one engine inoperative landing

[SteveC]

There are two types of emergencies. Precautionary and OhMyGawdWeAreGonnaDie.
For me there will be only two cases that I would declare it. One is a real emergency and the other because I am planning on breaking the FARs. I better give an example before you guys shoot me down.
Ex: complete flap failure on an aircraft that has an approach speed of 200+Knots no flaps which can easily become in violation of speed limit. No flap landing is not an emergency as you know.

I am not a career pilot but I can understand company policy requirements and part 121/135 operations when it comes to declaring an emergency but when you are operating under part 91 (Ah, freedom) level at 5000FT @ 7miles out from your airport all briefed for an engine shut down and restart and the starter craps out declaring immediately an emergency is at PIC discretion especially when your home airport is high on traffic flow with jets landing one after another and you carry no passengers. You can always declare it later if you don’t get what you want. Now if the engine quits for some unknown reason then that can be different situation.
Pilot in Command decisions are final..................not the controllers or the FAA who are not up there with you.

As I remember structural failures and fires are the only times it must be reported.

I certainly agree that there is no requirement to declare an emergency for a Part 91 single engine landing in a twin. It is certainly up to the PIC to decide if he wants to or not in that situation.

My curiosity lies in the thought process that leads up to that decision. In a case like this I don't see any compelling reason for not declaring an emergency, and as others have pointed out I can certainly see some reasons why it might be prudent to do so. Would you care to elaborate on why you would not declare in this situation?

(As a side note, the one time that I had an engine failure in a twin I did not declare an emergency, and it was a non-event. In retrospect I think that I might do it differently next time, and that is simply because I have thought about all the consequences (pro and con) from the comfort of my recliner and decided that having the rescue personnel sitting next to the runway while I'm landing with an imperfect airplane and not needing them is better than them sitting in the barn playing solitaire during the one in a hundred times that I might need them to pry me out of a mangled burning wreck when I screw up something like getting too slow and putting in too much SE power with too little rudder (holy run-on sentence Batman!). Others might make a different decision, and I don't have a problem with that AT ALL, as long as the reasons for doing so are logical and reasoned. I understand that different people have different tolerances for risk (witness recent conversations about single engine aircraft crossing the Great Lakes with/without a raft), and some times I lean more to one side than the other. It's the conversation and PRIOR decision making that is important.)

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

No flap landing is not an emergency as you know.

What kind of airplane are you talking about? We always declared one in the CRJ regardless, even though approach speed was never above 186.

FYI, no speeds would be violated if clean was above 200 anyways, b/c you can exceed a speed limit if your min clean manuevering speed is above whatever speed limit there may be (200 or 250)

It's just covering your bases....

 

[Crockrocket94]

As for the "no flap" as an emergency.

People get them often in the Citation 650 because of a crap AC flap motor. However, there are alot of things to consider.

In a no flap with the 650, you will be approaching a good 30-35 knots faster than you would normally. Ex: No flap Ref is something like 155 at 20,000 pounds I believe. Thats going to eat ALOT of runway, considering max tire speed is 165. I bet the brakes are going to be heated and if you sit down on those you could very well heat out the plugs and blow tires. What happens if

Just because the immediate problem might not be an emergency worthy item, there are considerations to be had with the effects.

I mean, its a CYA world, so as they say its better to safe than sorry.

 

[ppragman]

After listening to BDHill's last transmissions, after he lost his only engine, it didn't seem like he or the tower seemed very concerned. He died from something us flight instructors practice on nearly a daily basis. If he had declared an emergency, he would have had emergency crews waiting on him. Not saying it would have saved his life, or trying to throw his decisions under the bus, just using it as a real world example. It seemed like something routine, but it cost him his life.

With a single engine airplane you may not have time to do anything more than "tower we've had an engine failure," remember AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE

Ohh, and an engine failure in a single is never routine.

 

[JJink]

I certainly agree that there is no requirement to declare an emergency for a Part 91 single engine landing in a twin. It is certainly up to the PIC to decide if he wants to or not in that situation.

My curiosity lies in the thought process that leads up to that decision. In a case like this I don't see any compelling reason for not declaring an emergency, and as others have pointed out I can certainly see some reasons why it might be prudent to do so. Would you care to elaborate on why you would not declare in this situation?

