Instructor shutting engine off in flight
Daniel Grunloh
Sorry to post this question here but I have been frustrated and
believe the readers of this newsgroup will be the most informed.
As an ultralight pilot I believe in the value of deadstick landing
practice, but I was lead to believe that intentional engine outs were
either discouraged or prohibited in GA aircraft especially in training
operations. Never practice emergencies by creating one.
If there is actually a rule of some kind? I would greatly appreciate
the reference or if not some explanation why I could have gotten that
impression. Maybe it's the FBO and the insurance company and not
the FAA. The question again, the CFI turns of the ignition key on
the GA airplane so the student must make a deadstick landing. OK or not.
Please help or join the thread in rec.aviation.ultralight, misc, or piloting.
----------------------------------
--Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
RobertR237
>Sorry to post this question here but I have been frustrated and
>believe the readers of this newsgroup will be the most informed.
>As an ultralight pilot I believe in the value of deadstick landing
>practice, but I was lead to believe that intentional engine outs were
>either discouraged or prohibited in GA aircraft especially in training
>operations. Never practice emergencies by creating one.
>If there is actually a rule of some kind? I would greatly appreciate
>the reference or if not some explanation why I could have gotten that
>impression. Maybe it's the FBO and the insurance company and not
>the FAA. The question again, the CFI turns of the ignition key on
>the GA airplane so the student must make a deadstick landing. OK or not.
>Please help or join the thread in rec.aviation.ultralight, misc, or
piloting.
On my very first flight lesson (and my first flight in a small plane) my
instructor cut the engine over the hills of Council Bluffs, IA and asked
me what I was going to do about it. (My first thought was to punch his
lights out!) I turned the plane and headed for the flatest thing I could
find which was a corn field about 5 miles away. I was about 150 feet
above the field when the instructor finally restarted the airplane. I was
only 18 at the time and my hands were soaking wet and I was shaking all
over.
The instructor took over the controls and asked me if I still wanted to
learn to fly? After a brief pause I turned to him and answered.... "You
are damned right I still want to fly but not with you!" The flight ended
and I found myself a new instructor to continue my training with.
NO! Dead stick landings should not be taught by cutting the engine off
completely. It is stupid to create an emergency condition or a potential
emergency condition when training. In my case, if the engine had failed
to restart, we may or may not have had a successful landing in that corn
field. Even at 18, I was smart and wise enough to realize that! I am now
50 and I still would refuse to fly with any instructor who would create a
true emergency situation to teach the handling of same.
Bob Reed
Ron Natalie
> If there is actually a rule of some kind? I would greatly appreciate
> the reference or if not some explanation why I could have gotten that
> impression.
There's no rule other than perhaps the catchall 91.13: Careless and
Reckless operation. Chances are nothing will come of it until the
time an accident occurs subsequent to one of these tests.
I've had it done to me, admittedly when I was directly over a
(then) quiet airport with lots of runways and grass landing
areas. However, I really don't think that the extra "realism"
over idle really makes much difference over the instructor
pulling back and guarding the throttle. On things other
than simple trainers, it gets even more dicey.
I just don't see the benefit vs. the risk here.
John R. Johnson
We have been around this tree before. I believe you can make an excellent
case that pulling the throttle back still allows fuel evaporation in the
carb throat around the throttle body and leaves you prone to ice buildup.
Of course carb heat is normally pulled on the same time the instructor
pulls the throttle back. However, the heat source for the carb heat is
gone in seconds. It is quite possible that the engine will fail to
respond when the throttle is moved forward again. We had several accidents
here in Southern Illinois from that cause. One was serious and resulted
in both the instructor and the student haveing major back injuries when
they lost it and stalled in from about fifty feet trying to stretch the
glide to a landable spot.
On the other hand, if I merely pull the mixture to idle cutoff, there is
no fuel evaporating in the carb. No chance of carb ice. When I return
the mixture to rich, the windmilling engine will start smoothly and
immediately and we will have full power.
It is probably an even odds proposition which will give you the best
chance of regaining power on demand after the power off excercise. I
really don't see any significant difference in safety between the two
techniques for a power off simulation.
John
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Daniel Grunloh wrote:
> Sorry to post this question here but I have been frustrated and
> believe the readers of this newsgroup will be the most informed.
>
> As an ultralight pilot I believe in the value of deadstick landing
> practice, but I was lead to believe that intentional engine outs were
> either discouraged or prohibited in GA aircraft especially in training
> operations. Never practice emergencies by creating one.
>
Never practice an emergency by creating one, is a good rule to follow.
For example, don't set the airplane on fire for fire drill practice.
However, stopping an engine in flight is NOT an emergency. If you stop
it in such a way as to leave it easy to restart, it is a non-event.
> If there is actually a rule of some kind? I would greatly appreciate
> the reference or if not some explanation why I could have gotten that
> impression. Maybe it's the FBO and the insurance company and not
> the FAA. The question again, the CFI turns of the ignition key on
> the GA airplane so the student must make a deadstick landing. OK or not.
>
Never stop an engine in flight by turning off the ignition. If you do
that the engine is still pumping fuel through the engine and accumulating
it in places where it will ignite if the engine is restarted. This could
possibly create a REAL emergency.
There are two accepted and acceptable methods for simulating an engine out
in flight for emergency practice that do NOT create an emergency. You may
pull out the mixture control or you may pull out BOTH carb heat and the
throttle. Of the two, pulling out the mixture control is probably the
safest and is the best simulation of an engine out, because the engine
actually stops running. Of course it continues to turn over and oil
pressure and rpm remain within acceptable limits.
The engine will start immediately when the mixture is pushed back in.
This is because it is still turning over and still has spark. Add fuel
and you get fire, and it runs.
When the throttle is pushed back in, the engine will usually regain power.
However, if the excercise lasted for more than a few seconds the carb heat
has ceased to help with ice buildup. If the temperature below the throttle
valve is in the iceing range and there is moisture in the air, even if it
is not visible, carb ice MAY buildup during the excercise and prevent the
engine from regaining power when the throttle is advanced. Although this
can only be a problem on days when carb ice is likely, such days are not
uncommon in many parts of the country. Humid and temperature between 40
and 70 degrees fahrenheit.
John
K'Honchu the killer
On Tue, 01 Jul 97 05:21:48 GMT, gru...@uiuc.edu (Daniel Grunloh)
wrote:
>Sorry to post this question here but I have been frustrated and
>believe the readers of this newsgroup will be the most informed.
>
(...Snip...)
>the FAA. The question again, the CFI turns of the ignition key on
>the GA airplane so the student must make a deadstick landing. OK or not.
(...Snip)
!!!NOT!!!
Daniel,
I'm not an instructor so take this with a grain. I do agree with
"simulated engine failure practice" however, that would be with the
throttle pulled way back and the engine still running. I read about an
instance where an instructor did just this: He turned the key to the
off position, and as his hand left it in fell to the floor and slid
unrecoverably between the left seat track and the pedestal. A forced
off-field landing followed without further incident. The key was found
and the student found a new instructor. I don't recall any further
repercussions.
Personally, if I'm in left seat and someone reaches across to the
mags without my permission they might come back with a stump. (I would
usually be hesitant to argue with an instructor. So, I would QUICKLY
turn the mags back on and throttle back and see if he/she would choose
to argue with me. Furthermore, I have the suspicion that no instructor
that I've flown with would be so idiotic.)
If they were successful in killing the engine in flight, then it's
their duty to crawl out there on the cowling and hand prop, if it
stops windmilling. (And, stay there for the remainder of the flight
for the safety of the occupants and those on the ground. That or they
must get out and push.)
Seriously, If this has happened to you or someone you know, WRITE
(keep a copy) and telephone your local FAA-FSDO and provide as
detailed description of the incident as best as you can recall. If the
instructor logged in it your log book, include a photocopy of that
entry . You may in writing also wish to request anonynomity, But, at
some point you may have to come forward. I'm sure that someone in
Fligt Safety would want to discuss this practice with an instructor
who was practicing it.
Sincerely,
Bentley Vaughan
bvau...@hiwaay.net
Bill Robie
In article <5pa6r8$5ui$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Daniel Grunloh <gru...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>As an ultralight pilot I believe in the value of deadstick landing
>practice, but I was lead to believe that intentional engine outs were
>either discouraged or prohibited in GA aircraft especially in training
>operations. Never practice emergencies by creating one.
Dan -
I've had the engine shut off on me on GA check-out flights, but only in
cases where the runway could clearly be "made". The first time it happened
to me, the instructor said, "What's going to happen now?" and I replied,
"We're gonna die." Then I landed the plane.
I really didn't think that it was a big deal, one way or another, under
those circumstances. Had it been over the piney green, or even farmland,
I would have probably felt differently.
On the other hand, I used to shut of the engine in the course of training
ultralight pilots (again, when the runway could clearly be made). The
reason that I felt comfortable about this was that the ULs (Eippers) that
we trained in were essentially powered gliders with unreliable engines.
The flight characteristics were different when the engine was off vs.
throttled back. Most of all, though, I wanted my students to see how
deafening the sound of silence could be--and not have to deal with
conquering that if they ever had a genuine engine failure.
In short, I didn't consider landing that particular machine with the
engine off to be an emergency (intended or otherwise). I felt that it
was merely a different flight mode--like landing any other glider. By
demonstrating that, in that particular UL, an engine-off landing could
be considered a fairly normal activity, I believe that my students came
to understand that there was no need to get unduly upset over the potential
loss of power. Understand, however, that I would never have taken the
same approach in a heavier GA plane that didn't have the short field
landing and glide capabilities. The couple of former students who later
contacted me to let me know that the training had paid off in genuine
loss-of-engine situations seemed to endorse that the procedure was valid.
Bill Robie
Jeffry Stetson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970701121044.2709o-100000@reliant>, jo...@siu.edu says...
>
>On the other hand, if I merely pull the mixture to idle cutoff, there is
>no fuel evaporating in the carb. No chance of carb ice. When I return
>the mixture to rich, the windmilling engine will start smoothly and
>immediately and we will have full power.
>
I'm not sure I agree with this. The carb still represents a restriction
in the induction system; air accelerates, pressure drops, air cools. It
doesn't require evaporation to accomplish this. Granted, evaporation
must make it worse.
--
Jeffry Stetson ... Comm ASEL, Pvt SES & Glider, Instrument Airplane
EAA, SSA, AOPA, IAC, MAPA
Mooney M20E "Superduper 21"
Salto H-101 "Shiva - The Cosmic Dancer"
Badwater Bill
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:16:10 -0500, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Ron Natalie wrote:
>We have been around this tree before.
When I was young and dumb I was training a guy in a C-150-150. I
pulled the mixture on him downwind and he made some mistakes getting
to the runway. On short final when I saw we weren't going to make it,
I shoved the mixture back in but nothing happened, no power. We hit
the overrun just past a big ditch and then rolled on to the runway.
We got to live, but it was not due to anything I did. I never put
myself or a student in that situation again (that was 30 years ago).
BWB
John R. Johnson
On 2 Jul 1997, Jeffry Stetson wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970701121044.2709o-100000@reliant>, jo...@siu.edu says...
> >
> >On the other hand, if I merely pull the mixture to idle cutoff, there is
> >no fuel evaporating in the carb. No chance of carb ice. When I return
> >the mixture to rich, the windmilling engine will start smoothly and
> >immediately and we will have full power.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this. The carb still represents a restriction
> in the induction system; air accelerates, pressure drops, air cools. It
> doesn't require evaporation to accomplish this. Granted, evaporation
> must make it worse.
>
That is true, Jeff. However, the major share of the cooling in the carb
comes from the "heat of evaporation" of the fuel. This is the chilling
you feel when you spill fuel on your hands when refuelling. The temperature
drop that goes with the pressure drop is relatively small. It could cause
icing is you were very close to freezing outside and the weather was quite
humid. It depends of the dew point spread.
John
David Munday
"John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
>There are two accepted and acceptable methods for simulating an engine out
>in flight for emergency practice that do NOT create an emergency. You may
>pull out the mixture control or you may pull out BOTH carb heat and the
>throttle.
The most "interesting" variation I've seen on this was applied to me
late in private training, and in the pattern. The engine in the
cessna 150 just quits with no apparent action on the part of the
instructor. My blood runs cold as I think "this is for real" and
mutter something astonished about the sudden quiet.
"so what are you going to do about it" I hear, and my brain comes back
on-line and the usual drill proceeds.
Durring the restart sequence (after establishing best glide and
setting up for the landing) My fingers find the fuel valve shut off
between the seats.
It takes several seconds for the engine to quit after the valve is
turned off and my instructor had all the time he needed to fold his
arms and look inocent.
I don't know if I like the technique from the standpoint of potential
trouble on restarting, but the surprise factor was sure effective.
It should also be noted that some planes that are not usually used as
primary traners don't windmill and in those planes the idle cuttoff
method puts you at the mercy of a starter which might just pick that
moment to go south.
--
David Munday - mund...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it -- Clarence Darrow
John R. Johnson
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, David Munday wrote:
<snip>
>
> It should also be noted that some planes that are not usually used as
> primary traners don't windmill and in those planes the idle cuttoff
> method puts you at the mercy of a starter which might just pick that
> moment to go south.
>
Taylorcraft L2 one time. Of course the engine did quit for REAL at about
350 feet AGL. My starter was sitting quietly in the back seat! Of
course there was no way she could get out to prop it anyway, without
landing. We landed, quite safely, at an airport about thirty miles
away from where it quit! Fortunately we were in the mountains and
the winds were blowing in the proper direction for good wave lift.
John
Jim Weir
hon...@juno.com (K'Honchu the killer)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->On Tue, 01 Jul 97 05:21:48 GMT, gru...@uiuc.edu (Daniel Grunloh)
->wrote:
>>Sorry to post this question here but I have been frustrated and
>>believe the readers of this newsgroup will be the most informed.
>(...Snip...)
>>the FAA. The question again, the CFI turns of the ignition key on
>>the GA airplane so the student must make a deadstick landing. OK or not.
>(...Snip)
->!!!NOT!!!
-> Daniel,
-> I'm not an instructor so take this with a grain.
I >AM< an instructor and an Aviation Safety Counselor, and you can take it
with the same grain if you please. I've got about two hundred students'
names in my logbook, so I guess I've been doing this for a while -- haven't
lost a one yet, but came close to asking a few of them to step outside at
pattern altitude {;-)
My instructor simply unobtrusively turned the gas lever off on me during my
last checkride before taking the private exam. We were 3000 AGL over a
perfectly long, wide, rural airport. There is one hell of a difference
between the instructor reaching over and pulling the throttle back and you
all of a sudden seeing and hearing that big fan up front no longer pulling
the load. It scared the bejesus out of me when I thought that it was no
longer a training exercise, but the real thing. When that right hand asks
for go and there ain't any, it is a real adrenalin pump moment. Yes, we
took it deadstick to the ground, and during the descent he showed me the
tricks of first stopping and then airstarting the propellor windmilling.
