pulling the fuel valve on takeoff in a 152
buttman
practice doing emergency procedures with my students by pulling the
fuel valve off while they are on the takeoff roll. I want to use the
fuel valve because reaching over to pull the mixture is too
conspicuous, and they usually have their hand on the throttle.
Would it be a totally dumb idea to do this, or will it be all right? I
tried doing this exact same thing a few days ago on the takeoff roll,
but by the time they got to rotate speed (5 seconds or so) the engine
was still running, so I had to take the plane from them and abort the
takeoff myself. Does anyone know how long it takes for the engine to
quit after that valve is shut off? As long as the engine quits no more
than a hundred feet or so above the ground, I think we should be
safe... But if theres something I'm overlooking, please fill me in.
Crash Lander
the engine to use all the fuel in the line, and then it gets starved,
leaving no fuel in the line. Once you open the valve again, could that not
create a bubble?
Not sure I'd be comfortable as the student if you did that to me. It's
supposed to be a simulated engine failure, not a real one, with potentially
disastrous results.
To answer your question, I reakon it would be a dumb idea, and I'd probably
look for another school/instructor if my instructor did it to me.
I agree it's hard to pull the throttle if the student has his hand on it
(the throttle I mean), and I'm not certain of the answer to that. Perhaps
tell the student you'll be controlling the throttle for that lesson, then
you could still pull the power at any time you see fit.
Just my thoughts on the matter. It may not create a bubble at all. That's
just what my limited mechanical knowledge told me could happen.
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175582000.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
VH-UNR
be starved. i'd say that you would be fine. Just teach them to brake
safely, as you don't want to end up sideways. and if your using flap
for the takeoff roll, teach them to lift t fast, just lke a precision
landing. if my students can stop a fully fuelled 172 in 120m your 150
will do it not a problem.
best bet, take it up with the CFI and see what they say.
Tim
Are you kidding me? You did this and did not know the answer to your
question and didn't try it out first?
Wow.
Dudley Henriques
but what the hell...you never know do you....answering it just might save
someone ELSE'S life.
NO! DON'T DO THIS!!
Dudley Henriques
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175582000.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher Brian Colohan
The technique my last instructor used is this: halfway through the
takeoff roll he shouted "engine not developing enough RPMs, abort!!"
This got my attention mighty quick. He did not like my initial
response of "engine is at 2400rpms, no problem!" ;-)
Chris
Roy Smith
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. What are you going to do when the
student takes off, you can't get the valve closed again, and the engine
dies at 50 AGL? I haven't been in a 152 in a while, but I seem to remember
the fuel valve being a absurd litle lever sticking out of a hole in the
carpet. The carpet shifts around a little and jams in the lever all the
time. A stupid design, but it's even more stupid to be screwing with it on
the takeoff roll.
The question to ask before trying something is, "How will this look to
somebody reading the NTSB accident report"?
Of course the student has his hand on the throttle during the takeoff roll.
That's where it's supposed to be to keep some dumbass instructor from
simulating an engine failure on takeoff by causing a real engine failure.
What I do with students is brief them that at some point during the takeoff
roll, I'm going to shout BANG!, indicating that a connecting rod had just
departed the aircraft. At that point, they are to abort the takeoff.
I usually do it in a couple of scenarios. The first is to should BANG!
just about the time we approach rotation speed. The second is right after
we're airborne and out of ground effect. Both are only done on long
runways (especially the latter).
cjcampbell
I presume you are talking about one of the newer Skyhawks that have a
fuel valve that you can pull. I am not sure how you would do that
unobtrusively, but never mind. It can take up to 30 seconds for the
engine to quit after you pull it. There is still a considerable amount
of fuel left in the lines beyond the valve. I would recommend that you
take a hard look at the fuel system diagram in the manual, too. It
seems to me that there is a good chance of sucking any contaminants
out of the fuel sump into the engine.
But overall I think that failing the engine that close to the ground
is a poor instructional technique. If the student panics you have no
room for error in which to recover the plane yourself. You do not even
have a few seconds to grab the controls. What if the student decides
to pitch up, stalling the plane? You are way too low to recover. You
are going to end up standing the plane on its nose with the engine
sitting about half way between your spine and the back seat. Now, I
will grant that an instructor should keep his hand or some part of his
body at a point where if the student pulls the yoke back too far the
instructor will stop it. That is not my concern. My concern is that I
don't like to leave anything to chance. It is one thing to be ready to
prevent an inadvertant stall by a student who simply is pitching up
too high on takeoff. It is quite another to be ready to prevent an
inadvertant stall by a panicked student. And then what? You kept him
from pulling the yoke back too far, now he pushes it all the way
forward. And the engine quit a little later than when you expected,
and you are out of runway, airspeed, and ideas.
Any student can spin an airplane. I have had students spin airplanes.
It is amazing how quickly they can do it if they panic. About two
heart beats. And I can say with some authority it is a lot easier to
recover if you were practicing stalls 5000 feet above the ground than
it is when you are practicing engine failures 500 feet above the
ground.
RomeoMike
buttman wrote:
> The airport where I instruct has an 11,800 feet long runway. I want to
> practice doing emergency procedures with my students by pulling the
> fuel valve off while they are on the takeoff roll. I want to use the
> fuel valve because reaching over to pull the mixture is too
> conspicuous, and they usually have their hand on the throttle.
Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
"Oh Shit!" experience.
