Airplane down at Addison (KADS)

[kayoh190]

Not sure that I've seen a tiller on anything smaller than a midsize business jet.

 

[IK04]

Aerostar has those annoying little switches...

 

[3393RP]

My bet is pilot proficiency or complacency. After so many hours in advanced aircraft you start to forget you could still loose an engine. Even if the rudder was blocked, or some other malfunction happened they could have pulled the good engine back and had a shot at a better outcome. Of course that's easy to say watching from my desk chair.

Your comment recalls the fatal 2014 GIV crash at KBED. It was caused by the crew's failure to perform the most basic of checklist items, checking the flight controls for free range of movement.

The gust lock system was engaged, and the pilots failed to identify the issue until the situation became unrecoverable.

 

[Steve Costello]

That 2014 GIV crash really reframed my perspective of professional aviation and how some people approach that.

I would never consider leaving the ground for the first flight without a thorough preflight, backed up by the checklist. I'm a complete novice aviator. Prior to the 2014 crash, I had assumed anyone flying something as complex as a business-class aircraft would be preeeetty adamant about doing the same.

To miss something as basic as a gust lock was - really surprising to me. PPL 101 stuff right there.

Not suggesting that something like that happened here, but it definitely reframed my thoughts when I see incidents like this to include the possibility that something really basic was missed.

 

[Doc Holliday]

When they adjust the blade pitch, there is very little, if any neg pitch set in, however, the rotor blades have a twist in them, so you will always get some neg pitch towards the end. This helps to increase the rotor RPM at collective down.

Check out the big brain on SToL!

 

[hindsight2020]

Do you have a better explanation than the (obvious) Vmc roll? The video doesn't compliment the airplane, rather, it impunes the airmanship of the pilots. Wat's your argument?

I never argued against the Vmc explanation; I support that explanation. I think you mistook my position.

I do think the video compliments the airplane though, considering the advertised payload capabilities. Look at that skid; insane sideslip and how loooong it went skidding before it rolled. If you think that chronology was "sudden", I'm sorry but that's just not sudden in the cat C/D/E world. King Air Vmc speeds is just not a high bar to me for an ATP expectation of dexterity, at least it shouldn't be.

My understanding of the definition of impune is to mean unpunished. I don't see that video supporting a pass to the pilot's airmanship. I think it's actually condemning of the pilots. That's also what I meant by occam's razor: The answer with the least number of assumptions. Not the one that requires multiple failures in the same accident flight, like the proposed "flight control failure" concurrently with a turbine engine failure, in the very critical initial climbout phase of an otherwise very long flight, on an airplane with high frequency use...oh and inability to feather the prop on top of that. Christ on a tilt-rotor GMAFB. So yeah, I'm in the occam's razor camp.

 

[Bobanna]

I never argued against the Vmc explanation; I support that explanation. I think you mistook my position.

I do think the video compliments the airplane though, considering the advertised payload capabilities. Look at that skid; insane sideslip and how loooong it went skidding before it rolled. If you think that chronology was "sudden", I'm sorry but that's just not sudden in the cat C/D/E world. King Air Vmc speeds is just not a high bar to me for an ATP expectation of dexterity, at least it shouldn't be.

My understanding of the definition of impune is to mean unpunished. I don't see that video supporting a pass to the pilot's airmanship. I think it's actually condemning of the pilots. That's also what I meant by occam's razor: The answer with the least number of assumptions. Not the one that requires multiple failures in the same accident flight, like the proposed "flight control failure" concurrently with a turbine engine failure, in the very critical initial climbout phase of an otherwise very long flight, on an airplane with high frequency use...oh and inability to feather the prop on top of that. Christ on a tilt-rotor GMAFB. So yeah, I'm in the occam's razor camp.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply: your clarification (including my misinterpretation) leads us to a convergent conclusion. I hold to Occam's Razor explanations in the absence of additional compelling evidence. Your post is obviously supporting (tentative) opinions similar to mine. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Fly safely.

