Merged: The multi engine debate.

[Rose_Thorns]

One well informed gentleman in other posts has mentioned both CAAP 5.23-2 (0) and the FAA Airman's Handbook as valid multi engine training references.

The question "do they read their own material? " was asked. (Good one). I have been fairly reliably informed that certain operators have been told (nothing written) to remove briefing notes (FAA manual and CAAP) relating to safe OEI operations from operations/ training manuals?. Seems the FAA have no idea about OEI and the associated methods of teaching same.

The on going PA 31 saga would clearly indicate they do not read their own material; but this gets better. Apparently, this was the third go around of training these blokes have gone through. Seems that there was no "evidence" that "correct" asymmetric training was given during both the first and second lot of training. This is despite about a dozen blokes being recalled to ensure that asymmetric training was conducted and completed "to the satisfaction of" the instructor pilot, after the first training sessions were declared invalid.

It is rumoured that the final instructor pilot asked for directions on exactly what was meant, then politely but firmly declined the invitation to conduct mixture induced engine cuts at low speed and height. Bravo that man or woman. It seems that the use of a humble "Elite AT11 – I" was deemed as satisfactory for this exercise. There is nothing wrong with the Elite, neither the manufacturer or operator make claims that this device is any thing else except a very good, valuable training aid within it's certified limits.

The idea that it can accurately represent a PA 31 at MTOW weight with OEI is beyond a joke.

The notion that this exercise was any thing else but "negative training" borders on both reckless and negligent. IMHO I doubt that the exercise could even be legally claimed toward a type rating. Would they knock back a type rating conducted in this manner. You could just about bet the house on it.

[Centaurus]

It wasn't that long ago when both the very experienced flying instructor (30,000 hours)and his very experienced Boeing 767 captain "student" were both horribly burnt when the Duchess they were flying clipped trees shortly after take off and crashed at Camden. Both survived the wheels up landing but the instructor died of burns when the aircraft went through a fence and hit an iron girder part of farm machinary and caught fire. It was a "simulated" engine failure caused by a deliberate mixture cut. There is no shortage of documentary evidence that mixture cuts to simulate engine failure after lift off have caused fatal accidents.

Many years ago the NTSB warned of the dangers on simulated engine-out manoeuvres in a Bulletin that (edited for brevity) stated " The fatal crash of a light twin in which a flight instructor and an applicant for a multi-engine rating were killed prompted the NTSB to issue an urgent warning to all pilots simulating an engine-out condition on multi-engine aircraft...the boards investigation revealed that some flight instructors do use the mixture control or the fuel selector to shut down an engine to test a multi-engine applicant..

...the urgent warning was aimed at flight instructors who were using this procedure at altitudes too low for continued safe flight..the NTSB observed that use of such procedures at traffic pattern altitudes may not permit instructors enough time to overcome possible errors on the part of the applicant...

....the recommendation by the NTSB means that all simulated engine-out operations at the lower altitudes should be accomplished by retarding the throttle and this should be done slowly to avoid engine damage or failure...this careful technique will protect the engine, and at the same time provide for instant power if it is needed.

Any instructor that uses the mixture control to simulate an engine failure after take off is should be charged with reckless conduct.

[Ted D Bear]

The report is here: 200300224 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/aair/aair200300224.aspx)

[43Inches]

This is a quote from most twin engine Piper Manuals;


Experience has shown that the training advantage gained by pulling a mixture control or turning off the fuel to simulate engine failure at low altitude is not worth the risk assumed. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of using either of these procedures to simulate loss of power at low altitude, the throttle be retarded slowly to idle position. Fast reduction of power may be harmful to the engine.


This was added to the PA31 POH in 1976. You would be a brave (or stupid) individual to intentionally operate an aircraft in contravention to a manufacturers recomendations without strong evidence against such procedures.

[Ixixly]

Wouldn't it be easier to ask how many people have ever had a problem getting an engine at idle power to full power as opposed to getting a shut down engine to start up?

I'll admit I don't have a lot of Multi Engine experience and nor am I more than a Rookie, but the hundreds of engine start ups i've conducted and seen done have taught me that a GA engine can be a b*tch to get started even at the best of times but I can't say i've ever had any issues when applying full power from idle.

Those simple facts should show that reducing the throttle instead of mixture to ICO is the better procedure when simulating OEI and it was certainly the standard when I did my Multi Endorsement.

And the part about reducing the throttle slowly, well once again, i've never had any issues when i've reduced a throttle slowly but i've certainly had some disagreements with engines when i've closed the throttle too fast.

Just seems like common sense doesn't it?

[43Inches]

The advice does not say don't use fuel or mixture to simulate, just use slow reduction of throttle at low altitude. You may use other methods at an appropriate height. The main aim is to not lose control at low altitude which may be caused by sudden power loss due to mixture or sudden throttle reduction.

Mixture leaning is at operators discretion, it impacts engine life and will not cause an aircraft to drop out of the sky if done properly. This includes maintenance procedures and continual monitoring of engine health. The aircraft manufacturer only provides information on how to lean for certain outcomes, best power, best economy etc... the one that provides best engine life is up to you and consultation with the engine manufacturer.

[AerocatS2A]

Clinton, can you describe a throttle/fuel system on an aircraft where pulling the mixture would be safer or better than closing the throttle?

[Rose_Thorns]

Mixture, throttle, throttle, mixture – not the issue. Hell, you pull the mixture on a GSO 480 or GSIO 540 and you are a dead man on the next flight. The donkeys in a twin comm don't care that much. The management of "your" engine will vary with many, many considerations. YOU should know what's best for the engine you operate.

Heating, cooling, perhaps an issue; super heat, super cool maybe an issue for the next bloke.

Lean of peak, rich of peak. Who bloody cares!. Operate the engines the way the grown ups (engineers) want it done (that's AFM certification SOP Joyce) and God willing, weather permitting, not too much trouble to be expected.

But you start buggering about at zot feet with nothing on the clock but a makers name and, soon or late your luck will run out. That is not IF - only when. QED.

Teach the children to 'nut out' safely stop or safely go parameters. The average bloke, confronted by the manufacturers numbers will very quickly work it out.

