Probably not, and just for the record...I WAS THERE FIRST YOU FOLLOWED ME! lol
Single engine ops on a multi
- Thread starter sampson
- Start date
Probably not, and just for the record...I WAS THERE FIRST YOU FOLLOWED ME! lol
Nihon_Ni
Well-Known Member
In my Seneca, I always considered GS intercept as "making the field" with a SE, so that's where I extended flaps and gear. One way or another, I was going to land at the end of the approach; either on the runway, side step to the taxiway, or on the grass; but I wasn't going to make a go-around on a real SE. (This is provided I would break out, and in a real SE approach I'd do my best t go somewhere where breaking out wouldn't be in question.) After a lot of thought I decided that crashing in the grass under control was a much more survivable situation than attempting a go-around, which would almost certainly be fatal if I dorked it up. Besides, that's why I had insurance. I've read too many NTSB reports of pilots killing themselves by trying to save fom paying the deductable on their insurance policy. I'd rather pay the deductable than have my estate do it.
As a side note, I'd recommend NOT using the grass next to the runway if you have an option. Culverts, crossing taxiways, lights, GS shacks...all can send a light aircraft end-over-end or worse. If you have a choice use the runway even though the cement looks harder than the grass.
[/o-t]
[/o-t]
Depends.
You should know prior to departing whether or not you'll have single engine climb (look at the charts in the AFM) and what it will be. That said, since you know ahead of time...maybe a SE Go-around is a better option. What's the terrain like? What's the weather like? How about an alternate?
Then there's questions like: Why are you doing a single engine approach to weather that low that you'd miss anyway? If I had to choose between flying 45 minutes on one engine to a 9000' runway in VFR weather with an ILS or landing at the field I'm right over with a 3500' runway, an NDB approach and 600-1 1/2 weather...I'm going to the long runway with good weather and the ILS every time. Doesn't matter if I'm in a light piston twin, a King air or the Citation. I'll stack the deck in my favor (getting in the first time) every chance I get.
-mini
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Exactly.
Even then, depending on the airplane, it's not a downright emergency to go around on one. Heck, I had to demonstrate a full single-engine missed approach procedure (with the hold) on my ATP ride in a C402. It was probably the biggest non-event you could imagine. 500-600 fpm climb at a light weight (~5500 lbs), easily making the standard missed approach climb gradient. That's not always the best option as mini said, but I'd take that before I smashed the airplane onto the runway if I was light and there were no obstacles on the missed.
Next to watching grass grow?
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
It's called hyperbole, stick with me here.
Its fun to play along with though...so people can understand the degree to which it was nothing to see
Nihon_Ni
Well-Known Member
I agree, which is why I said that in MY Seneca, I wouldn't make a go-around. With my typical load the SE climb performance was dismal. My decision was based on risk management not on trying to save the airplane: surviving a crash in the grass is a much better option than surviving a botched SE go-around. One could argue the go-around is a required maneuver on every ME pilot test, and should be easily performed by any ME pilot, so a "botched go-around" shouldn't be a factor. All of that is true. Now take the stress of an actual emergency, and compound it by the need for a go-around (runway incursion, for example) all while trying to save the airplane. A survey of NTSB reports proves this maneuver is botched more often than one can explane, and by pilots from all levels of certificates and experience. That helped me decide on the side of caution.
I think maybe you missed my first post. I'm not talking about making a go-around because I didn't break out, but because the runway became fouled after I started the approach.
b2boma
Well-Known Member
I've always been taught, and the way I teach, is that the gear comes down when you are ready to descend in a normal position to land. On the case of the ILS that comes at the glide slope intercept. The pattern is what changes. Normal position is generally abeam your touchdown point put the gear down increase the drag and descend as you normally would. I teach flaps in as necessary to maintain safe airspeed and approach path. Again this varies with performance and aircraft type.
So there's a difference? Either way, the runway is now unusable, right? Whether it's because you can't see it or because there's something else on it...you probably aren't landing there.