Edit: I misspelled...I wanted "impugn". Good catch. We're good.

 

[SToL]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply: your clarification (including my misinterpretation) leads us to a convergent conclusion. I hold to Occam's Razor explanations in the absence of additional compelling evidence. Your post is obviously supporting (tentative) opinions similar to mine. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Fly safely.

Edit: I misspelled...I wanted "impugn". Good catch. We're good.

I don't know guys... take another look at that video... the one from below the trees... it appears this started as VMC, but it sure looks like it turned into a stall spin to me. Have a look and tell me what you think.

 

[TCABM]

I never argued against the Vmc explanation; I support that explanation. I think you mistook my position.

Q (since it appears Bobanna deleted his post that you responded to and I have him on ignore): In general, is VMC roll a cause or an effect?

I ask because if we work our way through to the root cause, we might learn something we didn’t already know.

This particular accident has just enough things leading up to it that make me wonder if the most likely NTSB cause is also the most dangerous in that a lack of recorded data may artificially hide a performance characteristic of the airframe, powerplant, or other subsystem that is causal.

 

[SToL]

Nice post. What else is a Vmc supposed to look like? they always eventuate into a stall-(inverted) spin. The Kingair is a marvelous aircraft which demands, and is worth, being flown according to procedures. With over a thousand horsepower on each side, it's the "good" engine that's going to kill you if you get out of step. No exception here.

Agreed, and it's because of that I've always wondered why they don't just teach pull both engines back. I'd rather land straight(ish) ahead than flip over and dive nose first, upside down into the ground.

I know it's picking nits at this point, but I do believe there is a difference between VMC roll and Stall Spin. I suppose in a VMC roll you could literally be pulled hard to the failed engine and driven into the ground, without ever getting the stall/spin.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yes it's usually assumed the Vmc directional departure will lead to an incipient spin entry, as seen on the video. The reason the discussion about modality is moot is because these scenarios happen too close to the ground for the distinction to matter.

To be technical, the Vmc directional loss of control does not inherently lead to an incipient spin entry. An aircraft would in theory continue to bank into the dead engine, the nose would drop dramatically with the loss of vertical component of lift vector. The aircraft would lose altitude at increasingly larger sink rate, and in theory could actually completely "barrel dive" without stalling nor spinning. At that point it will gain sufficient airspeed to make the rudder input dominant again, and a recovery is even possible, provided it doesn't suffer structural yield or ultimate failure.

As noted already, this seldom happens because there's no altitude to play with. What usually happens is the panicked pilot has enough back stick pressure locked into a kung fu grip to induce the incipient spin departure as the skidding induced by the asymmetric thrust exceeds the critical AoA on the retreating (inside) wing. That's usually why you see Vmc rolls devolve into spins.

BUT, this all assumes the pilots in question had the rudder full-applied to counter the good engine in the first place. This is facts not in evidence. The CVR further implies their recognition of the problem was delayed sufficiently as to allow the aircraft to yaw in the manner displayed in the video without any rudder input of consequence. This means that they may not have even been slower than Vmc when they went skidding all over Kingdom come, which is why the video is imo a compliment to the airplane and not so much the pilots. At that point all that is required is airspeed low enough with enough backstick pressure to induce the spin departure as they got slow enough on one engine, presumably to attempt to maintain altitude as the skyline of the hangars and business areas appeared in the windshield.

In general, is VMC roll a cause or an effect?

I ask because if we work our way through to the root cause, we might learn something we didn’t already know.

This particular accident has just enough things leading up to it that make me wonder if the most likely NTSB cause is also the most dangerous in that a lack of recorded data may artificially hide a performance characteristic of the airframe, powerplant, or other subsystem that is causal.

Vmc roll is not a cause, it's always an effect. It's what happens when you don't lower the nose and/or pull the engine back in order to retain yaw directional authority of the aircraft. The cause is always untimely or insufficient inputs. Problem here is that this presumes the accident folks were already at full rudder: that's facts not in evidence as I noted above.