ASDR 1200 meters, TORR 870 meters, A- GO 1800 meters. (apologies to the purists).
Vmca 76, Vr 95, Vyse 104. Loose one and then find 9 knots from rotate to get to speed which is not guaranteed to give a positive rate of climb.

Borrowed this :- 'It is not that the aircraft cannot take off from a shorter distance, however, if the aircraft cannot SAFELY GO, logically, it must be able to SAFELY STOP". Next time you train a fellah, think about the desired result i.e. all at the bar talking about it, not being dragged in pieces, out of a burning wreck.
Tailwinds.

[Peter Fanelli]

Operate the engines the way the grown ups (engineers) want it done (that's AFM certification SOP Joyce) and God willing, weather permitting, not too much trouble to be expected.


No thanks, I'd rather operate them the way the manufacturer suggests.

[AerocatS2A]

No AS2A: I can't describe a 'throttle/fuel system on an aircraft where pulling the mixture would be safer or better than closing the throttle' That's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that on some aircraft, like mine, the risks of pulling the mixture are the same as pulling the throttle.

The probabilities of a mixture pull causing problems, and the nature of those problems, are the same as pulling the throttle, on the particular system fitted to my aircraft. I know that, because I know that the probabilities of each cable failing are the same, I know where each of those cable go, I know what each of those cable do, and I know what the consequences of each of those cables failing, or the things to which they are connected failing, are.
I think you are completely missing the point. The problem with pulling the mixture has nothing to do with something breaking in the engine and everything to do with being able to get engine power back quickly in the event the student mishandles the situation. And also the rate at which power is lost.

[bushy]

LAMES do not operate engines. They service them.
Read the manuals, and talk to pilots if you want to know how to operate engines.

[Rose_Thorns]

Q_ In the period leading up to 'your' accident, did you operate the aircraft engines according to the Aircraft Flight Manual specifications, for which the manufacturers data was approved?.

Your call Pete. (that's AFM certification SOP Joyce). Aircraft Flight Manual - Standard Operating Procedure. :=

Yes (then prove it) or NO, then justify it. Still your call.:ugh:

[Rose_Thorns]

With respect Bushy - bollox.

Good LAME' s own each engine on the wing (and some that ain't).

Mishandle a pet engine at your p p p peril, but listen quietly and learn well the true art of actually managing your LAME' s engines and you may earn a cuppa and grudging smile at smoko.

[43Inches]

It's just as easy to slowly reduce and increase power using the mixture control, on systems like the one fitted to my aircraft.

Clinton for the benefit of others can you enlighten us further on how your system works?

As you have said previously all aircraft are different, a slow reduction of mixture to cut-out at high power in a turbo-charged type may lead to excedance of the maximum permissible EGT.

The issue I have at low altitude is intentional sudden loss of power combined with poor response from the student and instructor leading to loss of control. This could be induced either by sudden throttle reduction or mixture cut. Even rapid re-application of power may not save the situation if low enough. The Piper extract shows that it was a consideration back in the 70's after numerous accidents during low level assymetric operations. They determined (FAA and piper followed) the safest course of action was to simulate failure at low level by slowly reducing throttle and that there was negligible reduction in learning outcome as a result.

Provide solid proof that this technique is not sound in all light twins as opposed to being able to slowly cut mixture in some.

Starting techniques, leaning, gaining max performance etc... are all operational parameters that are particular to specific aircraft and the manufacturers recommendations should be followed.

The amount of different techniques i've seen to start engines when the POH works every time. If it doesn't something is wrong with it, get it fixed.

[AerocatS2A]

It's just as easy to slowly reduce and increase power using the mixture control, on systems like the one fitted to my aircraft.Even if the student has feathered the prop? It's not unheard of for people to do drills for real when they were only supposed to do touch drills, either due to a misunderstanding of the briefing or an erroneous belief that the failure is real.

[betaman]

Just for the record I think there has been some misinformation put forward by some posters on this and other threads about asymmetric ops in light twins( <5700kgs).
Leadsled said
But, as most of us know there is a dangerous percentage of pilots in both CASA and industry who are still gung ho ---- actually justifying that they are still alive as "testimony" to the fact that you are a wuzz if you don't do "V1 Cuts" on light twins that are not certified with a capability which includes such concepts as V1 and continue with the takeoff.
Rose Thorns said

But you start buggering about at zot feet with nothing on the clock but a makers name and, soon or late your luck will run out. That is not IF - only when. QED
For starters I can’t think of any ME instructors, ATO’s or FOI’s myself included who would advocate doing "V1 style cuts" in a light piston twin(<5700kg). I do agree that asymmetric training has a higher degree of risk not present in normal operations. Therefore most operators I know mitigate that risk by setting safe speed margins and imposing altitude restrictions for the conduct of simulated asymmetric training. Most of these limits will be covered in their respective ops manual.

The following is the technique by which an EFATO in a light twin is simulated by most of the operators I have had dealings with over the years including.
· Day VMC
· Not below Vtoss +10
· Undercarriage Up
· Take-Off Flap (Which in most light twins is Up anyway)
· Altitude not below 300 feet (some operators use 400ft)
· Mixture ICO until the failed engine is correctly identified then full rich
· Set zero thrust.

Using the B76 Duchess as an example Vmca =65kts, Vsse=71Kts, TOSS=80kts, Vyse=85kts & Vtoss +10=90kts. Passing 300ft I would cover the mixture control with a folded piece of paper & select one mixture to ICO announcing “simulated engine failure”
Bloggs goes through the EFATO touch drills & when he/she gets to the Identify “dead leg dead engine” confirm by closing the appropriate throttle “Feather....... (Left/Right)” this would be the instructors cue to return the mixture to full rich & set zero thrust. Most people can get through the drills comfortably in about 20 to 25 seconds therefore the mixture is in ICO for less than 30 sec before being set to full rich.

