Singe engine stall in a twin near gross

[wabower]

If you study the NTSB reports of fatal S/E landing accidents, you may be surprised to see the number that resulted from over-runs and failed go-arounds that don't get much ink in discussions such as these when compared to those that are thought to be scarier by most ME pilots. The Seneca V accident in McAlester, OK a few Christmas seasons back that killed Bill Gray and his family is the classic "lose one in cruise and kill everybody aboard" scenario.

Pilots are taught to be deathly afraid of VMC-related issues, when in fact they aren't a major problem during descent. I know of several twins that will even descend and land with only one operating engine, and have heard on good authority that some will even do it with none. Pilots who are accustomed to using the drag created by windmilling props to help reduce airspeed are often unpleasantly surprised by the impact of having one feathered.

My suggestion is that anyone who recommends higher speeds during S/E ops should also be required to opine as to when they should be discontinued in favor of normal approach and landing speeds.

This is a good point, but I also think it depends on what we're talking about. A 310 at a 5000+ ft runway is not a King Air 200. Even with the extra power in the version I fly, I wouldn't expect to be able to maintain altitude with drag out on one. I've not flown a KA200, but in the Commander 690A an engine failure was only marginally more exciting than running out of coffee, and maintaining altitude with all the drag out is no big deal.

So I'd expect the training centers, especially focusing on turbine aircraft, would do that and I would consider it prudent in those aircraft.

In piston aircraft, at least the ones I've flown (having the most time in Navajo, 310, and Aztec), staying at blue line or a bit better gives me a bit of extra margin without much concern for a runway overrun. But it does depend on the overall situation and setting yourself up properly all around.

 

[wabower]

I don't want to even sit in one.

There are some pretty small transport category aircraft. I wouldn't want to live in a Lear 35.

 

[bbchien]

Agree with everything you said Ronnie, but a couple of minor points....Minor quibbling point....the BE-76 Duchess actually has been tested and has published Accelerate-Go tables.....personally I don't train that way due to the very narrow comfort margin.

Amen Ronnie.
Fearless- I had a good laugh some years ago looking at the Duchess accelerate go tables. You have to have half fuel, about 6,000 feet at my 650 MSL, and it can't be hotter than about 70F out. YHGBSM.

As for the N'ho, I didn't even bother to read the table. One flight at gross with a blower at "zero thrust", and you immediatley can tell that OEI just after rotation means, "we're taking the fence".

 

[Fearless Tower]

Fearless- I had a good laugh some years ago looking at the Duchess accelerate go tables. You have to have half fuel, about 6,000 feet at my 650 MSL, and it can't be hotter than about 70F out. YHGBSM,

And that is exactly why I don't train that way in the Duchess!

 

[poadeleted20]

If you study the NTSB reports of fatal S/E landing accidents, you may be surprised to see the number that resulted from over-runs and failed go-arounds that don't get much ink in discussions such as these when compared to those that are thought to be scarier by most ME pilots. The Seneca V accident in McAlester, OK a few Christmas seasons back that killed Bill Gray and his family is the classic "lose one in cruise and kill everybody aboard" scenario.

Pilots are taught to be deathly afraid of VMC-related issues, when in fact they aren't a major problem during descent. I know of several twins that will even descend and land with only one operating engine, and have heard on good authority that some will even do it with none. Pilots who are accustomed to using the drag created by windmilling props to help reduce airspeed are often unpleasantly surprised by the impact of having one feathered.

My suggestion is that anyone who recommends higher speeds during S/E ops should also be required to opine as to when they should be discontinued in favor of normal approach and landing speeds.

Amen, Brother Wayne. This is especially true for pilots who don't fly for a living, and thus don't get a lot of practice doing anything outside their "normal" procedures. If you intend to fly OEI approaches your light twin at Vyse or higher all the way to the threshold, make that your "normal" procedure, too, so you have the laws of exercise and recency working for you if you really to lose an engine. Otherwise, remember that Vmc is a whole lot lower at the power settings you use on approach than under the conditions used to develop that red line value on your airspeed indicator, so there's no real danger of losing directional control unless you have to go around, and the odds of needing to go around (which may not even be possible anyway) are pretty small if you fly a good "normal" approach.

Like it says in the section of the C-5 AFM ("dash-1") about making a go-around from a single-engine approach: "Plan your approach so a go-around is not required.":wink2:

 

[Ted]

I wouldn't be surprised at all about SE go-around crashes in piston twins. That's why my philosophy is that there isn't one.

