Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

Snow

'Not a new member'
I was just reading an article and this one sim instructor would often find that students would crash when there was a engine failure on approach. They were so engrossed in doing the engine failure checklist that they both forgot to fly the plane, often thinking there was a fault with the simulator! They went on to say how everyone does engine failure after v1 practice but how many people practice engine failures on approach?
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
I was just reading an article and this one sim instructor would often find that students would crash when there was a engine failure on approach. They were so engrossed in doing the engine failure checklist that they both forgot to fly the plane, often thinking there was a fault with the simulator! They went on to say how everyone does engine failure after v1 practice but how many people practice engine failures on approach?


[/ QUOTE ]

In GA, one of the other things people wouldn't train to is simulated forced landings. I don't mean cutting the throttle and circling down to 1000' AGL and then recovering; a monkey can do that. But actually completing the pattern to touchdown. Ceasing the maneuver at 1000' or 500' limits the learning, you make your money (or lose it) in that final 500' to touchdown, since there's no go around potential.

Now, when flying single-engine aircraft, the pilot must always be cognizant of where he's going to put the plane down at any given time should the engine fail. To practice the forced landing approach(no touchdown), one can use any field, dirt strip, possibly road. This will teach the student how to select an appropriate landing field, analyze the winds, set up the pattern, and manage the approach so he doesn't find himself on downwind and out of altitude. To practice this to touchdown, one could go out to an uncontrolled field (like Gila Bend, in AZ) and apply what he's learned to an actual touchdown. The maneuver can be started from many differnet altitudes and positions from the field to challenge the student in many different ways, and build the confidence needed to perform this maneuver successfully.

As for actually performing the maneuver. Back in my 172 days, when the engine simulated failed, I'd do a couple things right off. First I'd trim the aircraft full aft and get it headed towards my desired landing point. This will cause the plane to eventually stabilize at a 60-65 knot glide. The reason I do this is it makes flying the plane easier and allows my concentration to be spent more on analyzing the problem as I head to where I need to go. Next, I'd run through a "flow" of checking the fuel selector (switch tanks, etc), come up the center console to the throttle quadrant and check the mixture, pull the carb heat, etc; swing left across the circuit breakers to the mags; cycle the mags and come up across the instrument panel, across the radios and complete the panel. If this doesn't work, then my concentration goes fully back to flying the plane. If I have a complex plane with a constant speed prop, I'll pull the prop lever full aft. Following that, I'll then pull the checklist and confirm that I didn't miss anything. Why do I not just read the checklist step by step? Well, that's when guys get bitten in the ass, so to speak. As a pilot, you need to have a good understanding of the emergency procedures for your aircraft, and the basic checklist steps for each. When single pilot, you don't have the luxury of having the PNF read the checklist for you; CRM for you is Cockpit Resource Management versus Crew Resource Management. Flow patterns let you cover the instrument panel and manipulate what you need to for the particular EP; it must then be backed up with the checklist. This way, you're not wasting time running checklists line by line, and you're better spending time flying the plane. I then try to maneuver the plane to an upwind over the runway (if possible) and now the sight picture "looks right" for being in the pattern (just several thousand feet higher than normal, assuming this occured at altitude). I'd begin circling then, managing the turns to roll out on a "normal" looking downwind, and then judge the base turn (early if low, later if high) to end up being optimal on final (not too low and far out, not too high/hot and in close).

Big things in any EP:

1. Maintain aircraft control.
-Aviate
-Navigate
-Communicate; in that order
2. Analyze the situation and take appropriate action

3. Land as soon as conditions permit.
 

I_Money

Moderator
I had engine problems on final during a phase check once, I added power to go around (as instructed by the guy who who I was flying with) and got noise and vibration. I pulled the power out and tried it again and got the same results. I told the guy, we could do not go around, and we were landing. I never thought twice about doing an inverted L checklist, I was in gliding distance and all I was thinking was landing. This was in a single BTW!
 

Alchemy

Partner, Ally, Friend
Well, I don't know if snow was including Instrument approaches in his question or just visual conditions.

An engine failure on approach in IMC is (in my humble opinion) somewhat difficult to manage, extremely difficult in a single. There's really not much you can do except pitch for best glide, do your troubleshooting, then pick a place to land if and when you bust out of the clouds, at which point you may only be 400 or 500 ft AGL. This is obviously a very good reason why part 91 pilots should not attempt approaches when the reported wx is below or even within a few hundred feet of MDA in a single, even though the FAR's do not prohibit it.

An engine Failure in actual IMC early on at MDA on a non-precision approach at an uncontrolled field at night is probably my number 1 nightmare scenario besides control surface failures or major structural failures.

