Engine failure before gear up in a twin - How do you train?

[Henning]

Surplus horsepower, if you have it you can climb!

Exactly, people use the term 'multi' like it's a one size fit all statement. The Twin Commander 500 made a certification flight to DC with one of the props in the cabin. Saying,"A light twin won't fly on one" is just a false statement, it's just a matter of how much excess power you have. Since most GA people learn on low horsepower twin trainers and never fly twins after that, their perception may be accurate for the plane they learned in, but as a blanket statement is a fallacy that is perpetuated by CFIs whose only ME experience is with the same underpowered worn out planes.

 

[Everskyward]

Seems like the acknowledgment to abort the attempt to fly away OEI when immediately after takeoff in light piston twins is a big negative transfer with respect to multi engine turbine operations, where it is invariably the procedure to continue after V1 cut, where you are a GO unless you can't physically control the surfaces to effect rotation.

It's definitely negative transfer. My first reaction when I they told me to take my hand away was "really?" The other thing is that if you come from an airplane with props, the instinct is to try to do something RIGHT NOW. Instead, you are supposed to continue the takeoff normally and climb at V2 until a "safe altitude".

I understand the reason for the contradicting technique in piston twins is that these piston jobs are so underpowered OEI that they effectively behave like single engine aircraft during takeoff power losses.

Also, since smaller airplanes have much less energy, aborting is the safer option. Trying a high-speed abort in a jet can lead to a lot of misadventure.

Talk about a false economy. What's the point of a second engine if I can't reasonably expect to fly it out of the runway environment when past takeoff abort speed? To each their own. I rather fly behind a turbine single if I'm at those odds and my mission would otherwise require the kind of useful loads/high altitude mission usually associated with twin owners' mission sets....

But as others have pointed out, your exposure to the more dangerous segment is fairly short compared to the total flight. It might be anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute or two depending on the airplane. Losing an engine in cruise will be pretty startling in either but the twin will probably get your attention more as it tries to swap ends.

 

[wabower]

But it doesn't stop there, and many other factors to consider. If the plane will make 3% gradient but the terrain or DP requires 3.2%, then what?

Surplus horsepower, if you have it you can climb!

 

[Skylane81E]

But it doesn't stop there, and many other factors to consider. If the plane will make 3% gradient but the terrain or DP requires 3.2%, then what?

You can't climb fast enough and you crash into the hill faster than you would have likely crashed into the fence had you aborted. No one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[Henning]

What really becomes obvious in these threads is that flying proficiency isn't really the issue with a twin, it's thinking proficiency. You have more things to consider and brief before departure. As was said, 'no one size fits all answers', you have to review the conditions and plan the actions for eventualities on every single departure because every departure is a bit different in condition. Once you have a plan, executing that plan is no more difficult in a twin than a single. People who will panic and crash a twin will likely panic and crash a single.

 

[TMetzinger]

If you had talked to every dead twin pilot the night before his fatal accident, how much different would their answers have been from yours or any of the others posted in this thread? Why does anybody think their outcome will be different if one of the fans stop?

What's your point?

That it's hopeless to fly in a light piston twin?

 

[Henning]

What's your point?

That it's hopeless to fly in a light piston twin?

Yes, his friend crashed and burned a 340 therefor piston twins are too dangerous.

 

[wabower]

The point is that all the hypothetical recitations of "here's how I will do it tomorrow" are like Papal elections (lots of blown smoke) until you've actually died a few times (sims are better for this exercise than real airplanes) and seen how easily it can be done.

What's your point?

That it's hopeless to fly in a light piston twin?

It's fantasy to think that the "simulate-this simulate-that" training now being administered will be of any value when the time comes that it's really needed.

 

[Skylane81E]

What's your point?

That it's hopeless to fly in a light piston twin?

I took it to mean not to expect the second engine to always save your bacon

 

[Fearless Tower]

What really becomes obvious in these threads is that flying proficiency isn't really the issue with a twin, it's thinking proficiency.

What's that Maverick line...."You don't have time to think...."

 

[Fearless Tower]

The point is that all the hypothetical recitations of "here's how I will do it tomorrow" are like Papal elections (lots of blown smoke) until you've actually died a few times (sims are better for this exercise than real airplanes) and seen how easily it can be done.

It's fantasy to think that the "simulate-this simulate-that" training now being administered will be of any value when the time comes that it's really needed.

There is some truth to what you are saying....but I don't think it as simple as that blanket statement.

I have seen alot of impact....both positive and negative from simulated training in my line of work.

 

[Henning]

What's that Maverick line...."You don't have time to think...."

Right, which is why you have to do the thinking before throttling up. Twins give you options, that's what makes them more difficult because you have to make decisions, in an SE you have fewer choices to make. The pre takeoff brief is the most critical difference between SE and ME operations, it's where you consider all the conditions and circumstances at the moment and decide what options to execute at what time.

