Precautionary shut down

[Sandy]

LOL GOT IT!!!!!!! I SHOULD HAVE declared emergency BUT DIDN'T. Guess its water under the bridge. MikeD about being sequenced with other aircraft, not really an issue at this airport. VERRY SLOW. Sometimes were even cleared to land from 20 miles out midday. And I think more of you would have made the decision I did if you would have been there. Much easier to set here and think of the possibilities and hypothetical’s. MY mind was on flying that aircraft to the ground safely. I knew the fire was out, the gear was down, and we better not have any problem landing this plane single engine since we practice it every lesson.

I have yet to fly a trip that I did not say "I could have done that better". You willingness to share your experience and take a closer look at all aspects of what happened says perhaps the most important thing about you as an aviator. You are honest, you are concerned about doing things right, and you don't have a big ego that gets in the way of finding ways to improve. You are way ahead of many pilots. Don't lose those qualities.

 

[iFLY87]

Hey, YOU came here and posted this here. YOU put it out there. Live with the scrutiny that's comes with it. Part of being humble and learning is being able to say "this is what happened, this is what I did. What could I have done better?" You're the one trying to justify why reluctance to declare an emergency is good. In this case, light area traffic. "More of you would've made that decision"......are you sure?

Fly the aircraft first, thats fine. But with two of you in the aircraft, planning a bit ahead and being able to communicate an emergency shouldn't have tasked you too much......since you practice single-engine on every lesson and all.

You knew the fire was out? Might I ask how you knew it wouldn't or couldn't restart post landing? Great that you found out after landing that it was nothing, but at the time in the air, you didn't know differently, or I doubt you would've shut down the engine in the first place. So obviously you thought there was something more than just the "after fire" going on.

If the pattern or airport is slow, what difference does it make.....I'm speaking generally for what pilots should do vis-a-vis declaring an emergency or otherwise being reluctant to. AND talking how pilots can help with ARFFs response time. It costs nothing for us to be there, awaiting your arrival. But with no emergency declaration you still waste precious time post-landing if something happens, such as the fire restarting, and now there's a ground emergency that's going to take time for ARFF to respond to, when they could've already been in-place.......and it would've cost nothing.

But you should already know that, being former ARFF.

Just all things to think about, in the learning processes post-emergency. Theres always learning to be had.

To answer your last question regards the FAA. I doubt anything will happen.

Damn... Didnt mean to offend you. Just got a lot of people saying I should have declare an emergency the I replied, and then more people said I did wrong. I just got the point.

 

[floridaCFII]

And I think more of you would have made the decision I did if you would have been there.... we better not have any problem landing this plane single engine since we practice it every lesson.

I would not have made that decision had I been there. I'm not sure how your school teaches it, but when I was teaching multi, the memory items for an engine failure were to identify, verify, feather, secure, stabilize the aircraft, turn towards the nearest airport, and declare an emergency. In every twin I've ever flown, the single-engine approach and landing is part of the emergency checklist for a reason.

It's no big deal at all to roll the trucks. As MikeD said, it's good practice, and I'd certainly rather have them waiting and not need them, than to need them and not have them waiting.

I know you're getting irritated that so many of us are making the same comment, but there's probably a reason we are all saying the same thing. Congrats on keeping yourself alive and the aircraft in one piece... now take what you learned from this incident so you can apply it to the next one, and pass it on to your students.

 

[deadstick]

Mx looked at it and didn’t find any evidence of fire. It was coming out of the exhaust and the only explanation is after burn.

This is why I asked my original question. The BE76 has a history of giving people false impressions that it's on fire. Ever watch an old WW2 moving with SBDs or whatever talking off at dawn? There are flames shooting out of the stacks. From what I understand, those old radials and the Lycs on the Duchess have one thing in commons -- very short exhausts. There isn't much tubing from the closest exhaust valve to the end. SO, you get the flame of the combustion reaching the open air. Kind of like watching the turbo on a PA31 glow orange. I remember thinking "Gee, I hope we don't get a fuel leak."

Back when I flew a few 76's, I knew about this and saw it first hand. How did I know? I talked with a friend who had experience in the plane and he passed it along. Hopefully this and the discussion on whether to declare or not will help you AND OTHERS in the future. I do know that a fed got all up in one CFI after an almost identical situation. The difference was that this CFI declared and emergency. The ASI's issue was not that he declared, but that the pilot was giving instruction in the Duchess and wasn't familiar with it. He felt that if the CFI was familiar enough with the plane, he should know about things like this.

The lesson is don't blow off the 5 hrs (61.195f) required in type. Learn and learn from somebody who isn't just sitting there logging time. What if you we IMC with a student, it was 200-1/2 for 1000nm, you just shutdown a perfectly good engine, and now the other alternator/vac takes a dump? Another thing to think about is this: compare the amount of paperwork explaining why you DID NOT declare vs why you did. Another scenario: you're clear to land, ATC doesn't know that you are OEI, they have a conflict and they tell you to go around and expect a 1000fpm climb. You reply "Unable." <--ATC Had ATC known, a different resolution would probably have been give to resolve this conflict. Regardless, you just torqued-off a controller. So, you should be prepared to copy a number.

