Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

bluelake

Well-Known Member
MikeD,

I agree with your comment on how the last 1000' AGL is the make or break on a forced landings. I have handled this different ways with students an dBFR's, often if on a rental checkout someone does a GREAT job at going through the forced landing procedure (airspeed, best place, restart attempt, comm, etc..) then I will level off at altitude and then a few minutes later at the airport ask them to do power-off 180's. that way if they get it wrong in that last 1000' then we just land really short on concret and I shake my head and we do it again
:):)
 

C650CPT

Well-Known Member
This is how I define landing assured (for what its worth) When a reduction in power or an increase in drag is required for landing. For my multi students ( on one enginge ) I teach once slowed below Vyse ( Blue Line ) and or flaps selected beyond the approach position, you are considered "committed" to landing. Interestingly MikeD recognizes that a go around from below these criteria shows the degraded performance of a light twin, even to the point that the airplane settels into ground effect, why not just land if that close to the runway? I am NOT saying that a single engine go around can't be safely done in a light twin, BUT if you are going to do one, do it early before you set yourself up for trouble.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
. Interestingly MikeD recognizes that a go around from below these criteria shows the degraded performance of a light twin, even to the point that the airplane settels into ground effect, why not just land if that close to the runway? I am NOT saying that a single engine go around can't be safely done in a light twin, BUT if you are going to do one, do it early before you set yourself up for trouble.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definately land if in a position to do so too, I was referring for training purposes where one of the requirements for my former company was to demonstrate a low-level single-engine go-around (bad engine at zero thrust simulated), that it was then that the degraded climb performance, in addition to the flight control touchiness, became very[i/] apparent.
 

say_speed

New Member
I seriously doubt that you wouldn't notice an engine failure on final...
On most twin engines and jets, you want to be configured before the final approach fix (flaps and gear in landing config, engines spooled up), and if you loose an engine inside the FAF, you will see it. Take any jet POH, and look at the single engine landing, they all recommand a reduced flap setting, since the 3 degree angle of descent may not be maintained in the normal landing configuration.
Inside the FAF, if you can maintain airspeed and ILS under control, continue and land, if not, reduce flap setting to the recommended in your POH. Outside the FAF, you have plenty of time, you have altitude, you have speed, use them! go around, deal with emergency as you would enroute, and then if you have to make a single engine landing in IMC, you will be mentally prepared for it, giving yourself time to review the procedures, remember what your instructor told you, etc...
Don't take chances when you have the options.
 

say_speed

New Member
Giving yourself some deadlines is good, say 500 ft above the ground and below, you are commited to landing, regardless of weather ond/or runway contamination (truck, etc...). Remenber, an engine failure is an emergency, giving the right to deviate from any FARs to complete the emergency: landing below min is one of them, landing on the grass to avoid the truck is an other.
Like Freight Dog was saying, you can practice single engine go around in a Seneca at low altitude and survive it, but not at max landing weight, or worse max take-off weight.
Hey, Freight Dog, remember the climb perf we got when practicing those at Brown?
Exercize good pilot judjment.
 

SteveC

Really?
Staff member
Back when I was part-owner in a Twin Comanche, after a lot of thought and discussion with my partner (a Citation X corp pilot, ATP and CFII), I decided that if I ever got into such a situation (IMC, true single engine approach, ILS) that, once all the other options had been exhausted, the approach was going to end in a landing. No single engine go-around from DH. Committed to land. Between the options, I'd rather do a landing/controlled crash at a (relatively) slow speed, right on an airport and probably on the runway where they are expecting you to be, because the possibilities of hitting obstructions is reduced and the rescue crews are going to find you fast, rather than take the chance of a screw-up and augering in off-field someplace with high closure rate and an extended period of time before you're possibly located.

Worst case, even if it is ceiling 0, no visibility, assuming that we've been through all of the other options (no other fields with better conditions within range, all trouble-shooting complete, etc.) the final choice is to pick a field with an ILS (and presumably crash equipment), a nice long runway, and fly the plane to a landing.

My last IPC in that plane we did simulated single engine, simulated IMC approach on an ILS all the way down to less than 100' (instead of DH @ 200') and then a full-stop landing, just to practice that *worst case* scenario.

I think that this is one of those things that you have to really think through *before* you get into a *situation*. My decision on this plane (and I re-think it for each plane I fly), was based on it's limited performance at high weight / density altitude. Fully realizing that at lower weights, lower ambient temperatures, etc., the Twinkie *can* safely do a single engine go-around, I consiously made the decision before-hand, so I did not have to do an analysis under pressure. Once I decide that the ILS approach single-engine is needed, I have made the decision to land if I reach DH.
 

