ILS Emergencies OEI

[Apache123]

I'm curious if anyone here has stories to share regarding OEI on an ILS or other vertical guidance approach. I'm not instrument rated, but single-engine go-arounds/missed-approaches don't sound too terribly fun.

If you're in an emergency (OEI, or others if relevant), on an ILS with a low ceiling, would you bust minimums rather than risk being unable to go missed? Treat your minimum altitude as much higher than published just so the fudge-factor altitude is available in a single engine climb-out?

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you're in an emergency (OEI, or others if relevant), on an ILS with a low ceiling, would you bust minimums rather than risk being unable to go missed? Treat your minimum altitude as much higher than published just so the fudge-factor altitude is available in a single engine climb-out?

Depends on the airplane and weight.

If I know that I am in an airplane and my weight is such that I have the performance, I would probably go missed. If I was in a typical light twin and heavy with no expected single engine climb performance.....it would most definitely be an emergency and I'd land/put it down in the best place possible regardless of legal mins.

In a situation like that, If I find myself having to explain why I landed below mins to an FAA guy.....it means I survived

 

[comanchepilot]

why do you think that pilots always break out 'right at minimums' . . .

 

[Fearless Tower]

why do you think that pilots always break out 'right at minimums' . . .

I don't think that is what he was saying....he means, if you get to DH/MDA and don't have the field or landing environment in sight, what do you do?

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm curious if anyone here has stories to share regarding OEI on an ILS or other vertical guidance approach. I'm not instrument rated, but single-engine go-arounds/missed-approaches don't sound too terribly fun.

If you're talking light twins certified under CAR 3/Part 23, you got that exactly right. That's why you do what it says in the C-5 flight manual about single-engine go-arounds: "Plan your approach so a go-around is not required."

If you're in an emergency (OEI, or others if relevant), on an ILS with a low ceiling, would you bust minimums rather than risk being unable to go missed?

Absolutely. I'd rather crash on the runway under control than crash off the airport out of control.

Treat your minimum altitude as much higher than published just so the fudge-factor altitude is available in a single engine climb-out?

Nope. If I'm engine-out, and the only airport I can get to has weather that low, and I don't see anything but gray at DH, I'm going to grit my teeth, tighten those belts one more time, and fly the needles to touchdown.

Trying to go around OEI in a light twin is generally not feasible unless you're lightly loaded at low DA (or have turbos), and that's the main reason there is no OEI go-around on the PP/CP ME checks. If nothing else, you're probably going to bounce off the runway anyway if you start a go-around at 200 AGL. I demonstrate this to ME trainees by going up to about 2000 AGL, setting up an OEI approach, and then starting a go-around at 1500 AGL or so. Typically, they bottom out 100-200 feet below where they start, a long way down the "runway," and that usually makes the point.

 

[comanchepilot]

If I have declared an emergency hopefully I'm on a nice long runway - given that my ac has a radar altimeter I'm flying that right down to the ground. If I have an engine out or some other indicia that I may not be able to avoid obstacles or terrain climbing out I'm putting it down. I'd rather run off a runway at 10mph than hit an antenna at 100kts.

 

[bobmrg]

Just one man's opinion, but to me there is no such thing as a single-engine go around unless the engine fails at least 500 feet above the runway surface (we're talking pistons here, folks) well above blue line. Below that altitude I'm going to put it somewhere...maybe on a taxiway, maybe on the grass, who knows?

Bob Gardner

 

[jesse]

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.

 

[Captain]

ME pilots should know their performance. If a OEI missed isn't possible then that should be known going in. If I have a OEI climb rate of 300 fpm plus then I'm going missed unless this is the best I can do weather wise or fuel won't let me improve my chances.

The gritting your teeth and going below mins stuff is for when you DON'T have options. I freely admit it can happen and I'd do it. But if the plane will climb and I have fuell to get to better weather I'm going to do so.

Of course, that situation begs the question of why I'm here and not somewhere else. I don't know, maybe 'here' is my field with Mx or maybe 'here' was 'nearest suitable' a few minutes ago before the weather dropped. Point is, I'm not blanket condoning a 'No Missed Policy' when OEI.

 

[Fearless Tower]

ME pilots should know their performance. If a OEI missed isn't possible then that should be known going in.

 

[Captain]

btw, isn't a OEI missed required on the MEIR ride?