Bob Gardner
tells the examiner "...the failure of an engine shall not be simulated [note
that word, buttman] until attaining at least Vsse/Vyse and at an altitude
not lower than 200 feet AGL." If this advice applies to a checkride where
the applicant has a bunch of hours and experience, where do you think your
idea falls on the outrageous scale? You propose not to simulate engine
failure but to actually cause engine failure. This could cost you your
ticket.
Bob Gardner
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175582000.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Hansen
> Let's jump ahead a few hundred hours. On a multiengine checkride, the PTS
> tells the examiner "...the failure of an engine shall not be simulated [note
> that word, buttman] until attaining at least Vsse/Vyse and at an altitude
> not lower than 200 feet AGL." If this advice applies to a checkride where
> the applicant has a bunch of hours and experience, where do you think your
> idea falls on the outrageous scale? You propose not to simulate engine
> failure but to actually cause engine failure. This could cost you your
> ticket.
I think it could cost much more than that.
Bob Gardner
pull the mixture below 3000 ft AGL, requiring that engine failure be
simulated by reducing the throttle at lower altitudes.
Bob Gardner
"Mark Hansen" <m...@NOSPAMwinfirst.com> wrote in message
news:1314snq...@corp.supernews.com...
Robert M. Gary
I'm just going to assume you are joking.
-Robert, CFII
Dudley Henriques
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:utKdnXSHIYDDHY_b...@comcast.com...
> It's a really stupid idea. The multiengine PTS won't even let the examiner
> pull the mixture below 3000 ft AGL, requiring that engine failure be
> simulated by reducing the throttle at lower altitudes.
I can't believe it when some instructors come up with this idea. I keep
hoping its a troll. :-)
There is absolutely no reason in the world to do this type of thing and
discouraging it should be ( and thank God it apparently is on this group
anyway) a top priority for the rest of us to set people straight on this
issue.
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:-N6dnd6LrZvNHo_b...@rcn.net...
I'm naturally talking about the initial post Bob; not your answer :-))
Dudley
Dudley Henriques
"Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175618201....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
That's funny. This was my first reaction as well :-)
Dudley Henriques
RomeoMike
Bob Gardner wrote:
> It's a really stupid idea. The multiengine PTS won't even let the examiner
> pull the mixture below 3000 ft AGL, requiring that engine failure be
> simulated by reducing the throttle at lower altitudes.
During my multi training the instructor pulled the power on the left
engine during a take-off roll. My split-second reaction was to try to
steer out of the resultant marked yaw instead of pulling power on the
remaining engine. Nearly took out a row of runway lights or worse. Both
the instructor and I learned from that one.
GeorgeC
DON'T DO IT!
GeorgeC
buttman
This is why I want to do it. Just saying "bang" on the takeoff roll is
not the same thing as an actual engine failure. It just doesn't
correlate to the same thing. I'm thinking doing the actual engine
failure will be more vivid to them, which means they'll be more likely
to learn from it.
To deal with an engine failure on takeoff, you have to act fast, or
else you won't make it. I can't think of any other way to simulate an
engine failure on takeoff without removing that sense of urgency. If
the plane had a extra throttle rigged below the right seat, allowing
me to pull the power without the student seeing, without totally
killing the engine, it would have the same effect, and (at least how I
see it) it would not be a safety issue. But my plane doesn't have one
of these throttles, so I have to make with what I have.
buttman
> Let's jump ahead a few hundred hours. On a multiengine checkride, the PTS
> tells the examiner "...the failure of an engine shall not be simulated [note
> that word, buttman] until attaining at least Vsse/Vyse and at an altitude
> not lower than 200 feet AGL." If this advice applies to a checkride where
> the applicant has a bunch of hours and experience, where do you think your
> idea falls on the outrageous scale? You propose not to simulate engine
> failure but to actually cause engine failure. This could cost you your
> ticket.
I see what you're saying, but it's not quite the same thing. When a
multi-engine loses an engine, it yaws and can lose control as well as
loses altitude. A single engine just loses altitude. You don't have to
worry about a 152 getting below Vmc, you just lower the nose and put
it back down. In a Seminole or something, you have to idle the other
engine, put the gear back down, verify, feather, etc. etc.
The way I see it (and yes I know everyone here disagrees with me) if
you have 11,000 feet of runway below you, doing this in a SE is not
unsafe at all, as long as the instructor keeps on his toes in case the
student isn't.
Dudley Henriques
> On Apr 3, 10:24 am, RomeoMike <romeo_m...@nojunk.gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> > It's a really stupid idea. The multiengine PTS won't even let the
>> > examiner
>> > pull the mixture below 3000 ft AGL, requiring that engine failure be
>> > simulated by reducing the throttle at lower altitudes.
>>
>> During my multi training the instructor pulled the power on the left
>> engine during a take-off roll. My split-second reaction was to try to
>> steer out of the resultant marked yaw instead of pulling power on the
>> remaining engine. Nearly took out a row of runway lights or worse. Both
>> the instructor and I learned from that one.
>
> This is why I want to do it. Just saying "bang" on the takeoff roll is
> not the same thing as an actual engine failure. It just doesn't
> correlate to the same thing. I'm thinking doing the actual engine
> failure will be more vivid to them, which means they'll be more likely
> to learn from it.
In over fifty years of dealing with flight safety I've never had to resort
to doing this, and I highly recommend that no instructor reading this thread
do it either. It just is NOT necessary to perform this type of instruction
to teach what has to be taught.
>
> To deal with an engine failure on takeoff, you have to act fast, or
> else you won't make it.
