First Declared Emergency

Ted

Ted

The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
29,907
Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
This is coming a few weeks late, but I thought I'd do the write-up now that everything's been settled and we've been home.

Coming north from Texas to Massachusetts in the 310 on a routine dog flight (with 25 dogs), we had a magneto failure over Kentucky. Somewhat sadly, I heard the noise and knew immediately what happened (this isn't the first time I've had this happen). The EGTs went up on the left engine (as observed on the JPI), and an in-flight mag check concluded that the left magneto on the left engine had quit. Laurie and I were both in the plane. So, we discussed our options while we determined what we wanted to do. In my experience, these IO-520-Es don't like running on one magneto.

As we were evaluating options, the left engine started dropping cylinders. One would stop running for a while, and then start running again, only to have another drop out. This was accompanied with some pretty hard shaking at random. Not good. Now the decision is pretty well made, time to divert.

We chose to divert to Lexington, KY (KLEX) figuring that, being the only airport of a decent size around our location, they would have the best services. We told ATC of our diversion and explained we were having engine trouble. When asked if we wanted to declare an emergency, we did, and said we wanted to land without delay and asked to have the trucks on standby. I asked Laurie to take care of getting the ATIS and plug everything into the avionics while I kept an eye on the engine instruments and focused on flying the plane.

We did not elect to shut down the left engine, but with the way it was acting, weren't sure how long it was going to last. Sure, the 310 flies very nicely on one engine. I've done it enough times in practice and am comfortable with OEI operation. That didn't change the fact that we were having problems and it was time to get on the ground and get things fixed. Better pilots than me have screwed up landings under similar conditions, and we also had no idea whether or not there was some other problem that may create an issue upon landing.

The trucks were sitting on standby, and we were given a clear runway to land on. ATC handled everything very well. The airport police took a statement from me for their report and were polite about it. They seemed happy to be given something to do.

The whole thing ended up being a non-event. However, it could easily have been different, hence declaring the emergency. We could have chosen a closer airport. However, those airports had unknown services (both in terms of maintenance and emergency crews), and we knew that, if necessary, we could fly on one engine to KLEX, which wasn't very far away. Too often, it seems that pilots are afraid of declaring an emergency because they don't feel their abnormality is significant enough to warrant it. In training for my 135 flying, it was made very clear to not hesitate or second guess declaring an emergency. I have heard 121 operators declare emergencies on more than one occasion for relatively simple failures. I figure that if that's what professionals are told to do, there's no reason why it doesn't apply to my Part 91 flying.

At dinner, we talked about what could have been done differently, always looking at ways to improve. The primary thing we figured should have been done differently was approach speed and application of flaps. The runway was plenty long for the plane (7000 ft) and I did a relatively standard approach. In retrospect, given that there was no concern with running off the end of the runway, it would have made more sense to wait a bit longer on application of full flaps and carry a bit more speed in, in case the engine had chosen to fail entirely on final.

Then, of course, we had 25 dogs to take care of while we waited for a new magneto to show up, but that's another story...
 
Thanks for posting this, Ted. I think it's an example of good, thoughtful, conservative aeronautical decision-making.
BZ!
 
I re-learned from this not to hesitate to use the "E" word.
 
Glad it worked out. Tac Air isn't a bad place to hang out if you're delayed. This event should confirm all of our discussions about twins, and why nobody should fly them. All the real pilots know that the motors and accessories on them are "seconds" and are prone to failure. :wink2:
 
TMetzinger said:
Thanks for posting this, Ted. I think it's an example of good, thoughtful, conservative aeronautical decision-making.
BZ!
Click to expand...

Despite popular belief, I have no desire to become a smoking crater in the ground. This is typical of my ADM. I still fly on days with low ceilings, storms, ice, etc. However, they are all factors that go into my calculations for the trip and influence my decision making.

wabower said:
Glad it worked out. Tac Air isn't a bad place to hang out if you're delayed. This event should confirm all of our discussions about twins, and why nobody should fly them. All the real pilots know that the motors and accessories on them are "seconds" and are prone to failure. :wink2:
Click to expand...

