Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

say_speed

New Member
I admit: I am guilty of assuming that, when flying on top, in oregon during the winter, you would encounter ice in the clouds. Ok, it wasn't icing, ok you could have maintained VFR all the way down on 1 engine. Now don't forget to cross those graphs in the POH and put a single engine service ceiling of 9950ft, instead of 5 or 6000, or whatever you originaly said it was.

You seem to have a lot of confidence in yourself (if not overconfidence), and trust your airplane way too much... Remember the NTSB reports are full of those people as well...

What we are saying, by going on top to 10000ft and doing some single engine work, you put yourself and your student in a potentially dangerous situation. The weather changes fast in oregon, and that broken layer could very well be solid, and someone on the other side of the country reporting ice, does not mean there is no ice where you are !! You could be the first one to report severe icing during the descent on 1 engine, a situation I don't want to be in...
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chances for you to hit anything on the runway (when you have declared an emergency, and equipment is standing by), are allmost inexistant.

When you say "if I know the airplane well enough to know what it can do", surely you do not mean to say that you can demonstrate higher performance numbers than what is in the POH. I looked up the one for a Dutchess, by curiosity. In the example given, 25C, 3965ft (press alt), 3677 lbs: 140 Ft/min. New airplane, new plaint job, new engine, test pilot at the controls... You are saying that 140 ft/min (assuming your airplane is new and you are a test pilot) is going to get you out of trouble if you have to go around close to the ground?? The way I see it, I will not get 140ft/min on a used Dutchess that everybody uses for training, 15 years old airplane, 1000hrs engines, and I do not consider myself a test pilot... I am lucky if I climb at all!!

Come on, let's be realistic here for a minute... A low altitude go-around on a light twin will get you into more trouble than anything else, and if you doubt that, I suggest you go read some of the accident reports around.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chances for you to hit anything on the runway (when you have declared an emergency, and equipment is standing by), are allmost inexistant.

When you say "if I know the airplane well enough to know what it can do", surely you do not mean to say that you can demonstrate higher performance numbers than what is in the POH. I looked up the one for a Dutchess, by curiosity. In the example given, 25C, 3965ft (press alt), 3677 lbs: 140 Ft/min. New airplane, new plaint job, new engine, test pilot at the controls... You are saying that 140 ft/min (assuming your airplane is new and you are a test pilot) is going to get you out of trouble if you have to go around close to the ground?? The way I see it, I will not get 140ft/min on a used Dutchess that everybody uses for training, 15 years old airplane, 1000hrs engines, and I do not consider myself a test pilot... I am lucky if I climb at all!!

Come on, let's be realistic here for a minute... A low altitude go-around on a light twin will get you into more trouble than anything else, and if you doubt that, I suggest you go read some of the accident reports around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude! Stop assuming things that people do not say! I did not say or imply that I could make the airplane perform better than the book says. But if the single engine service ceiling is at 9000, then it's going to be able to climb at sea level. Yes, the chances of a truck being on the runway are slim if you've declared an emergency, but WHAT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HIT THE RUNWAY? All I'm saying is that there MAY be a situation where you ARE GOING TO DIE IF YOU CONTINUE THE LANDING. I said nothing about how common it is, but there IS the possibility, and anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
Oh and one other thing. You do not live in Oregon, so stop trying to tell us (and failing I might add) what our own weather is like!
 

say_speed

New Member
If, at 10000 ft you are above the clouds, and no ice has been reported, let's say it is 1 degree C up there (I have experienced carburator icing at 20 degrees C OAT). That means it was 21 degrees C that day on the ground in winter in Oregon. I have family that lives near Independance, OR, that is not the kind of weather they tell me about.

I don't mean to tell you anything about your weather in OR, I am listening to you and making deductions; 2 degrees C per 1000ft of alt, non saturated adiabatic rate (a little more in the clouds, but I give you the benefits of the doubt), you don't have to be a magicien to figure this one out!

What you guys have been saying since the beginning of this thread doesn't make any sense, and you keep going back and forth arranging the sauce to your liking...

When people make comments on a board read by professionals and aspiring professionals, and argue that doing a low altitude go-around on a light multi engine is safe, I am sorry to strongly disagree with this. What will the student pilot think (after reading this) when he takes a light twin up for a ride with his family, looses an engine and decides to try a low altitude go-around in DEN in the middle of the summer? Well,
getting where I am going here? What you write influences people, and those with little experience take what you say for granted, because you are a CFI.