Whether or not I use the same technique on my students is between they and
I. All I can tell you is that one day I >did< have a right hand full of
nothing and having had it happen "for real" once before didn't scare the
hell out of me. The right hand did the checklist, the left hand did the
flying, and the head wasn't fixated on trying to make something get better
that wasn't going to. It was a freeway landing with not a scratch to the
occupants thanks in no small part to an instructor with the guts to make
the simulation real almost 30 years prior.
As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
Jim
CFI, ASC, A&P, and a lot more alphabet soup
John R. Johnson
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Jim Weir wrote:
<snip>
>
> As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
> using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
> no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
> losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
> respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
> is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
>
Jim,
Been there, done that, couldn't agree with you more!
John
Clayton L. Cranor
> As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
> using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
> no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
> losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
> respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
> is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
>
> CFI, ASC, A&P, and a lot more alphabet soup
Excellent summary...
I took another instructor flying for a tailwheel/ski checkout a few
yearw back. This fellow was the chief instructor for a local flight
school, and was going to sign off my BFR. We were flying my PA-18 on
skiis over an uninhabited area very conducive to off-airport landing on
skiis (lots of snow...)
I pulled the mixture and forced him to land the plane. It was the first
time he had ever taken a simulated emergency all the way to the ground.
I feel it is a primary responsibility (and one of the hardest things for
a new CFI to learn) to let the a student take a bad situation as far as
can be SAFELY recovered from before taking control from him. This is
how we define our limits. You cannot tell a student how to avoid a
ground loop until he has come very close to one....
Clay
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
I have a favourite CFI & friend who does all sorts of training exercises
with students at appropriate stages of experience, pre & post-PPL.
He teaches for love, not money or hours, and it really shows.
He is regularly critisised for "dangerous" exercises, but I side fully
with the vast majority that find his methods highly desirable.
A few of the exercises he will carry out:
1) PFL's with full engine failure (by turning off fuel or pulling mixture
depending on where the fuel cock is situated). Often right down to
an actual landing (at an airfield).
2) Prop-stops & windmill starts. (This was not even covered theoretically
in my PPL course).
3) Teaching of IMC in _real_ IMC. (He says that in his opinion it is
dangerous to let someone qualify for an IMC or instrument rating that
has only ever flown in simulated conditions).
4) Practice PAN calls with various combinations of (simulated)
instrument and/or control failures, with a real diversion & landing,
normally an SRA approach, after ensuring the student was _really_ lost in
real or simulated IMC.
5) Actual landings with simulated elevator failure.
6) "Stuck throttle" landings.
7) In combination with the above, actually failing (where possible)
combinations of instruments by pulling the fuse or switching off
the static pressure feed (possible in many aircraft). An excellent
way to get you to recognise the symptoms. Try an ADF hold
with this guy - chances are that during the "inbound" he will switch
the ADF from "DF" to "ANT". How long before you realise that you are
overdue for the needle-swing?
And so on. Not the normal sort of PPL checkouts, but IMHO very sound
and valuable practice.
Add to this the fact that us students invariably leave his debrief on a
"high" and raring to have another go to correct our mistakes.
One thing that he has said he will not do is a simulated power fail
of one engine on a twin during the ground roll on T/O. Other instructors
I know do do this, but his opinion is that he could not rescue a wrong
control input sufficiently to prevent a lot of damage. YMMV.
I believe that not all instructors are experienced enough to be able to
carry out "advanced" exercises, but this does not make the exercises
unsafe so long as the instructor is well aware of his/her ability to
rescue a student's foul up. I will gladly put myself into situations
with this guy that I would not even do whilst solo, because I am confident
that his ability on type would be able to compensate for my own
lack of expertise. I would not, however be comfortable with an instructor
I did _not_ know in similar circumstances.
In order to advance, we need to be able to (safely) place ourselves into
positions close to or beyond our limits. This is why realistic simulators
are invaluable for airline pilots, and outstanding instructors are
invaluable for the rest of us. My opinions only.
=============================
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
=============================
P.A. Williamson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970703081241.4536A-100000@reliant>, "John R.
Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
Of course the engine did quit for REAL at about
> 350 feet AGL. My starter was sitting quietly in the back seat! Of
> course there was no way she could get out to prop it anyway, without
> landing. We landed, quite safely, at an airport about thirty miles
> away from where it quit! Fortunately we were in the mountains and
> the winds were blowing in the proper direction for good wave lift.
>
> John
John, you went surfin' without water eh? :-)
Reece R. Pollack
On Thu, 03 Jul 97 19:56:53 PDT, da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>I have a favourite CFI & friend who does all sorts of training exercises
>with students at appropriate stages of experience, pre & post-PPL.
>He teaches for love, not money or hours, and it really shows.
>
>He is regularly critisised for "dangerous" exercises, but I side fully
>with the vast majority that find his methods highly desirable.
>
>A few of the exercises he will carry out:
>
>1) PFL's with full engine failure (by turning off fuel or pulling mixture
> depending on where the fuel cock is situated). Often right down to
> an actual landing (at an airfield).
Very bad. If someone misjudges the glide or if the engine refuses to
restart, you're screwed. Someone did this in a Malibu not too long ago
and landed a bare 12 inches short of the runway, causing serious
damage to both main gear. The FAA held that both the instructor and
the pilot/owner were negligent for turning a training exercise into a
real emergency.
>2) Prop-stops & windmill starts. (This was not even covered theoretically
> in my PPL course).
Should be covered at least in theory. I've done this quite a few times
in a multi-engine plane, and I have come close to having to do a
single-engine landing several times as a result. Restarting an engine
in flight is not always possible. Intentionally shutting down the
engine in single is gross misconduct in my book.
>3) Teaching of IMC in _real_ IMC. (He says that in his opinion it is
> dangerous to let someone qualify for an IMC or instrument rating that
> has only ever flown in simulated conditions).
This isn't even dangerous. If you can't trust a student to fly in
actual IMC when dual, how can you sign them off to do it solo? Even
so, I wouldn't expect to do true partial-panel work in IMC, as it's
just as easy for an instructor to get confused as it is for the
student.
>4) Practice PAN calls with various combinations of (simulated)
> instrument and/or control failures, with a real diversion & landing,
> normally an SRA approach, after ensuring the student was _really_ lost in
> real or simulated IMC.
A good idea in simulated conditions. I don't understand the point of
doing it in actual IMC. BTW, what's an "SRA" approach?
>5) Actual landings with simulated elevator failure.
As long as the "simulation" is easily terminated, what's the big deal?
If the simulation is done by holding on to the yoke and preventing its
movement, that's great. If it meant he put a mechanical control lock
on, I'd refuse.
>6) "Stuck throttle" landings.
Again, if this means not touching the throttle, that's fine. If it
means doing anything to the plane that would interfere with sudden
reversion to normal flight, I'd refuse.
>7) In combination with the above, actually failing (where possible)
> combinations of instruments by pulling the fuse or switching off
> the static pressure feed (possible in many aircraft). An excellent
> way to get you to recognise the symptoms. Try an ADF hold
> with this guy - chances are that during the "inbound" he will switch
> the ADF from "DF" to "ANT". How long before you realise that you are
> overdue for the needle-swing?
Sounds like a fine idea, in simulated conditions. As long as the
instructor can see where the plane is, there's minimal risk to
anything except the student's ego.
>And so on. Not the normal sort of PPL checkouts, but IMHO very sound
>and valuable practice.
Not too different from what my instructors and I have done.
>One thing that he has said he will not do is a simulated power fail
>of one engine on a twin during the ground roll on T/O. Other instructors
>I know do do this, but his opinion is that he could not rescue a wrong
>control input sufficiently to prevent a lot of damage. YMMV.
Interesting. An engine cut on the takeoff roll is a required task on
the US multiengine practical test. Admittedly a hairy situation, but
if you do it early enough it can be done safely.
--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based GAI)
nightjar
Reece R. Pollack <re...@eco.twg.com> wrote in article
<33e610f4....@news.his.com>...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 97 19:56:53 PDT, da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >A few of the exercises he will carry out:
> >
> >1) PFL's with full engine failure (by turning off fuel or pulling
mixture
> > depending on where the fuel cock is situated). Often right down to
> > an actual landing (at an airfield).
>
> Very bad. If someone misjudges the glide or if the engine refuses to
> restart, you're screwed.
As the original posting has a .uk heading, it might be pertinent to point
out that the CAA considered that one instructor who cut the fuel was in
breach of Article 55 of the Air Navigation Order: 'A person shall not
recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft,
or any person therein.'
>
> >3) Teaching of IMC in _real_ IMC. (He says that in his opinion it is
> > dangerous to let someone qualify for an IMC or instrument rating that
> > has only ever flown in simulated conditions).
>
> This isn't even dangerous. If you can't trust a student to fly in
> actual IMC when dual, how can you sign them off to do it solo? Even
> so, I wouldn't expect to do true partial-panel work in IMC, as it's
> just as easy for an instructor to get confused as it is for the
> student.
I think that if IMC is being simulated with a hood or foggles then some
instrument work in real IMC is essential to emphasise how disorientating it
is. However, an aircraft fitted with IR certified screens does not give any
of the subtle clues which a hood or foggles allow and real IMC is not
necessary.
>
> >4) Practice PAN calls with various combinations of (simulated)
> > instrument and/or control failures, with a real diversion & landing,
> > normally an SRA approach, after ensuring the student was _really_
lost in
> > real or simulated IMC.
>
> A good idea in simulated conditions. I don't understand the point of
> doing it in actual IMC. BTW, what's an "SRA" approach?
I don't know of an instructor who does not do simulated failures with
practice PANs. The CAA safety section encourage all pilots to do them from
time to time.
There isn't even any necessity to do a genuine diversion as the D&D
controller can give you QDMs to your intended destination just as easily as
to an alternate. However if a real emergency takes precedence it is much
easier to resume your own navigation to the intended destination if you are
not completely lost. If you are lost it has become a genuine PAN call.
SRA = Surveillance Radar Approach. The radar controller will vector you
onto the glide path, advise when to start a 3 degree descent, give regular
readouts of range and correct height at that range and, if necessary, give
a heading to fly to maintain approach track.
Colin Bignell
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <5peu3o$2...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
David Munday <mund...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>
>Durring the restart sequence (after establishing best glide and
>setting up for the landing) My fingers find the fuel valve shut off
>between the seats.
>
>It takes several seconds for the engine to quit after the valve is
>turned off and my instructor had all the time he needed to fold his
>arms and look inocent.
>
I am interested to know what would have happened if you were unable
to start the engine, and ended up putting the airplane in a field,
tripped over a fense, causing injury to yourself, damage to the aircraft
and property on the ground. Will the insurance cover you ? Will the
FAA cite you (or your CFI) for reckless operation ?
The purpose of practising forced approaches is to reduce the accident
rates caused by engine failure. I am not convinced if the above practise
actually achieves that purpose. If all CFI's started doing that,
I am sure that the accident rates will actually increase.
--
Andrew Sarangan
PhD, PP-ASEL
Badwater Bill
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 14:20:28 GMT, j...@rst-engr.com (Jim Weir) wrote:
Jim: That was a great post. I agree completely. Flying is not for
the weak at heart. I learned when the 180 degree power off landing
was all the student knew how to do on solo day. Nowadays they get to
carry power all the way around base and final. I'm of the old school,
chop the power parallel to the numbers and glide her on in.
Badwater Bill
Spec4
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote
>
> I have a favourite CFI & friend who does all sorts of training exercises
> with students at appropriate stages of experience, pre & post-PPL.
> He teaches for love, not money or hours, and it really shows.
>
Well, personally Dave, in spite of any naysaying, I'd love to do some
training with your CFI friend. Sounds like good, solid training to me even
if it may impose additional risk in some instances.
I know of a CFI from my local area who did get busted when an engine
shut-down exercise resulted in a real crash landing, but from what I hear
the CFI was a little careless in setting up the exercise (low altitude and
possibly other factors contributed to the crash.) But, the way I see it, if
you can't handle a real emergency which arises from a simulated situation,
you probably couldn't handle the real thing if it popped up unexpectedly.
So, even if the FAA/CAA would look dimly on a real emergency resulting from
training, I think such exercises have real value.
Of course, as you pointed out, the challenge of the exercise must be
tailored to the skills of the pilot at the controls.
I definitely agree that IFR students should get as much actual IFR as they
possibly can. I can't believe the number of "IFR rated" pilots I've met who
have never flown in actual IMC. I do it whenever I can - and often find
myself struggling briefly to get my head together in the soup if I haven't
flown actual IFR for an extended period.
Just wanted to let you know that at least someone in this NG actually
agrees with you.
Jerry
Spec4
DaveM wrote
> I have a favourite CFI & friend who does all sorts of training exercises
> with students at appropriate stages of experience, pre & post-PPL.
> He teaches for love, not money or hours, and it really shows.
By the way, here's one I'm planning to integrate into my training syllabus.
It's hardly what you'd call a major issue, but it comes up on checkrides
and might actually be useful in the event of a radio failure or similar
situation:
Use of Light Gun Signals.
Most towered airports will accomodate a request to shoot you a light gun
signal or two. IMHO, that's the only way a student will ever attach any
meaning to the signals. Sure, you can memorize them for the written exam
and checkride, but until you've actually seen them and performed the
appropriate action based on the signal you're not likely to remember them
very well. Application is always better training than rote memory...
Jerry
P.A. Williamson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970703095838.4536H-100000@reliant>, "John R.
Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Jim Weir wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
> > using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
> > no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
> > losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
> > respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
> > is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
> >
>
> Jim,
>
> Been there, done that, couldn't agree with you more!
>
> John
Wayyyy back in the 70's when I first started flying lessons at the ripe
ol' age of 18, my instuctor taught me spins (in the air..not with some
model airplane) and I'm guessing it was one of the best things he could
have taught me.
A student needs to see "The teeth of the beast" or, as Jim says, he/she
will one day get his butt chomped.:-)
A CFI buddy of mine has a student (a lady in her 40's in this case)
that is terrified of practicing stalls. If I were a CFI, I think I might
send her towards a new hobby unless she could whip this fear.
Tim Busch
Jim Weir wrote:
> I >AM< an instructor and an Aviation Safety Counselor, and you can take it
> with the same grain if you please. I've got about two hundred students'
> names in my logbook, so I guess I've been doing this for a while -- haven't
> lost a one yet, but came close to asking a few of them to step outside at
> pattern altitude {;-)
...good stuff snipped here...
>
> As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
> using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
> no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
> losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
> respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
> is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
>
Ok, Jim, maybe it's a good thing to make 'em see the real thing. When
I was a new private pilot, I went to a state DOT sponsored safety
seminar.
I was flying with an Aviation Safety Counselor who told me "I have it"
and
stopped the prop on downwind with a C150 on the end of the only runway,
(which by the way had the state head of aviation safety in it flying
with
a friend of mine). There was no runup pad. Then he says "you got it,
land it". I told him there was an airplane on the runway, thinking he
didn't see it or he had lost his mind. He calmly said "he'll leave
before we get there".
