ILS Emergencies OEI

[aterpster]

Good way to think of things.

Guess that's a semantics issue. An examiner can issue a "go-around" from very low over the runway, but a missed approach must be given at/above DA/MDA. In any event, there's no OEI go-around for any certificate rating, and an OEI missed approach is only for ATP.

So far as I know that is only for a type rating in a Part 25 airplane.

 

[Captain]

135 you can shoot it to the published minimums.

Depends. We have a 135 and 91K and we don't. I'd say it's up to the operator. Of the fracs I don't know of any that take it to the MAP.

135? Who knows. Those guys aren't known for turning down business, but I honestly don't know.

 

[poadeleted20]

So far as I know that is only for a type rating in a Part 25 airplane.

Area V Task F of the current ATP PTS has no such limitation -- the Note says it's required in all multiengine airplanes. However, that Note also says the engine failure need not be injected until after the missed is initiated, and if I were giving an ATP ride in an old Apache on a hot day, I'd wait until the gear and flaps were up and we had a positive rate before pulling one. :wink2:

 

[Everskyward]

Depends. We have a 135 and 91K and we don't. I'd say it's up to the operator. Of the fracs I don't know of any that take it to the MAP.

135? Who knows. Those guys aren't known for turning down business, but I honestly don't know.

The operator can place restrictions on what the pilots can do but, by default, you can do all the public published approaches without specified training. Whether or not this is a good idea is another question but we are talking about what is legal.

 

[Captain]

The operator can place restrictions on what the pilots can do but, by default, you can do all the public published approaches without specified training. Whether or not this is a good idea is another question but we are talking about what is legal.

That's true. In that sense my company can legally shoot it too. I was referring to what I'm allowed to do and if I don't see the runway by DBL it's off to RIL or EGE. As far as I know all the other fracs are the same.

 

[bobmrg]

What about the Twin Commander with 700 HP, sole occupant, sea level?

I have no idea of which models Les tested for certification, but I do know that he flew everything from light twins to transport category aircraft. "Situational procedures," where the actions you take in an emergency depend on which airplane you are flying that day, are bad for your health.

Bob Gardner

 

[aterpster]

Area V Task F of the current ATP PTS has no such limitation -- the Note says it's required in all multiengine airplanes. However, that Note also says the engine failure need not be injected until after the missed is initiated, and if I were giving an ATP ride in an old Apache on a hot day, I'd wait until the gear and flaps were up and we had a positive rate before pulling one. :wink2:

It's nuts doing that in a light twin, especially in a Thunder Chicken.

 

[Everskyward]

That's true. In that sense my company can legally shoot it too. I was referring to what I'm allowed to do and if I don't see the runway by DBL it's off to RIL or EGE. As far as I know all the other fracs are the same.

Interesting that this discussion has some parallels with the crosswind discussion in the other thread. I have no problem with you or your company opting out but do you think the approach would be fair game on a checkride? Since DBL is the IAF you wouldn't even be starting the approach if you decided to go somewhere else at that point.

 

[Captain]

Interesting that this discussion has some parallels with the crosswind discussion in the other thread. I have no problem with you or your company opting out but do you think the approach would be fair game on a checkride? Since DBL is the IAF you wouldn't even be starting the approach if you decided to go somewhere else at that point.

Sure, they could give it to you. But if you go past the IAF in the soup without going missed you'd fail that manuver. btw, they don't give us KASE in the sim. Once with time left over we played a game where he slewed us out and away from KASE and saw if we could try to make it back SE.

I failed that game, turned up the wrong valley and couldn't climb out.

 

[Everskyward]

But if you go past the IAF in the soup without going missed you'd fail that manuver.

You would fail because your company won't let you do it? That's a different situation.

I was really talking about a more generic checkride, say for an ATP in a turboprop or jet, sim or real airplane. I wonder what the reaction would be if you simply said that you didn't want to try. Isn't this like the crosswind question?

 

[poadeleted20]

It's nuts doing that in a light twin, especially in a Thunder Chicken.

Agreed, but my answer wouldn't change in a Seminole, Duchess, or Cougar, either.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was really talking about a more generic checkride, say for an ATP in a turboprop or jet, sim or real airplane. I wonder what the reaction would be if you simply said that you didn't want to try. Isn't this like the crosswind question?

Does the ATP PTS have an "out" for that task like the crosswind task in the PP PTS does?

4. Calculates/determines if crosswind component is above his​

or her ability or that of the aircraft’s capability.

Not that I can find. Only thing relevant I can find for this is what it says in 61.45 and the PTS about bringing an aircraft which can perform all the required tasks. So, if it can't do the OEI missed approach task with the expected load in the expected conditions, you'd better bring to the party a different airplane which can.

Of course, there shouldn't be any problem with any of that in a Part 25 airplane, and if you're taking your ATP in a light twin, I don't know many examiners who'll pull the engine on the missed before you're up and climbing, so I doubt the issue will arise.

 

[Everskyward]

So, if it can't do the OEI missed approach task with the expected load in the expected conditions, you'd better bring to the party a different airplane which can.

That's why I said "turboprop or jet" which would give you a better chance. Of course if it's a Part 25 airplane you absolutely need to be able to do it on one engine.

Of course, I don't know many examiners who'll pull the engine on the missed before you're up and climbing in a light twin, but there's always the possibility...

I think the most difficult single engine situation from a handling standpoint is when they fail the engine just as you are bringing up the power for a go-around, especially in something which has a lot of power.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's why I said "turboprop or jet" which would give you a better chance. Of course if it's a Part 25 airplane you absolutely need to be able to do it on one engine.

if it's a Part 25 airplane, you're not allowed to fly it in conditions where it won't.

I think the most difficult single engine situation from a handling standpoint is when they fail the engine just as you are bringing up the power for a go-around, especially in something which has a lot of power.

Throw in low altitude without enough runway to "chop and stop" and I'd say you've created the perfect storm in a light twin. And that's why I think no DPE with a lick of sense or the slightest desire to continue living won't do it in a light twin.

 

[denverpilot]

I failed that game, turned up the wrong valley and couldn't climb out.

The "wrong valley" kills a lot of people here. SE, ME, high-time, low-time... doesn't seem to matter much.

I keep looking for Wrong Valley on my charts. I haven't found it yet.

 

[bbchien]

I doubt any light twin with an engine out would even make it onto the first part of any IAP at Aspen.

Then, check out the new RNAV IAP at KTEX. Look at the missed approach gradient.

Wally, recalculate the gradients from a higher, earlier MAP (USN guys did this all the time when flying at Lockheed weights). It doesn't take much of an increase in the altitude for your personally directed MISSED to siginificantly reduce the gradient. Why?

Because you have a lot more distance while still on the inbound, to climb (instead of descend), so I get 1.5 minutes before I get to the MAP or 600 vertical feet, and I cross the MAP at 11,400. That means I have 12 more miles to LINDZ which is 8mins x 400fpm or 3,200 feet of climb, or 14,600 at LINDZ. An additional 10.1 miles to GLENO - but I'm already at 14,000.

You forget the advantage conferred by CLIMBING from the higher MAP which is earlier on the inbound course. There's nothing like passing the MAP 1560 above the MDA to assist in the climbout gradient.

You have to do the math and fly the plan. I need 350 undergross to get 400 fpm OEI, and that means I have about an hour's fuel left to get to GJT....and am frequently 400 undergross.

DO the math. I do agree if you don't have the performance please don't go there. But you have to know precisely what you have, and then back calclulate.

I've done this practice in VMC. The valley is QUITE wide at 12,000.

And of course NATE knows, that "wrong valley" shouldn't occur with "proper IFR".

 

[aterpster]

Of course, there shouldn't be any problem with any of that in a Part 25 airplane, and if you're taking your ATP in a light twin, I don't know many examiners who'll pull the engine on the missed before you're up and climbing, so I doubt the issue will arise.

I don't know how a Part 25 rating ride is conducted outside Part 121. But, in Part 121, there must be an engine failure on takeoff after V1 as well as an OEI missed approach. I can't recall how it was handled when we did the rating rides in the airplane (prior to the Level D simulators). But, once the rating rides migrated to the simulator, then the engine failure just after V1 was always at max gross takeoff weight as was the engine failure just below V1. (rejected takeoff.)

This is where Level D simulators really shine; the brakes don't catch fire on a rejected takeoff just below V1 at MTGOW. But, if the maneuver isn't done correctly you will go off the end of the runway.

