































Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
Just because "its not done" doesn't mean it wasn't.pdw wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:30 am The answer to earlier/similar questioning about doing that is "No". Not done.
No need to practise if an examiner isn't going there / doing one of those down too low.
_______________
Another Q:
If one fails just as gear starts going in / selected UP after rotation, what is the added speed interruption (just for that power draw) under the remaining engine's power as the other feathers?
Whenever I get training in a light twin, I verbally confirm that the instructor is not going to do something stupid like that. Not worth the risk.
Completely baseless speculation, I think.shamrock104 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:35 am Where did the info come about the Instructor failing an engine after takeoff? The call for "immediate right circuit" also a little out of the ordinary so I am guessing whatever went wrong did so before this call was made.
That’s the “likely” scenario, not the actual scenario. Please learn to read.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:29 pm Jesus... so the instruxtor elected to simulate an engine failire on takeoff at less than 400’AGL??! Problem the first.
I’ll have you know I recently learned how to read at a grade three level!CFM Symphony wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:09 pmThat’s the “likely” scenario, not the actual scenario. Please learn to read.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:29 pm Jesus... so the instruxtor elected to simulate an engine failire on takeoff at less than 400’AGL??! Problem the first.
cncpc wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:19 pm I've had a look at that ground driving by. It seems that if it really was a failed engine, the instructor could have pulled the other one back and landed parallel to those power lines. If it was simulated, why not just advance the other throttle and carry on?
Something doesn't calculate.
I am abit fuzzy. If neither engine is producing thrust, how does Vmc figure into it?. Seems like perhaps the instructor failed an engine on takeoff and the student misidentified the dead engine and feathered the wrong one, in the confusion dropped below VMC and that was all she wrote?
What are you talking about - turbocharger issues? No, flight schools generally use reduced power takeoffs (most I've heard of use 36 inches on the Seneca) to avoid over boosting. Right from the Seneca III POH is the warning in the amplified general procedures, that the Ray Jay's have an overpressure relief valve that prevents the manifold pressure going beyond 42 inches. The thought behind using reduced power is to lessen the chance of students used to flying naturally aspirated aircraft from fire walling the throttle and blowing the valves...pelmet wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:48 pm I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.
You've got an instructor who (most likely) simulated an engine failure at some point before reaching 200' AGL (seeing how the maximum altitude was 250' AGL). By the time the aircraft reached 250' AGL, airspeed had decayed to 70 knots - lower than the POH listed VSSE of 85 KIAS (at least in the Seneca III).TSB wrote:The density altitude was calculated at 2238 feet ASL at the time of the accident
After takeoff with an engine failure (and continuing the takeoff), Piper notes:TSB wrote:The aircraft continued for another 30 seconds, with an average descent rate of 200 feet per minute (fpm) and an airspeed of just under 70 KCAS.
Shortly thereafter;Piper wrote:When a climb is established RETRACT the landing gear, accelerate to 92KIAS (VYSE)and FEATHER the inoperative engine
In the Seneca III VMC is listed as 66 KIAS. At this point in the lead up to the collision with terrain there was no hope of recovery, as the aircraft had entered a VMS roll.TSB wrote:The aircraft then entered a tight descending and rolling left turn approximately 300 feet north of hydroelectric power lines that were running in an east–west direction. The estimated airspeed dropped to about 65 KCAS when the aircraft was at an altitude of about 100 feet AGL
Emphasis is mine.Piper wrote:Should an engine fail during flight at an airspeed below 66 KIAS, apply rudder towards the operative engine to maintain directional control. The throttles should be retarded to stop the yaw force produced by the inoperative engine. Lower the nose of the aircraft to accelerate above 66 KIAS and increase the power on the operative engine as the airspeed exceeds 66 KIAS.
Straight from the report:
TSB wrote:Minimum control speed (VMC) roll
A VMC roll is a rapid roll at an airspeed below VMC. It occurs due to insufficient yaw control available to counter the thrust produced by the operating engine. A sudden application of power on the operating engine accelerates any imminent VMC roll condition. At that point, the airplane quickly rolls toward the non-operating engine.
Of course they are going to list the RCMP as a contact for witnesses. The general public probably doesn't know what TSB stands for let alone who they are and how to get hold of them. Crime Stoppers is just a non emergency avenue for callers to give tips, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a crime. I suppose the RCMP would then call the TSB with any new info.
I'm talking about exactly what I correctly said......due to the turboocharger issue(ie turbochargers installated), they used reduced power for takeoff. Flight schools(can't speak for most of them) likely don't use reduced power for takeoff in most cases because most have normally aspirated twins. None of the several that I have flown at do. However, it appears that the occasional school or at least this one does use reduced power for takeoff due to turbocharger issues(ie installation). Pretty straight forward huh?7ECA wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:50 pmWhat are you talking about - turbocharger issues? No, flight schools generally use reduced power takeoffs (most I've heard of use 36 inches on the Seneca) to avoid over boosting. Right from the Seneca III POH is the warning in the amplified general procedures, that the Ray Jay's have an overpressure relief valve that prevents the manifold pressure going beyond 42 inches. The thought behind using reduced power is to lessen the chance of students used to flying naturally aspirated aircraft from fire walling the throttle and blowing the valves...pelmet wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:48 pm I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.
Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)7ECA wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:50 pmAs for high density altitude, bull.pelmet wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:48 pm I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.
From the report:
TSB wrote:The density altitude was calculated at 2238 feet ASL at the time of the accident
Not at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?
Springbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation, no?pelmet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:35 am Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)
7ECA wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:19 pmNot at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?
Springbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation - on a normal takeoff, no?pelmet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:35 am Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)
Whatever...the fact that they had turbos was a possible reason for the reduced power setting. Not really interested in useless posts arguing about the word issue(even though the meaning is obvious). ...right?7ECA wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:19 pmNot at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?
7ECA wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:19 pmSpringbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation - on a normal takeoff, no?pelmet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:35 am Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)