In a single, I would have needed new pants, and we would've been diverting to the nearest airport (which had no services). Since I only had one pair of pants with me, this would have meant standing in the hotel laundry room without pants for several hours. No local stores ever have pants in my size, so a WalMart run for replacements wouldn't have worked. This fact, alone, makes the extra engine worthwhile for me.

Besides, we all know that singles are still only in existence to practice until you gain enough experience to fly a twin. ;)
 
:needpics:
Ted DuPuis said:
In a single, I would have needed new pants, and we would've been diverting to the nearest airport (which had no services). Since I only had one pair of pants with me, this would have meant standing in the hotel laundry room without pants for several hours. No local stores ever have pants in my size, so a WalMart run for replacements wouldn't have worked. This fact, alone, makes the extra engine worthwhile for me.

Besides, we all know that singles are still only in existence to practice until you gain enough experience to fly a twin. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Good Job, Ted.

Ted DuPuis said:
Then, of course, we had 25 dogs to take care of while we waited for a new magneto to show up, but that's another story...
Click to expand...

Not many motels would be happy to see you and 25 dogs pull up.....

Do you carry dog food for situations like this?

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
Do you carry dog food for situations like this?
Click to expand...

Dog food is easy to come by, as is water. What's harder to come by is the time to feed, water, and walk 25 dogs the multiple times per day required for their health and safety. Plus, the confinements they are in for the flight, while humane, are a bit tighter than is desirable for longer than the duration of the flight.

In this case, we happened to have two collapsible crates with us to help distribute the dogs a bit better.

In three years and on the order of 1000 hours of doing this (actually probably a hair more), this is the first time I've ever been stuck somewhere while on a Cloud Nine trip. So that gives you an idea of how infrequent it is.
 
Inverted said:
I still can't get passed the fact you had 25 dogs in a 310... How!?
Click to expand...

Practice. It's a pretty common occurrence for me.

We pull the seats out of the plane and have cages in their place. The plane holds 13 cages in varying sizes in the standard configuration. The dogs, obviously, are not large.
 
Based on this evidence, it seems that proximity to Ted causes in-flight emergencies.

I'm now ready to be a political statistician.
 
Awesome job Ted, and I am not surprised. If I ever feel the need, I do not plan on hesitating to use the dreaded "E word". Worst that can happen is a few folks get some extra excitement.
 
Ok, answer a newbie a couple of questions. What's the point of ignition redundancy if you really need both systems to keep the engine running? How many types of aircraft engines misbehave so badly on one set of plugs that you have have to declare an emergency when a magneto fails?
 
Good Job Ted...:yesnod::yesnod:

If you just had a Ford in it you could have flown all the way home..:yesnod::goofy:
 
Old Geek said:
Ok, answer a newbie a couple of questions. What's the point of ignition redundancy if you really need both systems to keep the engine running? How many types of aircraft engines misbehave so badly on one set of plugs that you have have to declare an emergency when a magneto fails?
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question? The engine never quit, but that doesn't make a mag failure a good thing. Halve the ignition capacity and you should expect reduced performance. Would you take off with a bad mag?
 
I'm not suggesting that was the case here, but sometimes a failed magneto will go a bit crazy, firing at the wrong times, rather than just sitting there dead. So if your engine starts running rough in flight, try each magneto individually instead of just checking that the switch is on "both".
 
Old Geek said:
Ok, answer a newbie a couple of questions. What's the point of ignition redundancy if you really need both systems to keep the engine running? How many types of aircraft engines misbehave so badly on one set of plugs that you have have to declare an emergency when a magneto fails?
Click to expand...
I have flown a C152, C172, and a PA28-161 on one mag from takeoff to landing; not deliberately, just failed the checklist. Some don't matter. Some would matter depending on when. Some just wouldn't work (like Ted's).
Know your aircraft and its systems. This helps you know what to do should you face Ted's situation.
 