This is an incorrect way to present this scenario. The correct way to
express this to a student is that to deal with an engine failure on take
off, you have to act CORRECTLY. Not that speed of action isn't important; it
is; but acting correctly the first time is CRITICAL. You will note also that
acting correctly encompasses acting within the parameters presented; speed
being one of these parameters.
To stress the speed of the required action instead of the correctness of the
action is a basic flaw in flight instruction and should be avoided by all
instructors.
I can't think of any other way to simulate an
> engine failure on takeoff without removing that sense of urgency.
I would love to meet the examiner who passed you on this teaching
philosophy.
PLEASE tell me you are a troll and not a flight instructor :-)
If
> the plane had a extra throttle rigged below the right seat, allowing
> me to pull the power without the student seeing, without totally
> killing the engine, it would have the same effect, and (at least how I
> see it) it would not be a safety issue. But my plane doesn't have one
> of these throttles, so I have to make with what I have.
...........not with any student I can influence you won't!
Dudley Henriques
Mark Hansen
Note that I'm not a CFI, so take my comments for what they're worth.
I think what you're missing is that you should be teaching the student
the correct procedure to be executed in the event of an engine failure.
To teach this, you don't have to actually have an engine failure.
If you were to pull the power (which I would not recommend doing at
a critical time either), the student should be told to respond as
though this were an engine failure, and do what he would normally
do in such a circumstance.
If you want to see whether the student will decide to abort the take
off, just explain that you will use the words "Power Failure!" to
indicate this, and that the student should do what they think is
the right thing.
I think what most folks here are saying is that even simulating a
power failure at a critical time can be potentially hazardous to
the safety of the flight, and not necessary. If you teach the
student the correct procedures to use in such an eventuality, they
should have the built-in responses ready to go if it should ever
really happen.
Actually pulling the power when you're 50' off the runway would be
asking for trouble. I hope you will reconsider this approach.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Bob Gardner
during checkrides and, by inference, during training.
Student pilots should be taught that if ANYTHING unusual happens during the
takeoff roll they are to continue straight ahead while braking, even if that
means running off the end of the runway (I'm sure that there are locations
with short runways where steering off into the grass is a better option). I
used to pop the door on occasion, and I have slumped over in my seat as
though I had had a heart attack. If you can get away with it, don't fasten
your seatbelt but let the loose end hang out of the door...that makes a
dandy noise.
The odds against running out of fuel on the takeoff roll (which is what you
are causing by your action), are so great compared to the risk involved that
if I was your chief instructor you would be out of a job.
Bob Gardner
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175626271....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bob Gardner
8081-5E, Airline Transport Pilot and Type Rating:
"7. Aborts the takeoff if, in a single-engine airplane the powerplant
failure occurs prior to becoming airborne, or in a multiengine airplane, the
powerplant failure occurs at a point during the takeoff where the abort
procedure can be initiated and the airplane can be safely stopped on the
remaining runway/stopway. If a flight simulator is not used, the powerplant
failure must be simulated before reaching 50 percent of VMC.
8. Reduces the power smoothly and promptly, if appropriate to the
airplane, when powerplant failure is recognized.
9. Uses spoilers, prop reverse, thrust reverse, wheel brakes, and other
drag/braking devices, as appropriate, maintaining positive control in such a
manner as to bring the airplane to a safe stop."
This is for the ATP, buttman, not for primary students.
Bob Gardner
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175626271....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> During my multi training the instructor pulled the power on the left
> engine during a take-off roll. My split-second reaction was to try to
> steer out of the resultant marked yaw instead of pulling power on the
> remaining engine. Nearly took out a row of runway lights or worse. Both
> the instructor and I learned from that one.
Both times in training where an instructor actually shut down an engine, we
never got it back until I got back on the ground. My Part 135 check pilots
always simulated engine failures by zero thrusting... even the guy who had me
doing full stalls in the C-402.
I'd be very leery of actually failing the engine in a single. That is a recipe
for disaster. Sometimes even when you do everything right you're going to get a
bad result.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
cjcampbell
> "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1175618201....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It was a day late if it was supposed to be a joke.
Now, I have been thinking that maybe I could simulate a rudder failure
on takeoff by suddenly jamming one foot on the rudder as hard as I
can. This will teach the student how to quickly handle this emergency.
I am also thinking of installing a quick release on the wings in order
to teach students the "wings fall off" emergency. What do you think?
Any problems with it?
Another good one would be a little squirter to spray fuel on the
engine so that students can practice engine fire emergency procedures.
And, you know what? We have a lot of water around here, but my
students have very little practice in ditching. They practice
emergency landings, but never actually ditch a plane. Maybe we should
have students practice actual ditchings.
Do you see any problems with these scenarios?
Brian
use the following technique.
I agree do not mess with the fuel selector. However on your 11,000+
runway just before your student rotates reach up and pull the mixture.
Your student should be focused on the takeoff enough that he either
won't notice you doing so or even you doing so will be a surprise.
When you pull the mixture the engine will quit almost immediately so
you have better control over the situation. By pulling it before you
are off the ground you will not get high enough to be able to get into
much trouble.
2nd you can instill another lesson that most pilots don't get taught.
As you are rolling out with plenty of runway remaining push the
mixture back in. Suddenly you will be back at full power since it is
unlikely your student will have thought to pull the throttle back. Do
not take off from this situation. Have the student abort the take-off.
Also don't do this as a normal practice, But I think it would be
useful to have it demonstrated once during the students training. You
might even want to limit it to only commecial pilot training or
experience pilots that should know how to handle this.
