my first emergancy landing.... (Kinda)

eagledriver101

eagledriver101

New Member
My uncle owns a Cessna 414 and every few months he fly's into U42 (Airport Number 2, SLC) And we go up for an hour or two and he lets me fly it around, today he was going to assist me in taking off and landing. I feel really confident in the plane, I know I could do it with no prob. But, before I go into what happened, I have a question, my uncle is not a CFI, just multi and instrument rated. Can I log the time in the C-414 even though I am not rated for the aircraft? I am to lazy to look it up tonight and my uncle was not sure. When we fly together I am at the controls 90% of the time, and if I can log it, I'll have 15 hrs of multi thats free.

Continuing...

NOTE : I have my PPL and about 100 hours... Just so some of you don' think my uncle is crazy for letting some one with no FT land his C414....

Today we were going to do some T&Go's for about an hour so I could learn to land the C414. He has been taking me up a lot because in September he is flying it to GA to get some work done to it. New engines, new paint, some interior stuff, and install the G-1000's and he wants me to fly with him from SLC to Atlanta GA to drop the plane off, I think we're going to take 2 or 3 days to get there because he wants to stop at some places a long the way. Not sure of the route yet. but I can't WAIT!!!

Anyway, we take off on runway 16 start the climb to TPA, make a left turn to downwind, get mid-feild and we loose #2... we continue on downwind, turn base, final, and land... that was it... I had always thought that I would be really nervice/scared in an emergency of any-kind. But everything kicked in, I got on coms, and did my thing with that, and almost instantly went through the checklist and procedures and did everything I was supposed too... I was proud, my uncle was shocked, and liked that I was able to do what we have discussed if anything were to happen. In a multi if you're by your self when loosing an engine things can get really busy really fast, even more so if its on departure. I really cant remember what I did in the cockpit, but every thing was done the way it should have been. Its a nice feeling to know that I can handle something like that. It doesn't seem like a big deal... But I have heard of ppl getting killed from loosing an engine in a multi after departure because you have no altitude and no air speed to work with. But we were able to continue our climb at about 500 FPM. and make it back safe. So thats my story....
 
No you cannot log the time as multi pic. No SIC either. From the sounds of it, it seems like he flys a lot and could benefit from getting a CFI.
 
Why did you continue to climb at 500 fpm if you lost the egnine at TPA at midfield on downwind? How high did you climb before starting your descend to land?
 
eagledriver101 said:
My uncle owns a Cessna 414 and every few months he fly's into U42 (Airport Number 2, SLC) And we go up for an hour or two and he lets me fly it around, today he was going to assist me in taking off and landing. I feel really confident in the plane, I know I could do it with no prob. But, before I go into what happened, I have a question, my uncle is not a CFI, just multi and instrument rated. Can I log the time in the C-414 even though I am not rated for the aircraft? I am to lazy to look it up tonight and my uncle was not sure. When we fly together I am at the controls 90% of the time, and if I can log it, I'll have 15 hrs of multi thats free.
.
Click to expand...


Nope.
 
milski said:
Why did you continue to climb at 500 fpm if you lost the egnine at TPA at midfield on downwind? How high did you climb before starting your descend to land?
Click to expand...

Bc when you lose an engine in any kind of airplane, altitude is your friend
 
milski said:
Why did you continue to climb at 500 fpm if you lost the egnine at TPA at midfield on downwind? How high did you climb before starting your descend to land?
Click to expand...


Because if you're able to climb, you want too... alt is your friend... plus my uncle wanted to get more alt for the apprch so he could idle #1 all the way down so he didn't get yaw from #1, makes a bit eaiser... plus there was a cross wind, it made for less work, the landing was a little long.. but if you can climb, climb, its better to have more alt than you need, than less...

