421 down in Sioux Falls

[wsuffa]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=209&sid=2664320

 

[Geico266]

Very sad anytime, but this time of year is really tough.

 

[spinfire]

I'm no twin pilot, but isn't this a classic Vmc roll?

 

[Piloto]

I'm no twin pilot, but isn't this a classic Vmc roll?

It is. But most here will blame it on the pilot. The fact is that piston twins do not have enough power to overcome an engine out during take off. No matter how much you train if the machine is uncapable there is not much you can do.

José

 

[Ted]

It is. But most here will blame it on the pilot. The fact is that piston twins do not have enough power to overcome an engine out during take off. No matter how much you train if the machine is uncapable there is not much you can do.

José

Well, if you take a look at the power to weight ratio on the 310 I fly (Colemill conversion) vs. the Cheyenne II that I flew today, it's about the same. I would rather be in the 310 I fly than that 421 if there was an engine failure shortly after takeoff any day. In other phases of flight, it might depend simply because the 421 is turbocharged and can fly on one engine in flight pretty well (there was another story about a successful landing in such a condition), although the 310 does pretty well for single-engine altitude performance.

Turbines don't solve all problems. Sometimes, it's just not your day.

 

[wabower]

In such case is the pilot doomed to complete the VMC roll and land upside-down on the windshield or are other potentially less-dire options available?

It is. But most here will blame it on the pilot. The fact is that piston twins do not have enough power to overcome an engine out during take off. No matter how much you train if the machine is uncapable there is not much you can do.

José

 

[Ted]

In such case is the pilot doomed to complete the VMC roll and land upside-down on the windshield or are other potentially less-dire options available?

Bingo...

 

[Banjo33]

Throttle to idle on the good engine and aim between the trees.

 

[N747JB]

Throttle to idle on the good engine and aim between the trees.

No trees in the pictures shown, just open fields and runways. But I understand your point. Seems odd, but I guess most crashes do, pretty day, 4 people, so it should have been well below gross, unless they were 4 Sumo wrestlers and full fuel. We may never know exactly what happened, but when I see crashes involving the type airplane I fly, it makes it a little more personal.

 

[spinfire]

I thought more power meant more issues with Vmc because the differential between the running engine and dead engine is bigger if the engines are more powerful.

 

[Piloto]

I thought more power meant more issues with Vmc because the differential between the running engine and dead engine is bigger if the engines are more powerful.

More power will give you higher acceleration so you would be above Vmc quicker thus better controllability. Best twins for single engine recovery are jets with fuselage mounted engines. They have the power and minimum adverse yaw.

José

 

[Ted]

I thought more power meant more issues with Vmc because the differential between the running engine and dead engine is bigger if the engines are more powerful.

The biggest reason people end up having Vmc issues isn't because they rotate before Vmc and have an engine failure, it's because they have an engine failure and allow their speed to decay below Vmc because they're trying to maintain altitude or climb.

More power means you can maintain altitude easier (perhaps even climb) with a higher airspeed.

 

[Piloto]

The biggest reason people end up having Vmc issues isn't because they rotate before Vmc and have an engine failure, it's because they have an engine failure and allow their speed to decay below Vmc because they're trying to maintain altitude or climb.

More power means you can maintain altitude easier (perhaps even climb) with a higher airspeed.

Very true. The uncontrolled roll gives the impression that the pilot was attempting to U turn back to the runway when in fact he was trying to maintain level flight.

José

 

[Ted]

Very true. The uncontrolled roll gives the impression that the pilot was attempting to U turn back to the runway when in fact he was trying to maintain level flight.

José

He may have been turning back to the runway and trying to maintain altitude. If he was also turning into the bad engine, well, there you go.

 

[spinfire]

Makes sense. I was thinking of the case of a single engine go around where the pilot firewalls the throttle from below Vmc. Then it would seem higher power engines would require more discipline, you'd need to avoid full power until Vmc is reached.

It makes sense that engines mounted farther inboard are easiest to handle OEI.