At any rate, Vmc roll is not a pre-requisite for an incipient spin. You can do the latter without the former, unless Vmc is lower than stall speed at which point it's impossible to engine-roll it without incipient spinning it first. For some airplanes like the seminole, the distinction is impractical, as the difference is one knot, which means you're gonna spin it just as soon as it begins rolling on you. But yes, you can engine roll it without spinning it. That is largely academic since nobody usually has the altitude to demonstrate a Vmc roll to a nose low recovery on one engine (maybe we should get ol Bobby Hoover back and have him demonstrate).

As to finding a nefarious widow maker failure mode on the King Air as a function of its planform, flight control architecture, or engines? In a King Air in 2019? Not where I put my money. These things are not the SR-71, where you have to account for fuselage thermal expansion and transonic mechanics in order to predict flight control behaviors because the plane is made out of literal Unobtanium. This is a subsonic fixed geometry propeller plane with the aspect ratio and planform of a twin piston trainer. Outside of the golden BB scenario of having an engine roll back on you, AND have rudder controls fail on you at the same time, AND have the prop refuse to feather at the same time, AND have all three happen right at rotation.....yeah, once again, my money is on Occam's Razor.

 

[SToL]

Yes it's usually assumed the Vmc directional departure will lead to an incipient spin entry, as seen on the video. The reason the discussion about modality is moot is because these scenarios happen too close to the ground for the distinction to matter.

So what do you think? Why not teach, Engine failure on T/O, pull everything back. Engine failure in flight, Normal Procedure. I'm curious how many engine failures on departure end successfully. I suppose we'll never know because if it's recovered successfully, it's returned for maintenance and that's that.

 

[hindsight2020]

So what do you think? Why not teach, Engine failure on T/O, pull everything back. Engine failure in flight, Normal Procedure. I'm curious how many engine failures on departure end successfully. I suppose we'll never know because if it's recovered successfully, it's returned for maintenance and that's that.

The thing is, it is taught that way....for part 23 aircraft under 6k gross. Heavier Turbines otoh are specifically certified to demonstrate a published positive climb rate value at MGW after a V1 cut at or before the end of the runway as calculated, which is why turbine twin guys are taught "GO!". IOW, they're taught that because the book says they are capable of doing it, and the FAA didn't want the pedestrians in the back enduring the emotional trauma of taking barriers left and right at commercial airports. People would be too traumatized to want to fly.

The gap you're inquiring about here, is that the discussion of "GO!" TOLD decision-making is predicated on the assumption those at the helm of these part 25 turbine airplanes are ready for prime time by virtue of the position they're allowed to take on these airplanes in the first place. I'm not gonna take the mantle of being the contrarian punching bag on here as to whether that's a reasonable assumption to make in this hiring environment. I'm just describing the water here. Everybody can arrive at their own conclusion on that front.

I am ultimately interested in the human factors aspect of the safety discussion. Do not mistake that objective interest with scorn for the dead. I never met them and have no reason to believe they wanted anything but a safe outcome for themselves and their passengers.

 

[dtuuri]

@hindsight2020, IMO you should throttle back and clean up your flaps until more facts are known. Already now, for anything less than complete pilot incompetence, you'll be expected to publicly draw Occam's Razor across your own throat.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The landing gear was still down.

So what do you think? Why not teach, Engine failure on T/O, pull everything back. Engine failure in flight, Normal Procedure. I'm curious how many engine failures on departure end successfully. I suppose we'll never know because if it's recovered successfully, it's returned for maintenance and that's that.

In a light twin, I like the technique I first learned when @gismo posted it, maybe even in the old Yellow Board days prior to PoA's start in Feb. 2005: Take off with hands on the front of the throttles, and upon reaching Vyse, retract the gear and put the hands on the back of the throttles. That's your go/no-go point and you're already primed to do the right thing.

