Engine Failure Drills [Archive]

fireflybob

29th Jul 2004, 00:53

Well there is, as they say, more than one way of "skinning a cat" but if we want to encourage "thinking" pilots it would rather depend on the nature of the failure.

If there has been a big bang and there is a conrod sticking through the cowling there aint much mileage in checking round for cause of failure.

If the enging has simply run down and the prop is still windmilling then perhaps it's fuel in which case put the pump on and change tanks (irrespective of indicated contents), maybe also check the mixture is rich.

If it's rough running/partial loss of power then perhaps it's carb ice or a u/s mag etc.

But in reality its also a question of time and priorities. If you are at FL 100 when the engine fails you might have many more options and perhaps plenty of time to do some troubleshooting and try a restart.

On the other hand, if you are at 1,500 agl you may not have any time to do a trouble finding check - the number one priority in any a/c is to maintain safe control and concentrate in getting into you planned field etc.

I am not against having a methodical approach to this issue but I think the question is a bit loaded towards the wrong priorities in the event of an engine failure.

Finally, I often initiate practice forced landings by advising the student he has a rough running engine and/or throttle back to 2,000 rpm say and tell him/her that this is the maximum revs available rather than just closing the throttle completely. I think this approach tends to get them thinking about the issues of engine failure more deeply.

LD Max

29th Jul 2004, 08:34

Good advice already given all round on this one. However, I would add that the definitive answer lies in the emergency drills in the POH or approved checklist for your type of aircraft. The immediate actions should be memorised, followed by the "what's up" which (if time permits) can be actioned from the checklist.

I would personally favour a formalised approach, since the variables that "Fireflybob", (quite rightly), considers, can still be covered.

>> inserted: Lest I forget, during practice don't forget you are NOT absolved from the low flying rules: in particular "Not within 500 ft of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure except when taking off or landing according to normal aviation practice."

This means that unless you are conforming to the normal traffic pattern of an airfield, and are making standard calls to that airfield, and (if a controlled airfield) you have received clearance to land, you MUST plan to go-around at or above 500ft agl.

Of course in a real emergency the low flying rules do not count, but don't forget to scan the approach for obstacles.<<

In general I was taught that an engine failure is followed by the immediate actions and then the silent question, "Is there any sign of fire or mechanical failure?" This question can be verbalised to the instructor / examiner since he is setting the training scenario, but in real life should be the first question which enters your mind.

The answer to the silent question determines your following actions:

In general, the immediate (memory) items would be:

Carb Heat ON

Select the attitude required for best glide speed (Vg)

Select a field within a distance equivalent to an arc drawn from where the nose would be in the normal straight and level attitude, around to the wingtips and turn towards it:

(In choosing a field, use the 5 "esses")

Size
Shape
Surface
Slope
Surroundings

Another two I would add are:
Sheep (or cows etc)
Survivability (land near habitation if possible)

While selecting and turning towards the field, ask yourself the question, "Any sign of fire or mechanical failure?" As CFIMEI quite rightly points out, divide your attention inside and out, and above all maintain control of the aircraft. Don't forget the 3 golden rules "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", in that order.

If a fire, then close all cabin vents (or as defined in the POH) and make all turns away from the fire, e.g. if the fire is coming from the left side of the cowling, then make all turns to the right. In either case of fire or mechanical failure you should then start running the shut down drills immediately.

Carb Heat OFF
Fuel Pump OFF
Fuel Selector OFF
Mags OFF
Unnecessary Electrics OFF
Squawk 7700
Passenger Brief (crash drill)

If time / workload permits and no sign of fire or mechanical failure, then run the "What's up" drills:

Primer LOCKED
Fuel Pump ON
Change tanks (or fuel selector on Both)
Mags ON BOTH
Mixture, Exercise then RICH (or set for smoothest running)
Throttle, Exercise then FULL (or set for smoothest running)
Carb Heat, Exercise then ON (or set for smoothest running)
If prop stopped, Starter CRANK

But importantly, If at or below about 1,500 feet, or you have a high workload in maintaining safe control of the aircraft, or the "what's up" drills have failed to restart the engine, then proceed directly to the shut down drills as above.

In all cases, plan your descent to land into wind using the techniques you have been instructed in. (e.g. constant reference point technique etc)

When time permits, TX "Mayday" on current ATC frequency or 121.5
Station called (or "All Stations")
MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY
Who you are (e.g. N1234A)
What you are (e.g. Cessna 152)
What's up (e.g. Engine Failure with Fire)
Where you are (e.g. approximately 5 miles southwest of Massey Ranch, passing altitude 2,000 feet and descending)
Where you're going (e.g. Emergency Landing on farmland adjacent to I-95, near a mast and a small lake)
POB (e.g. 2 Persons on Board)
Request (e.g. Request Fire service and ground assistance ASAP)
After the shut down drills have been performed, then the final approach checks should be along the lines of:

Gear Down and Locked (as appropriate - and this might get done earlier according to the POH if an engine failure warrants manual deployment)
Master / Alternator OFF (when below 500ft AGL and on a Cessna when finished with electric flaps)
Harnesses SECURE
Exit Door OPEN (and allow to trail open.)
Passenger command "BRACE BRACE BRACE"

Practice: Go around by 500ft or Touchdown (if a real emergency or conducting the approach according to normal aviation practice into an airfield.)

The point at which you kill the Master / Alternator electrics is open to some debate. I was always of the opinion (and it is no more than an opinion) that once the electric flaps are deployed and the Radio has been finished with, then the one remaining concern is your visibility to ATC while squawking 7700. But below about 500 feet AGL it is unlikely that you will be on radar anymore so this would be a good time to kill the Master. This would normally be around the base to final turn if the profile is approximating a normal glide approach.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Menen

8th Aug 2004, 11:25

LD Max. Run that by me again, please. From which authority comes this advice of turn left or right depending on which side of the engine cowl the fire is seen?

I must admit that I have never heard of that little gem. So if the forced landing field you have spotted is on the left of the aircraft and the smoke is coming from the left side of the engine, then it would seem against normal rules of airmanship to deliberately carry out a turn away from the field simply because of smoke/fire etc.

Is your information from the aircraft type manufacturer's POH and if so, which specific type of aircraft are you referring to?

If you mean that the aircraft should be sidelipped in order to direct smoke/flames away from the aircraft as much as possible - then that is another story altogether. As long as you remember that some high wing types can bunt over violently if more than a certain amount of flap is extended during a strong sideslip manoeuvre.

The C150/172 series comes to mind where flap extension can shield the tailplane area in a sideslip resulting in tailplane and elevator loss of effectiveness.

Anyone that has time on Cessna 150/152 aircraft will be aware that very often the fuel valve will be either stiff to turn off or more usually completely jammed on. This is because pilots rarely exercise the fuel valve by closing it after close down from a normal flight.

A stiff fuel valve should reported in the technical sheet for rectification before next flight. If the fuel valve is immovable then the aircraft is deemed unairworthy.

A engine fire in the air is deadly if you cannot turn off the fuel valve. Don't ever leave it for the next poor blighter to find out.

aces low

10th Aug 2004, 10:19

LD max "during practice don't forget you are NOT absolved from the low flying rules: in particular "Not within 500 ft of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure except when taking off or landing according to normal aviation practice."

This means that unless you are conforming to the normal traffic pattern of an airfield, and are making standard calls to that airfield, and (if a controlled airfield) you have received clearance to land, you MUST plan to go-around at or above 500ft agl".

Except the 500' applies to horizontal as well as vertical distance. I.e. you can descend down to ground level in the open FIR...as long as you keep 500' away from an structure person etc. ) i also apply this to cattle in real life). There is no reason to restrict PFLs to 500'...some examiners wont! Just watch out for obstacles and buildings on the climb out!

