Thank G-d Bryon is OK!

[gismo]

You and your CFI did a heck of a job getting the plane back on the ground safely. The temptation to "save the plane" all too often leads to a VMC rollover in the very situation you experienced. Your friend obviously understood that your insurance company bought the plane as soon as the engine quit that close to the ground on takeoff. I too am glad you're both OK.

When this is all settled I'd love to hear the whole story, but it will keep till then.

 

[SkyHog]

Let's see now, Departed S37, arrived Starlite Dr, practiced OEI takeoff, practiced one very short off field landing, emergency procedures, no approaches, no landings, .1 hr ME, .1 hi-perf., .1 day, .1 dual, .1 PIC -- wow what an interesting log book entry.

You know, I never thought of that. Would that count as a landing? And if it does, would it count towards currency?

Slightly tongue in cheek.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Byron,

Are you going to change your PoA name now since the Aztec is now messed up?

Brook

No way! I want another one! Maybe I'll just add the word "hopeful".

Thanks for the birthday greetings. Great birthday present, I get to walk away from it!

 

[Aztec Driver]

And IIRC the one time I've been into Smoketown, it's short- ?2,400? as in, there will be no day in which my start/stop is compatible with V1 being more than Vysse. Lose an engine, you're putting it down.

Even at the temps at Gaston's, with the little fuel loads that I flew, I had a chance in the Seneca. But not in 2400 feet.

We pretty much had to accept that, as we fly full fuel out of there every time. When I have more than my wife or CFI along, I fly to LNS or even N71 to get a little more runway to work with. How much runway is a safe margin for your Seneca? I have/(had maybe) an opportunity to buy into and fly a Seneca II. Wondered what the statistics on that are.

 

[bbchien]

We pretty much had to accept that, as we fly full fuel out of there every time. When I have more than my wife or CFI along, I fly to LNS or even N71 to get a little more runway to work with. How much runway is a safe margin for your Seneca? I have/(had maybe) an opportunity to buy into and fly a Seneca II. Wondered what the statistics on that are.

On our hot summer days (95F in Peoria) with the new apartment complex off the north end, I have accelerate/go gross weights of only 3700 or so. That's 800 undergross but I can make if outta here if one blows. I can also stop it short of the corn.

3,600 feet in the Seneca II.

"Sorry boys, meet me at Byerly's in about 20 minutes. Here's the keys to the car"....

 

[Aztec Driver]

On our hot summer days (95F in Peoria) with the new apartment complex off the north end, I have accelerate/go gross weights of only 3700 or so. That's 800 undergross but I can make if outta here if one blows. I can also stop it short of the corn.

3,600 feet in the Seneca II.

"Sorry boys, meet me at Byerly's in about 20 minutes. Here's the keys to the car"....

Thanks Bruce,

So what are the fuel burns and speeds and usable loads in those nice birds? The one I am looking at has an awful lot of really nice useless gadgets in it to usurp all of the load. But it sure is nice.

Managed to get back in the saddle in a twin today. It didn't try to kill us. Unfortunately, I have to get used to this plane now before I can progress any further with the commercial.

 

[bbchien]

Thanks Bruce,

So what are the fuel burns and speeds and usable loads in those nice birds? The one I am looking at has an awful lot of really nice useless gadgets in it to usurp all of the load. But it sure is nice.

Managed to get back in the saddle in a twin today. It didn't try to kill us. Unfortunately, I have to get used to this plane now before I can progress any further with the commercial.

I run 10.5 gph per side, 65% compensated for altitude and temp. Useful load in mine is 1500.

 

[Aztec Driver]

I run 10.5 gph per side, 65% compensated for altitude and temp. Useful load in mine is 1500.

So what kind of speed do you get with that power setting? That is a better useful load than the Aztec and significantly less fuel burn.

 

[Toby]

Bryon,

I am VERY glad all went well and both of you landed safely. What a story. It's not an experience anyone would ever wish for, but it will turn out to be valuable for you as you continue flying. Glad you're okay.

 

[bbchien]

So what kind of speed do you get with that power setting? That is a better useful load than the Aztec and significantly less fuel burn.

155 kts down low, 165 knots up high, 175 in the flight levels.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Bryon,

I am VERY glad all went well and both of you landed safely. What a story. It's not an experience anyone would ever wish for, but it will turn out to be valuable for you as you continue flying. Glad you're okay.