 

[spiderweb]

Sure, they could give it to you. But if you go past the IAF in the soup without going missed you'd fail that manuver. btw, they don't give us KASE in the sim. Once with time left over we played a game where he slewed us out and away from KASE and saw if we could try to make it back SE.

I failed that game, turned up the wrong valley and couldn't climb out.

. . . in a sim, I assume!

 

[Captain]

. . . in a sim, I assume!

No, he slewed us in the real plane.

Then he failed an engine and cut us loose. I turned up the wrong valley. It was a box canyon and I was unable to climb out single engine so that's how I died.

 

[denverpilot]

No, he slewed us in the real plane.

Then he failed an engine and cut us loose. I turned up the wrong valley. It was a box canyon and I was unable to climb out single engine so that's how I died.

Here's your sign...

 

[aterpster]

Wally, recalculate the gradients from a higher, earlier MAP (USN guys did this all the time when flying at Lockheed weights). It doesn't take much of an increase in the altitude for your personally directed MISSED to siginificantly reduce the gradient. Why?

Because you have a lot more distance while still on the inbound, to climb (instead of descend), so I get 1.5 minutes before I get to the MAP or 600 vertical feet, and I cross the MAP at 11,400. That means I have 12 more miles to LINDZ which is 8mins x 400fpm or 3,200 feet of climb, or 14,600 at LINDZ. An additional 10.1 miles to GLENO - but I'm already at 14,000.

You forget the advantage conferred by CLIMBING from the higher MAP which is earlier on the inbound course. There's nothing like passing the MAP 1560 above the MDA to assist in the climbout gradient.

You have to do the math and fly the plan. I need 350 undergross to get 400 fpm OEI, and that means I have about an hour's fuel left to get to GJT....and am frequently 400 undergross.

DO the math. I do agree if you don't have the performance please don't go there. But you have to know precisely what you have, and then back calclulate.

I've done this practice in VMC. The valley is QUITE wide at 12,000.

And of course NATE knows, that "wrong valley" shouldn't occur with "proper IFR".

I know Aspen like the back of my hand. I understand completely the "advantage" of a high MDA provided you know with certainty that you can make good a minimum gradient of 200 feet per n.m, considering changing winds and higher KTAS. I also know it is a long way from that high MDA and early missed approach point, once you go forward in the descent below MDA and beyond the MDA you better have your declared emergency well in hand and know you "own" the runway, because you are NOT going around.

And, what does the valley being quite wide have to do with anything when you are IMC? The wide valley is great for circling to land when you have both the performance and the cloud height and visibility. But, IMC it means nothing. You have to get over the higher terrain to the west, perhaps with downdrafts to boot. You need to achieve 14,000 prior to GLENO and be able to maintain 14,000 in the missed approach hold.

My premise was the typical OEI light twin that wouldn't be able to maintain the requiste altitudes to make it to DBL to start one of the IAPs.

I don't know what Lockheed you are referring to.

Even in a lightly loaded turbocharged light twin (on a winter day) that could maintain 16,000 inbound to DBL should be headed for KGJT, icing conditions permitting.

What type of airplane did you do your test in? How did you assure your ground speed was within the limits at all times to provide the minimum gradient from MAP to GLENO?

The Part 25 guys don't have to make such calcuations because it has all been scoped out by their performance and engineering department or vendor. If the Part 91-only biz jet guys don't have a performance vendor they may not make it out either. For some of them it is tough enough with all engines operating, especially when using bleed air for engine anti-ice and perhaps wing de-ice. Other, high-perfomance Part 25 birds have no problem at all.

But, the moral of the story: if you lose one even in a Falcon 900 prior to DBL (or even after DBL) you should be on your way to GJT.

Finally, it is not about 400 feet per mininute but about not less than 200 feet per ground mile.

 

[Everskyward]

Finally, it is not about 400 feet per mininute but about not less than 200 feet per ground mile.

Right. But the 200' per nm is the standard missed approach climb gradient not a "special" one like the one in Telluride. The only thing is that you are starting at a high density altitude so many airplanes, especially pistons, many not have the performance.

