Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

say_speed

New Member
How many multi time do you have? That seems like a lot of flights!!! But if you survived 1500 engine out scenarios with your students, you must be ready to retire!!
Just kidding...
 

fr8dog

New Member
I might add that those scenarios are most likely (correct me if i'm wrong) expected failures in good conditions (Wx/equip/mental-fatigue....) which is not comparable to :
Your at the end of your night (day...) it's 1800 RVR, your heavy, low fuel ....
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
How many multi time do you have? That seems like a lot of flights!!! But if you survived 1500 engine out scenarios with your students, you must be ready to retire!!
Just kidding...

[/ QUOTE ] Nope, I'm not ready to retire. Did all 1500 in one year. I've signed-off about 50 students in the past year for checkrides in multi-engine aircraft. Each student gets quite a number of engine-out scenarios. Do the math.

[ QUOTE ]
I might add that those scenarios are most likely (correct me if i'm wrong) expected failures in good conditions (Wx/equip/mental-fatigue....) ...

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, they are expected, since I'm the one pulling the engine. The go-around/missed scenario being discussed assumes that you have already dealt with the bad engine (feather and secure). All I'm saying is that a missed or go-around to set up for a better approach can sometimes be a reasonable alternative to a bad landing.
 

fr8dog

New Member
Sure, but i think that what we're talking about is go-around at mins....
Once you're commited, land. To put your throttle forward and try to go missed in low weather, in a light twin (piston) is a recipe for disaster.

To go missed at altitude (not that i see a good reason to do it...) is up to you and perfectly safe but a go-around at 200' is, in my opinion, a very bad idea.
 

sixpack

New Member
Perhaps were talking about two different things.

One Scenario: I lose an engine during a non-precision approach into an airport with one engine. A few minutes later, I reach my MDA (800 AGL). I can see a glimpse of the runway, but I'm not in a position to land straight-in because I've past my VDP Winds and ceilings don't permit circling. I know the ILS is working, so I decide to go missed on one-engine.

Another Scenario: 400' AGL on final. Another aircraft pulls out on the runway. When I push the levers forward to go around, one engine dies. Yeah, I could make the runway, but I decide to go around, and prevent a collision.

All I'm saying is that if you have reasonalbe SE performance, don't give up on the go-around when you have altitude, airspeed, and experience on one engine.
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
One Scenario: I lose an engine during a non-precision approach into an airport with one engine.

[/ QUOTE ]
you loose an engine during a non precison approach, you are having a bad day...

[ QUOTE ]
A few minutes later, I reach my MDA (800 AGL). I can see a glimpse of the runway, but I'm not in a position to land straight-in because I've past my VDP Winds and ceilings don't permit circling. I know the ILS is working, so I decide to go missed on one-engine.

[/ QUOTE ]
bad decision making... why didn't you shoot the ils when you lost your engine? I wouldn't even try a non precision if an ils is available...
[ QUOTE ]
Another Scenario: 400' AGL on final. Another aircraft pulls out on the runway. When I push the levers forward to go around, one engine dies. Yeah, I could make the runway, but I decide to go around, and prevent a collision.

All I'm saying is that if you have reasonalbe SE performance, don't give up on the go-around when you have altitude, airspeed, and experience on one engine.

[/ QUOTE ]
you answered the question... "if you have reasonable SE performance". I don't know what airplane you trained your students on, but surely they didn't have to demonstrate SE climb performance on 1 engine in t/o config. Most of the light training multi engine aircraft don't have any climb performance on 1 engine at max gross weight... Think twice before attempting a go around in these conditions.
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I've signed-off about 50 students in the past year for checkrides in multi-engine aircraft.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is almost 1 student a week!!
I am really impressed. Are you a gold cfi?
 

ready2fly

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the light training multi engine aircraft don't have any climb performance on 1 engine at max gross weight... Think twice before attempting a go around in these conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second that. It's been drilled into my head to avoid the SE Go-around at ALL cost for that very reason - no climb performance to speak of.
 

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
When I trained in the Seminole up in PRC, the single-engine performance was so bad that doing a single engine missed approach just means that you're going to 'buy the farm' off airport instead of at the airport!
 

RiddlePilot

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
When I trained in the Seminole up in PRC, the single-engine performance was so bad that doing a single engine missed approach just means that you're going to 'buy the farm' off airport instead of at the airport!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's so true though.
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
When I trained in the Seminole up in PRC, the single-engine performance was so bad that doing a single engine missed approach just means that you're going to 'buy the farm' off airport instead of at the airport!

[/ QUOTE ] Depends...
Just Thursday, I asked my student (training for his ATP) to maintain 9950 feet. I killed his engine and he lost 200 feet before feathering. Once feathered, he was able to climb back up to 9950 feet, where he did an airstart.

According to the charts, the SE service ceiling should have been about 6000 feet on that day. (gotta love that cool Oregon air)
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few minutes later, I reach my MDA (800 AGL). I can see a glimpse of the runway, but I'm not in a position to land straight-in because I've past my VDP Winds and ceilings don't permit circling. I know the ILS is working, so I decide to go missed on one-engine.

[/ QUOTE ]
bad decision making... why didn't you shoot the ils when you lost your engine? I wouldn't even try a non precision if an ils is available...