I've been flying for over 20 years (feeling kind of old, now) and my impression is that the FAA will more than likely pursue an investigation of a pilot-induced emergency than one that is not. CYA and have a long a prosperous career.

 

[Orange Anchor]

It's not "required" to declare an emergency, but to be honest I can't think of any reason NOT to declare an emergency when I suspect an engine fire and am flying single engine, and I can think of a whole bunch of reasons why I SHOULD declare. "Hello, I have a possible engine fire but I don't need the emergency equipment. Thanks anyway, but I'll just take my chances." Wut???

There may be no requirement to declare but does anyone remember the BA 747 that lost an engine and continued to destination? Although the crew complied with all THEIR regs, talked to dispatch, were closer to divert airfields than the twins doing ETOPS, the FAA went bonkers as did many 'experts' in the media.

 

[gne in prog]

^ single engine failure in a 747 is an abnormal, not an emergency.


Oops. Did I open another can of worms?

 

[Orange Anchor]

^ single engine failure in a 747 is an abnormal, not an emergency.


Oops. Did I open another can of worms?

We don't use words with 'ab'. Too harsh. It is now "non-normal'. See how much nicer that is? Anyway, ab or no or EP, the Feds and lots of people popped their pants over it. And some said it was because of the $$$.

Well, there you have it. The audacity of an airline to follow its procedures, regulations AND think of $$ at the same time.

 

[mjg407]

There may be no requirement to declare but does anyone remember the BA 747 that lost an engine and continued to destination? Although the crew complied with all THEIR regs, talked to dispatch, were closer to divert airfields than the twins doing ETOPS, the FAA went bonkers as did many 'experts' in the media.

I liked the guidance from when I was in the Navy regarding continuing to the destination.

For aircraft with 3 or more engines and one shutdown, the PIC may proceed to the destination after considering is as safe a landing can be made as at the nearest alternate after considering:

Nature of the malfunction and possible difficulties if flight is continued
Terrain and wx conditions enroute and at the destination
Air traffic and pilot familiarity with the alternates


Pretty good guidance. Many times I have continued in the P-3 to the destination rather than land ASAP, and even once went past the destination to a VFR field due to the nature of the malfunction. And for precautionary shutdowns in the P-3 I do not typically declare an emergency, but if was in the KA I definitely would.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bumblebee]

I liked the guidance from when I was in the Navy

Pretty good guidance. Many times I have continued in the P-3 to the destination rather than land ASAP, and even once went past the destination to a VFR field due to the nature of the malfunction. And for precautionary shutdowns in the P-3 I do not typically declare an emergency, but if was in the KA I definitely would.

Just my 2 cents.

worth at least double

 

[Orange Anchor]

I liked the guidance from when I was in the Navy regarding continuing to the destination.definitely would.

Just my 2 cents.

That is an important difference, guidance versus trying to 'procedurilize' (a word found on some CRM forums) every possibility and event. And it is a difference I have long heard between the USAF and USN.
USAF, "IF we don't say you can, you can't"
USN, "IF we don't say you can't, you can."

I should have been in the Navy. I would have filled out a lot less forms and spent a lot less time time at attention.

 

[phoenix 23684]

I didn’t declare an emergency because I didn’t find it necessary. I was always taught and always teach Aviate navigate communicate. So I did just that. Flew the airplane, shut down the engine, which immediately extinguished the fire, headed toward the airport. By the time I got to communications, we were flying single engine, no fire, no problems. I let them know exactly what was going on made a straight in landing on one engine, which we practice all the time (only simulated single engine). Not afraid of “Paper Work”, just didn’t need the trucks and attention. I worked as a fire fighter (ARFF) for some time, so I know the routine for paper work. They do it all! I will probably declare an emergency next time but this was my first situation flying. lesson learned.
Mx looked at it and didn’t find any evidence of fire. It was coming out of the exhaust and the only explanation is after burn.

Pleas I mean no disrespect, but how did you know 100% that you had no fire and no other issues? You didn't this time, as a CFI what trap did you fall into, remember that FOI? Invulnerability and Macho. What message did you just passed onto your student? You had a huge problem 80% of your power was no longer available and a few unknowns. You see what I have bolded in your text, didn't need the attention. That's a rat trap. If I loose an engine, no matter how confident I am with the procedures/airspace/airplane, you bet your tail that I will declare an emergency. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Again, I really apologize for coming out so strong, but I fly in an environment where too much confidence will kill you and i have learned from very experienced pilots, 40+ years of flying, that it pays to be very humbling about flying. I like how you have decided that next time will be different, means you have learned a very valuable lesson from this event. Congrats in doing the right things to be able to talk about it. On a side note, why didn't you let the student handle it?