 

[N747JB]

Citations have prop controls?

No, if they did they would be too expensive to fly!
I just misread your post, I should have said, "move your right hand from the throttle (power levers) to the yoke. In single pilot operations, it was hand from power levers to gear switch, then both hands on yoke.

 

[docmirror]

The point is that all the hypothetical recitations of "here's how I will do it tomorrow" are like Papal elections (lots of blown smoke) until you've actually died a few times (sims are better for this exercise than real airplanes) and seen how easily it can be done.

It's fantasy to think that the "simulate-this simulate-that" training now being administered will be of any value when the time comes that it's really needed.

One of the more interesting tautological statements I've seen in a while. As I read this, you need to 'die' a few times in the sim to understand the difficulties involved, and subsequent to that, the 'simulate this or that' training is a worthless.

 

[JHW]

Talk about a false economy. What's the point of a second engine if I can't reasonably expect to fly it out of the runway environment when past takeoff abort speed?

talk about a lack of ability to prioritize. The time window you are speaking of lasts at most 10 seconds. That will be followed by several hours during which the 2nd engine will take you to an airport rather than into a field or forest.

 

[Henning]

One of the more interesting tautological statements I've seen in a while. As I read this, you need to 'die' a few times in the sim to understand the difficulties involved, and subsequent to that, the 'simulate this or that' training is a worthless.

The problem with most 'simulations' done in flight is that they do not realistically simulate the actual situation nor how the plane reacts.

 

[docmirror]

The problem with most 'simulations' done in flight is that they do not realistically simulate the actual situation nor how the plane reacts.

I wasn't debating the merits of simulation in this case. Just having a little fun with the way the post was written.

Oh - and the alternative to simulation for this type of event is an actual event. That is Not a Good Plan.

 

[Henning]

I wasn't debating the merits of simulation in this case. Just having a little fun with the way the post was written.

Oh - and the alternative to simulation for this type of event is an actual event. That is Not a Good Plan.

True, however incorrect exposure in simulation prepares you better than 'no exposure' in what way?

 

[docmirror]

True, however incorrect exposure in simulation prepares you better than 'no exposure' in what way?

If you keep mis-identifying the subject of my tautology post that you recently quoted, it's no wonder you are confused. My post had nothing to do with SIMULATORS.

 

[wabower]

I was (and am) quite proud of it and glad you found it interesting.

One of the more interesting tautological statements I've seen in a while. As I read this, you need to 'die' a few times in the sim to understand the difficulties involved, and subsequent to that, the 'simulate this or that' training is a worthless.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

One observation is a lot of folks try to turn a twin on one when still low. I had a CFI (I don't use now) yell when I kept it pointed straight ahead instead of trying to turn back to the runway while trying to climb after I got it cleaned up. Of course once I turned, I lost all climb even in a shallow turn and CHTs went through the roof. Think he was on the engine cylinder manufacturer's Christmas Card list.

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

If I have an issue I will verify with the prop handle on the way back to the feather detent, no change in sound and I keep pulling into feather, saves both time and point of error grabbing the wrong handle.

You know, I actually don't like the feather detents on the Twin Cessnas. The Pipers didn't have them, and I don't like having to take the lever past the detent (which is different for each side). I've been thinking about making those detents disappear, actually.

 

[Henning]

If you keep mis-identifying the subject of my tautology post that you recently quoted, it's no wonder you are confused. My post had nothing to do with SIMULATORS.

Correct, your post had to do with incorrect/incomplete/inaccurate simulation of situation in real airplanes as it is typically performed because it's too damned risky to throw people into it for real. Bearing that I knew that full well in my mind when I wrote that question, read it again and answer it.

 

[docmirror]

Correct, your post had to do with incorrect/incomplete/inaccurate simulation of situation in real airplanes as it is typically performed because it's too damned risky to throw people into it for real. Bearing that I knew that full well in my mind when I wrote that question, read it again and answer it.

No, it didn't.

I'm tired of explaining.

 

[bbchien]

Jeepers. I don't know where to start. Baron 2PG got close- but the emphasis needs to be on Gross Weight at time of departure. If you are above your V1 speed, but still within a few feet of the runway, you have a choice: FENCE, or treat is as an inflight emergency. If you are substantially below Vyse at V1, you just fried everybody aboard. Please don't do that. you're not going anyplace up.

The real problem, is if you are sufficiently loaded so that you are still on the ground gear are down and your V1 speed has passed, well you just screwed youself.

It is a matter of discipline to alter (reduce) you loading so that V1 is both above Vyse, so that you stop, OR you can treat it as an inflight emergency. Or you get the treat of the week- the tree and the fire.

