Ground speed at touchdown was 104 knots.

Wind was 120 at 11 gust 13 as reported on the video. That makes the headwind 4 knots with negligible gust.

That makes my landing airspeed 108. Vref was about 102.

No great penalty for being a bit fast.

Not like a jet.

Mike C.

Your change occurs at 50 ft.

In both cases, you are visual when the change is executed. You are no longer flying an approach on instruments, you are landing visually. If you can't handle that from 200 ft, you got bigger problems.

Mike C.

The MU2 is no different. You use Vxse only when obstacles are an issue.


The POH recommends no slower than Vxse. That seems obvious. It doesn't say fly AT Vxse.


I'm not sure what planet you are from, but you aren't describing how MU2s fly on this one.

Mike C.

The POH recommends no slower than Vxse. That seems obvious. It doesn't say fly AT Vxse.


I'm not sure what planet you are from, but you aren't describing how MU2s fly on this one.

Mike C.[/quote]

I am not sure what planet I was on when I wrote that?

VXSE is not the normal departure speed.

My bad!

I still don’t understand using VYSE on approach it is a speed used when SE and climbing not an approach speed.

On the video you just posted what could have happened that would have caused you to execute a single engine go around?

If I felt a prop NTSing on that approach I would continue and land. Only if I was flying an approach that was below minimums would I consider performing a SE GA. I rarely fly an approach reported below mins in my Commander, so a very unlikely event.

I would suggest that at least some of those accidents you posted were caused from flying unstable approaches not from being too slow. You should consider that getting too slow is also not flying a stable approach.

Unfortunately Pascal accident had unstable written all over it.[/quote]

______________________________________________________________________

I guess the SFAR felt that approaching at VYSE (two engine) wasn't fast enough for approach? If approaching at 135 and an engine quits, say half way down the glide slope, what is the target speed then?

Because you may need to change from doing the approach to climbing single engine. Being under Vyse puts you in a low energy state for that transition. There's no operational or safety penalty for being at Vyse on the approach, unlike a jet.


An engine failure in IMC.


The miss should always be the EXPECTED outcome, the landing the happy EXCEPTION.

Let's take the video flight as an example, landing about 1849Z.

ATIS alpha 1824Z: wind 110 at 11, visibility 1 3/4, light rain mist, ceiling 1100 overcast.

My field check on approach: wind 120 at 11 gust 13, Citation 35 minutes ago (~1810Z) broke out at 650. Note that this is before the ATIS time.

So, no problem, right? Well above minimums, right? Latest weather says 1100 ft ceiling.

What did I get? Basically right at minimums in medium to heavy rain, ceiling about 400 ft, visibility about 1. Pretty close to a missed.

You can't assume the landing. Period.

So if an engine quits, do you want to get down to very close to the ground to start a missed, or do it early when you got altitude to play with?

It is better, in some cases, to execute the missed early if an engine fails than try to salvage the approach. In this case, had the engine failed at, say, 600 ft, I'm executing a single engine missed rather than try to complete an approach to minimums while dealing with an engine failure in IMC.

My default tendency is to go around if an engine fails if I am in IMC on the final approach segment. Years of sim training have shown me that is the less stressful and easier way out. You may find a way to restart the failed engine, so you can land with both again. You may elect to now choose a better/longer airport/runway for an SE landing than where you were going. You may decide to find better weather. And a host of other options if you go around.

It is, however, not wrong to continue if you feel that is the right strategy. If, for example, you felt the failure of one engine indicates the other one might go soon, you would continue. Or if the failure came with fire or some other urgency. I think this is a tactical decision you make in the moment.

Mike C.

I think This is the essence of your reason to fly an approach at VYSE and slow at MDA.

If under 1000ft in approach I would chose to continue the approach SE in my Commander.

Much simpler and easier than executing a SE GA.

If I needed to go miss at MDA SE I have to ability to do so.

This could be the difference in our airplanes you might need to make a configuration changes that impact your ability to make a SE GA at low altitude.

Maybe next time you are in the sim work on low level SE GA and engine failures on approach followed by a landing instead of a GA.

In the Commander neither maneuver is that difficult and just landing is the easiest.

