Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

[fr8dog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then maybe you should call it "missed approach" at altitude...
We are not making too many assumptions...we are talking of a missed approach or go around at low altitude due to reaching the map or dh with no vis...
faa says go around
i say : be careful, consider the performance and the statistics that shows that nearly all go-around in part 23 airplanes at dh on 1 engine ended up in a tower or building or something !
Once you are commited for landing (gear is down) DO IT
you seems to be all happy of your performances at 10 g's
Beleive me, i fly part 23 aiplanes for living carrying cargo and shooting hundred of app...i know !
As far as icing/wx/max weight....low vis.... Well the day you will be needing a go-around in actual condition (meaning the wx is low because i don't see why else you would) it's gonna be one of those night where everything went wrong.
Remember, Emergencies tends to be stacking up !
To sum up what we are saying :
The most likely time you would be considering a actual SE go-around would be under bad weather conditions...
We are just saying that if you have time to troubleshoot, that's nice, and ask for the ILS, Once commited, LAND !
If you don't have time to troubleshoot and you're on the approach already...do you have altitude? Can you hold and reverse course for the ils ? Atc still here ? if so cool ! suck the gear up and set up for the ils (plus you got time now to try that boost pump or whatever...)
If you are already low and commited to land, (basically on the ils at 400 feet or so...make sure you put it down, cos that's gonna get ugly if you push 300 hp around the yaw axis.......)
Of course, that's only MY opinion of flying those things 5 hours a day....
And of course always follow AFM/FAA regs.....

 

[sixpack]

[ QUOTE ]
...Then maybe you should call it "missed approach" at altitude...


[/ QUOTE ]

I did!

Here is exactly what I said:

[ 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 ] Not sure where the confusion is

 

[MikeD]

VDPs are overrated

 

[derg]

[ QUOTE ]
VDPs are overrated

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt! Work great in the sim or on paper!

 

[fr8dog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Then maybe you should call it "missed approach" at altitude...


[/ QUOTE ]

I did!

Here is exactly what I said:

[ 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 ] Not sure where the confusion is

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then we agree then, so does sayspeed.......

The no-go discussion, i believe, was about low vis at low altitude
basically, are you gonna follow your gs down to the runway...
We are only talking of bad scenarios because when it's good wx and you have options...who cares ??

 

[say_speed]

[ QUOTE ]

Even an A-10 climbs like a mule! And even Part 23 airplane, don't expect too much performance either!



[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is having an airplane that has a MTOW of 51,000lbs (normally loaded out at 46,000) powered by two engines with 8,900lbs of thrust each.

 

[say_speed]

[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you live in OR, right? Surely, you must have filed IFR, or how else did you end up above the layer? This time of the year, I would be concerned about icing as well, what if your engine doesn't restart? you will have to fly throught the clouds (ice cold...) on 1 engine!
You trust your airplane a lot, way more than I do mine!

I might be very conservative when it comes to training on light multi (even single) engine airplane, but it has kept me out of trouble so far, and I am proud of it! Flying is inherently dangerous for human being, making it more dangerous is none of my buisiness!

 

[sixpack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you live in OR, right? Surely, you must have filed IFR, or how else did you end up above the layer? This time of the year, I would be concerned about icing as well, what if your engine doesn't restart? you will have to fly throught the clouds (ice cold...) on 1 engine!
You trust your airplane a lot, way more than I do mine!


[/ QUOTE ] Filed yes.
Activated...not yet.
Climbed VFR, did manuevers over broken layer in VFR, then activated the IFR and did an approach on the way in. All in all, a pretty typical day here.

 

[Ralgha]

Filing IFR to bust on top of a layer, cancelling to mess around VFR, then picking up a clearance to get back below isn't uncommon either.

And no, the controllers don't mind, I've called them on the phone and asked.

 

[say_speed]

I am not questioning the feasability of filing, yahdi yahdi yahda...
I don't know where the base of the clouds was either. But if it was high enough for some maneuvers, I wouldn't climb on top and shut an engine down. You said yourself, at 10000ft, you were well above the single engine service ceiling (I think you said something like 5 or 6000ft); So you went up to 10000ft anyway, shut an engine down, risking a gradual descent into the clouds while your student was trouble shooting and feathering?
Aren't you taking a bit of a risk here??

 

[Snow]

Holy cow, I never expected the discussion to continue this long when I made this post! I'm impressed!

Anyhow, having actually attained my multi rating I think I have a better perspective on this than before. All this kinda deviated away from my orginal question, but in reguards to the current discussion, we're always taught to work out the single engine service ceiling and SE climb preformance before EVERY flight, so in that regard you have a better idea if a go around would be possible, and most of the time the SE preformance at sea level is barely pushing 200fpm, so I'd say when the manufacture says 'go around manover not recomended' I'd have to agree with them. It depends on a lot of factors, how much rwy is left, what the obsticals at the end of the rwy etc etc.

There, that's my 2 cents....