But getting back to my hypothetical question. There are other airplanes which can do this approach and still make the missed approach climb gradient single-engine as long as they are light enough. If you brought one of these to a test, or if you were in the appropriate simulator, would the examiner give you a pass if you declined to do the approach because you wouldn't want to try it in real life? That is what I am getting at when I relate it to the question of the crosswind in another thread.

 

[bbchien]

I know Aspen like the back of my hand.

I too. I just counted 58 approaches in IMC, one miss, and my VFR flight on a day when just too sore to ski, we went to fly for grins. The worst investment of my life is there....

I understand completely the "advantage" of a high MDA provided you know with certainty that you can make good a minimum gradient of 200 feet per n.m, considering changing winds and higher KTAS. I also know it is a long way from that high MDA and early missed approach point, once you go forward in the descent below MDA and beyond the MDA you better have your declared emergency well in hand and know you "own" the runway, because you are NOT going around.

If I don't see it at 10,800, I just don't go there. I'm climbing out. All Engines, very easy. 10,800 is a personal minimum OEI or all Engines. And if I've lost one on approach, I certainly am going to 10,800- earliest serviceable landing and I don't consider GWS in IFR weather to be an option.

And, what does the valley being quite wide...

...at 12,000 feet. At 10,200, not so much.

...have to do with anything when you are IMC? The wide valley is great for circling to land when you have both the performance and the cloud height and visibility.But, IMC it means nothing.

Yes it does. when you are very very busy with asymmetrical power, and go 3/4 scale on the BC localizer, it sure does.

You have to get over the higher terrain to the west, perhaps with downdrafts to boot. You need to achieve 14,000 prior to GLENO and be able to maintain 14,000 in the missed approach hold.

I did discuss in my description that I would be at 14,600 by GLENO, even before the turn to LINDZ, but it was written poorly...it's all there.....

My premise was the typical OEI light twin that wouldn't be able to maintain the requiste altitudes to make it to DBL to start one of the IAPs.

I don't know what Lockheed you are referring to.

E-188. We very commonly flew on the Lockheed tables well above civil gross. The checklists and performance charts get VERY interesting. We did the "back out" calculation all the time.

Even in a lightly loaded turbocharged light twin (on a winter day) that could maintain 16,000 inbound to DBL should be headed for KGJT, icing conditions permitting.

What type of airplane did you do your test in?

My very own PA34200T. Of course that was FOUR engines ago.

How did you assure your ground speed was within the limits at all times to provide the minimum gradient from MAP to GLENO?

The Part 25 guys don't have to make such calcuations because it has all been scoped out by their performance and engineering department or vendor. If the Part 91-only biz jet guys don't have a performance vendor they may not make it out either. For some of them it is tough enough with all engines operating, especially when using bleed air for engine anti-ice and perhaps wing de-ice. Other, high-perfomance Part 25 birds have no problem at all.

Not having such available to me any longer, I have to do it.

But, the moral of the story: if you lose one even in a Falcon 900 prior to DBL (or even after DBL) you should be on your way to GJT.

Yes, as in the Lear crew that missed just before me a few winters ago. I was about 2nm outside DBL and Approach asked for their intentions. They said "standby" (meaning we don't have a clue). I went immediately for SNX, and halfway down the approach was asked if I could step aside as they were minimum fuel. Well, so was I (about 45 minutes remaining) so I simply said, unable I'll be down in three minutes.....

Finally, it is not about 400 feet per minute but about not less than 200 feet per ground mile.

Of course not, Wally. FYI Vyse is 88 knots. The math DOES work. And it does in real life, too. And there are margins, so long as there is payload discipline.

There are some other veteran aviators out there, Wally. We too have the tire tracks on our backs to prove it.

 

[aterpster]

There are some other veteran aviators out there, Wally. We too have the tire tracks on our backs to prove it.

No doubt about it. You know a lot more about the operational aspects of flying a light aircraft into those places than I do. Part of what you do, or did, at Aspen is because of your comfort margin. The first time I flew into Aspen was in an Aerostar 600 on a CAVU summer day in the early 1970s. I had a lot of Part 121 experience by then which greatly decreased my comfort margin in light aircraft.

My first landing at Aspen convinced me that is was good-VFR only taking (especially) the Aerostar and later a Commander 690 into that airport.