LD Max

10th Aug 2004, 10:52

Menen, It's a good point you make.

This was the procedure taught to me during my JAA CPL training which was conducted in a PA28R-200 (Piper Arrow).

The logic is that it is a case of prioritising the risks, and the risk of the aircraft being consumed by fire in the air is of more critical importance than turning towards the ideal landing area.

If the landing field is on the left and the smoke / fire is coming from the left, then by turning left (whether sideslipping or not) would direct the relative air flow towards the fire, and thus into the cowling and towards the source of fuel.

Turns to the right, however, will direct the relative airflow into the cowling from the opposite side of the fire, and thus tend to blow the flames away from the source of fuel towards the outside of the aircraft.

In practice this might, (for example), mean the difference between making a right hand circuit for a landing as opposed to the normal left hand traffic pattern, so it may not be as fundamentally against standard airmanship as it first appears.

But, the priority with a fire is to land as rapidly as possible. So the selection of a field would logically be a lot closer than one might select if the engine just stopped for no apparent reason. In fact, an emergency spiral descent, making turns away from the fire might be considered the most appropriate, keeping the turns tight to keep the field in close proximity.

In general, (subject again to the POH), an emergency descent procedure does not involve a sideslip, (unless perhaps to make the threshold when on a high final approach), but rather Extension of gear and full flap below Vlo and Vfe, and then pitching to maintain Vfe while making steep turns.

This would satisfy the requirement to lose altitude rapidly, keeping in proximity of your intended landing area, while using the relative airflow to keep the fire outside of the aircraft.

I would agree, however, (and said so at the start of my previous post), that the POH or (Company Operations Manual) would define the exact procedure to be used for your type of aircraft. However, turns away from the source of fire are fairly standard emergency drills, and I have seen them taught quite commonly.

However I would say, one of the core skills a student pilot needs to acquire is the ability to prioritise risks in the face of each particular emergency, in order to reach the appropriate decisions at the time. Given the choice of landing at a Tarmac airfield 1 mile to my left, (with attendant fire services), or the ploughed field below, I would have to carefully assess my options. In the case of a severe engine fire, with visible flames, I think the ploughed field may certainly be worth considering. In the case of smoke, but no visible flames, perhaps I would be tempted to go for the airfield while making turns opposite to the side the smoke is coming from.

This is why computers will never replace pilots in the cockpit.

I note your further comments regarding stuck fuel valves, and agree with you that the aircraft should not be in the air in the first place if that were the case. Good pre-flight checks should pick up these sort of things, and if experienced yourself in flight should definately be written up.

Aces Low, I was referring to landings at a regular airfield, so the 500ft rule would apply vertically. You are right with respect to "green field" PFLs, but remember that a fence is a structure, so it would have to be a big field! In general, given your warnings about obstacles during the climbout, I think it good aviation practice to go around at 500'. As far as examiners are concerned, then the student should express his intention to go around by 500ft to demonstrate his knowledge. If the examiner overrides it, so be it.

BraceBrace

10th Aug 2004, 11:49

General remark... There is a difference between simulated engine failure, real engine failure, and certainly engine fire. Simulated engine failure is about the only time the engine really quites right then and there. Real engine failures will probably come slowly, some noises, some engine struggles, some "what's happening here, what is it doing? Is it failing? Something else?". The danger here is that in this sudden moment of "increasing stress", the student might forget temporarily everything that has been thougth, since the engine is doing "weird". He will even forget to fly! Looking down at the engine instruments, trying to figure it out, coming back up noticing his aicraft is in a turning dive... This is something every student should be made aware of. If he isn't, try to bring him into a position where he's put under a lot of stress. Then see how he reacts, he'll probably forget lots of things. In the debrief, point this out.

Concerning the procedures: I've noticed some go for the carburator first. If it's in the POH, fine. POH is POH. But as said, first things first. FLY, FLY, FLY. As my first instructor stated: even if some parts of your cabin are on fire, flying the aircraft is vital. It's the difference between burns on the legs or dead legs. Airspeed always comes first. Best glide if necessary. THEN the rest.

Second is decision making combined with good time management. What is happening? Can you really say what is happening? Do you have time to find out? Take a SAFE decision. Do I need to try carby? What about engine failure at 500'AGL after takeoff? FLY, then DECIDE course of action. Time for carby, ok, then go with the carby. Landing immediatly? Enough altitude for restart? It's better to safely land an aircraft with iced up carby, than crashing with the carby on with a report "they tried...".

Engine fires are even trickier since I doubt if the engine would quit anyway. And where would the smoke exit? Tailpipe? Cockpit?

I'm only writing this down because I've seen a friend of mine fail his check because he "quickly tried to", forgetting 5 seconds to fly and scr*w up the emergency landing. I got the exact same thing, with a 30kts wind on the ground (headwind on landing), threw away my checklists but my wheels hit ground right there where he wanted me to. I thought I failed as well, I only set the 7700 and did a very brief mayday. His reaction: "your friend and I crashed, you and I are alive, aircraft in one piece, why should I fail you?" Perhaps the engine could've been restarted but... perhaps not... you don't know. And it's a question that only needs to be asked if you have the time for it.

There is only one thing that requires your time at all times: flying. If after this there's time left, go with the rest. Trying to work yourself very very quickly through the checklists might even impose more stress on yourself. This in a situation where you'r not really sure what's happening... bad idea. And I doubt if every PPL-owner is that cold-blooded in face of a struggling engine.

As for the restart procedures (cherokee II):
A (airspeed)
B (best field)
C (cockpit)
* fuel selector (tank with fuel? try switch)
* fuel pump on
* mixture (rich)
* carby (on)
* mags
* check engine gauges
* primer locked?

It never states to activate the starter (prop will be windmilling, complete stop would be a severe engine damage I presume), but I think I might have a go with that one anyway in the end. Or would this be a bad idea?

LD Max

10th Aug 2004, 23:50

Brace Brace: The most valid point you make is about Flying the Aircraft First and foremost. I would certainly agree with you about that, and definately distractions during training are good practice. I have heard of examiners dropping their pen during the final stages of a glide approach and asking the student to retrieve it! (Good game!)

However, referring to your criticism of applying carb heat first, I would suggest that you consider the most common cause of engine failure is due to carb icing. This indeed would present itself initially as a drop in RPM, which MAY worsen to include rough running. Carb heat should be applied any time carb ice is anticipated or suspected and this may well sort things out before the engine actually quits.

But if the engine DOES quit, then ANY delay in applying carb heat will render the procedure useless as the exhaust temperature will plummet rapidly. This is why it is the first thing on the memory items and it really does not take more than a second to accomplish.

The second thing is to select Vg.

The last thing is to select a field and while doing so, evaluate whether you have a fire or mechanical failure since this may well determine your direction of turns and certainly your next actions.

There should be no hesitation about applying carb heat, if you even so much as suspect your engine is going to quit, because you NEED all that heat from the exhaust before it disappears for good!

If time permits, and you get into the "What's up" drills, then you would have the luxury of experimenting with different carb heat, mixture and throttle settings to get the smoothest running out of a sick engine.

But in essence I'm with you all the way on the importance of flying the aircraft first and not letting your head get inside the cockpit at the expense of what's outside.

Oh, and before I forget... about cranking the engine.
Good idea IF the prop has stopped. Don't do it if the prop is turning because a) it's unnecessary and b) The starter could jam in the flywheel making matters worse.

Why would the prop stop? Well in your average cessna or warrior it probably wouldn't - as you say.

But it does depend a bit on the circumstances and the aircraft, so it would be wrong to assume that it would never happen for the purposes of a check list. Hence the phrase "If prop stopped then Crank".