 

[kc310r]

The 310R I fly cannot maintain anything greater than 5 degrees of ascent on takeoff without going below blue line. After about 15 seconds, the airplane is cleaned up and I'm moving about 20 knots over blue line at about 7 degrees. If I were to lose one on takeoff, the first thing I'd do is lower the nose. If there is an obstacle in front of me, get the thing down. You have a better to maneuver with airspeed -- altitude would be nice but without airspeed, it's not worth much. If its clear ahead, with nose already down, adjust power, build up airspeed and plan your landing.

 

[taters]

It is. But most here will blame it on the pilot. The fact is that piston twins do not have enough power to overcome an engine out during take off. No matter how much you train if the machine is uncapable there is not much you can do.

José

It sounds like this occurred on established climb out . I experienced such a failure twice in a chieftain this summer.and returned to the airport .my guess is that other factors involved .it will be interesting what the NTSB determines. Many things including structural failure smoke or fire could have caused this...very sad

 

[Fearless Tower]

Makes sense. I was thinking of the case of a single engine go around where the pilot firewalls the throttle from below Vmc. Then it would seem higher power engines would require more discipline, you'd need to avoid full power until Vmc is reached.

It makes sense that engines mounted farther inboard are easiest to handle OEI.

Higher powered engines do require more discipline, but the typical rule of thumb is that you keep the pitch angle low after liftoff to achieve VMC+ as soon as possible before you start climbing. In the B-25 (VMC is generally considered 145 mph) you literally have to hold the plane down while you accelarate over the runway.

 

[TMetzinger]

I've always thought of the Vmc roll after take-off in the same way as the base to final turn, or the engine failure in the single immediately after takeoff.

You have to override your instincts to keep the airplane in the envelope.

I don't have a lot of multi time, and it's all in Seminoles or similar light twins. Depending on the density altitude or the terrain, a single engine climb-out may not be possible. It's better (for values of better) to maintain control all the way into the impact.

As Ted says, sometimes it's not your day. Still, do your best to make your bad day as good as possible.

None of this is any commentary on the actions of the pilot of the 421. I've got no idea what happened in this case.

 

[wabower]

Due to inherent laziness coupled with a strong sense of self-preservation, I long-ago elected to forego willing participation in the smoking-hole version of aviation Russian roulette known as multi-engine instruction in light airplanes.

Instead, I used the MEI credentials to instruct in simulators in which VMC roll and other loss of directional control accidents have a much lower fatality rate for both pilots and IP's. Having now survived many years of button-pushing and thousands of potentially-catastrophic training events, I am even more pleased with my choice of venue, and grateful that my critical sphincter function has been spared for use in my old age.

Having also been blessed with a keen powers of observation and a deep and profound grasp of the obvious, I have concluded that flying M/E airplanes and golf have much in common. The commonality extends to both performance and training, and is centered around the premise that the player or pilot gets only one kiss at the pig without incurring a significant penalty.

IOW, the first ball hit or the first engine loss in a critical situation provides the player's only opportunity to shine. All subsequent attempts (if the player survives the first blown opportunity) come at a significant price, be it a $3.50 Pro V1 and loss of hole on a Nassau or the loss of aircraft and numerous lives in a twin.

The proof of the pudding is written in the books, both in the handicap sheets at the golf club and in the pilot records at the training center. During both initial and recurrent training, pilots are given the opportunity to practice the hard stuff (V-1 cuts and S/E missed approach) on a repeated basis until they are "back in the swing of things" and can fly to check-ride standards. IOW, it's much like hitting ball after ball on the driving range, in that the "pitch 'til you win" mentality is an accepted part of the drill and the "need to get it right the first time or die" is overlooked or ignored.

If maintained for posterity, the detailed records and video tapes of each sim session would show that even trained and experienced professional pilots fall woefully short of survival-necessary skills during the first few tries at the difficult maneuvers, even though they were deemed to be proficient only six months prior. The training center's policy of maintaining strict confidentiality of training performance is probably one of their best ideas to date, because most passengers would choose to walk cross-country rather than ride with pilots who need three tries to get it right.

In another thread, I posed the question as to the percentage of legally-current M/E pilots who could successfully execute the hard maneuvers on their first real-life attempt. Based on my observations while watching them attempt to do so, I'd put the number at less than 25%.

Y'all be careful now, y'hear?

 

[Inverted]

Bingo...