The advantages of using this technique are as follows:
· The student gets a more realistic indication of what an actual engine failure is like i.e. the yaw and drag from the windmilling prop and the change in performance when “zero thrust” is set.
· Most importantly they can’t second guess which engine has failed by looking at the closed throttle, they have to correctly identify (dead leg dead engine) & confirm by closing the correct throttle.
· If things go wrong then simply pushing the mixture up to full rich will restore power pretty quickly which I have done a number of occasions. The pitch locks don't engage till approx 800RPM on most twins & the engine RPM when windmilling is well above that.
· As for losing control remember we are at least 25kts above Vmca & 19kts above Vsse with U/C & flap up when the failure is introduced. The tolerance for an asymmetric departure on an IRT is plus 5kts minus 0kts of your nominated climb out speed which in this case is Vyse (85kts). So if blogs is having a bad day & lets the speed reduce to say 80kts you would still be 9kts above Vsse & 15 kts above Vmca.
· Failing an engine using the mixture is supposed to be kinder to the engine due to the fact that the throttle is wide open allowing the cylinders to fill up with air which cushions the deceleration of the engine.
· As for damaging turbos, cracking cylinders or crank cases then I don’t think it matters what method is used. If you slowly close the throttle or slowly close the mixture EGT/CHT & turbine speed will decrease rapidly so you can take your pick. The best way to prevent the above would be to not do asymmetric training & is probably why most asymmetric training is done on normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines like the venerable Lycoming IO-360or IO-320.

Centaurus
I do remember the accident you refer to quite well & I cannot see how failing the engine with the throttle as opposed the mixture could have resulted in a different outcome. If the exercise had occurred during daylight (which it should have been) then I am pretty sure the outcome would have been different as is evidenced from the following extract from the ATSB accident report analysis.


The simulated engine failure just after takeoff did not provide those adequate margins, especially at night, with inadequate visual reference to ensure obstacle clearance. It was likely that the ATO may not have been aware that the aircraft was not climbing and had drifted well right of the runway toward obstacles and higher ground. Although he reapplied full power to the simulated 'failed' engine at either the candidate's expressed concern or out of his own concern, the response was not timely enough to avoid a collision with the tree or the ground.” (my bolding)

[43Inches]

· Mixture ICO until the failed engine is correctly identified then full rich


Used to do this until I realised the POH (PA44) advised against it, purely because if something does go wrong you are in serious trouble legally.

· The student gets a more realistic indication of what an actual engine failure is like i.e. the yaw and drag from the windmilling prop and the change in performance when “zero thrust” is set.


This is the exact issue being debated and the NTSB and FAA and most light twin manufacturers have mad a statement to the effect that there is negligible training value vs reducing throttle.

Do you also load the aircraft to maximum weight with the most rearward possible CoG? As the aircraft will behave differently again as load distribution and weight change.

Its more about the drill than scaring someone with low level lack of performance.

I would demonstrate the "real thing" at safe altitude and involve a full feather and shut down. This does not need to be replicated to ground level or even in the circuit.


· Most importantly they can’t second guess which engine has failed by looking at the closed throttle, they have to correctly identify (dead leg dead engine) & confirm by closing the correct throttle.



Again this would be found out by rigourous practice at altitude or even better in the sim. If the student has this problem spend an hour in a twin engine synthetic trainer, this way you can repeat the scenario numerous times with no risk. Its cheap for the candidate, gets the desired learning outcome then return to the real aircraft.


· As for losing control remember we are at least 25kts above Vmca & 19kts above Vsse with U/C & flap up when the failure is introduced. The tolerance for an asymmetric departure on an IRT is plus 5kts minus 0kts of your nominated climb out speed which in this case is Vyse (85kts). So if blogs is having a bad day & lets the speed reduce to say 80kts you would still be 9kts above Vsse & 15 kts above Vmca.



I have had a few students attempt to kick full rudder towards the failed engine in the circuit. In all circumstances I had reduced the throttle and as my hand was right there power was reapplied, control removed from the student and a speedy recovery to normal flight resumed. Had I pulled the mixture I would have to richen the mixture then move the throttles forward. You would be surprised at what students can do in the heat of the moment, close both throttles, try to feather without any drill etc... I know of one situation in a Baron where the student closed the other mixture (instead of the throttle) during late downwind/base so that the aircraft now had both engines shut down.


· As for damaging turbos, cracking cylinders or crank cases then I don’t think it matters what method is used. If you slowly close the throttle or slowly close the mixture EGT/CHT & turbine speed will decrease rapidly so you can take your pick. The best way to prevent the above would be to not do asymmetric training & is probably why most asymmetric training is done on normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines like the venerable Lycoming IO-360or IO-320.
Centaurus



It is not the rapid loss of temperature that is the problem with a turbo-charged engine, however on a warm day if you slowly move the mixture to ICO then you will pass through peak EGT which at full power may exceed the maximum permissible. Moved quickly no problem as the temperature has no time to build up.

[43Inches]

my inexpert response is either that you are reducing the mixture veeeeerrrrry slowly or, if not, don't do it on that kind of engine.


Agreed know your engine and what it can do, however a slow throttle reduction will accomplish the same result.

Not debating here whether damage will occur in the long term. More what is appropriate for a training exercise in general. What will preserve your skin over time and your bank balance if you ever have to attend court over an accident.

I used to practice mixture cuts, turning off the fuel, you name it did it then woke up to whether it was really worth it in the big scheme of things, did it improve the students, no.

Any variation from the manufacturers advice followed by an accident will be hard to fight against a well prepared oponant in law.

[betaman]

Hi 43inches

I hear you but?

Used to do this until I realised the POH (PA44) advised against it, purely because if something does go wrong you are in serious trouble legally.


So does that mean you use the manufactures checklist for each & every flight verbatum for the PA44? & the manufactures Wt&Bal & unfactored Performance data data for each flight? Seriously?


Do you also load the aircraft to maximum weight with the most rearward possible CoG? As the aircraft will behave differently again as load distribution and weight change.



Yes I did as it happens max fuel & bundles of old news paper but it was really only as good as the first take-off.



Its more about the drill than scaring someone with low level lack of performance

Yes I agree with the first part however it's pretty hard to scare someone when the mixture is at ICO for less than thirty seconds while they carry out the drills then zero thrust is set.

I would demonstrate the "real thing" at safe altitude and involve a full feather and shut down. This does not need to be replicated to ground level or even in the circuit.