Some possible causes: New engine with tight bearings and piston rings, engine quits in slow flight or during a climb before attitude recovered sufficiently to keep the prop windmilling.

High compression ratio, or partially seized bearings or services, low oil pressure, constant speed govenor loses oil or partial pressure... any number of things. Perhaps you feathered it already and given the time decided to give the restart another go, (common procedure in Multi Engine).

BraceBrace

11th Aug 2004, 08:03

Very good point on the carburator heat indeed LD Max.

Flyingspaniard

11th Aug 2004, 14:23

Disagree with some of the comments here, not in the technical reasoning behind the actions, but more in the faith in the abilities of a student or newbie to think logically in the face of a real emergency. I think too much emphasis is put on teaching a certain order of checks and on fault diagnosis whilst suffering engine failure.

I believe that when thinking capacity decreases i.e. in an emergency, pilots will revert back to the procedures they learnt when they first trained. It has been proven in many an AAIB report that this is the case. Therefore I think its better to drum into a student a drill that works well in all situations so that when he's 5hitting himself with an engine failure he has an automatic drill to fall back on.

For the restarts I like the US approach of teaching the sweep checks (the student moves his arm from bottom left (fuel starvation being the primary cause of engine failure - as opposed to rough running) up and around to the throttle quadrant and then down to between the front seats, performing the necessary actions as he works his way around) as these work well in many aircraft from Cessnas to Arrows and placing your hands on the controls will jog the memory too.

I have seen from both sides the differences in people (including myself) who think they are simulating a failure and those that think they are in a real situation. I myself never panicked when doing my training and usually got the PFLs about right finding my field and completing the checks. However when it happened for real on my second flight as a newly qualified PPL, the adrenalin was really pumping and I certainly didn't have spare capacity for asking questions about whether I should operate the starter or not; is the oil pressure too low causing the engine to stop windmilling; do I operate carb heat first, second, or third; is there smoke coming from the left or the right etc. All I could remember was my instructor saying trim for the glide, where's the wind, pick a field, do your restarts etc. Trying to do the restart checks, I recall how difficult I found it to remember what came where. My PPL instuctor always said to me the engine needs fuel, a spark and air. So when doing the checks I went to the mixture (normal), alternator? (it was on! don't ask why I checked this), throttle, finally carb heat which cured the problem. And I have also seen PPLs on a check ride trying to do restart checks during EFATO.

The point I'm trying to make is that yes all these options are open to us and its good to discuss the why's and think about them here on pprune in a calm state of mind. When you have time to think you'd expect most student pilots of average ability to come to the same conclusions.

In the air, unless you're experienced you'll not have the capacity to think about these things and discern from the symptoms what actions to perform first. You'll just have to perform them quickly and properly.

In my first incident according to how I was taught, I should have thought, fuel - ah well thats the fuel valve, fuel pump on, proper tank selected, primer in and locked, mixture rich. A spark - obviously meant magnetos, but I for some reason was thinking about the alternator, finally air - throttle and carb. I was supposed to think these through logically but I didn't - my mind farted and by trial and error I eventually got to the problem.

My instructor during checkflights did something that I now do from time to time which may be controversial but certainly gets the point accross. On the way back from the GH exercise at a good altitude I'll quietly turn the cessna's fuel valve to the half way position. Engine starts to run rough after about 10secs, and I will look just as surprised as the pilot being checked. Some people will go to their drills and execute the actions perfectly, others will have seen me close the valve and they too will not have any problems, however on four or five occasions I've seen them completely forgetting the picking of a field, leaving the speed at 90 knots, rush through random checks missing out a couple of vital ones before attempting to make a mayday at which point of course I stop them and turn the fuel back on.

I do agree about carb heat being necessary as it is one of the first causes of a rough running engine, however although the engine could stop in the very worst case I think it highly unlikely and so I'm not overly concerned with there being no exhaust heat if he leaves the carb till his second or third restart check. I teach that carb ice should be assumed anytime you have to alter the throttle settings, where MP or RPM have reduced from what it was set at. I harp on about carb heat on every flight with repeated nagging about doing Fredas every ten - fifteen minutes or after every waypoint whichevers sooner and they should include the full engine checks i.e. Carb ice, Ts and Ps, Alternator, Suction and fuel px (first 1 and last 3 often left out). I often criticise the check itself where a student will leave Carb H on for 3 sec and then turn it off again leaving nowhere near enough time to melt any ice.

In conclusion I say leave the logical fault diagnosis to those who have the experience and know how to come to the right decisions in an emergency. But for those that are students going first solo xcountry or inexperienced PPLs let them be "thinking" before an emergency (good checks and situational awareness can't be emphasised enough) or when they're safe on the ground after the event. I'll feel better knowing that in an emergency the student I've signed off to go xcountry will remember simple automatic drills that will work even if at the time they can't remember why they are doing them. The more capacity they have for flying and landing safely the better.

vetflyer

11th Aug 2004, 17:51

In the case of an engine fire , what speed you you select to decend at? Vg or Vfe or Vvery fast

Ps i was taught to turn away from flames ,also to consider side slipping to haste decend

LD Max

11th Aug 2004, 20:27

With an engine fire, certainly descend as quickly as possible. Max drag configuration (Gear down, Full Flap), and set airspeed for Vfe.

Certainly a sideslip would increase ROD and so would steep turns. Depends where your landing target is, but if it's 2,000 feet vertically below, then I would use steep turns to descend at Vfe above target, and sideslip in on a high final approach.

Your call really.

Just smoke....? Well PIC has to make the decision whether he has a fire or not. If not a fire, then the drills are aimed at a possible restart and to maximise your time in the air to glide to that ideal piece of tarmac. If you decide you have the time to glide, then you would be in a Minimum Drag configuration (Gear retracted, Flaps up, Cowl flaps closed etc), and select the attitude for Vg.

But again it is very much your call whether you treat smoke as an engine fire, as it may very well turn into one if it isn't already. On the other hand, if you'd had a fire and the shutdown drills were completed successfully, then while you are descending like a brick it may well be that the fire goes out, leaving just some smoke! If so, then certainly consider changing configuration back from max descent to best glide, and re-evaluate your options.

The checklists only tell you what to do once your decisions have been made. They don't tell you how to make decisions, or how to re-evaluate your decisions as things develop.

hugh flung_dung

11th Aug 2004, 20:55

Logically it's most important to get the field and speed sorted as a first priority whilst there is most time (ie height) available, other drills can then be gone through whilst in the forced landing pattern to the field that hopefully won't be needed. The drill sequence should be driven by the most common causes of engine failure: carb ice and running out of fuel in the selected tank.

Therefore:
- Turn into wind whilst adopting attitude for best glide and trimming
- Pick field, plan pattern (constant aspect method works every time)
- If no fire: Carb heat, pump on, change tank, mix rich, Mags on, primer locked
- If fire: fuel off, hot/cold air off

A question that has often been debated in the bar ... if the aircraft is burning there are 2 choices:
- fly very fast to blow the fire out and burn (!) energy to get on the ground faster - but this will give the fire more oxygen and therefore make it hotter (and aluminium melts at a surprisingly low temperature), or
- fly slowly to minimise oxygen supply (and therefore fire temperature) whilst sideslipping to minimise the heat reaching the fuselage - but this increases the airborne time.
... which is best ?? Can anyone point to any research?

HFD

LD Max

11th Aug 2004, 21:00

FlyingSpaniard: You make a very good point, and of course having experienced a real engine failure you are in the best position to describe the workload in that situation.

I regret(?) (well I don't actually, but I hope you get my meaning), that I have never experienced one for real myself. However I do remember my own early PPL days, and the FREDA checks were enough to shut down my speech centres. I would quite litterally sound drunk on the radio giving, "midwind downfield", calls in the circuit and reading back the runway numbers back to front.

