That Could Have Been Bad

Single engine go around answer....

IT DEPENDS.

There's no hard and fast, or right and wrong answer.

It depends. On situation at hand, atmospheric conditions, aircraft being flown, geographic conditions, physical conditions, pilot capability, time of day, addtional emergencies you're experiencing at the time, WX conditions, pilot situational awareness, and likely a number of others.

Like nearly anything in aviation: IT DEPENDS.

Gospel according to MikeD.....free of charge.
 
Bullcrap. If it's a choice between running into a brick wall at the end of a runway, or falling off a cliff at the end of the runway, or anything else involving sudden stops or drops, I'm doing the single engine go-around. They're just not that hard to do. Know your airplane, and fly the minimum speed or better. Those who will never do a single engine go-around are lacking confidence in themselves and have a severe tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

In a Seminole on any day, it's the brick wall. There's no such thing as climb in a seminole single engine low to the ground.
 
Ralgha said:
Bullcrap. If it's a choice between running into a brick wall at the end of a runway, or falling off a cliff at the end of the runway, or anything else involving sudden stops or drops, I'm doing the single engine go-around. They're just not that hard to do. Know your airplane, and fly the minimum speed or better. Those who will never do a single engine go-around are lacking confidence in themselves and have a severe tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

What I said was not bullcrap, although I appreciate the kind words about my opinion. Going around on one engine is more risky than running off of the end nearly every time. There are times where going around is better than running off the end, like you stated, but that does not make my statement wrong.

I don't really talk about them much, but I have landed with an engine shut down in numerous airplanes ranging from an Aerostar to a Citation (the people at the airport joke about how nearly every plane I fly breaks somehow). I don't lack confidence in my single engine abilities in the least. I have done single engine training in just about every GA piston twin and have never flown one I would be comfortable doing a go around in. It is much easier to just plant the thing and brake hard.

In these piston twins you really are never too high. The drag that kills people on the go around is there to help if they are high. One of the demos I do for my students involves flying at about 5kts above blueline at 1000' until a quater mile final. As the runway starts to dissapear beneth the nose I pull the power to idle, gear down, full flaps, and dive towards the runway. I can do this in a 414 and be stopped 2000' down the runway everytime. This proves to them that you really are never too high. If you are higher than 1000' on a quater mile final you are not doing a go around, you are just flying around the pattern again. So why go around? Some one pulls out on the runway? Land past them, next to them, in the grass, on the taxiway.
 
Ralgha said:
Bullcrap. If it's a choice between running into a brick wall at the end of a runway, or falling off a cliff at the end of the runway, or anything else involving sudden stops or drops, I'm doing the single engine go-around. They're just not that hard to do. Know your airplane, and fly the minimum speed or better. Those who will never do a single engine go-around are lacking confidence in themselves and have a severe tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

Try that in your average light twin at max gross when it's 110 degrees with a high density altitude, and let us know just how hard it was to do. If you're still alive to tell us.
 
Citationkid said:
What I said was not bullcrap, although I appreciate the kind words about my opinion. Going around on one engine is more risky than running off of the end nearly every time. There are times where going around is better than running off the end, like you stated, but that does not make my statement wrong.

I don't really talk about them much, but I have landed with an engine shut down in numerous airplanes ranging from an Aerostar to a Citation (the people at the airport joke about how nearly every plane I fly breaks somehow). I don't lack confidence in my single engine abilities in the least. I have done single engine training in just about every GA piston twin and have never flown one I would be comfortable doing a go around in. It is much easier to just plant the thing and brake hard.

In these piston twins you really are never too high. The drag that kills people on the go around is there to help if they are high. One of the demos I do for my students involves flying at about 5kts above blueline at 1000' until a quater mile final. As the runway starts to dissapear beneth the nose I pull the power to idle, gear down, full flaps, and dive towards the runway. I can do this in a 414 and be stopped 2000' down the runway everytime. This proves to them that you really are never too high. If you are higher than 1000' on a quater mile final you are not doing a go around, you are just flying around the pattern again. So why go around? Some one pulls out on the runway? Land past them, next to them, in the grass, on the taxiway.
Click to expand...


Great post and good job, Alex!
 
We would do single engine go-arounds in a Travelair with a density altitude near the single engine service ceiling. I would say it was the most valuable experience I've had in an airplane.
 
Practice single engine go arounds so that you would feel comfortable doing one. (What else are you going to do while single engine and you reach DA/MAP on the ILS/whatever? Just fly into terrain because you don't think its a good idea to go missed? Or run into a fuel truck that has an incursion into your runway because doing a single engine go around is not safe? Safer than colliding with a truck, I'd say.)

That said a single engine go around is an edge case. Anyone who says they'd never do one I'd never fly with, anyone who seems real eager to do one I'd also be nervous with. Like any other thing with flying it is a tool in your kit, use ADM to know when using it would be better and also use your PIC skills to know when risking a runway excursion would be better. The two examples I listed above are my main ones -- I'd have to be really high & fast in order to feel the risk of an unstabilized approach is greater than my desire to get on the ground SE, but I could see it maybe happening.
 