Yes I did the same at altitude until I was satisfied that the trainee had it together & knew left from right. I did however replicate it at 300 or 400 feet above ground level, as did you by closing the throttle & then setting zero thrust, however I did by selecting ICO then zero thrust.


Again this would be found out by rigourous practice at altitude or even better in the sim. If the student has this problem spend an hour in a twin engine synthetic trainer, this way you can repeat the scenario numerous times with no risk. Its cheap for the candidate, gets the desired learning outcome then return to the real aircraft.



Yes I agree however I didn't have the benefit of synthetic trainers back then, I do have the benefit of full motion sims nowadays which makes life somwhat easier, & turbine aircraft which actually perform.

I have had a few students attempt to kick full rudder towards the failed engine in the circuit. In all circumstances I had reduced the throttle and as my hand was right there power was reapplied, control removed from the student and a speedy recovery to normal flight resumed. Had I pulled the mixture I would have to richen the mixture then move the throttles forward. You would be surprised at what students can do in the heat of the moment, close both throttles, try to feather without any drill etc...

Yep me too however I just said taking over & with palm outstretched pushed it all forward & had another go.

I know of one situation in a Baron where the student closed the other mixture (instead of the throttle) during late downwind/base so that the aircraft now had both engines shut down.


I have instructed on the older style Baron's & the throttle in the middle concept is hard to get used to, the ones I used to instruct on were all black knobs as well:eek:, all I can say is I hope the hapless student didn't get confused about the gear & flap lever as well:eek:.



It is not the rapid loss of temperature that is the problem with a turbo-charged engine, however on a warm day if you slowly move the mixture to ICO then you will pass through peak EGT which at full power may exceed the maximum permissible. Moved quickly no problem as the temperature has no time to build up.


Hmmm how slowly are we talking about here I am talking maybe 3 or 4 secs. How slowly do you close the throttle?

[43Inches]

So does that mean you use the manufactures checklist for each & every flight verbatum for the PA44? & the manufactures Wt&Bal & unfactored Performance data data for each flight? Seriously?



Including using pounds and USG, of course you factor the performance figures for conditions, safety and pilot error. We encouraged a flow pattern backed up with a checklist formed from the POH.

The checklists complied with the manufacturer and with additional items for local variations.

[betaman]

Clint,

I am not a heretic just a "very naughty boy" so it seems.

[43Inches]

Yes I did the same at altitude until I was satisfied that the trainee had it together & knew left from right. I did however replicate it at 300 or 400 feet above ground level, as did you by closing the throttle & then setting zero thrust, however I did by selecting ICO then zero thrust.

Did the student actually learn anything more about engine failures in this case or is it just the increased workload of being in the circuit, therefore it means nothing as to whether its mixture or throttle.


Yes I agree however I didn't have the benefit of synthetic trainers back then, I do have the benefit of full motion sims nowadays which makes life somwhat easier, & turbine aircraft which actually perform.



Which is again the argument today, do it in the sim, what happened yesterday is gone and buried. The turbine aircraft were around in the 50's so thats not an issue to debate and they have proven they crash just as easily when power is removed.


I have instructed on the older style Baron's & the throttle in the middle concept is hard to get used to, the ones I used to instruct on were all black knobs as wellhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif, all I can say is I hope the hapless student didn't get confused about the gear & flap lever as wellhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif.


That happened as well which led to a lot of schools implementing the no touch and go policy with twin engined aircraft training.

[remoak]

So does that mean you use the manufactures checklist for each & every flight verbatum for the PA44? & the manufactures Wt&Bal & unfactored Performance data data for each flight? Seriously?

Does that mean that you don't? Seriously?

And I love this one from Rose_Thorns:

Good LAME' s own each engine on the wing (and some that ain't).

Mishandle a pet engine at your p p p peril, but listen quietly and learn well the true art of actually managing your LAME' s engines and you may earn a cuppa and grudging smile at smoko.

No, good LAMEs like to think they own the engines. They don't take the risk of flying with them though, so as far as I am concerned they are my engines, and the LAME just gets to play with them occasionally... wipe the oil off them... stuff like that. A LAME doesn't operate an engine, he might occasionally run one up, but he doesn't fly with them and observe their quirks and foibles. Talk to pilots about engines, as Bushy suggests.

Q_ In the period leading up to 'your' accident, did you operate the aircraft engines according to the Aircraft Flight Manual specifications, for which the manufacturers data was approved?.

The aircraft engine manufacturer's operating procedures form part of the aircraft manufacturer's AFM, which is the legal document on which company SOP are based (also a legal document). So your point is...? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Centaurus]

however I did by selecting ICO then zero thrust.

Known in the industry as "practicing bleeding" . Best of luck..

[AerocatS2A]

You know, all my piston engine multi training and checking (with me as the trainee) was done with the throttle retarded smoothly to idle. I've since been thrown into a full motion sim doing V1 cuts on a turbo-prop and I just don't feel like there was anything missing from the piston engine training. I didn't have any revelation of "oh my, so that's what a real engine failure is like!" In my experience the throttle closing technique was adequate. I agree that there is little if any training benefit in using the mixture control or fuel selector at low altitude. I'm not about to debate the issue from an engine handling perspective because that's a separate thing, it doesn't matter how long your engine lasts if you crash the thing doing EFATO practice.

[strim]

Known in the industry as "practicing bleeding" . Best of luck..

Isn't this a bit dramatic?

Mixture back up, engine back online.

[RatsoreA]

Some bed time reading.

I am only half way through it, so I have no comment at this time! :ok:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36444/Power_loss_twin_engine_aircraft.pdf

[Rose_Thorns]

Remoak_Bushy. – No slight intended, the lines were intended to be very 'tongue in cheek". http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

Thing is though, since I was very young and still today, I have learnt much about the ins and outs of engine and systems management from the guys that fix them. Especially in some of the 'darker' areas related intermittent and 'quirky' snags. The knowledge has served me very well on several occasions. I honestly do believe 'good drivers' know their engines and systems strengths and weakness and how best to manage both.