So along with most other pilots I can certainly imagine the adreneline surge as the engine sputters to a halt, and the mental turmoil as half your brain jumps out of your skull on a parachute and leaves Neanderthal Man as PIC going "Ug" at whatever he recalls from his checklist.

The thing about workload is that checklist actions are a skill as much as any other aspect of flying. The more we practice them the better we get, and the more automatic it becomes.

There are only 3 memory items I listed:

1) Carb Heat
2) Vg
3) Select Field

Then the question of: "Any sign of fire or mechanical failure?"

Now ALL the remaining drills "should" be read off the sheet, and certainly a CPL would be expected to do this.

But assuming (for PPL purposes) that's floating around the luggage compartment where it was chucked just after the takeoff checks, then it can all be summarised as follows:

4) Fly the aircraft and plan your descent as circumstances allow.

5) FIRE: Switch everything OFF and descend as quickly as possible. Land where able

6) No Fire: Switch everything ON and change tanks.

Not really so difficult.

The more it is practiced, the more we can take those generalised statements and explore them a bit further. For example, selecting a field and the 5 esses...

But God knows, I sometimes struggle to remember HASELL when the workload is high... (was the "A" for Airports or Airframe?). But this should not deter us from teaching this in the classroom, and endeavouring to put as much of it into practice as possible during the exercises.

IMHO, the more that sticks, the better when it comes to the real thing.

HFD Nice idea about the oxygen, but - well I can\'t point to any research, but I can say with reasonable conviction that its the source of fuel which is the major concern. If its nice high calorific stuff like 100LL then the plane will burn quite nicely even if it were stationary on the ground. "Starving" the fire of oxygen by flying slowly is hardly going to be an option.

Head earthwards at a high rate of knots is going to be your best bet for two reasons.

1) It WILL fan the fire, but this will mean the fuel will be consumed more quickly, and if you have isolated the source you can expect the fire to extinguish faster.

2) If you are making turns AWAY from the fire, then you will be using the Relative airflow to direct the flames away from the source of fuel and this may well succeed in "blowing it out". Even if it doesn\'t, it will be keeping most of the flame front outside of the cowling rather than within.

Big Pistons Forever

12th Aug 2004, 20:32

A few items from my POV

1) Engine fires in small ac are rare and usually go out as soon as the engine is shut down. This was the case in the two I have personal knowledge of ( C421 and Islander).

2) I have been instructing full and part time for 16 years. My club has a policy of annual recurrent training. I have NEVER had a PPL conduct a satisfactory forced approach on the first try during a annual check ride. Many in my opinion were so bad they stood a good chance of killing themselves. Therefore I strongly believe PPL's should practice this manoever regularly, it may save their life.

3) When instructing PFL's I used to initiate the engine failure by pulling the mixture to ICO. One day in a c 152 , after 6 full PFL,s we returned to our home airport, landed and pulled into our parking spot. The student pulled the mixture out only about 3 feet of cable came out as the engine died:eek: So I now initiate PFL's by pulling back the throttle...

Centaurus

13th Aug 2004, 02:23

Big Pistons etc. You are a brave man, hombre, pulling mixture controls to cause real engine failures in any aircraft - single or twin. It reflects on the poor initial training that you were unfortunate enough to receive. Worse still, it shows poor airmanship. Thank goodness for the sake of your future students that you have seen the light. Full marks for owning up.

gunshy67

13th Aug 2004, 23:41

Menen and Centuras

You make a lot of sense. What nonsense is this stuff about turning away from a fire. Don't we fly balanced anymore?

Sideslip perhaps and that can be a benefit if it allows you to reach the ground quickly......but not too hard.

As for real shutdowns. Much has been written on this sfoohardy practice. And it is one of the most stupid unsafe procedures that modern aviaton and regulators allow.

Despite so much evidence as to the risks (yes do a risk managment exercise on it) it continues to be a "standard".

It's a little like smoking. We know it hurts us but ............."I like it and it feel good".

Not like sex. It IS good.

Chuck Ellsworth

15th Aug 2004, 02:17

It is refreshing to see someone that recognizes the folly of shutting down a perfectly good engine and creating an emegrency situation when none existed before the shut down...

But we all know that a lot of idiots end up being our regulators.

There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically.

I understand that the British CAA requires full feathering in the air, well if that is their requirement they can do it themselves, and I sure wouldn't go with them.

Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?

I rest my case. .:ok:

Chuck E.

Big Pistons Forever

16th Aug 2004, 20:29

I am somewhat surpised to see the comments from the Australian posters. Last year there was a lively exchange in this forum on the subject of Multi Engine EFATO drills. Several down under instructors were advocating pulling the mixture right at rotation:sad: and therefore I got the impression that was common practice. I am very glad to see there is a more sensable approach being advocated now:ok:

DFC

17th Aug 2004, 10:48

I have to wonder about all this talking of side-slips to try and keep the flames away to one side.

If the airspeed is 70Kt and a moderate side-slip is made, what is the sideways vector in Kt and what is the resultant of both the forward and sideways vectors?

Most engines are placed in front of a fire-wall so do pilots really what to encourage the fire to one side of that barrier perhaps exposing part of the wing.

One "instructor"/"examminer" insists that when he simulates an engine fire, an immediate side-slip to get onto the ground as directly as possible regardless of landing area is made while the fuel is turned off. When flying with one of his former students, I wrote the type of fire on the back of a nav log and then simulated "smoke from the engine".....he immediately closed the throttle, started a mad side-slip simulated turning the fuel off and told me he was landing in a small potatoe field which would have damaged the aircraft (perhaps more if we had continued the sideslip into the ground) - time from 2000ft to surface was about 1min 30sec.

After we climbed back to a safe height, I revealed the back of the nav log which simply said - "Electrical fire - turn off the master".

I changed my mind about simulating a cabin fire for fear that the instructor had told the guy to jump out the door. :)

Never mind the possible damage to the aircraft. What if this pilot had unnecessarily force landed on a mountainside in winter. Shame for passengers to die from the cold when a nice warm engine is available to take them home!

Perhaps we need to remind instructors of what an engine fire is and what an uncontained engine fire is.

Regards,

DFC

Hudson

18th Aug 2004, 14:41

DFC. I think you are being a bit too clever by halves when you verbalise "Smoke coming from the engine" - then wait for the reaction. If one sees smoke coming from an engine say on a light twin, one would be silly not to immediately assume that where there is smoke there is fire - and that turning off the battery or master switch would be a case of the well known pissing into the wind, so to speak.

When you set such a scenario then you must explain quite clearly what sort of smoke - black as all hell or thick or whispy and so on. The victim under test can at least have a go at identifying the possible cause of the smoke and may modify his actions appropriately. In other words the instructor should avoid the risk of being labelled a smart-arse.

If in a single engine aircraft with no engine fire extinguisher, significant smoke is spotted coming from the engine, then there is little doubt that an immediate forced landing should be considered while pondering the unknown source of the smoke.

There have been fatal accidents where delay in initiating an emergency descent has been the direct cause of incapacitation due smoke inhalation and it's all over Red Rover.

An electrical fire forward of the engine firewall must be an awfully rare event and you cannot honestly blame your colleague for not second guessing what sort of smoke you are hanging on him.

When simulating any emergency such as that which you described in your post, it behoves the testing officer (or whoever he calls himself) to make your scenario crystal clear so that the person under test has no doubt as to what you are trying to simulate. Just hollering "Smoke in the engine" means zilch and is a poor way of signalling your intentions. Buy your long suffering student a beer...

ODGUY

18th Aug 2004, 22:53

- carb ON
- glide BEST
- engine RESTART, if no go SHUT-DOWN
- Mayday call
- Pax Brief

during this whole time you would be choosing your field and planning your approach.

