Land or missed, what's the right call in this situation?
If you hear a bang and/or get fire indications, and the approach remains stable, and I am in the back, I think I would like you to continue the approach please!
(OK, in reality of course I would like you to use your professional judgement, but I wonder when it's better to go back into the sky with unknown damage, possible fuel or hydraulic fluid leaks, possible fire developing, even possible puncture to the fuselage and passenger injury, if the landing still appears possible, just because you lost an engine. Let's go back up there and work another bunch of checklists so that we can do a 1 engine out landing by the book, seems a bit dubious)
(OK, in reality of course I would like you to use your professional judgement, but I wonder when it's better to go back into the sky with unknown damage, possible fuel or hydraulic fluid leaks, possible fire developing, even possible puncture to the fuselage and passenger injury, if the landing still appears possible, just because you lost an engine. Let's go back up there and work another bunch of checklists so that we can do a 1 engine out landing by the book, seems a bit dubious)
You’ve done all the hard work. You are set up on approach - a nice runway ahead.
Unless you are in a Cat111 situation (and in some a/c even then) it makes sense to adjust flaps and speed and get down.
If you GA you throw away the expedient landing opportunity, perform an engine out GA, with possible further complications (fire?) perform the abnormal / Emer procedures and briefings and burn some fuel and line up all over again to get back to where you were 25 minutes or more before.
Thats the theory. Who knows what is going on in someone else’s case?
Unless you are in a Cat111 situation (and in some a/c even then) it makes sense to adjust flaps and speed and get down.
If you GA you throw away the expedient landing opportunity, perform an engine out GA, with possible further complications (fire?) perform the abnormal / Emer procedures and briefings and burn some fuel and line up all over again to get back to where you were 25 minutes or more before.
Thats the theory. Who knows what is going on in someone else’s case?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully agree, it depends on the circumstances which plan of action is appropriate. The two main alternatives are "continue to landing" or "go around." Both can be appropriate. If you're close to landing and the approach remains stable, continuing is a proper option. If the approach becomes unstable, a go around would be appropriate; but "engine out" is an emergency and a captain is legally allowed to opt for a "not great" 
landing... (He needs a mechanic to take a look at the engine anyway; another to check the airframe is only marginal cost.)
In this case the captain chose for the go around and I have no reason to attack his decision.
landing... (He needs a mechanic to take a look at the engine anyway; another to check the airframe is only marginal cost.)In this case the captain chose for the go around and I have no reason to attack his decision.
