The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating? It is
true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot
of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast
reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a
multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally,
like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non
event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low.

Mike
MU-2
ATP


"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...
He has multi and ATP.... If you know more then explain... No need for
the negativity without explaination...

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:04:01 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
My understanding is that the aircraft will tend to roll due to the side
with the failed engine having less lift. My CFI was explaining this to
me
some time ago.

Engine failure would require immediate and extreme rudder input and
feathering the props on the failed engine to reduce the drag. He said
something about "Lawn Dart" and that it can happen in a blink of the
eye.

I'm a ASEL primary student. What's the skinny on multi-engine control
issues when one engine fails on approach?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

Maybe someday your CFI will get a multi engine rating and know what he is
talking about.

Mike
MU-2



Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating?

Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it...
Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked
away with as an early PP-ASEL student.

It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires a lot
of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning fast
reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get a
multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging. Naturally,
like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be
much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach.

Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

As othere have mentioned, losing an engine on approach should be a non
event. There is minimal yaw because the power is set low.

Do not know the differences between a single and multi on approach, so
I can not add anything of value. Though you make it sound very
similar to a single in the respect to low power.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

10 hours in twins - but best to wait until you have several hundred hours in
singles.

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

A lot of pilots have died in twins wondering exactly the same thing - hence
my comment above.

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:54:35 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Sorry, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with an ATP or even
multi
would say what you attributed to him. Perhaps he was exaggerating?

Perhaps, or maybe my inexperience and ignorance read that into it...
Either way, what I wrote is exactly the understanding that I walked
away with as an early PP-ASEL student.

It is true that an engine loss at *full* power and *low* airspeed requires
a lot
of rudder but it is not true that retaining control requires lightning
fast
reflexes or that the airplane will become a lawn dart in the "blink of an
eye". It takes most pilots less than 10hrs including the checkride to get
a
multi rating so clearly it isn't that difficult or challenging.
Naturally,
like anything else there are ways to screw it up. The FAA only certifies
airplanes that can be flown by pilots of "average skill".

I can see how high power low speed, (such as on climb out) could be
much more dangerous than an engine failure on approach.

Only 10 hours huh... Wow, I may want to check that out. BTW... When
my CFI was talking about this, I thought the lawn dart comment was
kinda funny... in a sick sorta way.

Not 10hrs, less than 10. It took me between 6 and 7hrs including the
checkride and I don't think that I was unusual.

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Mike
MU-2

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

When it gets too slow, you pull the power on the good engine to maintain
control. Better to arrive right side up. It only gets as bad as you let it.

Al Gerharter CFIAMI

wrote in message
...
I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
do.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

wrote:

It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Chop power to the operating engine.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson writes:

wrote:
It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Chop power to the operating engine.

Yeah, I see why that works. I also see why people might not always
remember to do it at the right moment. Yes, loss of some more power
is *clearly* better than loss of control, when I'm calmly thinking
about it at my desk. But in the cockpit, when I've already lost half
my power and am having trouble dealing with it, I can see why people
get it wrong now and then.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
::

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are, eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could do.

Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...14X35941&key=1

The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
power on the right engine and landing gear extended.

My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jun 2005 14:44:19 GMT, wrote in
::

I can't imagine how one could manage to get the airplane so out of
control as to roll it over 180 and nose it in, but I have zero multi
hours too...

The slower you fly the less effective the flight controls are,
eventually
they can't ovecome the torque on the operating engine.

Ah.... Bingo! That is it, now it makes sense. Torque is a bigger player
than the increased drag and decreased lift. I can see it now. It sounds
like once the aircraft gets near that point, there isn't much you could
do.

Some twin aircraft cannot be banked into the dead engine without
becoming unrecoverable at low altitude. That is why many are flown
with the wing of the good engine 5 degrees low during single engine
operation. Consider this engin-outage during approach to Van Nuys,
KVNY: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...14X35941&key=1

The pilot was so confident he could land safely with the left engine
feathered, he declined standby fire equipment. During his entry to
the righthand pattern, he lost control on final approach with full
power on the right engine and landing gear extended.

My friend Lew Brody had flown F-4s and C-130s in Viet Nam. He was a
bright mechanical engineer and aviation attorney who found the
Aerostar unmanageable on his last flight. Tragic.



Any twin can be banked into the dead engine and controlled, it is only a
matter of airspeed. If memory serves, the Aerostar has only one hydraulic
pump and won't climb with the gear down.

Mike
MU-2