I think it depends mostly on the assumed nature of the failure as Mike had indicated. In addition, for me, a large part of my decision would also depend on what the ATIS was indicating. I don't want to continue a SE approach below 400 AGL unless I know I will be getting in (or if forced due to fire/critical fuel, then I'm landing regardless of the visibility using synthetic vision). So if the field is close to or at minimums and I loose one anywhere during the approach, I'd execute the missed, clean things up, gather my thoughts and go elsewhere if possible. If it's reporting a 600 foot ceiling with minimums at 200 and unlimited visibility below the undercast, I'd probably continue.

Okay, here's the setup:

ATIS says 1100 overcast, 1.75 mile visibility, light rain, mist.

Approach is 345 ft MDA, 1 mile visibility.

Engine fails at 800 ft. This is what you see at that moment:

Continue or abort?

Note that this is already below ATIS ceiling report. Hmm. Now you know the ATIS report is wrong. But how wrong?

In my default strategy, I abort. At 800 ft, I have ample speed and altitude to be imperfect on handling the engine out and go around. I can then calmly reassess the weather, runway, airport, winds, emergency services, facilities, etc, for my upcoming SE landing. I have the opportunity to eliminate or reduce various risk factors. I have the time to brief my passengers and prepare them for the event as well.

I also have the option to "fix" the engine if I can positively determine it was something that is fixable. Say it flamed out because of heavy rain or ice ingestion and I didn't have auto ignition turned on like I was supposed to. Doh! Okay, abort, do an airstart, come back in two engine, this time with auto ignition enabled, of course.

There have to be extenuating circumstance before I will push on down the slope after an engine failure in IMC. Fire, fuel exhaustion, structural failure, etc. These are uncommon circumstances, however, coupled with an engine failure, though not unheard of.

And yes, I have practiced both ways numerous times in the sim and in the airplane itself. It isn't about whether I CAN do it, it is about doing the safest thing I SHOULD do.

Mike C.

In that scenario, there may be some other things that would play into it like if another plane just shot the approach before me and gave a positive report, but most likely I'd prepare to abort but let the plane sink another couple hundred feet to 600 AGL before adding power and executing the SE missed. I would also be more inclined to continue down if (for example) I was still carrying ice from the approach and would have to climb back through that.

Mike you can’t see anything on the GA or the approach. Why does that matter.

I bet when you get some jet experience you will be doing SE approaches to both a landing and to a miss during your training.

Personal minimums are key and are critical so I applaud you for knowing yours.

Having a plan is half the battle.

SE miss or GA in a Jet is a LOT different than Mu2.
With some weight, pax and or DA, I’m not figuring our dash-6 powered Mu2 will do much effective climbing. Might be better off sucking up the gear and fishing for the runway and then find a new plane later.

Because the thing you might not be seeing is the ground.


Like I have done numerous times in the MU2.


You are confusing personal minimums with decision making.

My choice to go around is a strategy that reduces risk, not an avoidance of doing something I fear I can't do.

Mike C.

It may do better than you think.

SE best rate of climb in the AFM for my landing weight and conditions in this video would be 900 FPM per the AFM chart, which is based on -6 engines.

You should have easily developed 100% power under the conditions in my video. The -10 engines make a difference only from where the -6 is temp limited, and we are well below that point in altitude and temperature.

Even at KPHX, 40C day, the book says it will do 400 FPM at max landing weight. That doesn't seem like a situation you need to chose a belly in instead.

Mike C.

Because the thing you might not be seeing is the ground.


Like I have done numerous times in the MU2.


You are confusing personal minimums with decision making.

My choice to go around is a strategy that reduces risk, not an avoidance of doing something I fear I can't do.

Mike C.

Not sure I’d fully agree. Setting personal limits involves decision making, but not all aviation advance decision making is setting a personal limit. It’s like a pre take-off self briefing. You are establishing the IF-THEN triggers in advance of an occurrence so that when something happens, you don’t spend precious time and “brain power” considering options.
Even a decision like “I will always go around if I’m in IMC and loose an engine within 800 AGL” (or 600, or 400) isn’t necessarily a “personal minimum” as it is not entirely clear for every aircraft and every pilot which course of action is more conservative or safer...it’s what that pilot feels is best for them and is a pre-planned trigger. For me, reading about what different pilots see as the best course of action (and why) in a given circumstance is what makes forums like these excellent learning tools (IMO).
Another MU-2 specific issue would be a Beta Light on in flight with no control problems even when testing a slow to landing speed at altitude....feather before landing or not? Book says feather, some agree and others do not. Not really a personal minimum, but it is an advance decision we should all consider.