Of course, when we're on short final and about 200ft AGL, the guy on
the ground doesn't look for traffic, starts rolling. My ASC decides
it's
time to start the engine and sidestep. It doesn't catch right away,
making
my butt-pucker factor about a 9.5, but it does start and we side-step
and follow him around the patch.
The guy had the gall when we got down to write this time in my log book
as PIC time. Now, I know no accident happened, but if it had, someone
would want to know who the bright boy was that set that situation up.
For the first time in my short flying career, I chewed on that guy and
told him I was not PIC of that airplane because I wouldn't have done
something like that. This guy had been flying for something like 30
years.
To me, that's just bad judgement. As a CFI trainee, I hope to do
better.
That experience certainly changed my view of "Safety" Seminars and ASCs.
My "free" hour of dual nearly got me killed!
As a complete aside from all of this, thanks Jim for the good RST stuff.
My friend (from the other C150) and I both built RST intercoms and I
have
bought other RST stuff and have always been totally happy with it.
Tim
Com-ASEL-I, IGI, N0CKR
Terry Atkinson
Clayton L. Cranor wrote:
> I feel it is a primary responsibility (and one of the hardest things for
> a new CFI to learn) to let the a student take a bad situation as far as
> can be SAFELY recovered from before taking control from him.
have to "take control from him". A proper pre-flight briefing and/or
in-flight briefing should specify recovery action -- especially in
training.
Our instructors almost NEVER "take control" unless it is imperative or
unless he wishes to demonstrate a technique.
Canada, eh!
---------------------
Terry Atkinson C-GLDV
._______|_______.
\(*)/
o/ \o
I AV8 4 FUN
---------------------
Web Page: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/terry.atkinson1/index.htm
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
re...@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
>>
>>1) PFL's with full engine failure (by turning off fuel or pulling mixture
>> depending on where the fuel cock is situated). Often right down to
>> an actual landing (at an airfield).
>
>Very bad. If someone misjudges the glide or if the engine refuses to
>restart, you're screwed.
Surely you mean "... misjudges the glide *and* the engine ....."?
However, I disagree in either case. The whole point of many of
the exercises described is that the engine is _not_ restarted,
and a genuine landing is actually made - quite deliberately.
If it was originally intended to re-start, but the engine doesn't
co-operate, then it simply changes into exercise 1 and a perfectly
safe glide landing is made at the airfield.
Any club instructor who is incapable of making a good "no sweat"
landing with a dead engine from overhead the airfield *in a type of
training aircraft that he is very familiar* should consider a change
of career IMO. Sailplane instructors carry out this type of exercise with
their students on every flight - and the analogy is by no means far-fetched.
>
>>2) Prop-stops & windmill starts. (This was not even covered theoretically
>> in my PPL course).
>
>Should be covered at least in theory. I've done this quite a few times
>in a multi-engine plane, and I have come close to having to do a
>single-engine landing several times as a result. Restarting an engine
>in flight is not always possible. Intentionally shutting down the
>engine in single is gross misconduct in my book.
>
Same as in (1) above. Obviously the point at which the engine is cut is
carefully considered by the instructor, and co-operation with air traffic
is also important. Equally obviously, the instructor will not allow the
aircraft to get out of position any more than he is perfectly comfortable
with being able to handle.
>>3) Teaching of IMC in _real_ IMC. (He says that in his opinion it is
>> dangerous to let someone qualify for an IMC or instrument rating that
>> has only ever flown in simulated conditions).
>
>This isn't even dangerous. ....
>
IMO *none* of the exercises described are dangerous - they are not meant
to be dangerous, they are meant to be instructive. The point is that far
too often they are *not* taught this way.
>
>>4) Practice PAN calls with various combinations of (simulated)
>> instrument and/or control failures, with a real diversion & landing,
>> normally an SRA approach, after ensuring the student was _really_ lost in
>> real or simulated IMC.
>
>A good idea in simulated conditions. I don't understand the point of
>doing it in actual IMC. BTW, what's an "SRA" approach?
>
The point of actual IMC is realism. So long as the instructor has the
ability to recognise and correct a problem before it can develop, real IMC
is no more dangerous (it may even be less so as the instructor does not
need to keep a VFR lookout - please think about this before flaming as I
don't want to amplify the thought in this post). SRA = Surveillance
Radar Approach - a ground-controlled instrument approach procedure
where ATC transmits heading & height instructions down to minimums by
reference to radar. Usually there has been a DI failure by this stage
in the exercise! Making the diversion to an unfamiliar airport is
also, IMO, a more valuable exercise than to a known destination.
>>5) Actual landings with simulated elevator failure.
>
>As long as the "simulation" is easily terminated, what's the big deal?
>If the simulation is done by holding on to the yoke and preventing its
>movement, that's great. If it meant he put a mechanical control lock
>on, I'd refuse.
>
There is no big deal - it's just a good exercise that is rarely (in my
experience but YMMV) carried out by most instructors, as it is not in the
syllabus. No, nothing is done to mechanically interfere with the controls.
The stick is not held, because the trim wheel is used in conjunction with the
throttle. Most of the approach is made "hands off". Often the controls
must be used at the last minute to avoid an overly firm landing, but the
point by then has been made that a broken elevator and/or aeileron
cable does not mean an automatic crash so long as things are handled
correctly. I guess the same applies to control damage caused by collision.
>
>>6) "Stuck throttle" landings.
>
>Again, if this means not touching the throttle, that's fine. If it
>means doing anything to the plane that would interfere with sudden
>reversion to normal flight, I'd refuse.
>
No, again nothing untoward. Usually, the student is told upon rejoining
the circuit (normally at cruise settings), to pretend that the throttle
cable has broken. How many readers (I wonder) have thought about this
possibility, let alone practised it? One thing to consider is that the
cable will still probably push, but not pull. So if you were not thinking,
you might "test" the control by pushing it open, and then be left with
the worse condition of a full-power setting rather than a cruise setting.
>>7) In combination with the above, actually failing (where possible)
>> combinations of instruments by pulling the fuse or switching off
>> the static pressure feed (possible in many aircraft). An excellent
>> way to get you to recognise the symptoms. Try an ADF hold
>> with this guy - chances are that during the "inbound" he will switch
>> the ADF from "DF" to "ANT". How long before you realise that you
are
>> overdue for the needle-swing?
>
>Sounds like a fine idea, in simulated conditions. As long as the
>instructor can see where the plane is, there's minimal risk to
>anything except the student's ego.
>
Absolutely. Nothing that much different to what most instructors
do - but the difference is in the multitude of ways that this guy will
sneakily cause failures. Most other instructors slap a rubber disk
over the AI. It's obvious that the instrument cannot be used. This guy
will find a way to sneakily sabotage the vacuum, so that both the AI
and DI topple realistically. He'll pull the breaker on the
gear without you noticing, then set up a single-engine landing exercise
- things like that. I love it.
>> ....
>
>Interesting. An engine cut on the takeoff roll is a required task on
>the US multiengine practical test. Admittedly a hairy situation, but
>if you do it early enough it can be done safely.
>
It's done here at the discretion of the examiner (not mandatory).
The airfild I fly from has a very narrow runway (30 feet), and
so "hairy" can become "expensive" quite easily :-}
==========================
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
(my e-mail still bounces messages quite often - please persevere
if you get no reply)
==========================
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
In article <01bc881d$d2f482c0$1e1873cf@default>, <COOP...@prodigy.net>
writes:
>
> Use of Light Gun Signals.
>
> Most towered airports will accomodate a request to shoot you a light gun
> signal or two. IMHO, that's the only way a student will ever attach any
> meaning to the signals. Sure, you can memorize them for the written exam
> and checkride, but until you've actually seen them and performed the
> appropriate action based on the signal you're not likely to remember them
> very well. Application is always better training than rote memory...
>
An amusing radio conversation heard whilst flying a few months back:
After several unanswered calls from ATC, the instructor came back
saying that his student appeared to have a faulty headset. ATC
asked whether the instructor would be so good as to pass along his
messages. The instructor replied "Well, if traffic permits, how about
we turn this into a radio failure exercise?"
"OK", says ATC, "It's a quiet day, sounds like fun!"
The poor student was completely oblivious as remarks were passed
to & fro between ATC and the instructor ... "No, he didn't see that one,
try the lamp."
"I could get out on the roof and try hand signals ...."
"OK, he's seen your green, but he's forgotten which runway! - bear with us ...
can you accept us on 07 or do you want to give him a red?"
.. and so it went on.
Hope the student gets his own back one day :-)
=====================
Dave Mould
=====================
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <33bc41f1....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
I agree with chopping power abeam and gliding it in. Always the best
way to land, but not always possible in controlled airports.
But I don't agree with your comment on "Flying is not for the weak at heart".
May be that is true in the case of military pilots, but not for GA. It is
precisely this attitude that has made many pilots live adventerous butu short
lives. In my opinion, flying is not for those who think they have no fear. As
long as the fear doesn't decapitate the pilot, I am always ready to fly
with a "fearing" pilot than with someone who claims otherwise.
Andrew M. Sarangan
I have not followed this thread, so forgive me for this.
I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
breaking the law.
Those who like practising real engine-outs should also consider flying
with their pitot/static ports covered. That will a valuable experience
in flying without ASI or altimeter. After all you should know how to fly
without instruments.
Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway, why
not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
might come in handy and save your life some day.
I am sure an even better exercise is to fly IMC with a broken AI.
Think about the adrenalin rush and the fear as you have to fly partial
panel. After all you have to know how to fly partial panel IFR, and might
come in real handy some day.
Of course, the above comments are meant to be sarcastic, not serious!
Don't try them, not even in your dreams!
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD
In article <33ba7d1f....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Badwater Bill <bill...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:When I was young and dumb I was training a guy in a C-150-150. I
:pulled the mixture on him downwind and he made some mistakes getting
:to the runway. On short final when I saw we weren't going to make it,
:I shoved the mixture back in but nothing happened, no power. We hit
:the overrun just past a big ditch and then rolled on to the runway.
:We got to live, but it was not due to anything I did. I never put
:myself or a student in that situation again (that was 30 years ago).
What have you done instead to simulate a power-off emergency? So far
it seems that there are three methods:
1) Kill the ignition switch.
2) Bring the throttle back to idle
3) Bring the throttle all the way to fuel cutoff.
Apparently you can't be sure of getting power back from any of these. What
do you do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot) "I never knew I could change my life,
brau...@pcocd2.intel.com like the artist paints his dreams on
a canvas" - Minor Detail
K'Honchu the killer
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 09:59:24 -0500, "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu>
wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Jim Weir wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> As for those who say that an instructor should be reported to the Feds for
>> using this maneuver, then letting a student take it ALMOST to the point of
>> no return on PIO, or ALMOST to the limits on an IFR approach, or ALMOST
>> losing it on a glider rope break belong in the same category. I most
>> respectfully disagree. A student that isn't shown the teeth of the beast
>> is going to get his butt chomped on some day when /s/he least expects it.
>>
>
>Jim,
>
>Been there, done that, couldn't agree with you more!
>
>John
>
Jim & John
I could agree with you more, I was specifically referring to the
instance of an instructor using the ignition to simulate an engine
out. (My feelings are not as strong about the mixture or fuel cut-off
methods. I can see the jury's still out on that one.) The key here
might be Jim's phrase, "...then letting a student take it ALMOST to
the point of no return..." It's always such a surprise to find when
you pass that point without knowing it. Completely shutting off an
engine in flight invites just that.
My instructors showed me those "teeth" in ways that at the time
made a lasting impression, but in hindsight did not jeopardize my
safety. I have mixed feelings when it comes to communicating with "the
Feds". (I hate: ramp checks, customs, Taxes ans many other things
Federal, but necessary.) Do make an effort not to waste their time. I
feel that they do not always help a situation. But, I have found the
Birmingham, AL FAA FSDO to be very helpful answering questions and
very interested in the goings on in the local aviation community. A
major part of their job is education. The Feds I've dealt with seem to
like the education part more that the accidents part.
If an instructor does not already have a healthy dialog with the
FAA, and wishes to keep practices secret from them, or gets offended
at a student questioning methods, that instructor should examine why.
A call from a student to FSDO should not be considered as a black mark
on the instructor.
1.) FSDO deserves to know what's going on in its' area.
2.) Students are in the system to learn. If it takes a call to the
Feds to assure confidence in an instructors' methods, it's not a
wasted call.
Just an opinion,
- Bentley Vaughan
PS:
My News server did not show Jim Weir's origional post. The
comments above are based on the snip John included.
DHPHKH
Some instructors (like the general pilot population) practice better
judgement than others. A mag cut at 3000 feet over a deserted airport
flown to a full stop landing is very good training. A cut over an
unknown hay field and depending on an air restart to prevent the need for
a full stop landing is kinda dumb.
As a student you're training to be pilot in command. That includes
learning to be assertive when you belive a situation to be unsafe. If you
think your instructor compromised the safety of your flight, tell him. If
he disregards your opinion, find a new instructor. Custom be dammed, it's
your butt.
By the way, as an open question, how many of us practice deadstick
landings on a regular basis? I do, but I fly a Cub, a bunch of light
experimentals, and some ultralights. Obviously the MU-2 and Learjet guys
wouldn't find it to be productive!
Dan Horton
Larry A. Warsinski
Andrew M. Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote in article
<5pje01$36...@argo.unm.edu>...
>
> Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
> during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway,
why
> not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
> might come in handy and save your life some day.
>
>
> Of course, the above comments are meant to be sarcastic, not serious!
> Don't try them, not even in your dreams!
>
spent enough time in the clouds to satisfy him that I could hold a course
and descend through a cloud cover if that were the only option I had. I
found it a wonderful/terrible experience. Hood time is not like cloud time
-- with the hood there is always the option of flipping it up and regaining
visibility. With clouds, there is no such option.
Now, the conditions were not so bad that we had to operate IFR for the
whole flight -- but enough that I at least got a taste for it -- and got
over some of the fear of not being able to see past my wing tips.
--
--Larry A. Warsinski--
lwar...@up.net
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
> landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
> associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
> breaking the law.
What law do you believe it is breaking to practice a forced landing
by shutting off the engine?
I can see points on both sides of the 'engine off' issue, but
I don't believe it is explicitly against any law or any FAR,
provided it is done in a position from which a safe landing
can actually be made. The Feds get to bring up "careless and
reckless" if they like, but they always have the opportunity
to use hindsight to second-guess the PIC with this reg, engine
on or not.
> Those who like practising real engine-outs should also consider flying
> with their pitot/static ports covered. That will a valuable experience
> in flying without ASI or altimeter. After all you should know how to
> fly without instruments.
Barry Schiff, about a year ago, wrote a column in AOPA Pilot about
persuading a mechanic to temporarily install a valve which would
allow him to gradually bleed off vacuum, failing the vacuum
instruments as might happen in real life. He felt it was a valuable
training exercise for the student. I'm sure he'd feel the opportunity
to simulate a blocked pitot and/or static system in a fashion
reversible from inside the cabin would be equally valuable.
