Expensive landing

Steve said:
Looks like a freshly painted Duke...
Click to expand...

It's not a Duke, Dukes have a single door not the split door. Thinking a Cessna 402.
 
It's a camera plane. You can see the camera at 1:10 into the video. It it is like the one's I'm used to seeing better hope the camera wasn't hurt. It's worth more than the plane.
 
I might have shut it down and glided in, just to save the engine tear downs.
 
NC Pilot said:
It's a camera plane. You can see the camera at 1:10 into the video. It it is like the one's I'm used to seeing better hope the camera wasn't hurt. It's worth more than the plane.
Click to expand...
You're right, it is a camera plane. I know someone who owns a 401 and a 402 set up like that but neither one of them are blue.
 
steingar said:
I might have shut it down and glided in, just to save the engine tear downs.
Click to expand...

Doesn't save ya nuttin' when you have 3-blade props like this one. At least one blade is gonna hit - And then it's teardown time.

Plus, it's an exceedingly bad idea. I heard a story about a twin (310 IIRC) that had a gear problem, the pilot shut 'em down and tried to glide in - Well, that's a maneuver you just don't practice in a twin, and it showed. He crashed a couple thousand feet shy of the runway. What would have been a minor damage incident turned into an airplane-destroyed accident.

That ranks right up there in the stupid scale with the guys who decide to drive a vehicle really fast down the runway and try to pull the gear down. It's been done a few times - But they're gonna feel awful when somebody gets whacked with a prop.
 
steingar said:
I might have shut it down and glided in, just to save the engine tear downs.
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful idea, until you screw up and end up wrecking the plane way worse, probably sending you to the hospital or morgue instead of walking away. Twins make terrible gliders - it's not a Cherokee. And, as Kent pointed out, with 3-bladed props it won't save you anything.

Once you take off, the plane belongs to the insurance company.

Edit: With 700 hours in the Aztec, I wouldn't try to do that. Most I'd do would be pull the mixtures and feather the props on very short final.
 
Last edited:
Go to full power as soon as you slow to 50 kts! That way you get NEW engines, not just your old tired engines after an inspection! Faster turn around, too.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Go to full power as soon as you slow to 50 kts! That way you get NEW engines, not just your old tired engines after an inspection! Faster turn around, too.
Click to expand...

On most twins I think you're more likely to get a check and told to go find a new one. I know if I geared up the Aztec there's no way they'd pay to repair it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
On most twins I think you're more likely to get a check and told to go find a new one.
Click to expand...


If you purchase the correct amount of insurance, that check might not be so bad!

(this is all in jest, any rulemongerers in the pattern.)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
If you purchase the correct amount of insurance, that check might not be so bad!

(this is all in jest, any rulemongerers in the pattern.)
Click to expand...

Thread creep time... :)

It's prudent to make sure that the amount of insurance you have will purchase a realistic replacement for the plane, and that check might be pretty big. In the case of the Aztec, the check I'd get from the insurance company would be more than I paid for the plane by a good margin. But, that's what I'd expect to have to pay to get a comparable replacement (especially considering the good deal I got on the plane). Even then, I'd probably have to search pretty hard to find a proper plane as a replacement, especially when you factor in all the little items I've put on - three new boots in the past two months, new engine baffles, overhauled engine mount, etc. Realistically, I'd probably come out behind.
 
Sorry, just my point of view from my own little corner of the world. I glide my own airplane in routinely just in case I have to do it for real. I guess you have the second engine so you never have to glide the twin, at least until you do.
 
steingar said:
Sorry, just my point of view from my own little corner of the world. I glide my own airplane in routinely just in case I have to do it for real. I guess you have the second engine so you never have to glide the twin, at least until you do.
Click to expand...
Gliding because you have no other choice is one thing. Intentionally shutting down the engines is another.

I had to decide this once for real in another mapping plane and I opted for engines running until touchdown with the mixtures coming to cutoff at that point. The engines had to be torn down but they could find no damage related to the stoppage, although I seem to recall they found a couple other things. To my surprise they only replaced two of the six blades and straightened the others. I think there was only minimal damage to the belly but this was a nose gear only situation, not all gear up. The airplane was somewhat underinsured and my boss, the owner, was worried for awhile that they were going to total it but they didn't.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
Sorry, just my point of view from my own little corner of the world. I glide my own airplane in routinely just in case I have to do it for real. I guess you have the second engine so you never have to glide the twin, at least until you do.
Click to expand...

