737 NG Sim disagreement
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C.
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, they put you in a tight situation and you did your best. Was there choices, yes! Did it result in a learning experience, a big yes and the added benefit is because more than just you have had the opportuniy to think about that scenario, and I want to thank you for putting it out on the forum.
BD
BD
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"LVP" approach
Hell 50 feet you are allready in flare mode, even if visibilty is rediculously low and you are dual land/cat IIIB, sounds like a recipe for a safe landing.
50 Ft. RA, your instruments are worth more than the engines are. Better both engines fail at 50 feet than ILS and RA in 0 vis. assuming you were IIIB. A rough landing is a good landing assuming you did not incounter windshear or an expected heavy crosswind in said scenario..
Hell 50 feet you are allready in flare mode, even if visibilty is rediculously low and you are dual land/cat IIIB, sounds like a recipe for a safe landing.
50 Ft. RA, your instruments are worth more than the engines are. Better both engines fail at 50 feet than ILS and RA in 0 vis. assuming you were IIIB. A rough landing is a good landing assuming you did not incounter windshear or an expected heavy crosswind in said scenario..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Luton
Age: 49
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One outsider - As Rainboe says it is not the fact that I can't do a single engine go around flap 15/ 200' (read the second half of post 9). Nor the fact that I can't do a single engine G/A from 50' / flap 40 which was described as "well flown" when I actually knew that was the procedure I should be implementing.
The issue was which procedure do you implement at 50' rad alt -the threshold for (potentially) three different decisions.
(1) If visual contact is made then the decision on an engine failure after 50' rad alt is to land. I suspect this is because a go around from flap 40' at Vref 40 is recognised as being a more risky manoeuvre than landing with the slight yaw/roll associated with a rundown. As I said this was not an option open to me as there was no visual contact...it is mentioned for completeness.
(2) Before 50' rad alt the decision could be to implement the engine failure on approach procedure (non normal procedure 7). You say "of course not" to implementing this procedure at 50'. Fair enough and that is the concencus....you clearly know much more about this than I do so let me ask you WHEN would you implement NNP7? At 51' rad alt? at 100' rad alt...when do you consider that you have a fair chance of achieving Vref 40 plus 20?
(3) At 50' rad alt it seems my instructor was correct to insist on a go around . You must accept however the drag / speed / height margins at 50' Vref 40 with flap 40 selected are not as favourable as with 200' baro /flap 15 / Vref 15.
Air Rabbit / Double Boegy - Having seen the posts here I have accepted my response was not the right one ...but I never take the word of one trainer (however well qualified) on such a safety critical issue. I like to get things verified and find PPRUNE a great way of tapping into an excellent body of knowledge.
The issue was which procedure do you implement at 50' rad alt -the threshold for (potentially) three different decisions.
(1) If visual contact is made then the decision on an engine failure after 50' rad alt is to land. I suspect this is because a go around from flap 40' at Vref 40 is recognised as being a more risky manoeuvre than landing with the slight yaw/roll associated with a rundown. As I said this was not an option open to me as there was no visual contact...it is mentioned for completeness.
(2) Before 50' rad alt the decision could be to implement the engine failure on approach procedure (non normal procedure 7). You say "of course not" to implementing this procedure at 50'. Fair enough and that is the concencus....you clearly know much more about this than I do so let me ask you WHEN would you implement NNP7? At 51' rad alt? at 100' rad alt...when do you consider that you have a fair chance of achieving Vref 40 plus 20?
(3) At 50' rad alt it seems my instructor was correct to insist on a go around . You must accept however the drag / speed / height margins at 50' Vref 40 with flap 40 selected are not as favourable as with 200' baro /flap 15 / Vref 15.
Air Rabbit / Double Boegy - Having seen the posts here I have accepted my response was not the right one ...but I never take the word of one trainer (however well qualified) on such a safety critical issue. I like to get things verified and find PPRUNE a great way of tapping into an excellent body of knowledge.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think either procedure is right, with full immediate GA Flap 15 being more right. But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with following the engine failure on approach procedure- increase power, select Flap 15, accel to Vref+20, select GA power, select Flap 1, gear up. I have done both in the past. It is fairly startling- in seconds you go from Flap 40 to Flap 1. However, if you identified the engine failure at 51' Radio or earlier, it is technically the right thing to do.
IMO, it was an obscene use of Trainer discretion (or lack of!). If you did either procedure correctly, I do not see in any way how that is a 'fail' in view of the short time factor available to you. I would be kicking off at the Chief Training Captain.
IMO, it was an obscene use of Trainer discretion (or lack of!). If you did either procedure correctly, I do not see in any way how that is a 'fail' in view of the short time factor available to you. I would be kicking off at the Chief Training Captain.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Luton
Age: 49
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the clarification guys. Would really appreciate your thoughts on another worm from the same can (regarding the flap retraction schedule assoaciated with a go around following an engine failure on final approach).
Our FCOM Part B states the procedure is -
"Retract the flaps to 15
Maintain high thrust. Increase approach to the speed tape generated speed of Vref +20 then adjust thrust to maintain this speed.
If the speed and approach path still cannot be maintained, or if a go-around is subsequently required:
CALL GO AROUND FLAP 5 AND CLIMB AWAY AT FINAL APPROACH SPEED.
ACCOMPLISH THE ENGINE INOPERATIVE GO AROUND PROCEDURE."
The Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual says - "If the approach is continued and sufficient thrust is not available for landing flaps, retract the flaps to 15 and adjust thrust on the operating engine. Speed should be increased to 20 knots over the previously set flaps 30 or 40 Vref. This is equal to at least Vref for flaps 15.
IF A GO-AROUND IS REQUIRED, FOLLOW THE GO-AROUND AND MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURES EXCEPT USE FLAP 15 INITIALLY IF TRAILING EDGE FLAPS ARE AT 30 OR 40. SUBSEQUENT FLAP RETACTION SHOULD BE MADE AT A SAFE ALTITUDE AND IN LEVEL FLIGHT OR A SHALLOW CLIMB"
As Rainboe says though from a flap 40 approach Vref 40 + 20 represents the minimum speed for a one engine go around (V2 flap 1). So is there an objection to selecting flap 15 initially followed rapidly by flap 1 ?
Our FCOM Part B states the procedure is -
"Retract the flaps to 15
Maintain high thrust. Increase approach to the speed tape generated speed of Vref +20 then adjust thrust to maintain this speed.
If the speed and approach path still cannot be maintained, or if a go-around is subsequently required:
CALL GO AROUND FLAP 5 AND CLIMB AWAY AT FINAL APPROACH SPEED.
ACCOMPLISH THE ENGINE INOPERATIVE GO AROUND PROCEDURE."
The Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual says - "If the approach is continued and sufficient thrust is not available for landing flaps, retract the flaps to 15 and adjust thrust on the operating engine. Speed should be increased to 20 knots over the previously set flaps 30 or 40 Vref. This is equal to at least Vref for flaps 15.
IF A GO-AROUND IS REQUIRED, FOLLOW THE GO-AROUND AND MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURES EXCEPT USE FLAP 15 INITIALLY IF TRAILING EDGE FLAPS ARE AT 30 OR 40. SUBSEQUENT FLAP RETACTION SHOULD BE MADE AT A SAFE ALTITUDE AND IN LEVEL FLIGHT OR A SHALLOW CLIMB"
As Rainboe says though from a flap 40 approach Vref 40 + 20 represents the minimum speed for a one engine go around (V2 flap 1). So is there an objection to selecting flap 15 initially followed rapidly by flap 1 ?