Look in the POH, keep in mind that the graphs are based on flight tests conducted by a factory test pilot (looking for the best numbers to put in the POH) using a new airplane, with 2 new engines, slick paint job, etc... when was the last time you flew such an airplane? Personally, I don't remember the last time I flew one... Are you a test pilot? Me neither, then guess what, the day you find yourself in that situation, add the stress onto that, believe me, you will be lucky if you make it!

I don't care what the weather is in OR, if you have to climb to 10000ft above the clouds to do some single engine work, maybe you should consider doing this flight when the conditions improve.
 

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 ]

What airplane are we talking about here? Ok, gives us a name, a multi engine given to have a single engine service ceiling of 6000ft, you get 35% more?? I need to get myself one of those!!

"According to the charts...", did you use the OAT at 10000ft? That "cool oregon air" has nothing to do with this, not if you used the correct temp.

"He was able to climb back up to 9950 feet, where he did an airstart". Did he consequently loose any altitude, in an attempt to reach a certain airspeed?? Were you still in VFR then, or did you allready activate you IFR flight plan??

 

sixpack

New Member
Sayspeed says: [ QUOTE ]
If, at 10000 ft you are above the clouds, and no ice has been reported, let's say it is 1 degree C up there (I have experienced carburator icing at 20 degrees C OAT). That means it was 21 degrees C that day on the ground in winter in Oregon. I have family that lives near Independance, OR, that is not the kind of weather they tell me about .

[/ QUOTE ]

NICE JOB.
You publicly made a BAD assumption (you said it was 1 degree C up there).
Then you did some math.
And then proved to the public that your own bad assumption was wrong.

No disagreement here!
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Let's get this back on some semblance of original ideas, or start getting this thread to some conclusions.
 

Ralgha

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to tell you anything about your weather in OR, I am listening to you and making deductions; 2 degrees C per 1000ft of alt, non saturated adiabatic rate (a little more in the clouds, but I give you the benefits of the doubt), you don't have to be a magicien to figure this one out!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only part I'm going to dignify with an answer, and only because you are still demonstrating that you know nothing about weather in Oregon.

Those things called temperature inversions? We have them for days on end, even in the winter. You can feel it getting warmer as you climb on some days. Now stop trying to tell us what our weather is like when we fly in it multiple times every day.

Now, to respect MikeD's request, I'm done in this thread.
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Sayspeed says: [ QUOTE ]
If, at 10000 ft you are above the clouds, and no ice has been reported, let's say it is 1 degree C up there (I have experienced carburator icing at 20 degrees C OAT). That means it was 21 degrees C that day on the ground in winter in Oregon. I have family that lives near Independance, OR, that is not the kind of weather they tell me about .

[/ QUOTE ]

NICE JOB.
You publicly made a BAD assumption (you said it was 1 degree C up there).
Then you did some math.
And then proved to the public that your own bad assumption was wrong.

No disagreement here!


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I make a mistake? 1degree at 10,000ft does not equal 21 degrees on the ground? Based on 2/1000ft. What did I miss??!!
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

What airplane are we talking about here? Ok, gives us a name, a multi engine given to have a single engine service ceiling of 6000ft, you get 35% more?? I need to get myself one of those!!

"According to the charts...", did you use the OAT at 10000ft? That "cool oregon air" has nothing to do with this, not if you used the correct temp.

"He was able to climb back up to 9950 feet, where he did an airstart". Did he consequently loose any altitude, in an attempt to reach a certain airspeed?? Were you still in VFR then, or did you allready activate you IFR flight plan??



[/ QUOTE ]

Let's finish some semblance of discussion here, like Mike suggested. Instead of arguing of a possible temp inversion of 20 degrees C or so in Oregon in the winter, answer the forementioned questions!

Btw, the mistake that I see I made, is in the 35%... It should have been more like 55%. The POH says 6000 and you get 9950ft, if my mental math is still what it used to be, it is in the ball park of 55%. Wrong again, this time I used my 99cts calculator and finds 60.3%. Not bad...
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Alright, here's the deal regards SE go-arounds, people.

They're fully situational dependant. Saying you'll NEVER do one simply isn't realistic.. You train go do them for a reason, and must exercise the appropriate judgement in any SE situation, to include whether or not to PLAN to do one, and whether or not to ACTUALLY do one when the situation presents itself.

Assuming you have the performance numbers in your noggin and they're in the positive (or even neutral), executing a SE go-around, if needed, shouldn't be the end of the world. If you know you DON'T have the performance, then it's a judgement call on whether to execute one, fully dependant on the situation at hand.