(As a side note, the one time that I had an engine failure in a twin I did not declare an emergency, and it was a non-event. In retrospect I think that I might do it differently next time, and that is simply because I have thought about all the consequences (pro and con) from the comfort of my recliner and decided that having the rescue personnel sitting next to the runway while I'm landing with an imperfect airplane and not needing them is better than them sitting in the barn playing solitaire during the one in a hundred times that I might need them to pry me out of a mangled burning wreck when I screw up something like getting too slow and putting in too much SE power with too little rudder (holy run-on sentence Batman!). Others might make a different decision, and I don't have a problem with that AT ALL, as long as the reasons for doing so are logical and reasoned. I understand that different people have different tolerances for risk (witness recent conversations about single engine aircraft crossing the Great Lakes with/without a raft), and some times I lean more to one side than the other. It's the conversation and PRIOR decision making that is important.)

You got me, there is no good reason not to and it is safer to do so as many point out.
The first think that came to my mind was "Oh crap, paperwork and talk to FAA?!". With my dealings with them they will probably praise you for your actions and then turn around and bust you for a 3 days out of date sectional......it is not machoism (for me) in this case. We learn about that in ADM. It is more of the unwillingness to deal with them afterwards.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

With a single engine airplane you may not have time to do anything more than "tower we've had an engine failure," remember AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE

Ohh, and an engine failure in a single is never routine.

It seems routine, when you practice it daily with students. The same goes for MEIs doing simulated single engine landings. It doesn't seem like a big deal after you do it every day, but when it really happens, it is a big deal.

 

[MikeD]

There's really no good reason to not declare an emergency. If something does happen, even if you consider it somewhat routine (which I would as well with a single engine landing-been there done that), it'll be a lot easier to deal with the Fed's. Personally, I've declared a few emergencies and have never had any paperwork to fill out. My company has had to fill out a bit a paperwork because of my declared emergencies (they were all easily justified though), but that's the cost of doing business. Personally, I declare to protect myself in case something unforseen does happen so it has less of a chance coming back on me.

To the comments on declaring an emergency, I will always declare for a few reasons. One, it's company policy that during any abnormality or malfunction that could potentially create hazard, to declare the emergency. Things like unsafe gear lights, or feathered propellers fall into this catagory. Second, the single engine situation isn't the specific emergency itself, the emergency would be the side-effects of the situation. IE: unable to hold altitude, the possibility of a single engine go-around, or any other numerous complication to an already complex issue.

Declaring an emergency isn't taboo, it's never anything you have to be afraid of. It makes sure you have the priority you need, and gives you some breathing room should you need it. I always encourage my students to never hesitate, with common sense and good airmanship, kind of a 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

I think there are a lot of pilots that feel declaring an emergency is a hassle, or a burden. It is neither, and should be taught to anyone with the title CFI as such. Use it as a security blanket to know that you're going to get taken care of, no matter how little or how much you need it.

I wanted to highlight these two posts and expand upon them. First, I'm glad to see more and more civilian pilots willing to declare an emergency when needed, or even when unsure, rather than hold off due to some fear of "the FAA", or "paperwork." Many civilians I've seen almost need to be dragged kicking and screaming before they use the "dreaded E word."

Now, taking my flying hat off, and putting my (former and current) ARFF firefighter hat on, here are the reasons I'd want a pilot to declare an emergency if there's any reason he thinks he needs to (precautionary such as one-engine out, to the most serious). I brief this same brief to crews at forest fires when my truck is on contract as the helibase/helispot ARFF vehicle; though they normally don't have the same reservations the average GA pilot has in declaring.


- It's why I exist at the airport. It's why the fire trucks are there. It's what I'm trained to do. The trucks and station aren't just an airfield decoration. Use us.

- By expecting you (as a result of a declaring an emergency), I sometimes have more time to prepare for your arrival, rather than you impacting on the airport and I have to get the call (if I didn't witness it), bunker up in the prox gear, roll out of the station, and get to you. Add even more time to that if you've impacted outside the airfield boundary someplace.

