Beechcraft lands on Interstate 470

[Planigale]

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.

Thank you very clear explanation for a non-pilot. Pretty much like losing a mast on a ketch you end up with an unbalanced rig that tends to turn you into or away from the wind so you have to reduce sail, keep your rudder over but try and maintain enough seaway to maintain helm control.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

As I said earlier, the weather conditions factor into where the pilot with an engine failure on take off can land, especially wind direction. If he is taking off with a crosswind, for example, and the engine on the leeward side is the one that failed, that pretty much stuffs him for making the impossible turn - his airspeed is likely to fall quickly and his sink rate will increase too much to be able to make it back to the airport. The earlier the engine failure is in climbout, the worse it is for him.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Pilots have to be trained and certified to fly a twin. You have to already have a pilot's licence to apply for a twin rating. I logged over 1200 hours in a PA-28 Cherokee Archer before I applied for a twin rating, which I did in a PA-30 Comanche - it took me 11 hours (typical is about 10) including the check-ride and solo. I have about 150 hours logged in the Comanche

 

[jt512]

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.

That sounds a little dramatic. The first thing you do upon a single-engine failure is apply full power on the remaining engine. Then you feather the dead engine. I've certainly never experienced any difficulty controlling the plane with full power on one engine before or after feathering the dead engine, including during simulated engine failure on takeoff.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The landing version I frowned on due to being familiar with that part of town and the direction of landing, there are long, uniformly graded fields he could have chosen. Perhaps riskier for the pilot, I acknowledge. But it's their hobby, they chose the risk.

If the failure was on takeoff, I'd have to know more about what runway they took off from to make any judgments about the decision where to land. A South facing takeoff, miles of suburbia in front? OK, terrible choices, probably made the best of it. West takeoff circling around? Same options as the landing version.


With ENE winds and where then plane came down, I'm guessing North takeoff. Same issue again, looking East, there's fields parallel to the highway for a stretch between the exits.

East takeoff I can't see how the plane even ends up there.

 

[smartcooky]

That sounds a little dramatic. The first thing you do upon a single-engine failure is apply full power on the remaining engine.

You absolutely do NOT apply full power on the good engine on a light aircraft twin like a Beech Baron or Piper Pa-30. These aircraft have nowhere near enough rudder authority compensate for the asymmetric thrust that will result. Doing what you suggest will almost certainly result in loss of control.

Then you feather the dead engine.

In this instance the failed engine would not feather properly, so applying full power would make the asymmetric flight dynamics even worse - full power on one side, and a dirty great spinning air-brake on the other side.

The other thing that needs to be taken into account is that on Beech Baron, the left engine (the one that failed in this case) is the critical engine. The Baron's propellers rotate clockwise, so the loss of the left engine causes a significantly greater yawing moment, which adds to the asymmetric thrust problem.

This is the sort of result you are likely to end up with

WARNING: This video could disturb some...



This is left engine failure, full power followed by a left wing stall due to asymmetric thrust.


IMO, the guy who landed on I-470, with the engine failure being on the left, and the propeller not feathering properly, had absolutely everything stacked against him. Great job getting it down with no-one hurt.

 

[jt512]

You absolutely do NOT apply full power on the good engine on a light aircraft twin like a Beech Baron or Piper Pa-30. These aircraft have nowhere near enough rudder authority compensate for the asymmetric thrust that will result. Doing what you suggest will almost certainly result in loss of control.

In this instance the failed engine would not feather properly, so applying full power would make the asymmetric flight dynamics even worse - full power on

So it's different in the Beech Baron. I checked the manual. You feather first. I double checked for the Cessna 310, and you do apply full power immediately, and only then identify the failed engine and feather.

 

[a_unique_person]

From the number of fatalities an engine out in a twin causes I can't see how that much training would be adequate.

In this case though, if he couldn't feather the prop, he was very capable to get it down in one piece and stay alive. I have read some of the cases of engine failure on take off and there are very specific procedures to be followed for many of them. One wrong move and you will fail.

I wonder about some of them even being allowed to fly. There is one plane that if you are climbing safely on one engine and put the wheels up too early it will crash.