However, there are SO many CFIs that teach "gear up when you're out of runway" that I think many people learn it that way and never change. There are plenty of valid techniques for when to bring the gear up, mainly varying by type. In the Mooney, I bring it up as soon as I get the burst of airspeed after liftoff, because even if I have an engine failure, it only takes about 3 seconds to get them back down. At work, gear comes up after the PNF calls "two positive rates" which takes a bit with the G1000 VSI. And if I had a light twin, I'd do as described above.

I'm not sure what the best technique is for a King Air 350, having never flown one. However, if this was a Vmc roll, remember that having the gear down also reduces Vmc so they would have needed to get the gear up significantly earlier (so as to have the gear up AND have achieved a significantly higher airspeed by the time the engine quit), or having the gear down was the right place for it to be... Not that it helped in the end.

I'm curious what @Ted DuPuis and @James_Dean use for when to bring the gear up...?

The thing is, it is taught that way....for part 23 aircraft under 6k gross. Heavier Turbines otoh are specifically certified to demonstrate a published positive climb rate value at MGW after a V1 cut at or before the end of the runway as calculated, which is why turbine twin guys are taught "GO!". IOW, they're taught that because the book says they are capable of doing it, and the FAA didn't want the pedestrians in the back enduring the emotional trauma of taking barriers left and right at commercial airports. People would be too traumatized to want to fly.

The gap you're inquiring about here, is that the discussion of "GO!" TOLD decision-making is predicated on the assumption those at the helm of these part 25 turbine airplanes are ready for prime time by virtue of the position they're allowed to take on these airplanes in the first place.

The 350 is certified under Part 23 in the Commuter category, not Part 25.

However, after verifying my memory using the TCDS, I noticed this tidbit under Certification Basis. No time for further research right now, but here it is if someone else wants to tell us what it means:

"Exemption 5599 from compliance with 23.53(c)(1), for use of ground minimum control speed (Vmcg) for determination of takeoff decision speed (V1), (Serials FL-111 and after, FM-9 and after, FN-2 and after, or prior airplanes modified by Beech Kit No. 130-3004)."

 

[Ted]

I'm curious what @Ted DuPuis and @James_Dean use for when to bring the gear up...?

In the MU-2 I follow the manual, which is positive rate, gear up. So I'm basically doing it about as soon as I break ground and am then accelerating to Vyse. In the MU-2 like most propeller driven twins it's not possible to climb with the gear down (although you can climb with flaps 20, not flaps 40). I would expect the same in the KA 350 although I am not familiar with the procedures it recommends or its specific performance.

In piston twins it's a different story and I do tend to teach gear down until the point where you wouldn't land on the runway and would be trying to go. Unless you're at a very favorable weight or flying one of the more overpowered pistons out there (like the former Cloud Nine 310 - a short nose with 520s) climbing out on one is a dubious question at best.

Point is, know what you're flying, know the recommended procedures, understand what's going to most set you up for success.

 

[Bobanna]

Agreed, and it's because of that I've always wondered why they don't just teach pull both engines back. I'd rather land straight(ish) ahead than flip over and dive nose first, upside down into the ground.

I know it's picking nits at this point, but I do believe there is a difference between VMC roll and Stall Spin. I suppose in a VMC roll you could literally be pulled hard to the failed engine and driven into the ground, without ever getting the stall/spin.

OK. Finally. The first thing taught in Multi-training: At the first indication of loss-of directional control, close both throttles and stop directly-ahead. Nothing new here.

 

[Zeldman]

In the 414 it was gear up at positive rate of climb for me because I am already near MGW and usually at a density altitude of 8000 or more. In the King Air 90 it was positive rate, and in the Navajo because of short runways we were out of usable runway by the time the mains leave the dirt so it was positive rate.

Also trained that in first indication of loss of directional control on the ground to reduce both throttles. Off the ground and no useable landing area in front it was all forward, gear up, flaps up and in the Navajo cowl flaps closed.

But that is debatable depending on the situation. The best possible solution may be to close both throttles and hit the ground wings level and in some sort of control.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So what do you think? Why not teach, Engine failure on T/O, pull everything back. Engine failure in flight, Normal Procedure. I'm curious how many engine failures on departure end successfully. I suppose we'll never know because if it's recovered successfully, it's returned for maintenance and that's that.