Of course, just like turning off the engine, there's always the
chance that a turned-off valve won't turn back on and the
simulated instrument failure will become real.
Regards,
Sydney
Roy Smith
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> writes:
>Barry Schiff, about a year ago, wrote a column in AOPA Pilot about
>persuading a mechanic to temporarily install a valve which would
>allow him to gradually bleed off vacuum, failing the vacuum
>instruments as might happen in real life.
I've read that Russian military trainers have controls in the rear
position which allow the instructor to fail various instruments up in front,
where the student is.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
Copyright 1997 Roy Smith
For-profit redistribution prohibited
craig
A friend of mine was telling me about an instructor shutting down an engine
at takeoff. The pilot overcorrected and crashed. This happened sometime
in the 1960's in Atlanta with a Delta plane. Usually a bunch of mechanics
would hop on for a ride but on this day the only casualities was the pilot
and the instructor. My friend almost got on that plane.
Spec4
ROFL! I'm sure it would have been even more hilarious to actually hear this
conversation complete with the "British accents." (Well, to us you have an
accent... No offense intended - it's just that something which might be
merely amusing when spoken by an American becomes absolutely hysterical
when it's spoken in the rather dry speech patterns of the UK.) Might make a
nice sketch for a John Cleese production or maybe even "Mr. Bean Learns to
Fly!" Bloody hell! The poor sod.
Jerry
Cary N. Mariash
> Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> > I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
> > landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
> > associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
> > breaking the law.
>
I would like to emphasize that the plane has to be in a position to make a
safe, power-off landing if the engine is stopped. A couple of years ago a
CFI was giving a BFR to one of our club pilots (who was past due on his
BFR). The CFI (who had to be PIC) pulled the mixture soon after takeoff to
simulate an engine out. The plane could not be restarted (apparently there
was some carb ice present) and had to be landed straight ahead in some
trees. The plane was destroyed (no one was significantly injured). NTSB
was not happy with the CFI for pulling the mixture (they said it should
not be done). The insurance company then went after the CFI for the full
cost of the plane (at least the club was covered). Therefore, I emphasize
that if you are going to simulate an engine out you should make sure that
the plane can be landed safely without the engine restarting.
Cary
David Munday
sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan) wrote:
>In article <5peu3o$2...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>David Munday <mund...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Durring the restart sequence (after establishing best glide and
>>setting up for the landing) My fingers find the fuel valve shut off
>>between the seats.
>I am interested to know what would have happened if you were unable
>to start the engine, and ended up putting the airplane in a field,
>tripped over a fense, causing injury to yourself, damage to the aircraft
>and property on the ground. Will the insurance cover you ? Will the
>FAA cite you (or your CFI) for reckless operation ?
In this case it was in the pattern, and the engine produced no
significant thrust to touchdown. I turned the fuel valve back on, the
engine fired, and the instructor pulled the throttle to idle (with
carb heat) I have to conclude that the instructor knew he had the
field made when he turned the valve.
--
David Munday - mund...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it -- Clarence Darrow
Jim Weir
sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->
->I agree with chopping power abeam and gliding it in. Always the best
->way to land,
Then you've never gotten your fingernails greasy with internal engine gunk.
There is no better way in the world to frap your engine than by "chopping
power" at any point in the process.
Let's take the venerable C-172 at a relatively benign airport -- controlled
or not. When we consider LAX or ORD, things change.
Enter the pattern a mile or so out inbound on the 45 at pattern altitude.
By the time you make the final turn from whatever course you had to use to
get there, you should have bled off speed and power to ABOUT 100 MPH and
2200 RPM a mile out inbound. At the point where you turn 45 to downwind,
ABOUT 90 MPH and 2000 RPM. Abeam the numbers, ABOUT 80 MPH and 1800 RPM
and 10d of flaps and the airplane will begin to descend at ABOUT 500 fpm
(dependent on load). Turn downwind to base at 75 MPH and 1600 RPM and 20d
of flaps. Base to final at 70 MPH and whatever RPM and flap setting you
find comfortable under the conditions.
Try it sometime and see if it isn't a very comfortable way to land. BTW,
at ANY point in the process, a failed engine will allow a glide to the
airport. These numbers may vary from type to type of aircraft, obviously.
->
->But I don't agree with your comment on "Flying is not for the weak at
heart".
->May be that is true in the case of military pilots, but not for GA. It is
->precisely this attitude that has made many pilots live adventerous butu
short
->lives. In my opinion, flying is not for those who think they have no
fear. As
->long as the fear doesn't decapitate the pilot, I am always ready to fly
->with a "fearing" pilot than with someone who claims otherwise.
I would never fly with a pilot who has a fear of the machine or his
abilities. Fear has a way of paralyzing performance. All pilots I know
have a respect and a healthy skepticism of the condition of the machine
until they inspect it and find it to their standards. All pilots I know
have an understanding that their knowledge of the process of flying is
flawed but sufficient to carry out the planned flight to a successful
conclusion, no matter what unforeseen circumstances arise.
The terms respect, caution, concern, and care characterize a pilot.
Airplane drivers fly with fear.
Jim
Jim Weir
Try going to deja.news before flailing out with what has been said a dozen
times before in the last week.
->
->I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
->landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
->associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
->breaking the law.
You are entitled to participate with your opinions in the debate. When you
state fact, state the reference. Please specify which "law" the instructor
is breaking, and please don't rely on catchall 91.13 (Careless and
Reckless) as that is part of the debate. So far as I know, no instructor
has ever been convicted under 91.13 for giving realistic emergency
instruction.
->
->Those who like practising real engine-outs should also consider flying
->with their pitot/static ports covered. That will a valuable experience
->in flying without ASI or altimeter. After all you should know how to fly
->without instruments.
Actually, my students DO get the airspeed and altimeter covered right down
to the ground before I let them go. Some day the wasp WILL mud over either
pitot or static and I don't want them falling out of the sky when they have
been taught that attitude will get them out of almost any situation.
->
->Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
->during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway,
why
->not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
->might come in handy and save your life some day.
Yup. If I have half a chance, I'll file IFR and take them right into it.
There ain't no hood like water vapor. But legally, sir, legally. Can YOU
remember the pucker factor the first time you saw that puffy-cu coming at
you at 130 knots?
->
->I am sure an even better exercise is to fly IMC with a broken AI.
->Think about the adrenalin rush and the fear as you have to fly partial
->panel. After all you have to know how to fly partial panel IFR, and might
->come in real handy some day.
Yup, and so long as they see it for the first time with me in the right
seat, it isn't quite as scary as when it happens for real.
->
->Of course, the above comments are meant to be sarcastic, not serious!
->Don't try them, not even in your dreams!
Another accident waiting to happen...
Jim
CFI (A&G), ASC, and other alphabet soup.
Todd Deckard
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >>6) "Stuck throttle" landings.
> >
> No, again nothing untoward. Usually, the student is told upon
> throttle cable has broken. How many readers (I wonder) have thought
> about this possibility, let alone practised it? One thing to
> consider is that the cable will still probably push, but not pull. So > if you were not thinking,
> you might "test" the control by pushing it open, and then be left with
> the worse condition of a full-power setting rather than a cruise
> setting.
>
I am told that on many engines (the typical O-200 installing in a
C150 being one of them) that the throttle linkage is spring loaded
so that a cable failure results in full throttle. You fly to a
suitable landing site (as quick as she'll go) and use one mag and
perhaps carb heat to "reduce power" to set up for the pattern.
Ultimately, you pull the mixture. I am not a mechanic and would
be curious if someone would chime in if they can confirm or deny this
(I've never seen a throttle that walked towards full if it was apt to
wander under low control friction).
--
Todd Deckard
NORAN Instruments
2551 West Beltline Hwy
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone: (608) 831-6511
FAX: (608) 836-7224
e-mail: dec...@noran.com
Dave Stadt
Andrew:
Ever heard of a glider???? They do it every landing and don't seem to
have much of a problem. Do they break the law every time they land????
What would you do if a vacuum pump failed or your pitot gets plugged?
Maybe you are one of those pilots that calls mayday 10 miles from the
home airport because your CDI fails.
Dave S.
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> I have not followed this thread, so forgive me for this.
>
> I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
> landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
> associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
> breaking the law.
>
> Those who like practising real engine-outs should also consider flying
> with their pitot/static ports covered. That will a valuable experience
> in flying without ASI or altimeter. After all you should know how to fly
> without instruments.
>
> Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
> during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway, why
> not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
> might come in handy and save your life some day.
>
> I am sure an even better exercise is to fly IMC with a broken AI.
> Think about the adrenalin rush and the fear as you have to fly partial
> panel. After all you have to know how to fly partial panel IFR, and might
> come in real handy some day.
>
> Of course, the above comments are meant to be sarcastic, not serious!
> Don't try them, not even in your dreams!
>
Johnny
Todd Deckard wrote:
>
> da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>6) "Stuck throttle" landings.
> > >
> > throttle cable has broken. How many readers (I wonder) have thought
> > about this possibility, let alone practised it? One thing to
> > consider is that the cable will still probably push, but not pull. So > if you were not thinking,
> > you might "test" the control by pushing it open, and then be left with
> > the worse condition of a full-power setting rather than a cruise
> > setting.
> >
>
> C150 being one of them) that the throttle linkage is spring loaded
> so that a cable failure results in full throttle. You fly to a
> suitable landing site (as quick as she'll go) and use one mag and
> perhaps carb heat to "reduce power" to set up for the pattern.
> Ultimately, you pull the mixture. I am not a mechanic and would
> be curious if someone would chime in if they can confirm or deny this
> (I've never seen a throttle that walked towards full if it was apt to
> wander under low control friction).
>
All the aviation carbs I've seen or worked on are sprung to be wide
open. If you are going to have a spring on there, there would be no
point in having it be sprung towards the closed position. In a car it is
this way so you can coast to a stop if the throttle cable breaks. In an
airplane it is the opposite so that you DON'T coast to a stop until you
want to. You might want to muddle through the FAR's pertaining to
powerplant certification and see if this might even be a requirement.
-j-
Dave Stadt
Morgoth Bauglir wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> It is legal (under some circumstances) to deliberately take off in the
> aircraft I normally fly with an engine inoperative.
No one mentioned takeoffs. Might want to back-up your statements
with the FAR you are referencing.
> This is not true of single-engine aircraft, nor is it true of any
> two-engine aircraft with which I am familiar.
Oh good, it is not legal to takeoff in a single engine aircraft
with one dead engine. I was worried about that one.
> What is normal for a glider may be careless and reckless when done in a
> different kind of aircraft. Creating a real emergency when a simulation
> would do quite nicely fits my definition of careless and reckless.
>
> If I had an instructor actually shut down the engine on a single engine
> aircraft, that would be the last time I flew with that instructor.
You are entitled to your opinion. I had an instructor do it to me and
am very happy he did. When (not 'if' because if you fly long enough
it will happen) it does happen for real I will allready have been
there.
Dave S.
> M
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > Ever heard of a glider???? They do it every landing and don't seem to
> > have much of a problem. Do they break the law every time they land????
> > What would you do if a vacuum pump failed or your pitot gets plugged?
> > Maybe you are one of those pilots that calls mayday 10 miles from the
> > home airport because your CDI fails.
> >
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <33BE53...@biochem.wustl.edu>,
Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> wrote:
Sydney,
I agree with your comments that turning off an engine or bleeding
the vacuum to simulate an emergency is a valuable exercise. But do
we know all the risks associated with it ? This whole discussion boils
down to a risk/benefit analysis. There is no doubt that there is a
benefit for every emergency exercise, however crazy that exercise might
be. But what is the risk ? And is it worth it ? That is the question we
need to ask.
Consider this: if the FAA changed the PP checkride procedure and required
that the engine be turned off for the forced landing part of the checkride,
do you think the national average for accidents caused by engine failure
will decrease ? I have a feeling that will not be the case. I don't
doubt for a moment that those who do survive will inevitably be better
pilots, but will we not be compromising the safety in aviation ?
It is for the same reason that the FAA stopped asking for spins. Mind you,
I like spins, but I think the FAA had a good reason to stop asking for it.
Further, I believe spins are not nearly as dangerous. That is because an
aircraft can be approved for spins. I have never seen an airplane that has
a placard on it saying "intentional engine-failure is approved".
So what you have to ask yourself is this:
A. What is the chance of me having an engine failure ?
B. If I have only practised the usual engine failures (ie throttle down with
engine running) what is my chance of survival when a real emergency occurs?
C. If I have practised engine failures by stopping the engine what
is my chance of survival in a real emergency ?
D. How much of this exercise will I have to do to make it worthwhile ?
E. If I practise real engine failures (by stopping the engine) what is the
chance that I may turn it into a real emergency ?
F. What is the chance that an accident will result from E ?
If you have some real numbers, you can plug it in and see if the benefits
out-weigh the risks. I have no idea what realistic numbers for these
might be. I suppose FAA collects such numbers, and that is probably how they
came up with dropping the spin requirement.
K'Honchu the killer
On 4 Jul 1997 12:04:49 -0600, sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan)
wrote:
(snip)
>
>I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
>landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
>associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
>breaking the law.
>
(...Snip...)
>
>--
>Andrew Sarangan
>PhD, PP-ASEL
Andrew,
What law would be broken?
Show me.
I've done all kinds of searches through the FAR/AIM and can't find
a definitive answer to this one. (Although there have been some good
observations posted in this group.)
Sincerely,
Bentley Vaughan
bvau...@hiwaay.net
PS: I do regularly practice power off landings, both at the airport
and at a friends grass strip. I usually just idle the engine for the
exercise, but last week killed it to see the difference. There was
more adrenaline and I didn't like the lack of noise, but the Cherokee
handled about the same.
Another thing: My insurance policy states that I'm not covered
for anything other than paved runways at real airports. So, If I had a
real engine failure and dinged up my bird in some high cotton, Ya'
think they'de cover me?
John R. Johnson
On 6 Jul 1997, Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> In article <33BE53...@biochem.wustl.edu>,
> Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Sydney,
>
> I agree with your comments that turning off an engine or bleeding
> the vacuum to simulate an emergency is a valuable exercise. But do
> we know all the risks associated with it ? This whole discussion boils
> down to a risk/benefit analysis. There is no doubt that there is a
> benefit for every emergency exercise, however crazy that exercise might
> be. But what is the risk ? And is it worth it ? That is the question we
> need to ask.
>
The risk of a failure to regain power after pulling the mixture control
on an engine is approximately the same as, but slightly less than the
risk of a failure to regain power after pulling back the throttle on an
engine. This risk is a small positive probability. I can't give you
exact statistics. The data has not been systematically collected.
