Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/4/2012 7:55:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 2:22:02 PM EDT by a555]
I'm surprised I didn't see this one come through here yet. If it's a dupe, go ahead and lock it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmomTUVsAw
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 8:48:28 AM EDT
Yep, that's the way it works.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:30:41 AM EDT

Doing Vmc demos for 6 hours a day as a MEI, good times!
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 11:44:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 1:40:12 PM EDT by CFII]
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:14:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


But VMC rollover demos are damn fun


A VMC rollover can be thought of as a form of, or properly, an entry to, accelerated stall/spin (or in this case, an unaccelerated stall.)
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:24:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:26:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 1:26:58 PM EDT by Screechjet1]
Originally Posted By CFII:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


But VMC rollover demos are damn fun


A VMC rollover can be thought of as a form of, or properly, an entry to, accelerated stall/spin (or in this case, an unaccelerated stall.)


Well look at the brain on your shoulders

I can see how a VMC rollover is an E ticket to a spin. I said that was an accelerated stall simply cause it looked like that bird was trying to turn is all.


You have no idea how scary it was to type that!

"What if I'm wrong? What if V21 comes in shows me my ass?"
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:30:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


Turn on your speakers. Either someone next to camera guy was banging on a drum or #1engine was running like crap.
Hard to tell from the video, but it almost looks like the prop on the left is windmilling when it rolls inverted.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:31:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By deltaheavy:
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


Turn on your speakers. Either someone next to camera guy was banging on a drum or #1engine was running like crap.
Hard to tell from the video, but it almost looks like the prop on the left is windmilling when it rolls inverted.


Very likely...windmilling prop being the highest drag configuration.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:33:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 1:39:26 PM EDT by CFII]
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:12:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 2:13:02 PM EDT by Frank_The_Tank]
What was that? Video was too blurry for me to make out the make/model.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:16:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:26:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
What was that? Video was too blurry for me to make out the make/model.


Queen Air maybe?


Seconded.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:33:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


But VMC rollover demos are damn fun


A VMC rollover can be thought of as a form of, or properly, an entry to, accelerated stall/spin (or in this case, an unaccelerated stall.)


Very true - and a good way to look at it. The "event" can happen very quickly and can happen at speeds far higher than many pilots realize due to different configurations of the aircraft. Many people have not actually maneuvered multi-engine aircraft around in a engine inoperative configuration. Their engine inoperative training consisted of an ILS to a landing with zero-thrust set by the DPE or instructor, engine shutdown and re-start, and VMC demo.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:36:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 2:52:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
Originally Posted By NY32:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By CFII:
Hmm, Just looked like an accelerated stall to me


But VMC rollover demos are damn fun


A VMC rollover can be thought of as a form of, or properly, an entry to, accelerated stall/spin (or in this case, an unaccelerated stall.)


Very true - and a good way to look at it. The "event" can happen very quickly and can happen at speeds far higher than many pilots realize due to different configurations of the aircraft. Many people have not actually maneuvered multi-engine aircraft around in a engine inoperative configuration. Their engine inoperative training consisted of an ILS to a landing with zero-thrust set by the DPE or instructor, engine shutdown and re-start, and VMC demo.


So true. I was lucky to have a buddy who let me fly his Duchess around with a dead engine for a good 5 hours total.

Weird shit.

But I fly helicopters now, even weirder shit


That is about 5x the amount of engine inoperative training most people get in light twins. If students have an "edgy" instructor they might be allowed to do a 180 turn with an engine set at zero thrust with a bank not to exceed 10*...
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:05:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NY32:
That is about 5x the amount of engine inoperative training most people get in light twins. If students have an "edgy" instructor they might be allowed to do a 180 turn with an engine set at zero thrust with a bank not to exceed 10*...


The first time I ever soloed a twin the critical engine blew, I had paying passengers on board to boot.

As a result I abused the hell out of my students. They spent at least 60% of their time on one engine maneuvering and flying the pattern to the runway.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:34:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By esa17:
Originally Posted By NY32:
That is about 5x the amount of engine inoperative training most people get in light twins. If students have an "edgy" instructor they might be allowed to do a 180 turn with an engine set at zero thrust with a bank not to exceed 10*...


