Beechcraft lands on Interstate 470

[Delphic Oracle]

FAA investigating after plane lands on eastbound I-470 Tuesday afternoon

"At approx. 2 p.m., a pilot was making his final approach to land at the Lee’s Summit airport when he experienced sudden engine failure in one of two engines," the MSHP said on Twitter. "The pilot landed on the nearby roadway of I-470 between Douglas and Colburn. No one was injured."

The FAA said the plane was a twin-engine Beechcraft BE50.

"A twin-engine Beechcraft BE50 made an emergency landing this afternoon on Interstate 470 near Lee’s Summit, Mo., after the pilot reported a loss of engine power," a statement from the FAA said. "No injuries were immediately reported on the ground nor by the pilot. The FAA will investigate."

Airport data and layout can be seen here:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXT

Wind conditions were something like ENE 6mph.

Landed in eastbound lanes here, with Douglas exit behind them, Colbern ahead. Airport is just to the North. Seems like runway 11 or 36 were options (about the same amount of mild crosswind).

I'm not an air crash investigator, but despite all the accolades for pulling off a crazy landing, I suspect someone is about to lose their license.

Not even sure I respect the landing all that much either, they barely caught paved surface with the undercarriage. The more I've dug, the less I think this is remarkable nerves and skill, more and more to sheer luck.

I'm glad nobody got hurt.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Do we know it wasn't Harrison out on a test flight?

(he had another "oopsie" a couple weeks ago)

[emoji1]

 

[Checkmite]

Landed in eastbound lanes here, with Douglas exit behind them, Colbern ahead. Airport is just to the North. Seems like runway 11 or 36 were options (about the same amount of mild crosswind).

I'm not an air crash investigator, but despite all the accolades for pulling off a crazy landing, I suspect someone is about to lose their license.

Not even sure I respect the landing all that much either, they barely caught paved surface with the undercarriage. The more I've dug, the less I think this is remarkable nerves and skill, more and more to sheer luck.

Meh. Disagreed on the first count - the pilot will not lose their license over an engine failure on final. When that happens you don't really have options, you just pick the first acceptable-looking spot in your immediate field of view that is within your glideslope and do your best to keep the wings level until the ground comes up to meet you. If that's a highway - well the FAA doesn't regulate highways so they literally don't care. (The state highway patrol might, but the most they could do is fine. They can't revoke a pilot license.)

I agree that the landing was sheer luck, but I don't think that's a bad look for the pilot. He was on final approach, meaning he was less than 1,000 feet above the ground and descending in a low-power condition when one of his engines quit, leading to sudden asymmetric thrust and lift in an already high-drag configuration with zero time to recover; it would take some kind of legendary ace to pull a graceful landing with a hand like that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Meh. Disagreed on the first count - the pilot will not lose their license over an engine failure on final. When that happens you don't really have options, you just pick the first acceptable-looking spot in your immediate field of view that is within your glideslope and do your best to keep the wings level until the ground comes up to meet you. If that's a highway - well the FAA doesn't regulate highways so they literally don't care. (The state highway patrol might, but the most they could do is fine. They can't revoke a pilot license.)

I agree that the landing was sheer luck, but I don't think that's a bad look for the pilot. He was on final approach, meaning he was less than 1,000 feet above the ground and descending in a low-power condition when one of his engines quit, leading to sudden asymmetric thrust and lift in an already high-drag configuration with zero time to recover; it would take some kind of legendary ace to pull a graceful landing with a hand like that.

My emergency situation while on leisure time doesn't mean I get to put other people's lives in danger to minimize my chances of getting hurt.

Neither of us can say what options were available or not, so let's not jump out ahead of the data.

 

[Checkmite]

Fair enough; keep track and let us know if he loses his license. I'm going to make a wild guess that he will not.

 

[smartcooky]

FAA investigating after plane lands on eastbound I-470 Tuesday afternoon



Airport data and layout can be seen here:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXT

Wind conditions were something like ENE 6mph.