As noted above don't do this in multiengine aircraft.
To simulate the 50ft power failure just reach over grab your students
hand and tell him you a simulating a power failure and pull the
throttle.
Brian
Little Endian
Perhaps the next time you practice touch n goes, you can reach an
agreement with the student that you will keep your hand on the
throttle (instead of him) and then randomly on one takeoff you will
pull the throttle when you are 50 ft in the air. Its not perfect but
it will at least have a little more element of surprise than
otherwise.
On the other hand it seems to me that even a simulated exercise like
this can be dangerous close to the ground because in case the student
gets too close to a stall too close to the ground, pushing the nose
forward will not be enough, you need to add power and you might still
end up having a very hard landing at best and a lot worse in other
cases. A large runway would be of no use if there is no way to get
sufficient airspeed before hitting the ground.
Steve Foley
>
> I am also thinking of installing a quick release on the wings in order
> to teach students the "wings fall off" emergency. What do you think?
> Any problems with it?
>
When the OJ can/vent falls out of the wing of your Cessna, turn to the
passenger and say 'OOPS - Wing Bolt'.
RomeoMike
RomeoMike wrote:
>
> During my multi training the instructor pulled the power on the left
> engine during a take-off roll. My split-second reaction was to try to
> steer out of the resultant marked yaw instead of pulling power on the
> remaining engine. Nearly took out a row of runway lights or worse. Both
> the instructor and I learned from that one.
I should have added that what we both learned was that this was a
stupid, dangerous thing to do.
Brian
> Now, I have been thinking that maybe I could simulate a rudder failure
> on takeoff by suddenly jamming one foot on the rudder as hard as I
> can. This will teach the student how to quickly handle this emergency.
>
> Do you see any problems with these scenarios?- Hide quoted text -
>
Actually I do see a problem with this scenerio,
The only serious accident any of my former students have ever been
involved with is was exactly this scenerio as best we can tell. My
120lb student was talking off with an 200+ lb passenger. The
passenger evidently tried to adjust his seating position and pressed
against a rudder pedal to do so, just as they were rotating. The pilot
was unable to counter this control input and the airplane drifted into
trees at about 50' above the ground. Fortunatly all survived.
After the accident we went out and practiced these. Partially to help
prove to the pilot that this was what really happened and to help
demonstrate how the pilot might have been able to handle it.
Brian.
Mark Hansen
Uhhhhh, I think you missed the sarcasm, Brian.
Dudley Henriques
being sarcastic
:-))
Dudley Henriques
"Brian" <brian...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175633345.7...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Brian
>
> Uhhhhh, I think you missed the sarcasm, Brian.
>
But it did hit a bit of a nerve when my student and friend was hurt
this way.
Brian
Morgans
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote
> The airport where I instruct has an 11,800 feet long runway. I want to
> practice doing emergency procedures with my students by pulling the
> fuel valve off while they are on the takeoff roll. I want to use the
> fuel valve because reaching over to pull the mixture is too
> conspicuous, and they usually have their hand on the throttle.
>
> Would it be a totally dumb idea to do this, or will it be all right? I
> tried doing this exact same thing a few days ago on the takeoff roll,
> but by the time they got to rotate speed (5 seconds or so) the engine
> was still running, so I had to take the plane from them and abort the
> takeoff myself. Does anyone know how long it takes for the engine to
> quit after that valve is shut off? As long as the engine quits no more
> than a hundred feet or so above the ground, I think we should be
> safe... But if theres something I'm overlooking, please fill me in.
The thing you overlooked, is the fact that you would be needing to go to the
hospital - right after I broke you F-ing arm while reaching for the fuel
valve.
Don't screw around with real engine failures; especially that close to the
ground. There is no reason to make a real emergency - on purpose.
--
Jim in NC
Blanche
>If you did that to me, it would be our last ride.
>DON'T DO IT!
>
>On 2 Apr 2007 23:33:20 -0700, "buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip - we know what the premise is by now]
Not only would it be our last ride, it would be the last
ride of buttman. Assuming I was still alive at that point,
my first phone call after getting out of intensive care at
the hospital after surgery would be to my lawyer. The next call
would be to the local FAA office. The third phone call would
be to the closest police department to file charges of attempted
manslaughter. Or would it be murder, as it was premeditated?
buttman, what state are you located? I want to stay far, far away.
Bob Gardner
question before doing something similar to what buttman suggests: "At the
NTSB hearing, how will I explain my rationale for doing this?"
Bob Gardner
"Little Endian" <giris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175631646.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Peter Dohm
> tells the examiner "...the failure of an engine shall not be simulated
[note
> that word, buttman] until attaining at least Vsse/Vyse and at an altitude
> not lower than 200 feet AGL." If this advice applies to a checkride where
> the applicant has a bunch of hours and experience, where do you think your
> idea falls on the outrageous scale? You propose not to simulate engine
> failure but to actually cause engine failure. This could cost you your
> ticket.
>
>
IIRC, that resulted, at least in part, from an accident in which an
instructor failed an engine while practicing slow flight at pattern altitude
and just above VMC. I believe that there were multiple students on board
and that they spun down into an industrial complex. That case was more than
20 years ago, and that is about all I can recall of it.
Peter
Peter Dohm
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:-a2dnWg32qPALo_b...@giganews.com...
this thread is: when I get back to flying, I plan to interview prospective
instructors *much* more thoroughly.