However, suppose we would have been at reasonable altitude, at a reasonable airspeed, climbing with full power on both engines. Then one engine fails. Among other things, you will notice that the single-engine rate of climb is not half of the two-engine rate of climb. No, indeed! The reason is simple: when an engine is shut down, you are not splitting the difference between two-engine performance and level flight; you are splitting the difference between two-engine performance and a zero-power descent.
 
montanapilot said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Well, at least i'll have some exp. in a muti before I head to ATP, nonetheless, its exp, rather I can log it or not. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Just something that wont be on paper is all. +Puls when I find out what wrong with #2 i'll update you all. We couldn't figure it out...
 
jon applespeed said:
No you cannot log the time as multi pic. No SIC either. From the sounds of it, it seems like he flys a lot and could benefit from getting a CFI.
Click to expand...



Ya I told him to last year, but he has not yet. I don't know why. God he has the freaking money too... He could do it in a few days.. (Now if I could only get him to spot me 50k for ATP) LOL I wish I had his income.... :nana2:
 
zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

eagledriver101 said:
Because if you're able to climb, you want too... alt is your friend... plus my uncle wanted to get more alt for the apprch so he could idle #1 all the way down so he didn't get yaw from #1, makes a bit eaiser... plus there was a cross wind, it made for less work, the landing was a little long.. but if you can climb, climb, its better to have more alt than you need, than less...

However, suppose we would have been at reasonable altitude, at a reasonable airspeed, climbing with full power on both engines. Then one engine fails. Among other things, you will notice that the single-engine rate of climb is not half of the two-engine rate of climb. No, indeed! The reason is simple: when an engine is shut down, you are not splitting the difference between two-engine performance and level flight; you are splitting the difference between two-engine performance and a zero-power descent.
Click to expand...

First, great to hear the landing turned out OK. But, I have to disagree with the technique used - the key to a successful landing in a multi is a stabilized approach. In your case, if you had to go around, or hit some windy conditions which required power, you're going from 0 power to some setting, which is going to cause a lot of adverse yaw. If you already had the power set for descent on the good engine, and needed more, you're adding less (than going from zero thrust) so your adverse yaw is less, meaning you have a more stabilized approach.

There's no reason to climb 500 feet when the airplane flys after an engine failure. Go through the procedures, if no restart, feather & secure, and land the thing normally - no reason to jump up 500 feet, and absolutely NO good reason to fly the thing in with the good engine at idle.

Again, glad to hear the landing turned out safe for the 2 of you.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

CTFlyer said:
... you're going from 0 power to some setting, which is going to cause a lot of adverse. If you already had the power set for descent on the good engine, and needed more, you're adding less (than going from zero thrust) so your adverse yaw is less.
Click to expand...

you mean asymmetrical thrust?

With reference to the not being nervous/scared part of your story. I would agree that one's training should kick into gear quickly but I still think there is a pretty good amount of nervousness. A couple weeks ago I had a valve get stuck with bent a push rod which means I lost a cylinder while IMC (single engine). I have no problem admitting that I was a bit nervous, however, my training did kick in and everything ended up fine. Another story, a few monthes ago a fellow CFI was on a commercial training flight and unforecast storms popped up all around the airport and him and the student were going to land and got windshear on final, lost about 250 feet which put them just above tree tops, they recovered, crossed the numbers of our 2600 foot runway, which was wet from the pouring rain, about 30 knots fast touched down long and hot and managed to stop in the blastpad. After they got stopped, he asked his student if he was scared, and his student said, as calm as could be, "no." The thing is I am sure that he wasn't scared, because he may not have know the severity of the event that just occured. So, I don't doubt that you have some experience and I am happy that everything turned out great but realize it is not abnormal to be nervous.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

CTFlyer said:
First, great to hear the landing turned out OK. But, I have to disagree with the technique used - the key to a successful landing in a multi is a stabilized approach. In your case, if you had to go around, or hit some windy conditions which required power, you're going from 0 power to some setting, which is going to cause a lot of adverse yaw. If you already had the power set for descent on the good engine, and needed more, you're adding less (than going from zero thrust) so your adverse yaw is less, meaning you have a more stabilized approach.

There's no reason to climb 500 feet when the airplane flys after an engine failure. Go through the procedures, if no restart, feather & secure, and land the thing normally - no reason to jump up 500 feet, and absolutely NO good reason to fly the thing in with the good engine at idle.