The same can be said of good training pilots who, in addition knowing their aircraft well, must be able to assess and manage an unknown element, the candidate. The laudable comments related to safely managing high risk areas are all valid and of value. Most guys seem to build a safety net between the deck and their aircraft which allows for the inevitable errors which do occur during training. It's tough enough when two experienced pilots (see Air North) play about at low level. With the average bloke the safety margins must be set wider. I agree, the real object is to teach the candidate to 'get it right', not to scare the horses.

The original point of the thread was to seek wide opinion on the current enforced ruling by one field office which has removed the safety net and replaced it with a purely inane box ticking exercise.

Good technique is one thing, enforced stupidity is quite a different matter.
Tailwinds.

[remoak]

Rose_Thorns

Yes, you are absolutely right about margins and, maybe more to the point, the reason for the training in the first place.

What are we actually trying to do? For me, the only point of the exercise is to give the new multi driver a feel for what happens at the low and slow end of the envelope. It doesn't really matter if you do it at 1000' or even 2000' - the aircraft is going to respond in essentially the same way, you show the student the control issues and performance at a height from which recovery from mis-handling is straightforward, and make it very, very clear to him or her what they MUST do if it ever happens to them on departure. Job done, lesson (hopefully) learned.

It is perhaps worth saying that any emergency for which the demonstration and recovery is so inherently dangerous, is probably too great a risk for any pilot to have to face for real in this day and age.

On that topic, there is a very strong undercurrent in Australian aviation (and New Zealand for that matter), that you aren't a REAL pilot until you have demonstrated recovery from the worst possible scenario, and that loading up your student to the point of overstress is the only way to make the lesson stick. I have seen this first-hand in both countries, and have also seen the results of it - many Australian pilots who came to Europe in the 90's, when I was involved in airline recruitment over there, were arrogant in the extreme and firmly believed that they were better pilots than their European counterparts. We normally sorted that out in the sim in the first few hours, but the attitude still exists today amongst many Austraiian/NZ pilots. What you are seeing from this FOI is just the tip of the iceberg.

On the subject of engine handling, I frankly don't care if I never fly a piston twin again (other than for fun!). Engines that are so finicky, so fragile and so hard to operate properly - and for which opinion on their operation differs so markedly - have no business being on the wing of a transport category aircraft in the year 2010. I know that will offend all the PA31 afficionados out there, but this is '50s technology that hasn't changed in any significant way since those times. Show me any other area of transportation that still uses equipment that old! And before anyone mentions 747s, show me any airline still operating original spec 747s. I doubt there is a classic still working in Oz, if there is, it will be a freighter.

It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.

Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!

Oh, and Rose_Thorns, tongue location acknowledged and mine was in a similar spot! Nice when pilots and engineers actually communicate, isn't it?

Right, now where's my kevlar... :ok:

[Aerozepplin]

Show me any other area of transportation that still uses equipment that old!

If you get on a long distance train in New Zealand the carriage you ride in is WWII era technology. A wooden frame with a sheet metal skin... worrying stuff. The Wellington commuter service has a couple of mid 50s multiple units still running, and the older freight locomotives are rebuild 1950s General Motors units... (sorry, just joining the stick it to ol' Remoke band wagon :E)

People don't want to ride in an old dirty taxi, or eat in a filthy dark restaurant (well... most don't), and are willing to pay for a service they see as suitable. From the sound of things in Aus the mines have certain demands for their aviation contracts, and are willing to pay for it. Maybe there'll be a similar public attitude shift towards GA flight. Rather than a blanket "flying is safe" or "flying is dangerous" view, a desire to travel with an operator who has taken steps to ensure safety (beyond the current standards).

[LeadSled]

On that topic, there is a very strong undercurrent in Australian aviation (and New Zealand for that matter), that you aren't a REAL pilot until you have demonstrated recovery from the worst possible scenario, and that loading up your student to the point of overstress is the only way to make the lesson stick.

remoak,

Well put, and I agree entirely, "methods of instruction" based on turning out pilots for the Battle of Britain, and it didn't work all that well, then either.

Just completely ignore all we have come to know about better methods of both civil and military education in the last 50 years or so.

Because "we" know that "250h airline cadet schemes only produce wankers", despite the fact that it has been the dominant source of airline pilots in EU and much of Asia since the said early '60's. Based on the "Australian expert opinion" one wonders how so many airlines have got it so wrong for so many years.

---many Australian pilots who came to Europe in the 90's, when I was involved in airline recruitment over there, were arrogant in the extreme and firmly believed that they were better pilots than their European counterparts.Again, I agree, particularly those who believe flogging around the bush, unsupervised and consolidating all their misconceptions and faults from inadequate training is the prime qualification for career progression. The Australian fetish for "command hours" instead of competency, indeed, regardless of demonstrated competency (or incompetency) is too well known.

Merely "surviving" a few thousand hours has very little to do with suitability for an airline job (excluding those mobs flying last generation smaller airline aircraft ---- but like it is just an extension of the Aero Club/Flying School, all approved by FOIs from the same background ---- so it all seems OK to them) has resulted in the MPL being a license much derided as a way to go flying, despite the fact the Australia was the driving force for the MPL at ICAO ---- because of the clear need for a better was to train future airline pilots.

All this against a background AU accident record (safety outcomes) very inferior to the US ( as can easily be seen from the statistics, if you take your rose colored Made in Oz glasses off), the country that probably cops the most criticism from "experts" (exspert = a drip under pressure) on the AU/NZ forums, mostly from AU.

You can read it, time and again, from AU pilots with nil international experience of any consequence (flying a few times AU to Bali is not significant international experience) who "know it all".

Clinton.
The most interesting thing about all John Deakin's advice is that he is commendably trying to pass on what was "common knowledge" for all those of us who actually read the POHs and engine manufacturers handbooks back in the '50's-60's,( and usually didn't start flying in AU) rather than going along with 25/25, never lean below 5000', etc " rules of thumb.

Back in the G.O.Ds, we would routinely operate an (or two) IO-540 from takeoff to top of descent on full throttle, reducing RPM to reduce power, and once into the range to start leaning, always run lean of peak ---- with all cylinder EGTs. In short, always high boost/low RPM, the opposite of the (still) "conventional wisdom". And all before GAMI.

We always had nice low overhaul costs, after big extensions to nominal overhaul hours --- an added benefit, on top of much reduced fuel burns.