Peter
Ol Shy & Bashful
> The airport where I instruct has an 11,800 feet long runway. I want to
> practice doing emergency procedures with my students by pulling the
> fuel valve off while they are on the takeoff roll. I want to use the
> fuel valve because reaching over to pull the mixture is too
> conspicuous, and they usually have their hand on the throttle.
>
> Would it be a totally dumb idea to do this, or will it be all right? I
> tried doing this exact same thing a few days ago on the takeoff roll,
> but by the time they got to rotate speed (5 seconds or so) the engine
> was still running, so I had to take the plane from them and abort the
> takeoff myself. Does anyone know how long it takes for the engine to
> quit after that valve is shut off? As long as the engine quits no more
> than a hundred feet or so above the ground, I think we should be
> safe... But if theres something I'm overlooking, please fill me in.
Why create an actual emergency with this technique? That is exactly
what you are doing and if you screw it up you're gonna be facing
potential/probable lawsuits by all interested parties from the FAA,
NTSB, FBO, Insurance company, families and anyone else who wants to
take a shot at you.
farr...@excite.com
I think you have lost a basic instruction principle. Simulation is not
reality (or do you want to join our resident troll?). When you
simulate a failure you _pretend_ it happened. To fail the engine as
you describe may be most dangerous thing you could possibly do, short
of making a wing drop stall on turn to short final...
DON'T DO IT -THINK SAFE!!!
Cheers
Ol Shy & Bashful
> The airport where I instruct has an 11,800 feet long runway. I want to
> practice doing emergency procedures with my students by pulling the
> fuel valve off while they are on the takeoff roll. I want to use the
> fuel valve because reaching over to pull the mixture is too
> conspicuous, and they usually have their hand on the throttle.
>
> Would it be a totally dumb idea to do this, or will it be all right? I
> tried doing this exact same thing a few days ago on the takeoff roll,
> but by the time they got to rotate speed (5 seconds or so) the engine
> was still running, so I had to take the plane from them and abort the
> takeoff myself. Does anyone know how long it takes for the engine to
> quit after that valve is shut off? As long as the engine quits no more
> than a hundred feet or so above the ground, I think we should be
> safe... But if theres something I'm overlooking, please fill me in.
DON'T DO IT Dumb idea. Why create an actual emergency? What happens if
you screw it up? You'll be facing lawsuits from the FAA, NTSB, FBO,
Insurance companies, families and anyone else who wants to take a shot
at you.
DON'T DO IT.
Soaring Buzzard
Infamous worldwide pilot/instructor
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
I don't know about that. Maybe it was a dumb thing to do before you knew how to
handle it. I've had an engine pulled on me at some point during the takeoff
roll in every multi check ride I've ever had. I've yet to visit the weeds.
Somebody should have impressed upon you the proper technique BEFORE you started
actually flying a twin.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> Why create an actual emergency with this technique? That is exactly
> what you are doing and if you screw it up you're gonna be facing
> potential/probable lawsuits by all interested parties from the FAA,
> NTSB, FBO, Insurance company, families and anyone else who wants to
> take a shot at you.
Like that's gonna scare him? He doesn't have a pot to piss in... he's a flight
instructor. The insurance company, survivors, etc won't get blood from a rock.
cjcampbell
> Knowing CJ's posting persona, I'm betting my last bottle of Scotch he was
> being sarcastic
> :-))
Who, me? :-)
Sorry, Brian. I don't mean to make light of personal loss or to bring
back sad memories. Please forgive me.
cjcampbell
<Snork> Okay, "Soaring Buzzard." I owe you a bottle of Scotch. I hope
Dudley doesn't miss it.
Crash Lander
> you have 11,000 feet of runway below you, doing this in a SE is not
> unsafe at all, as long as the instructor keeps on his toes in case the
> student isn't.
The way I see it, if the student isn't on his toes by this stage, you
shouldn't be moving on to simulated engine failures at all. Best go back
over the more basic stuff until he _is_ on his toes.
Oz Lander
Dudley Henriques
Hey, who took my Jack Daniels?. I smell the heavy hand of either a bush
pilot or an Ag pilot involved here.
:-)
Mike 'Flyin'8'
>When the OJ can/vent falls out of the wing of your Cessna, turn to the
>passenger and say 'OOPS - Wing Bolt'.
Now that would be funny if it did not give them a heart attack.
Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com
buttman
What happens if I screw up? You tell me. What WOULD happen if I "screw
up". We are 50 feet above a long runway, and we still have full
control of the airplane (sans thrust).
People keep going on and on about how dangerous this is, and how it's
basically the same thing as manslaughter. But honestly, what EXACTLY
is so dangerous about doing this? Nobody has yet to give me ONE valid
reason why this is just oh so dangerous. It's not something I'd do
everyday, or even with every student, but I still think it could have
some benefit to the student.
I agree pulling the valve AT ALTITUDE is needlessly dangerous without
any educational benefit, but this specific instance isn't dangerous.
All the factors that make pulling the valve dangerous everywhere else
are not present when you're 50 feel AGL with 11,000 feet of runway
ahead of you. This condition is (as far as I know) the ONLY time you
could safely pull an engine without it being unsafe. So why not take
advantage of it?
If anyone out there can give me an REAL reason why this could be
really unsafe, or even do undue stress on the plane, I'd like to hear
it. Thats why I made this thread for crying out loud.
I agree if I'm in a twin, it'd be dangerous, or if it was in a plane
with a high wing loading, or at a airport with a smaller runway, but
in this case, I don't see the huge danger here. So far this thread has
just been a bunch of stuffy aviation nerds flexing their internet
tough guy complexes, all while calling ME the troll.