Not a good idea. High speed aborts, even below V1, have a fairly poor history.

 

[James_Dean]

In a light twin, I like the technique I first learned when @gismo posted it, maybe even in the old Yellow Board days prior to PoA's start in Feb. 2005: Take off with hands on the front of the throttles, and upon reaching Vyse, retract the gear and put the hands on the back of the throttles. That's your go/no-go point and you're already primed to do the right thing.

However, there are SO many CFIs that teach "gear up when you're out of runway" that I think many people learn it that way and never change. There are plenty of valid techniques for when to bring the gear up, mainly varying by type. In the Mooney, I bring it up as soon as I get the burst of airspeed after liftoff, because even if I have an engine failure, it only takes about 3 seconds to get them back down. At work, gear comes up after the PNF calls "two positive rates" which takes a bit with the G1000 VSI. And if I had a light twin, I'd do as described above.

I'm not sure what the best technique is for a King Air 350, having never flown one. However, if this was a Vmc roll, remember that having the gear down also reduces Vmc so they would have needed to get the gear up significantly earlier (so as to have the gear up AND have achieved a significantly higher airspeed by the time the engine quit), or having the gear down was the right place for it to be... Not that it helped in the end.

I'm curious what @Ted DuPuis and @James_Dean use for when to bring the gear up...?



"

Positive rate, gear up. I push over to about 2 or 3 degrees nose up, accelerate to 150 knots before transitioning to a 10 degree nose up climb attitude. Speed is life.

 

[MauleSkinner]

OK. Finally. The first thing taught in Multi-training: At the first indication of loss-of directional control, close both throttles and stop directly-ahead. Nothing new here.

Unfortunately I’ve never seen anyone actually do this to stop the loss of directional control...like many things, it disappears with disuse.

 

[denverpilot]

Also trained that in first indication of loss of directional control on the ground to reduce both throttles. Off the ground and no useable landing area in front it was all forward, gear up, flaps up and in the Navajo cowl flaps closed.

But that is debatable depending on the situation. The best possible solution may be to close both throttles and hit the ground wings level and in some sort of control.

You also trained that if below Blue line you CAN’T push it all forward, right? The nose HAS to come down with that “mash it all forward” training.

That’s very likely what killed all these people. Directional control is primary, full power is secondary. We have to start teaching this better. If it means a sink and contact with the runway, so be it. Keep it straight first.

Otherwise it’s going to be about six seconds until a high powered turboprop is rolled inverted by the operable engine... per the video of this thing. And unless you point the nose aggressively down and get the airspeed back, you can’t stop it. And they couldn’t.

 

[denverpilot]

Positive rate, gear up. I push over to about 2 or 3 degrees nose up, accelerate to 150 knots before transitioning to a 10 degree nose up climb attitude. Speed is life.

It’s perhaps a bad choice in a light twin at high DA. The gear on the airplane I trained in takes 18 seconds by the book to retract or extend.

One can calculate the expected rate of descent from one turning and one windmilling and see that’s not going to work out well.

I was taught to leave it down until it wasn’t going to be used as a physical barrier between the ground and your butt in a forced landing straight ahead and you knew you had time at whatever speed you operate at to FEATHER the dead one.

At 500’/min down with one windmilling, 200’ AGL gave you 24 seconds and was usually where we would start retraction on a hot day, even if we weren’t climbing very fast. That could be still over the runway or not, depending on temp.

Can you identify, verify, feather and BEFORE you do that, slap the gear handle back down?

It’s a solid question to ask yourself and use real numbers for each airframe. They’re all in the book EXCEPT the one that will kill you... descent rate with one windmilling. Thanks FAA certification!

So you have to ask and find that one out for yourself. Nice, eh?

Specifically because of the hard numbers in the book for THAT aircraft is why we flew it that way. Rational numbers. What I flew wouldn’t climb on a hot day and was coming down probably in excess of 500 ft/min ... with one windmilling.