I think there are some very good thinking points, but I probably should make my speed philosophy a bit clearer as it applies to the 310 I fly. So I'll give an example of my philosophy.

I'm at 6,000 ft and lose the left engine, so I feather it and make sure it's appropriately secured. Fuel off, etc. Right engine set to 2700 RPM (max continuous). Make sure I stay at or above blue line. Declare an emergency, etc.

I choose my best option airport with a big runway, which may not be the nearest. We'll say I have a 7,000 ft runway. I start going there (right turns only), and make an appropriate normal descent at or above blue line. Descent I'm not worried about it. I ask for vectors to the ILS that I'll shoot in. One shot.

Stay at or above blue line. I'll put gear down first, and maintain between blue line and blue +10 mph (so figure I aim for 120 mph). I'll plan a no-flap landing in this case, lots of runway and I know with full flaps I have issues. Power adjusted to maintain desired speed. On a normal glide slope this should be no problem without max power. If I have issues staying on the glide slope, I'll pull the gear up and not put it down until a couple hundred feet over the runway, and maybe add 5 mph to my descent speed. Once gear comes down that speed will easily drop.

Once the runway's made, I pull the power on the good engine back and land. I'll probably cross the numbers between blue and red line, float a bit, but with 7,000 ft no problem. I've done a feathered landing like this in the plane before so I know what to expect and that works well.

In this case, I'm not much different than normal for the plane, the main difference is I chose no-flaps knowing the resulting drag.

 

[Ted]

Amen, Brother Wayne. This is especially true for pilots who don't fly for a living, and thus don't get a lot of practice doing anything outside their "normal" procedures. If you intend to fly OEI approaches your light twin at Vyse or higher all the way to the threshold, make that your "normal" procedure, too, so you have the laws of exercise and recency working for you if you really to lose an engine. Otherwise, remember that Vmc is a whole lot lower at the power settings you use on approach than under the conditions used to develop that red line value on your airspeed indicator, so there's no real danger of losing directional control unless you have to go around, and the odds of needing to go around (which may not even be possible anyway) are pretty small if you fly a good "normal" approach.

There's something to that, and my approaches at big airports have typically been fast and with decent variability due to the nature of my flying. So my situation may be different there.

 

[wabower]

Well, the commonality of our methods is that we would both choose a runway of adequate length.

I wouldn't be surprised at all about SE go-around crashes in piston twins. That's why my philosophy is that there isn't one.

I think there are some very good thinking points, but I probably should make my speed philosophy a bit clearer as it applies to the 310 I fly. So I'll give an example of my philosophy.

I'm at 6,000 ft and lose the left engine, so I feather it and make sure it's appropriately secured. Fuel off, etc. Right engine set to 2700 RPM (max continuous). Make sure I stay at or above blue line. Declare an emergency, etc.

I choose my best option airport with a big runway, which may not be the nearest. We'll say I have a 7,000 ft runway. I start going there (right turns only), and make an appropriate normal descent at or above blue line. Descent I'm not worried about it. I ask for vectors to the ILS that I'll shoot in. One shot.

Stay at or above blue line. I'll put gear down first, and maintain between blue line and blue +10 mph (so figure I aim for 120 mph). I'll plan a no-flap landing in this case, lots of runway and I know with full flaps I have issues. Power adjusted to maintain desired speed. On a normal glide slope this should be no problem without max power. If I have issues staying on the glide slope, I'll pull the gear up and not put it down until a couple hundred feet over the runway, and maybe add 5 mph to my descent speed. Once gear comes down that speed will easily drop.

Once the runway's made, I pull the power on the good engine back and land. I'll probably cross the numbers between blue and red line, float a bit, but with 7,000 ft no problem. I've done a feathered landing like this in the plane before so I know what to expect and that works well.

In this case, I'm not much different than normal for the plane, the main difference is I chose no-flaps knowing the resulting drag.

 

[Ted]

Well, the commonality of our methods is that we would both choose a runway of adequate length.

That's also about the commonality of the twins we fly.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Ted, I have a pretty similar approach, but one question I have is that you have mentioned at least a couple times your belief that you should not turn into the dead engine. The only place I have heard that previously is old WWII era training material...in fact most instructors and training stuff I have come across since I have been flying seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to turn toward the dead engine (in fact on at least one of my checkrides, the DPE wanted me to make turns in both directions with one caged).

