| Very early in my aviation career I developed a | | | | out, and the good generator is on the engine that quit)? |
| procedure involving the extension and retraction of the | | | | After scratching my chin sufficiently I decided that the |
| flaps. No one taught me this, it just made sense and it | | | | risk was acceptable, and as I have just said, the most |
| worked well. I attained my CFI and CFII while I was | | | | likely reason for the flaps to stick down would be due |
| living in Southern California (where I invented this | | | | to an electrical malfunction. However, on the B-18 there |
| procedure). Click on this hyper-link, Palomar VOR-A, | | | | is a hand crank right next to the pilot's seat, to be used |
| this approach to the Palomar airport I flew many times, | | | | as a manual means of extension (or retraction). After |
| note the length of the approach, almost 10 miles. | | | | a sufficient analysis of this procedure, and finding that it |
| I was instructing in a Cessna 172 with a Continental | | | | worked very well, I realized one of the reasons why |
| engine. There were occasions when I flew that | | | | this was so: There was no need to change the rudder |
| approach in actual instrument conditions. My primary | | | | trim. |
| concern wasn't if I landed or missed; my primary | | | | As my career continued I was flying planes that had |
| concern was engine failure due to carburetor ice. | | | | very good ice protection (no carburetors and/or no |
| Here is how I flew that approach: 90 knots (with the | | | | pistons). But alas! Where did the years go?? I am now |
| carburetor heat on, the plane would only go 90 kts!). | | | | in the sunset of my aviation career and I am flying a |
| This meant that I would have to reduce the power in | | | | Piper Navajo (best flying job I have ever had!). Ice is a |
| order to descend to MDA. Why reduce power at all? | | | | big concern. |
| Because the approach should be flown at a constant | | | | Let me make another digression, I now can look back |
| airspeed? Yes you should maintain a constant | | | | on my career as a professional pilot that commenced |
| airspeed (note that the VOR-A approach at 90 kts. | | | | in August of 1969, and make a general statement: |
| takes 6 minutes and 16 seconds, plenty of time for | | | | Generally, the bigger a airplane is, the more power it |
| carburetor ice to form.) So what I did was to not | | | | has, the fancier the avionics...the easier it is to fly. |
| reduce the power at all, I left the power set, lowered | | | | WHY?? Because improvements in the capability and |
| the flaps, upon arrival at MDA I retraced the flaps and | | | | performance of an aircraft also permit a wider |
| motored on to the missed approach point. The engine | | | | envelope of pilot ineptitude's. Whereas in the operation |
| stayed nice and warm, if I had to miss there would be | | | | of a light twin, in order to get the plane to do what the |
| no sputtering while applying power, and there was NO | | | | manufacturer claims, the operation of such an aircraft |
| carburetor ice. | | | | allows almost NO pilot error (extra especially, single |
| Question: How many crashes have there been due to | | | | engine performance). |
| engine failure...due to carburetor ice?? If you don't | | | | I now have to be more proficient at flying engine out |
| know I will tell you...many. | | | | approaches. I remembered how I did this with the |
| Time goes on as does my aviation career, and I find | | | | Beech 18. I also remembered that using my method |
| myself operating the vast array of levers, cranks, | | | | introduced no yaw correction. Consider a possibility I |
| switches and buttons of a...Beech 18...based at | | | | here put forth, the approach in this scenario is the LOC |
| Cleveland Hopkins...in the winter. The Chief Pilot (even | | | | BC 25 at Orlando Executive, KORL LOC BC 25 |
| though he was a proctologist's delight) was a couple | | | | You're flying along all fat dumb and happy and the |
| of notches above average when it came to round | | | | gyro horizon dies...during the recovery from the ensuing |
| motors. A round motor MUST: 1) be kept warm, 2) the | | | | unusual attitude an engine fails. After everything gets |
| crankshaft must be turning the propeller...not vice versa, | | | | calmed down and under control...note that one of the |
| 3) the carburetors shall be allowed to accumulate no | | | | changes in the aircraft's configuration is the rudder trim. |
| ice. After acquainting myself with the numerous | | | | You're back under control, let's say for the sake of |
| idiosyncrasies of that particular plane (N9532Z...and I | | | | argument, at 120 knots. You are eventually going to |
| think it is still flying), it occurred to me that a very | | | | have to shoot the approach (It goes without saying, |
