Why is "dead foot, dead engine" still around?

Center_Mid

Center_Mid

Well-Known Member
Every once in a while I come across an article in IFR, Flying or wherever about multi engine accidents related to failure to identify the correct engine in an engine-out scenario. Usually, the pilot hastily feathers the wrong prop and compounds his airspeed problems.

My question is, why don't piston twins just have a big, in-your-face warning system that tells the pilot which engine has failed? I mean, especially some of these new planes with EECs and so forth, why can't you just look at an EICAS screen on the G1000 to determine which engine failed? I'm neither an engineer nor even a ME pilot, but couldn't RPM or manifold pressure or a prop governor (or some combination of parameters) be jury rigged to set off a bright, annoying cockpit indicator that would clearly say "LEFT Engine Fail"? And then you could have one of those sexy voice alerts simultaneously say "Feather LEFT propeller" over the intercom or something like that. Wouldn't that take the guesswork out of it and save time trying to figure out which prop to feather (especially in IMC)?

Maybe they have all of this now and I haven't heard, but it seems that "dead foot, dead engine" is a primitive method to rely on in the face of all of the techno hotness we have at our disposal.
 
Center_Mid said:
Maybe they have all of this now and I haven't heard, but it seems that "dead foot, dead engine" is a primitive method to rely on in the face of all of the techno hotness we have at our disposal.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it might be expensive. "Dead foot, dead engine" is always with you. :)
 
Center_Mid said:
My question is, why don't piston twins just have a big, in-your-face warning system that tells the pilot which engine has failed? I'm neither an engineer nor even a ME pilot, but couldn't RPM or manifold pressure or a prop governor (or some combination of parameters) be jury rigged to set off a bright, annoying cockpit indicator
Click to expand...
Using engine instruments to tell which engine has failed isn't as easy as you might think. A dead engine will still have RPM, manifold pressure, CHT, oil pressure, oil temp, etc. That makes it hard to determine which one has failed just by looking at the engine instruments. EGT would be the most reliable indication, but that isn't saying much.

Yaw tells the truth.
 
Worked every time? How many engine failures have you had? What works for simulated engine failures might not be reliable for an actual engine failure.
 
You have a little over 200 multi and have already had five actual engine failures in piston twins? Holy crap. Can you tell us the aircraft/engine types and reasons for failure?
 
I think the current system is A-OK.

The problem is that we train in scenarios where the engine completely fails off the bat, which isn't always the case.

If the engine's dead, you'll know for sure so you really don't need a "left engine dead!" annunciator.

The big question is when you have an engine that is surging or developing partial power. Do you shut it off or use the available power to divert? How would an 'engine fail' annunciator work in this case?
 
Perhaps relying solely on a newfangled alert system wouldn't be the best way, but what about a combination of an electronic alert and the rudder test? Is yaw alone really so reliable in IMC?

Or how about this - once the dead engine is clearly established, a light blinks inside the prop lever (kind of like a lighted gear lever) indicating the correct prop to feather.

As for partial power or an engine surge, I don't know. Maybe you could have a gradual warning scale, similar to the way a TCAS starts with "Traffic Traffic" and finishes with "Descend Now." Maybe you could have an engine alert that starts by indicating an uncommanded RPM/MP loss and ends with "Feather R prop."

Just throwin' it out there.
 
Center_Mid said:
Or how about this - once the dead engine is clearly established, a light blinks inside the prop lever (kind of like a lighted gear lever) indicating the correct prop to feather.
Click to expand...

Methinks you have a good idea for a startup.
 
I think the most reliable setup would be a negative torque sensing system similar to what's used on some turboprops, but implementing that on a recip would be a PITA.

There's some people developing electronic ignition systems for recips that sense internal cylinder pressure in real time. The nice side benefit of those would be an electronic readout of actual horsepower and torque being produced, making it pretty easy to see which engine has failed.
 
Well all the engine failures were in a seneca II. And in all fairness they all happened on the ground. Guess I should have stated that in my last post but I was beyond tired and it didn't hit me until just now. They all happened in the same plane. For some reason after I would land as I was taxiing in the left engine would fail and the prop would feather without me touching anything. But even if it happened in flight at least the prop was feathering. It would have been worse had it happened in flight and the prop wouldn't feather. And I agree that what you practice and what happens for real are two different things. Sorry to have misled you.
 
"Techno hotness" costs money, breaks, and is difficult and expensive to fix.
As someone who teaches multiple EFIS and FMS units I would really just love to hop in a Cub for an afternoon and remember what it was like to actually fly an airplane.
 
They should be identifying and then VERIFYING with throttle, before feathering. You could always double verify by checking CHT, or looking outside.
 
"deadfoot, dead engine" should not be taught.....for example if you get a prop overspeed in say a Dash 8, the yaw would be towards the GOOD engine so diagnosing "deadfoot dead engine" would lead you down the wrong path.....Do not rush engine failures.....Always take a few extra seconds to look at the engine gauges and make sure you get the right engine secured.
 
mojo6911 said:
They should be identifying and then VERIFYING with throttle, before feathering. You could always double verify by checking CHT, or looking outside.
Click to expand...

Ding!

I'm not sure about some, but verify with the throttle was one of my memory items.

Of course it is easier done in training.
 
skyhigh90210 said:
if you get a prop overspeed in say a Dash 8, the yaw would be towards the GOOD engine so diagnosing "deadfoot dead engine" would lead you down the wrong path...look at the engine gauges and make sure you get the right engine secured.
Click to expand...
The big difference there being that the Dash 8 is far from being a piston twin, and actually has instrumentation that can be relied upon to determine which engine is failing.
 
Skyhigh90210, welcome to JC. Great advice. Something I never thought of.

If you're the same Skyhigh as the one at APC, well, I hope you post here a lot. This is a great site.
 
mojo6911 said:
They should be identifying and then VERIFYING with throttle, before feathering. You could always double verify by checking CHT, or looking outside.
Click to expand...

If you're near or inside the IAF in IMC while single-pilot IFR, your workload is intense. Two-person flight crews can rely on CRM and a four-eyed scan, but the guy flying solo in the Bonanza can't. I would think that a quick, automated callout and prop lever indicator for an engine failure is within our technological capacity and could be a critical time saver.

So, anyone wanna bankroll this research? I'm free the next couple of days if you've got a few mil to throw at this issue. PM me when you're ready to cut the check!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top