> Consider this: if the FAA changed the PP checkride procedure and required
> that the engine be turned off for the forced landing part of the checkride,
> do you think the national average for accidents caused by engine failure
> will decrease ? I have a feeling that will not be the case. I don't
> doubt for a moment that those who do survive will inevitably be better
> pilots, but will we not be compromising the safety in aviation ?
>
It certainly would decrease. Both during the checkride and after. In my
opinion, based on my experience.
> It is for the same reason that the FAA stopped asking for spins. Mind you,
> I like spins, but I think the FAA had a good reason to stop asking for it.
> Further, I believe spins are not nearly as dangerous. That is because an
> aircraft can be approved for spins. I have never seen an airplane that has
> a placard on it saying "intentional engine-failure is approved".
>
Spins are FAR more dangerous than forced landing practice. At the time
the FAA stopped asking for spins, the average trainer had a MUCH higher
spin fatality rate than the rate recorded for the Tomahawk. Yet we have
people claiming the Tomahawk is an unsafe airplane because of it. Even
at that, there have always been many people who think that decision was
a serious mistake. Some countries, like Canada, who normally follow the
lead of the US in almost everything, refused to give up that element of
safety granted by spin recovery training for all pilots. Personally,
I believe that Canada was right. If the FAA were right, Canada should
show a significantly higher stall/spin fatality rate than the US. They
do not.
> So what you have to ask yourself is this:
>
Are my basic premises based on reality?
> A. What is the chance of me having an engine failure ?
>
It depends a great deal on the kind of flying you do. I fly mostly
antiques and do a lot of ferry for maintenance flights. I have had
thirteen engine failures where I could not get a restart in the air.
That works out to about one every three years on the average.
> B. If I have only practised the usual engine failures (ie throttle down with
> engine running) what is my chance of survival when a real emergency occurs?
>
Depends. Have you ever carried one through to a safe landing without
adding in the power? Have you ever landed on a grass strip or other
marginal or unimproved surface? Have you ever landed downwind or with
the wind from an unusual direction? Can you identify the quality of
a surface from the air?
We had a fellow, whose name shall NOT be mentioned, who was flying to a
strange grass strip. He landed perfectly on a algae covered canal,
sincerely thinking it was the airport! No one was hurt, but the airplane
got pretty damp. He is still flying it, however, just more careful about
the surface he picks for his landing.
> C. If I have practised engine failures by stopping the engine what
> is my chance of survival in a real emergency ?
>
Depends on the above factors. However, you will have a much better
appreciation of the way it glides. May also grab your attention much
more effectively.
> D. How much of this exercise will I have to do to make it worthwhile ?
>
Until the habit patterns are ingrained.
> E. If I practise real engine failures (by stopping the engine) what is the
> chance that I may turn it into a real emergency ?
>
Slightly less that the chance of creating a real emergency by pulling back
the throttle to simulate an engine failure.
> F. What is the chance that an accident will result from E ?
>
Slightly less that the chance that an accident will result from practicing
engine failures by pulling back the throttle. However, there is a very
real, if small, chance that an accident will result from any emergency
practice technique.
> If you have some real numbers, you can plug it in and see if the benefits
> out-weigh the risks. I have no idea what realistic numbers for these
> might be. I suppose FAA collects such numbers, and that is probably how they
> came up with dropping the spin requirement.
>
>
>
John R. Johnson
On 4 Jul 1997, Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> I have not followed this thread, so forgive me for this.
>
> I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
> landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
> associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
> breaking the law.
>
You do have a point. The risk of an accident as a result of turning off
the engine by pulling the mixture control is actually slightly less than
the risk of an accident by simulating an engine out by pulling the throttle
back to idle and running an overrich fuel mixture through the cylinders
with minimal heat production. However, because so few people actually
understand what is going on INSIDE the engine in the two different cases,
the risk of being SUED following an accident is substantially greater
if you simulate the emergency by pulling the mixture control. This is
typical of aviation problems these days, where emotion overrides reason.
> Those who like practising real engine-outs should also consider flying
> with their pitot/static ports covered. That will a valuable experience
> in flying without ASI or altimeter. After all you should know how to fly
> without instruments.
>
Absolutely. You should DEFINATELY have this experience. Otherwise you
could very well have a serious accident the first time a little moisture
condenses inside your pitot line or a wasp finds your static vent an
attractive hole, or builds a nest in your pitot tube. I can think of a
number of times when I took off after a THOROUGH preflight, and found
my airspeed indicator working like a poor altimeter!
Of course, a readily reversible technique is preferred, such as sticking
opaque suction cups over the instruments. It would be vastly better to
have an unobtrusive valve manifold that would allow the instructor to
simulate these problems as they would occur. There have been many fatal
accidents because a primary instrument failed in flight and the pilot
was not aware of the failure and followed the failing instrument into
serious troublem Unfortunately, a number of these fatal accidents did
involve air transport category aircraft, like the recent case where the
jet full of passengers took off with masking tape blocking the static
vents. It would NOT have been fatal if the pilots, either of them,
had recognized the indications of static failure promptly. Unfortunately,
they had not been sufficiently exposed to such failures.
> Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
> during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway, why
> not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
> might come in handy and save your life some day.
>
Absolutely. There is no substitute for some "actual" instrument flight
for a student. It is certainly advisable to experience real IMC for the
first time with an EXPERIENCED CFII sitting next to you.
> I am sure an even better exercise is to fly IMC with a broken AI.
> Think about the adrenalin rush and the fear as you have to fly partial
> panel. After all you have to know how to fly partial panel IFR, and might
> come in real handy some day.
>
Yes, I strongly recommend that experience. It saved my life!
> Of course, the above comments are meant to be sarcastic, not serious!
> Don't try them, not even in your dreams!
>
They were perhaps meant as sarcasm. Please try all of the above with an
appropriate instructor if it is at all possible. There are some very
important things that you just cannot learn from a simulation, and none
of the above things are actually emergencies. If it is NOT an emergency
situation why not experience the real thing under controlled conditions,
instead of saving the practice for a real emergency when you life depends
on you unformed skill.
Of course, I would not recommend creating a REAL emergency for practice.
Please do not start any fires in the back seat, or punch holes in the
airplane.
Please DO:
1. Kill the engine, by pulling the mixture control.
2. Open a door.
3. pinch off the static line if you can.
4. pinch off the pitot line if you can.
5. take me into REAL imc to practice ifr reference flight.
6. Let me fly an instrument approach with REAL clouds, maybe not
to minimums, but to a reasonable cloud base.
7. Hold the throttle OPEN when I want to land.
8. Disallow the flaps with them up.
9. Disallow the flaps with them DOWN.
10. Let me simulate a power failure all the way to a landing if it is
safe to do so.
Thanks,
John "for safer flying with knowledge" Johnson
Ron Natalie
> I am interested to know what would have happened if you were unable
> to start the engine, and ended up putting the airplane in a field,
> tripped over a fense, causing injury to yourself, damage to the aircraft
> reckless operation ?
Probably, but then you could always sue the manufacturer.
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
> In article <33BE53...@biochem.wustl.edu>,
> Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> wrote:
Andrew, you don't seem to have answered my question: aside
from the "careless and reckless" FAR which can be used to
second-guess *any* flight operation, what law would be broken
by pulling the mixture or turning off the fuel to simulate an
engine failure?
> I agree with your comments that turning off an engine or bleeding
> the vacuum to simulate an emergency is a valuable exercise. But do
> we know all the risks associated with it?
I did not say that turning off an engine was a valuable training
exercise. Nor did I attempt to argue that viewpoint. I stated
that I could see points on both sides of the issue. You stated
that so doing was "breaking the law". I ask again: what law?
> This whole discussion boils down to a risk/benefit analysis.
Exactly. The risk of any simulated emergency or simulated
component failure is that it could become real. A simulated
engine failure conducted by retarding the throttle can become
real, if conditions are conducive to carb ice development
(carb heat is relatively ineffective at low throttle).
Yet I personally think that's a risk worth accepting; I wouldn't
care to simulate emergency landings only by trimming the plane
to best glide at altitude and running through a checklist.
> Consider this: if the FAA changed the PP checkride procedure
I'm not interested in considering that, sorry. Note the word
"personally" above. You're exactly correct: it's an issue of
risk/benefit analysis. We all conduct our own personal risk
benefit analysis when we decide to start flying small planes,
an activity many people consider "too risky".
You have a perfect right to feel that it's too risky to simulate
an engine failure by shutting off the engine, or to simulate a
static or vacuum failure, or to take a student pilot into IMC,
or to fly in IMC without an AI, all situations you described as
"don't try them, not even in your dreams!".
But I think people who judge the risk worth it *should* be able
to try them, and not in their dreams. Just as long as they do
so with the knowledge that a simulated emergency *can* become
real, and the time and place chosen so as to minimize any ill
consequences.
Regards,
Sydney
John R. Johnson
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Terry Atkinson wrote:
> Clayton L. Cranor wrote:
> > I feel it is a primary responsibility (and one of the hardest things for
> > a new CFI to learn) to let the a student take a bad situation as far as
> > can be SAFELY recovered from before taking control from him.
>
> I agree in principal. However; I fail to see why the instructor should
> have to "take control from him". A proper pre-flight briefing and/or
> in-flight briefing should specify recovery action -- especially in
> training.
>
> Our instructors almost NEVER "take control" unless it is imperative or
> unless he wishes to demonstrate a technique.
> Canada, eh!
>
I think you both said the same thing! The only reason the instructor
would "take control from the student" would be to prevent the student
from taking the aircraft beyond the point of recovery. At that point
the pre-flight/in-flight briefing has failed. The student has shown
that the necessary skills to carry out the desired action have not yet
been developed, and intervention is required to prevent an accident.
The other reason, of course, is for a demonstration of technique or
practice.
John
Paul Stevens
Message-ID: <33C116...@nashville.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 11:15:30 -0500
From: Paul Stevens <Paul.S...@nashville.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Instructor shutting engine off in flight
References: <01bc87fe$aab40a20$9383f2c2@default> <5pje01$36...@argo.unm.edu> <33BE53...@biochem.wustl.edu> <5pln5g$ff6$1...@news.nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
I've heard that the U.S. military had AT-6's, which were used for
instrument training, equiped with switches and valves in the
instructor's cockpit to control the student's instruments. The
instructor could cause any partial or complete failure in the student's
cockpit, without any effect on the instructor's instruments. The
military saw a need for such training, but found a safe way to put
this training into it's program.
P.S.
Lindsay Rowlands
I can't stop thinking about the Sky Fox that was almost completely
totalled at our local airport a few years ago when the instructor pulled
an 'engine failure' on a student by shutting the throttle when the plane
was about 30' in the air during take off.
Had the instructor briefed the student prior to the training flight, they
may not have responded by exclaiming 'no it's not!' when the instructor
said 'your engine is out' and the subsequent arm wrestle over the throttle
possibly distracted both of them from watching the ground quickly coming
up to greet them.
Fortunately (?) the plane was still over the strip at the time and the
wreckage was fairly easily towed back to the hangar. I understand that the
engine and wings were about the only things worth keeping from the
incident. Both student and instructor survived [with a massive shake up].
That instructor was momentarily perplexed when I backed down from an intro
flight the following weekend. Within 4 weeks his fledgling ultralight
flight training business folded.....
I'm not certain of what this adds to the previous discussion/debate, but
from a personal perspective, life is too precious to have it compromised
by clearly unsafe practices.
Cheerz,
Lynzz
Clayton L. Cranor
Jim,
Just a few comments on yours...
> Actually, my students DO get the airspeed and altimeter covered right down
> to the ground before I let them go. Some day the wasp WILL mud over either
> pitot or static and I don't want them falling out of the sky when they have
> been taught that attitude will get them out of almost any situation.
>
Yes Indeed! Though I did get one student last week who, after I covered
the A/S, told me our airspeed was 76.2 mph. I hadn't seen his GPS down
by his knee!
> ->
> ->Another useful exercise is to intentionally fly into IMC conditions
> ->during your training. Since some hood time is required for VFR anyway,
> why
> ->not make it real and true-to-life ? You never know when that experience
> ->might come in handy and save your life some day.
>
> Yup. If I have half a chance, I'll file IFR and take them right into it.
> There ain't no hood like water vapor. But legally, sir, legally. Can YOU
> remember the pucker factor the first time you saw that puffy-cu coming at
> you at 130 knots?
>
Absolutley! A classroom lecture CANNOT prepare a student for what
happens in the air.
> ->
> ->I am sure an even better exercise is to fly IMC with a broken AI.
> ->Think about the adrenalin rush and the fear as you have to fly partial
> ->panel. After all you have to know how to fly partial panel IFR, and might
> ->come in real handy some day.
>
> Yup, and so long as they see it for the first time with me in the right
> seat, it isn't quite as scary as when it happens for real.
>
During an instrument comp check (w/ me as checkee..) the vacuum pump
failed. Excellent excersize, and did much to strengthen an already
healthy skepticism regarding instruments.
> Another accident waiting to happen...
>
> Jim
> CFI (A&G), ASC, and other alphabet soup.
My feeling is also that it is better for a student to experience these
things under a controlled excersize than not. Even if he doesn't know
it is a controlled excersize.
I might get skewered for this one, but I do often require student (&
BFRs) to land dead stick on an engine "emergency." There may not be a
recognizable airfield around or in-range, but there is always a good
place to land, unscathed.
Clay
Clayton L. Cranor
Terry Atkinson wrote:
>
> Clayton L. Cranor wrote:
> > I feel it is a primary responsibility (and one of the hardest things for
> > a new CFI to learn) to let the a student take a bad situation as far as
> > can be SAFELY recovered from before taking control from him.
>
> I agree in principal. However; I fail to see why the instructor should
> have to "take control from him". A proper pre-flight briefing and/or
> in-flight briefing should specify recovery action -- especially in
> training.
>
I am making the assumption that the student from whom I wrest control is
NOT making the correct control inputs and the assumption of controls is
my LAST chance to live through it. This is hopefully not a common
occurrance. A student will learn more from recovery than from watching
the CFI recover...
Just because you brief recovery techniques does not mean that the
student can properly apply them. I see this happen most when teaching
cross-wind landings in tailwheel aircraft. I can explain rudder use and
slips and ground-loops 'til I'm blue in the face, and a first time
tailwheel pilot will head off for the weeds everytime! Unless I want to
buy some runway lights (or worse!) I take control of the rudder...
> Our instructors almost NEVER "take control" unless it is imperative or
> unless he wishes to demonstrate a technique.
> Canada, eh!
>
Clay
Terry Schell
lrow...@metz.une.edu.au (Lindsay Rowlands) writes:
<snip>
>Had the instructor briefed the student prior to the training flight, they
>may not have responded by exclaiming 'no it's not!' when the instructor
>said 'your engine is out' and the subsequent arm wrestle over the throttle
>possibly distracted both of them from watching the ground quickly coming
>up to greet them.
I am not sure what I think about power-out simulations in general...
but if the student's response is to turn it back on, the instructor
better not interfere. The student made a good guess about why they
lost power and "fixed" the problem... good work. If the instructor
had wanted the student to find some other way of dealing with the
problem, he should have briefed him on the ground.
