Multiengine IFR Training Ques.

[your_dreamguy]

Hello,

I have a question about the single engine go-around altitude (SEGA). I was taught that in VFR conditions during an actual engine failure, while on an approach, you want to establish a SEGA. Once below the SEGA, you want to land the multi no matter what and NOT do a go-around. In VFR conditions, several other instructors and examiners usually have 500' AGL as the SEGA.

However, what happens in actual IFR conditons? For example, let's say you want your SEGA to be 500' AGL and you're making an ILS approach with a DH at 200'AGL. If you do not have the landing environment in sight, you must execute a go-around. However, that violates you're SEGA concept. So, in acutal IFR conditions with an engine failure, does your SEGA now become equal to you MDA or DH?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[bigD]

Around here, we never chose a minimum altitude in which to execute a single engine go around. I've practiced go-arounds on one engine down to almost the flare. Of course, the density altitudes around here usually don't get TOO high, and we were light. The only restriction we use is to not go-around on one engine with full flaps.

That's interesting that you use 500' AGL.

 

[TDTURBO]

I would think it would, I would also think you SEGA would change depending on denity altitude from day to day and aiport elevation. If you were to shoot an approach single engine, it would only be logical that your DH or MDA would be contigient upon the operating limitation of the aircraft your flying.

 

[ksu_aviator]

First thing you should do is get rid of the idea of SEGA. There was a hottly discussed post on here about two pilots that briefed an approach as "Go around is not an option." In your mind go around should always be an option. Only put in full flaps when landing is assured and go around is no longer needed. Its still an option, just an option that is no longer needed.

So, on a visual approach, put in full flaps when you are aligned with the runway, on or slightly above your normal glide path and airspeed is stablized.

A NonPrecision approach should be very similar to a visual approach. Leaving MDA, runway clearly insight, aligned with the runway, on or slightly above your normal glide path and airspeed is stablized.

A Precision approach should be arriving at the DH, aligned with the runway, on or slightly above your normal glide path and airspeed is stablized.

A Circling approach is the same as a visual approach.

Also, consult your POM for aircraft specific procedures.

 

[cvsfly]

This is a training issue for intentional SE work, correct? I hope you are not caging good engines in actual IFR. That is what simulators are for. It should be contingent on the make and model twin.

 

[avbug]

As far as I'm concerned, a single engine go around in a part 23 or light twin is NOT an option. I won't do it. The engine is out, I'm landing on the runway, on the grass, or the ramp...but there are precious few circumstances in which I'd be executing a goaround or missed on one engine.

Transport category airplanes are another matter, or larger multi engine airplanes, but not in a light twin.

I once had an inspector inform me during a 135 checkride that I would be executing a missed approach on one engine. I told him I would not. He told me that unless I complied, I would fail the ride. I asked him if he'd like to get out of the airplane right then and there, or if he'd prefer to return to the airport, first.

He didn't require the go-around, and I didn't refuse twice.

 

[bobbysamd]

Go-arounds in light twins

Another way to view it is any kind of single-engine operation in a light twin is an emergency. You know all the stuff about losing 80% of your rate of climb in a light twin, how, in the normal light twin, how you will not maintain altitude and just sink slowly, etc. Therefore, if you are forced into making a single-engine instrument approach, no if, ands or buts about it, you will land.

Of course, with students, we practiced all kinds of simulated single-engine approaches. VOR approaches. Single-engine NDB approaches. To be especially brutal, partial-panel single-engine NDB approaches. However, in the real world, if you lose an engine in IMC, we always agreed that we would declare and request vectors to the nearest airport with an ILS. Of course, if you declare, you would be exercising the emergency authority granted to the PIC under 14 CFR 91 and can deviate from the rules to extent necessary to meet the emergency. Meaning, you still would continue the approach past DH, even if you don't have visual on any of the required elements.

 

[Checks]

AvBug is correct.