It is certinly not an episode to repeat. It does drill in to me the absolute necessity to know the emergency procedures and be able to do them without hesitation. I still have work to do on that.

Thanks.

 

[Aztec Driver]

155 kts down low, 165 knots up high, 175 in the flight levels.

That sounds very nice. Hopefully, I'll get a chance at it.
What are the chances of obtaining insurance at this point?

 

[bbchien]

That sounds very nice. Hopefully, I'll get a chance at it.
What are the chances of obtaining insurance at this point?

Dunno. I don't want you to discuss details of PIC-ship here. Sigh.

Bruce

 

[spiderweb]

I just got back from Texas, so I just now read this. I am so happy this turned out so well. Congratulations to you and your MEI.

 

[Aztec Driver]

I just got back from Texas, so I just now read this. I am so happy this turned out so well. Congratulations to you and your MEI.

Thanks Ben. How's your "instrumental rating" treating you? Have you had much chance to use it?

 

[spiderweb]

Only a few flights since then, but I want to see if I can get my wings wet this coming Friday!

 

[EHITCH]

No vertical forces. No Vmc Rollover.

Bryon, glad you are OK! For those of us who are single-engine newbies, can you or Bruce explain what are the specific dangers of engine-out in a multi (as alluded to above) and how the procedure differs from loss of power after takeoff in a single?
Thanks,
Elizabeth

 

[bbchien]

Bryon, glad you are OK! For those of us who are single-engine newbies, can you or Bruce explain what are the specific dangers of engine-out in a multi (as alluded to above) and how the procedure differs from loss of power after takeoff in a single?
Thanks,
Elizabeth

Elizabeth, a CAR 23 twin can climb on one engine only if very specific conditions are met. The aircraft usually has to have the inoperative engine propellor feathered (turned sideways into the relative wind), flaps up, and the gear need be up, cowl flap on the inop side closed, and the Airspeed need be at very near to Vysse (Vy for single engine operation). This airspeed is pretty high- in mine it's the same as Vy all engines...but not necessarily so. There is another airspeed, Vmc, usually about 10 kts above stall, in which if the good engine is carrying full power and the other is producing none, the rudder does not have enough authroity to prevent rollover onto the dead engine side. Rollover = death. In my airplane Vmc is rotation speed.

Coming off of a short strip like Smoketown, it is dubious that an Aztec, no matter how lightly loaded, has enough room to stop at rotation speed, short of hitting the greenhouses. Since rotation speed is below Vy(one engine), it cannot climb stably but can only slowly desecend under as much power as the rudder can control. Putting the nose down to gain speed is not an option just after liftoff.

So, when operating a twin off of a short strip, such as Smoketown, the choices are the same as in piston singles- lose the engine, put it down someplace surviveable. They did this well.

I had this experience many years ago and made the conscious decision to not operate under such constraints. It's very limiting, however. Gaston's grass was one where I don't have a dataset allowing me to know that I could accelerate-->lose engine-->go and make the climb gradient, vs. accelerate-->lose an engine, end up in the fence, or successfully stop. I thought long and hard about that one on the Thursday before. Accelerate-->lose and GO was the best choice. Plus, I had distinguished guests aboard. Suffice it to say that personally gathered data suggest I would have a chance if I had no more than an hour's fuel aboard. So that was how it was. 1 hour's fuel, 132 pounds. Had it happened, I would have gone FOR THE RIVER and tried to climb out before the DAM.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Bryon, glad you are OK! For those of us who are single-engine newbies, can you or Bruce explain what are the specific dangers of engine-out in a multi (as alluded to above) and how the procedure differs from loss of power after takeoff in a single?
Thanks,
Elizabeth

Not a complete expert by any means, but loss of power in a twin has a few "demons" that singles do not have. If you allow the airspeed to get too low (Vmc-minimum controllable airspeed), you get to a point where the air flowing over the rudder is insufficient to counter the yaw forces caused by the power coming from the operating engine. This can turn you and flip you over quickly.

While in many instances, you can fly a twin to the nearest airport after an engine failure at a respectable altitude, there are still many instances where you still need to get it on the ground asap. (i.e. high density altitude, underpowered twin, heavy weight, AND ESPECIALLY LOW TO THE GROUND)

Loss of power just after takeoff in a light twin differs from a single in really only one thing. You need to get the nose down and/or the power off of the operating engine before you lose control. In either situation, you need to get it on the ground in the best place available. With a little altitude, it starts to get different. It may be possible in some instances (below gross weight, cooler temps, bigger engines) to continue a takeoff in a twin, something you can't do in a single. However, you must be very cautious not to get slow, and you will not be climbing very fast. Make sure your terrain doesn't rise faster than you do.