More power is life if not below blue line.

Not sucking the gear up too quick when underpowered is also life.

Excess horsepower above what is required for level flight above blue line... is good.

Most of the trainers won’t do it. They especially won’t do it up here. Mine had turbos and wouldn’t do it. The regular twin training fleet DEFINITELY wouldn’t.

 

[James_Dean]

It’s perhaps a bad choice in a light twin at high DA. The gear on the airplane I trained in takes 18 seconds by the book to retract or extend.

One can calculate the expected rate of descent from one turning and one windmilling and see that’s not going to work out well.

I was taught to leave it down until it wasn’t going to be used as a physical barrier between the ground and your butt in a forced landing straight ahead and you knew you had time at whatever speed you operate at to FEATHER the dead one.

At 500’/min down with one windmilling, 200’ AGL gave you 24 seconds and was usually where we would start retraction on a hot day, even if we weren’t climbing very fast. That could be still over the runway or not, depending on temp.

Can you identify, verify, feather and BEFORE you do that, slap the gear handle back down?

It’s a solid question to ask yourself and use real numbers for each airframe. They’re all in the book EXCEPT the one that will kill you... descent rate with one windmilling. Thanks FAA certification!

So you have to ask and find that one out for yourself. Nice, eh?

Specifically because of the hard numbers in the book for THAT aircraft is why we flew it that way. Rational numbers. What I flew wouldn’t climb on a hot day and was coming down probably in excess of 500 ft/min ... with one windmilling.

More power is life if not below blue line.

Not sucking the gear up too quick when underpowered is also life.

Excess horsepower above what is required for level flight above blue line... is good.

Most of the trainers won’t do it. They especially won’t do it up here. Mine had turbos and wouldn’t do it. The regular twin training fleet DEFINITELY wouldn’t.

Yeah, that is my procedure in the Conquest with auto-feather. Vr is nominally 92 knots and I’m through blue line in seconds. Vmca is north of 135 knots if one rolls back without feathering. Positive rate, gear up, and accelerate to get through the danger zone. The 310 was a little different story.

 

[Zeldman]

You also trained that if below Blue line you CAN’T push it all forward, right? The nose HAS to come down with that “mash it all forward” training.

That would be correct. I should have stated specifically that with everything forward also means the yoke to ensure staying at or above blue line. If below blue line then throttles back to idle and hope to land wings level and straight ahead. It is so ingrained in me to be above blue line that I assume everyone knows that.

I should have also include that who cares if the airplane gets damaged as long as everyone walks away from it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It’s perhaps a bad choice in a light twin at high DA. The gear on the airplane I trained in takes 18 seconds by the book to retract or extend.

One can calculate the expected rate of descent from one turning and one windmilling and see that’s not going to work out well.

I was taught to leave it down until it wasn’t going to be used as a physical barrier between the ground and your butt in a forced landing straight ahead and you knew you had time at whatever speed you operate at to FEATHER the dead one.

At 500’/min down with one windmilling, 200’ AGL gave you 24 seconds and was usually where we would start retraction on a hot day, even if we weren’t climbing very fast. That could be still over the runway or not, depending on temp.

Can you identify, verify, feather and BEFORE you do that, slap the gear handle back down?

It’s a solid question to ask yourself and use real numbers for each airframe. They’re all in the book EXCEPT the one that will kill you... descent rate with one windmilling. Thanks FAA certification!

So you have to ask and find that one out for yourself. Nice, eh?

Specifically because of the hard numbers in the book for THAT aircraft is why we flew it that way. Rational numbers. What I flew wouldn’t climb on a hot day and was coming down probably in excess of 500 ft/min ... with one windmilling.

More power is life if not below blue line.

Not sucking the gear up too quick when underpowered is also life.

Excess horsepower above what is required for level flight above blue line... is good.

Most of the trainers won’t do it. They especially won’t do it up here. Mine had turbos and wouldn’t do it. The regular twin training fleet DEFINITELY wouldn’t.

