Narrative:

I was flying an small aircraft twin on a 10 mi return flight from hayward, ca, to sql. I entered the traffic pattern on a left downwind for runway 30 with 2 airplanes in the pattern, both ahead and in sequence to land. Tower requested I keep my speed up for incoming traffic on the downwind which decreased my spacing from the ahead traffic. I kept my speed up but it was soon apparent the spacing was too tight. I then retarded throttles and noticed a slightly excessive decrease in mp (manifold pressure) in the right engine. After turning base I was cleared to land with 1 aircraft on final. The spacing was too tight, I lengthened by base leg and flew shallow s-turns on final. The aircraft ahead was now touching down. While flying s-turns for spacing, I noticed increased asymmetrical thrust and decreased mp in right engine. I placed right throttle full forward; mp was below 12' and I couldn't produce even zero thrust. I then feathered the right engine to decrease drag for an emergency go around. With less than 1/2 mi final, I then trimmed the aircraft and secured the right engine as fast as possible to ensure a favorable landing attitude and situation while quickly informing my one passenger everything is ok. I then would advise tower of my situation. The ahead aircraft was now taxiing of runway 30 at the departure end about to turn off. Tower requested 'small aircraft, go around'. My priority was the safety of the flight. To 'go around' in a light twin such as an small aircraft is very hazardous due to decreased and unreliable single engine climb performance. In a densely populated area, a single engine go around in an small aircraft should only be made when necessary, if traffic were on or obstructing the runway for landing and ground roll. My determination as PIC that a safe landing could be made easily west/O endangering the safety of the flight. My landing and ground roll would require less than 1/2 the runway, and traffic would be off the active when I touched down. My reply to tower was 'negative, is single engine'. My estimate of the situation was correct. I didn't even need to brake as traffic was well clear. Tower said they should have been notified sooner of my single engine situation. I feel I exercised good judgement by securing the right engine and maintaining aircraft control for ensuring safety of the flight. My determination is that tower needed to exercise better judgement for aircraft spacing in the pattern and on the runway while maintaining diligent visibility scanning of incoming aircraft for such single end situations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA TWIN IGNORES TWR INSTRUCTION TO GO AROUND WHEN HE LOSES AN ENGINE ON FINAL APCH SQL.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AN SMA TWIN ON A 10 MI RETURN FLT FROM HAYWARD, CA, TO SQL. I ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN ON A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 30 WITH 2 AIRPLANES IN THE PATTERN, BOTH AHEAD AND IN SEQUENCE TO LAND. TWR REQUESTED I KEEP MY SPD UP FOR INCOMING TFC ON THE DOWNWIND WHICH DECREASED MY SPACING FROM THE AHEAD TFC. I KEPT MY SPD UP BUT IT WAS SOON APPARENT THE SPACING WAS TOO TIGHT. I THEN RETARDED THROTTLES AND NOTICED A SLIGHTLY EXCESSIVE DECREASE IN MP (MANIFOLD PRESSURE) IN THE R ENG. AFTER TURNING BASE I WAS CLRED TO LAND WITH 1 ACFT ON FINAL. THE SPACING WAS TOO TIGHT, I LENGTHENED BY BASE LEG AND FLEW SHALLOW S-TURNS ON FINAL. THE ACFT AHEAD WAS NOW TOUCHING DOWN. WHILE FLYING S-TURNS FOR SPACING, I NOTICED INCREASED ASYMMETRICAL THRUST AND DECREASED MP IN R ENG. I PLACED R THROTTLE FULL FORWARD; MP WAS BELOW 12' AND I COULDN'T PRODUCE EVEN ZERO THRUST. I THEN FEATHERED THE R ENG TO DECREASE DRAG FOR AN EMER GO AROUND. WITH LESS THAN 1/2 MI FINAL, I THEN TRIMMED THE ACFT AND SECURED THE R ENG AS FAST AS POSSIBLE TO ENSURE A FAVORABLE LNDG ATTITUDE AND SITUATION WHILE QUICKLY INFORMING MY ONE PAX EVERYTHING IS OK. I THEN WOULD ADVISE TWR OF MY SITUATION. THE AHEAD ACFT WAS NOW TAXIING OF RWY 30 AT THE DEP END ABOUT TO TURN OFF. TWR REQUESTED 'SMA, GO AROUND'. MY PRIORITY WAS THE SAFETY OF THE FLT. TO 'GO AROUND' IN A LIGHT TWIN SUCH AS AN SMA IS VERY HAZARDOUS DUE TO DECREASED AND UNRELIABLE SINGLE ENG CLB PERFORMANCE. IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA, A SINGLE ENG GO AROUND IN AN SMA SHOULD ONLY BE MADE WHEN NECESSARY, IF TFC WERE ON OR OBSTRUCTING THE RWY FOR LNDG AND GND ROLL. MY DETERMINATION AS PIC THAT A SAFE LNDG COULD BE MADE EASILY W/O ENDANGERING THE SAFETY OF THE FLT. MY LNDG AND GND ROLL WOULD REQUIRE LESS THAN 1/2 THE RWY, AND TFC WOULD BE OFF THE ACTIVE WHEN I TOUCHED DOWN. MY REPLY TO TWR WAS 'NEGATIVE, IS SINGLE ENG'. MY ESTIMATE OF THE SITUATION WAS CORRECT. I DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO BRAKE AS TFC WAS WELL CLR. TWR SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED SOONER OF MY SINGLE ENG SITUATION. I FEEL I EXERCISED GOOD JUDGEMENT BY SECURING THE R ENG AND MAINTAINING ACFT CTL FOR ENSURING SAFETY OF THE FLT. MY DETERMINATION IS THAT TWR NEEDED TO EXERCISE BETTER JUDGEMENT FOR ACFT SPACING IN THE PATTERN AND ON THE RWY WHILE MAINTAINING DILIGENT VIS SCANNING OF INCOMING ACFT FOR SUCH SINGLE END SITUATIONS.

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.