Morne said:
Is this a serious question? The engine never quit, but that doesn't make a mag failure a good thing. Halve the ignition capacity and you should expect reduced performance. Would you take off with a bad mag?
Click to expand...

Why would think it isn't a serious question? Of course I would expect reduced performance. I would not expect performance so bad that I would have to declare an emergency. I said I'm a newbie.
 
Old Geek said:
Why would think it isn't a serious question? Of course I would expect reduced performance. I would not expect performance so bad that I would have to declare an emergency. I said I'm a newbie.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, it depends. A 757 just declared an emergency and returned to jfk because he lost the right engine. It is still "okay" to fly the plane on one engine but why would you if help is just seconds away."
Why do we test both mags before we leave the ground? If it didn't matter that both were working, we could just assume one was since the engine started.
Declaring an emergency assists in getting assets to the right spot. There's no loss or reproach should you declare and not need it. Ted did a fine job bring the bird and 27 souls home safely. It could have gone quite differently.
 
silver-eagle said:
Like I said above, it depends. A 757 just declared an emergency and returned to jfk because he lost the right engine. It is still "okay" to fly the plane on one engine but why would you if help is just seconds away."
Why do we test both mags before we leave the ground? If it didn't matter that both were working, we could just assume one was since the engine started.
Declaring an emergency assists in getting assets to the right spot. There's no loss or reproach should you declare and not need it. Ted did a fine job bring the bird and 27 souls home safely. It could have gone quite differently.
Click to expand...

Ted did do a fine job. I'm wondering where I would have given anyone the idea that I thought otherwise.

My issue has nothing to do with his decision. My issue is that it looks like an aircraft engine has been designed that doesn't run worth a damn on one set of plugs. And nobody else seems to feel that this is an issue. Well, I did say I'm a newbee. Live and learn.
 
Old Geek said:
Ted did do a fine job. I'm wondering where I would have given anyone the idea that I thought otherwise.

My issue has nothing to do with his decision. My issue is that it looks like an aircraft engine has been designed that doesn't run worth a damn on one set of plugs. And nobody else seems to feel that this is an issue. Well, I did say I'm a newbee. Live and learn.
Click to expand...

There can be all sorts of reasons for what Ted experienced. I've had mag failures that I would have barely noticed, and I've had a mag failure with the remaining mag apparently not perfectly timed, and I had a rough running engine. I did the same thing Ted did, except I was fortunate enough to be in the vicinity of a good airport at the time.
 
Good job working the issue, to a non-emergency conclusion.

I've only had one legitimate emergency, in a rental 172 I lost the cylinder bolts on #3 and put it halfway through the cowl. I happened to be midfield left downwind on a 7000' runway at the time, so it was mostly a nonevent - it was about 30 seconds from mayday call to touchdown on the main runway. Once my mind realized that that really was the cowling pushed out on the side, and the prop really was stopped, I called tower with the mayday, dumped full flaps, and cranked it around hard onto the runway right where I was. I'd like to think I would do so well on an enroute issue, and I hope I never get a chance to find out.
 
Ted,
How was the roughness? In my Apache I have to pay attention pretty closely for the "lean until rough the richen until smooth," it's typically less noticeable compared to when I've been in a rough-running single. Or, was it noticeable because of a hard yaw, etc. when she started running rough?
 
Old Geek said:
Ted did do a fine job. I'm wondering where I would have given anyone the idea that I thought otherwise.

My issue has nothing to do with his decision. My issue is that it looks like an aircraft engine has been designed that doesn't run worth a damn on one set of plugs. And nobody else seems to feel that this is an issue. Well, I did say I'm a newbee. Live and learn.
Click to expand...

Being an engineer I am not as quick to blame the design. While aviation piston engines are fairly simple there are still a few parameters that vary during operation. A good mixture with both mags running might be too lean with just one.

The redundant mag worked in this case. It kept the sick fan turning until touchdown. It didn't sound good but it worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top