 

[LineNPilotGuy]

Dude, no worries and no one is busting your balls here. This is just hangar talk... and we want the kids standing ouside the circle to hear the wide variety of perspectives avialable from the more experienced pilots (yourself included)

I really like your comment here. Im not a pilot yet, but soon to start training and read these boards alot. Definately good to get different perspectives.

I personally didn't see anything wrong with not declaring, right? I mean, Airliners can loose an engine and continue the entire flight right... Kinda the same concept no?

 

[Bumblebee]

I really like your comment here. Im not a pilot yet, but soon to start training and read these boards alot. Definately good to get different perspectives.

I personally didn't see anything wrong with not declaring, right? I mean, Airliners can loose an engine and continue the entire flight right... Kinda the same concept no?

First of all glad you are here with us!
and in answer to your question above...not the same concept, here's why.

If you have two engines and you lose one... it's an emergency, and you must then land at the nearest appropriate airport in point of time. SO if you are high enough that your emergency procedures and reasonable descent rate will get you to your destination, then yes you may continue the flight...if you are going to a place out in the boondocks, with no services, you may need to divert to an airport with facilities appropriate to handle your emergency...if you are on FIRE you land as quickly as possible while working your fire suppression procedures.

If you have four engines and you lose one, you still have one more than most other airliners, so it does not necessarily constitute an emergency...

I remember when I was at ATP the higher ups there would say, if you're flying a 172, that you might as well declare an emergency, since you are already down to one engine...

now that I fly an airplane with four engines, I could apply it to my former airliner (the EMB120) since you're already down to two engines, might as well declare.

All this to say, that while I don't judge the actions of the pilot in the seat, in this case with the facts as described this was an emergency situation. That doesn't mean that you have to do a bunch of crazy stuff, as a matter of fact the only thing I would have likely done differently, is declare the emergency and have the trucks be prepared to meet me.

I still don't understand the reluctance to declare...could someone please help me understand the reluctance to declare in situations such as this?

 

[esa17]

I still don't understand the reluctance to declare...could someone please help me understand the reluctance to declare in situations such as this?

It might come from a fear of the FAA. The old guys who taught me to fly hate the new FAA inspectors since it's a clash of old a new. Of course in my experience you can't hardly blame them. I've seen more than one inspector who was more interested in violating someone than finding out the cause of what happened.

Even so, I've declared twice and have no problems doing it again. I'd rather explain myself under a hot light than find myself on a cold table.

 

[Bumblebee]

It might come from a fear of the FAA. The old guys who taught me to fly hate the new FAA inspectors since it's a clash of old a new. Of course in my experience you can't hardly blame them. I've seen more than one inspector who was more interested in violating someone than finding out the cause of what happened.

Even so, I've declared twice and have no problems doing it again. I'd rather explain myself under a hot light than find myself on a cold table.

thanks man, I wouldn't have considered that to be a reason... that does shed light for me.

 

[EIR]

It's entirely possible that you're Chief is referring to company policy but there is no regulation that "requires" you to declare an emergency.

Bingo. It more than likely has to do with insurance purposes.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

To declare or not is the PIC's decision. In your case, I personally would have declared for a couple of reasons.

1. Did the fire go out or just out of sight?
2. You will get priorit handling and no BS from the controllers.
3. CFR will be avaialbe should the fire start or intensify after landing or worse something else bad happens on landing.

Yes your mx sounds right if the fire was coming out the stacks and there is no visible damage to the cowling or other engine components.

Also, I have had ATC and my Dispatcher declare and emergency for me.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Ditto what Steve said.

One other point. You will often hear people say they did not declare an emergency because they didn't want to fill out all the paperwork. Whenever you hear that, ask them what paperwork are they talking about.

Only have to fill it out if you're asked to...don't hesitate to ask for help. It's free, and ATC lives to help pilots.

1. Did the fire go out or just out of sight?

On the airplane I fly you probably won't be able to tell if an engine or nacelle fire is out...any fire is "shut her down and put it down, under control", period. And wherever I land it, you'd better believe I'll be asking for emergency equipment even if the fire appears extinguished.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Originally Posted by Guy
Ditto what Steve said.

One other point. You will often hear people say they did not declare an emergency because they didn't want to fill out all the paperwork. Whenever you hear that, ask them what paperwork are they talking about

In regards to paper it varies by company but there's the:

ASRS/ASAP report to CYA
FAA/NTSB reporting (if required)
Company Reports
Discussions with the DOM, CP and DO depending on the issue.

 

[john577777]

When I was working on B-52's less than a year ago they would call in a in flight emergencys for a single engine shutdown or even a precautionary shutdown for a CSD. This aircraft has eight engines compared to two, there is no reason not to be on the safe side.