Yeah best to just land unless you're going into a questionable available stopping distance, and don't have time to run numbers.

Landing > OEI Missed > EMAS

I did not know an engine failure in a hornet was even an emergency! Of chose having only a 5000 FPM rate of climb single engine at landing weights can be a issue!

With a simple engine failure (not fire or severe engine damage), on the 747, continue and land using NORMAL procedures and flap settings. Missed approach procedures remain the same as all engines operating.

Joe

Probably the same for the B-52. Assuming they'd even notice one had failed.

Ugh! The dreaded 7-engine approach! 🤣

Yes, all things considered. Moving flaps on short approach is guesswork. https://youtu.be/Io71Bh-9bUs

My $.02 to add in is that considerations in this case can be very type-specific as well. When I flew the Hawker, there was a checklist for an engine failure in the landing configuration that called for moving the flaps from 40° to 25° and setting Vref+20 if a safe landing wasn’t already assured. I honestly don’t think too many people really thought about that checklist very much. I don’t think I ever heard an instructor or check pilot mention it. It wasn’t a memory item but I absolutely think it should have been. You can imagine what a mess it could be for someone to lose an engine at 400’ on final, fully configured, and to not know about this legitimate procedure to get rid of some of that drag.

The point to my post: It absolutely pays to really comb through that QRH and have type-specific discussions like these about the scenario the OP brought up. Good question, OP.

The citation X is the same way. 35 - 15 and land. You need to have an understanding of what the speed required does in that situation, but staying ahead of the low-speed awareness tape never fails (provided all other systems are operating correctly).

It is completely dependent on the situation. If you fly through a flock of birds and one engine fails, how likely is the other to give you problems? Does it make sense to go around in this situation? Probably not. What is the weather like? Are you stabilized? It is an unanswerable hypothetical.

There aren't a lot of scenarios in which it makes much sense to be on final, briefed and prepared to land, and upon experiencing an engine failure, execute a single engine-go around.

Certainly the circumstances dictate, and a major system shift might dictate a need to get away, get up, and get right, but for the most part, if one is landing, has a runway in front, is going downhill and toward that runway, and already has a plan, it trumps most other considerations. The devil you know is better than the one you don't; the open runway ahead is a safer alternative in most cases to abandoning the approach to go re-invent the wheel.

What caused one engine to fail may cause the other to go. Notify ATC, press on, land. Even with a V1 cut, we don't do a lot, even if the engine is on fire, until we reach a safe or clean-up altitude on climb-out. With an engine-loss on approach, arguably less critical, there's not a whole lot to re-think as we continue our descent to a long, safe runway.