So you’re saying the drag demo isn’t just a box to check in training, but actually a tool to get information relevant to the airplane in day to day ops?

Who’d have thunk it?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Whatever. It is multi-engine 101, I don't care if it's an Apache 150 ( Kevorkian) or a 787; the drill is primary...the second you forget that, you're rolling the dice. How many have you actually seen (lose directional control) and proceed with a OEI takeoff?

i suspect were talking about different things here...I’m talking about a loss of directional control in flight (which is what I got from the post you quoted in your post I responded to). Of the dozens of Vmc rolls I’ve seen after takeoff as a sim instructor, none of them have closed the throttles as they were taught and demonstrated (Vmc demo) for their initial multiengine training.

 

[Bobanna]

i suspect were talking about different things here...I’m talking about a loss of directional control in flight (which is what I got from the post you quoted in your post I responded to). Of the dozens of Vmc rolls I’ve seen after takeoff as a sim instructor, none of them have closed the throttles as they were taught and demonstrated (Vmc demo) for their initial multiengine training.

Thanks for your very prompt reply. Your input as a sim instructor is very valuable. What do you think leads pilots to push a "go" rather than "(closing) the throttles as they were taught" in their initial training?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thanks for your very prompt reply. Your input as a sim instructor is very valuable. What do you think leads pilots to push a "go" rather than "(closing) the throttles as they were taught" in their initial training?

Stopping requires a decision. Going happens unless you make the decision. We get overloaded and we lose our ability to make decisions.

That’s why “good” training is very repetitive...we build muscle memory to fly the airplane (or abort) until such time as our brain catches up.

 

[3393RP]

Well said.

I think it's a reflexive response to get the plane in the air no matter what, because in that split second the pilot believes, right or wrong, the outcome of that decision can lead to a successful flyaway. By doing so, he puts himself in the position of having to execute the OEI drill without making any errors.

This is predicated on skill, prior practice, the proper mental processes, and perhaps most importantly, an aircraft that will climb on one engine with the GTOW and density altitude on that particular day the determining factors.

 

[denverpilot]

So you’re saying the drag demo isn’t just a box to check in training, but actually a tool to get information relevant to the airplane in day to day ops?

Who’d have thunk it?

Such an underrated maneuver. You need to train your eyeballs to see yaw/slew as soon as it starts for any reason in a twin.

The demo done right will show you can’t freaking fix it without pulling power OFF on the good one.

It’s just damn dangerous to teach low level true engine outs to show prop drag so the simulated ones get close and it’s somewhat suicidal to teach them on takeoff.

So folks don’t think to apply what their eyeballs have seen in demos at altitude to what’s happening at 100’ AGL ... sometimes... when things go very wrong.

We instructors HAVE to make that brain connection in people.*

*Well, if I ever get to instruct again. Let alone in twins. Sigh.

 

[Bobanna]

Stopping requires a decision. Going happens unless you make the decision. We get overloaded and we lose our ability to make decisions.

That’s why “good” training is very repetitive...we build muscle memory to fly the airplane (or abort) until such time as our brain catches up.

ty

 

[denverpilot]

Thanks for your very prompt reply. Your input as a sim instructor is very valuable. What do you think leads pilots to push a "go" rather than "(closing) the throttles as they were taught" in their initial training?

I’ll add one here to what was answered very well...

Complacency. If you’re not ready for an engine to quit at any time you won’t make a decision as the respondent mentioned.

Hundreds of takeoffs lull you into it. It has to be a forced mental prep and takeoff brief that it WILL happen. If it doesn’t, great. Live to fly another day.

“If directional control is lost on the runway, close throttles and apply maximum braking. If in flight, we will pitch to maintain blue line or retard throttles immediately.”

HAVE to be prepared. Even if you’re solo and don’t say it out loud.

I bet if this KA crew had to SAY it every damn time (and be annoyed by it, yes...) they and their passengers would be alive today.

You’ll do what you brief 90% of the time. I truly believe that. It unsticks your surprised brain.