Absolutely NOT.

You don't just accept a VMC roll and certain death because you can't climb on one engine. You lower the nose and if that means you smack trees or a road then so be it. A VMC roll is never the smarter option.

 

[Inverted]

The biggest reason people end up having Vmc issues isn't because they rotate before Vmc and have an engine failure, it's because they have an engine failure and allow their speed to decay below Vmc because they're trying to maintain altitude or climb.

More power means you can maintain altitude easier (perhaps even climb) with a higher airspeed.

And Its been a while since I have touched a 421, but if I remember VMC is 93 its and Vr was 100. Most of the twins I have flown rotate above VMC. The only exception I can think of right now is the Beech 99, which has a VMC of 130 if the failed engine doesn't auto feather.

Wayne, I would agree with you on your post. If I wasn't doing constant recurrent training for my company I would feel very nervous about having to deal with something that required an instant reaction.

 

[tonycondon]

yes the when i was flying the 421 we never lifted off until above redline and it never really wanted to lift off that slow anyway.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I fly my 58P very much like the B-25 on departure when I have enough runway. I lift off above Vmc which is near 80 knots; usually back pressure and off just over 90 knots. After lift off, I nose it over and accelerate above the runway to blue line at 115 where I begin my climb. The take off part of getting my B-25 rating was pretty easy since I was pretty much using that procedure anyway. If I lose and engine, I can cut throttles, put the nose down a bit and have rubber on pavement very quickly using this method.

Shorter runway, of course, that doesn't work, but one can still do as was said above.

When I did my multi check ride, I did a SE go around. The DE asked me if I thought I could do it as he cut an engine on final (commercial ride). My response was why don't we let the plane tell us. I pushed power up and feathered the dead engine and put the nose up a couple degrees to see if it would arrest the descent; when it did, I raised it a couple more degrees and it began to climb, cleaned it up and went around. If it couldn't have checked the descent, I would have landed straight ahead.

One can't always do this as there may be obstacles, but some folks seem to panic when there really isn't problem. Patience is a virtue here: don't try to make the plane do something of which it isn't capable.

I've posted this before: at ABS this year, Tom Rosen said 91% of GA accidents where the engine stopped were fuel management related. Watch what you do with fuel management and your probably of an engine failure greatly diminishes. I would add, a good maintenance program will move the odds even more your way.

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

Makes sense. I was thinking of the case of a single engine go around where the pilot firewalls the throttle from below Vmc. Then it would seem higher power engines would require more discipline, you'd need to avoid full power until Vmc is reached.

In the twins I fly, you're pretty much never able to fly below red line anyway. When you take off, Vmc ends up being a good speed for rotation, by the time you get off the runway you're somewhere between Vmc and Vyse, and quickly accelerate to Vyse before continuing flight.

Coming in for landing, I end up doing about the reverse. Blue line on final, slow to somewhere between blue and red crossing the numbers. If I have an engine failure below red line it's inconsequential, by that point I'm probably on the ground, or close to it.

Absolutely NOT.

You don't just accept a VMC roll and certain death because you can't climb on one engine. You lower the nose and if that means you smack trees or a road then so be it. A VMC roll is never the smarter option.

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was agreeing with Wayne's point that there are more desirable options than a Vmc roll and certain death.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I hope I don't sound like I'm disagreeing with Wayne, but each sim does react a bit differently. I don't know what he instructs in. At SIMCOM each year, the first couple engine cuts are needed just to get a feel for the sim. Also, one loses feel for the aircraft in the sim; it is different. I have to go by visual clues alone in the sim when I lose and engine. In the plane, there is motion and sound among other things.

In addition to the normal SIMCOM agenda, a group of us attend annually and have an additional program we train to that is pretty much single engine and emergency work that the FAA doesn't require. Single engine circle to land approaches among other things. It's a lot of fun to address things like this, problem solve, discuss how to improve and see what happens if we do things incorrectly. Of course, at annual recurrent training, one tends to focus on one emergency after another and sometimes more than one at a time. I've yet to experience what I would call an emergency when flying; although, I've done a couple precautionary landings.

I will say, after three or four days in the sim, I feel as proficient as any time during the year.

Dave