Would you care to expound on why you feel that way?

 

[wabower]

My method hasn't changed since the Twinks in the 70's.

That's also about the commonality of the twins we fly.

 

[Ted]

Would you care to expound on why you feel that way?

I've done plenty of turns into the dead engine as well in training. My understanding is that the plane will want to roll that direction, as it seemed to do for the above referenced King Air video. So it's more a point of not pointing that direction when you don't have to.

Now if you have good airspeed and you don't yank and bank the plane, yeah, it shouldn't matter. And my understanding may be wrong, but it certainly won't hurt anything.

Maybe I'll just go buy something safe like an RV-10 and give up these twins.

 

[Ted]

My method hasn't changed since the Twinks in the 70's.

And plenty of people have died both ways when screwing up.

 

[wabower]

Agreed, but why would anybody unnecessarily change the entire approach /landing profile? Or even clutter up their mind trying to make those decisions when there's a good possibility (two of my three shut-downs) that only one airport really makes sense as a landing spot?

And plenty of people have died both ways when screwing up.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I've done plenty of turns into the dead engine as well in training. My understanding is that the plane will want to roll that direction, as it seemed to do for the above referenced King Air video. So it's more a point of not pointing that direction when you don't have to.

Now if you have good airspeed and you don't yank and bank the plane, yeah, it shouldn't matter. And my understanding may be wrong, but it certainly won't hurt anything.

Makes sense.

Maybe I'll just go buy something safe like an RV-10 and give up these twins.

It's the most capable airplane ever made.....or so we've been told

 

[Ted]

Agreed, but why would anybody unnecessarily change the entire approach /landing profile? Or even clutter up their mind trying to make those decisions when there's a good possibility (two of my three shut-downs) that only one airport really makes sense as a landing spot?

Point taken, and I would guess if you look at most engine failure crashes they made multiple screw-ups with respect to descent profile, speeds, etc. And the appropriate landing spot will vary. For me it could be up to 200 nm away in my normal flying, or 10 nm over.

In my flying I'm used to having high variability between landing at a 1900x25 strip and then landing the same airplane at a 10,000 ft runway at a Bravo getting told "keep your speed up". So varying things is my normal. I can see where what I'm comfortable with wouldn't make sense for others and might set them up for failure.

 

[ronnieh]

Fearless you are correct on the V1. Should have said less than or equall to. I don't fly turbojet nor transport so I am pulling this info from a very dusty an little used part of my brain.
On the BE76, accerlate stop I was not aware it gave you any info other than the speed you can reach and still stop on available runway. Do the tables imply that once that speed is reached you can take off SE even if still on the runway? If so that is real spooky. V1 is that speed that when reached, at or before loss of critical engine you must continue the takeoff and accelerate to V2 by 35 feet AGL or something like that. Perhaps some of the typed pilots here can explain V1 and V2 more precisely. I don't think accelerate stop tables on non type aircraft have anything to do with V1??

 

[Fearless Tower]

On the BE76, accerlate stop I was not aware it gave you any info other than the speed you can reach and still stop on available runway. Do the tables imply that once that speed is reached you can take off SE even if still on the runway? If so that is real spooky.

Yes. The accel-go tables are separate from the accel-stop and they were developed from testing, failing the engine at rotation/liftoff and continuing the takeoff.

Yes, that is real spooky and why I don't know anyone that actually would attempt it. As Doc Bruce pointed out, the tables aren't even practical.....you have to have the most favorable conditions AND be nearly empty.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, the commonality of our methods is that we would both choose a runway of adequate length.

Wayne,

Can you describe your technique and the reasons behind it?

Thanks!

 

[LDJones]

Everyone may have seen this before, but look at this King Air video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNU

Hard to say from the video but, it certainly looks like it had some speed coming in. From the comments the pilot lost one on departure and was coming back in, just prior to the roll the aircraft was banked into the dead engine.

What is Vyse on a King Air 200 125ish vs a Vmc of 85ish? Thoughts?

Seems pretty aggress maneuvering. Sad to watch.

 

[JHW]

Wayne,

Can you describe your technique and the reasons behind it?

Thanks!

not wayne, but I was taught by a wayne-type of character so I suspect my technique is similar. My technique is to land the airplane. The nuts of bolts of landing is not that different with OEI except that you will have a longer rollout. All the "special considerations" you hear people espouse do nothing more than make worse the only already-bad part, the landing distance.