Marty Shapiro
news:1175667204.5...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
I once had the mixture control pull out when I went to shut off the
engine. This was in a 172 with a 160 HP engine, but was long ago and I
have forgotten the specific model. It did have 40 degree flaps.
To stop the engine, I turned the fuel select to "OFF". And waited and
waited and waited and waited and waited and waited. It almost 6 minutes
for the engine to stop. I was very much amazed that it took this long.
The only difference was that my unplanned experiment was at idle
throttle while you are turning the fuel select to "OFF" at full throttle.
Even if that halves the time, you are still going to be beyond the end of
the runway and 1,500' AGL before your engine stops.
Have you tried simply turning the fuel off instead of pulling the
mixture in the aircraft your thinking of doing this in and timing how long
it takes for the engine to stop?
--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.
(remove SPAMNOT to email me)
farr...@excite.com
Do you own your own plane at an abandoned airfield so you can try this
on your own? Pull the stopcock at rotation and maybe you will be good
enough to make a safe landing. BUT are you SURE you can do it? THINK:
When exactly will the engine cut -if it takes 15-30 seconds what will
your altitude be and how much runway will be left. Lets say 30s with
a climb out at Vy so with ~800 fpm and ~80 knots 30s gives you an
altitude of say 400' and say 6000' runway used. Now configure for best
glide at 65 knots. Your glide angle is what, say 10:1 so now you are
going to use another 4000' and you have to flare and stop. Just this
very crude calc. shows the safety factor is NOT there. Are you going
to call mayday, after all, the engine has really failed hasn't it?
At first, I thought you were misguided but from this indignant
response to all the posters (who are telling you are out of order to
even think of doing it with a student) I have to say it sounds like
you need to be checked out before you give further instruction. A
piece of advice, go away and read PPL human factors and try to
recognise which mode of behaviour you are acting out. Is that the mode
of behaviour of a SAFE pilot? Now cool down, take it on the chin and
learn from your mistakes.
Which school do you work for?
Cheers MC
cjcampbell
> >When the OJ can/vent falls out of the wing of your Cessna, turn to the
> >passenger and say 'OOPS - Wing Bolt'.
>
> Now that would be funny if it did not give them a heart attack.
>
It is an old Rod Machado joke which appeared in AOPA Pilot.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> What happens if I screw up? You tell me. What WOULD happen if I "screw
> up". We are 50 feet above a long runway, and we still have full
> control of the airplane (sans thrust).
>
> People keep going on and on about how dangerous this is, and how it's
> basically the same thing as manslaughter. But honestly, what EXACTLY
> is so dangerous about doing this? Nobody has yet to give me ONE valid
> reason why this is just oh so dangerous. It's not something I'd do
> everyday, or even with every student, but I still think it could have
> some benefit to the student.
Gee... I don't know. Stall/spin comes to mind, but that's just me. Have you
run this bright idea past the local FSDO to get their input? After all, why
reinvent the wheel?
Steve Foley
> People keep going on and on about how dangerous this is, and how it's
> basically the same thing as manslaughter. But honestly, what EXACTLY
> is so dangerous about doing this? Nobody has yet to give me ONE valid
> reason why this is just oh so dangerous. It's not something I'd do
> everyday, or even with every student, but I still think it could have
> some benefit to the student.
OK, lets say you have this student. We'll call him Steve.
Steve lines up on the runway, gives it full power, and starts his takeoff
roll. Just as he rotates, a gust of wind hits from the left. Steve, being
the superb pilot that he is, corrects with left rudder. OOPS, not he's not
over the runway anymore, but he's over the taxiway heading towards the
control tower, at ten feet AGL.
Is this a good time for his instructor to pull the power and play engine
out?
What if the instructor cut the fuel ten seconds ago (when everything was
fine)? Now Mr instructor HAS to play engine out because it just happened.
Please realize that this story is fictitious, and that Steve the student
would never correct the wrong way and end up over a taxiway.
farr...@excite.com
Accident occurred Saturday, June 28, 2003 in Fort Collins, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/2003
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
Witnesses reported the airplane had just taken off and was climbing to
the east when they heard the engine stop. The witnesses observed the
airplane turn around towards the airport, depart controlled flight,
and impact the ground near the southeast corner of the airport. The
witnesses also said they heard the engine sputter as the airplane was
attempting to return to the airport. An examination of the airplane
showed witness marks in the cockpit floor panel consistent with the
fuel selector valve handle being in the "Off" position at impact. An
examination of the engine intake valves and spark plugs showed
evidence consistent with operating the engine with a lean mixture.
I'll bet that wasn't intentional...
Cheers MC
On Apr 4, 6:13 pm, "buttman"
Tim
You have absolutely no idea what is going to happen and when. You have
no control over the situation. Worse, you tried this experiment without
having a clue. Many of us wonder if you are even a CFI. It is scary to
think that after your first experiment you are still contemplating doing
it again. Thank your stars that nothing happened the first time and
don;t do it again. If I was your student I would be outta there and if
you were representing an FBo or other organization I would inform them
of the stunt you pulled.
Before you bend a plane or hurt someone go do your little stunt by
yourself in the plane(s) you are flying. Do it at 3000 feet or so. See
if you can determine exactly what is going to happen and when after you
turn off the fuel. Then see what happens turning it on.
Better yet, go get some remedial CFI training.
No reason to actually starve the engine of fuel. Just pull the power.
And try not to break any planes or kill anyone.