Once we got our initial airline jobs, it was all reinforced with our first go at big radials. Pelican's Perch on engine management should be required reading for all student, and examinable for CPLs/Instructors.

Tootle pip!!

[remoak]

AeroZep

If you get on a long distance train in New Zealand the carriage you ride in is WWII era technology. A wooden frame with a sheet metal skin... worrying stuff. The Wellington commuter service has a couple of mid 50s multiple units still running, and the older freight locomotives are rebuild 1950s General Motors units... (sorry, just joining the stick it to ol' Remoke band wagonLol, well you can do that if you want... :D I'm used to it - :} - but I think your facts are a litte selective. The locomotives used for main trunk pax services are DC-class, built in the Hutt Workshops in 1978 - 1981 (a complete rebuild of the previous DA locos actually - not much original apart from the chassis). The rolling stock were extensively refurbished in the '80s (including new bogies), and new carriages were ordered in 2009. The Wellington commuter service uses Romanian-sourced units, EM/ET class, that were introduced in 1982. The older DM/Ds are only used when demand is high, and will be phased out by 2011, being replaced with newer units (the new Matangi units). The point being, there won't be any old stuff on the rails in a couple of years... not something you can say about NZ's GA aircraft. And a train has a simple task... you go, then you stop. You don't even have to steer. The carriage doesn't have to do anything except stay connected to the locomotive...

Google is your friend... :ok:

I wouldn't mind so much if the PA31s all had new-technology engines with FADEC, EFIS, redundant systems, and so on... but they don't. The 50's vintage PA31s, with no significant changes, will still be flying 50 years from now if GA has it's way... until the first serious structural failure, anyway... because that is what it will take to move the smaller operators on. They all trade on being able to operate ancient equipment with a minimal capital cost, using minimally qualified and often inexperienced pilots on subsistence wages, while frequently scrimping on maintenance.

Interestingly, I have heard from quite a few (5+) GA pilots since these threads started (ie since the Mojave accident), and they all tell me that they are frequently scared sh*tless operating PA31s and similar aircraft, particularly at night, in crappy weather, and with heavy loads. Most of them privately say that they know that if it all turns to custard with a heavy load, there will be some form of crash and they aren't confident about surviving it, particularly if it involves water. But what choice do they have? If they ever want to fly a jet, they have to do the hard yards, in Oz and NZ at least.

And this is 2010... where's my jetpack...

[Aerozepplin]

Hmmmm... well done Remoak. Its true that there are plenty of new locomotives and rolling stock on the rails, but the 50s English Electric units are used every day. Its not the same as an aircraft, but the wooden rolling stock however (the wood is hidden) is in my opinion a real danger. People just don't know that under that nice blue steel is a bit of pine.

I agree with you about old aircraft. Although I love flying old heaps of :mad: myself, at night with passengers on board is different. The point was that a public need to figure out the safety issues before anything happens. Money talks, and if you're making money and haven't had an accident for a while, why change? Having never flown one I only know about the PA-31s average performance from reading on here, so how would Joe and Jane Smith?

[remoak]

AeroZeppelin

Absolutely agree about wooden-framed carriages, can't be much cop in an accident - if the impact didn't get you, the splinters might... :}

You are also right about punters not understanding the risk. I simply would not climb into a PA31 on a dark and snotty night at anywhere near max gross - just not interested in going there. Anything goes wrong and it's almost certainly goodnight nurse. The problem is that the wimp-ass CAA will never say anything, the operators naturally won't, so what's the alternative? No operator will be seriously looked at until there are dead bodies, unless there is a very long list of infringements, and even then the operating philosophy of the CAA precludes them from doing much about it.

Personally I think the whole situation is scandalous, and completely contrary to the safety philosophy that modern aviation should be based on (and which most decent airlines do base their operations on).

How come we have one rule for airlines and another for GA? Again - this is 2010, not 1965...

[Rose_Thorns]

Who mentioned the PA 31 prang.

A 30 y.o. PA 31 at MGW, no radar, no de ice, no auto pilot and pilots ordered to 'go and have a look' at night in forecast icing and crap weather.

Engine instruments which only vaguely reflect what's occurring under the bonnet, radios which 'tested OK' before flight. Pilot grounds an aircraft and is told to go home (no pay today), next pilot launches. All true, but beyond the regulator (watchdog) capability to manage.

The 'Authority' knows these operating conditions exist, they know that they have continued for many years. Culture of fear, you bet. You tell them, they will prosecute you. (sod the mortgage).

Been fairly reliably informed that at the end of yet another 16 hour tour of duty, 10 sector shift with only 2 sectors provided at pre flight briefing (no kidding) pilots have been 'persuaded' to change aircraft.

Bloke I chatted to said that the CP had been flying the thing the day before, (7 hours of passenger operations) and had not entered one single solitary snag on the MR. The bloke concerned found no less than 8 major items (including a missing mass balance), grounded the aircraft then signed off for the day.

The aircraft took off the next morning at 0700 LMT, all fixed. Recommended reading:-
"The Appointment in Samarra" (as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933]). P.S. The speaker is Death
Perhaps, fate is the hunter. But not without a fight mate. Lets make it a fair one.

[Old Akro]

I like John Deakin's articles. But they should really be taken as thought starters and not gospel. There is a bit of the bible salesman about him, and most of what he preaches is what the engine manufacturers recommend, but he just juggles it around and adds coloured graphs. We've fallen out of the habit of getting and reading the engine operators manual. You can buy them from Essco for not a lot of money. The guys that wrote the engine operators manuals were actually smart and they have probably still had more instrumented engine running time than anyone else.

There is no point trying to operate an engine to John Deakins preaching without good instrumentation (EI or JPI thermocouple based instruments). If you're using the original bimetallic strip gauges, then stick to what the engine book says. This applies doubly if no one has gone to the effort of calibrating the existing instruments. The original instruments can be quite inaccurate, non-linear and have hysteresis errors to boot. And if someone has installed the wrong CHT probe (common), then all bets are off.

In my opinion, the danger of shutting down an engine is shock cooling of the cylinders. Shutting the mixture slowly won't significantly mitigate against this. Going to idle (or a zero thrust setting) helps because it keeps some heat in the engine. Some POH's (B95?) actually publish zero thrust settings for this.