My familiarity in recent years has been topographical assessments of the airport and working with my biz aviation workmates who fly into those airports (EGW, GUC, RIL, and ASE) on a regular basis in the winter months.

As to Glenwood Springs, I wouldn't want to go near that airport with a ceiling of 10,800.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't know how a Part 25 rating ride is conducted outside Part 121.

By the ATP PTS, either in the aircraft or an appropriate sim. And there are some different restrictions if it's in the real aircraft, such as the Instrument Takeoff, where instrument conditions need not be simulated until reaching 100 AGL, but in the sim, visibility must not be more than 1/4 mile from the start.

 

[j1b3h0]

Interesting, if somewhat academic discussion. Calls to mind the old saw about using one's superior judgement, rather than having to use one's superior skill.

Even with an engineering department there are screwups. We used to service Farmington New Mexico in Saab 340s. One of our more cerebral pilots spent hours with the performance data available for the aircraft and concluded engineering should be drug tested. He wrote a strongly worded letter to them...and we discontinued service within days. I remember thinking, when launching in a snowstorm, if we lose an engine, we'll be in a very bad way.

 

[aterpster]

Interesting, if somewhat academic discussion. Calls to mind the old saw about using one's superior judgement, rather than having to use one's superior skill.

Even with an engineering department there are screwups. We used to service Farmington New Mexico in Saab 340s. One of our more cerebral pilots spent hours with the performance data available for the aircraft and concluded engineering should be drug tested. He wrote a strongly worded letter to them...and we discontinued service within days. I remember thinking, when launching in a snowstorm, if we lose an engine, we'll be in a very bad way.

Sadly, that is too often the case. Far less so with some Part 121 majors that have superior performance and engineering departments.

 

[bbchien]

Interesting, if somewhat academic discussion. Calls to mind the old saw about using one's superior judgement, rather than having to use one's superior skill.

I'm much simpler. "THINK!"

 

[Ted]

In many twins having to go missed on an ILS at 200 ft on one engine would be absolutely terrifying and not a good option.

I went missed in the 310 which isn't exactly underpowered a few times and it was a pretty hair raising experience. It takes some time to get things cleaned up and to change the trend from down to up.

You'd just end up balling up an underpowered twin at a higher velocity then you would have if you'd had not attempted to go missed.

You also weren't familiar with the plane, and we were using climb power on the good engine rather than full power. Of course, the plane is also overpowered vs. stock to begin with, so that somewhat balances out. In a stock 310, you could see where it would've been a real problem.

I've pretty much figured in that plane that if you have an engine failure once the gear comes up, you might be able to clear the trees if they aren't too high and you do everything right in that plane. And if I don't, well, I'm dead anyway.

If I lose an engine, I am making sure that I am not doing a go-around. I'll do my best to pick an airport that gives me the most options and plan on landing. If it means busting mins, so be it.

My instructor had an engine failure in his Aztec and was right over an airport with low IMC. He opted to fly to an airport 50 miles away where the conditions were better and the terrain was more forgiving. Much like the Airbus that burned off fuel for 4 hours prior to landing back at Phoenix, there were pros and cons to his decision, but I think it was a good one overall. If nothing else, he's here to tell the story years later.

 

[DouglasBader]

But I digress. Les said that he would never do a single-engine go-around in anything smaller than a KingAir. I accept that as gospel.

Depends on the King Air. In a 90 in most cases, I wouldn't go around.

I took a 135 check ride in a BE9L, and the chief pilot giving the ride told me I'd have to do a single engine missed. I told him that wasn't going to happen, and he told me I wouldn't pass the ride if I refused. I told him we ought not waste our time then, but he'd be talking with the FAA in the morning. I also asked him if he'd do a single engine missed with a patient on board. He quickly said he would. The general manager was standing nearby, listening. He was one of our chief medics. I asked if he'd do it with the GM on board, and the chief pilot assured me he would go missed on one engine.

The following day we assembled in the airplane and went to go fly. I told him pointedly that if he pulled an engine below 400' he wasn't getting it back, and that he would be deeply sorry if he attempted to force a single engine missed. Toward the end of the ride, after an ILS to a touchdown, he told me to go. As I began the climb, he slowly retarded one power lever to idle, and informed me that this would simulate our single engine missed.