Landed in eastbound lanes here, with Douglas exit behind them, Colbern ahead. Airport is just to the North. Seems like runway 11 or 36 were options (about the same amount of mild crosswind).

I'm not an air crash investigator, but despite all the accolades for pulling off a crazy landing, I suspect someone is about to lose their license.

Not even sure I respect the landing all that much either, they barely caught paved surface with the undercarriage. The more I've dug, the less I think this is remarkable nerves and skill, more and more to sheer luck.

I'm glad nobody got hurt.

Here is a YT video of the one you posted about...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fgqg7LuAi4

It happens a LOT more than you'd expect!

Several examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MErqutGZ8S0

And some more...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iilYT-4svY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIR0OBuBewQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T03OquL3sIs

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My emergency situation while on leisure time doesn't mean I get to put other people's lives in danger to minimize my chances of getting hurt.

Neither of us can say what options were available or not, so let's not jump out ahead of the data.

On looking at the satellite view in Google Maps there does appear to some open land but I can't see what the surface is like. Otherwise, there do seem to be a couple of car dealerships or churches as not so comfy options. I would not want to be in the position of making the landing decision or otherwise second guessing it.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree that the landing was sheer luck, but I don't think that's a bad look for the pilot. He was on final approach, meaning he was less than 1,000 feet above the ground and descending in a low-power condition when one of his engines quit, leading to sudden asymmetric thrust and lift in an already high-drag configuration with zero time to recover; it would take some kind of legendary ace to pull a graceful landing with a hand like that.

This is the thing that people who don't understand anything about aviation get wrong. There is an adage that when you have power failure, you try to turn altitude into airspeed. The problem is that on approach to landing, you are already low and slow so power failure leaves you nowhere to go but down, and quickly. ANY kind of turn will cause more loss of airspeed and more loss of altitude - the pilot will have mere seconds to decide where he's going to land - there is NO time to do anythng but pick a spot and nail the landing.

So long as the engine failure was due to a mechanical failure and not down to pilot error, e.g. poor fuel management, or an error in the cockpit, this incident will have zero implications for the pilot's licence.

 

[Planigale]

This is the thing that people who don't understand anything about aviation get wrong. There is an adage that when you have power failure, you try to turn altitude into airspeed. The problem is that on approach to landing, you are already low and slow so power failure leaves you nowhere to go but down, and quickly. ANY kind of turn will cause more loss of airspeed and more loss of altitude - the pilot will have mere seconds to decide where he's going to land - there is NO time to do anythng but pick a spot and nail the landing.

So long as the engine failure was due to a mechanical failure and not down to pilot error, e.g. poor fuel management, or an error in the cockpit, this incident will have zero implications for the pilot's licence.

For a non-pilot why can you not just increase thrust from the remaining engine abort the landing go round and make a new approach on a single engine? I thought most twin engined aircraft could fly on a single engine? To be clear my knowledge of aviation is based on Biggles books and I am sure that he would have managed a graceful landing (usually in a field on the wrong side of the lines if memory serves).

 

[smartcooky]

For a non-pilot why can you not just increase thrust from the remaining engine abort the landing go round and make a new approach on a single engine? I thought most twin engined aircraft could fly on a single engine? To be clear my knowledge of aviation is based on Biggles books and I am sure that he would have managed a graceful landing (usually in a field on the wrong side of the lines if memory serves).

Without looking up the specs on this aircraft type, I can't give you a full technical answer, but I can give you some general ideas.

Just because a twin-engined aircraft can "fly" with one engine does not mean it can undertake the full range of its flight envelope. Sure, at cruise speed and altitude with an appropriate flight cruise power setting, twin engined aircraft can generally maintain that altitude and speed for some time, or at least maintain a very slow descent.