 

[poadeleted20]

not wayne, but I was taught by a wayne-type of character so I suspect my technique is similar. My technique is to land the airplane. The nuts of bolts of landing is not that different with OEI except that you will have a longer rollout.

Why would you have a longer rollout if you don't do anything unusual? If anything, you have lower residual thrust, and so rollout should be shorter, not longer.

 

[Henning]

I believe you're right, how long until FADEC on gas motors, sheesh.

I don't think Lycoming has it certified yet, but Continental has it for all their engines, nobody wants to pay for it.

 

[wabower]

1. Read the the S/E checklist appropriate for the failure.

2. Do what it says.

Wayne,

Can you describe your technique and the reasons behind it?

Thanks!

 

[Henning]

It was sad when it happened, and sadder once they found out more.

When I thought the 310 was going to lose an engine, we declared an emergency, went to an 8,000 ft runway, trucks standing by. Did we need any of it? Nope. Sure glad it was there.

Yep, as I was turning back to LGB OEI tower asked if I wanted equipment, "Sure, roll em, I might mess this up yet." All went fine and the CFR guys appreciated the break in the routine.

 

[Alexb2000]

I don't think Lycoming has it certified yet, but Continental has it for all their engines, nobody wants to pay for it.

The only twin I can think of being produced today that would benefit from FADEC and auto feathering is the Baron. In 2011 Beech announced that they were going to offer a 2013 G58TC with FADEC at the time the price was $1.575M. Apparently there wasn't enough interest, business problems, whatever, but it never happened. Maybe it was just that a non-pressurized piston twin for $1.575M (non-negotiable introductory price) was more than people could stomach.

 

[Henning]

The only twin I can think of being produced today that would benefit from FADEC and auto feathering is the Baron. In 2011 Beech announced that they were going to offer a 2013 G58TC with FADEC at the time the price was $1.575M. Apparently there wasn't enough interest, business problems, whatever, but it never happened. Maybe it was just that a non-pressurized piston twin for $1.575M (non-negotiable introductory price) was more than people could stomach.

You can get FADEC to retrofit on any of the twin Cessnas as well. People pay a big premium for the RAM conversions, according to the Continental guys at OSH FADEC would cost about the same.

 

[bbchien]

I've done plenty of turns into the dead engine as well in training. My understanding is that the plane will want to roll that direction, as it seemed to do for the above referenced King Air video. So it's more a point of not pointing that direction when you don't have to.

The old wives tale comes from big ships with big propellors that blank large parts of wings, when they won't feather. In THAT case I respect not turning into the dead engine. Of course, that means at gross, youre going down.....albeit slowly.

Now if you have good airspeed and you don't yank and bank the plane, yeah, it shouldn't matter. And my understanding may be wrong, but it certainly won't hurt anything.

Maybe I'll just go buy something safe like an RV-10 and give up these twins.

ROTF.

Multis that I have OUTRIGHT stalled OEI are Baron (bad manners, split S), Seneca II(shakes and quakes and then goes over), and GA-7 (which is like a PA28, jest keep descending, flying....). There is one more, it's pretty heavy, I was NOT PIC, and I'll never admit to it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

There is one more, it's pretty heavy, I was NOT PIC, and I'll never admit to it.

How many engines did it have???



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[bbchien]

How many engines did it have???



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

4 T-54's.

 

[Fearless Tower]

4 T-54's.

I had a funny feeling...

 

[gismo]

There are some pretty small transport category aircraft. I wouldn't want to live in a Lear 35.

I might be up for that if someone else was buying the gas and I could go where I chose.

 

[gismo]

Why would you have a longer rollout if you don't do anything unusual? If anything, you have lower residual thrust, and so rollout should be shorter, not longer.

In a Baron it is longer, supposedly because the lack of one rotating prop reduces drag until you get below around 30 KIAS and lengthening the time spent above 30 Kt has a more pronounced effect on rollout length.

 

[gismo]

Ted, I have a pretty similar approach, but one question I have is that you have mentioned at least a couple times your belief that you should not turn into the dead engine. The only place I have heard that previously is old WWII era training material...in fact most instructors and training stuff I have come across since I have been flying seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to turn toward the dead engine (in fact on at least one of my checkrides, the DPE wanted me to make turns in both directions with one caged).