I would not go around if SE in IMC conditions. Why go around? I also probably wouldnt shoot the approach if the wx was 0/0. Remember that the airplane will fly just fine down the ILS on one engine. In summary, if the weather is close to 0/0 then shoot the approach somewhere else. In all other cases shoot the approach and land.


Mike

 

[ksu_aviator]

I'm going to have to disagree. I've flown a twin comanche once and we did single engine go-arounds in it with out a problem and it is not over powered by any means. Go-around is not an option is a very dangerous idea. The only absolute in aviation is that there are no absolutes.

Part 135 requires that you be able to climb at 50 fpm at either the MEA or 5000 MSL whichever is higher if you have an engine failure. That leaves you plenty of performance by the time you reach your field elevation to go-around. I suggest general aviation pilots follow that rule as well. You should never put yourself into a situation that you have no options if you do loose an engine. That goes for single or multiengine.

 

[Checks]

KSU,

I will assume you were light on weight and it was a cold winter day. I can tell you that a Navajo or a Baron barely climbs on a warm day while SE. If close to MGW and in the summer that 20yr old twin with not so new engine, props, and airframe is not climbing.

For what reason would you have to do a go-around while on the approach? I cant think of one legitment situation where you would have to do a go-around.

 

[stingray]

I do remember that thread about the "no go around option" Brief and what happened, that crew had their head up their a**, it was about 1yr ago
KSU is right here

We all know that we don't whant to do one, but
To blanketly say to not do a SE go around or SE missed approach is dumb a** idea and is stupid . and can possibly get you and others killed

 

[boxcar]

Avbug usually is spot on on his facts, but his opinions sometimes leave me scratching my head. To say a single-engine go-around should never be attempted in a light twin is a little silly. Every one I've ever flown (except the 150 HP Apache) was capable of going around at max landing weight in normal atmospheric conditions.

 

[boxcar]

"For what reason would you have to do a go-around while on the approach? I cant think of one legitment situation where you would have to do a go-around."

How about: Unsafe gear indication, HSI/CDI failure during approach, not aligned with runway on break-out, proverbial school bus blocking runway, or weather going to 0/0 during approach?

 

[bigD]

I think part of the problem is that you have a bunch of accidents that occur on go around because the pilots aren't staying as proficient as they should be. I've practiced single engine go arounds in Duchesses with tired engines and still managed to muster a good enough climb rate to get me back around the pattern to land. You just have to hit blue line dead on - much slop one way or the other and what little climb you have disappears.

Does this mean I'd go around single engine anytime? Nope. I'd have to have a VERY good reason to do it, but assuming the conditions are right for it, I'd certainly at least consider it to be an option.

 

[AlphEcho]

It Depends...

This is a good question, and I find that many students aren't taught very well and assign themselves purely arbritary SEGAs because they don't understand what goes into the decision. Depending on the situation I would have to disagree with Avbug and say that SEGAs might be entirely appropriate in some situations, while other situations would force you to put it down somewhere almost no matter what. SEGAs must be arrived at by taking aircraft capability, weight, atmospheric conditions, airport conditions, etc. into consideration, and you should have some estimation of it before you need to arrive at an exact number. Usually 500' above TDZE is PLENTY high in decent conditions and smacks of that arbitrary assignment of a SEGA that so many students are doing, unfortunately. This is a good conversation to have with your student because it brings many performance-affecting factors to the forefront such as Density Altitude, Excess Horsepower, Drag, Vmc, IFR regulations, blah blah blah. Anyway, vote Republican today guys.

 

[avbug]

You may be able to get away with it and pat yourself on the back when light and close to sea level. Most of my multi engine flying in light twins has been into airports that were at or above the single engine service ceiling for the airplane in question. In most cases, all the surrounding terrain is well above the single engine service ceiling. If the airplane is heavy or has any significant load on at all, forget going around.

This is very much the same reason that we still teach students to be prepared to pull the good engine back when they lose one on takeoff or climbout.