If you don't do that, you're not thinking right. Even 200 undergross changes the numbers required Dramatically. In my a/c at gross, the 5500 ft accel to Vy and stop (V1=Vy), occurs at about a 4,200 field length when 200 undergross. 300 undergross changes it to under 3800 (V1=Vy). The SE climb gradient gets a lot better, and of course is published. Adjustments made of course for temperature and wind, and baro!

Then you have the matter of clearway gradient. New apartments 50 feet high have been erected in my departure path. The option to go, when V1 = Vyse at my home port (about 200 under, most conditions) is now gone. So now my depatures from the home field depend almost entirely on V1 vs Vy and the option is to STOP in the 4000 I have. So now I'm more comfortable wtih 250 under gross, and at that terrible moment, I planning to STOP.


"Kick the tares and light the fares, she'll do 'er" is not acceptable in the cautious operation of a light twin.

 

[flyingron]

And to comment on the "emergency raise" procedure someone mentioned. Retracts usually have an alternate means of LOWERING the gear, but in may be impossible (or just ill-advised) to use the alternate procedure to raise the gear. You can pump the gear up in the Navion using the hand pump but it's prohibited by the "not a flight manual." Oddly, it works better for the gear tests at annual than trying to use the mule to pressurize the system.

 

[gismo]

One observation is a lot of folks try to turn a twin on one when still low. I had a CFI (I don't use now) yell when I kept it pointed straight ahead instead of trying to turn back to the runway while trying to climb after I got it cleaned up. Of course once I turned, I lost all climb even in a shallow turn and CHTs went through the roof. Think he was on the engine cylinder manufacturer's Christmas Card list.

Best,

Dave

Agreed. If I lose one close to the ground and am trying to continue the flight I won't turn until I have enough altitude that climbing has become optional unless that's the only way to avoid hitting something. Playing around in the sim, it seems that even a 10° bank kills about 200 fpm of climb and that's assuming you maintain zero sideslip (which is harder to do in a turn than it is flying straight).

 

[wabower]

Isn't that like telling the Army recruit that if he survives running through the mine field that he can spend the rest of the day eating ice cream?

talk about a lack of ability to prioritize. The time window you are speaking of lasts at most 10 seconds. That will be followed by several hours during which the 2nd engine will take you to an airport rather than into a field or forest.

 

[Henning]

Agreed. If I lose one close to the ground and am trying to continue the flight I won't turn until I have enough altitude that climbing has become optional unless that's the only way to avoid hitting something. Playing around in the sim, it seems that even a 10° bank kills about 200 fpm of climb and that's assuming you maintain zero sideslip (which is harder to do in a turn than it is flying straight).

I let it turn slowly into the dead engine to reduce the slipping drag of trying to keep it straight until I have a bit of altitude to play with.

 

[Henning]

Isn't that like telling the Army recruit that if he survives running through the mine field that he can spend the rest of the day eating ice cream?

Better than telling him to sit there and wait for a mortar to fall on him.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

speed matters. altitude is arbitrary. Many times I want to climb at higher speed and will take a (relatively) long time to reach 1000ft. Just a suggestion, you might consider a speed target for your decision making rather than altitude.

Neither one is arbitrary. Its a combination of the two. 1000' at Vmc...not good
100' at 150....still not good. It is the sum total of the energy you have to manage that makes the decision to land vs. fly.

Even after the gear is up in the early stages of climb out and acceleration it is possible to be in a land ahead situation.

I teach if the gear is down land. If the gear is up but still in the initial climb (below 1000' and below cruise climb speed) then do memory items and see how the airplane responds. Weight, terrain, altitude and pilot proficiency will all affect how the airplane deals with the performance loss of the engine failure. You may still have to land off airport.... even if the performance charts say you can climb.

 

[JHW]

Isn't that like telling the Army recruit that if he survives running through the mine field that he can spend the rest of the day eating ice cream?

I don't consider taking off in my plane to be a mine field. I think I'd be much more likely to be injured polishing an unpainted plane.

That said, I do agree with you that most pilots overestimate their abilities in this regard. When I was a teenager with 1000-something hours in the B200 I thought I was pretty sharp. When they sent us to school to learn the AN24, every one of us crashed the russian sim when they started pulling engines on departure. Nothing wrong with the sim or the airplane it represented, the problem was us.

 

[wabower]

Carpal tunnel is covered by medicare. Agreed on all after.

I could point +/-.25" to the exact spot on the IOS screen where they would crash in the B-200 the first time I failed one after V1/Rotate. They would eventually master it (unless the autofeather was inop) but it was a busy time for the crew.

I don't consider taking off in my plane to be a mine field. I think I'd be much more likely to be injured polishing an unpainted plane.

That said, I do agree with you that most pilots overestimate their abilities in this regard. When I was a teenager with 1000-something hours in the B200 I thought I was pretty sharp. When they sent us to school to learn the AN24, every one of us crashed the russian sim when they started pulling engines on departure. Nothing wrong with the sim or the airplane it represented, the problem was us.