Having already informed him that it wasn't required in a Part 23 airplane, I didn't feel like providing an education. I began a drift down to a field south of Reno. The chief pilot asked me how I was going to return to Reno. I told him we weren't. He asked me where we were going. I pointed to the field and said "over there." He said I couldn't; there were power lines. I told him we'd be landing under the lines, in the field. He said it would cause aircraft damage. I told him he was right. He told me to push the power back up, and I said no.

I reminded him that he had been told that if he pulled the power below 400' he wasn't getting the engine back. I reminded him that failure to listen had consequences. He began to cry. He begged for the power. Eye level to the power lines, he became nearly hysterical. Below the altitude of the power lines, he was very unhappy. He demanded, begged, pleaded in a shrill voice for the power lever. I told him to push it up if he wanted, but that I wasn't going to do it. He pushed up the power, and we climbed out, then headed back to home plate.

He said nothing on the ride back, other than asking if he could fly for a while. Once on the ground, he signed off my check ride, got in his truck and left. He didn't want to hear "I told you so," and I didn't feel like telling him. A few weeks later he was fired for two incidents involving exceptionally bad judgment, all in one day, with patients aboard or waiting. He went to another operation, where he was also fired. He's an FAA inspector, now. Go figure.

A Part 23 twin isn't required to have a positive climb gradient on one engine. It certainly isn't required to meet missed climb gradient criteria, or even diverse criteria, for that matter (200'/nm).

In transport-category aircraft, which do have performance capable of losing an engine and going missed, one is required to demonstrate an engine-out missed approach as part of a type rating. In many Part 25 airplanes, it's not a big deal in most locations.

 

[aterpster]

A Part 23 twin isn't required to have a positive climb gradient on one engine. It certainly isn't required to meet missed climb gradient criteria, or even diverse criteria, for that matter (200'/nm).

That has always been my understanding. But, as you can see earlier in the post a CFI states that a candidate will fail an ATP multi ride unless he makes a single engine missed approach.

As far as that clown becoming an FAA inspector people like that often end up at the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

A Part 23 twin isn't required to have a positive climb gradient on one engine.

Beg to differ.

Sec. 23.67

Climb: One engine inoperative.





(a) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category reciprocating engine-powered airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, the following apply:

• (1) Except for those airplanes that meet the requirements prescribed in Sec. 23.562(d), each airplane with a
  
  of more than 61 knots must be able to maintain a steady climb gradient of at least 1.5 percent at a pressure altitude of 5,000 feet with the--
  • 
    (i) Critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;
    (ii) Remaining engine(s) at not more than maximum continuous power;
    (iii) Landing gear retracted;
    (iv) Wing flaps retracted; and
  • (v) Climb speed not less than 1.2
    
    .

...and 23.562 involves special crashworthy seating systems. Of course, 1.5% is only about 90 ft/nm, and that ain't much. In addition, the odds of your average clapped-out 30-y/o light twin trainer actually meeting that spec today are also pretty slim. And you'll note there's nothing in that spec about how you get from where you were when the engine quit (say, 200 AGL, gear down, flaps approach, and normal approach speed) to having the bad engine feathered, gear up, flaps up, and speed up to Vyse. But that spec does exist, at least for the factory-new planes they used during the aircraft's original certification testing.

It certainly isn't required to meet missed climb gradient criteria, or even diverse criteria, for that matter (200'/nm).

Agreed.

 

[bbchien]

I've always wondered how they got the Seminole certified, with it's OEI ceiling of 4,400 feet....I HAVE hald 5,000 in the summer in one, (hot summer) but we were 350 undergross (2 up, partial fuel). Is that one CAR 3?

I think they got the Apache (160 hp) in under CAR 3.

Max Gross weight comes from the marketing department!

 

[poadeleted20]

That has always been my understanding. But, as you can see earlier in the post a CFI states that a candidate will fail an ATP multi ride unless he makes a single engine missed approach.

Actually, that's what the PTS says, so I am merely quoting the FAA's written requirement. The big difference, which I also pointed out, is that the engine need not be failed before the missed approach is initiated -- in your average Part 23 light trainer, the examiner can (and, if s/he has half a brain, will) wait until the airplane is up and climbing before pulling the engine, and then it's not much different than an engine failure after takeoff. Once you get to that point, you have reached the position where the 23.67 critera are met, so the airplane really should climb, especially at typical training/testing weights.

