The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

This is the best latest (Google, 5/31/05, 1700 EDT) on the TEB incident
today.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?...ZWVFRX l5Mg==

I heard earlier on NY CBS Radio that the pilot reported "engine trouble" on
approach and that a witness saw the plane making contact with the runway
right-wing-down, almost 90 degrees.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182040-1.html

(References - http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182041-1.html)
Pelican's Perch #4:
Engine Failure!
May 18, 1998
By John Deakin


Engine failure in a piston twin is no time to be messing with complicated
procedures that some seem to favor. John lays out his straightforward ideas
on how to react to this critical emergency — and explains why in detail.
There's more to it than just "identify, verify, feather" or "dead foot, dead
engine." Once again, the real world requirements that could save your life
may not be well served by some of "the old ways."

An engine loss in a Garrett powered aircraft such as the Swearingen or
MU-2 would be quite noticeable at any power setting.

The Negative Torque Sensor (NTS) on the Garrett TPE331's will dump oil
pressure from the prop dome when the engine flames out. The spring load
on the prop will drive the prop to a high pitch, lower drag
configuration, but does not feather the prop. The pilot must manually
perform this task.

I have been told that in a MU-2 with a four bladed prop, should an
engine quit and the NTS fail, a minimun turn of 90 degress will occur
before the pilot gets the prop feathered. The NTS should be checked
every engine start and is a no go item should it not test properly.

The Searingen Metro, like th MU-2, is a handful of airplane with 2
pilots and 2 engines. One pilot and one engine? ew.......


G. Lee

"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

"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