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> I'd be very leery of actually failing the engine in a single. That is a recipe
> for disaster. Sometimes even when you do everything right you're going to get a
> bad result.
Agreed. Actually failing the engine reduces your options, and
we all know that power is a critical option when things go wrong near
the ground. When I took my training the instructor used to fail the
engine at altitude by turning off the fuel, then turning it back on
once I had the glide established and the throttle at idle. When I
became an instructor 25 years later we didn't do that anymore. When I
became a mechanic I understood why we don't do it anymore: fuel valve
controls break (have had it happen), mixture cables can fail the same
as carb heat cables can (have had that happen a couple of times, too)
and so on. Actually killing the engine at rotation or anywhere near it
is asking to get actually killed.
It's bad enough that stuff can fail at altitude, like the
throttle cable we had break when the student pulled it out on spin
entry. Pulled the knob and shaft right out of the panel. The
instructor set up for a forced approach, engine at idle, then decided
to stuff the thing back into its hole. The engine went to full
throttle and they came home that way and cut the mixture on final.
Dicey, but there weren't many options.
Dan
Dudley Henriques
Now the REAL FAST thinker, having this stunt pulled on them, would
immediately fake a heart attack and turn the tables; giving the instructor a
moment they would NEVER forget!
:-))
Dudley Henriques
cjcampbell
> "cjcampbell" <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Eh, I think I will stick with the door popping open on takeoff.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
news:Xns9908D9BDBA...@207.115.17.102...
> "buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1175667204.5...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Apr 3, 4:47 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" <selway...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 1:33 am, "buttman" <nbvF...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> DON'T DO IT Dumb idea. Why create an actual emergency? What happens if
>>> you screw it up? You'll be facing lawsuits from the FAA, NTSB, FBO,
>>> Insurance companies, families and anyone else who wants to take a shot
>>> at you.
>>> DON'T DO IT.
>>> Soaring Buzzard
>>> Infamous worldwide pilot/instructor
> The only difference was that my unplanned experiment was at idle
> throttle while you are turning the fuel select to "OFF" at full throttle.
> Even if that halves the time, you are still going to be beyond the end of
> the runway and 1,500' AGL before your engine stops.
In a Navion you make it up to about a couple hundred feet agl.
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
Roy Smith
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I once had a student who, after I popped the door on takeoff, quietly
ignored it. It was the middle of the winter and the slipsteam was *cold*,
so I asked him if he had noticed anything unusual. He said the door
popping open was not an emergency and he was going to continue to fly the
plane while he worked out a plan. Apparently his plan was to continue on
to our destination, while my right buttock froze solid. Eventually, he
agreed to turn around and land if I agreed to not do that to him again.
Mark Hansen
>
> I once had a student who, after I popped the door on takeoff, quietly
> ignored it. It was the middle of the winter and the slipsteam was *cold*,
> so I asked him if he had noticed anything unusual. He said the door
> popping open was not an emergency and he was going to continue to fly the
> plane while he worked out a plan. Apparently his plan was to continue on
> to our destination, while my right buttock froze solid. Eventually, he
> agreed to turn around and land if I agreed to not do that to him again.
Gee ... so who learned the lesson there? ;-)
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Roy Smith
Mark Hansen <m...@NOSPAMwinfirst.com> wrote:
> On 04/04/07 17:05, Roy Smith wrote:
> >
> > I once had a student who, after I popped the door on takeoff, quietly
> > ignored it. It was the middle of the winter and the slipsteam was *cold*,
> > so I asked him if he had noticed anything unusual. He said the door
> > popping open was not an emergency and he was going to continue to fly the
> > plane while he worked out a plan. Apparently his plan was to continue on
> > to our destination, while my right buttock froze solid. Eventually, he
> > agreed to turn around and land if I agreed to not do that to him again.
>
> Gee ... so who learned the lesson there? ;-)
It's well known that instructors learn from their students as well as the
other way around. On this particular day, I learned not to practice door
pops in the winter :-)
Dudley Henriques
>So far this thread has
> just been a bunch of stuffy aviation nerds flexing their internet
> tough guy complexes, all while calling ME the troll.
>
>
The fact that you seem unable to see that the problem here just might be YOU
is a freightning factor in this thread if indeed you are a CFI.
I would say that instead of "a bunch of stuffy aviation nerds flexing their
internet tough guy complexes, you have had the benefit of literally
thousands of hours of experience in flight instruction and years of
experience in aviation attempting to set you straight on doing things right.
I would respectfully suggest to you that you might clear this up for
yourself by copying this entire thread, printing it out, then taking it on
down to whatever FAA office is nearest you. Then please come back here and
post whatever the FAA has to say on the issue.
I believe this is a fair proposal for someone posting on a student pilot's
newsgroup as a flight instructor. Let's ALL learn what the FAA has to say
shall we?
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
(Stuffy Aviation Nerd :-)
Dallas
> On this particular day, I learned not to practice door
> pops in the winter :-)
LOL...
Student: 1
Instructor: 0
We so rarely win.
--
Dallas
Ol Shy & Bashful
Buttman
Since you seemed to have responded to MY reply, lets do it one on one.
Many years ago (60's) when I thought I was unique and pretty hot shit
having done two good seasons as an Ag Pilot, I decided that all my pre-
solo students should do a dead stick landing. Further, I wanted ther
prop stopped so there was no question the engine was indeed DEAD.
Well, that went well for a while until a plane pulled out in front of
me on short final and my options were pretty damned limited. We ended
up on the taxiway. At that point I realized I was not doing something
that would prolong my career as a pilot.