Again, glad to hear the landing turned out safe for the 2 of you.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I am glad we got back okay,

But on the landing he came in with more speed on idle, than he would have with a normal power decent so he would not have adverse yaw, if the case was he needed to go around chances are the # 1 would be at idle anyway. Or, if it was a go around, because of another aircraft or something else we would have been fast enough and high enough to add power, level, and start to climb out. If we were over the threshold we could have easily gone into ground effect and slowly added power and climbed out just fine. So I think either way is fine, they both work obviously.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

eagledriver101 said:
Thanks, I am glad we got back okay,

But on the landing he came in with more speed on idle, than he would have with a normal power decent so he would not have adverse yaw, if the case was he needed to go around chances are the # 1 would be at idle anyway. Or, if it was a go around, because of another aircraft or something else we would have been fast enough and high enough to add power, level, and start to climb out. If we were over the threshold we could have easily gone into ground effect and slowly added power and climbed out just fine. So I think either way is fine, they both work obviously.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. They both may work, but they are not equal in terms of flying a twin safely and a stabilized approach concept. When you fly an approach with one engine in-op and the other at partial power, you're already counteracting the yaw caused by the dead engine - so if you add some or full power (to go around) there is less total yaw that you'll need to counteract with rudder. However, in your case of going from zero to full power on the good engine, you're going to need serious rudder (even with your airspeed at a good rate) and the airplane will be unstable during this power application. Have you done multi training maneuvers in a twin with an MEI?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here please, but I don't think you'll find one multi rated pilot on this website that would advocate screaming the airplane in with both engines at idle vs. a stabilized approach with the good engine at descent power.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

CTFlyer said:
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here please, but I don't think you'll find one multi rated pilot on this website that would advocate screaming the airplane in with both engines at idle vs. a stabilized approach with the good engine at descent power.
Click to expand...

Ideally, he should not have to go around at all. I'm not saying that it won't happen, just that he'll have to land it every time while the go around should be really an exception.
I just don't get why he needs to climb higher than TPA. Once he's that high, any further climbing will just make him less stable (slower & higher power settings) and not necessary any safer. He can either maintain his altitude and then there's no reason for climbing further or not and then he cannot climb at all.
Now, I certainly don't have the experience to know what's the better choice here but climbing when an engine is lost was never discussed during my ME/MEI training. So if anyone else thinks it's a good idea, I'd love to know why.

(Note that I'm talking about climbing above TPA, of course you'll want to climb if you're only 100 feet AGL :crazy:)
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

First, great to hear the landing turned out OK. But, I have to disagree with the technique used - the key to a successful landing in a multi is a stabilized approach. In your case, if you had to go around, or hit some windy conditions which required power, you're going from 0 power to some setting, which is going to cause a lot of adverse yaw. If you already had the power set for descent on the good engine, and needed more, you're adding less (than going from zero thrust) so your adverse yaw is less, meaning you have a more stabilized approach.
Click to expand...
I would suggest assuming that you will not be able to perform a go-around/missed approach if you are landing with only one engine unless you know for a fact the density altitude is below the single engine service ceiling.

I've had an engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft as well (I was even PIC!) and it didn't even enter my head to go around. I was going to, and did, land it at the nearest airport. As for coming in with both engines idling, I might not have done that but whatever works. About the adverse yaw from putting in power -- remember it is your hand pushing the power in so you should know that you're going to need rudder. I keep telling students this about Vmc and I guess it would apply here too. ;)

I just don't get why he needs to climb higher than TPA. Once he's that high, any further climbing will just make him less stable (slower & higher power settings) and not necessary any safer. He can either maintain his altitude and then there's no reason for climbing further or not and then he cannot climb at all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he felt he was not within power-off gliding distance to the runway at TPA. Perhaps he didn't know what caused the engine failure but was keeping in mind if it was fuel starvation his other engine was about to go out too?
I dunno. I try not to throw any stones.


I'm glad everyone is safe, good job.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

SpiraMirabilis said:
Perhaps he felt he was not within power-off gliding distance to the runway at TPA. Perhaps he didn't know what caused the engine failure but was keeping in mind if it was fuel starvation his other engine was about to go out too?
I dunno. I try not to throw any stones.
Click to expand...