There are primary actions vs. secondary actions.

Plan your approach!!! make that field. Choose two key points. Base points, 1,000ft agl. Build your own circuit. 172, i would pick 2 base key points (left/right base ), 1,000ft AGL and 1 mile out (1/2 base & 1/2 final). try for the first base, if too high, go for the second one. Judge your approach. Once you use flaps you are committed, I would hold off on the flaps and slip if I need to. Once on final and are sure of making your field, you can use flaps in accordance to the type of landing to be carried out (i.e. soft, short, obstacle, etc.)

Secondary actions would be the restart.shutdown, mayday call, pax briefing.

All emergencies are different, but teach your students the PDM skills or help them develop so they can have a fighting chance if faced with a real one.

ROB-x38

22nd Aug 2004, 07:47

On the subject of engine failures in S/E aircraft the Z-242L AFM states:
The maximum gliding distance is obtained at CAT. A,U: 73 knots (135 km/h)
and one of the engine failure actions:
Control the aircraft - MAINTAIN 78 knots MIN.

Stall speed is 60 knots clean so would someone be able to tell me why the drills don't involve trimming for best-glide and why the 78kt mimimum?

LD Max

24th Aug 2004, 23:48

Chuck Ellsworth

The CAA do not advocate full feathering during practice engine failures. The only time I have had to do that was under the FAA training syllabus.

The CAA only operate "Touch Drills". In itself, however, I have heard it said that this has set the stage for situations when in the case of a real engine shut-down, the PIC just did the touch drills!

Compromise training drill (although this is neither CAA nor FAA) is for student to fully retard the prop lever to the feather position, but instructor to intercept it before prop actually feathers. This (naturally) requires briefing to agree the procedure before hand, but this was done to me by my FAA instructor when I was doing my FAA ME CPL, after having already completed my JAA CPL. I had expressed my concern over a full feather - and he had agreed on the compromise.

Worked for me.

Turning away from the fire is standard CAA (Actually JAA nowadays) training procedure. Like it or not, you will be expected to do this during your flight test - IF the examiner elects to tell you that there is an engine fire.

But look at it this way. I agree that in SE it probably won't make a whole lot of difference, but any difference it does make is likely to be for the better. You DO want the flames (heat) outside the cowling. It's still on the other side of the firewall - but don't expect that to protect you for long. If the flames remain inside the cowling, they are closer to the fuel source of the fire, and the heat build up will melt your plane.

However, when you move up to ME, turning away from the fire is a really REALLY good thing to do, because the engine in question is (more often) beside you - not in front! So learning this drill from the start at the SE PPL level, has the advantage of "Primacy".

I.E. Things learnt first are longest remembered.

Angel´s One Fife

25th Aug 2004, 22:43

LD MAX

Where did yuou get this nonsense that you will be expected to turn away from the fire in a ME by a CAA examiner. What Tosh. What is the point of turning away from the fire that will make no differance to where the flames go. Only flying out of balance will make a differance to what the flames may do.

I would also suggest that if you were not taught during your ME training how to do a full feather and restart then your training was lacking. The only caveat would be to be at least 3000' AGL.

askmelater

26th Aug 2004, 12:31

Chuck Ellsworth

I take interest in a couple of points in your post;

Quote: "There is only one reason that I will full feather an engine in flight and that is if the thing has failed mechanically."

If this is the case (and you are instructing in ME aircraft) I feel your students are missing an extremely important part of their transition training. To experience something for the first time and actually do the actions for the first time when you have the stress of a real engine failure/fire/problem can and will only add more stress to the situation;..... crap my engines on fire.....if I pull this lever will the aircraft continue flying.....my instructor said it would......I still have 30 miles to the nearest airport......

And there is the "here is proof" element during training. Using only zero thrust may not convince some students that the aircraft can continue flight, very successfully in some cases, with one engine actually shut down. This could lead to premature decisions being made in the real scenario due to the doubt in performance/handling.

Quote: "Didn't someone arrive somewhere in England recently with one shut down because it wouldn't unfeather after a practice shut down in fligh?"

I would suggest (and I know for fact absolutely nothing of the incident you speak of) that the shutdown may not have been conducted from 3000 AGL (As Angel's One Fife mentioned) and/or the aircraft was in a poor mechanical state and/or the aircraft was not fitted with unfeathering accumulators - all being, in my opinion, requirements for a twin used regularly for shutdowns.

Interested on your thoughts of why not to include it in the training.

AML

Chuck Ellsworth

26th Aug 2004, 16:11

I shall try and explain my stand on why I do not full feather engines for the sole purpose of demonstrating to a student that a certified feathering device does in fact work.

First allow me to point out some facts regarding the instance where a propellor did not unfeather during a practice feathering session just recently.

(1) I have no idea at what altitude they feathered the thing, however it did fly to an airport on one engine because they had feathered one and it would not unfeather.

(2) The airplane was in excellent mechanical condition because it had been worked on for several years during the restoration process.

(3) The Engine had just come out of a major overhaul and had less than 100 hours on it. Also the propellors had been overhauled and new blades installed.

(4) No it did not have unfeathering accumulators on it, it was a radial with an electrical driven feathering mechanism that is independant of the engine driven accessories.

When discussing flight training we should bear in mind that there are many different mechanical / electrical methods of feathering propellors and in fact some props can be feathered and the engine is still running such as the P&W PT6 for instance.

I personally have almost bought the farm on two occasions because I feathered an engine and it would not unfeather.

So I got to thinking about it and decided that I did not want to go for three strikes and you are out, therefore I will not feather unless there is no other choice other than a mechanical need to.

If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight of a fully feathered propellor or he/she may freeze when a real emergency developes then why not demonstrate flight above VNE until we reach the flutter realm of the structure?

After all we have only read that VNE and flutter exist therefore why not demonstrate it just to prove that it will happen?

Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so..

Those who preach the necessity for full feathering of engines must also realize that they are limiting the conditions wherein feathering can be safely taught...such as during very cold weather in the winter when feathering an engine would be foolhardy to say the least.

So very briefly there are some of my thoughts on this subject, I may not be the greatest of pilots or the best of instructors but I'm still alive to continue on.

Chuck E.

Angel´s One Fife

31st Aug 2004, 17:54

Chuck Ellsworth

You should consider whether you are the right person to be instructing ME training. What tosh are you talking about; that because you could not unfeather the engine you nearly bought the farm. You still no doubt had one engine to carrry out the approach and landing on and if all else failed, aircraft will still glide you know.

Your drawing a comparison between experiencing an feathering of the prop and of flying above VNE is just utter nonsense. Flying intentionally above VNE is structurally unsafe whereas flying a multi on one engine has no structural implications at all and if you are not demonstrating to your students that the aircraft flies exactly the same on one as it does on two or three then again you are missing out a huge amount of their training. Flying on one engine is not about looking at a stationanry prop it is about experiencing the handling characteristics and as such is a great confidence building exercise.

It is no doubt poor instructing in ME flying that leads to poor accident statistics for MEP in the Americas that leads to people thinking that it is better to fly SET public transport.

"Each of us must decide where our comfort and safety limits are and using that baseline develop a system of instruction that teaches the student the art of flying ,... safely,... that I have tried to do during my career and so far my students have demonstrated that they have what it takes to grab the bull by the balls in an emergency and pull that feather lever, or push that button for their first look at a feathered propellor, but only when there is a reason to do so.. "

Rubbish. It is not grabbing a bull by the balls just to feather an engine; it is a piece of piss and easy as pie. Making your student think it is grabbing a bull by the balls is just gung ho he man ignorance of the plain and simple fact that it is no big deal to be flying on one engine. The only problem in feathering a piston is doing it too slowly. Because your poor student will not be used to seeing it and be too busy worrying about whether the aircraft will fly or not then it could be argued they may act too slowly. And as I am sure you know wait too long and let the rpm get too low and you will never get it feathered. Then they really will will be scraming Mayday but a fat lot of good it will get them unless the aircraft has major excess power.

askmelater

1st Sep 2004, 08:59

ChuckE

I would have to agree with Angel´s One Fife second paragraph. I would think it extremely foolish to purposely demonstrate something outside the flight manual limitations and more over how do you justify that to a student?