Go to a field with a nice long runway at the end of an ILS with good weather and preferably good services. It's amazing how firetrucks will keep deer away.
-mini
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
In the Seminole, here in Texas in August, I put the gear down just before glideslope intercept. Since it is 100+ degrees out side and we are usually doing circling approach, the flaps usually come down on final approach, as needed. It barely stays aloft at 500 AGL, SE with the gear down.
If doing a straight in, I will use 10* flaps, as needed.
If doing a straight in, I will use 10* flaps, as needed.
Not necessarily. I'd rather run into the trees and rip the wings off or skid through the grass at 80 knots than flip over and crash on my back at 110 knots. Gear, flaps and wings can slow you down quite rapidly while absorbing a lot of the impact. Of course, that is unless...
That's the key.
-mini
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
I think that's what he was getting at, captain. You shouldn't be afraid of going around in a twin that has enough single-engine climb performance to clear required climb gradients.
Nihon_Ni
Well-Known Member
Yes, there's a difference. As I said in my first post, I'd go somewhere where breaking out wasn't in question. The runway may be unusable, but the rest of the field still presents options.
Nihon_Ni
Well-Known Member
Well, I fly twins for a living. I have no problem doing a go-around in the company King Air. My example was discussing MY Seneca with the loads I typically fly.
The key word in your advice is should: If it will climb enough to miss obstacles, you should have no problem doing it. As I said, it's a maneuver required by every ME pilot to get any level of certificate. However, the NTSB reports are filled with low and high time guys and everything in between who, on a given day, under a given set of circumstances, couldn't. In almost every case, when a guy who should be able to couldn't, either he or his passengers (and often both) didn't live to tell about it. My personal position isn't based on ego, it's base on my personal study and research of likely outcomes.
BTW, I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me I need to change my profession because I've taken the time to go through a risk vs. gain analysis I've come down on the side of survivability. It's my plane -- what's it matter?
I get the impression that some people take the position that an asymmetric missed approach is always possible, and some would base their decision on performance at training weights. Neither position is sensible, if indeed that's what is meant.
Not all light multi-engine aircraft are required to have a 1-inop positive climb performance. Under Part 23 if the aircraft is <6000lb MTOW and has a Vs < 61 kts then climb performance needs only to be *determined*. NOTHING mandates that it must be a positive climb performance. If either the weight or speed criteria is exceeded then the required climb performance can only be regarded as only minimal at best. How does .027 x Vso x 2 (up to 1991 certification or 1.5% (post 1991) sound to you? It sounds pretty bloody shallow to me. That's less than departure, approach & missed approach obstacle clear gradients.
What's more, whatever climb (or even minimum descent rate) is determined for certification, it's only under a very limited set of conditions that are generally specified to maximise performance. Those conditions include Vyse (not necessarily 'blue line'), gear & flap up, prop. feathered, max. power, non-slipping flight, max weight & 5000' in ISA. If not met then you can kiss goodbye to whatever abysmal climb performance you're expecting.
Of them all, about the only ones you can alter for the better are to operate at some significant weight less than MTOW, and to limit locations to ones with weather conditions that give much lower density altitudes than 5000'. Hardly practicable. Don't forget to adjust IAS away from blue line on the ASI to correct for density altitudes different to sea level.
Choosing to go around on one engine when a safe landing can be made is something to be avoided.
A precis of my procedures to compensate for the asymmetric lack of performance:
Take off:
Rotate @ the book specified speed but not less than Vmc to achieve Vtoss by 50' (guards against Vmc departures)
Gear up delayed until landing straight ahead is no longer possible but not less than Vxse for long runways or positive climb for short runways. Gear up is my decision point about trying to continue flight if an engine fails and guards against trying to continue flight when performance is generally not possible.
Climb at all engine Vy to around 1000'. Maximises the conversion of fuel energy into useful performance energy (kinetic & potential ie speed & altitude). In other words minimises energy lost fighting drag.