 

[gismo]

It may be possible in some instances (below gross weight, cooler temps, bigger engines) to continue a takeoff in a twin, something you can't do in a single. However, you must be very cautious not to get slow, and you will not be climbing very fast. Make sure your terrain doesn't rise faster than you do.

Bryon didn't mention that with one running and one dead the temptation to try to stay in the air is strong, yet unless you have already reached Vyse-10 or so with the gear and flaps up plus the dead engine feathered, you will not be in the air for long. You generally cannot achieve the above mentioned configuration and airspeed once an engine quits without descending and right after takeoff that's not an option. In order to land with one engine you must reduce the power on the remaining engine before you slow to about 10 Kt above VMC or you will end up cartwheeling. The time that Bryon and CFI had to decide whether to continue or abort was probably under ten seconds. Had they made the choice to "save the plane" by continuing the takeoff there's a high probability that they would have 1> maintained their airspeed at or close to Vyse (probably around 110 mph) and crashed at that speed into the first obstacle they encountered. If that were a solid object they would then die. 2> failed to maintain sufficient airspeed and rolled into the ground then cartwheeled to a stop in several flaming pieces. No chance of surviving that one.

The technique I use to determine whether or not to abort is fairly simple. I don't raise the landing gear until I think I'd be better off continuing if one quits than I would be putting it back down. That means the gear (and flaps) are already up at the point when I'd try to continue and I will either have 200 feet below me or I'm flying at Vy which is Vyse+10. That way no time is lost deciding whether to continue or abort, the decision was already made if and when the gear came up, and all I have to do is identify and feather the dead engine. Of course that carries it's own special risk. More than one unfortunate twin pilot has experienced an engine failure on takeoff and then proceeded to feather the remaining good engine.

You will hear pilots say that losing an engine on a piston twin on takeoff must be treated like an engine failure in a single, that is put it down as safely as you can. What they might "forget" to tell you is that in addition to the above mentioned bad scenarios, making that emergency landing in hostile terrain in a twin is inherently more dangerous because you are typically landing about 20 or more mph faster and the hot engines are likely to end up doused in fuel from the tanks behind the engines in the wings.

If the takeoff runway is long enough, you can lift off, retract the gear and flaps if down, accelerate to several knots above Vyse and gain a hundred feet of altitude before you pass the point where putting it back down is risky. For my airplane (B55 Baron) fully loaded that means 5000-6000 feet of runway at sea level depending on temperature. If I reduce the weight by about 200 lbs that shortens to something like 4000 ft or so (keep in mind this is the runway length plus any safe overrun). In an Aztec I think you would need more runway than that as the Aztec gear retraction is much slower and my two engine climb rate is probably higher.

 

[bbchien]

Ugh, Steve, when it's late, sometimes I make an error. The moderator's "edit" button is only a cm away from the reply button and I must have hit the wrong one. Did my best to restore it.

Sigh.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Bryon didn't mention that with one running and one dead the temptation to try to stay in the air is strong, yet unless you have already reached Vyse-10 or so with the gear and flaps up plus the dead engine feathered, you will not be in the air for long. You generally cannot achieve the above mentioned configuration and airspeed once an engine quits without descending and right after takeoff that's not an option. In order to land with one engine you must reduce the power on the remaining engine before you slow to about 10 Kt above VMC or you will end up cartwheeling. The time that Bryon and CFI had to decide whether to continue or abort was probably under ten seconds. Had they made the choice to "save the plane" by continuing the takeoff there's a high probability that they would have 1> maintained their airspeed at or close to Vyse (probably around 110 mph) and crashed at that speed into the first obstacle they encountered. If that were a solid object they would then die. 2> failed to maintain sufficient airspeed and rolled into the ground then cartwheeled to a stop in several flaming pieces. No chance of surviving that one.

The technique I use to determine whether or not to abort is fairly simple. I don't raise the landing gear until I think I'd be better off continuing if one quits than I would be putting it back down. That means the gear (and flaps) are already up at the point when I'd try to continue and I will either have 200 feet below me or I'm flying at Vy which is Vyse+10. That way no time is lost deciding whether to continue or abort, the decision was already made if and when the gear came up, and all I have to do is identify and feather the dead engine. Of course that carries it's own special risk. More than one unfortunate twin pilot has experienced an engine failure on takeoff and then proceeded to feather the remaining good engine.