However, where the game changes is at low altitude and airspeed. A twin-engined aircraft generally cannot climb effectively on only one engine - any attempt to apply the kind of power needed for those types of manoeuvres will almost certainly result in severe asymmetric thrust (all the thrust coming from one side) that could lead to a loss of control. There are procedures that a pilot must learn when there is an engine failure either during take off roll, or immediately after V1 (decision speed, the point at which the pilot must commit to taking off). On take off roll, the pilot aborts the take-off on the runaway, but after V1, the pilot must take-off and reduce the engine power from the good engine, gain as much altitude as possible (turn airspeed into altitude) without stalling or losing control, and getting the aircraft back on the ground as quickly as possible. Many factors such as aircraft weight, wind conditions and barometric pressure go into how difficult this will be to achieve.

On approach to landing, it can be even more difficult, because the aircraft is sinking and flying slowly - depending on the aircraft type - perhaps only 15 to 20 kias (knots indicated airspeed) above stalling. The pilot is caught between a rock and a hard place - any attempt to climb without applying power is going to drop his speed dangerously close to stalling; any attempt to apply power is going to cause asymmetric thrust, and he risks suffering loss of control. Even applying a low to moderate power setting will cause sufficient asymmetric thrust to limit his turning ability - he will only be able to turn in the direction away from the good engine.

Looking at the video of this guy's landing, I can tell that this pilot knew exactly what he was doing. He approached along the grass median to the left of the traffic lane, keeping very lower power setting knowing that his aircraft would always want to turn left away from the road. He kept himself out of the way of the cars so he wouldn't crash into them if he got it wrong, and slid his aircraft sideways into the gap the drivers made for him. For mine, that was one outstanding piece of airmanship.

 

[abaddon]

Without looking up the specs on this aircraft type, I can't give you a full technical answer, but I can give you some general ideas.

Just because a twin-engined aircraft can "fly" with one engine does not mean it can undertake the full range of its flight envelope. Sure, at cruise speed and altitude with an appropriate flight cruise power setting, twin engined aircraft can generally maintain that altitude and speed for some time, or at least maintain a very slow descent.

However, where the game changes is at low altitude and airspeed. A twin-engined aircraft generally cannot climb effectively on only one engine - any attempt to apply the kind of power needed for those types of manoeuvres will almost certainly result in severe asymmetric thrust (all the thrust coming from one side) that could lead to a loss of control. There are procedures that a pilot must learn when there is an engine failure either during take off roll, or immediately after V1 (decision speed, the point at which the pilot must commit to taking off). On take off roll, the pilot aborts the take-off on the runaway, but after V1, the pilot must take-off and reduce the engine power from the good engine, gain as much altitude as possible (turn airspeed into altitude) without stalling or losing control, and getting the aircraft back on the ground as quickly as possible. Many factors such as aircraft weight, wind conditions and barometric pressure go into how difficult this will be to achieve.

On approach to landing, it can be even more difficult, because the aircraft is sinking and flying slowly - depending on the aircraft type - perhaps only 15 to 20 kias (knots indicated airspeed) above stalling. The pilot is caught between a rock and a hard place - any attempt to climb without applying power is going to drop his speed dangerously close to stalling; any attempt to apply power is going to cause asymmetric thrust, and he risks suffering loss of control. Even applying a low to moderate power setting will cause sufficient asymmetric thrust to limit his turning ability - he will only be able to turn in the direction away from the good engine.

Looking at the video of this guy's landing, I can tell that this pilot knew exactly what he was doing. He approached along the grass median to the left of the traffic lane, keeping very lower power setting knowing that his aircraft would always want to turn left away from the road. He kept himself out of the way of the cars so he wouldn't crash into them if he got it wrong, and slid his aircraft sideways into the gap the drivers made for him. For mine, that was one outstanding piece of airmanship.

Asymmetric thrust has cause many fatal air crashes. TAROM 371 springs to mind. Ordinarily, the flight crew could have dealt with one engine out, but the pilot had a heart attack and died on the spot. The co-pilot, trying to deal with that situation took no action to correct until too late.

 

[a_unique_person]

A competent pilot should be able to land a twin on one engine. The problem is often that pilots don't have the skills to fly a twin. If they can't take off or land with an engine out they shouldn't be up there in the first place. All twin engine planes are certified to be capable of taking off with an engine failure on takeoff.