There are 2 significant things between now and the good old days. 1. We are using different fuels (ie 100LL instead of 80/87 or 100/130) and 2) we fly aeroplanes less and thus the time between overhaul is a lot longer. And engines cost more to rebuild, so we cry more if an engine doesn't make TBO. Aeroplanes like Seminoles / Travelairs were probably also more readily available and the good old Lyc 0-360 will take a lot more abuse.

A question that has not been asked is why do we practice engine failures? The reason is partly to understand how the aircraft performs and partly learn the procedures through repetition. The former must be done in the aircraft but the latter can be done pretty effectively in the SIM. I'd probably argue that going into the drill smoothly and automatically is the most important thing. Once you've done that you just deal with whatever performance you have left.

In the good old days, guys who flew came up through building billy carts, fixing bikes then buying & fixing old cars. These days, young pilots are more likely to have grown up with computer games, flight simulators and drive cars that are serviced with computers not screwdrivers & feeler gauges. When something goes wrong there is no substitute for a deep understanding of the systems. The POH & engine operators manual should be your friends. Tragically, I go further and get the certification documents, airfoil data and service manuals. The additional background information they put in the service manuals is surprising.

[Old Akro]

Clinton

Have you read the engine operators manuals referred to by Deakins? Have you read the Lycoming & Continental bulletins that he criticises? Do you have a professional background of engine calibration?

Deakins says good things. Its just that they are much closer to the manufacturers recommendations than he represents.

[43Inches]

Aeroplanes like Seminoles / Travelairs were probably also more readily available and the good old Lyc 0-360 will take a lot more abuse.
Whilst the Travelair in Aus is a rare aircraft the Seminole is being delivered new to this country a few every year for the last few years.

The last few PA44 I've flown were under 3 years old with less than 200 hours total time. They also come with unfeathering accumulators which are quite useful in practicing full feather and restarts.

As far as the O-360 being a good engine well thats another argument, they are good at making camshaft shavings.

[RatsoreA]

You know, there must be something wrong with me...

I don't have a feverish desire to work for an airline... I like tooling around in Aerostars and Chieftains.

Obviously I should have my medical revoked on grounds of some sort of mental imbalence! :}

That aside,

It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.

Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!

If that were to happen, GA would be a memory over night.

I don't think they are refusing to move with the times, but there simply isn't the money out there to do it. You can't get blood from a stone. Sure, I wouldn't mind tooling around in a brand new B200, but the income stream doesn't exist. I am curious to see what aircraft that people that complain think we should replace the fleet with? The only aircraft that have been made in the last ten years that are of a similar size/capabilites are still using the same engines that are in service now on older airframes and are still certified to the same standards. We live in a world where finance is a consideration to nearly everything and that is something that will never change. Not trying to be argumentative, just saying it how I see it.

It's actually quite a sad state of affairs, and one that is unlikely to change, except for maybe the worse! Polititians will never do anything about it, as it is not a high profile issue and doesn't affect a large percentage of the population. No votes and therefore no incentive to change it. CASA won't do anything, they are answerable only unto them selves and like any all powerful dictatorship, they are 'never wrong'. Pilots will never 'band together under one banner' to effect change. Just look at this forum. Intelligent professional pilots can't come to one concencuss about engine handling/training/whatever on something SO IMPORTANT that the blood we would like to be getting from some stone somewhere is coming from our own ranks.


I started this reply with something about M/E things, but now I can't remember what the hell I was going to say! Time for my nap I think.

I will edit and add it if I remember! :ugh:

[remoak]

Yes, I quite agree that the real world is as you describe it.

But let's imagine, just for a moment, that CASA was to decide that most piston twins are too marginal at heavy weights to be safe.

One way out would be to mandate a lower MAUW to ensure some performance reserve. GA operators would naturally scream their heads off about that one.

Otherwise, I would replace every PA31 with a PA42-1000, every C404 with a C406, every C421 with a C425 or C441, and all the other common twins could be converted to turbine power using the plethora of conversions already out there. And then there are all the Thielert conversions. Sure, some production lines would have to open again, but think of all the new jobs...

Consign all those old flat sixes to the skip where they belong (ooooh, heresy I hear you cry...)

GA operators could, if they worked together, start charging realistic rates that reflect the true cost of operating modern equipment. But of course that will never happen... any change would have to be imposed.

The whole thing is a sad commentary on an industry that is supposed to place safety at the top of the priority list...

[43Inches]

Otherwise, I would replace every PA31 with a PA42-1000, every C404 with a C406, every C421 with a C425 or C441, and all the other common twins could be converted to turbine power using the plethora of conversions already out there. And then there are all the Thielert conversions. Sure, some production lines would have to open again, but think of all the new jobs...

Whilst the PA42 would be my choice of PA31 replacement it would be an overkill for most that rely on the chieftain now. The T-1040 would be a much better choice as it still is a true PA31 with PT6A-11 500SHP, only 24 were built though. There must be some sort of conversion available for older airframes.

The T-1050 would have been even better as a stretched 15 seater, could replace the Bandits but the concept never went into production.

As Ratsore said if this was forced on GA operators most would shut down rather than upgrade, airport operators would be able to justify further sell offs and the downward cycle would accellerate with GA relegated to country airstrips similar to Europe.

It would be interesting to see how a brand new Chieftain produced with Panther kit and Ultracooling intakes would perform.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
Oh! for the Shadin and similar then, plus calibrated (Gamijectors) injectors, we would have saved even more money.

Re. How were failures simulated ---- very carefully!!

Seriously, gentle reduction of the throttle to above idle ---- pilot flying to identify the engine, minimum of a double check, ie: dead foot/dead engine plus instrument indications ( with a training shutdown, minimum 3000' AGL, daylight VMC only ).

In a real failure the pilot flying was expected to run the throttle/thrust lever for the failed engine up and down, and confirm no response, before completing the securing the engine.

Made Deakin's acquaintance many years ago, a very clear thinker --- and a very pleasant chap. And quite a stick and rudder man as well, with experience on some wonderful aircraft that I can only envy.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.