Considering a common density altitude for the fields I fly in the neighborhood of 10,000', it's a cinch that very few part 23 multi's are going to make that grade. Going around becomes a fools errand. You can get away with all kinds of garbage and bad habits at sea level and when light. Put the airplane where it really counts, and it's a different story.

Regardless, consider the situation. There are some very limited applications for a single engine go-around, but very few. In most all cases, I'l be landing on the grass adjacent to the runway, landing on the taxiway or ramp (if available), or doing what I feel is most appropriate at the time.

What caused the engine to fail? What about the other engine? You have an unairworthy airplane in a critical configuration, and you're going to take it around, when you have the chance to get it on the ground? Schoolbus on the runway? Land past it. Land next to it. Do something.

How many here would be for taking it around with one engine on fire? Pilots panic where fire is concerned; gotta get on the ground right now, even if it's in the middle of a field or forest. That much appears clear to them. The logic of taking it around burning is clear. The logic of taking around an airplane with marginal performance, maneuvering close to the ground with possible objects and terrain, seems more nebulous, and therein lies the danger. Much like a turnback to the runway after an engine failure, it's one of those enticing things that can get somebody killed.

"To blanketly say to not do a SE go around or SE missed approach is dumb a** idea and is stupid . and can possibly get you and others killed"

Actually, my advice is very conservative. To advocate going missed or going around single engine in a light multi engine Part 23 airplane, more aptly fits your own description. It can be done, certainly, every bit as much as flying under powerlines or maneuvering inside a tight canyon. The reasons are extremely few, and the potential for error or disaster so high, that generally speaking, one is best advised to discount any notion of going around single engine.

What are the requirements set forth for going around single engine in a Part 23 twin?

 

[bobbysamd]

Single-engine ops

I agree with Avbug. I saw it from two perspectives as an experienced Seminole driver. At ERAU, which was something like 5280' MSL to begin with, we'd pull engines at something like 9000' MSL. The sink rate of the airplane with one gone was palpable. Of course, with full throttle, we were pulling something like 20-21" Hg max. So, clearly, the engine wasn't putting out full power.

Compare that to flying the same equipment in Vero, with a field elevation of sea level. We'd practice single-engine at 4000 MSL and had a little performance. I remember the Chief Pilot standardizing me and telling me to set power at 25-square. The airplane cruised along nicely. Being used to Prescott, it blew my mind. However, how would I know that I would get enough climb to clear the proverbial 50' obstacle?

Better to be safe than sorry. Opinions differ on whether to declare in a Part 23 light twin with an engine inop. I think I would, and would land.

 

[V1 cuts R fun]

Make this answer simple. You loose an engine, Delcare and emergency. You hit the DH and don't have your associated "runway enviornment in sight" you can deviate from any FAR. If i was in a light twin IMC single engine on an ILS and didnt have the runway in sight on the ILS at the DH, i would drop another 50 to 100 ft ready to do anything to get on that runway.

 

[350DRIVER]

In actual IMC in a light twin with an engine inop a go-around is NOT an option. Land the aircraft.


350
avbug is on the money as always

 

[JetPilot500]

A Jet Perspective.

I fly a 3-Engine Falcon 50. This airplane will climb with one engine inop...no problem. It will also usually climb, barely, with two engines inop.

On approach with one engine out, a Go-Around at 200' AGL is no problem. With two engines out, even on the best day, forget about it. In fact below about 1000' AGL, it would be real difficult to turn that descent around to a climb. So, I guess you could say our SEGA would typically be 1000' AGL.

Realistically, we are landing, we would be on an emergency and there would be almost no reason in the world that we would even have to consider a go around. If wx was crappy we'd probally fly somewhere where it isn't so crappy, if that was an option. If another airplane became disabled on the runway, I'd go ahead and probally put it down on the parallel taxiway if I had to.

JetPilot 500