 

[Flanh Flah]

A competent pilot should be able to land a twin on one engine. The problem is often that pilots don't have the skills to fly a twin. If they can't take off or land with an engine out they shouldn't be up there in the first place. All twin engine planes are certified to be capable of taking off with an engine failure on takeoff.

How many hours in twins have you logged?

 

[Metullus]

A competent pilot should be able to land a twin on one engine. The problem is often that pilots don't have the skills to fly a twin. If they can't take off or land with an engine out they shouldn't be up there in the first place. All twin engine planes are certified to be capable of taking off with an engine failure on takeoff.

He did, in fact, land safely. From what I saw he did a good job, too. The thing about engine failure is that does not always afford the pilot the opportunity to select an optimal landing site. One lands where one can.

And I did not see any brown stains on his trousers in the video, either...

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

How many hours in twins have you logged?

What makes you think he's flown any?

I've flown a lot of hours but I'm only certified for single engine VFR, so that's all I fly. You need a separate certification for just about everything else - IFR, multiple engines, tail draggers, seaplanes, lighter than air, etc.

 

[Checkmite]

There is an important factual correction that needs to be made. I have found more articles about this incident (example) and they report that the engine failure occurred while the plane was taking off from the nearby airport (KLXT), not while on final approach. The FlightAware path supports this. The plane was in the air for a grand total of three minutes from takeoff to touchdown.

According to other sources when the power failure occurred, the bad engine would not feather properly. For those who don't know, when an engine on a multi-engine plane fails, it is supposed to be able to "feather", i.e. the propeller blades turn edge-on to the wind so as to create as little drag as possible. Allegedly this failed to happen in the dead engine on this airplane, meaning that not only was there the normal asymmetric thrust problem, but the dead engine was producing even more drag it was ideally supposed to be, and the pilot needed to reduce the power to the good engine even more to counteract the adverse yaw (which is what he should have done, as smartcooky describes above). The sources with this information are apocryphal, though (people who claim to have talked with the pilot and/or police), so I'm not going to link them as definitive evidence; but what they allege is important if true.

The FlightAware data suggests that once the failure occurred, the pilot more or less immediately picked the Interstate for emergency landing and committed to it. This was a very good idea. The instinctual temptation in this scenario is to try to turn around and "make it back" to the airport you took off from, a procedure that often tends to result in a fiery hole in the ground - often enough that it's called "the Impossible Turn" for that reason.

 

[Dave Rogers]

According to other sources when the power failure occurred, the bad engine would not feather properly.

Jeez. I know very little about flying, but enough to strongly suspect that anyone getting out of that alive probably wears his underpants outside his trousers.

Dave

 

[Giordano]

I am not a pilot. But I’ve read a lot about private aviation piloting and the mistakes and most frequent accidents that can occur. From that admittedly limited knowledge base I would say that this pilot did a fabulous job. Losing an engine on climb out, particularly if the prop could not be feathered, produces a very asymmetrical force on the plane. Any attempt to fly around to land at the airport after power failure, even in a single engine plane, is almost a guaranteed way to die. This pilot performed a near textbook recovery from a very dangerous situation.

 

[Flanh Flah]

What makes you think he's flown any?

I've flown a lot of hours but I'm only certified for single engine VFR, so that's all I fly. You need a separate certification for just about everything else - IFR, multiple engines, tail draggers, seaplanes, lighter than air, etc.

It was a way to express that the poster's comment was idiotic, worthless rubbish.

 

[Trebuchet]

A competent pilot should be able to land a twin on one engine. The problem is often that pilots don't have the skills to fly a twin. If they can't take off or land with an engine out they shouldn't be up there in the first place. All twin engine planes are certified to be capable of taking off with an engine failure on takeoff.

Commercial airliners are. But according to a Boeing co-worker of mine who was also an instrument-rated, twin-rated flight instructor, GA aircraft are not. Among other things, they lack the rudder authority to fully compensate for the asymmetric thrust. He considered twins more dangerous than singles.