Busted my first stage check...

[flyguy]

...And I feel great about it. Attempted my Commercial multi final stage check today with Johan. First one I busted but believe it or not I think its a good think. Until now, I flew very well in all of my stage checks. The problem with that is I didn't know where my weaknesses where. I didn't know what would bite me in the ass if I were to have a bad flight. As a result I managed to bust my private checkride and although I passed my instrument ride with flying colors I was extreemely stressed thinking I was going to fail it because I was afraid I had some undiscovered weakness. Today I flew more poorly than any other flight in the Duchess that I can remember and I know what I need to work on to prevent it from comming back to haunt me with Mr. B. Its hard to learn from our mistakes if we don't ever make any until it counts.

[Flight_Watch]

Way to think positively! You get an A for that!

[flyguy]

Well I was hoping to pass only because I wanted to progress in my training, especially when I'm paying $400 per flight, I'm looking forward to getting back in the singles. Had I busted after having a good flight I might have felt different, but becasue I had a really bad flight, I feel it can't be much worse on the checkride, and I know where I'll have problems if that happens, and in turn know where I need improvement before the big day.

Its weird, I'm kind of paranoid about busting checkrides now after my experience with PPL. I passed all 3 stage checks with flying colors and figured the checkride would be cake, but instead I had a bad flight and the undiscovered weakness came out. Discovering that weakness now before the ride, I am more confident.

Actually Johan was very generous, he only wants to see a couple things again, even though the whole flight sucked. He kind of ranked everything form bad to worse which even though he dosn't want to see everything in the re-check tells me what I need the most work on. He said knowing me there were things that he did not expect me to bust. I took that as a pretty big compliment, especially comming from the toughest check pilot.

[stuckingfk]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you do wrong?

[flyguy]

In my opinion, everything was pretty bad, but what he wants to see again is single engine approach, landing and go around. On the approach I lost 300 feet of altitude when he failed the engine, went 300 ft below glideslope intercept alt. The single engine landing was actually a miscommunication, I thought he was telling me to put in full flaps which I thought was crazy, but since I had plenty of alt I did it, but what he said was do NOT put in full flaps, and on the single engine go around I put the falps up before the gear and the procedure is gear first then flaps.

[fishrichard]

Teaching people to do single engine go arounds is about the worst thing I can think of. It is just not a good idea.

[flyguy]

Well, its in the PTS so its necessary to learn.

[fishrichard]

I think it has been removed, I could be wrong. Just because something is in the PTS does not make it a practical or safe real world option. I'm not trying to cause trouble but I can't think of a situation when a single engine go around would be warranted in a small twin.

[flyguy]

It may not be a good idea to ever do one, but if its going to be on the checkride my instructors have the obligation to teach me how to do one. Besides, I don't think they are taught so that we can just do them just for the fun of it, but if you have a real engine failure and some idiot takes the runway in front of you, are you going to go around and hope for the best, or say that single engine go arounds are stupid and plow yourself into the traffic? Its taught as a last resourt. The same can be said for single engine approaches but I certainly hope you don't think we should stop teaching single engine approaches.

[fishrichard]

Now that is just putting words in my mouth.( No single engine aproaches) Plow into traffic?? How about land on a taxi way or in the grass. But mostly what I talk about is in actual conditions . Single engine go arounds are not smart in an underpowered plane. I don't mean this as a personal attack towards you so don't get bent out of shape. I will bend a plane everytime before I " go around and hope for the best".

[stuckingfk]

I missed that last part before.

You guys do single engine go-arounds?

That is most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. Like the previous poster said, doing single engine go-arounds in a severely underpowered plane is NOT a good idea. And no, it isn't in the PTS to perform them on the flight.

[flyguy]

Guys, what is the big deal? Its not like we shut down and secure the engine and put ourselves in a situation where we have to go around, it is simulated. We do it well above the ground and well above Vmc. All the check pilots want to see is that we correctly do the procedure, and establish a positive rate before retracting the gear, then they give us the other engine. Also I stand by my opinion that if you have to go around single engine its best to do so. Ideally you'd never put yourself in a situation where you'd have to go around, but as a last resort, why not clean up the plane and try to get a climb, and then if that dosn't work put it down on a taxiway or in the grass. If you're going down either way, why not? I looked again in the PTS and I guess its not in there, however it is in our syllabus which is approved by the FAA.

[Flight_Watch]

Flyguy makes some good points here. Just another tool on the tool box incase there comes a time when you might need a single engine go around.