The first time I ever soloed a twin the critical engine blew, I had paying passengers on board to boot.


Ha Ha. The critical engine is the one that is still running.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:01:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By esa17:
Originally Posted By NY32:
That is about 5x the amount of engine inoperative training most people get in light twins. If students have an "edgy" instructor they might be allowed to do a 180 turn with an engine set at zero thrust with a bank not to exceed 10*...


The first time I ever soloed a twin the critical engine blew, I had paying passengers on board to boot.

As a result I abused the hell out of my students. They spent at least 60% of their time on one engine maneuvering and flying the pattern to the runway.


Any ME training should pretty much be done SE just about all the time. Otherwise, its training value is nil.

The big fear for me was always a SE stall/spin developing into a flat spin, versus a spiral...I never thought that counteracting the flat spin with opposite turn power would work effectively.

The Army crashed more than a few Barons, Queen Aires and Twin Beeches in Vmc accidents, esp. when overloaded, or allowing full SE stalls to develop. One of the poignant moments I've experienced was watching a ground instructor I had, a multi tour Vietnam Vet, nearly break down discussing such an accident that killed his friend, at Ft. Riley, I believe.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:08:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:30:28 PM EDT
Aerodynamics of fixed wing aircraft, particularly multi-engine aren't my strong suit, however I do have a friend/former co-worker who recently survived an engine failure in a Seminole on takeoff while working as an instructor. This was the one up at BFI in WA.

Poor girl, word is she had just gotten hired on with an regional carrier, and was just waiting for her start date when the accident occurred. But she lived. I left that company shortly before that happend, so I haven't talked to her about it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:32:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:40:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
Originally Posted By itgoesboom:
Aerodynamics of fixed wing aircraft, particularly multi-engine aren't my strong suit, however I do have a friend/former co-worker who recently survived an engine failure in a Seminole on takeoff while working as an instructor. This was the one up at BFI in WA.

Poor girl, word is she had just gotten hired on with an regional carrier, and was just waiting for her start date when the accident occurred. But she lived. I left that company shortly before that happend, so I haven't talked to her about it.


She is quite lucky to be walking. That is the aerodynamic reality of a Seminole's 200fpm climb, maybe

That bad, huh? I've never flown in one as far as I can remember.

I guess she got inverted pretty quickly and struck another aircraft. Gotta be a scary situation.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:56:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
In summary....light twins suck. They kill more than their fair share of experienced pilots.


But mostly folks who lack the requisite experience and training. I'd be much happier banging around IFR in a Baron or Seminole versus a Bonanza or Arrow. I've also got much more time in light twins than most, and I've flown with people who spent two years at AirNet flying Aerostars and Barons in the worst weather imaginable, on a schedule. It can be done, safely.

Richard Collins, for one, made his living with the "Twins suck" mantra, zipping around in a C210. I always felt he was trying to demostrate something that was demonstrably untrue.

Flying anything unprofessionally will kill you dead as disco; a twin just discovers your weak point faster.

What sucks more? Pilots thinking they are always able to fly a twin on one engine. Sometimes you should just pull back the levers and glide her in.


I can't think of a situation immediately where that would be appropriate, assuming no significant damage to the airframe and the a/c broadly within W/B. Not to call you out, but a crash at -200 fpm is always better than one at -1000 fpm, which is about what a SE light twin lightly loaded was, IIRC. Perhaps securing the engine at the last moment might be appropriate under very narrow conditions, but that's about it.


Link Posted: 1/4/2012 7:00:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 7:11:02 PM EDT by CFII]
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 7:15:01 PM EDT
Does anyone know why they were being filmed or what the background of that was?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 7:24:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:

However, I do not like the esentially untested or unproven single engine performance of many twins. I think it can be a false safety blanket to many pilots.

150hp Apache?


Be there, done that. I actually like the Apache, but I've only a couple of hours in a Geronimo. Got about 100 hours of Apache time, total.

Its actually a Twin Stinson. Piper bought the design, and turned it into a metal airplane from rag and wood.