Would you care to expound on why you feel that way?

First of all, turns into a dead engine are only an issue if you are slow (i.e. close to Vmc). Second, the real problem is letting the airplane become uncoordinated as you're turning, especially when you are rolling back to finish the turn. Typically with both engines running you need to apply some right rudder to prevent adverse yaw as you roll out of a left turn. With the left (critical) engine caged or worse yet windmilling, you may find that there is insufficient rudder travel/authority to do this and the result is a sideslip towards the right engine. This in turn increases Vmc further eroding control authority and the only way to recover is to unload the wing and/or reduce power, none of which is comfortable or instinctive when close to the ground.

 

[AdamZ]

Fascinating stuff. I wish Bryon ( Aztec Driver) would chime in here. He had an engine failure in his Aztec on takeoff while climbing out and promptly pulled both throttles rather then try to take too long to figure out which fan it was. put it down on the grass between two houses. Good work on his part.

 

[JHW]

Why would you have a longer rollout if you don't do anything unusual? If anything, you have lower residual thrust, and so rollout should be shorter, not longer.

no drag from the feathered prop. It's significantly longer. In a 310R add 1000ft unless you want to smoke the brakes. Another reason every ME student should do a landing with one feathered and not rely on this simulated neutral thrust nonsense. Some things won't be believed until you see it yourself.

 

[poadeleted20]

no drag from the feathered prop. It's significantly longer. In a 310R add 1000ft unless you want to smoke the brakes. Another reason every ME student should do a landing with one feathered and not rely on this simulated neutral thrust nonsense. Some things won't be believed until you see it yourself.

Sorry -- I'm not buying 1000 feet more landing roll in a 310 (that's nearly double the landing roll, IIRC) unless you have some validated test data to support that idea. The drag difference at touchdown speed isn't that much, and you are minus the residual thrust as you get slow.

 

[JHW]

Sorry -- I'm not buying 1000 feet more landing roll in a 310 (that's nearly double the landing roll, IIRC) unless you have some validated test data to support that idea. The drag difference at touchdown speed isn't that much, and you are minus the residual thrust as you get slow.

that's what I convinced myself it was by trying it in the airplane. If you don't like my number, go run your own. The only numbers that matter are the ones you can reproduce yourself.

In the meantime, please don't be feeding your conjecture about same or shorter landing distance to anyone who doesn't know better, lest you contribute to a future accident.

 

[Alexb2000]

First of all, turns into a dead engine are only an issue if you are slow (i.e. close to Vmc). Second, the real problem is letting the airplane become uncoordinated as you're turning, especially when you are rolling back to finish the turn. Typically with both engines running you need to apply some right rudder to prevent adverse yaw as you roll out of a left turn. With the left (critical) engine caged or worse yet windmilling, you may find that there is insufficient rudder travel/authority to do this and the result is a sideslip towards the right engine. This in turn increases Vmc further eroding control authority and the only way to recover is to unload the wing and/or reduce power, none of which is comfortable or instinctive when close to the ground.

Good post. Probably something that should be tested at altitude by any twin driver.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sorry -- I'm not buying 1000 feet more landing roll in a 310 (that's nearly double the landing roll, IIRC) unless you have some validated test data to support that idea. The drag difference at touchdown speed isn't that much, and you are minus the residual thrust as you get slow.

The landing distance on the 310 will be longer. When constant speed props are brought to idle you essentially have two large flat "plates" providing quite a bit of drag. Remove one of these and the drag is halved thus relying more on wheel braking versus aerodynamic. As stated if you want to wail into the brakes you can get about the same stopping distance.

The windmilling propellers (idle power) are creating far more drag than residual thrust.

From FAA-H-8083-3A Airplane Flying Handbook


With drag from only one windmilling propeller, the airplane
will tend to float more than on a two-engine approach.
Precise airspeed control therefore is essential, especially
when landing on a short, wet and/or slippery surface.



From FAA P-8740-66 Flying Light Twins Safely


Engine Inoperative Approach and Landing

The OEI approach and landing should be flown as close as possible to a normal approach and landing in terms
of key positions, altitudes, and airspeeds. The approach and landing may be conducted with no more than partial
flaps, or full flaps may be selected when on short final with the landing absolutely assured. Large or sudden
applications in power are to be avoided. The airplane will float somewhat in the roundout for landing without the
drag of both windmilling propellers, particularly if the flaps have been only partially extended.