[fishrichard]

The point is that there is never a time to do a single engine go around. A plane pulls out in front of you, land to the side, in the grass. Weather below mins? Emergency superceeds that. The reason it is not in the PTS anymore is because people were killing themselves.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that there is never a time to do a single engine go around. A plane pulls out in front of you, land to the side, in the grass. Weather below mins? Emergency superceeds that. The reason it is not in the PTS anymore is because people were killing themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bigger point is that you need to have the SA to know what to do and when. Emergency and land, or go around. YOU as the PIC must make the decision, must know if you can accomplish it or not. There's no absolute right or wrong answer, it's situation dependant:

1. Situation #1: You are recovering single-engine to El Centro, California in the middle of winter (airport elevation, minus 15), temp very cold, after a s hour flight (low on fuel). Proverbial car pulls out on runway, do you land on the taxiway or in the grass, or do you take it around. YOU should know the performance potential of your aircraft at all times. In this case, if you were able to execute the go around, performance-wise, and elected to put it in the grass (assuming simple engine failure, no other problems) and ended up collapsing the gear or other major damage, who then is at fault? You as the PIC, since your decision wasn't prudent.

2. Same situation as above, but lets assume Flagstaff, Arizona in the summer, high temp and density altitude of 9000'. Car pulls onto runway and you elect to take it around, only to end up 1 mile off the runway impacting someone's house and killing the whole family, you happen to survive with minor injuries. Who'd at fault? What would've been the more prudent thing to do? Likely putting it in the infield grass/dirt or taxiway, and any damage sustained then can be justified as the more prudent decision.

It all comes down to maintain SA on your aircraft and making sound judgements as PIC. One answer does not fit all situations. And as PIC, not only are you responsible for you, you aircraft, and your pax, but YOU are also responsible for people on the ground that your plane flies over, whether on or off airport. If they get killed or injured due to your unsound judgement, lack of SA, or not knowing your job; then you've got the responsibliity there.

[flyguy]

Well let me say this, I have only done 3 single engine go arounds in my life. One when my instructor showed me how to do one (illustratig the point of how difficult it is to pull off also), one on my stage check and and one on the re-check. God willing I will never have to do a real one but if the situation arises I at least know what the airplane can do which will help me make a better PIC decision. I will tell you this - if ever on an approach below mins, there is now way I'm going to go around and climb back into the soup just because visibily is less than perscribed. If I can see the approach lights I'm landing. If its clear, I'll try the go around. If I can't get a climb at least it buys me some time and gives me some options for where I can put it down. Its not the single engine go-around that is dangerous, its having to do one that's dangerous. The fact is if you are single engine and in a situation where its either go around or die, you might be in serious trouble because the go around might not happen. Don't worry, they taught us that very well, and one of the tools they use is letting us experience how difficut they are. But the act of performing the go around isn't what is dangerous, its not having any options if the go around dosn't work.

[NJA_Capt]

I don't want to pick on flyguy, but this is a good lesson to discuss. I too am against SE go arounds in light twins (it is a requirement for jets and we do them a lot in the sim).

[ QUOTE ]
...on the single engine go around I put the flaps up before the gear and the procedure is gear first then flaps.

[/ QUOTE ]
The part I highlighted is why it is very dangerous. Sure, you had plenty of margin above VMC on the approach, BUT...when you selected the flaps up, you raised your VMC! If your margin was too small, the next thing in your windscreen would be grass.

[flyguy]

Yeah, that's why I busted the stage check. Another reason I'm glad it happened is that is a good lesson to take with me.

[777tech]

LAX02LA139
On April 18, 2002, at 1910 Pacific daylight time, a Beech 76, N6636J, collided with the ground and collapsed the landing gear during a practice single engine go-around at the Petaluma, California, airport. The airplane was operated by Sierra Academy of Aeronautics under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and was on a local area instructional flight. The airplane sustained substantial damage. The commercial pilot flight instructor, the commercial licensed multiengine student, and one additional passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. No flight plan was filed for the flight, which originated at the Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California, at 1840.

The flight instructor was interviewed by telephone concerning the accident on April 19, 2002. He stated that he was the flight instructor on board the aircraft at the time of the accident. The flight departed the Oakland airport at 1840 for a local area training flight with a multiengine student in the left seat and one additional student in the rear observing. The left seated student held a commercial certificate with ratings for single engine airplanes and instruments and was in a course to qualify for a multiengine add-on rating.