Unless, of course, you're in Denver in the summer using a 150 Apache with two observers in the back, in which case everyone in the plane should have their heads examined.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've always wondered how they got the Seminole certified, with it's OEI ceiling of 4,400 feet....

23.562(d) crashworthy seats?

I HAVE hald 5,000 in the summer in one, (hot summer) but we were 350 undergross (2 up, partial fuel). Is that one CAR 3?

No. Part 23, according to the TCDS.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...8788e2862579a500655e1a/$FILE/A19SO_Rev 11.pdf

I think they got the Apache (160 hp) in under CAR 3.

Yes, according to the TCDS.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...4ba2bf3f78ff7d8625791a004656ee/$FILE/1A10.pdf

But CAR 3's OEI climb requirement only applies if MGW is over 6000 lb or Vs0 is over 70 mph. The Apache's Vs0 is 68 mph, and MGW is well below 4000.

That said, having earned my CFI-ME and ATP-ME in an Apache (160, not 235), I know that at SL on a spring day it will climb on one engine (albeit reluctantly) with four people (ME trainee and MEI trainee in front, instructor observer in the back), the outboards empty, and the inboards about 3/4 full -- once you've got it cleaned up and accelerated. So, if you lose one on the missed after you're cleaned up, you will clear the trees, but if you lose one before the MAP below about 500 AGL or so, you'd bloody well better figure a way to land it because ground contact is inevitable. However, it's much more willing to climb on one with just an applicant and an examiner aboard and you can do a missed after an engine failure as long as you have a couple of hundred feet to trade for speed during the transition.

 

[dtuuri]

A Part 23 twin isn't required to have a positive climb gradient on one engine. It certainly isn't required to meet missed climb gradient criteria, or even diverse criteria, for that matter (200'/nm).

Neither is a two-engined Part 25 turbojet.

In transport-category aircraft, which do have performance capable of losing an engine and going missed, one is required to demonstrate an engine-out missed approach as part of a type rating. In many Part 25 airplanes, it's not a big deal in most locations.

[EDIT: Speaking here of Part 23 airplanes:]It depends on the configuration, if one needs documentation in Part IV of the AFM. Light, low and cool most can probably do it, but I'd tell the examiner beforehand that you're committing to a landing once you put the flaps full down (if you ever do ). There's no requirement anywhere to do a rejected landing from the landing configuration.

But I share your sentiments only so far. Your actions, not the examiner's seem to have put the plane in danger, notwithstanding the examiner's fitness or lack of for the job.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

Neither is a two-engined Part 25 turbojet.

Could you expand on that? The context is vague.

 

[aterpster]

Unless, of course, you're in Denver in the summer using a 150 Apache with two observers in the back, in which case everyone in the plane should have their heads examined.

The FBO I worked for at KEMT in the late 1950s had a 150 Apache, which was quite new at the time.

The boss was taking a multi-engine candidate out for a training session. He invited me and another young eager beaver to ride along in the back because today's lession was a shut down, feather, then restart, which he did at not less than 3,000, agl. He also like to be near KONT when doing an actual shutdown (it wasn't very busy in those days).

So, we are at 4,000, msl, and go through the drill. The airplane is slowly descending once the engine is feathered. They try a restart a few times with no luck. So, the boss gets on the horn, tells Ontario of the problem, and they give us a bit of priority.

That Thunder Chicken was going down, albeit slowly. The boss was a master at this stuff. We turned a mile, or so final, and only when landing was assurred did he lower the landing gear.

Many years later I put a lady through her multi in an Aerostar 600. With only two of us and half tanks it did climb on one engine, albeit quite slowly.

 

[dtuuri]

Could you expand on that? The context is vague.

On one engine. It's 2.1%, IIRC. It's 3.3% @ 200'/nm.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Many years later I put a lady through her multi in an Aerostar 600. With only two of us and half tanks it did climb on one engine, albeit quite slowly.

I can expand on that too. I sat behind the pilot in an Aerostar one hot July evening during a checkout. We almost wiped out the tower on a single engine go-around. Never, EVER get in the back seat of a multiengine training flight!

dtuuri