Actually I do know what I think about various simulated failures...
I think they should *not* be done for many people who get their
licence. Most people who go through flight training will not even fly
enough to keep their ticket current. The risk of an accident during
training is obviously much higher than the safety benefit if the
student doesn't fly again. On the other hand, if the student is
training for any sort of career in flying or expects to fly regularly
after training... it would be prudent to get some practice with common
emergencies while there is someone there who actually *knows* what
just went on and how to deal with it. The FAA should not jump in and
regulate this (like they did with spins) for all students. Different
students have different instuctional needs and instructors *should*
tailor what is taught to each student. The decision really should be
a cost-benefit analysis, but it is not possible to make a prudent
judgment about what should be done "in general" because the risks and
payoffs depend primarily on the individual student.
I also think that many instructors could take a page from airline
training and run these failures on simulators a few times before
deciding whether you need to run the real thing. It is not a full
substitute, but there is nothing wrong with running through emergency
procedures on the ground a few times before you decide if you are
ready for a "real" practice.
BTW... I think that spin training should be used (in appropriate planes)
for all students who expect to continue with their training. But, it is
definitely not worth it for the average student.
Terry "flame-me" Schell
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
I do not know for sure whether pulling the mixture has an increased
risk factor over a "normal" PFL practice where the throttle is closed
to idle, but suspect that the reverse may actually be the case.
During my PFL's during PPL training, I was aware that, come what may,
we would open up & go-around at around 500ft AGL. I suspect that this was
also the mind-set of the instructor, who did not (in retrospect) seem
too concerned when I messed up the exercise and was out of position to
effect any reasonable landing, whatever skill he posessed, should the
engine have failed to pick up. On one occasion we nearly _did_ have
a serious incident. I had set up for a good glide, throttle at idle,
into a good field. At the go-around point, I opened the throttle as usual.
Four things conspired: 1) We were in a considerable downdraft from
curlover from hills ahead. 2) I banged the throttle open too quickly, and
the engine faltered (rich cut, I guess). 3) Both the instructor and I forgot
to turn off the carb heat. 4) I was slow in retracting the flaps
The aircraft contiued to sink, and we were approaching rising ground as well.
The original field was fine, but the land beyond was wooded and not so
good for landing. That time, we made it away OK.
Contrast this with a full (pulling mixture) failure with a landing either
part of the exercise or known by both instructor & pupil to be likely. Would
the instructor have allowed us to get into this position in the first place?
I suspect not.
OTOH, an engineer I spoke to over this weekend said that pulling the mixture
in flight is very bad for the engine. He said that it causes detonation
closely followed by shock-cooling that can crack cylinders. I don't know
enough to comment on this.
==========================
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
==========================
Richard Guarino
amen
Morgoth Bauglir wrote:
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> It is legal (under
> some circumstances) to
> deliberately take off
> in the
> aircraft I normally
> fly with an engine
> inoperative.
>
> This is not true of
> single-engine
> aircraft, nor is it
> true of any
> two-engine aircraft
> with which I am
> familiar.
>
> What is normal for a
> glider may be careless
> and reckless when done
> in a
> different kind of
> aircraft. Creating a
> real emergency when a
> simulation
> would do quite nicely
> fits my definition of
> careless and reckless.
>
> If I had an instructor
> actually shut down the
> engine on a single
> engine
> aircraft, that would
> be the last time I
> flew with that
> instructor.
>
> M
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > Ever heard of a
> glider???? They do it
> every landing and
> don't seem to
> > have much of a
> problem. Do they break
> the law every time
> they land????
> > What would you do if
> a vacuum pump failed
> or your pitot gets
> plugged?
> > Maybe you are one of
> those pilots that
> calls mayday 10 miles
> from the
> > home airport because
> your CDI fails.
> >
Larry Guarcello
Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
>
> In article <33BE53...@biochem.wustl.edu>,
> Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with your comments that turning off an engine or bleeding
> the vacuum to simulate an emergency is a valuable exercise. But do
> down to a risk/benefit analysis. There is no doubt that there is a
> benefit for every emergency exercise, however crazy that exercise might
> be. But what is the risk ? And is it worth it ? That is the question we
> need to ask.
>
> that the engine be turned off for the forced landing part of the checkride,
> do you think the national average for accidents caused by engine failure
> will decrease ? I have a feeling that will not be the case. I don't
> doubt for a moment that those who do survive will inevitably be better
> pilots, but will we not be compromising the safety in aviation ?
>
> I like spins, but I think the FAA had a good reason to stop asking for it.
> Further, I believe spins are not nearly as dangerous. That is because an
> aircraft can be approved for spins. I have never seen an airplane that has
> a placard on it saying "intentional engine-failure is approved".
>
>
>
> engine running) what is my chance of survival when a real emergency occurs?
>
> is my chance of survival in a real emergency ?
>
>
> chance that I may turn it into a real emergency ?
>
>
> out-weigh the risks. I have no idea what realistic numbers for these
> might be. I suppose FAA collects such numbers, and that is probably how they
> came up with dropping the spin requirement.
>
> --
> Andrew Sarangan
> PhD, PP-ASEL
There's a good reason the military trains with blank ammunition. While
simulating the actual battle condition and "training" personnel under
"close to realistic" conditions, it MINIMIZES RISK! While shooting live
rounds at each other might be somewhat closer to reality and may even
better prepare the "survivors" for actual battle, inevitably, some would
not survive.
IMHO, no CFI has the right to intentionally subject me and my family to
that degree of risk. Regardless of his/her intentions, an instructor
does not have the right to impose any additional risk to life and
property as is necessarily inherent for "reasonable" training purposes.
I'm not a coward........but I'm not an idiot either!
Larry Guarcello
Skyhawk N738LG
Johnny
Lindsay Rowlands wrote:
>
> I can't stop thinking about the Sky Fox that was almost completely
> totalled at our local airport a few years ago when the instructor pulled
> an 'engine failure' on a student by shutting the throttle when the plane
> was about 30' in the air during take off.
>
> may not have responded by exclaiming 'no it's not!' when the instructor
> said 'your engine is out' and the subsequent arm wrestle over the throttle
> possibly distracted both of them from watching the ground quickly coming
> up to greet them.
I am trying to picture the instructor being able to pull the throttle
back with the students hand already on it and holding it in during
takeoff and climb out. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I am
at that point in the takeoff scenario, you would be hard pressed to be
able to remove my hand from the throttle to get it pulled back in the
first place. He must have caught it when the student went for the flaps
or gear or trim or something (which is the perfect time to hit him with
it).
Likewise, if the instructor was looking for a reaction to a
non-recoverable engine failure, I think he should have told the student
ahead of time something like: "I might pull the engine on you today,
when I do, you aren't suppose to use the throttle to get it back". In
this case, it would seem that the instructor is looking for the student
to display the "land straight ahead" rule, which is probably a good
lesson for when you loose it at 30' off.
I remember my primary instructor was very big on stalls, spins (that he
would start by kicking the rudder unexpectedly while doing stalls), and
engine outs, and various combinations of the above. I think he really
enjoyed it. The thing he enjoyed most though was recovery from unusual
attitudes, at night, under the hood... some of which were also stalls
and spins.
I truely believe that all of that stuff makes you a better, more
confident pilot. I think at first some of it is just scary, but after
learning how to deal with it, and doing so repeatedly, the recovery
techniques become routine, and the manuvers become fun to do. I was glad
my instructor used the "mixture off" technique when doing simulated
engine failures, and let me take it all the way to landing, because on
my check ride that's exactly what the examiner did. He was impressed
when I chose a nearby grass strip airfield as my landing spot (one I had
used before, so I knew it was there, but I didn't tell him that),
entered the exisiting Cub traffic, and took it all the way to the
ground. You should have seen the look on his face. You can guess the
look on mine.
I still practice that stuff too. Using uncontrolled airfields with not
too much traffic, starting either in the pattern somewhere, or outside
and above the pattern a couple miles away, bringing power down to idle,
or lean cut-off, and seeing exactly how far out I can be before I can't
make the threshold anymore. Having my daughter announce when to shut the
engine off so the starting point is rather random. Experimenting with
different turning techniques to see how little, or sometimes how much
altitude I can loose in a turn. Using different techniques based on
where I am in the pattern and what it takes to get it to the runway. And
yes, I'm that guy that will cut you off in the pattern if you try and go
on a cross country while you are supposed to be on downwind, because I
refuse to fly a traffic pattern that I can't glide to the runway from.
And I still won't get in your way because typically what I fly glides
like a fast brick. ;)
-j- (life long student of piloting, and practice make perfect)
Johnny
Clayton L. Cranor wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Just a few comments on yours...
>
> > Actually, my students DO get the airspeed and altimeter covered right down
> > to the ground before I let them go. Some day the wasp WILL mud over either
> > pitot or static and I don't want them falling out of the sky when they have
> > been taught that attitude will get them out of almost any situation.
> >
>
> Yes Indeed! Though I did get one student last week who, after I covered
> the A/S, told me our airspeed was 76.2 mph. I hadn't seen his GPS down
> by his knee!
Uh oh, did you chastize him for flying off of groundspeed instead of
airspeed. Now that's an accident waiting to happen!
-j-
Ben Evans
Roy Smith wrote:
>
> "Sydney D. Hoeltzli" <syd...@biochem.wustl.edu> writes:
> >Barry Schiff, about a year ago, wrote a column in AOPA Pilot about
> >persuading a mechanic to temporarily install a valve which would
> >allow him to gradually bleed off vacuum, failing the vacuum
> >instruments as might happen in real life.
>
> I've read that Russian military trainers have controls in the rear
> position which allow the instructor to fail various instruments up in front,
> where the student is.
Yep, in the Yak 52 the instructor can fail the front cockpit
brakes and much of the front cockpit instrumentation from the rear
cockpit. This can be a very useful training aid.
When putting the Yak 52 on a UK permit, the CAA require that
these instructor systems are disabled.
Regards
Ben
Steven Levin
Sydney D. Hoeltzli (syd...@biochem.wustl.edu) wrote:
: Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
:
: > I cannot disagree more with turning off the engine to practise forced
: > landings. I am sure it is a very valuable exercise, but the risks
: > associated with that exercise is just not worth it, not to mention
: > breaking the law.
: What law do you believe it is breaking to practice a forced landing
: by shutting off the engine?
I'd say it falls under that catch-all of regs, FAR 91.13(a), which states:
"Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another."
IMHO, leaving yourself without a go-around option is a violation of the
above. Here's a troublesome scenario:
You pull the engine, and someone taxis on to the active for takeoff. "No
problem," you say to yourself, figuring you have plenty of time.
Then the person, for whatever reason, is slow getting rolling. Maybe
they've left a door unlatched, and they have to get it closed. Now you're
closer, but you still have room.
Now the guy on the active does a static runup to make sure both engines are
working. Finally, as you're turning final, you see him rolling, so you
don't panic.
But then the poor guy on the runway has an engine drop on him as he's
rolling. By the time he james the throttles closed, he's skidded and slewed
back and forth, and he's turned almost 90 degrees to the centerline of the
runway, leaving you without sufficient runway to land. You're now committed
to damaging your aircraft, his, or both, for no good reason.
At least, that's how I suspect the local FSDO will see it.
Steve
Jerry Bransford
Steve's assessment is right on, in my opinion. The CFI who actually
shuts an engine off to teach emergency procedures has (1) created his
own emergency, and (2) has opened himself up to serious problems with
the FAA and the courts (at a minimum!) should anything go wrong. IMHO
that is....
Jerry
--
NOTE: To reply, remove the "NOSPAM" from my email address.
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
ifly
So what is the difference, exactly, in shutting the engine down in a
Cessna 150 and releasing from two in a Utility glider, say a 1-19?
Andrew Koenig
In article <33C252...@cts.comnospam> jer...@cts.comnospam writes:
> Steve's assessment is right on, in my opinion. The CFI who actually
> shuts an engine off to teach emergency procedures has (1) created his
> own emergency, and (2) has opened himself up to serious problems with
> the FAA and the courts (at a minimum!) should anything go wrong. IMHO
> that is....
Yeah, but an examiner who shuts off an engine during a checkride
is saved by the clause in the FARs that says that the candidate
is pilot in command.
--
--Andrew Koenig
a...@research.att.com
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Ron Natalie
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Yeah, but an examiner who shuts off an engine during a checkride
> is saved by the clause in the FARs that says that the candidate
> is pilot in command.
14 CFR 91.11 Prohibition against interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with
a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an
aircraft being operated.
Roy Smith
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> 14 CFR 91.11 Prohibition against interference with crewmembers.
>
> No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with
> a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an
> aircraft being operated.
Does that mean that if I'm taking a checkride and the examiner turns my
fuel selector switch to the "OFF" position, and I say "Screw you, you
can't do that!" and turn it back on, I'm in violation of 91.11? :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
Larry Guarcello <lar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
WRT "real" vs "simulated" PFLs :
> There's a good reason the military trains with blank ammunition. While
> simulating the actual battle condition and "training" personnel under
> "close to realistic" conditions, it MINIMIZES RISK! While shooting live
> rounds at each other might be somewhat closer to reality and may even
> better prepare the "survivors" for actual battle, inevitably, some would
> not survive.
I'll bite on this analogy.
Where I trained, we did use live ammo. The way the exercises were conducted
and the quality of the instruction made it safe. (OK, not as safe as lying in
bed, maybe). In 5 years, there was only one ordinance related training
accident, when a recruit fumbled a live grenade, then "hit the deck"
on top of it. Hearing the "crack-thump" of a 7.62 RPD round for the first
time
in your life is much better with a beefy WO1 next to you ready to push your
head into the mud should you unwisely decide to stand up, than in a real
ambush situation. The 0.5 seconds of wondering "What was that?" may be the
difference between hearing the next "thump" or only hearing the "crack".
Mind you, in my case there was a real war on at the time, and so the skills
were not just for use as play-soldiers. People who don't intend
to use their PPL to do real, actual flying have likewise no need to
learn skills "for real", I guess.
> IMHO, no CFI has the right to intentionally subject me and my family to
> that degree of risk. Regardless of his/her intentions, an instructor
> does not have the right to impose any additional risk to life and
> property as is necessarily inherent for "reasonable" training purposes.
> I'm not a coward........but I'm not an idiot either!
There we differ. I _am_ a coward. Maybe that's why I take every
opportunity to safely test my own abilities to their limit, rather than
risk the need to be brave. I'm not being cute - I'm being as honest
as I can. If I can accurately assess my own limitations, maybe I will
not get into a position where they need to be exceeded.
If carried out sensibly by a competant instructor there is no increased risk
in chopping the mixture IMO, over pulling the thottle. If you & your
instructor *rely* on the engine delivering full power to go-around, then
this is a high risk in either case.
It is countering the attitude of believing, should the engine quit, that
you are already as good as dead that makes such training so valuable.