 

[poadeleted20]

ME pilots should know their performance. If a OEI missed isn't possible then that should be known going in. If I have a OEI climb rate of 300 fpm plus then I'm going missed

Is that OEI climb rate at Vy with gear and flaps up, or in landing configuration? If the former, how are you going to get from landing configuration at approach speed and a 500 ft/min or so sink rate at 200 AGL to Vy/clean/climbing? Part 25 airplanes can do that just fine, but light twins cannot.

The gritting your teeth and going below mins stuff is for when you DON'T have options. I freely admit it can happen and I'd do it. But if the plane will climb and I have fuell to get to better weather I'm going to do so.

If I was able to go somewhere else, I wouldn't be shooting the approach at this location where the weather is stinko, and approaching DA with one engine out in a light twin is not the time to be changing my mind on this.

 

[Captain]

It's also not the time to go busting mins with a plane that'll go missed.

 

[poadeleted20]

btw, isn't a OEI missed required on the MEIR ride?

No, it is not. The only ride requiring an OEI missed approach is ATP. In that case, you have to bring a plane capable of performing that task, and most light twins aren't unless you severely limit weight, especially at DA's above 5000 feet. I did my ATP-AMEL ride in a 160 Apache, but we did it with just two aboard, at sea level, with only the inboards fueled to start with, and an hour of gas out of them by the time we did the OEI missed.

 

[Captain]

When OEI should I even bother to look at the missed procedure?

My favourite CVR from a dead pilot is a Mesa 1900 Cqpain who said on the approach brief, "Going missed is not an option".

Are those words your official advice? Cause for me it's a punch line.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's also not the time to go busting mins with a plane that'll go missed.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Not too many light twins can go missed OEI from DH in landing configuration without hitting the ground first unless they are way below max gross. Lots of accidents happen when folks try that, and the accidents that occur when control is lost on an attempted go-around in a light twin are usually fatal. But yes, if I were flying what you fly for work, then I'd be happy to go missed in that situation, since you've probably got more reserve power on one engine than most light twins have on both.

 

[Captain]

I'll retract the 1900 thing. I looked around on the Google and cant find it. Might be urban legend. Besides, it's part 25 and doesn't apply.

 

[TMetzinger]

Didn't know the ATP-MEL ride required an OEI go-around. Reinforces my desire to combine it with a type rating and take the ride in a more powerful airplane or simulator thereof.

The Comm-MEL-IA ride did contain an OEI approach, but it was the last task and we landed normally.

I fully agree with everything the (more experienced) MEL pilots have said above. If I'm OEI, I'm looking first for best weather for landing. Then I'm looking for runway and equipment (crash/rescue). I don't care what my original destination was at that point.

So, for an example, if I was flying a light twin in the Metro DC area and had an engine failure where the weather is down around minimums for ceiling or visibility, I'm heading for BWI or Dulles, and I'm declaring an emergency and asking for the equipment, and I'm putting the airplane down, under control, as close to the runway and centerline as I can.

 

[Captain]

Tim, that's all fine. The issue comes up when you select IAD because the reasons you stated and it's 500' at BWI and 300' at IAD...so you pick IAD. You shoot the ILS and at mins you see nothing. My point is if the plane has the performance and fuel to go around then that's what you should do. Others here are saying (I think) that once your on the GP then it's land or die trying.

If you fly ME planes the it's seems to me that OEI ops would be something you'd try to be proficient at. And that means all phases of flight. Otherwise what's the point of burning twice the gas?

There's a time and place for riding the GP to the pavement all else be damned. But OEI in a plane with performance and fuel to spare isn't one of them. That's my only point here.

 

[jason]

Tim, that's all fine. The issue comes up when you select IAD because the reasons you stated and it's 500' at BWI and 300' at IAD...so you pick IAD. You shoot the ILS and at mins you see nothing. My point is if the plane has the performance and fuel to go around then that's what you should do. Others here are saying (I think) that once your on the GP then it's land or die trying.

If you fly ME planes the it's seems to me that OEI ops would be something you'd try to be proficient at. And that means all phases of flight. Otherwise what's the point of burning twice the gas?

There's a time and place for riding the GP to the pavement all else be damned. But OEI in a plane with performance and fuel to spare isn't one of them. That's my only point here.

Absolutely nobody has said that. They have all said (very clearly) that if you fly something where the go around isn't in question, you should go around. But in almost all light twins an OEI go around is not an option.