My extremely limited experience (DA-42 and BE76) in light twins tells me that a single-engine go around is at best a risky proposition.

That said, I think anyone flying a light twin should practice the single-engine go-around and ESPECIALLY be familiar with when one is and when one is not possible.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
We would do single engine go-arounds in a Travelair with a density altitude near the single engine service ceiling. I would say it was the most valuable experience I've had in an airplane.
Click to expand...
Isn't the DA near the SE service ceiling like all the time anyway on a travelair? :insane: :cool:
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Practice single engine go arounds so that you would feel comfortable doing one. (What else are you going to do while single engine and you reach DA/MAP on the ILS/whatever? Just fly into terrain because you don't think its a good idea to go missed? Or run into a fuel truck that has an incursion into your runway because doing a single engine go around is not safe? Safer than colliding with a truck, I'd say.)

That said a single engine go around is an edge case. Anyone who says they'd never do one I'd never fly with, anyone who seems real eager to do one I'd also be nervous with. Like any other thing with flying it is a tool in your kit, use ADM to know when using it would be better and also use your PIC skills to know when risking a runway excursion would be better. The two examples I listed above are my main ones -- I'd have to be really high & fast in order to feel the risk of an unstabilized approach is greater than my desire to get on the ground SE, but I could see it maybe happening.
Click to expand...

i would say that da/mda of 200-500ft. agl is different then 30ft over a runway in vfr conditions making a split second descision to go-around s/e. The first of the 2 you will have it in your head that you will execute a missed approach and specified alt. and thought through procedures to make the right choice. The second wasnt thinking about anything but landing the a/c, final approach around 45 seconds of saying in his head "i can make it, i will land" then at 30 feet agl applying full power and doing a go-around... just saying
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Practice single engine go arounds so that you would feel comfortable doing one. (What else are you going to do while single engine and you reach DA/MAP on the ILS/whatever? Just fly into terrain because you don't think its a good idea to go missed? Or run into a fuel truck that has an incursion into your runway because doing a single engine go around is not safe? Safer than colliding with a truck, I'd say.)

That said a single engine go around is an edge case. Anyone who says they'd never do one I'd never fly with, anyone who seems real eager to do one I'd also be nervous with. Like any other thing with flying it is a tool in your kit, use ADM to know when using it would be better and also use your PIC skills to know when risking a runway excursion would be better. The two examples I listed above are my main ones -- I'd have to be really high & fast in order to feel the risk of an unstabitlized approach is greater than my desire to get on the ground SE, but I could see it maybe happening.
Click to expand...

So, YOU'RE confident that if you were to exit from minimums, all of a sudden see a random fuel truck on the runway, that you had the performance, skill, and psychological mindset (in a light twin) to execute the full missed approach procedure, while going into the skud once more again. I think the best option would be to offset into the grass, or land ahead of the truck. Do whatever is necessary to put the thing on the ground. Again, has the manufacturer guaranteed that the airplane is certified and capable of maintaining a safe SE climb rate with an engine-failure after rotation? If so what is its V2 speed?? There isn't one. So what does that tell you? (seminole here) Bottom line, I wouldn't take a risk, or put myself into a situation, where I couldn't get out of if it all hit the fan. There are a ton of fatal Vmc accidents all due to light twin SE go-arounds/engine-failure after take off, and CFIT in IMC. If you can't land an airplane on a 4000ft strip, or come in and fly an ILS down to the runway stabalized what's the problem?? Seriously. I think i'd be worrying about my own guts than that of a fuel truck. Who likes hospital food? Or obituaries?
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Practice single engine go arounds so that you would feel comfortable doing one. (What else are you going to do while single engine and you reach DA/MAP on the ILS/whatever? Just fly into terrain because you don't think its a good idea to go missed? Or run into a fuel truck that has an incursion into your runway because doing a single engine go around is not safe? Safer than colliding with a truck, I'd say.)
Click to expand...


If there is terrain like you are saying I highly doubt you are going to outclimb it on one engine so in that case I would not go around I'd just fly the ILS until I hit the runway. If it was a flat land airport it would all depend. If this airport is my only shot at getting in, I'd fly the ILS until I either broke out or hit the runway. It is better to crash relatively softly onto airport property where people will find you than it is to run out of fuel trying to get to a place above minimums. If there was an airport above minimums nearby I would have gone there first anyway.

Now say for some reason I was stupid enough to shoot an ILS to an airport I knew was at or below minimums even though I knew I had a decent alternate. I would leave the gear and flaps up and stay fast (blue line plus 10-20) on the ILS until I broke out. At 200' the missed would be a non event.

The fuel truck example is a little rediculous. Just because a twenty foot long by six foot wide section of the runway is unavaible does not mean I can't use the other 500,000 square feet the runway has to offer. So no, I would not go around because a fuel truck pulled out onto the runway.

