Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Technical
Engine failure on final approach >

Engine failure on final approach

Notices
Technical Technical aspects of flying

Engine failure on final approach

Old 04-17-2023, 08:24 AM
  #21  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 37,798
Default

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
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-19-2023, 12:21 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,539
Default

Originally Posted by firefighterplt View Post
100% depends on the airplane and the situation.

In the F/A-18, if I lose an engine (especially #2) and Iím not otherwise in extremis (fuel state, fire, etc), Iím getting away from the ground, getting things suitcased, coming up with a good gameplan, and then executing said gameplan.

I donít like to be reconfiguring, securing engines, running EPs, etc in close proximity to the ground unless itís VERY necessary.


edit: just realized you said part 121. My bad. Anyway, Iíll leave my line of thinking as food for thought.
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!
sailingfun is offline  
Old 04-21-2023, 12:15 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 797
Default

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
joepilot is offline  
Old 04-23-2023, 10:25 AM
  #24  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 37,798
Default

Originally Posted by joepilot View Post
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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-23-2023, 01:04 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hrkdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Fairly local
Posts: 1,432
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Probably the same for the B-52. Assuming they'd even notice one had failed.
Ugh! The dreaded 7-engine approach! 🤣
Hrkdrivr is offline  
Old 04-29-2023, 01:03 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,183
Default

Originally Posted by joepilot View Post
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
Yes, all things considered. Moving flaps on short approach is guesswork. https://youtu.be/Io71Bh-9bUs
METO Guido is offline  
Old 05-07-2023, 02:03 PM
  #27  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Rather not say
Posts: 17
Default

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 40į to 25į and setting Vref+20 if a safe landing wasnít already assured. I honestly donít think too many people really thought about that checklist very much. I donít think I ever heard an instructor or check pilot mention it. It wasnít 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 400í 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.
CrawData is offline  
Old 05-07-2023, 04:00 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by CrawData View Post
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 40į to 25į and setting Vref+20 if a safe landing wasnít already assured. I honestly donít think too many people really thought about that checklist very much. I donít think I ever heard an instructor or check pilot mention it. It wasnít 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 400í 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).
EMAW is offline  
Old 05-17-2023, 08:33 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2021
Posts: 319
Default

Originally Posted by MysteriousMrX View Post
My understanding: *outside* the final approach fix... if you were to lose an engine, you go missed and work the checklists and come around again.
*inside* the final approach fix, you continue and land.
yes/no? (This is part 121, if that makes a difference)
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.
Nordhavn is offline  
Old 05-17-2023, 10:11 AM
  #30  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,391
Default

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.
JohnBurke is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KennyG1700
Flight Schools and Training
40
08-01-2019 12:53 AM
BFMthisA10
Flight Schools and Training
18
07-16-2018 10:47 AM
Chris516
Hangar Talk
16
01-22-2016 08:40 PM
TheFly
Safety
2
09-28-2012 06:31 AM
BEWELCH
Flight Schools and Training
43
03-21-2007 09:42 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread