The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

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

Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced
throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short of
the runway. Sort it out on the ground.

The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the
scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-(

First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane."
--
Jim in NC

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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

Seems to me that if he were close to the field, he should have reduced
throttle on both engines, and put it down, even if it was slightly short
of
the runway. Sort it out on the ground.

The old saying is that "a multi with engine failure helps you get to the
scene of the crash, faster," applied in this case. :-(

First rule is "fly the plane." Second rule is "fly the plane."
--
Jim in NC


I did seem to apply in this case but there is no reason that a turbine multi
cannot be flown on one engine, particularly on approach. There could be
more here than an engine failure. Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.

Mike
MU-2

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

As you would expect, there is a tendency for the aircraft to yaw towards the
failed engine which then creates a roll in the same direction (secondary
effect of yaw). It's countered with rudder - but the amount required depends
on how much power the engine is producing, and how much airspeed you have.

Multi-engine aircraft have a minimum asymetric control speed (Vmca) (Vmc in
some parts) - below this speed you won't have sufficient rudder authority to
stop the yaw/roll unless you reduce power on the good engine - unfortunately
it's all too common for pilots of twins to get low and slow on one engine,
and then go below Vmca whilst trying to go around on 1 engine - at which
point the aircraft slowly rolls on it's back and everyone dies.

So - the lessons are ...

1. Don't get low and slow on 1 engine, and

2. If you ABSOLUTLELY have to go around on 1 engine, make the decision as
early as possible.

3. Practice these things with an instructor on a regular basis (every 90
days is good)

As previously noted by Bob, on the approach it's often so subtle you don't
even know one has failed.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.

I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?"
--
Jim in NC

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

Negative Torque Sensor

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

Perhaps a NTS or prop failure.

I Probably will kick myself, but what is "NTS?"
--
Jim in NC

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.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote

Negative Torque Sensor

Aaah, not something I will be likely to see, in a piston single! g
--
Jim in NC

This sounds a little on the macho side. He may be making it sound worse
than it is. With low power there's not that much yaw into the failed
engine. If you get too slow and try to do a go around on one engine you
could sure manage to roll it over.

If you want to understand it .. find a CFI to take you out for a quick
ride and demo minimum controllable airspeed (Vmc) on one engine
for you. There's a red line on the airspeed indicator for Vmc. This
is under set conditions though and in reality can change due to weight,
CG location, altitude. An airspeed below this won't give you sufficient
directional control. Pitching down and removing power gets control
back by increasing airspeed and reducing asymetrical thrust.



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