You will hear pilots say that losing an engine on a piston twin on takeoff must be treated like an engine failure in a single, that is put it down as safely as you can. What they might "forget" to tell you is that in addition to the above mentioned bad scenarios, making that emergency landing in hostile terrain in a twin is inherently more dangerous because you are typically landing about 20 or more mph faster and the hot engines are likely to end up doused in fuel from the tanks behind the engines in the wings.

If the takeoff runway is long enough, you can lift off, retract the gear and flaps if down, accelerate to several knots above Vyse and gain a hundred feet of altitude before you pass the point where putting it back down is risky. For my airplane (B55 Baron) fully loaded that means 5000-6000 feet of runway at sea level depending on temperature. If I reduce the weight by about 200 lbs that shortens to something like 4000 ft or so (keep in mind this is the runway length plus any safe overrun). In an Aztec I think you would need more runway than that as the Aztec gear retraction is much slower and my two engine climb rate is probably higher.

I did fail to mention that, yes. And the CFI's first inclination was to get the airplane flying. The Aztec flys pretty well on one engine, but not when that low or not configured properly. During the get acquainted stage of this airplane, the original CFI and part owner kept telling us that you should expect to land the airplane if you don't have 400-500 feet of altitude above the ground to work with. From all of the training I was doing, and all of the scenarios that the latest CFI did with me, we were sure that was a higher number than needed. When confronted with it, however, it seems that would be a much safer option. We very quickly saw we had only a sink rate, with no altitude to trade for airspeed, even if we could have gotten it configured in time. Just above red line and just past the greenhouses, he chopped the power and glided in. All in all, he did a great job and I am glad to be hear talking about it. Now to see if I can afford to rent a twin to finish the commercial.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Coming off of a short strip like Smoketown, it is dubious that an Aztec, no matter how lightly loaded, has enough room to stop at rotation speed, short of hitting the greenhouses.

In the situation Bruce describes, the 20-30' high road embankment immediately off the runway departure end will prevent the aircraft from reaching the greenhouse...

I'm telling you folks--I saw the Lancaster newspaper article and I said to myself, "No way. Not possible."

 

[Aztec Driver]

In the situation Bruce describes, the 20-30' high road embankment immediately off the runway departure end will prevent the aircraft from reaching the greenhouse...

I'm telling you folks--I saw the Lancaster newspaper article and I said to myself, "No way. Not possible."

I was looking at the flight path from that roadway the day afterwards and concluded that we hadn't even gotten more than 50 feet off the runway when the "problem" occured. Had we immediately set it down, I believe we would have impacted VERY hard into the embankment. I believe even a glancing blow into the greenhouses would be better than that. As it was, we were able to keep it flying for a slight distance while we bled some airspeed down before it became critical.

 

[Aztec Driver]

The technique I use to determine whether or not to abort is fairly simple. I don't raise the landing gear until I think I'd be better off continuing if one quits than I would be putting it back down. That means the gear (and flaps) are already up at the point when I'd try to continue and I will either have 200 feet below me or I'm flying at Vy which is Vyse+10. That way no time is lost deciding whether to continue or abort, the decision was already made if and when the gear came up,

This is one place that there is some debate, and me trying to learn from several people, keep getting yelled at to do it another way. When I am by myself, I do it the most comfortable way for me, which is not to hurry the gear retraction and do it on the way up near the end of the runway. Some people say "get it up immediately", others say "wait until you have no "usable" runway left". All methods seem to have their pros and cons.

and all I have to do is identify and feather the dead engine. Of course that carries it's own special risk. More than one unfortunate twin pilot has experienced an engine failure on takeoff and then proceeded to feather the remaining good engine.

This has happened to me in practice. (well, in the IDENTIFY stage anyway) I hope I never have it happen to me for real. It gets your attention real quick.

You will hear pilots say that losing an engine on a piston twin on takeoff must be treated like an engine failure in a single, that is put it down as safely as you can. What they might "forget" to tell you is that in addition to the above mentioned bad scenarios, making that emergency landing in hostile terrain in a twin is inherently more dangerous because you are typically landing about 20 or more mph faster and the hot engines are likely to end up doused in fuel from the tanks behind the engines in the wings.

