The Swearingen-TEB incident: control issues with twins

Even better rule...don't try to go around on one engine. Put it on a
taxiway, on the grass, whatever, but don't try to go around on one. IMHO it
is bad training practice to even suggest to a MEL student that waving off is
a practical alternative.

Given the brutally minimal training most multiengine students get these
days, you may well be right for most cases. A single engine go-around
is most certainly within the capability of even the most minimally
powered twins under some circumstances (none can do it under all
circumstances) and with proper pilot technique, but the scope of the
typical multi rating course allows for neither the flight training to
properly teach and reinforce the pilot technique nor the indepth
analysis of options that would allow the pilot to competently decide
when a single engine go-around can or should be done, and how to tailor
his operating procedures to keep that option open. I suppose it is for
this reason that it is not part of the private or commercial multi
syllabus.

For someone who is going to actually fly a twin on a regular basis, I
think the suggestion that a single engine go-around and missed approach
should not be taught (or even discussed) is basically irresponsible.
It's a procedure that may one day become necessary. Suppose you reach
the bottom end of a non-precision approach without breaking out, push
the throttles forward to level off, and one engine won't come up (or
flat-out dies). Now what? I had to demonstrate exactly that scenario
on my ATP ride, which requires (in the PTS) both a failure inside the
marker and a single engine missed approach.

I was trained in the procedure prior to my private multi checkride, but
(a) I was not getting a 10-hour multi course that gives you an FAA
rating but won't get you insurance in any twin, anywhere and (b) I was
trained by a 12,000+ hour airline training captain, not an MEI trying
to rack up his 100 multi for the airlines.

My experience is that the average multiengine student these days is an
airline wannabe. He will accumulate only about 100-200 hours of multi
time before he goes to the commuters, where they WILL teach him to do
single engine go-arounds and missed approaches. He will accumulate
those hours sporadically, and in the training environment. He has
neither the exposure to justify the training that would make him
proficient in single engine go-arounds and missed approaches, nor the
opportunity to keep that training current, and in this situation your
advice is good since the situation I described will almost certainly
not happen to him, and if it did he wouldn't have much chance of
pulling it out anyway.

However, if what you're dealing with is someone who flies a twin
because he flies so much night/IFR/hostile terrain/overwater that he's
not comfortable with the risks of doing all that flying single engine,
then your advice is downright dangerous. The RIGHT advice for someone
who is actually going to fly a twin on a regular basis is to get proper
training in how to make a competent single engine go-around, from
someone who knows how - and that includes the training necessary to
understand when it can and can't be done.

Michael

"R.L." wrote in message 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.

Coming into this thread a little late cause I've been busy....

The aircraft that crashed was a Merlin 3A (not to be confused with the
long-body Metroliner series). Vmc is 107 knots. Best 2-engine approach speed
is 111knots (which is still too fast and floats a lot of runway). Vyse is
144 knots. The leading edge radius of the airfoil is small (sharper stall
characteristics which require a stick pusher). The vertical stabilizer is
small (in relation to the over-all design). Reverse thrust if highly
effective and full reverse thrust is prohibited above 40 knots because
assymetric reverse thrust will overpower the nose wheel steering. These
airplanes have yaw dampers and some have an additional thing called rudder
bias, but they are getting a bit old and some operators don't fix these
things.

Having over 5000 hours in the Merlin/ Metro series, I can say that
single-engine landings are not nearly as easy as in a piston trainer twin.
They have earned their various nicknames (Lawn Dart, Death Tube, San Antonio
Sewer Pipe...). The KingAir 200 is the same size but is much easier to
handle during single-engine landings because the KingAir has a larger rudder
and vertical stabilizer, more wing dihedral, larger airfoil leading edge
radius, and lower stall speed, and less effective reverse thrust. These
reasons are also why the Merlin runs 20 knots faster and 500 miles farther
on 15% less fuel. I fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Daytona Beach
regularly. The performance and economy are wonderful.

Someone who passes their multi-engine practical can likely land a KingAir
with one engine out. Not so with the Merlin 3. During normal 2-engine
approaches, if I inadvertently have 20% torque on one engine but only 10%
torque on the other, I will have to use significant rudder to maintain
directional control. Add an additional failure mode such as the propeller
going to flat pitch and even an experienced pilot will have a difficult
time.

D.

I came in even later - what a thread! I have nothing of value to add
but would comment:
- That'll teach you to come in to this forum half-cocked and full of
hearsay(laugh here)
- All this asymmetrical thrust talk, besides getting the 6.5 hour MEL
rated pilot a bit hot, just makes 'ol Bob Hoover's Shrike routine glow
brighter in the gathering dusk.



Capt.Doug wrote:

Coming into this thread a little late cause I've been busy....

The aircraft that crashed was a Merlin 3A (not to be confused with the
long-body Metroliner series). Vmc is 107 knots. Best 2-engine approach speed
is 111knots (which is still too fast and floats a lot of runway). Vyse is
144 knots. The leading edge radius of the airfoil is small (sharper stall
characteristics which require a stick pusher). The vertical stabilizer is
small (in relation to the over-all design). Reverse thrust if highly
effective and full reverse thrust is prohibited above 40 knots because
assymetric reverse thrust will overpower the nose wheel steering. These
airplanes have yaw dampers and some have an additional thing called rudder
bias, but they are getting a bit old and some operators don't fix these
things.

Having over 5000 hours in the Merlin/ Metro series, I can say that
single-engine landings are not nearly as easy as in a piston trainer twin.
They have earned their various nicknames (Lawn Dart, Death Tube, San Antonio
Sewer Pipe...). The KingAir 200 is the same size but is much easier to
handle during single-engine landings because the KingAir has a larger rudder
and vertical stabilizer, more wing dihedral, larger airfoil leading edge
radius, and lower stall speed, and less effective reverse thrust. These
reasons are also why the Merlin runs 20 knots faster and 500 miles farther
on 15% less fuel. I fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Daytona Beach
regularly. The performance and economy are wonderful.

Someone who passes their multi-engine practical can likely land a KingAir
with one engine out. Not so with the Merlin 3. During normal 2-engine
approaches, if I inadvertently have 20% torque on one engine but only 10%
torque on the other, I will have to use significant rudder to maintain
directional control. Add an additional failure mode such as the propeller
going to flat pitch and even an experienced pilot will have a difficult
time.

D.