Regarding checklists, I would go ahead and run through it since I always have the checklist sitting right on my lap, but ONLY if altitude permitted (2500 AGL or more in a 172) and ONLY after I had run through the basic flow troubleshoot that MikeD described earlier. The most important things are to pitch for best glide and find a place to land, and those should always be the top two priorities IMO. If I knew I was going to have to dig around the airplane to find the checklist I wouldn't take the time to do it, but since it would not take me more than 5 seconds to flip to the correct page and start checking items, I would feel safe using it as a double-check.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]

Regarding checklists, I would go ahead and run through it since I always have the checklist sitting right on my lap, but ONLY if altitude permitted (2500 AGL or more in a 172) and ONLY after I had run through the basic flow troubleshoot that MikeD described earlier. The most important things are to pitch for best glide and find a place to land, and those should always be the top two priorities IMO. If I knew I was going to have to dig around the airplane to find the checklist I wouldn't take the time to do it, but since it would not take me more than 5 seconds to flip to the correct page and start checking items, I would feel safe using it as a double-check.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And everything you wrote are perfectly valid techniques. So long as one flys the plane first, that's half the battle. So long as the required checklist items get accomplished in a timely manner, how you get them accomplished is of no matter.

Total engine failure in a single in low IMC at night........that gives me the shivers
 

JediNein

New Member
You can make the runway if the engine quits, if you can cross the outer marker at a few thousand feet above the glideslope altitude (NO procedure turns! ;-). How many thousand feet depends on the airplane. The danger with a failure at the OM is more overshooting than undershooting the runway.

It takes a lot of practice, but once you know what the airplane will do, the plane is trimmed, just stay on the localizer, and leave the flaps and gear until the runway is in sight. Land, get a tow off the runway, praise appropriate deities, and expect a spike in the dry cleaning bill that week.

I haven't had to try it with a real engine failure in actual IMC. I hope I never have the opportunity. Losing the engine in night VMC, no moon, over the mountains, miles away from civilization was bad enough.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein
 

ananoman

New Member
Most of the training for a multi rating is deals with engine failures. This includes: engine failures on takeoff while still on the runway, engine failures after takeoff, engine failures enroute, and engine failures during landing. If you do instrument work in a twin, you can add single engine ILS approaches to the list.
 

Snow

'Not a new member'
yeah I think I forgot to mention I was refering to twin engine aircraft and this instructor was an airline instructor with comerical aircraft. I think the point was that an engine failure on approach (in a twin) isn't that big a deal but since it isn't practiced by many, people often stuff it up (forget to fly the plane etc) and crash.
 

viper548

Well-Known Member
On an approach you may not even notice an engine failure, it doesn't have too much effect. it's probably best to just land the plane without running a checklist, in a light twin you dont have the option of a go-around, so make the landing count.
 

Eagle

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
it's probably best to just land the plane without running a checklist, in a light twin you dont have the option of a go-around, so make the landing count.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Never skip the checklist.
2. You most definatly can do a missed on one engine in a light twin. I bet I have done a dozen in the comanchee. and that is running two IO320s. I mean what would you do when a truck pulls out infront of you on short final? land anyway?
 

ananoman

New Member
If you have an engine failure on very short final, you can just use the throttle on the good engine and take the airplane to the ground without feathering the dead engine. If you are that close, you are better off landing than being distracted in the cockpit. If the truck is on the runway, then I will take the taxi way.

But, Eagle is right. You never want to skip the checklist if you have enough time to do it. Even at 400-500 feet, you should have enough time to feather an engine. This is still about a mile from the runway. Just be smart. If your gear is down, you probably want to leave it there, even if the checklist says "Everything foreward, flaps up, gear up, identify, verify, feather". Use your head and know what your goal is. If you want to land, use power as necessary, leave the gear down, set the flaps and feather the engine.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's probably best to just land the plane without running a checklist, in a light twin you dont have the option of a go-around, so make the landing count.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Never skip the checklist.
2. You most definatly can do a missed on one engine in a light twin. I bet I have done a dozen in the comanchee. and that is running two IO320s. I mean what would you do when a truck pulls out infront of you on short final? land anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now an Aztec/apache in the summertime at GCN might become a little sporty......just take you to your crash site.
 

C650CPT

Well-Known Member
Gentlemen
Please allow me to chime in with a few cents worth. First I would be most hesitant to attemp a single engine go around in a part 23 airplane. They are not required to have positive performance on one engine. The fact that some have done it ( in training and below MGW no doubt) leads to a FALSE sense of security. If an engine quits on final and the runway is contaminated by a vehicle or even another aircraft plan to land long or on the taxiway or grass. You will be safer doing this than the more likely resultant Vmc roll. Most of us in aviation know of someone who succumed to this error. If the engine quits prior to the final approach consider the point (ie: altitude and airspeed) at which you will be committed to landing and you will NOT attemp a single engine go around. An engine failure on final is not a big deal, you just have to protect your airspeed (airspeed = life). Please be sure that when you talk checklist you understand their use in flight and that you are applying the correct procedure to the event. I don't believe any manufactures checklist would have you push everthing forward and raise gear or flaps for an engine failure on final. It is more likely Power as required, check gear down, this is setting one up for a sucessful landing. Normal Procedure check list in the air are used after you perform a given task, they are not a to do list. Emergency procedures that require a timely response from the pilot are highlighted to be memory item checklist, followed by confirming that the appropriate actions were taken by reading the printed check list. Other abnormal procedures you would actually get out the check list and run down the appropriate checks. I'll get off my soap box for now, but this is near and dear to me as I think most pilots don't fully understand dynamic Vmc.
 