Believe me when I say this thought was going through both our minds at the time. He was waiting for the end to come by hitting something solid. As I watched the corn hit the side of the fuselage, I was expecting us to dig in and flip over and thought "so this is what it is like to die in an aircraft accident." Apparently God has more "adventures" in store for the two of us. I personally think his skill in handling the aircraft, combined with some wonderful luck, allowed us to "live to fly another day".

 

[EHITCH]

Thank you, all, for the information, which I'll admit I'm trying to digest.

Bryon, I wish you many, many, many more adventures -- but none where you find yourself wondering about dying!

Elizabeth

 

[bbchien]

Believe me when I say this thought was going through both our minds at the time. He was waiting for the end to come by hitting something solid. As I watched the corn hit the side of the fuselage, I was expecting us to dig in and flip over and thought "so this is what it is like to die in an aircraft accident." Apparently God has more "adventures" in store for the two of us. I personally think his skill in handling the aircraft, combined with some wonderful luck, allowed us to "live to fly another day".

Bryon, the only way to avoid this is to be a student of risk. It is very unusual for a Class C terminal to watch a pilot wear out a set of brakes and tires doing accelerate to Vy/screeching stops under a variety of G.Wt, temp/wind/baro conditions. But by doing this you can eliminate 90% of the exposure to having to execute the decisionmaking mandated by a short strip.

To each, risk taking is different. To me, I had a very hard time deciding whether to take the landing at Gastons, though I had prepared and done the best I could with minimal gross weight. I have no Grass Strip data. Each of us has his own risktaking curve.

 

[gismo]

This is one place that there is some debate, and me trying to learn from several people, keep getting yelled at to do it another way. When I am by myself, I do it the most comfortable way for me, which is not to hurry the gear retraction and do it on the way up near the end of the runway. Some people say "get it up immediately", others say "wait until you have no "usable" runway left". All methods seem to have their pros and cons.

I've based my methodology on the advice from the BPPP (training program) at the American Bonanza Society. Their theory (which might only apply to Barons and their cousins) is that if the engine quits before you have reached Vyse and have the gear up, you will be coming back down soon and it's generally better to do so with the gear down. If you consider a takeoff where you tuck in the gear as soon as you see a positive rate, you are likely to reach Vyse later than you would waiting to raise the gear since the operation of the gear increases drag and reduces lift. On the Baron the drag of the extended gear isn't all that much during the time between liftoff and Vyse. All that aside, raising the gear is such a convenient milestone to switch from "close the throttles and land" to "identify, verify, feather" and I strongly believe that this can help to eliminate much of the indecision period that hits you when one crumps.

He was waiting for the end to come by hitting something solid. As I watched the corn hit the side of the fuselage, I was expecting us to dig in and flip over and thought "so this is what it is like to die in an aircraft accident." Apparently God has more "adventures" in store for the two of us. I personally think his skill in handling the aircraft, combined with some wonderful luck, allowed us to "live to fly another day".

The fact that you guys kept the airplane in control while in the air is probably what produced the safe outcome. It would take an awful lot of luck to survive a stall or rollover let alone walking away without injury.

 

[Aztec Driver]

So I wonder why they call this a "precautionary landing" on the accident and incident pages.

 

[bbchien]

My performance tables (test pilot derived, by me) for my Seneca II were predicated on rotation at 80 mph (redline), acceleration in ground effect (within 30 feet of pavement) gear up at blueline (105 mph), 3 seconds for decision making, and either ploshing back down on the runway or cleaning it up and climbing out. It's very much like Lance's when the gear go up you're mentally committed to go.

If they were at Vmca the choice is obvious- find the least obnoxious obtainable spot and put it down. I guess that's a "precautionary landing".

 

[Aztec Driver]

Just as a followup. The Ntsb has just said it was an engine failure and left it at that. Not a lot of thorough investigation. I assume since no one died and nothing was damaged, it wasn't worth a lengthy investigation, although at some level, things will proceed for a while. The insurance company has issued their statement of benefits and, hopefully, we will see our money soon. They did an odd thing, for an insurance company. Not only are they paying for the insured hull value, but also an "appreciation allowance". Try that with car insurance.


So now it is time for me to decide what to do. Do I buy/partner another twin, or do I build an RV 10, or do I just build the sunroom that my wife wants? Decisions, decisions...