Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

SEP engine failure in IMC, and flying an IAP with no engine power

Back to the roots (of this thread):

Setting up for approach, when engine started vibrating, then quit.

If the engine quits before entering approach, I should think there are enroute procedures to deal with such an occurence..?

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

2015 guidance tech could design power-off approaches but time and money would be a lot better spent on upgrading 1940es engine tech and making it more reliable, rather than essentially designing an approach commensurate with each type of plane’s glide characteristics.

But i am assured time and again that engine technology has reached its pinnacle.

There’s some truth there. But the money spent on improving the engine would ultimately be paid by the owner/pilot, whose budget is already summoned from many sides. The 7 degree ILS approach procedure should be created and certified and financed by those same authorities who are virtually obliging all of us to spend a lot of money on electronics that we don’t really need or have asked for (8,33? mode S?). We may expect to get something in return, I should think?

Last Edited by at 29 Jun 17:59
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

Jan_Olieslagers wrote:

And doesn’t 2015 technology allow for the creation of some that can?
If so, why isn’t it happening?

How would you set up a glide slope that would work powered off for different aircraft with different glide ratios?

And of course this would lead to a lot of shock cooled engines too.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

First – nobody will design and test a procedure jets / turboprops won’t fly. If they do – worry not the bill will be passed for those who ask for it e.g. piston GA.

Second – this still doesn’t solve the original problem. The problem isn’t approach procedure but engine reliability. The engine could have vibrated and failed anywhere mid-cruise – you can’t design a 7* slope leading to a suitable impact surface for every point on earth.

Re – shock cooled engines, I think normal engine shutdowns should lead to a lot more shock cooling incidents than idle descents :-)

Last Edited by Shorrick_Mk2 at 29 Jun 18:12

Search for Roads or River/Lake and the last 2.000ft AGL I would drop out at fast as possibel. With 150KIAS I can fly to a spot, with 80KIAS I only drop in the Ground :-)

That way you also make sure, that it’s all over soon, if the clouds are 0ft GND.

EDLE

How would you set up a glide slope that would work powered off for different aircraft with different glide ratios?

By deciding for a rather high value that could serve most while of course never being able to serve all?
Or even have the glide slope variable, and to be declared (together with the approach IAS, perhaps, if that is really needed) in the IFR flight plan, which is subject to validation?

And of course this would lead to a lot of shock cooled engines too.

Here I gladly second Shorrick as regarding improvements to engine technology. Those who decide to depend on delicate technology will have to take their own choices. But I understand that able pilots can deal with this issue today, why couldn’t they tomorrow? The one point of focus being to slow down enough soon enough?

Last Edited by at 29 Jun 18:32
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

this still doesn’t solve the original problem. The problem isn’t approach procedure but engine reliability.

That’s not what I read – I read a story about the engine quitting when setting up for approach. Any pilot unable to deal with the engine quitting enroute in the given conditions shouldn’t leave their home field’s circuit in the given conditions.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

I don’t know many pilots who could deal with an engine failure in an alpine region… let’s be realistic.

The engine didn’t quit “because it was being set up for approach”. What if the engine fails one minute before reaching the “power-off TOD”? Back to square one – which isn’t approach slope but engine reliability.

The engine didn’t quit “because it was being set up for approach”.

No, the pilot failed. In the given conditions. Which included “setting up for the aproach”. Pilots are supposed to be able to deal with an engine failure, in/under all conditions. Always have a plan B, remember? This pilot was flying in conditions she/he couldn’t manage. Likely enough, no pilot could have managed. But applying state of the art technology, the pilot would never have needed to be in these conditions.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top