[/ QUOTE ] BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY ON THE NON-PRECESION APPROACH WHEN THE ENGINE FAILED.

Before you start calling something a "bad decision", perhaps you should do due diligence and read the text. I clearly stated that the scenario was the loss of an engine DURING a non precision approach.

Here's the original text.
[ QUOTE ]
One Scenario: I lose an engine during a non-precision approach into an airport with one engine. A few minutes later, I reach my MDA (800 AGL). I can see a glimpse of the runway, but I'm not in a position to land straight-in because I've past my VDP Winds and ceilings don't permit circling. I know the ILS is working, so I decide to go missed on one-engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if conditions are right, I'd go missed instead of crashing my airplane into building adjacent to the airport.
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Depends...
Just Thursday, I asked my student (training for his ATP) to maintain 9950 feet. I killed his engine and he lost 200 feet before feathering. Once feathered, he was able to climb back up to 9950 feet, where he did an airstart.

According to the charts, the SE service ceiling should have been about 6000 feet on that day. (gotta love that cool Oregon air)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you were lightER than the max gross weight, you plus a student, 1.5 hrs of fuel... I agree you will get better performance than what the book says. But the figures you find in the book are for a different a/c weight and other parameters.
By the way, 9000 or 10000ft... (9950ft is not an altitude, unless you are doing mountain flying as well as multi engine training).
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY ON THE NON-PRECESION APPROACH WHEN THE ENGINE FAILED.

Before you start calling something a "bad decision", perhaps you should do due diligence and read the text. I clearly stated that the scenario was the loss of an engine DURING a non precision approach.

Here's the original text.
[ QUOTE ]
One Scenario: I lose an engine during a non-precision approach into an airport with one engine. A few minutes later, I reach my MDA (800 AGL). I can see a glimpse of the runway, but I'm not in a position to land straight-in because I've past my VDP Winds and ceilings don't permit circling. I know the ILS is working, so I decide to go missed on one-engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if conditions are right, I'd go missed instead of crashing my airplane into building adjacent to the airport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok,... Sorry.
But you were on a non precision approach, on a multi engine and reached your MDA a few minutes later (as you described). You were then outside (most likely) the FAF when you lost the engine, not close to the ground, or inside the FAF, and maybe not configured.
My question is: why didn't you choose the precision approach instead of the non precision? You obviously had time to troubleshoot and feather the engine, you could have levelled off, declared an emergency, get vectors for the ILS and still make it safely... No single engine go around at 800 ft on a light twin; and you ended up doing the ILS anyways, since you knew it was operational.
I shouldn't have said in my ealier post post "bad decision", I appologize for that. I would have done different, as you have read.
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, 9000 or 10000ft... (9950ft is not an altitude, unless you are doing mountain flying as well as multi engine training).

[/ QUOTE ]
I was manuevering (not on an active flight plan). The reason I picked 9950, is because the cloud tops were around 8500-9000. I couldn't do an airstart above 10,000 feet because I can't legally turn off the avionics (transponder mode C).
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
My question is: why didn't you choose the precision approach instead of the non precision? You obviously had time to troubleshoot and feather the engine, you could have levelled off, declared an emergency, get vectors for the ILS and still make it safely... No single engine go around at 800 ft on a light twin; and you ended up doing the ILS anyways, since you knew it was operational.

[/ QUOTE ] When I made up the hypothetical scenario, I was thinking of losing an engine near the MDA, 1000 feet, a few miles prior to the VDP.

You're making too many assumptions about the conditions and timing. All I was trying to do is offer up a couple of scenarios where going missed might be prudent. I didn't say day/night, icing/dry, max/min gross, and about 100 other factors. It's a hypothetical example to help see that there are some scenarios where a go around is reasonable.

It's easy to add things to any hypothetical scenario if you're really looking to bias the outcome in one direction. For instance, if I told you the engine was on fire, then by all means you'd land immediately at all cost.

Instead of adding conditions to the hypothetical scenario that would make a go-around a bad idea, try to see if you can envision a scenario where you could understand (but perhaps not agree with) the point I'm trying to make.


Clearly we don't agree on the performance aspects of a twin doing a missed approach on one engine. I don't know what type of twin you fly, what climate you fly in, but I'm sure it's different than mine. In my environment, I have a reasonable climb on one engine. That's why I mention the 9950' airstart. The significants of this example is that most people wouldn't think a light twin would have this performance. Knowing this performance, and having a lot of experience on one engine, gives me an option than many would not have.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
What's ironic is that in many conditions, the A-10 has the single-engine go performance nearly equal to that of an Apache/Aztec on a hot and high day. And that's assuming your right engine is out. With a left engine out (left engine-driven hydraulics inop), there's no ability to raise the gear on a single-engine go, so depending on the conditions (weight/density alt/temp etc) there's the great potential for disaster. There's no fuel dump capability, so that's out. You can jettison most of the underwing stores, but depending on what's underneath you or shortly ahead, that may or may not be a viable option. Then again, if it's the difference between dumping some stores into a neighborhood, or the whole plane with the stores attached, that'd be a tough call.

Moral of my babbling? It's occurred to me that not much has changed from the Seminole to the Hog. Hell, my Chieftain had better single-engine performance!
 
Top