For somebody that complains about other people not fully reading his posts...it sure seems like you've been skimming the responses in this thread.

 

[Captain]

Meh, you may have a point.

 

[bobmrg]

Way back when, when I was writing THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, I was fortunate to have as an advisor Les Berven, the FAA test pilot/engineer who brought HQ out of the dark ages by proving that keeping the wings level and the ball in the center with an engine out raised Vmc by as much as 15 knots...and ever since that time the good word has been "approximately two degrees into the good engine with the ball half out of the cage." Needless to say, he was a super pilot/educator who died too young.

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.

Bob Gardner

 

[spiderweb]

Absolutely nobody has said that. They have all said (very clearly) that if you fly something where the go around isn't in question, you should go around. But in almost all light twins an OEI go around is not an option.

For somebody that complains about other people not fully reading his posts...it sure seems like you've been skimming the responses in this thread.

I'd like clarification of this. I only have about 10 hours in twins, and most of that in a 700 HP Twin Commander, so I'm obviously a no-nothing on this topic.

But if I were alone in, say, a Seneca--so about 700 under gross--and at sea level, would an OEI go-around be feasible?

(I know in the Twin Commander, alone, I'm A-OK!)

 

[spiderweb]

Way back when, when I was writing THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, I was fortunate to have as an advisor Les Berven, the FAA test pilot/engineer who brought HQ out of the dark ages by proving that keeping the wings level and the ball in the center with an engine out raised Vmc by as much as 15 knots...and ever since that time the good word has been "approximately two degrees into the good engine with the ball half out of the cage." Needless to say, he was a super pilot/educator who died too young.

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.

Bob Gardner

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

 

[bbchien]

I'd like clarification of this. I only have about 10 hours in twins, and most of that in a 700 HP Twin Commander, so I'm obviously a no-nothing on this topic.

But if I were alone in, say, a Seneca--so about 700 under gross--and at sea level, would an OEI go-around be feasible?

(I know in the Twin Commander, alone, I'm A-OK!)

It is, I have done it many times giving MEI training. We get about 450 fpm.

However, then we do it at MGW (newspapaer bundles), with simulated power to "zero thrust". and the eyeballs get openened tres' wide.....

At KASE, I use lesser weights and a higher than normal MAP so that I can limp on out to LINDZ on one. You have to USE YOUR HEAD.

"now why would I create a real emergency...?"

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim, that's all fine. The issue comes up when you select IAD because the reasons you stated and it's 500' at BWI and 300' at IAD...so you pick IAD. You shoot the ILS and at mins you see nothing. My point is if the plane has the performance and fuel to go around then that's what you should do. Others here are saying (I think) that once your on the GP then it's land or die trying.

If you fly ME planes the it's seems to me that OEI ops would be something you'd try to be proficient at. And that means all phases of flight. Otherwise what's the point of burning twice the gas?

There's a time and place for riding the GP to the pavement all else be damned. But OEI in a plane with performance and fuel to spare isn't one of them. That's my only point here.

I agree. But most typical ME trainers don't HAVE the performance, particularly on high or hot days. Oh, and in your scenario I'd head to BWI - best weather and equipment.

 

[spiderweb]

It is, I have done it many times giving MEI training. We get about 450 fpm.

However, then we do it at MGW (newspapaer bundles), with simulated power to "zero thrust". and the eyeballs get openened tres' wide.....

At KASE, I use lesser weights and a higher than normal MAP so that I can limp on out to LINDZ on one. You have to USE YOUR HEAD.

"now why would I create a real emergency...?"

I see. I think your demos would absolutely reinforce the importance of the approach briefing.

In light IFR, with something that can't go missed OEI at DA, you might be OK if you went missed 1000 AGL. But then there's "I'm out of fuel, and I must land--OEI or both engines out!"

 

[Everskyward]

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

That's sort of the way I look at it, but I live in Colorado.

 

[bbchien]

I see. I think your demos would absolutely reinforce the importance of the approach briefing.

In light IFR, with something that can't go missed OEI at DA, you might be OK if you went missed 1000 AGL. But then there's "I'm out of fuel, and I must land--OEI or both engines out!"

...the latter in which case the pilot, who should never have been a multi pilot to begin with, is about to become a nonpilot owing to the effects of Mr. Darwin.

10,800 at KASE on the LOC DME-E for me.