Not throwing stones, just curious, since I cannot make sense of it on my own.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

In a twin engine piston, there's pretty much no go around option on one engine.
 
Re: zero-power descent? not in a twin... here's why

SpiraMirabilis said:
I would suggest assuming that you will not be able to perform a go-around/missed approach if you are landing with only one engine unless you know for a fact the density altitude is below the single engine service ceiling.

I've had an engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft as well (I was even PIC!) and it didn't even enter my head to go around. I was going to, and did, land it at the nearest airport. As for coming in with both engines idling, I might not have done that but whatever works. About the adverse yaw from putting in power -- remember it is your hand pushing the power in so you should know that you're going to need rudder. I keep telling students this about Vmc and I guess it would apply here too. ;)


Perhaps he felt he was not within power-off gliding distance to the runway at TPA. Perhaps he didn't know what caused the engine failure but was keeping in mind if it was fuel starvation his other engine was about to go out too?
I dunno. I try not to throw any stones.


I'm glad everyone is safe, good job.
Click to expand...

Milski, I don't think your throwing stones.

my uncle read the post today and wanted me to tell you a few things. One, he knew for a fact that there would be no go around because I got firm coms from U42 traffic that the airspace was clr as well as SLC Apprch, additonally, its not really an option, we had a visual of the runway, everything was a go as far as that, and winds were 167 @ 2
Everything happened so fast as I mentioned and I couldn't remember it all. As I said, he was assisting me in landing, so I could land w/out his help. One thing I had for got was that we extended down wind, and made our turn to x-wind, extended that also, then turned down win it was not a tight pattern, because he wanted to go through somethings with me, and that planes gets around the pattern a lot faster than the c172 which I am used to, so to slow things down we extended everything.
As soon as it happened he said "I got the airplane" I said "you got the airplane" then I ran the checklist, we didn't get it started, so he feathered and secured the prop. Then he started to climb. We talked about it today, Dan had to tell me today the reasons he wanted some alt is because 1. we were on an extended traffic pattern, and I was unable to get #2 started. Second, it was the way the engine cut, we didn't get the "Starving for gas here..." it just stopped with out any warning, I remember checking all the greens, and we were going through the before landing check-list and shortly after that it stopped, because nothing I did immidately cut the engine I didn't reverse anything I had just done. Like your taught, if you do something, and the plane does something you don't expect, reverse what you did. Like on my first solo, in a pa-28 pulling the power back, and the engine quit, then I looked down, and my hand was on the mixture... CLASSIC!!! I can't believe it happened to me... anyway...

As he was unsure at that point in time, as I was, on why the engine cut. So for him as a safety measure he wanted to have the alt so if #1 quit he would have enough alt to make the runway because of the extended pattern we were on. His motivation for the (if) #1 quit is because he recently had some work done on the engines the week before, which makes sense now, he was thinking it may be something related to the work that was done.
"One of these things are kinda like the other..."

Remember we were just getting mid-field on an extended pattern, and we were not at TPA yet because we pulled power back, again to slow things down for me. Morever, In that plane, gears down, flaps down, you need power to stay on the glide-slope. If I had both my engines worked on, and one quit, I would naturally think in my head, the other could as well. So he climbed while he could.

He calculated some-things, and did what he did.
1. The engines were recently worked on, was unsure if the problem was related.
2. We were on extended pattern, with power already pulled back.
3 If the other stopped as well, he wanted to have the alt to make the runway.
thats pretty much it, I don't think it was unsafe to do what he did based on that, I think he did fine, I may have done the same thing. I dunno I hope I never have too.
 
Well, with recent engine work... if the good engine had also quit, with my rant about stabilized approaches you'd be in pretty bad shape if both engines failed. During my training we never did power off approaches, I don't know of anybody who has.

Last bit of rant - concerning some of the comments about not being able to go around with one engine - isn't this part of planning for a multi flight, taking into account outside temps, airplane weight, etc. so that the airplane will fly/climb on one engine? If conditions are such that the airplane will not climb on 1 engine with temperature/weight, should the flight even be flown? Easy for me to say since I fly at a 24 ft elevation airport : )

End of rant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top