FL270

New Member
Rather than attempting a single-engine go-around in a light twin (a marginal activity under the best of circumstances, and if it's hot, you're heavy, or you're at a high elevation, probably very nearly impossible), I would divert to another airport, preferably one with a Cat II or Cat III ILS. A Cat III ILS has been flight-checked for coupled approaches all the way to landing, so it is reasonably safe to rely on its indications below published DH. You'll also likely have a fairly long runway at a towered airport with crash crews standing by. Fly the airplane on the gauges all the way down (use the FD or AP if available and working) and you're essentially making a controlled crash ... but one where you're assured obstacle clearance, a flat and open landing area, and ready availability of rescue equipment. As stated, an emergency declaration means you can throw the FARs out the window to the extent necessary to save your skin. Don't hesitate to do so if that's what it takes.

FL270
 

fr8dog

New Member
Agree with FL270... though i wouldn't dare trusting a (potentially equipped AND working) AP on a part 23 w/ SE app down to mins...
 

say_speed

New Member
Yep, I would land as well, even below min. Now, if your airplane is Part 23 approved, doing a single engine go around is a maneuver that you should be able to perform. Plus, not all the FARs can be disregarded when in an emergency.
exemple: right engine caught on fire in flight, discharged the bottles, still on fire; the only airport that you can land on is below mins: yes, land regardless of the weather, get that fire taken care off. Next: you are in flight, right engine shut down, can't restart it. You have plenty of gasoline and the closest airport is below mins. If there is an other airport further away that is above min, I would go to the 2nd one. The FAA could violate you if you decide to go to the 1st one (airport is not suitable).
Declaring an emergency does not necessarily waive all the FARs.
 

RiddlePilot

New Member
I was always taught (and practice) that on a single-engine approach in a light twin, the 1000' to-go mark is the go/no-go. If you're below 1000' and the field goes below minimums, so be it. Fly the airplane down, try to make stable (read: right side up) contact with the surface. This is kind of a lose-lose situation of course, since you may end up banged up by flying a crippled aircraft to the ground below mins, but it's better than attempting a missed approach and ending up on the side of a mountain.
 

say_speed

New Member
you are absolutely right. in a light twin, I would land as well.
I was only pointing out, or trying to point out, that even though in an emergency, you can not always waive all the FARs. Part 23 certificated aircraft have the capability to go around on a single engine, and in some conditions, it would be wise to do just that.
 

sixpack

New Member
Part of my flight planning in a twin, is to calculate the single-engine service ceiling, and my single-engine climb rate. With that knowledge, one can make an educated decision about landing versus a go-around to setup for a better approach.

If I have airspeed, a bit of altitude, climb-rate, and experience on one engine in the airplane, then a missed approach is a reasonable option.
 

fr8dog

New Member
I don't know,
The data you gather from a POH does not take in account the reaction time which can be critical..
Bottom line is : Can the plane do it ? sure ! Statistically how's the outcome ? bad !

Food for thoughts : A similar discussion would be the RTO near V1...Does the T/O runway calculations add up ? sure.
What are the actual successful RTO's when engine failure occur near V1 ??
 

fr8dog

New Member
Like you said : it comes down to go/nogo decision on the app...(altitude, obstacles around....) But once you are commited, put the plane on the rwy !
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know,
The data you gather from a POH does not take in account the reaction time which can be critical..
Bottom line is : Can the plane do it ? sure ! Statistically how's the outcome ? bad !

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont plan on being a statistic. Besides, 37.8% of all statistics are made up on the fly.

I get loads of practice with VMC, Engine Cuts, and SE Landings. Therefore, I have a pretty good feeling for the airplane handling characteristics on a SE go-around. I'm a big advocate for practicing this at higher altitudes (say 4000 agl).
 

say_speed

New Member
Keep in mind as well, most of the training for a multi engine is being practiced with usually 2 people on board, enough fuel to do whatever; so if you are used to having single engine climb performance on 1 engine, you should try the same at max gross weight, could be interesting...!
In most light twins (in every light twin I should say), the commitment is the only answer; Heavier airplanes can do it just fine.
The question now is: at what point are you commited? Personnaly, 500 ft on a light twin is what I go by.
Anyway, I'd rather have an engine failure on my boat than on a Seneca!!
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
...you should try the same at max gross weight, could be interesting...!

[/ QUOTE ] Not sure what you're really trying to say, but I dare say that of the 1500 or so engine out scenerio's I've done, I imagine a few were at max gross weight.
 

say_speed

New Member
What I am saying is: you are not flying a brand new airplane, you are not a test pilot, and surely if you fly a PA 34 at max weight and fail an engine, you will not get the performance you can find in the POH.
Most of the multi training done is far from being at max weight, and the students are conditioned to expect the airplance to fly on 1 engine at 6000ft. Take your students some day with a full boat at max weight, go to 6000ft and do some single engine; show your students that the airplane will not climb as they are used to.
 
Top