 

[sixpack]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not questioning the feasability of filing, yahdi yahdi yahda...
I don't know where the base of the clouds was either. But if it was high enough for some maneuvers, I wouldn't climb on top and shut an engine down. You said yourself, at 10000ft, you were well above the single engine service ceiling (I think you said something like 5 or 6000ft); So you went up to 10000ft anyway, shut an engine down, risking a gradual descent into the clouds while your student was trouble shooting and feathering?
Aren't you taking a bit of a risk here??

[/ QUOTE ] NOPE. Your assumptions are not correct.
If I do ever lose an engine above the clouds, I won't do a gradual descent through the clouds. I will do a normal descent to a normal landing, like I"ve practiced hundreds of times.

 

[Ralgha]

[ QUOTE ]
You said yourself, at 10000ft, you were well above the single engine service ceiling

[/ QUOTE ]

He said the airplane lost some altitude, then when the prop was feathered, it CLIMBED back to 9950 feet. That means it was below its single engine service ceiling.

 

[say_speed]

I don't know how you prepare yourself for a multi engine flight, as far as I am concerned, I look it up in the POH. If for that day the graph gives me a single engine service ceiling of 5000ft, this is what I go by. If I level off at 6000ft that day on 1 engine, I consider myself extremely lucky.

The single-engine service ceiling is what you read in the POH. Don't go for a flight assuming you will be able to get better numbers than the book.

I stand behind what I said before: doing single engine practice at 10000 ft above a freezing layer of clouds, I'd rather stay home that day and watch other people do it!!

 

[sixpack]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't go for a flight assuming you will be able to get better numbers than the book

[/ QUOTE ]You're stating the obvious.
I looked. Nobody posting here said anything about doing this.

 

[say_speed]

[ QUOTE ]

If I do ever lose an engine above the clouds, I won't do a gradual descent through the clouds. I will do a normal descent to a normal landing, like I"ve practiced hundreds of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any such thing as a "normal descent to a normal landing" on a light twin, one engine feathered through icing conditions. It is an emergency! What will happen if you start accumulating ice, or worse, carb icing?

I won't go into a discussion about icing on light non de-iced airplanes, but to my eyes, you are taking an unnecessary risk.

 

[say_speed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't go for a flight assuming you will be able to get better numbers than the book

[/ QUOTE ]
You're stating the obvious.
I looked. Nobody posting here said anything about doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you go practice single engine work above your single engine service ceiling, above a solid (or broken) layer of ice??

 

[stuckingfk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't go for a flight assuming you will be able to get better numbers than the book

[/ QUOTE ]
You're stating the obvious.
I looked. Nobody posting here said anything about doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you go practice single engine work above your single engine service ceiling, above a solid (or broken) layer of ice??

[/ QUOTE ]

Sayspeed,

I think he is too proud to admit he is wrong. I wouldn't knowingly put myself and/or my student in that situation if I didn't have to.

 

[Ralgha]

He got up VFR, he could get back VFR most likely. Oregon can change weather fast, but it also likes to stay exactly the same for weeks on end. Again, the whole "weather briefing" thing comes into play.

Nowhere was it mentioned that that layer had ice in it. Contrary to the gloom and doom that we like to talk about, the clouds don't ALWAYS have ice in them in Oregon. Nor is the freezing level ALWAYS below 10,000 feet, even in the winter, nor is there ALWAYS ice at the freezing level. Those AIRMET ZULUs and PIREPs kinda help out in this area.

If the engine doesn't restart, just fly the friggen airplane. Single engine in a twin isn't the imminent death that some of you seem to paint it as. Yeah it's an emergency, but if you know how, have the skills, and keep your head straight, there is absolutly no reason for it to not end successfully. That's why you've got two engines, so you can still have some options if you lose one.

I'm confident that sixpack is more than capable of safely landing if that engine didn't restart. Someone who doesn't feel confident in flying on one engine needs more practice.

Also, the whole single engine go-around bit, yeah it's usually a better idea to just land and overrun the runway or whatever, but if the "land it" option requires that I plow head on into a brick wall or something similar (like a large truck or airplane or something along those lines), then I might chose the go-around if I know the airplane well enough to know what it can do. Nothing is black and white, there may be a situation where continuing the landing means certain death, while a single engine go-around could avoid it. That is, I think, what sixpack was originally trying to say.

 

[sixpack]

[ QUOTE ]
Sayspeed,
I think he is too proud to admit he is wrong. I wouldn't knowingly put myself and/or my student in that situation if I didn't have to.


[/ QUOTE ] I'll be glad to admit when I'm wrong. I don't need people with half the facts, limited knowledge, and self promoting assumption, passing their judgements on me.

For the record. I never said anything about icing during that flight. The first person to claim that icing conditions existed was somebody 3000 miles away. Namely, your buddy sayspeed. Just check the threads. If you can find in this thread, a place where I said there was icing then point it out. I'll gladly admit my mistake. If you cannot find it, then perhaps the shoe is on the other foot, and we shall see if you're too proud to admit you are wrong.

Let me know what you find, Iruppert.