| practical and easy way to satisfy the above three | | | | the weather is minimums). You are already in a bad |
| conditions was to fly my approaches using the same | | | | situation...why make it worse by introducing a |
| strategy that I had used flying the Cessna 172, i.e., in an | | | | perturbation of the yaw axis?? |
| almost full dirty configuration, thereby requiring relatively | | | | Here is how I would fly given the above |
| high power, furthermore if I had to go around, all a had | | | | conditions...LEAVE THE POWER SET...use the flaps |
| to do was retract the flaps and gear and advance the | | | | as speed brakes to accomplish the decent. Depending |
| power from an already high setting...and I didn't have to | | | | upon the characteristics of the particular aircraft; |
| worry about thermal shock (a major concern with | | | | extend the flaps to a somewhat full position, 100' prior |
| round motors) or carburetor ice. | | | | to the desired level off altitude retract them to the |
| It also occurred to me (because of another | | | | approach setting, 50' prior, flaps up...Works Good! |
| idiosyncrasy of that plane; namely the engines liked to | | | | BUT!! But-but...we just don't do that in our culture...what |
| quit), that I should practice engine out approaches. That | | | | if-what if...the flaps don't come up!...what if-what if...you |
| is exactly what I did; here is how I did it: Upon returning | | | | get a split flap!!? |
| from a trip (empty), during the initial decent I would let | | | | Answer me this: Are you objecting to my procedure |
| one of the engines cool down, and while I leveled off | | | | because it's too easy and sensible...let alone it works |
| at an intermediate altitude I would set that engine to | | | | so well. Without being my normal sarcastic self let me |
| zero thrust. The plane is now stabilized and trimmed in | | | | address your two objections. First I require an answer |
| level flight at let's say 120 knots. I motor on to the initial | | | | via yes or no to a foundational question regarding the |
| approach fix...so now it is time to shoot the approach. | | | | art of aircraft operation: YES or No...is, or is not, being a |
| Before continuing with this saga, I need to make a | | | | pilot, of a necessity, evaluating and operating |
| digression concerning the use of flaps while flying an | | | | under...calculated risks? Yes, I will concede that there |
| engine out approach. It is an established procedure that | | | | exists the possibility of the flaps malfunctioning...Hey...if |
| during approaches of the forgoing flavor, the landing | | | | anyone is going to object to my procedure, than using |
| gear and flaps should not be extended until a landing is | | | | the identical logic...don't rise the landing gear, because |
| assured. There is also an additional mindset that once | | | | what if they don't come back down! |
| the flaps have been extended for an approach, they | | | | I have done quite an extensive evaluation in a simulator |
| should not be retracted. | | | | of the pros and cons under the above describes |
| Back to my simulated engine out approach...I thought to | | | | scenario (partial panel single engine) my conclusion is |
| myself: if I were doing this in actual instrument | | | | that manipulating the flaps to effect a decent |
| conditions, given the above paragraph, I would have to | | | | introduces no yaw correction, whereas reduction of |
| retard the power on the good engine. I remembered | | | | power in an engine out situation does require a rudder |
| my flight instructor days at the Palomar airport. The | | | | correction...use the flaps! |
| same condition existed involving carburetor ice; except | | | | Something the same only different, the same that is, |
| it wasn't my little carburetor anymore...it was my BIG | | | | keeping the plane in a symmetrical condition, different |
| carburetor. Not only that, one thing I found out very | | | | because it's not with the flaps...do you know any B-52 |
| soon flying this plane was: to say that the carburetors | | | | pilots? There is a "non-approved" procedure B-52 |
| were prone to develop ice is an understatement! I did | | | | pilots use for flying an engine out approach; they will |
| the same thing with the flaps as did in the Cessna 172. | | | | reduce the power to idle on the symmetrically opposite |
| I wouldn't reduce the power at all | | | | engine! If you really do know a B-52 pilot and query |
| Given that this was a Twin Beech, doing the above did | | | | him (or I suppose her these days) he will probably |
| introduce one added consideration...what if the flaps | | | | confirm the foregoing and add, "That's not what the |
| don't come back up (because you have a generator | | | | manual says...the manual says...use ALL available thrust. |