 

[a_unique_person]

The landing version I frowned on due to being familiar with that part of town and the direction of landing, there are long, uniformly graded fields he could have chosen. Perhaps riskier for the pilot, I acknowledge. But it's their hobby, they chose the risk.

If the failure was on takeoff, I'd have to know more about what runway they took off from to make any judgments about the decision where to land. A South facing takeoff, miles of suburbia in front? OK, terrible choices, probably made the best of it. West takeoff circling around? Same options as the landing version.


With ENE winds and where then plane came down, I'm guessing North takeoff. Same issue again, looking East, there's fields parallel to the highway for a stretch between the exits.

East takeoff I can't see how the plane even ends up there.

The problem is putting those other people at risk so he doesn't damage the plane.

 

[Checkmite]

I wonder about some of them even being allowed to fly. There is one plane that if you are climbing safely on one engine and put the wheels up too early it will crash.

A lot of these kinds of planes are still flying because they're vintage planes and were grandfathered in after newer and better airworthiness regulations were imposed. Take the plane in this case: it's a Twin Bonanza. The last one of these planes rolled off the assembly line in 1963 meaning this plane is at least 57 years old, and it could be as old as 70. It's perhaps not a direct comparison but consider that auto clubs in the US and Europe consider an automobile that is over 50 years old an antique.

And there are lots of these very old airplanes still flying around in the GA community, and they're being operated as the GA equivalent of "daily drivers", not "special" vintage planes.

 

[smartcooky]

So it's different in the Beech Baron. I checked the manual. You feather first. I double checked for the Cessna 310, and you do apply full power immediately, and only then identify the failed engine and feather.

Here is the procedure from my PA-30 Pilot's Manual

The engine out minimum control speed demonstration required for the FAA flight test for the multi-engine rating approaches an uncontrolled flight condition with power reduced on one engine. The demonstration should not be performed at an altitude less than 3500 feet above the ground. APPROACH VMC WITH CAUTION. Initiate recovery during the demonstration by immediately reducing power on the operating engine and promptly lowering the nose of the airplane.

If engine failure occurs during the climb out after take-off, maintain directional control with rudder and ailerons, and establish the best single engine rate of climb airspeed (105 mph [91 KIAS] at sea level). Speeds below or above the best rate of climb speed optimum will result in lower than optimum rate of climb.

Rudder and ailerons used together will result in a bank of approximately 2° of bank towards the operative engine...The result is zero sideslip and maximum climb performance. Any attitude other than zero sideslip increases drag, decreasing performance.​

 

[Checkmite]

According to the FlightAware data track the first recorded heading of the three-minute-long flight was 291, and halfway through the track it turns very close to direct north.

Overlaid on a chart, it really looks like the plane may have taken off from either a defunct airport just northwest of Pleasant Hill or a small private grass field just west of the Harrisonville City Lake, both of whose runways are roughly lined up with that heading (the track origin is between these two airports, suggesting a small position error). I'm guessing likely the former, because shifting the entire track north just enough to line the beginning of the track up with that airport puts the ending of the track just short of I-470.

Looking at the track in this light, it seems like the pilot had initially decided to try to make runway 36 at KLXT and had to land on the interstate just short of it when it ran out of glide.

Looking at the area on satellite map I don't see anything better than the interstate to land where the plane was. There are NO open fields even close to long enough for that airplane to land on there.

 

[smartcooky]

According to the FlightAware data track the first recorded heading of the three-minute-long flight was 291, and halfway through the track it turns very close to direct north.

Overlaid on a chart, it really looks like the plane may have taken off from either a defunct airport just northwest of Pleasant Hill or a small private grass field just west of the Harrisonville City Lake, both of whose runways are roughly lined up with that heading (the track origin is between these two airports, suggesting a small position error). I'm guessing likely the former, because shifting the entire track north just enough to line the beginning of the track up with that airport puts the ending of the track just short of I-470.

Looking at the track in this light, it seems like the pilot had initially decided to try to make runway 36 at KLXT and had to land on the interstate just short of it when it ran out of glide.

Looking at the area on satellite map I don't see anything better than the interstate to land where the plane was. There are NO open fields even close to long enough for that airplane to land on there.