I didn't know that about the Aztec. The Apaches had similar setup, where you could be a pumping fool, depending.

As far as the SE performance, we get back to training. I think even more than performance, there are few light twins that are full seat/full bags/full gas aircraft, but they will perform that way happliy on two engines. Plenty of guys see a Baron and think they are in a King Air. Plenty of King Air pilots and owners see their King Air and think its a C-130.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:24:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By CFII:

However, I do not like the esentially untested or unproven single engine performance of many twins. I think it can be a false safety blanket to many pilots.

150hp Apache?


Be there, done that. I actually like the Apache, but I've only a couple of hours in a Geronimo. Got about 100 hours of Apache time, total.

Its actually a Twin Stinson. Piper bought the design, and turned it into a metal airplane from rag and wood.

I didn't know that about the Aztec. The Apaches had similar setup, where you could be a pumping fool, depending.

As far as the SE performance, we get back to training. I think even more than performance, there are few light twins that are full seat/full bags/full gas aircraft, but they will perform that way happliy on two engines. Plenty of guys see a Baron and think they are in a King Air. Plenty of King Air pilots and owners see their King Air and think its a C-130.


The training issue regarding single engine performance is very real. Ask on a flight review (rated m/e pilots) what your single engine climb gradient is on a light twin under current conditions. The answer you will get from 90% is "what's that mean" or "where is that chart". Then when you get to the aircraft and give them an engine failure 75% of them will not pull the propeller to feather, they have been conditioned to NOT put it in feather due to the instructor / DPE being Mr. busy hands / zero thrust setter and doing it for them. And your second point, I flew a BE-58 on 135 some years ago. The "manager" thought that if it had six seats you could book six seats and bags. You couldn't explain to him that it was a four place airplane on a good day and sometimes even a three place plane. "What, I have seen it take off like that before"...



Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:25:36 AM EDT
More often than not it is the fault of the pilot and not the poor performance of light twins that result in the thud.
The most common error is trying to use aileron to maintain wings level instead of rudder and trying to climb when more altitude is really not needed.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:27:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:43:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
In that video, the pilot was obviously very slow, and she started to VMC roll.


What would be your response to that, other than not getting into that situation in the first place?

Rudder into the roll, idle the power, split-S out of it and bang Kelly McGillis while a mech pulls limbs and leaves out of the belly.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 7:48:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 7:49:11 AM EDT by regalrocket]
My home airport had a guy come in in wi a real life single engine situation. Ceilings were 2,000 feet. He shot the approach, but was a little high. So he climbs BACK INTO the clouds, when he could have easily circled VMC. 10 seconds later he came out of the clouds in a spin. Killed 4.

Its such an easy thing to fix. Turn the sucker into a glider. And once your VMC, stay VMC.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:30:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 9:35:08 AM EDT by deltaheavy]
I'll be the grammar Nazi here and point out that Vmc and VMC are not the same thing.
Lots of acronym abuse going on in this thread. (Comment not directed at post above.)
Now I'll go re-apply the hemorrhoid cream...ahh, soothing.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:38:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:48:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:51:30 AM EDT
One of the worst was the American DC-10 at Chicago many years back. When the engine failed there was enough extra "smash" to fly, but procedures at that time dictated slowing to V2+15 or 20 (I'm not sure of the exact number). As speed was reduced the airplane became uncontrollable because of the structural damage. If they had just leveled off and held what they had it would have stayed in the air. Monday morning is the best day to be quarterback.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 9:55:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:36:03 AM EDT
I have to imagine that at some point after the stall of the left wing of AAL191, one of the flight crew looked over at the Control Surface Position Indicator and realized just how fucked they were.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 12:30:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 12:37:30 PM EDT by deltaheavy]
Originally Posted By ElSupremo:

When the engine failed there was enough extra "smash" to fly, but procedures at that time dictated slowing to V2+15 or 20 (I'm not sure of the exact number).


AA DC-10 Operating Manual procedure at the time for takeoff engine failure was climb at V2 to 800 ft or obstacle clearance altitude, then level off to gain airspeed.
Slats should remain extended until at least V2 + 50 knots. With the slats retracted, the left wing lost lift as they slowed through V2 + 6, or 159 kts according to the NTSB accident report.
Simulator re-creations of the event revealed that the aircraft was flyable in that configuration, but not if it were flown "by the book."