Later on, I had a young instructor working for me who turned off the
fuel valve in a C-150 (as was all too common at the time) and the
retainer screw came off the handle. The CFI had the fuel valve handle
in his hand while the engine came to a sputtering halt. As per
procedures of that time, the student began his emergency checklist
while starting his emergency descent to a wheat field. The CFI handed
the student the fuel valve handle as a confirmation of why the engine
had quit. As they approached 500'agl, the CFI asked for the fuel
handle to turn the fuel back on agbain. The student said he didn't
have it. Part of the procedures were to crack the door open and he
mistakenly opened the window instead and dropped the fuel handle.
Ultimately they did a successful engine out landing with no resultant
damage.
Numerous times I have done engine out procedures with singles, twins,
helicopters in nearly every conceivable configuration while giving
dual instruction. As the student got better, the margins got more
narrow and demanding. But I never forgot the lesson learned about not
causing an actual emergency during a training lesson.
I can understand your trying to defend your position and applaud you
for it. However, try to learn from the multi thousands of hours of
those of us who are advising you not to do your intended technique.
Can you do it with absolute certainty that there will not be another
aircraft declaring an emergency and landing in front of you? Are you
absolutey certain that you can be on top of every conceivable scenario
to pull it off without undue hazard to you, the student, the airplane,
and those on the ground?
Well of course we have all done equally questionable things in our
careers..well, with a very few exceptions, and survived with varying
degrees of success.
When all is said and done, if you phuck it up, you are the one who
will pay the price. I'm getting ready to hang it up after more than 50
years in GenAv and hate to see all my mistakes go to waste by not
passing along the hard learned lessons to those who are following me.
This was posted to assure you I am not without faults, or without
having made some serious errors in judgement. I'm hopeful you can take
something worthwhile from it.
Best of luck
Soaring Buzzard
Infamous worldwide pilot/instructor
ATP ASMELS, RIFR, CFII/RAM #155XXXX
Mark T. Dame
> If you did that to me, it would be our last ride.
> DON'T DO IT!
Unfortunately, most student pilots would know any better. Some may be
scared out of flying, but others would just think that kind of foolish
action is OK and get the wrong lesson out of it.
Within my first month of training I was taught by my instructor: don't
turn a simulated emergency into a real emergency. A failed engine is a
real emergency whether the failure was intentional or not. As someone
else pointed out: how will it read in the NTSB report.
Turning off the fuel valve or pulling the mixture are the same thing in
the end. They are creating a real and dangerous situation. Pulling the
throttle is just as effective with the added benefit of not removing
your best option of getting out of trouble if the student botches the abort.
There is a reason they don't pull the mixture on checkrides anymore.
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was."
-- Walt West
Mark T. Dame
>
> People keep going on and on about how dangerous this is, and how it's
> basically the same thing as manslaughter. But honestly, what EXACTLY
> is so dangerous about doing this? Nobody has yet to give me ONE valid
> reason why this is just oh so dangerous.
And you're a flight instructor? *shudder*
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Run Time: The events that occur while your program is executing."
-- C: The Complete Reference, Herbert Schildt
Peter Dohm
"Roy Smith" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-34120F.2...@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net...
It's a good thing I'm out of beer, or I'd need a new keyboard!
Peter
(Wishing I'd had your student's presence of mind)
Al G
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:1dt5mc3kc6ngu.o...@40tude.net...
Students teach their instructor something more often than the instructor
admits, I admit.
Al G
Dudley Henriques
"Al G" <ager...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:48eRh.6067$nu5....@newsfe02.lga...
Depends on the instructor. There is no better way to learn something than to
teach it to someone else.
The good CFI treats an hour of dual given as much a learning process for the
instructor as it is for the student. If the instructor finishes that hour of
dual given without learning more then was known before the lesson began
about both the student and how better to project something to that student ,
the hour has literally been wasted by the instructor.
In short, no instructor worth the title will argue that every hour spent
teaching others to fly isn't an hour where they learned as much as the
student.
Dudley Henriques
Slarty Bartfast
creating and acutual emergency.
On 2 Apr 2007 23:33:20 -0700, "buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Would it be a totally dumb idea to do this, or will it be all right? I
Dudley Henriques
"Slarty Bartfast" <inve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2l3f131k8sn060fmf...@4ax.com...
> Basically what you're suggesting is the simulation of an emergency by
> creating and acutual emergency.
...............which is a GROSS violation of good flight instruction rule
number 1.
NEVER for the purpose of flight instruction deliberately reduce an asset
while in flight to the point where it's no longer a recovery asset.
In other words, you NEVER deliberately take an engine totally out of the
recovery equation for a single engine airplane. It's not necessary to do
this in order to produce an engine out scenario.
ANY good instructor should be capable of teaching engine out procedure using
recoverable technique.
The TOTALLY REAL concept such as actually killing an engine to demonstrate
what its like is absolutely NOT necessary. Instructors thinking that it IS
necessary are well advised to brush up on the verbal explanation that seems
to be lacking on their part that completes the total picture of an engine
out for the student.
Dudley Henriques
kevmor
in flight is on takeoff, when your low to the ground at a slow
airspeed? Then turning off the fuel selector is setting an unknown
time when the failure is going to occur. If you're at altitude, you
have plenty of room to adjust your pitch for a safe airspeed and to
troubleshoot. Sure, maybe your student will lower the nose and land,
even if it's just after liftoff or higher above the runway, but I
think it leaves little margin for error and is unnecessary...