Eagle

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
First I would be most hesitant to attemp a single engine go around in a part 23 airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between being able (the airplane) to do it, and if the pilot can do it.

Other things to keep in mind is did the engine quit for a reason that could also cause the other engine to shut down? I'd feel like a total as5hole if I was on the missed when #2 shut down. D'oh!!!

The other question is, on the approach, at DH, and no airport... Do you do the missed or try to duck down and peek?

I guess the other thing that gets missed on this topic, Check lists are.. C H E C K lists, not "to do" lists.

Even when I am flying for fun (in the Mooney) , If I have a pax with me after I have done the stage, (pre take off for example) I have them read the check list for me, challenge and response. (Right Mag? 120 drop, Left Mag? Same 120) Non pilots think it is cool, they get to play co-pilot..more or less, and professional pilots don't even blink when I ask them to do it. the recreational weekend pilots do it but look at me like I am some sort of geek/loser...
 

C650CPT

Well-Known Member
[There is a difference between being able (the airplane) to do it, and if the pilot can do it.

Other things to keep in mind is did the engine quit for a reason that could also cause the other engine to shut down? I'd feel like a total as5hole if I was on the missed when #2 shut down. D'oh!!!

The other question is, on the approach, at DH, and no airport... Do you do the missed or try to duck down and peek?]

I am not sure if I understand your point on whether or not it is an airplane limitation or a pilot limitatation. Despite the best performance of any pilot most twins cannot do a safe single go around from the landing configuration. My point is in a light twin, and by the way I teach this point in the BE-200, once you descend below a certain altitude and / or slow below a certain airspeed you are committed to landing. IF an engine quits add power, check gear down and do a normal landing. Train the way you want to perform in an emergency because when it happens that is exactly what you will do. If one trains to do single engine go arounds from low and slow the day one shells and you are heavy and its hot, guess what the pilot is going to do instictively ...

I agree about the dilema on your second point, but then again that is why they pay us the big bucks to make the right decisions

As far as your third point there are no right answers. First I would avoid taking an approach where a successful (and legal) approach and landing were in doubt. It goes to point #2 why did the first enging quit, if it were mechanical only in nature and I could maintain the minimum safe altitude for IFR operations I would fly to a suitable airport. If not and you only have enough stuff going for you for one approach my intentions would to land out of the approach, period.

Good topic
 

fr8dog

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First I would be most hesitant to attemp a single engine go around in a part 23 airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone ever tried to go around SE in a chieftain ??
Where i work, to pass the initial checkride, they make u shoot a SE ILS down to 10 ft just to make sure u WILL land it ; Even if it means blowing mins.....to their point of view, that's your only option.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
[Anyone ever tried to go around SE in a chieftain ??
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. We had to demonstrate one during the 135 check in the PA-31. Can get dicey, the plane performed alright, seeing as how I was doing it in the AZ summer heat at Casa Grande following the ILS 5 approach.

Wouldn't want to try the same thing in an Apache/Aztec, though.
 

fr8dog

New Member
Or in a Seneca I for that matter....
We use to take our students to Brown field (for those who are familiar with socal) just to use that 6g or so rwy and show them a go around with one engine power reduced....just to make a point
 

C650CPT

Well-Known Member
Question: At what point ie: altitude and airspeed did you guys initiate your single engine go arounds?

Question: Knowing what you guys know about limited performance on one engine what do you tell students is the point of no return on a single engine approach, ie: when do you consider that you are committed to landing.

The reason I ask is that I have limited knowledge on light twins, I did my initial MEL on a cougar and my MEI on a seminole, other than that all my ME time is in BE-200 and Jets.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
Question: At what point ie: altitude and airspeed did you guys initiate your single engine go arounds?

Question: Knowing what you guys know about limited performance on one engine what do you tell students is the point of no return on a single engine approach, ie: when do you consider that you are committed to landing.

The reason I ask is that I have limited knowledge on light twins, I did my initial MEL on a cougar and my MEI on a seminole, other than that all my ME time is in BE-200 and Jets.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, once landing was assured (not just runway lineup, but also not too high and not fast or the converse), the go around could be initiated from there; typically around 300-200 AGL and 1-.75 miles from the runway. More often than not, even when pushing the power up, I'd have to descend into ground effect over the runway for a few thousand feet to build airspeed prior to climbing out.
 
Top