The sooner this statement is UNDERSTOOD the better. It IS what has to happen. Along with decent depreciation schedules that allow it to happen.

As a bloke who used to fly the Cheiftain always at night, 9 times out of 10 at MTOW and sometimes into crappy weather I always had the feeling I was biding time, sitting there waiting for something to happen. Thank christ I rarely had pasengers. I decided that I wasn't happy with the risks involved with this type of operation and moved on. (My best day in GA)

Along with the above: Planning and flying in known icing conditions (just climb above it!) Departing and flying an approach when conditions are known to be below landing minima at destination. Departing when cells are forecast and observed on your track (via the BOM site before hopping in the plane). Next to no engine knowledge from some of the pilots you are working with, it only takes one (how much damage has been done to the engine by the bloke before you?)

No thanks :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Leadsled,

You might know? Aircraft depreciation, what are the rates?

[LeadSled]

Jack,
Best talk to your tax accountant, there is not one simple answer, beyond "not fast enough". I would not like to mislead with incomplete information.
Tootle pip!!

[Rose_Thorns]

Been doing some research, with interesting results.

It seems there is a very serious effort being made to enforce 'real' in flight engine shut down and re light. It appears that despite manufacturer recommendations and advice that 'simulated' procedures provide better training and a safer environment, this has been declared unacceptable. "No excuses Joyce, just shut it down". I know what the CAO says, however:

This begs a few interesting questions, for instance the judgement of the PIC, the manufacturers recommendations, the advice of several serious advisory bodies (ATSB, NTSB etc. etc.), blatant contradiction of the AFM and the wrath of the insurance companies. Don't even mention the declaration of an emergency and, continuation of flight with OEI etc.

My two bob' s worth. Contradict the AFM, Oh sure, give me a written directive, see you in court. My arse, my command and my call.

[43Inches]

Rose, just to clarify are you talking about a shut down during low level operations such as EFATO practice or at altitude in a designated training area.

If it is being pushed to shut down and feather in the circuit I think that is dangerous in any aircraft be it a piston twin or transport turbo-prop.

If it is conducted at altitude in a designated training area above suitable terrain in ideal conditions, there is nothing wrong. The manufacturers only warn against shut downs at low altitude. There is less risk than conducting a practiced forced landing in a single, aerobatics or advanced stalling sequences.

[john_tullamarine]

this has been declared unacceptable ..

There is a very simple pilot management technique to address this problem for SP IFR renewals.

For each renewal, and the initial issue (the latter with whatever CASA was known as that week), part of my brief was "touch anything below (whatever height I chose to nominate depending on the terrain pertaining) and we WILL land (whatever manoeuvring I elected - generally) straight ahead".

No-one ever called my bluff, whether CASA FOI or Industry AP examiner.

Airline heavy renewals were a different matter due to the significant weight margin and basic aircraft capability - mind you that didn't preclude excitement on every occasion (I can recall an Electra going off the side at Avalon and into the grass before it was pulled off the ground with a young JT's eyes more than somewhat wide open).

I am a convinced "do the dangerous stuff in the simulator" chap .. so that the worst outcome is for the ego.

My arse, my command and my call.

That appears to be a reasonable and justifiable view on life, death, and the universe ..

[remoak]

Contradict the AFM, Oh sure, give me a written directive, see you in court. My arse, my command and my call.

The ONLY sensible approach...

...apart from this eminently sensible one...

part of my brief was "touch anything below (whatever height I chose to nominate depending on the terrain pertaining) and we WILL land (whatever manoeuvring I elected - generally) straight ahead".

[Gear-down]

My two bobs worth...

GA would have newer a/c if we had similar to US (up to 25% depreciation PA). I think when Clinton was in office he allowed 50% depreciation first year for small business with a jet or turboprop.

The last time I looked in investing in an a/c in Oz the accountant quoted about 3% which is cr*p! Stupid when I can write down my car or laptop at up to 30% PA!!!

Many moons ago I got endorsed in a Pressurised Turbocharged Cessna 337. Due to the fact that they do not climb at all if the rear engine fails, we only pulled back the power once on the rear engine at almost cct height. However we failed front engine at 300ft with full load and ISA +20 which was scarey enough!

I have been sim flying for quite some time and when I explained the 337's inability to fly on the front donk, I loaded it up in the sim for a friend of mine that flies t/props. We set random failures of the rear engine, ISA+20 and MTOW: I think we went into the trees or houses 6 times before he admitted failure.

In these days of simulators, it seems reasonable that we can remove a significant amount of risk to the simulator environment, then practice in the actual aircraft at safe altitude with reduced risk.

Shock cooling, CHT, etc? Ever wonder why Rolls Royce, Allison and Mercedes used liquid cooled engines in WW2, because they do not suffer from these issues as badly as air cooled engines.

In this day and age it is sad that we are still flying around air cooled engines with their designs back in the thirties. A very close associate has an old 1925 4.5 litre 4 cylinder Bentley that has twin magnetos, twin plugs, manual advance retard, liquid cooled and SU carburettors so automatic mixture control... The mags have been rebuilt several times but the engine is still running at 350,000 miles without a spanner. He and I took it round Le Mans last year at over 100mph. A Lycoming would have had 5-6 rebuilds in that time!

GA aviation has been left behind - how many air cooled engine cars can you buy now... I think the last one was VW beetle back in 70's.:=

[Rose_Thorns]

Only getting this second hand, but it all started with the first post (or the last, as pleases.

Had a 'chat' with a couple of the folks involved. It seems that at some unnamed GAAP aerodrome, despite two training sessions, conducted 'sensibly' a third training session was required due to "lack of evidence" related to 'proper' low slow (EFATO) asymmetric training techniques.

The 'sim' part is for real, that actually occurred.

It seems to me, that all FAR 23 aircraft need a safety net' before EFATO is contemplated. But, when CASA is happy with some half arsed box ticking frolic, instead of a balanced reasonable approach based against manufacturer recommendations, then it's time to hang up the ATO badge.

To my headless mate, I agree but CASA, it appears do not. Long live the Elite AT11.

Gear Down. Off the Christmas card list, due to pure envy. What a way to spend a day. Wow!.

Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).