The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

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."

"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

"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

On a TPE 331 series engine there is a "negative torque system" that senses
when the prop is trying to turn the engine (negative torque) and dumps oil
pressure in the prop dome which moves the blades towards feather. There are
several possible prop failures on a reversing prop all of which are much
worse than an engine failure.

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

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

wrote:

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


Yes, same on Turbocommandes, engine faillure and NTS malfunction can be
a killer on 331's

wrote in message
oups.com...
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


It is not quite as bad as all that. NTS failures on takeoff are saveable at
least in the simulator but immediate feathering is required. The airplane
will not yaw or roll 90 deg.

Mike
MU-2

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.

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.