Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Engine Failure On Takeoff - 2 Cfi's At The Controls

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Could someone post a sample pre-takeoff brief exactly as they would do it for the same senario we're talking about?

2 CFI's in a light twin,who does what?

Thanks, HS
 
Holding Short said:
Could someone post a sample pre-takeoff brief exactly as they would do it for the same senario we're talking about?
"We're departing runway 12 at Podunk. It's day, VFR conditions, with flaps up. Prior to liftoff, we're going to abort for any malfunction. Between liftoff and moving the gear switch to the "up" position, we're going to abort only for engine failure, engine fire, or loss of directional control, continuing straight ahead with whatever runway is available, rolling out onto the nice grass off the end (although we will take out several approach lights). Once the gear switch is in the "up" position, we will treat malfunctions as airborne emergencies, and either return here to runway 12, or to Big City International Airport, where they have prettier fire trucks. Any questions or comments?"

Fly safe!

David
 
AC560 said:
Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go would be any systems lost off the failed engine.
Remember...this is probably the language used by the 2 CFI's who wrecked the airplane for training purposes.

David
 
MauleSkinner said:
Remember...this is probably the language used by the 2 CFI's who wrecked the airplane for training purposes.

David

I don't understand the point of your comment.
 
Excellent points on this thread, however the one item I think needs to be reviewed is the brief itself! We do them all the time in the airlines, infact It has become such a common place the brief itself has become nothing more than 3-4 canned sentences. (not good)

Especially with ME/MEI training a better understanding of the brief would be beneficial to all involved, however this once again is shelved due to the MINIMUM time (and MINIMUM MONEY) people like to put forth.

If you choose to close the throttles and land straight ahead, CAN YOU? Similar to what Jedi Nein said, if it is not available how in the heck can you brief it that way?

As another poster mentioned, is the commit point when you touch the gear handle, in transit, or retracted? A thorough brief on the ground with a REAL explanation in the event of "what if" is paramount! Go in depth to each area, so in the event a failure does occur there is NO question on what needs to be accomplished.

If you had two engine fires, and one engine still putting out thrust, you are now 1/2 mile before the runway would you shut both down and crash? Would you let that remaining power take you to the runway? If you have considerable runway remaining do you close both throttles near blue line and with any sloppy technique stall and crash on a perfectly good runway? How about using some common sense like Undaunted mentioned, use the remaining power to land safely! Common sense like UAL78 says is not so common anymore.

Lastly, was this a simulated engine failure, or a real engine failure? I for one
Leave 500 feet as my hard deck in certain aircraft before any simulated engine failures occur. Why?

I truly believe that it is very difficult for some, especially students to be on the EXACT same page as you the instructor, and in that case any "unexpected or non standard procedures create an unrealistic scenario, they increase the pilot workload dramatically, and can create potential hazards to you the aircraft and individuals near you".

Excellent thread, and many excellent responses.

cheers,
AAflyer
 
Wow. Two MEI's did WHAT in a WHAT?

The Seminole is the worst performing twin engine aircraft in production- period. You can NOT climb out dirty by accelerating to Vyse- these guys boxed themselves into a corner. You can brief all you want (and that's a good thing), but stupid trumps any procedure or contingency plan you come up with.

Gear down? Runway ahead? Don't TOUCH A THING, maintain directional conrol and land that pig (you have to point DOWN to accelerate to 88), close throttles in the flare (you lose so much lift *LIFT* that the plane needs when you reduce power on the operating engine). This is a Seminole, not a Baron- procedurally it's a suicide on the go if you munch a motor that soon.

Hit something soft and cheap. All of this gets really scary on a hot day. It descends nice and gently with one feathered, clean, and blueline at 2500' when it's above 92 degrees and humid. God, I don't miss instructing in Dallas in that machine.

*Just had a flashback that makes me wonder WTF? We used to brief where we'd hit the ground on a hot day following an engine failure [no runway remaining but critically low]... during a checkride. Unreal. You just can't bring it around- pitch to 82 to bump above trees or powerlines, and the resulting descent about a handful of seconds later will put you in the field. Un-freakin' real. Several hundred (almost a grand) hours in that dang thing- one engine failure, a gear failure, and an ALT idiot light were all I ever saw.
 
Last edited:
Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go would be any systems lost off the failed engine. Many twins only have one hydraulic or vacuum pump. If it was IFR with no vacuum pump (assuming vacuum gyro’s which are still pretty common in most GA twins), I think I would prefer to take my chances dropping 75’ then trying to circle around to shoot a 1 engine partial panel approach (assuming the airport I was leaving had an approach) regardless of whether I could climb or not.
 
AC560 said:
I don't understand the point of your comment.
AC560 said:
Another consideration I would make in whether to chop the power and drop from 75’ or go ....
If you tell somebody to "chop and drop", they're gonna "chop and drop", which is how you get enough impact in this situation to total an airplane. If you tell someone to "land straight ahead", they are more likely to land the airplane under control, with minimal damage.

Sure, a proficient pilot SHOULD understand what you're talking about, but literal interpretation of comments like this is what keeps lawyers in business.

Fly safe!

David
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sure, a proficient pilot SHOULD understand what you're talking about, but literal interpretation of comments like this is what keeps lawyers in business.

Sorry I didn't realize this was a court of law, I thought it was an Internet forum.

Legal Disclaimer - I am not a CFI (hell I may not even be a pilot or even a real person for that matter) anything I post on these forums does not constitute legal, marital, financial, flying, or masturbatory advice.
 
Sig said:
Gear down? Runway ahead? Don't TOUCH A THING, maintain directional conrol and land that pig (you have to point DOWN to accelerate to 88), close throttles in the flare (you lose so much lift *LIFT* that the plane needs when you reduce power on the operating engine). This is a Seminole, not a Baron- procedurally it's a suicide on the go if you munch a motor that soon.

Hit something soft and cheap. All of this gets really scary on a hot day. It descends nice and gently with one feathered, clean, and blueline at 2500' when it's above 92 degrees and humid. God, I don't miss instructing in Dallas in that machine.

*


So does the gear position, up or down, really make a difference in the decision to continue or abort. Not to me. And it shouldn’t make a difference to anyone else if the gear can be moved up or down in seconds. Therefore, decisions to continue should be made on known AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY, not gear position.

Personally, I have found the PA-44 (Seminole) to be a weak but a satisfactory performer when I have done the engine failure on takeoff simulation from a 3000 foot AGL simulated hard deck. In other words it will climb out at 200 fpm following an engine failure from the after takeoff scenario. One exception was a particular one where the owner had installed vortex generators (VG's) on the wings for short field purposes. That one was a "dog." Some are better than others but if you want to have the option of the "GO" with an engine failure just after takeoff, the 3000 foot AGL hard deck engine failure after takeoff simulation to an actual feather is a must to know your airplane. It’s your life. If the airplane it will make it at 3000 feet AGL it will make it from 75' AGL.

Another factor for consideration is 3-blade props. The drag from an engine failure with a 3-blade prop is much greater than with a 2-blade prop. So if your airplane has a 3-blade prop the pilot's action following an engine failure after takeoff must be prompt and decisive: Gear up, verify and feather while maintaining Vxse, or preferable Vyse if that airspeed has already been achieved. With a 2-blade your actions are the same but the 3-blade just makes hesitation and indecision a possibly fatal factor. With the 3-blade prop, if there is indecision present, some altitude will be lost.

 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top