The problem here is this argument has SO MANY "what if's" that anyone could install here, that could result in any answer. So I'll just list a few of the more likely possibilities.

In each case, let's assume the engine failure has happened prior to being established on an approach, the appropriate checklists are accomplished and the engine is properly secured. WX is at circling mins (ceiling and viz). You have 1 hour fuel. The challenge here is the approach and landing, and more specifically, whether or not to go around.

Situation #1 (with positive performance):

At MDA you see the runway just at MAP (past the VDP). Do you go around? Do you "dive for the runway"? Do you circle? Would you want to circle?

It's all a judgement call. You have the calculated performance, and also, you FEEL the performance in the aircraft (remember the thing about holding a pilot license giving you the responsibility to have judgement?). Would you want to circle SE? Diving for the runway, landing, then going through the departure-end fence could conceivably be "careless and reckless", regardless of being an emergency. As an aside, being an emergency doesn't relieve you from operating your aircraft in a safe manner..."careless and reckless" could still apply if you use the incorrect judgement. Diving for the runway at MAP at Vandenberg AFB (15,000+ Rwy) vs diving for the runway at Casa Grande, AZ (5200 feet) are two completely different animals, performance notwithstanding. Circling SE...to me that's comfort level. That's something NOT normally practiced often. So whether you circle or go around is a judgement call, though I'd tend to think that doing the "more practiced" SE go vs the SE circle with the positive performance would be the more "reasonable and prudent" of the actions, especially if you auger-in on the SE circle. In any event, with positive performance, I wouldn't have heartache performing a SE go, over trying to reposition the aircraft under the WX. And I'd definately perform a missed vice descending below MDA/DH if I didn't break out....again, even though you're an IFE, you descend below the WX and crash, when you could've made a go-around, it's on you.

Situation #2 (negative performance SE)

Gets trickier here. Almost any way you slice it, you're ending up on the ground, one way or another. With the aforementioned example, would you dive for the runway or circle (perpendicular runway)? Again, a judgment call. You may end up through the departure end fence again, or you may stall and spin in the circling maneuver, or simply lose available altitude under you during the circle. Or, you may not. Put it on a taxiway or the grass? Lot's of "if's" here with this one, again a judgement call.

Now let's assume you don't break out of the WX in this case. You're on a non-precision, so there's no glideslope to follow to the runway. You're at MAP. What do you do? You'll end up descending, but will be in no position to really land on-field.....or maybe you will. This will involve some real maneuvering. Or do you elect to land off-airport? Can it work? Depends on what's around. Is there another airport close-by you could make when you break-out and are far out of position to land? If so, do you make a quasi-"SE go" to stretch your reach to another field or landing site? This would be a SE go, by definition.

All judgement calls here. Like I said, either way, you're going to come down to earth in this case.

Both these cases illustrate that the situations require judgement and skill, in addition to the book answers. I wouldn't ever say I'd definately do this or definately not do that. That's just not realistic.

MD
 

say_speed

New Member
I don't fully agree with you MikeD (with all due respect). Here is why: I think we are talking about light multi engine training airplanes, that are not certificated under Part 23, and therefore do not have to demonstrate single engine climb performance in the take-off configuration.

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, a Beech Dutchess will give you around 140ft/min. I want to emphasize the fact that this figure had been demonstrated by a company test pilot, on a brand new airplane (we all know airplanes used in a training environment loose their performance very rapidly). I would not use that number as a rock solid number (if you make some math, you will find that 5Nm after initiating the single engine go, you will only gain 532ft, with a climb speed of 80kt, or worse, after 1.5Nm you will be only 161ft higher!)

The mistake that most people make (I do some volunteer stuff for the FAA, I know a little bit about this) is believing that the second engine will get them out of trouble. It is far from the truth, most of the accidents in GA on light twins occur because of overconfidence in the airplane capabilities.

My point is to warn people when flying a light twin, set yourself some limits. I think that 500ft AGL is a good one, personaly.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't fully agree with you MikeD (with all due respect). Here is why: I think we are talking about light multi engine training airplanes, that are not certificated under Part 23, and therefore do not have to demonstrate single engine climb performance in the take-off configuration.

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, a Beech Dutchess will give you around 140ft/min. I want to emphasize the fact that this figure had been demonstrated by a company test pilot, on a brand new airplane (we all know airplanes used in a training environment loose their performance very rapidly). I would not use that number as a rock solid number (if you make some math, you will find that 5Nm after initiating the single engine go, you will only gain 532ft, with a climb speed of 80kt, or worse, after 1.5Nm you will be only 161ft higher!)

