 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
BE76. Student lost directional control of aircraft during a simulated engine failure during MEL training.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 521051 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200108 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : lvk.airport |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | agl single value : 400 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : den.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Duchess 76 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : lvk.tower |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | ground : taxi |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : instructor |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time total : 8000 |
| ASRS Report | 521051 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : trainee |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course flight crew : regained aircraft control none taken : insufficient time other |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
I was giving flight instruction to a commercial/multi-engine student in a beechcraft duchess prior to his flight test. We were doing a series of takeoffs and lndgs at the livermore, ca, airport on runway 25R. Traffic in the pattern was very light so we were doing simulated engine failures on the ground run, upwind, downwind and final. When on short final to runway 25R, I simulated a right engine failure. Since we were already lined up with the runway and the airplane was configured for landing, I assumed the student would control the plane with a little power, yaw and bank control, and land the plane. He did, however, go through the litney of engine out procedures and added full power to the left engine. This caused an immediate yaw and roll to the right and before we could get things under control, we were headed toward the runway 25R run-up area and taxiway, we got control of the airplane with both engines and climbed out back over the runway and continued the traffic pattern. We were approximately 400 ft AGL when I simulated the engine failure and over the approach lights. This was the closest position to the runway that I simulated an engine failure that flight -- all others were on the upwind, crosswind, or downwind. We crossed over the run-up area about 300 ft AGL. I had expected the student to add some power to the good engine and control yaw and roll better than he did. I was slower than he was and fast getting myself into action to prevent the runway alignment deviation. The tower called us on our approach action and wanted to know if we just lined up with the taxiway by mistake or what was going on. The student told the tower exactly what happened. Tower was upset with us as we had flown over the run-up area with a plane there and also there was a plane on the taxiway going to the run-up area. My level of alertness should have been greater and to always expect the unexpected no matter what phase of flight and what the experience level of the student is.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: BE76. STUDENT LOST DIRECTIONAL CTL OF ACFT DURING A SIMULATED ENG FAILURE DURING MEL TRAINING.
Narrative: I WAS GIVING FLT INSTRUCTION TO A COMMERCIAL/MULTI-ENG STUDENT IN A BEECHCRAFT DUCHESS PRIOR TO HIS FLT TEST. WE WERE DOING A SERIES OF TKOFS AND LNDGS AT THE LIVERMORE, CA, ARPT ON RWY 25R. TFC IN THE PATTERN WAS VERY LIGHT SO WE WERE DOING SIMULATED ENG FAILURES ON THE GND RUN, UPWIND, DOWNWIND AND FINAL. WHEN ON SHORT FINAL TO RWY 25R, I SIMULATED A R ENG FAILURE. SINCE WE WERE ALREADY LINED UP WITH THE RWY AND THE AIRPLANE WAS CONFIGURED FOR LNDG, I ASSUMED THE STUDENT WOULD CTL THE PLANE WITH A LITTLE PWR, YAW AND BANK CTL, AND LAND THE PLANE. HE DID, HOWEVER, GO THROUGH THE LITNEY OF ENG OUT PROCS AND ADDED FULL PWR TO THE L ENG. THIS CAUSED AN IMMEDIATE YAW AND ROLL TO THE R AND BEFORE WE COULD GET THINGS UNDER CTL, WE WERE HEADED TOWARD THE RWY 25R RUN-UP AREA AND TXWY, WE GOT CTL OF THE AIRPLANE WITH BOTH ENGS AND CLBED OUT BACK OVER THE RWY AND CONTINUED THE TFC PATTERN. WE WERE APPROX 400 FT AGL WHEN I SIMULATED THE ENG FAILURE AND OVER THE APCH LIGHTS. THIS WAS THE CLOSEST POS TO THE RWY THAT I SIMULATED AN ENG FAILURE THAT FLT -- ALL OTHERS WERE ON THE UPWIND, XWIND, OR DOWNWIND. WE CROSSED OVER THE RUN-UP AREA ABOUT 300 FT AGL. I HAD EXPECTED THE STUDENT TO ADD SOME PWR TO THE GOOD ENG AND CTL YAW AND ROLL BETTER THAN HE DID. I WAS SLOWER THAN HE WAS AND FAST GETTING MYSELF INTO ACTION TO PREVENT THE RWY ALIGNMENT DEV. THE TWR CALLED US ON OUR APCH ACTION AND WANTED TO KNOW IF WE JUST LINED UP WITH THE TXWY BY MISTAKE OR WHAT WAS GOING ON. THE STUDENT TOLD THE TWR EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. TWR WAS UPSET WITH US AS WE HAD FLOWN OVER THE RUN-UP AREA WITH A PLANE THERE AND ALSO THERE WAS A PLANE ON THE TXWY GOING TO THE RUN-UP AREA. MY LEVEL OF ALERTNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER AND TO ALWAYS EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED NO MATTER WHAT PHASE OF FLT AND WHAT THE EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF THE STUDENT IS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.