 

[spiderweb]

...the latter in which case the pilot, who should never have been a multi pilot to begin with, is about to become a nonpilot owing to the effects of Mr. Darwin.

10,800 at KASE on the LOC DME-E for me.

That approach scares me (in an NA single).

I "flew" it on a PTD a few times. You HAVE to land. Focused my attention, even though I was just sitting in a chair!

 

[ja_user]

That approach scares me (in an NA single).

I "flew" it on a PTD a few times. You HAVE to land. Focused my attention, even though I was just sitting in a chair!

I flew it in a simulator and made it to minimums and out in a 182, no way would I consider that in real life.. It wasn't pretty..

 

[Captain]

KASE:

My company, and quite a few others, do not allow landing unless we have the field by DBL. Think about that, we're professional crews with ATPs in the cockpit and we won't shoot the approach to the FAF! We don't even pass DBL without a visual on the runway!

Sometime should tell my story where I circled and landed on 33 in KASE. Its a good one.

 

[Everskyward]

KASE:

My company, and quite a few others, do not allow landing unless we have the field by DBL. Think about that, we're professional crews with ATPs in the cockpit and we won't shoot the approach to the FAF! We don't even pass DBL without a visual on the runway!

Interesting, not doubting you but I've never heard anyone else say that, and by the string of airplanes I sometimes hear shooting the approach I know many don't have that limitation.

 

[Captain]

If I'm not mistaken nearly all the fracs have that limitation. 121 has their own procedures and require special training in the sim AND they have special crews who have been checked out fly there.

Part 91 is the only I know of that actually shoot the approach.

 

[aterpster]

ME pilots should know their performance. If a OEI missed isn't possible then that should be known going in. If I have a OEI climb rate of 300 fpm plus then I'm going missed unless this is the best I can do weather wise or fuel won't let me improve my chances.

300 feet per minute is rate of climb. Climb gradient is what matters. That is sometimes difficult to determine. If you can't make good a climb gradient of at least 200 feet per nautical mile you may hit something during the missed approach, then it's all over. And, that has to be not less than 200 feet of climb gradient to the top of the missed approach procedure.

More and more missed approach procedures in areas with terrain issues have climb gradient missed approach procedures, which are stated on the chart.

If you are fortunate enough to be in TRACON airspace that has an emergency obstruction video map (EOVM), you're in radar contact, and the controller is sharp, then the EOVM can sometimes make a "save" when the airplane isn't performing.

Even the airlines, with their Part 25 jets that are guaranteed to go-around and climb with OEI may not be able to make good the missed approach at some airports. But, they have a surveyed, engineered alternative to the public missed approach procedure in that case.

With all the LPV IAPs around these days, that is the best option. All LPVs are rock solid to the runway. That cannot be said for many ILS IAPs. LPV and HIRLs and chances are you will see the runway lights in time.

 

[aterpster]

...the latter in which case the pilot, who should never have been a multi pilot to begin with, is about to become a nonpilot owing to the effects of Mr. Darwin.

10,800 at KASE on the LOC DME-E for me.

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

Didn't know the ATP-MEL ride required an OEI go-around.

Missed approach, not go-around. Go-around could be from just before touchdown, but missed approach will be from no lower than DA/MDA.

The Comm-MEL-IA ride did contain an OEI approach, but it was the last task and we landed normally.

Usually structured that way because of the examiner's sense of self-preservation.

 

[TMetzinger]

Missed approach, not go-around. Go-around could be from just before touchdown, but missed approach will be from no lower than DA/MDA.

Usually structured that way because of the examiner's sense of self-preservation.

See, when I was doing the multi, I considered myself committed to landing at 500 AGL when OEI. So a Go-around would have been initiated HIGHER than a missed approach on the ILS.

If a deer ran out in front of my seminole on very short final OEI, I wasn't going around. I might manuever or slow my descent if possible but I was not going to attempt to climb. Different airplane or conditions would give a different answer.

 

[poadeleted20]

See, when I was doing the multi, I considered myself committed to landing at 500 AGL when OEI.

Good way to think of things.

So a Go-around would have been initiated HIGHER than a missed approach on the ILS.

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.

 

[Everskyward]

If I'm not mistaken nearly all the fracs have that limitation. 121 has their own procedures and require special training in the sim AND they have special crews who have been checked out fly there.

Part 91 is the only I know of that actually shoot the approach.

135 you can shoot it to the published minimums.