The mistake that most people make (I do some volunteer stuff for the FAA, I know a little bit about this) is believing that the second engine will get them out of trouble. It is far from the truth, most of the accidents in GA on light twins occur because of overconfidence in the airplane capabilities.

My point is to warn people when flying a light twin, set yourself some limits. I think that 500ft AGL is a good one, personaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you on your point. We all know that many of the Duchess/Apache/Seminole/Aztec aircraft have little, if any, climb rate available in many conditions (atmospheric/altitude etc). Knowing this, it's imperitive that you know the abilities and limitations of your aircraft at any given time. Setting a limitation on yourself to apply to each and every situation is as unrealistic as overestimating the abilities of your aircraft at all times. There are times when you can make a SE go, and times you can't. The onus is upon you as the PIC to know when those times are, and flex accordingly depending on the situation. If you have the ability to make an SE go in a situation that warrants one, and you fail to and end up cracking up the plane or worse, that'll be labled bad judgement on the PICs part. Same holds true for if you don't have the ability to make an SE go, and you attempt one, then end up cracking up the plane (or worse), that'll be labled the same bad judgement as before.

I can agree that setting a limitation, or baseline of some sort, is a good conservative thing to keep in the back of your head. Going farther than that, though, is knowing the numbers for your aircraft in any given situation, whether you use a chart or some sort of quick reference. Nothing that has to be specific, like "right now, I have a 427.3+ FPM ability", but a ballpark or WAG of some sort is better than nothing "I should have at least 200 FPM climb rate", and will instantly tell you where you stand in a given situation. From there, you then can plan your options available. You may or may not have the option of an SE go, but at least you have an idea ahead of time. It comes down to experience in your particular aircraft and knowing it's limitations. The A-10 isn't 14 CFR 23 certificated, but I know when it can and when it can't make an SE go. Example: A left engine out (no left hydraulics) is far different from a right engine out (no right hyd). With the left engine out, I have to figure in things like the inability to raise the landing gear (unable with left hyd out)....much differnent from the right engine out where I don't have that problem. Combine that with the atmospheric conditions, and I have a pretty good ballpark idea of what my limitations are on landing based on experience in the aircraft and quick reference charts in the checklist. It comes back to knowing the systems, performance, and limitations of your craft.

That being said, I fully agree that many people (some I've even talked to) overestimate the capabilities of light twins. They figure the other engine there is full-up insurance from losing one motor, completely forgetting that one engine out is something like loss of 80% available power. In many instances, a light twin can be more dangerous than a single-engine, not through any fault of the plane itself, but through fault of the pilot. At least with a single-engine, your options are pretty cut and dried. From what I've seen personally, some mishaps that occur from an SE go, the aircraft could've performed it with not too much problem. But poor pilot technique (no zero sideslip, etc) exacerbated the already-fine margin for error, and an accident occurred. My whole point is that we need better training of multi-engine pilots to learn their aircraft and what it can and can't do at any given time, rather than impose limitations at all times as an artificial crutch. There are times when limitations will apply, and it's the job of the PIC to know when those times are. Then, putting into effect the degree of limitation (500 AGL for example), would easily apply.
 

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
My first day of Seminole training with Mike Lefevre said it all.

"Hey Duck, how much performance will you lose if one of your engine fails?"

"50%...Duh!"

"80%!"
 

sixpack

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
..."Hey Duck, how much performance will you lose if one of your engine fails?"
"50%...Duh!"
"80%!"

[/ QUOTE ]
Must have been a standard day.

On a cold day, you might only lose 50-70% (say, 1400ft/min to 350ft/min).

On a hot day you might lose 120% of performance (from 800ft/min climb to -200ft/min descent). That's when you start wondering how much the your flight instructor in the right seat weighs, and consider pushing him out the door.
 

NJA_Capt

Well-Known 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 maneuvering (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 ]
You can't legally fly VFR at 10,000' either....
I'm surprised it hasn't bothered more people on this thread. I'm not sure which is worse, teaching students it's OK to violate your altitude by 450' or endangering IFR traffic who are legally at 10,000'. You can't choose which rules suit you and which don't. If you can't stay legal, don't go.

IFR traffic is not expecting a maneuvering aircraft above the clouds within 50' of his altitude and may still be at 350 KIAS at 10K.

I don't think ATC radar can read less than 100' increments so to them you ARE at 10,000. I hope your transponder doesn't read 50' high or the "other guys" 50' low.

