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?
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?