I should have added to my previous post that aircraft doing regular shutdowns should be new(ish) - I don’t know of any recent radial powered designs. I guess my point was, I would select the aircraft I did regular shutdowns in carefully.

On a light training twin that I regularly use to conduct shutdowns as part of ME conversions my thoughts on unfeathering are as follows (and no doubt I am putting myself to the slaughter); get the prop windmilling / engine turning, introduce some fuel and if nothing is wrong mechanically the engine will fire.

Problems could occur with the unfeathering mechanism (and in my opinion I would favor a hydraulic device over an electrical one because I think a malfunction with an electrical device is more likely) which should be covered by my mechanical condition of the aircraft requirement. Lets say the but the blades don’t fully unfeather (and therefore are not rotating) but are free to move); cranking the engine using the starter is sufficient to get the blades rotating and failing this (it would have to be an unlucky day) my 3000’ AGL requirement allows me to trade height for speed and the increased airflow through the blades begins rotation (typical height loss 300’ - 800’ and I make this a demonstration during training). Should something go wrong with the engine still operating then I back myself from 3000’ AGL to restart the one I have shutdown and return to base (feathering the one that is now causing real problems).

I conduct approx 3 shutdowns for every student and give them slightly different scenarios for each - reduced pwr setting prior to shutdown, engine on fire, failure during cruise etc. I also include actual fuel cross-feed with one engine shutdown during training.

Quote: “If we use the mindset that a student must experience the sensation and sight........”

It’s not the sensation and sight of stationary blades I consider most important. If I had to put it into a statement I would say it is the decisions/actions associated with and decision/actions that follow the shutdown. It surprised me (and still does) how many students fail to do something as basic as increase power or reduce drag or why they ‘fight’ the aircraft because they have not trimmed rudder/elevator/aileron when handling an actual shutdown for the first time. There are also many students who handle everything at a level well above their experience but it is the former that I am most satisfied with because you can bet the improvement displayed after making a dubious decision the first time, is ten fold when given another chance - something that is only possible during training.

I agree in part with your comment about personal safety limits. No instructor should contemplate doing something with a student that they don’t feel competent in themselves - the student has put their life in your hands.

For the ME shutdown case, in my opinion provided suitable precautions are taken, the benefits outweigh the exclusion during initial conversion training.

AML

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Sep 2004, 16:49

Well I sort of thought someone would comment on my post.

So, Angle on fire allow me to elaborate on my thoughts and my methods of teaching.

The first time I could not unfeather was in a Piper Apache and it would not maintain on one because of another problem no one had caught, when checking the aircraft over subsequent to my being unable to maintain it was discovered that the nose wheel doors were not closing properly and that was enough to cause a 150 hp Apache do drift down.

In that instance I made it to a farm strip that I knew was close, otherwise I would have had to force land somewhere away from an airport.

On the second occasion the feather motor burnt out and the prop would not unfeather, I had feathered the left engine and unfeathered but the other pilot said he would like to see the unfeathering proceedure again so I feathered the right one, and when I was unable to unfeather I was now without an engine driven hydraulic pump. I will not bore you with the rest of the problems except to say we did manage to get the gear down and land the thing safely.

As to whether I should be teaching on or even flying multi engine aircraft I am not to worried about that as I do believe I know what I am doing.

Just today during our per flight briefing we discussed this very topic and everyone whom I am training were comfortable with my methods and my teaching ability.

My reference to VNE was tounge in cheek and not meant in the context you may have read it.....so I with draw that part of my comment.

However I will still submit that engine out flying skills can be taught by simulating rather than full feathering and shutdowns. And I support that by once again stating that having shut down an engine that is operating normally you have now put yourself in an emergency situation when none existed before the shut down......unless of course losing an engine is not an emergency situation in which case I am wrong.

For what it is worth I have had to shut engines down in conditions that were extreemly difficult from the high Arctic to the tropics and managed to get them all safely on the ground.

But hey if you are really serious about my not being competant teaching on and flying multi engine aircraft, PM me and maybe you can make some money teaching me how to do it. :ok:

But be forwarned when you get to the bit where you want to show me the airplane will still glide if the other one fails I will sit on the ground and you can show me your skills without me in it.

In any case I will go with what ever the regulators approve as far as my being able to teach and fly on these things, right now I am teaching under an approval from a JAA country and last time I checked it was not revoked.

Chuck

AML :

We as flight instructors all have slightly different methods, ideas and ways of teaching people how to safely fly aircraft.

My preference and method of teaching engine out airplane handling is to carefully and fully explain what we will be doing and what the airplane we are flying is capable of.

It is my personal opinion that if my student is capable of flying the aircraft properly with an engine in simulated feather thrust and then with the power brought bact to simulate performance below that of a feathered engine and they have performed the vital actions up to but not actually full feather they can and will complete the process should the need ever arise where the engine must be feathered........

......it is all in how well you program the student and how aware the student is of what the airplane will do and how skillful his/her flying is under your tutelage.

I am well aware that my methods will not sit well with many of my colleauges, but I will put my students up against anyone here as to their skill level and comprehension of what is happening during flight.

By the way there are many, many flying machines out there and they all have their own limits and systems, I could be wrong but some of the comments that are posted here are from people with a very limited exposure to a wide variety of flying machines.

Anyone want to discuss the issues that one will face in an engine failure in a Sikorsky S61 at all up weight and max collective up power limits with regard to the input clutches?

By the way it does not glide with both engines out worth a damn. :ok:

Chuck

LD Max

5th Sep 2004, 02:21

I must admit I support Chuck Ellsworth's view on practice engine shut downs. I see no reason to shut down a perfectly good engine - simply because it may never get going again... and we all know the saying about the remaining engine runs just long enough to take you to the scene of the accident!

I really don't see / understand what educational benefit there is in watching the prop feather and unfeather in flight. We can demonstrate the action of the CSU and the Prop lever. We can Simulate Zero thrust, and we can perform touch or interrupted feather drills without setting the aircraft up for a REAL emergency.

(...and whether it's a PAN or a Mayday is quite academic in my book - it's STILL a real emergency!)

The one caveat I have, (yet I have seen no real evidence of this), is that a student taught touch drills only in practice, might (and I stress "might"), only perform touch drills in a real emergency. I still think the interrupted feather drill is a good compromise - even if it doesn't appear in the manuals.

Angel's One Fife; the advantage of discussing different teaching methods is that we will all take away something positive from it which, hopefully, will improve what and how we teach our students.

So with reference to your contemptuous dismissal of the practice of turning away from the source of fire in a ME aircraft, (and for the benefit of all of us mere mortals for whom the air generally passes in the opposite direction to travel), please would you kindly explain how you would propose to deflect flames from the left hand engine away from the fuselage if you adhered to a Left hand circuit pattern instead of a right hand circuit pattern?

Angel´s One Fife

9th Sep 2004, 20:02

LD Max

Well let me hope that YOU are not teachingrthat you are not theaching that to yourmulti engine students. You obviously have little or no idea about asymmetric theory. Your idea of turning away from the flames. Perhaps you are one of those people who; if you were a dog, would be chasing your tail all day wondering why you can never catch it.