Glad we have TCAS.
 

sixpack

New Member
ATC didn't seem to mind. They knew who I was and what I was doing. No complaints when I reported back.

Besides, the VFR cruising altitudes are based on magnetic course and stable altitude. You don't have either while doing maneuvers.
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you on your point. We all know that many of the Duchess/Apache/Seminole/Aztec aircraft have little, if any, climb rate available in many conditions (atmospheric/altitude etc). Knowing this, it's imperitive that you know the abilities and limitations of your aircraft at any given time. Setting a limitation on yourself to apply to each and every situation is as unrealistic as overestimating the abilities of your aircraft at all times. There are times when you can make a SE go, and times you can't. The onus is upon you as the PIC to know when those times are, and flex accordingly depending on the situation. If you have the ability to make an SE go in a situation that warrants one, and you fail to and end up cracking up the plane or worse, that'll be labled bad judgement on the PICs part. Same holds true for if you don't have the ability to make an SE go, and you attempt one, then end up cracking up the plane (or worse), that'll be labled the same bad judgement as before.

I can agree that setting a limitation, or baseline of some sort, is a good conservative thing to keep in the back of your head. Going farther than that, though, is knowing the numbers for your aircraft in any given situation, whether you use a chart or some sort of quick reference. Nothing that has to be specific, like "right now, I have a 427.3+ FPM ability", but a ballpark or WAG of some sort is better than nothing "I should have at least 200 FPM climb rate", and will instantly tell you where you stand in a given situation. From there, you then can plan your options available. You may or may not have the option of an SE go, but at least you have an idea ahead of time. It comes down to experience in your particular aircraft and knowing it's limitations. The A-10 isn't 14 CFR 23 certificated, but I know when it can and when it can't make an SE go. Example: A left engine out (no left hydraulics) is far different from a right engine out (no right hyd). With the left engine out, I have to figure in things like the inability to raise the landing gear (unable with left hyd out)....much differnent from the right engine out where I don't have that problem. Combine that with the atmospheric conditions, and I have a pretty good ballpark idea of what my limitations are on landing based on experience in the aircraft and quick reference charts in the checklist. It comes back to knowing the systems, performance, and limitations of your craft.

That being said, I fully agree that many people (some I've even talked to) overestimate the capabilities of light twins. They figure the other engine there is full-up insurance from losing one motor, completely forgetting that one engine out is something like loss of 80% available power. In many instances, a light twin can be more dangerous than a single-engine, not through any fault of the plane itself, but through fault of the pilot. At least with a single-engine, your options are pretty cut and dried. From what I've seen personally, some mishaps that occur from an SE go, the aircraft could've performed it with not too much problem. But poor pilot technique (no zero sideslip, etc) exacerbated the already-fine margin for error, and an accident occurred. My whole point is that we need better training of multi-engine pilots to learn their aircraft and what it can and can't do at any given time, rather than impose limitations at all times as an artificial crutch. There are times when limitations will apply, and it's the job of the PIC to know when those times are. Then, putting into effect the degree of limitation (500 AGL for example), would easily apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that you are right... The FARs still leave a margin for the PIC to operate within, and knowing your airplane limitations is well within the PIC responsibilities.

What I was trying to point out, is despite what someone said here, doing a single engine low altitude go-around is not allways the safest action. Surely there are situations where I would opt for a go around on 1 engine, and like you said the PIC has to know his airplane.

I was also trying to caution people with too much confidence in those multi engine, that when operate such an airplane at max gross weight, you may be far off the numbers given on the POH. Just as a prevention, I would say: on a light twin, that is not Part 23, be extremely vigilent when (in terms of conditions and weight and altitude) to intiate a go-around.

Anyways, I am going on 2 1/2 weeks of paid vacation tomorrow morning, so you won't have the displeasure to read me again!


I will see y'all in a couple of weeks!
 

say_speed

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
ATC didn't seem to mind. They knew who I was and what I was doing. No complaints when I reported back.

Besides, the VFR cruising altitudes are based on magnetic course and stable altitude. You don't have either while doing maneuvers.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATC is not responsible for choosing your altitudes. You are.

Besides, the FARs talk about VFR altitudes in a pretty simple manner, you should have a look at it.

You don't go buzzing around 10000ft because ATC knows you! I had to do an evasive maneuver one day ("climb, turn left", from the TCAS) because a goofball was flying VFR at 10000ft (it wasn't in Or, so I am confident it wasn't you). Guess what, that pilot got reported to ATC, and most likely got violated (ATC knew who he was and where he was).


I'll see you in 2 1/2 weeks!!
 
Top