Experiencing a perfectly safe, "no sweat" genuine glide approach to land may
make the difference, should it happen for real, between a blind panic and
a calm, confident emergency landing. To be honest, I would not be happy doing
this exercise in an unfamiliar a/c and an instructor that I did not know.
If you are not yourself sufficiently competent to carry out the exercise
with a 100% chance of success, then you must place a very large trust
upon the ability of your instructor. Just like my military training -
if the instructors firing "at" me (actually over and around) and the
instructor by my side had not been skilled enough to carry out the exercises
safely, and "take over" should I have done anything silly, I might
not be here today. Trust in another person is important - consider
the reliance on ATC instructions, especially in IMC. Here, I don't know the
person at the other end of the radio personally, but I have trust in the
system that trained him/her. Sure there are "horror" scenarios that would
turn any exercise into a bad situation. They are not that likely, though,
so long as the instructor is on the ball. I could dream up any number
of unlikely situations that would endanger life - flying, driving or
even going to bed.
As the risk of taunting fate, I honestly believe that should I experience
an engine failure in a single over land, I would be able to make a landing
that is perfectly safe for me & my passengers. This is due in no small
part to having carried out many deliberate and safe no-engine landings.
The normal "go-around at 500ft" exercises have not contributed nearly
as significantly to this confidence.
As usual, my opinionated opinions are my own. I am not qualified to
teach flying. Students should listen only to their QFI, and not rely
on opinions expressed on the net - not even by me :-)
===========================
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
===========================
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
le...@homer.premrad.com (Steven Levin) writes:
> Here's a troublesome scenario:
> You pull the engine, and someone taxis on to the active for takeoff.
So obviously he's NORDO & doesn't know that anyone else is around .........
> Then the person, for whatever reason, is slow getting rolling. Maybe
> they've left a door unlatched, and they have to get it closed. Now you're
> closer, but you still have room.
So now he's a careless NORDO ....
> Now the guy on the active does a static runup to make sure both engines are
> working. Finally, as you're turning final, you see him rolling, so you
> don't panic.
So now he's a careless twin engine NORDO that is doing runups on the active .......
> But then the poor guy on the runway has an engine drop on him as he's
> rolling. By the time he james the throttles closed, he's skidded and slewed
> back and forth, and he's turned almost 90 degrees to the centerline of the
> runway, leaving you without sufficient runway to land. You're now committed
> to damaging your aircraft, his, or both, for no good reason.
So the careless, twin engine NORDO pilot that does his runups on the active now
has a mechanical malfunction ......
..... And obviously, in addition, the airport in question has no suitable
off-runway landing area ......
Steven DON'T GO TO BED TONIGHT!!!!! YOU COULD BE KILLED!!!!!
Consider the following troublesome scenario:
First a Swallow builds a nest on your flue.
Then the control on your central heating malfunctions, and switches it on.
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY COULD SUCCUMB TO CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING!!!!!!!
Well, I've never heard of the first scenario, but the second crops up
in the news from time to time, so I guess it's more likely :-)
===========================
Sweet Dreams
Dave
===========================
Chad R. Speer
Nope . . . in fact, I'd probably say something along those lines!
If you're PIC on a checkride, then HE is interfering with YOU! Anybody
think the FAA would side with the applicant on this one? (grin)
But wait! FAR91.11 doesn't mention PIC, only "crewmember". Since a
student can only act as PIC when an examiner is on board, doesn't that
make the examiner a required crewmember?! Hmmm . . .
Let's not even get into the part that says "No person may . . .
intimidate . . . a crewmember in the performance . . . " Examiners
everywhere would lose their tickets!
Living in my own little world today!
Chad Speer
PVT-ASEL, ATCS
Roy Smith wrote:
**********
Does that mean that if I'm taking a checkride and the examiner turns my
fuel selector switch to the "OFF" position, and I say "Screw you, you
can't do that!" and turn it back on, I'm in violation of 91.11? :-)
**********
RobertR237
Jim,
>Just a few comments on yours...
>> Actually, my students DO get the airspeed and altimeter covered right
down
>> to the ground before I let them go. Some day the wasp WILL mud over
either
>> pitot or static and I don't want them falling out of the sky when they
have
>> been taught that attitude will get them out of almost any situation.
>>
>Yes Indeed! Though I did get one student last week who, after I covered
>the A/S, told me our airspeed was 76.2 mph. I hadn't seen his GPS down
>by his knee!
You should have told that smart-ass (Dumb) student that if he was using
the GPS to give him his air speed then he might just be dead the next
time. The 76.2 indicated was ground speed not air speed. The GPS can not
tell you air speed. Was he going down wind, up wind or cross wind. If
down wind and had a 20 mph tail wind, then his air speed was only 56.2 and
very close to stall.
The GPS is a GOD Send to us pilots if we learn to use it correctly but
it's not a replacement for all your instruments or common sense.
>I might get skewered for this one, but I do often require student (&
>BFRs) to land dead stick on an engine "emergency." There may not be a
>recognizable airfield around or in-range, but there is always a good
>place to land, unscathed.
>Clay
That is asking for it big time. Putting a plane down any where but a
recognizable airfield and even some recognizable fields is a hazard which
should be avoided. It might be the most beautiful smooth grass field you
ever saw from the air but sit the plane down on it any you might find
anything from broken glass, rocks, fire ant mounds, chuck holes, loose
wire, big bad bulls and so on. It just is not worth the risk of life and
/ or equipment. Teach it, repeat it, but don't create it.
I prefer the way my flying club teaches dead stick landings. We have a
flyin twice a year where the members compete in power on and power off
landing exercises. We place a marker on the runway and all compete at
setting down on the mark. Three attempts in normal power landing mode and
three attempts where we cross the airfield at right angle at midfield and
1500', cut the power and dead stick to a landing on the mark. No it's not
emergency conditions but if you practice something enough, when it comes
time to use it you will be able to. It's a great exercise in knowing your
airplane and what it can and can not do.
My .02 worth.
Bob Reed
Andrew Koenig
> So what is the difference, exactly, in shutting the engine down in a
> Cessna 150 and releasing from two in a Utility glider, say a 1-19?
Next time you're at an active glider base, ask the FBO how many
off-airport landings they have a year.
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
Jim Weir wrote:
> I would never fly with a pilot who has a fear of the machine or his
> abilities.
Well, I guess I'm glad you weren't my flight instructor then.
I spent a lot of time being plenty scared of my abilities. With
good reason, say I.
> Fear has a way of paralyzing performance.
That's one reaction to fear. It is *only* one reaction to
fear. Another reaction is to say "yep, I'm afraid, now
what comes next?" and go right ahead and do it. And the
former can be turned into the latter with proper training.
I'm told that's the whole basis for infantry training; fear
is a pretty normal, healthy reaction to some situations but
one learns to accept it and get the job done.
Can't speak for pilots, but in other situations I'm personally
a little skeptical of people who've never been afraid. I've
seen it where sometimes people who are used to being afraid are
also used to dealing with it; they do just fine in an actual
emergency while Fearless Fred, who never once blanched during
training, falls apart in the real thing 'cuz when his mouth
goes dry and his heart starts pounding and his hands shake,
it's all new to him and he thinks he's dying and freaks.
Susie Scared says "been there, I'll live, what's next?" and
keeps going.
> The terms respect, caution, concern, and care characterize a pilot.
> Airplane drivers fly with fear.
Well, you know, I'd say I fly with respect, caution, concern, and
care. And sometimes I fly with fear. Hasn't stopped me yet.
Not from flying, not from learning to land (took a while), not
from spin training and starting acro. Guess that makes me an
"airplane driver" to you. That's OK, but I wish you'd rethink
your attitude, because you sound like the kind of instructor who
could otherwise teach someone a lot.
Regards,
Sydney "AD-SEL"
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
In article <ED0xs...@research.att.com>, <a...@research.att.com> writes:
> In article <5ptu70$6gc$2...@news.indigo.ie> ifly <if...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> > So what is the difference, exactly, in shutting the engine down in a
> > Cessna 150 and releasing from two in a Utility glider, say a 1-19?
>
> Next time you're at an active glider base, ask the FBO how many
> off-airport landings they have a year.
> --
In *local training flights*? Not one at the club where I flew.
================
Dave Mould
===============
ifly
>Next time you're at an active glider base, ask the FBO how many
>off-airport landings they have a year.
>--
> --Andrew Koenig
> a...@research.att.com
> http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Done that, to date I have about 40 some odd off airport landings.
Including 6 in powered aircraft.
Jeff Morris
RobertR237
>What have you done instead to simulate a power-off emergency? So far
>it seems that there are three methods:
>
>1) Kill the ignition switch.
>2) Bring the throttle back to idle
>3) Bring the throttle all the way to fuel cutoff.
All the instructors I work with currently use the method of "Bring the
throttle back to Idle" ----- but ----- also will use a clearing cycle of
reving the engine up (with carb heat if indicated) for a brief cycle a
couple of times during the exercise. This does not ruin the effect or
cause any measurable change to the exercise but does insure that the
engine power can be resumed and checks for any problems which might occur
before it's too late. I have not seen or heard of any problems using this
method.
We also use the same technique in our flying club for our dead stick
landing competition.
Bob Reed
Jack Cullen
've been reading this thread since it began -- and with great
interest. I am an instructor and have been since 1969 (that was about
6000 hrs of dual given ago -- which is a little less than 1/3 of my
total time). I had a student once who thought he was a real "hot-shot,
wiseguy" and would never take seriously anything I tried to teach him --
and he would do it in the most arrogant way possible! He seemed to
think flying a plane was no more difficult than driving a car and
involved no particular danger that might require any specific special
skills. When I tried to teach him about emergency/off-airport landings
and how to deal with them, he really wasn't interested in doing anything
but seeing how outrageous and ridiculous a choice of a landing spot he
could find. ...if we were over an airport when I brought the throttle
back to idle and asked him to pick a place to land and try to do it
without adding power, he would invariably pass up the airport and select
something stupid -- like a warehouse roof!
After 3 or 4 lessons of this I had had it! After a lot of serious
thought about the consequenses, I maneuvered the C-150 to a position
above the downwind leg of the home-drome, throttled back, and asked him
to go ahead and land it without adding power. Just as I expected, he
passed up the airport and wanted to line up on a road. I said. "OK, go
ahead", and then shut off the fuel valve. The engine quit and he almost
jumped out of the airplane, at which point I said, "Let me show you how
to do this."
It's actually extremely difficult to explain to a student everything
your doing and why your doing it, why you decided to do this and not
that, what mental preparations your going through, what precautions you
want to take, what things you should check -- and at the same time, pray
to The Lord to forgive your stupidity and ask Him to please see to it
that nothing unexpected happens.
In the end, it was a really nice landing -- on the airport, too; I got
to show the guy how much more the plane will float with the prop stopped
and he became very sharp at emergency landings. And I decided that it
was a dumb thing to do, but at least I got his attention and maybe
showed him how seriously serious things can get.
That's the only time I've ever intentionally shut down the engine in a
single; I've shut engines down in twins during training, and otherwise,
many times -- even had to shut BOTH down in a Navajo once! But, as far
as multi-engine training goes, I think it's vitally important for a
student to actually experience an inflight shut down -- no simulation
can possibly duplicate the ice-cold reality of seeing one of those props
come to a stop! At the same time, though, the instructor has to realize
that he's not dealing with a simulated emergency anymore! It's for
real, and he'd better have the situation as carefully planned out and as
totally under control as is humanly possible.
--
Jack Cullen
CFII, ATP DC-3, ATR-42
West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
Please reply to: jcullen "at" capecod "dot" net
Ron Natalie
>> You pull the engine, and someone taxis on to the active for takeoff.
> So obviously he's NORDO & doesn't know that anyone else is around .........
Doesn't need to be NORDO just not very observant. Shit happens though.
Even at controlled fields airliners inadvertantly cross hold lines.
At your average backwoods field, it's just more common...
Ron Natalie
> But wait! FAR91.11 doesn't mention PIC, only "crewmember". Since a
> student can only act as PIC when an examiner is on board, doesn't that
> make the examiner a required crewmember?! Hmmm . . .
Examiners don't count as anything. What makes you think a
student can't act as pilot in command. Students are PIC
for their checkrides and all their solo work. Why do you
think in the student pilot there are conditions on "No
Student may act as pilot in command..." Part 61 also states
that examiners don't count as passenegers with regard to
these limitations.
Richard White (CS)
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Larry Guarcello wrote:
> IMHO, no CFI has the right to intentionally subject me and my family to
> that degree of risk. Regardless of his/her intentions, an instructor
> does not have the right to impose any additional risk to life and
> property as is necessarily inherent for "reasonable" training purposes.
> I'm not a coward........but I'm not an idiot either!
Well, I've made a few off-airport landings, some of them with the prop
intentionally stopped. I suppose that would make me an idiot, eh? :-)
My CFI also taught me how to land at night with no runway lights or
landing lights. It wasn't easy at first, but now I know I can do it.
People have different risk tolerances, not to mention they assess risks
differently. I wouldn't presume to label them cowards or idiots, except
maybe at the very extremes.
I'm reminded of the joke George Carlin used to tell about driving. If the
guy in front of him was going to slow, he was an idiot. And the guy who
zoomed around him from behind was a maniac.
Seems like the postings in this thread are either in one camp or the other
and each has expressed valid concerns. I would like to suggest that there
are times when killing the engine is a bad idea, and times when it's OK.
But then, if you try to please everybody, someone won't like it.
Happy times upon you, Richard.
Andrew M. Sarangan
Jim Weir wrote:
> I would never fly with a pilot who has a fear of the machine or his
> abilities.
OK, I won't take you flying with me then.
I love flying. But I am also afraid of flying. In my view, that fear is
what keeps me constantly scanning for forced landing sites, other traffic
and my engine guages.
Man was never meant to fly. The only way you cannot be afraid of flying
is if you had your own wings like the birds. Even then I am sure at times
the birds too get afraid of flying. Mechanical devices are bound to fail by
definition. It doesn't matter how much you inspect them or how much you
have faith in their abilities.
Fear is a defense mechanism that mother nature built into us to prevent
us from getting hurt. Don't ignore it, but don't be bound by it either.
Andrew M. Sarangan
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970708203327.4269F-100000@grad>,
Richard White (CS) <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, I've made a few off-airport landings, some of them with the prop
>intentionally stopped. I suppose that would make me an idiot, eh? :-)
>
Are you serious ? You actually landed in a corn field (or something
similar) just for the heck of it ?? Now, that is really something..
>My CFI also taught me how to land at night with no runway lights or
>landing lights. It wasn't easy at first, but now I know I can do it.
>
I am afraid I don't agree with the analogy. These are not emergency
situations. Landing without landing lights is a *required* training
exercise for night operations (atleast in Canada).
Further, with no landing lights or runway lights you are not committed
to landing. You can fly low, inspect the runway, and you can even decide
not to land at that airport and go somewhere else.
Chad R. Speer
Right you are, Ron Natalie! I must have been suffering from the classic
cerebral flatulance yesterday. Let's hope the air has cleared!