- Even if I roll out to the ramp and stage for you, and it turns out to be a non-event, I've still gotten some good training out of it. I've been able to quickly gear up, and get out of the station; checking the time from the call-out to when I'm ready and in-place for you and being able to double-check my response times. All good training for me, even if nothing happens.

- If something does happen, I'm there. From fire suppression, to extrication/rescue, to medical. There will be a minimum delay.

- If you declare an emergency, and you see no further need for it, then cancel the emergency with ATC. Generally, I'll probably still meet you at end of runway or in parking (depending on the nature of the emergency) to make a cursory look-over of your aircraft, and depending on the jurisdiction involved, may have to formally release you from the emergency. But either is no big deal at all.

So use us. We appreciate the business.
-

 

[MikeD]

After listening to BDHill's last transmissions, after he lost his only engine, it didn't seem like he or the tower seemed very concerned. He died from something us flight instructors practice on nearly a daily basis. If he had declared an emergency, he would have had emergency crews waiting on him. Not saying it would have saved his life, or trying to throw his decisions under the bus, just using it as a real world example. It seemed like something routine, but it cost him his life.

It's not throwing anything under the bus. Every accident has many learning points. For the living to not learn something from his accident, good or bad, would make the loss of his life that much more tragic.

 

[gne in prog]

a pretty good baseline is your poh, qrh, whatever your plane has. things are tabbed under "emergency" "abnormal" and "normal". they weren't placed there at random.

i've declared 4 times. an engine failure in a single, one in a multi-piston, one in a multi-jet, and one electrical fire. the only paperwork i ever had to fill out was for the one with a 135 carrier, that was a company form. zero phone calls, questions, or mention of them from a fsdo.

there are no downsides to declaring.

 

[Copperhed51]

I'm just curious, but is the unfeathering accumulator the only way to restart the engine on this plane and get the prop out of feather? Obviously on airplanes without the accumulator, you use the starter. Is the use of the starter prohibited for an air restart in that plane? Did you try using the starter and it didn't work or did the checklist not even call for it? Just kinda curious. My 310 doesn't have the accumulators and it comes out of feather and starts up just fine with just the starter helping it along.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I'm just curious, but is the unfeathering accumulator the only way to restart the engine on this plane and get the prop out of feather? Obviously on airplanes without the accumulator, you use the starter. Is the use of the starter prohibited for an air restart in that plane? Did you try using the starter and it didn't work or did the checklist not even call for it? Just kinda curious. My 310 doesn't have the accumulators and it comes out of feather and starts up just fine with just the starter helping it along.

I had it fail in the Duchess when I was flying it with ryanmickG. He failed the engine on me and it never fired when we tried a restart. Eventually, the starter stuck with the bendix engaged, so the prop wouldn't even windmill.

 

[bLizZuE]

I'm just curious, but is the unfeathering accumulator the only way to restart the engine on this plane and get the prop out of feather? Obviously on airplanes without the accumulator, you use the starter. Is the use of the starter prohibited for an air restart in that plane? Did you try using the starter and it didn't work or did the checklist not even call for it? Just kinda curious. My 310 doesn't have the accumulators and it comes out of feather and starts up just fine with just the starter helping it along.

There are two checklists, restart with and without the starter for assistance. We ran the checklist twice for each, neither got the engine running. Normally using the accumulator we can just pitch for about 105 kts and the prop will windmill and start. Otherwise we can use the starter to windmill the propeller. I primed the engine multiple times using the throttle and the primer, which under any other circumstance would have started the engine. In my experience with the airplane, I've never had an engine be so hard to start after shutdown. I ran the starter for a lot longer than I should have, and it remained feathered. Maintenance mentioned that there could be a problem with the accumulator not working, because when we advanced the prop to full forward it remained nearly full feathered as opposed to nearly full low pitch.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

I was involved in a crash resulting from an actual failure of a critical engine. Not a story for here, but trust me, I would have appreciated having trucks standing by.

I also had a total loss of oil pressure in a 1900. Didn't seem like a big deal, CA shut it down and landed on a 6000 ft runway. Turned out the oil had comletely saturated the brakes on the dead engine, so on touch down we couldn't use any braking or reverse without veering off the runway. We used every bit of those 6000 feet... From what we thought would be a normal, easy se landing. Had we gone longer, again, fire trucks would be welcome.