable with flaps 3.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine and I think most airline SOPs have a procedure for engine failure during approach. Start APU, Flaps set for S.E. APP, Vspeeds set, continue for landing.
Last edited by cappt; 23rd Jul 2019 at 22:34.
Controversial, moi?
As someone who was actually hand flying an aircraft at around 1,000' on a visual approach at night onto the northerly runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport when an engine went bang in a big way I can assure you the decision whether to go-around or land was made very quickly. The choice was go-around with an unknown but clearly major failure or land around 60 seconds later.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe, Africa
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What my company advises (B737NG)
Engine Failure On Approach
Engine Failure On Approach
- Control A/C smoothly with RUDDER and TRIM the A/C
- Adjust thrust on operating engine to maintain speed
- If unable to maintain speed
- Flaps 15
- Speed VREF30 + 15 (Fly outer bug)
- FLAP INHIBIT switch to INHIBIT
Engine fail during approach. Definitely not a stable approach so go around.
Why is there any question?
Why is there any question?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every engine failure is not a catastrophy requiring to land on the same approach. When you are still doing ECAM the approach cannot be called stabilized. Approach starts at IAF. If you complete the actions by 1000ft (at least engine secured) you could go ahead and land. Otherwise discontinue the approach complete the procedure come back and land. Unless there is a good justification to do little bit of this and little bit of that together is not a good idea.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every engine failure is not a catastrophy requiring to land on the same approach. When you are still doing ECAM the approach cannot be called stabilized. Approach starts at IAF. If you complete the actions by 1000ft (at least engine secured) you could go ahead and land. Otherwise discontinue the approach complete the procedure come back and land. Unless there is a good justification to do little bit of this and little bit of that together is not a good idea.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example in my company we do have provisions for engine failures on final approach and provided we do have VMC conditions, we can secure the engine through the ECAM down to 500 ft AGL, last gate. Procedures in other companies can be different for many very valid reasons.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that's a bit black and white.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.
Given that the only definitive information given in the AvHerald article on which to reach a judgement was that the aircraft "was on final approach to Islamabad's runway 10R when the RH engine emitted a bang and streaks of flames", I'd suggest that a fair number of other variables also went into the crew's decision that we're not party to, so varying opinions on what to do from PPRuNers shouldn't come as a surprise.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the only definitive information given in the AvHerald article on which to reach a judgement was that the aircraft "was on final approach to Islamabad's runway 10R when the RH engine emitted a bang and streaks of flames", I'd suggest that a fair number of other variables also went into the crew's decision that we're not party to, so varying opinions on what to do from PPRuNers shouldn't come as a surprise.
OTOH it could mean they are at the final 500 foot call which would be rather hairy.