Chad Speer
PVT-ASEL, ATCS
Ron Natalie wrote:
**********
Examiners don't count as anything. What makes you think a student can't
act as pilot in command. Students are PIC for their checkrides and all
their solo work. Why do you think in the student pilot there are
conditions on "No Student may act as pilot in command..." Part 61 also
states that examiners don't count as passenegers with regard to these
limitations.
**********
John R. Johnson
On 9 Jul 1997, Andrew M. Sarangan wrote:
<snip>
>
> Further, with no landing lights or runway lights you are not committed
> to landing. You can fly low, inspect the runway, and you can even decide
> not to land at that airport and go somewhere else.
>
for all. I have flown into airports where, once you commence the approach,
you are committed to land! Admittedly these airports are usually only
found in mountainous terrain, they do exist.
I have also made a landing with the prop stopped, although, in my case, I
did NOT stop it on purpose! :-)
John
John R. Johnson
Actually, I have never had a NORDO aircraft taxi onto the runway with
someone on final. NORDO pilots usually look before they leap. However,
I did have a Beech KingAir take the active when I was on SHORT final.
I actually buzzed him. I went around only to find, when I got back on
final again that he was busily doing a thorough and safe RUNUP, on
the end of the ACTIVE RUNWAY with aircraft in the pattern! I actually
made four approaches before he condescended to move. As it turned out
he started his roll once again with me on short final.
I planted my landing gear right in front of his windshield and flew
formation with him on his takeoff roll. Then I went around AGAIN and
came back and landed, with him safely on his way with his paying
passengers.
There was an FAA facility on the field. I walked into the FAA facility
after landing and there were four guys in there rolling on the floor
laughing. I asked them what was so darned funny, still being a bit
peeved by the crude and illegal behaviour of the King Air DRIVER.
They admitted, between gasps for breath, that the King Air Driver called
in after takeoff and wanted for file an FAR violation against me for
trying to land when he was using the airport.
Those "professional" pilots like that turkey are the ones you have to
watch out for. Most use the radio just fine, but have never discovered
the primary purpose of a window in an airplane.
John
Sriram Narayan
: > I would never fly with a pilot who has a fear of the machine or his
: > abilities.
: Well, I guess I'm glad you weren't my flight instructor then.
: I spent a lot of time being plenty scared of my abilities. With
: good reason, say I.
: > Fear has a way of paralyzing performance.
: That's one reaction to fear. It is *only* one reaction to
: fear. Another reaction is to say "yep, I'm afraid, now
: what comes next?" and go right ahead and do it. And the
: former can be turned into the latter with proper training.
: I'm told that's the whole basis for infantry training; fear
: is a pretty normal, healthy reaction to some situations but
: one learns to accept it and get the job done.
: your attitude, because you sound like the kind of instructor who
: could otherwise teach someone a lot.
-snipped-
Good points.
"A scared pilot is a safe pilot". Where did I hear this?
I guess, as long as you recognise your limitations and are sensitive
to this, a healthy dose of "fear" will probably save your life. Of course
if fear turns to panic that's a recipe for disaster.
--
Sriram Narayan http://www.dsp.net/narayan
PP-ASEL Aviation links and VFR Flight planner
Livermore, CA sriram....@technologist.com
dhs...@ingr.com
In article <5q0evv$4b...@musca.unm.edu>,
Unfortunately our actions in response to the emotion of fear are
inherited and have been developed over generations. They often work well
if you come face to face with a saber tooth tiger but aren't of much use
in an airplane. A synonym for fear is panic. The thought process when
faced with fear is for the most part automatic and of a very primitive
nature. It has been a while but I believe blood gets diverted from the
brain to the muscles so we are better able to fight or flee. Obviously,
reduced brain capacity is not a plus at such a time. It can cause one to
worsen the situation rather than try to effect a solution. Three
reactions are typical; fight, flee or freeze. None of which are of much
use when the prop quits at 2000', eh. (Unless you are wearing a
parachute) Do believe the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepaired" is
appropriate when flying but can't see fear being the guiding emotion.
Now, if you want to experience fear go do some wheel landings in a tail
dragger on pavement in a good stiff crosswind. :-O
Dave S.
sara...@unm.edu (Andrew M. Sarangan) wrote:
>
>CHOP
>
> OK, I won't take you flying with me then.
>
> I love flying. But I am also afraid of flying. In my view, that fear is
> what keeps me constantly scanning for forced landing sites, other traffic
> and my engine guages.
>
> Man was never meant to fly. The only way you cannot be afraid of flying
> is if you had your own wings like the birds. Even then I am sure at times
> the birds too get afraid of flying. Mechanical devices are bound to fail by
> definition. It doesn't matter how much you inspect them or how much you
> have faith in their abilities.
>
> Fear is a defense mechanism that mother nature built into us to prevent
> us from getting hurt. Don't ignore it, but don't be bound by it either.
>
> --
> Andrew Sarangan
> PhD, PP-ASEL
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Terry Schell
dhs...@ingr.com writes:
<snip>
>... A synonym for fear is panic.
<much bad psychophysiology deleted>
Not by most definitions.
Terry "putting-the-panic-of-God-into-'em" Schell
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Andrew Koenig wrote:
> In article <5ptu70$6gc$2...@news.indigo.ie> ifly <if...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> > So what is the difference, exactly, in shutting the engine down in a
> > Cessna 150 and releasing from two in a Utility glider, say a 1-19?
>
> Next time you're at an active glider base, ask the FBO how many
> off-airport landings they have a year.
> --
In my flying career I have had many many off airport landings. We used
to operate regularly from off airport locations. I have also had several
( thirteen ) total engine failures where a restart was not possible and
a landing resulted. Only two of those thirteen resulted in an "off
airport" landing. All of my "off airport" landings were followed by
an "off airport" takeoff.
John
Brett Rabe
Clayton L. Cranor wrote:
> Yes Indeed! Though I did get one student last week who, after I covered
> the A/S, told me our airspeed was 76.2 mph. I hadn't seen his GPS down
> by his knee!
Fascinating. How does your average handheld GPS measure AIRSPEED?
Brett
--
Brett Rabe Email : br...@uswest.net
Systems Administrator - !nteract Services Phone : 612.951.4138
600 Stinson Blvd. Pager : 612.613.2549
Minneapolis, MN USA 55413 Fax : 612.672.4131 / 4132
John R. Johnson
The Utility glider has spoilers that you can easily use to control
your descent. With the C-150 you have to slip to speed your descent.
The glider will glide slightly furthur from the same altitude, but
the time to the ground will be pretty close to the same.
The only real difference was, in the glider you EXPECT to land soon
if you can't find a good thermal. In the C-150 you expected the noise
to continue indefinately. It is this violation of expectations that
creates the "emergency."
John
Richard White (CS)
On 1 Jul 1997, RobertR237 wrote:
> NO! Dead stick landings should not be taught by cutting the engine off
> completely. It is stupid to create an emergency condition or a potential
> emergency condition when training.
I respectfully disagree. Under proper circumstances, killing the engine
does not create an emergency condition (potential or otherwise). Glider
pilots do it all the time. Landing an airplane with the prop completely
stopped is enough different than with the engine at idle, that I am
grateful that my CFI taught me how to do it.
Clayton L. Cranor
Johnny,
> Uh oh, did you chastize him for flying off of groundspeed instead of
> airspeed. Now that's an accident waiting to happen!
>
> -j-
Oh yes... I also now ask him to give it to me before each flight! I
generally don't let my students use them until they learn other, more
important nav techniques (pilotage, ded reckoning...)
Clay
Clayton L. Cranor
John,
...
> They admitted, between gasps for breath, that the King Air Driver called
> in after takeoff and wanted for file an FAR violation against me for
> trying to land when he was using the airport.
>
> Those "professional" pilots like that turkey are the ones you have to
> watch out for. Most use the radio just fine, but have never discovered
> the primary purpose of a window in an airplane.
>
> John
Did you wish you could see the guys face when he got a "letter of
investigation?"
Clay
John R. Johnson
On 8 Jul 1997, Steven Levin wrote:
<snip>
> I'd say it falls under that catch-all of regs, FAR 91.13(a), which states:
>
> "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
> operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
> life or property of another."
>
> IMHO, leaving yourself without a go-around option is a violation of the
> above. Here's a troublesome scenario:
>
I think the thrust of the postings on this topic have indicated that you
are as likely to lose the go-around option with ANY method of inducing
a simulated engine failure. Therefore ANY power failure simulation is
a violation of that particular FAR. Especially, if the power fails to
resume on command.
> You pull the engine, and someone taxis on to the active for takeoff. "No
> problem," you say to yourself, figuring you have plenty of time.
>
Continueing the simulated failure at this point is pretty stupid. Merely
push the mixture control back in and the engine will smoothly restart,
just as if you had retarded the throttle, but without the likelihood of
failure caused by loading up the cylinders with excess fuel.
> Then the person, for whatever reason, is slow getting rolling. Maybe
> they've left a door unlatched, and they have to get it closed. Now you're
> closer, but you still have room.
>
However, you are now thinking about a go-around. Also perhaps filing
an FAR violation against the idiot on the ground who clearly violated
the FAR's by failing to yield the right of way to the airplane in the
air.
> Now the guy on the active does a static runup to make sure both engines are
> working. Finally, as you're turning final, you see him rolling, so you
> don't panic.
>
Doing his RUNUP on the ACTIVE RUNWAY. Clearly time to file a violation
on the guy. People like that should NOT be allowed to fly airplanes.
> But then the poor guy on the runway has an engine drop on him as he's
> rolling. By the time he james the throttles closed, he's skidded and slewed
> back and forth, and he's turned almost 90 degrees to the centerline of the
> runway, leaving you without sufficient runway to land. You're now committed
> to damaging your aircraft, his, or both, for no good reason.
>
By now you are definately on your way around and the fellow on the ground
is definately on the way to permanently losing his license, and a well
deserved loss it is too.
> At least, that's how I suspect the local FSDO will see it.
>
As least, that's how I suspect the local FSDO will see it.
John
John R. Johnson
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997 da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
<snip>
> OTOH, an engineer I spoke to over this weekend said that pulling the mixture
> in flight is very bad for the engine. He said that it causes detonation
> closely followed by shock-cooling that can crack cylinders. I don't know
> enough to comment on this.
>
I can comment on this. He is thinking that the lean mixture as the engine
is stopping can cause detonation. It is true that attempting to produce
copious power with an overlean mixture can cause detonation. However, this
is a very small band of mixtures, and when you pull directly to idle
cutoff, I seriously doubt that you will spend enough time in that mixture
range to experience detonation at all. Not likely anyway.
As for the shock cooling, I will merely refer you to the excellent article,
from Aviation Maintenance that is published on http://www.avweb.com/ in
their online aviation magazine which is free for the perusing. He pretty
well explodes the myth of "shock cooling" causing cylinders to crack.
John
Larry Guarcello
da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Larry Guarcello <lar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> WRT "real" vs "simulated" PFLs :
>
> > There's a good reason the military trains with blank ammunition. While
> > simulating the actual battle condition and "training" personnel under
> > "close to realistic" conditions, it MINIMIZES RISK! While shooting live
> > rounds at each other might be somewhat closer to reality and may even
> > better prepare the "survivors" for actual battle, inevitably, some would
> > not survive.
>
> I'll bite on this analogy.
>
> Where I trained, we did use live ammo. The way the exercises were conducted
> and the quality of the instruction made it safe. (OK, not as safe as lying in
> bed, maybe). In 5 years, there was only one ordinance related training
> accident, when a recruit fumbled a live grenade, then "hit the deck"
> on top of it. Hearing the "crack-thump" of a 7.62 RPD round for the first
> time
> in your life is much better with a beefy WO1 next to you ready to push your
> head into the mud should you unwisely decide to stand up, than in a real
> ambush situation. The 0.5 seconds of wondering "What was that?" may be the
> difference between hearing the next "thump" or only hearing the "crack".
>
> Mind you, in my case there was a real war on at the time, and so the skills
> were not just for use as play-soldiers. People who don't intend
> to use their PPL to do real, actual flying have likewise no need to
> learn skills "for real", I guess.
>
> > IMHO, no CFI has the right to intentionally subject me and my family to
> > that degree of risk. Regardless of his/her intentions, an instructor
> > does not have the right to impose any additional risk to life and
> > property as is necessarily inherent for "reasonable" training purposes.
> > I'm not a coward........but I'm not an idiot either!
>
> opportunity to safely test my own abilities to their limit, rather than
> risk the need to be brave. I'm not being cute - I'm being as honest
> as I can. If I can accurately assess my own limitations, maybe I will
> not get into a position where they need to be exceeded.
>
> If carried out sensibly by a competant instructor there is no increased risk
> in chopping the mixture IMO, over pulling the thottle. If you & your
> instructor *rely* on the engine delivering full power to go-around, then
> this is a high risk in either case.
>
> It is countering the attitude of believing, should the engine quit, that
> you are already as good as dead that makes such training so valuable.
> Experiencing a perfectly safe, "no sweat" genuine glide approach to land may
> make the difference, should it happen for real, between a blind panic and
> a calm, confident emergency landing. To be honest, I would not be happy doing
> this exercise in an unfamiliar a/c and an instructor that I did not know.
>
> If you are not yourself sufficiently competent to carry out the exercise
> with a 100% chance of success, then you must place a very large trust
> upon the ability of your instructor. Just like my military training -
> if the instructors firing "at" me (actually over and around) and the
> instructor by my side had not been skilled enough to carry out the exercises
> safely, and "take over" should I have done anything silly, I might
> not be here today. Trust in another person is important - consider
> the reliance on ATC instructions, especially in IMC. Here, I don't know the
> person at the other end of the radio personally, but I have trust in the
> system that trained him/her. Sure there are "horror" scenarios that would
> turn any exercise into a bad situation. They are not that likely, though,
> so long as the instructor is on the ball. I could dream up any number
> of unlikely situations that would endanger life - flying, driving or
> even going to bed.
>
> As the risk of taunting fate, I honestly believe that should I experience
> an engine failure in a single over land, I would be able to make a landing
> that is perfectly safe for me & my passengers. This is due in no small
> part to having carried out many deliberate and safe no-engine landings.
> The normal "go-around at 500ft" exercises have not contributed nearly
> as significantly to this confidence.
>
> As usual, my opinionated opinions are my own. I am not qualified to
> teach flying. Students should listen only to their QFI, and not rely
> on opinions expressed on the net - not even by me :-)
>
> ===========================
> Dave Mould
> Not a QFI
> da...@airstrip.demon.co.uk
> ===========================
Dave: You got in a couple of good "cheap shots" there. Good for you.
Maybe one day, some of us with "good, common sense" will make it to be
"real pilots" who "actually fly" like you. And as far as "accurately
assessing your own abilities"......not many with such a high opinion of
themselves and such a "macho" false bravado are capable of this feat.
Good Luck!