After performing some airwork, the instructor had the student do a practice single engine VOR approach to the Petaluma airport in VFR conditions. The right engine was set to zero thrust for the procedure and the winds were straight down runway 29. They overflew the runway during the approach and circled to enter right traffic. During the approach he had decided to have the student do a single engine go-around. He stated that in hindsight he issued the go-around command at too low an altitude. The airspeed was above Vmc during the go-around; however, due to the low altitude at maneuver initiation, the airplane inadvertently touched down with full power on the left engine, causing the airplane to begin veering to the right. It became airborne again in a nose high, yawing, and right rolling attitude. At this point, he assumed the controls and reduced the power on the left engine. The airplane then settled to the ground in the nose high, yawed, and banked attitude with the right main gear off the pavement. The right main gear and nose gear collapsed.

The instructor said that after thinking about the event, he believes that neither he nor the student were making aggressive enough control inputs to correct the situation in the early stages, and he may have waited too long before assuming control. He stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or system failures with the airplane.

[SFLAX]

And this instructor went on to Ameriflight and is in his third year at express jet. So what was the point of posting this?

[project7]

[ QUOTE ]
went 300 ft below glideslope intercept alt.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most important things I learned in single-engine approaches is that GS intercept altitudes as depicted are minimum altitudes at a fix. You can intercept the GS at any point prior, so if you are single-engine, just don't descend. Maintain the higher altitude and intercept it whenever it comes in. This leaves you with more altitude and time to stabilize the approach.
Also, call a "single-engine go-around altitude" at a predetermined altitude. If told to go-around below that, just say "Landing".

Edit: Oh, and good job on making the busted stage check a positive learning experience. Way better than kicking yourself and feeling like you wasted money. There's something to learn from in every flight.

[flyguy]

Wow, this thread hasn't seen the light of day in a while. Since I posted on here last I've since passed the stage check, and the check ride, completed my entire single engine add-on, and am now working on my CFI training. But feel free to keep the advice comming. I'll be sure to look back at this thread when I start working on my MEI, as to not make these mistakes again.

About the crash a few years ago, I wasn't at Sierra then, but I've heard about it. Just so everyone knows, we have changed our SOP since then. We don't do single engine go arounds below a certain altitude. I don't remember off the top of my head what it is, but it is several hundred feet. I think some of you might be getting the wrong idea.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most important things I learned in single-engine approaches is that GS intercept altitudes as depicted are minimum altitudes at a fix. You can intercept the GS at any point prior, so if you are single-engine, just don't descend. Maintain the higher altitude and intercept it whenever it comes in. This leaves you with more altitude and time to stabilize the approach.
Also, call a "single-engine go-around altitude" at a predetermined altitude. If told to go-around below that, just say "Landing".



[/ QUOTE ]

Only thing to remember is to watch out for false glideslopes. Intercepting the GS above GSI altitude is OK, but the altitude is there for a reason, and outside 10 miles, you may run the risk of receiving a false GS or otherwise inaccurate or no GS at all. Single-engine, there shouldn't be any major reason why you couldn't plan a descent to catch the GS at the appropriate point and still get all the necessary checks done prior.

[flyguy]

Just posting to change the title of the thread. There's not much activity on this board, so every time this post comes up it stays on top, and is what is listed on the main board for weeks at a time. It was all fine and good at the time I wrote it, but being reminded that I busted a stage check, every day for several months, whether I even go into the Sierra board or not, starts to take a toll on my ego.

[project7]

[ QUOTE ]
Only thing to remember is to watch out for false glideslopes. Intercepting the GS above GSI altitude is OK, but the altitude is there for a reason, and outside 10 miles, you may run the risk of receiving a false GS or otherwise inaccurate or no GS at all. Single-engine, there shouldn't be any major reason why you couldn't plan a descent to catch the GS at the appropriate point and still get all the necessary checks done prior.

[/ QUOTE ]

The major reason is that a light twin doesn't necessarily climb on one engine. I treat any altitude I'm at on one engine as the highest I'll be able to get, hence skipping the step down. As for a false GS, You'd typically be well inside of 10 miles and below the altitude where that would occur. Of course, approaches vary, so I would do the step down depending on if the specific profile would warrant it.

This is stuff that I'm learning that makes me glad I'm doing the more advanced training with an experienced instructor/military/airline/corporate pilot. Yesterday, an instructor who was maybe a few years older than me asked if he could backseat on my flight. After we landed, my instructor asked him how the ride was, and the young instructor replied "I've never seen a 180degree return to the runway on one engine before" to which my instructor answered "that's because you trained at ATP".

Edit: changed subject to the new one for ya