What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performace.

hugh flung_dung

9th Sep 2004, 21:52

Life is all about risk management and risk/benefit analysis.
To manage the ME engine failure risk we teach how to cope with engine failures in various stages of fright and ensure that the stude understands the foolhardiness and futility of attempting to go around or continuing a departure after a failure near the ground.
To manage the MEPL training risk we use failure simulation rather than actually shutting down, but training would be incomplete if we stopped there. The UK syllabus requires a shutdown and restart as part of asymm2 and I haven't yet had a stude that hasn't had a semi-religious experience when they see the blades stopped and the aircraft still flying. This is the only time they do the full drill and the only opportunity to demonstrate that all the things we teach them are true. There is significant benefit from the exercise; the risk is minimised by doing it above 3000ft within asymm reach of a suitable airfield. If you happily fly SEPL you shouldn't have a hang up about a single shutdown for each MEPL stude.

LDMax, I'm afraid you may need to revise your asymm theory old chum. Engine failed and ball centred the aircraft is slipping towards the failed engine, applying a small amount of bank to the live and decreasing rudder can achieve zero nett slip.
Turn direction is not relevant to a fire; sideslip may be relevant but that is not linked to turn direction. Another point is that most MEPLs have fuel tanks outboards of the engines, it may not be a good thing to yaw to put the flames over that part of the wing.

But this is all academic. Shut the fuel off and feather the engine. If the flames don't go out fly a controlled circuit in either direction to a controlled landing in the best available place using power on the live engine to help.

Here's to Happy Landings and Perfect Studes.
HFD

Chuck Ellsworth

10th Sep 2004, 16:04

Angel's....

As I previously mentioned we each have our own methods of teaching people how to fly, I have my personal methods and they have over the years worked for me.

By referring to me as " Chucky" am I to take that to mean that I am some child who you are trying to chastize?

Once again as I have previously mentioned, if you really feel you can improve my flying ability and improve my teaching methods please PM me with your background and outline what you have to offer and maybe I shall take some training from you....providing of course you can show that I would not be wasting my money.

I would hate to think that I am not a safe multi engine pilot, so maybe you can save me from disaster.

Chuck Ellsworth

Angel´s One Fife

10th Sep 2004, 18:28

Chuck

Why do you take everything to be an affront. No I was not trying to chastise (with an s not z) you. I repeat what I wrote earlier.

"What type of MEP do you fly and how do you teach your students to establish what the zero thrust settings for the "failed" engine is? If you don't, will not, do your own shutdown how do you and Chucky get a realistic setting. Or did you just grab the figure from out of the sky. I bet when you are using that figure you are fooling yourself; and worse your students into a false sense of performance."

Just because you confronted your students and they say they are happy does not mean a thing. Students will rarely ever confront an instructor they are unhappy with to their face. They will just go and ask for and instructor change to someone higher up the chain. If their is only one or two instructors in the area then they will probably just go along with a bad one as it is a case of they will be unable to judge if they are in fact being taught correctly because they will have no other benchmark to compare with.

What JAA approval are you working under? If it is for MEP do you just falsely claim to have taught a shutdown and restart in flight on the form? Please do enlighten me.

The problem with instructors is they try to use their own methods when in fact there are rather standardised ways of doing things that are normally tried and tested and have stood scrutiny from many learned men and are much better than someone's own method.

Chuck Ellsworth

10th Sep 2004, 19:31

Angel's.......

I will try and answer some of your questions.

I am a one person business offering advanced flight training.

I am qualified on many multi engine aircraft piston, turbo prop and jet. From the Piper Twin commanche to the A320.

My specality is PBY's DC3's and the C117.

I am not fooling myself nor my students, I do not pick numbers out of the sky.

All my business is by referral only and my customers include Air France, Airbus Industries, and many rich warbird collectors.

One of my students by the name of Glen Dell just won the world unlimited aerobatic competition this year in sweden. ( See the African thread here in Pprune. )

I am presently giving six type ratings here in Holland on a restored PBY under the approval of the Dutch CAA.

I also hold an Air show display authorisation here in the Netherlands and flew two air display sessions last Saturday at the Lelystad Airshow.

One of my students is a Dutch CAA Inspector and when I get him type rated you can ask him if I am competent.

I do not falsify training records...period...I am not teaching ab-initio students, I do only advanced flight training.

However some years ago I owned a flight training school both fixed wing and helicopters in Canada and I recommended students for the Transport Canada multi engine flight test and was clear that I would not and did not full feather / shut down an engine that was running normal. Non of my recommendations were turned down and non failed the TC flight test.

As to your comments about standardised flight training, once again I do not give standardised training, I teach advanced flight training and my rate is 250 euro per hour.

Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots.

Yesterday I flew 3.8 hours and my two students are anxious to learn more and are quite happy with paying me my rate.

You in another post opined that I maybe should not even be flying multi engine airplanes, let alone instructing on them.

I am merely defending myself by answering your questions.

Over to you angel's.

Chuck Ellsworth

Flyingspaniard

20th Sep 2004, 13:00

Angels One Fife

Chuck and LDM make a perfectly valid point. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong.

Your dismissal of other peoples learnings shows you to be very narrowminded. Perhaps your tunnel vision will help you steer your aircraft with pinpoint accuracy to the crash site.

I don't know who made you the arbiter of good teaching practice, but with the comments you make about other peoples suitability to teach flying, it would appear it is you that makes an unsuitable instructor.

Either you're purposely trying to wind people up or you're not half as smart as you think you are.

Chuck - thats an impressive CV.

Chuck Ellsworth

20th Sep 2004, 15:16

Flyingspaniard:

Thanks for the comments.

Yesterday two of my customers received their check rides from the Dutch CAA for the PBY type ratings.

I gave the dutch inspector some dual including two water landings and after the rides were over he was so delighted with the opportunity to fly the Cat and the way my customers flew it that he went out of his way to complement me on how impressed he was with the training.

Angle's could be anyone and thus free to slam anyone he/she wants to, I on the other hand post in my real name and you can bet that I can back up anything that I post. :ok:

Chuck

Angel´s One Fife

20th Sep 2004, 20:08

Chuck

You really do seem to want to try to score points all the time and make out that I am making personal attacks on you.

The point of this topic was Engine Failure Drills and what and how to teach them. You started then by saying that you saw no point in feathering a working engine. You seem to think that to do so is flirting with a major disaster. Well it is a fact of life in JAA land that for an initial issue of MEP a full shutdown and restart has to have been taught and it a very normal way of doing this most instructors teach this as part of the asymmetric flying lesson.

You gave the impression from your post that you are a JAA approved instructor teaching MEP for initial issue which it would appear you are not. It appears you are flying differances training

Do you need a type rating for the Consolidated or Vickers model PBY. It is only a 170 knot MEP of 16 Tonne is it not so it is just a class of MEP SEA? Not really in need of "advanced" handling is it? Slighty unusual aircraft perhaps in availability but definitley not advanced. You may choose to be nursing old engines designs to save expensive costs and that is your perogative.

But the threasd was not about Catalinas it was about Engine Failure Drills teaching. And as such it is part of the normal way of doing things for initial issue that a full shutdown and restart is expected to have at least been taught and could be expected to be seen by an examiner. talking of Catalinas or specific types is perhaps misleading. After all I could have said only use rudder to keep the Beta index centred but then I would be talking about a specific type not of much use to the folks who were after the info here.

Teach me how do you determine the exact power setting for "zero thrust" for the airframe you are flying without ever shutting the engine down?

I have no problem at all if some people don't want to shut down an engine. If they are not confident to do it then perhaps they should refrain from it and get someone else to teach that exercise. But it should still be done for an initail MEP. Some people don't like spinning as can be read elsewhere on these forums. All pilots need to know the limits of the aircraft and their limits and stick within their own abilities.

You will never see me flying an aircraft on firebomer missions let alone one that was not originally designed for it but other people do.

"Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots" So from that I take it you do a different drill every time. Hmm Standarised training gives Pavlov's odgs you say. Pehaps you should now be teaching the R.A.F. a thing or too

Flyingspaniard

LD Max and Chuck are two different beasts. LD Max was expressing fuzzy logic about avoiding the flames of a fire.

Chuck on the other hand was saying that he felt there is no point is shutting down the engine when it can be simulated by zero thrust settings but unless you demonstrate how that value is worked out all you are doing is telling the student to believe something blindly. He gave the opinion that it was as bad as flying above Vne which it is not. Many aircraft have a poor intolerance of even slight excursions above Vne and indeed as little as only 5 to 10 knots above can and has led to full structural failure. Nearly all MEP's are able to fly on one engine quite happily just with limited performance.

I make no claim to be the arbiter but it does not mean that I will not express my opinion.

drizzle

20th Sep 2004, 21:02

.

Angel

You seem to express your views in an aggressive and bullying way, is this how you teach ?

I acknowledge your opinions and experience and indeed everything you say may be right but I am glad that I am not a student of yours or a fellow crew member.

You can now tell me how wrong I am.

.

Big Pistons Forever

20th Sep 2004, 22:01

Myself and a fellow instructor got into a discussion about determining the zero thrust power setting as we both felt that school SOP ( 13 in of MP in a Seneca 1 if I remember correctly ) was too high. So we went flying and established the recommended two engine out glide speed and recorded sink rate vs power setting. When the results were plotted we found a kink in the curve where sink rate noticably decreased with additional power just above 11 in of MP. Therefore we adopted 11 in as the zero thrust setting. Anybody got any other ideas on how to determine this value ?

I am firmly in Chucks camp on the question of actual feathering.
I have had to make 3 actual single engine landings in light twin engineaircraft. 2 were the result of mechanical failures the third was when a engine feathered during a multi engine training flight would not restart. I feel the requirement for a actual in flight shut down needless created a unsafe condition in this instance. I now do all the engine feather shut down drills on the ground with airplane parked. This includes moving all levers and switches ( except for the landing gear ! ) as per the checklist. I have found this is equally effective at teaching a student how to feather an engine,
In flight I block the prop lever above the feather detent with my hand. The student still retards the prop lever to the stop ( my hand ) and then I set zero thrust. As for the argument that students have to see an actual feathered prop inorder to be safe
then using that logic I should set fire to the carpet so they can do the cockpit fire drills, crash on landing so that we can do aircraft evacuation drills , have an actual heart attack to properly teach cockpit incapacitation etc etc:hmm: What is so special about seeing a stopped prop:confused:

Chuck Ellsworth

21st Sep 2004, 06:45

Thank you Big Pistons.

You saved me a lot of typing to explain to Angles how I demonstrate what flying with one engine feels like, and we both have figured out the safety signifigance of having the "failed" engine avaliable for use should you suddenly need it.

Angel's :

You in my opinion exibit most of the arrogant know it all attributes that I abhore in some pilots, and when present in the form of a professed " instructor pilot" I pity your students.

With regard to the type rating issue, that is what the Dutch CAA inspector issued to my two customers on Sunday so go and argue with him about your thoughts on it.

As to the issue of my use of the word "advanced" in my flight training program let me put it this way Angel's, when they have reached the stage that they can handle the aircraft in the manner I teach them, they have advanced.

If the PBY is not to your standards of what you feel is a difficult airplane to fly please explain why you feel that it is not.

Maybe you would be more comfortable discussing the Airbus and the complexities of the three laws of flight and the various computer relater methods of handling failures of systems?

Hell, I'll debate you on that also, and it might be right up your alley as flying the Bus is just like a video game.

Once again Angles I have been flying multi engine aircraft for over forty years and please don't be so condesending with your posts, I just may have forgotten more types of airplanes that I have flown than you actually have flown.

Chuck E.

LD Max

22nd Sep 2004, 09:32

Hugh Flung Dung:

Thanks for the info. Fortunately I DON'T teach ME. I'm a SE PPL instructor, but do hold an ME class rating. I must admit to being a but rusty on ME theory so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always understood that if the ball was in the centre, then it indicated the aircraft was flying in balance (multi or single engine). If the ball was out to one side or another, this would indicate a sideslip.

When Assymetric, Banking the aircraft to the good engine and relaxing rudder is purely to minimise drag, and although this WOULD put the aircraft into a sideslip, (ball half way caged), it is the best compromise from a drag point of view.

When a ME engine aircraft in assymetric configuration is turned, the angle of bank is (generally) limited to about 15 degrees towards the failed engine and this is nothing to do with fire. The base to final turn is probably the most critical since this is when there is the greatest risk of the speed bleeding off (if mishandled) and approaching VMC - and you really don't want to be banked towards the failed engine when the rudder runs out of authority. While I agree that turns are not directly related to sideslip, I have never been able to avoid it one way or another when assymetric. (...and I would happily admit this is probably due to shortcomings in my own handling technique).

Now I hear what you say about the outboard tanks. Good point and I hadn't considered it. My training has always concentrated on keeping the fire away from the cockpit.

Regards,

Angels One Fife

22nd Sep 2004, 18:09

Chuck

You sem to feel that you are allowed to be as high handed and domineering in opion on this thread as you wish to be but when someone tries to give you a taste of your own medicine you take major exception and go off in a huff like a child.

If someone dares to be against your opinion you promptly change the subject with a one line quip to try to scare them with your knowledge e.g. your line about the S 61 is a classic example; or the computer laws of Airbus which you then have to show your no doubt Boeing preferance by calling it a video game.

It is funny that when you get the same treament back at you you react so maligned.

On your posts here you have been derogatory and derisive of the following;

the CAA; Since you opinided that they advocated a mandatory shutdown and because an aircraft couldn't restart then this was major folly. I do not kow of the icident you talk of but the failure to restart cold have been from many reasons. I know of one collegue you failed to restart because he forgot the aircrat did not have un-feathering accumulators and forgot he could restart by cranking the starter.

The R.A.F because you think standardised training is for Pavlov's dogs. It seems to work rather well for them. It woild be a much better place if all pilots learned from a standard training method by standardised instructors and then perhaps the training lottery would be a distant memory.

Just because anyone has flown for a long time does not necessarily make you then an expert. It just means that they may have been lucky. Many a Poor fellow has died from the outcome of their first real experience of an event even if they have been around since Pontius was a pilot so your use of a vast number of years or hours is another way you try to shut the discussion down.

You see I have only given back you what you have done to others and it is very apparant to me by the way you reacted that when it comes back at you you find to be rather annoying to say the least

You will note that you made no reply to askmelater but only to the person who treated you as you had treated others

I am sure you have many great stories to tell and no doubt many are funny and enlightening. I am sure I would enjoy an evening in your company.

I was not argueing with you regarding the type rating I was asking you a question. The Netherlands is a JAA EASA country but I cannot find the mention of a specific type rating required for the PBY either Vickers or consolidated so I was asking you. The question was since it is a MEP sea and only 16 tonnes does it require an actual type rating. Is it not just differances training? It is not being facetious or to belittle it is a question.
But you have failed to answer any question specifically but only in your dismissive way.

As for my line to LDMAX about he should not be teaching in a MEP it stems from a line of his on another thread that he had only just qualified as a SE FI(R) and should not be teaching MEP at the moment. He also came out with some fuzzy logic.

Chuck; if you really want to just bicker and throw up new far fetched questions all day long at me go ahead by why not use PM instead of this thread now being well and truly away from the original and most relevant thead for those engaged at the present time of learning and teaching engine failure drills in puddle jumpers.

The binders I have for the Airbus type are over two foot long on the shelf so it could be a rather, rather, rather long post. :)