Landing (all engines):
Gear down as normal, flap limited to approach settings until landing is certain or reaching stabilised approach configuration height limits. Once landing is certain select landing flap and allow speed to reduce below Vyse. This maximises climb potential as long as possible even if a donk should stop during the approach. Of course a two engine go around is nearly always possible at any point but why leave yourself open to 1 inop < Vyse unnecessarily?
Landing (1 inop):
Gear down when commencing landing descent ie intercepting GS, about to turn base or descending below MDA on a landing profile after circling. No flap or minimal flap. Speed at Vyse until committing to land. Commit once reaching a height where transitioning to an asymmetric climb isn't feasable without hitting something (don't forget to allow for some altitude loss while transitioning). Thereafter, more flap if desired & forget about blue line speed - it's no longer relevent.
If some twit enters the runway after committing, in spite of your declared emergency, land over top, to the side or behind but don't try to go around from <Vyse, dirty and low. After landing I'd suggest reminding the idiot of the inapropriateness of his actions by inserting your aircraft's feathered propeller up his arse. Sideways.
Not all light multi-engine aircraft are required to have a 1-inop positive climb performance. Under Part 23 if the aircraft is <6000lb MTOW and has a Vs < 61 kts then climb performance needs only to be *determined*. NOTHING mandates that it must be a positive climb performance. If either the weight or speed criteria is exceeded then the required climb performance can only be regarded as only minimal at best. How does .027 x Vso x 2 (up to 1991 certification or 1.5% (post 1991) sound to you? It sounds pretty bloody shallow to me. That's less than departure, approach & missed approach obstacle clear gradients.
What's more, whatever climb (or even minimum descent rate) is determined for certification, it's only under a very limited set of conditions that are generally specified to maximise performance. Those conditions include Vyse (not necessarily 'blue line'), gear & flap up, prop. feathered, max. power, non-slipping flight, max weight & 5000' in ISA. If not met then you can kiss goodbye to whatever abysmal climb performance you're expecting.
Of them all, about the only ones you can alter for the better are to operate at some significant weight less than MTOW, and to limit locations to ones with weather conditions that give much lower density altitudes than 5000'. Hardly practicable. Don't forget to adjust IAS away from blue line on the ASI to correct for density altitudes different to sea level.
Choosing to go around on one engine when a safe landing can be made is something to be avoided.
A precis of my procedures to compensate for the asymmetric lack of performance:
Take off:
Rotate @ the book specified speed but not less than Vmc to achieve Vtoss by 50' (guards against Vmc departures)
Gear up delayed until landing straight ahead is no longer possible but not less than Vxse for long runways or positive climb for short runways. Gear up is my decision point about trying to continue flight if an engine fails and guards against trying to continue flight when performance is generally not possible.
Climb at all engine Vy to around 1000'. Maximises the conversion of fuel energy into useful performance energy (kinetic & potential ie speed & altitude). In other words minimises energy lost fighting drag.
Landing (all engines):
Gear down as normal, flap limited to approach settings until landing is certain or reaching stabilised approach configuration height limits. Once landing is certain select landing flap and allow speed to reduce below Vyse. This maximises climb potential as long as possible even if a donk should stop during the approach. Of course a two engine go around is nearly always possible at any point but why leave yourself open to 1 inop < Vyse unnecessarily?
Landing (1 inop):
Gear down when commencing landing descent ie intercepting GS, about to turn base or descending below MDA on a landing profile after circling. No flap or minimal flap. Speed at Vyse until committing to land. Commit once reaching a height where transitioning to an asymmetric climb isn't feasable without hitting something (don't forget to allow for some altitude loss while transitioning). Thereafter, more flap if desired & forget about blue line speed - it's no longer relevent.
If some twit enters the runway after committing, in spite of your declared emergency, land over top, to the side or behind but don't try to go around from <Vyse, dirty and low. After landing I'd suggest reminding the idiot of the inapropriateness of his actions by inserting your aircraft's feathered propeller up his arse. Sideways.