When you are flying low and slow in an emergency situation, you generally only have time to run through the memory items and to fly the plane. You don't have many options, and what option you do have run out fast - very fast.

 

[a_unique_person]

So it's different in the Beech Baron. I checked the manual. You feather first. I double checked for the Cessna 310, and you do apply full power immediately, and only then identify the failed engine and feather.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/03/29/the-doctor-killer/


While the Beechcraft Bonanza has a loyal following, it also has an infamous moniker: The Doctor Killer.
It gained that name decades ago following a spate of high-profile crashes, with many of the pilots doctors.
In fact, that spate of accidents was part of the reason for the creation of the Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program (BPPP) in 1983 by the American Bonanza Society.
The BPPP offers a variety of online training, as well as flight instruction. BPPP is designed to make Beechcraft owners safer and more accomplished pilots, according to ABS officials.
But what led to that spate of accidents and what has changed?
When the Bonanza was first introduced in 1947, most pilots transitioning into the Bonanza were flying an Aeronca Champ or Cessna 140, or something similar, explained Thomas P. Turner, executive director of the American Bonanza Society Air Safety Foundation.


.....




“Exactly the same thing happened in a number of different airplanes,” he continued. “The Cessna 310 had a very high initial accident rate. People were coming out of single-engine airplanes into something like a 310 when they were new. At the very best, they might have flown an Apache or something like that.
“And in its first years of operation, the Cessna 310 had a horrible accident rate. Eventually, the industry figured out how to teach people to fly these things.”

or this


https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news...nto-hangar-addison-texas-least-10-dead-2.html


I just wonder how many pilots on twins are going to be capable of handling an engine out on takeoff. Not because they are bad pilots, but because the twins get very hard to handle and you need pilots that are better than average.



Cessna actually stopped making twin engine planes altogether. Part of the reason was apparently the threat of lawsuits.

 

[Norman Alexander]

When you are flying low and slow in an emergency situation, you generally only have time to run through the memory items and to fly the plane. You don't have many options, and what option you do have run out fast - very fast.

Cactus 1549.

 

[smartcooky]

Cactus 1549.

Indeed, and if you watch the movie or the ACI doco, both of which portray a VERY accurate, blow-by-blow depiction of what happened after the bird strike at 15:27:11, you see graphically those options, La Guardia & Teterboro, disappear one after the other so that 59 seconds after the bird strike at 15:28:10, the Hudson was all he had left.

 

[jt512]

Pilots have to be trained and certified to fly a twin. You have to already have a pilot's licence to apply for a twin rating.

Actually, no. You can get a private pilot multi-engine land license without already having a single-engine land license. Which would mean that you were licensed to fly multi- but not single-engine planes, which would be weird. I don't know anyone who has done that, but it's possible. Maybe in some countries where airline pilots are trained ab initio it is done.

 

[jt512]

I just wonder how many pilots on twins are going to be capable of handling an engine out on takeoff. Not because they are bad pilots, but because the twins get very hard to handle and you need pilots that are better than average.

Well, that's a good question. When I owned a twin, I was obsessed with single-engine-failure-on-takeoff proficiency and booked time every month with an instructor to practice. In my plane, if you did everything just right, you could eke out 300 feet/min climb on one engine after cleaning up the gear and flaps and feathering the dead engine, which meant just barely clearing the obstacles off the departure end of the runway at my home field.

I flew my plane several times a week every week and thus maintained proficiency. The stereotypical doctor, with his Twin Beech and more money than proficiency, not so much.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, no. You can get a private pilot multi-engine land license without already having a single-engine land license. Which would mean that you were licensed to fly multi- but not single-engine planes, which would be weird. I don't know anyone who has done that, but it's possible. Maybe in some countries where airline pilots are trained ab initio it is done.

OK, might be differert where you are, but here, you must have a pilots licence already, and be current. A CPL is recommended but not mandatory.

 

[jt512]

OK, might be differert where you are, but here, you must have a pilots licence already, and be current. A CPL is recommended but not mandatory.

Ah, I see you're in New Zealand. Yeah, in the US you can get an MEL license without a SEL license, but it certainly isn't common to do so.