Mari said it. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

FWIW, I used to have the same philosophy of kill the engines, feather the props, and glide it in. While I'm at it, with 2-bladed props bump the starters so they're horizontal. I've since realized that's just asking for more trouble than I would already be in, and likely to make a bad situation worse.

Additionally, if you've got the right set of conditions (hot day, heavy, etc.) in the right twin (underpowered), you may be a powered glider in the event of an engine failure and unable to maintain altitude. You'll still only have one shot at landing.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Additionally, if you've got the right set of conditions (hot day, heavy, etc.) in the right twin (underpowered), you may be a powered glider in the event of an engine failure and unable to maintain altitude. You'll still only have one shot at landing.
Click to expand...

Mill quits on my bird and that's my situation in a nutshell. That's why I practice.
 
steingar said:
I might have shut it down and glided in, just to save the engine tear downs.
Click to expand...

That will not save the tear down. the lycoming AB says, if the prop requires a repair the engine gets torn down. running or not.

But also remember the SB isn't mandatory for the part 91 operators, but the insurance companies require it to be done to be insurable
 
steingar said:
Mill quits on my bird and that's my situation in a nutshell. That's why I practice.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why would you intentionally put yourself in the situation to use those capabilities unless it was absolutely necessary? "A good pilot uses his (or her) superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Doesn't save ya nuttin' when you have 3-blade props like this one. At least one blade is gonna hit - And then it's teardown time.

Plus, it's an exceedingly bad idea. I heard a story about a twin (310 IIRC) that had a gear problem, the pilot shut 'em down and tried to glide in - Well, that's a maneuver you just don't practice in a twin, and it showed. He crashed a couple thousand feet shy of the runway. What would have been a minor damage incident turned into an airplane-destroyed accident...
Click to expand...

The one guy the FAA shows at Oshkosh killed the engine and tried to bump the props flat with the starter, landed flat and short in the grass and broke his back. I thought it was a Seneca.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes, but why would you intentionally put yourself in the situation to use those capabilities unless it was absolutely necessary? "A good pilot uses his (or her) superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."
Click to expand...

Because if I do it in a safe manner (runway environment with frequent increases of power to keep the mill turning) it is very good practice at energy management and emergency procedures. If I do it frequently it becomes second nature if I have to do it for real in an emergency. Why would anyone practice any kind of emergency procedure? Besides, its fun, and part of the PTS.

I have more than once cut the power at altitude and glided to a safe landing at a nearby airport. Personally, I think every pilot should have to do that at least once, to see the issues involved. Power losses don't always occur in the runway environment. One does have to take simple common sense steps to make certain a simulated emergency doesn't turn into a real one.
 
The twin is a bit different to glide. When we shut one down and feather it, the plane really floats and one must set up much different than a normal landing. That's why one often reads about a twin on one coming in too high and fast. It must really change with both shut down and feathered. We don't train for that at all. As a matter of fact, I don't think folks shut one down much any more. They pull it back to zero thrust in case it needs to come back on line.

Just a different animal. Normally, the props can provide a lot of braking on short final. Most folks with singles don't shut one down and feather it much for practice. Same thing happens to them. With a fixed prop, you'd be used to it.

Best,

Dave
 
steingar said:
Because if I do it in a safe manner (runway environment with frequent increases of power to keep the mill turning) it is very good practice at energy management and emergency procedures. If I do it frequently it becomes second nature if I have to do it for real in an emergency. Why would anyone practice any kind of emergency procedure? Besides, its fun, and part of the PTS.

I have more than once cut the power at altitude and glided to a safe landing at a nearby airport. Personally, I think every pilot should have to do that at least once, to see the issues involved. Power losses don't always occur in the runway environment. One does have to take simple common sense steps to make certain a simulated emergency doesn't turn into a real one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we are talking about TWINS here, not singles. And you wouldn't practice engine outs in you single by intentionally completely shutting down the engine via mixture or mags.
 