Alex.
 
Citationkid said:
The fuel truck example is a little rediculous. Just because a twenty foot long by six foot wide section of the runway is unavaible does not mean I can't use the other 500,000 square feet the runway has to offer. So no, I would not go around because a fuel truck pulled out onto the runway.

Alex.
Click to expand...

LOL exactly!
 
Citationkid said:
If there is terrain like you are saying I highly doubt you are going to outclimb it on one engine so in that case I would not go around I'd just fly the ILS until I hit the runway. If it was a flat land airport it would all depend. If this airport is my only shot at getting in, I'd fly the ILS until I either broke out or hit the runway. It is better to crash relatively softly onto airport property where people will find you than it is to run out of fuel trying to get to a place above minimums. If there was an airport above minimums nearby I would have gone there first anyway.
Click to expand...
Flat terrain is still terrain. Flying the ILS until you "crash" (or "land firmly") into the runway is idiocy. (The only way it wouldn't be is if you were seriously low on fuel. But nobody mentioned fuel as a factor -- regulations already would dictate you have fuel enough, unless youre already at your alternate.) Post people CFIT accidently, not intentionally. Bu


The fuel truck example is a little rediculous. Just because a twenty foot long by six foot wide section of the runway is unavaible does not mean I can't use the other 500,000 square feet the runway has to offer. So no, I would not go around because a fuel truck pulled out onto the runway.

Alex.
Click to expand...

This is kind of silly -- if your movement vector and it intersect it doesn't effing matter how much other clear runway is available to you to use as a fireball.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Flat terrain is still terrain. Flying the ILS until you "crash" (or "land firmly") into the runway is idiocy. (The only way it wouldn't be is if you were seriously low on fuel. But nobody mentioned fuel as a factor -- regulations already would dictate you have fuel enough, unless youre already at your alternate.) Post people CFIT accidently, not intentionally. Bu




This is kind of silly -- if your movement vector and it intersect it doesn't effing matter how much other clear runway is available to you to use as a fireball.
Click to expand...

Michael, your points are valid, but at the same time, if you are single engine, and your at DA with nothing in sight, where are you going to go? Most likely there is NOTHING near by that is VFR, other wise you would have gone there to begin with! I Read an ntsb not long ago of a baron who lost an engine, and decided to return to his home field because he had his own mech. there. Well, he never made it, but he did pass several perfectly good airports enroute to the crash site.

I dont think there is a "this is the answer" with this issue. Where you land depends on the circumstances you are facing at that moment! If its 200 ovc for 150 miles around, I do think I would "land" it first time around!
 
Citationkid said:
Now say for some reason I was stupid enough to shoot an ILS to an airport I knew was at or below minimums even though I knew I had a decent alternate. I would leave the gear and flaps up and stay fast (blue line plus 10-20) on the ILS until I broke out. At 200' the missed would be a non event.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but if you can shoot a good ILS you're a lot safer dropping the gear where you normally do, flying how your normally fly, and just land - you really don't have to see much of anything to make a much safer landing than a go around.
 
This is a good conversation, I just wish more people would get involved.

SpiraMirabilis said:
Flat terrain is still terrain. Flying the ILS until you "crash" (or "land firmly") into the runway is idiocy. (The only way it wouldn't be is if you were seriously low on fuel. But nobody mentioned fuel as a factor -- regulations already would dictate you have fuel enough, unless youre already at your alternate.) Post people CFIT accidently, not intentionally. Bu
Click to expand...

Ok...so you've gone missed...now what are you going to do? Like I said, if there were better alternative you would have already gone there. Do remember, you will be burning a lot of fuel and moving very slowly while crusing on one engine.


This is kind of silly -- if your movement vector and it intersect it doesn't effing matter how much other clear runway is available to you to use as a fireball.
Click to expand...

You silly nosewheel pilots always foget about those pedals your feet are on! You have the ability to change your movement vector very easily. Always remember Hoover's famous quote, fly the thing as far into the crash as possible. Besides, I doubt I could hit a moving truck if I was trying to.

Alex.
 
Sinlge engine landing in a piston = me setting it down. Theres no guarantee that I'd be able to clear any obstacles on a go around. I'd take my chances with the runway. Oh and I'd put it in the grass if there was suddenly a fuel truck in the middle of the runway.
 
If someone pulls out in front of you on the runway, Land past them, next to them, in the grass, on the taxiway
Click to expand...

Were you implying landing over someone on a runway? I would much rather land offset to the side of the runway or on a taxiway if clear, because landing over someone gives the increased risk of landing on top of them and killing the occupants, or if they are initiating their takeoff roll while you are coming down and don't see you, not only are you landing on one engine but being smashed into from behind. I could only see that being good if you received radio confirmation from the aircraft or the tower stating he wouldn't move, and then I'd give more than enough room not to hit him (say the 1000' markers or so)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top