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 2:48:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CFII:
I like your plan. It was mostly a rhetorical question. I an twin rated, so I know the "proper" response, but that guy was REAL low, and by the time he stopped the yaw and leveled the wing.....I fear the ground was going to happen. No matter what.


While not an aerodynamic coffin-corner I think that's pretty much what the pilot painted himself into. That just reinforces the old adage: Keep thy airspeed up lest the ground rise up from below and smite thee.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:43:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By deltaheavy:
Originally Posted By ElSupremo:

When the engine failed there was enough extra "smash" to fly, but procedures at that time dictated slowing to V2+15 or 20 (I'm not sure of the exact number).


AA DC-10 Operating Manual procedure at the time for takeoff engine failure was climb at V2 to 800 ft or obstacle clearance altitude, then level off to gain airspeed.
Slats should remain extended until at least V2 + 50 knots. With the slats retracted, the left wing lost lift as they slowed through V2 + 6, or 159 kts according to the NTSB accident report.
Simulator re-creations of the event revealed that the aircraft was flyable in that configuration, but not if it were flown "by the book."



Thanks for the exact info. I am not typed in the DC-10. I did sit through many "industry" discussions of that and every other accident up to the year of our Lord 2000.

Maintain aircraft control
Evaluate the situation
Take the appropriate action

That's a mouth full and not always intuitively obvious. Some good pilots and friends that I have known over the years were dealt hands that I probably could not have played either.



Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:49:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NY32:
Very true - and a good way to look at it. The "event" can happen very quickly and can happen at speeds far higher than many pilots realize due to different configurations of the aircraft. Many people have not actually maneuvered multi-engine aircraft around in a engine inoperative configuration. Their engine inoperative training consisted of an ILS to a landing with zero-thrust set by the DPE or instructor, engine shutdown and re-start, and VMC demo.


True.

My commercial/multi CFI made me do more than just the minimums with a dead engine. Which was good. Because I lost an engine, for real, about year after getting the rating. It would appear that the pilot in the video either didn't have the time or simply forgot to "identify, verify, secure".

Link Posted: 1/6/2012 6:26:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By esa17:
Originally Posted By CFII:
I like your plan. It was mostly a rhetorical question. I an twin rated, so I know the "proper" response, but that guy was REAL low, and by the time he stopped the yaw and leveled the wing.....I fear the ground was going to happen. No matter what.


While not an aerodynamic coffin-corner I think that's pretty much what the pilot painted himself into. That just reinforces the old adage: Keep thy airspeed up lest the ground rise up from below and smite thee.


Yep. One the big critical elements of SE ops in ME aircraft is absolute airspeed control.

Speaking of engine out operations, my father and I were talking about Single engine approaches, in the 707. Vref was in the 160s, IIRC, in order to preserve the ability to go around and rudder effectiveness.
Link Posted: 1/7/2012 6:18:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:Speaking of engine out operations, my father and I were talking about Single engine approaches, in the 707. Vref was in the 160s, IIRC, in order to preserve the ability to go around and rudder effectiveness.




I know our DC-10s had single engine performance tables on the FE's desk, but I always thought they were distinctly optimistic...

Link Posted: 1/7/2012 6:53:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mryenko:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:Speaking of engine out operations, my father and I were talking about Single engine approaches, in the 707. Vref was in the 160s, IIRC, in order to preserve the ability to go around and rudder effectiveness.




I know our DC-10s had single engine performance tables on the FE's desk, but I always thought they were distinctly optimistic...



Try it in the sim sometime. Close to a reasonable landing weight at sea level, and I bet you could pull it off.

TWA had a fan come off of No. 1 on a L1011, fly out and FOD the No. 3 over ABQ. The crew elected to continue to LAX versus diverting to ABQ because they could do a go-around out to sea at LAX on a single engine.

They held altitude in the 20s on the way over, but the SE service ceiling for climb was 3000'.
Top Top