 

[dtuuri]

Of the dozens of Vmc rolls I’ve seen after takeoff as a sim instructor...

So, how do these folks get below Vmca in the first place? They didn't (presumably) even leave the ground until well above Vmc and their engine failure memory items should have them cleaned up and climbing before decelerating below Vmc. Are you handing them a failure of autofeather with an engine loss? Do you train in a KA 350?

 

[kayoh190]

How many have you actually seen (lose directional control) and proceed with a OEI takeoff?

I do it a few times per year in the sim. Fortunately never had to do it in real life! We practice stopping it on the runway at various speeds prior to V1 as well.

Not sure how things are handled in a KA350, however.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So, how do these folks get below Vmca in the first place? They didn't (presumably) even leave the ground until well above Vmc and their engine failure memory items should have them cleaned up and climbing before decelerating below Vmc. Are you handing them a failure of autofeather with an engine loss? Do you train in a KA 350?

Nope...jet. Most of them just have really bad pitch control. And lack of rudder input is usually the bigger driver.

 

[denverpilot]

Nope...jet. Most of them just have really bad pitch control. And lack of rudder input is usually the bigger driver.

Which jet?

Talking with a friend who’s flown 777 and 787 those have an interesting story. They’ll both automatically put in rudder at engine loss (spoiled bastard..) but...

FAA was worried back in the certification days of the 777 that pilots trained to use their feet still needed to. So they said the aircraft could only put in 90% of the rudder needed for directional control. The pilot still has to mash the pedal... lightly. On the ground it’s all the pilot. In the air the airplane does 90%.

By the time 787 came around they said no problem, do 100%. If the weight on wheels switch on the nose gear is off the ground, aircraft handles the rudder. On the ground it’s fully the pilot.

So... apparently there’s a cool trick. The autobrake switch snaps to a different setting after liftoff and you can hear it above your head.

On a V1 cut in 787 you hold rudder for centerline and as the nose lifts off, wait to hear the physical snap of the switch and move your feet to the floor. Perfect directional control.

Because if you leave your foot on the pedal the aircraft ADDS your input to its input, and you’ll be all over the place.

Silly ass software engineers. Haha. But you can learn to beat them. He says he teaches this trick to FOs on sim rides all the time.

Just fun side trivia. Fascinating airplane from all he’s told me.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Which jet?

Talking with a friend who’s flown 777 and 787 those have an interesting story. They’ll both automatically put in rudder at engine loss (spoiled bastard..) but...

FAA was worried back in the certification days of the 777 that pilots trained to use their feet still needed to. So they said the aircraft could only put in 90% of the rudder needed for directional control. The pilot still has to mash the pedal... lightly. On the ground it’s all the pilot. In the air the airplane does 90%.

By the time 787 came around they said no problem, do 100%. If the weight on wheels switch on the nose gear is off the ground, aircraft handles the rudder. On the ground it’s fully the pilot.

So... apparently there’s a cool trick. The autobrake switch snaps to a different setting after liftoff and you can hear it above your head.

On a V1 cut in 787 you hold rudder for centerline and as the nose lifts off, wait to hear the physical snap of the switch and move your feet to the floor. Perfect directional control.

Because if you leave your foot on the pedal the aircraft ADDS your input to its input, and you’ll be all over the place.

Silly ass software engineers. Haha. But you can learn to beat them. He says he teaches this trick to FOs on sim rides all the time.

Just fun side trivia. Fascinating airplane from all he’s told me.

Beechjet primarily.

It’s got rudder boost that does the majority of the work in the airplane, but when our sims were certified the FAA apparently believed that only real men flew jets, so they made us dumb it down in the sims.

 

[PPC1052]

So, how do these folks get below Vmca in the first place? They didn't (presumably) even leave the ground until well above Vmc and their engine failure memory items should have them cleaned up and climbing before decelerating below Vmc.

This is my question.

 

[PPC1052]

. They’ll both automatically put in rudder at engine loss (spoiled bastard..) but...

So will the King Air.