Besides which, if you are already missing the gear you might want to be able to control the power to touchdown a little better. If you get too much sink rate you don't have the struts to cushion the landing. It will just be your back.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but we are talking about TWINS here, not singles. And you wouldn't practice engine outs in you single by intentionally completely shutting down the engine via mixture or mags.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. But I often pull the throttle, and boost a couple times during the maneuver to make certain the damn thing still runs. I would never pull either mixture or mags.

Can't see any reason it can't be done in a twin, though it does make sense that the maneuver itself is more dangerous than the situation for which you are practicing, vis-a-vis spin training.
 
I'm not saying don't practice it, Michael. Practicing power-off landings is something I advocate. This training, though, is so that you can do it when you have to. You wouldn't stop your engine entirely on downwind (stopped prop) and glide it in for practice.

My point is that if you already are in for a bad day (your gear won't come down), why would you put yourself in a potentially worse situation by shutting down your engine(s)? Historically, the people who try to save their engines that way seem to make a more spectacular crash.
 
Y'know, I'm not certain, but I think that's the belly landing incident that occurred just recently at SGF.

I'm not for certain certain (certainly speaking, of course), but it sure looks familiar, and some of the events correspond to the video on TV--such as the appearance of the yellow fire truck from the angle/direction, the direction the passenger went when he exited, &c.
 
Try and find a NTSB report where a gear up landing has killed someone. It'll take you a lot of looking and the only ones you'll find are the ones where they shut the engine(s) down.

I'm going to put my ego away if the gear won't come down and land with the engine(s) running. Putting the entire airframe and your life at risk for the slim chance that you'll save the engine is pretty damn stupid. On a lot of these airplanes thoroughly trashing the engines would do the owner a favor.
 
What you guys are saying makes sense. There seems to be a bit of a cultural difference between those who fly singles, where demonstrating an engine out landing is part of the PTS, and those who fly twins, where you have the second engine to avoid having to do a dead stick landing.
 
You know, if I've got a 8,000 foot runway, I might consider shutting down the engines on a twin once I'm over the threshold. But not before, and not on anything much shorter.
 
EdFred said:
You know, if I've got a 8,000 foot runway, I might consider shutting down the engines on a twin once I'm over the threshold. But not before, and not on anything much shorter.
Click to expand...
Once you're over the threshold you probably don't have enough time to shut down the engine and mess with bumping the props. You'd need to be carrying a lot of airspeed to even mess with that because you're going to be touching down pretty quickly without thrust. Just isn't worth it. Let the insurance company replace your run out engines.
 
steingar said:
What you guys are saying makes sense. There seems to be a bit of a cultural difference between those who fly singles, where demonstrating an engine out landing is part of the PTS, and those who fly twins, where you have the second engine to avoid having to do a dead stick landing.
Click to expand...


Not exactly -- there's a differences between an engine at idle and truly "out."
 
dmccormack said:
Not exactly -- there's a differences between an engine at idle and truly "out."
Click to expand...

Nitpicking. I come as close to a power-out landing as I can safely, to practice for the potential. It does make sense that a twin-driver wouldn't do this routinely, probably more likely to harm the aircraft than the event itself. I wouldn't turn off an engine in flight for anything. Yeah, the sink rate will be a tad lower in actual. But I have little doubt that my occasional drills will help me in the eventuality.
 
steingar said:
Nitpicking. I come as close to a power-out landing as I can safely, to practice for the potential. It does make sense that a twin-driver wouldn't do this routinely, probably more likely to harm the aircraft than the event itself. I wouldn't turn off an engine in flight for anything. Yeah, the sink rate will be a tad lower in actual. But I have little doubt that my occasional drills will help me in the eventuality.
Click to expand...

Oh really? How many FPM does idle power arrest your descent rate when at Best Glide?

There is a difference between "engine out" and "power to idle" and it's important to know that.

While probably 80% of my landings are power to idle abeam the numbers (when VFR), I take a much more aggressive approach when practicing "power out" landings -- immediate turn to runway, flaps only when I'm sure I've got the runway made, and aggressive slipping to disappate any excess energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top