Simulated single engine

[joemas]

Hi guy,
I have just one question for you.
During simulated, in single engine airplane, is possible cut off the mixture for training ???
Thanks a lot

[S-Works]

Yes. In fact for an initial rating you have to do it as part of the course and as part of the skill test.

Most instructors prefer to simulate as its kinder on the engine and some engines can be reluctant to start when they have gone stone cold in the air.

[Whopity]

in single engine airplane, is possible cut off the mixture for training ???I think you are talking at cross purposes. You shut down an engine on a ME aeroplane but not on a Single Engine Aeroplane.

If you wish to simulate an Engine Failure on a SE you close the throttle so that the engine is still available. If you use the mixture you will shut down the engine which could possibly endanger the aircraft its occupants and people on the ground. Don't do it!

[S-Works]

Ah! My misunderstanding, I assumed that it was ME as no one in their right mind would be shutting down the engine on a SE for training!!

[joemas]

My question concern the single engine airplane.
Just besause there is a discussion with other instructor on right training and skill.
Thanks all for reply.

[Pitch+Power]

If you use the mixture you will shut down the engine


Really ? Thats not what happened to me last weekend, or the weekend before, or the weekend before that....... etc etc etc
Guess we must have different aircraft. :bored:

[RTN11]

During simulated, in single engine airplane, is possible cut off the mixture for training ???

If you pull the mixture to idle cut off, it would no longer be a simulated engine failure, the engine would stop completely. When you then want to abandon your simulation and climb away, you would have to restart the engine, which would not be guaranteed, so not worth playing around with.

Instead, when simulating engine failure, the throttle is brought to idle, which is as close an approximation to a stopped engine as you can safely simulate. In a real engine failure, the propeller may be windmilling which would cause extra drag, but you are unable to simulate this without actually shutting the engine down.

[Whopity]

Guess we must have different aircraft. I guess yours runs without fuel!

[Icelanta]

On a ME piston, just close the fuel valve of one of the engines. It is not noticed by your student and gives you a real failure of the engine. also easy to start the engine aain by opening the fuel valve.

[Big Pistons Forever]

On a ME piston, just close the fuel valve of one of the engines. It is not noticed by your student and gives you a real failure of the engine. also easy to start the engine aain by opening the fuel valve.

I would immediately fire any instructor that did what you recommend. Not only is it very hard on the engine, it involves deliberately creating an unsafe condition when there is a perfectly safe alternative by simulating a failure by retarding the throttle to idle.

[Icelanta]

Hahahaha! Man, what a tosh, unsafe condition?! so you also never give a student a failure and feather and secure exercise?! And then airlines complain about declining training standards:ugh:
This procedure has been standard at the BAS, Belgian aviation school, later Sabena Flight academy. You call them dangerous?
Idling an engine on a twin is not at all representative to an actual failure. the full procedure must be trained onboard the actual aircraft.
Not unsafe at all, and not bad for the engine.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Icelanta


What part of "in Single engine airplane" in the original post did you have difficultly understanding ?

[Whopity]

On a ME piston, just close the fuel valve of one of the enginesIcelanta: The purpose of shutting the engine down is to allow the student to practice the correct drill, to observe the indications and fly the aircraft with an engine feathered, to demonstrate minimum drag settings and to practice the restart procedure. I fail to see how your method can be of any use in meeting these training objectives.

[172_driver]

If none spotted...

BPF quoted Icelanta's

On a ME piston, just close the fuel valve of one of the engines. It is not noticed by your student and gives you a real failure of the engine. also easy to start the engine aain by opening the fuel valve.

Hence the misunderstanding..

Carry on…

[Level Attitude]

Quote:
On a ME piston, just close the fuel valve of one of the engines
Icelanta: The purpose of shutting the engine down is to allow the student to practice the correct drill, to observe the indications and fly the aircraft with an engine feathered, to demonstrate minimum drag settings and to practice the restart procedure. I fail to see how your method can be of any use in meeting these training objectives.

For learning and practising, and for training towards the Skill Test fine.

But, in real life, a sudden, complete, engine failure (which is what is being
trained for) will be a complete surprise, will not be preceded by someone
"hiding the Throttle Quadrant" and will not necessarily happen on a climb
out (most critical stage of flight and hence where Examiners test it).

Pilots need to instantly recognise an abnormal situation and apply the correct drills.

Icelanta's method seems an excellent way to confirm this for an MEP engine failure.

In both aviation and other fields I have seen people not respond correctly
(mainly timely recognition) to a real unexpected situation because its occurence
was not preceded by what they had experienced in training - hence the
start of the drills was delayed.

Specifically, for an MEP, I have seen an engine shut down (in the method
Icelanta describes) and when it went quiet on one side the pilot just
started looking around the cockpit to try and ascertain why - rather
than go straight in to "Engine Failure Drills"

[Big Pistons Forever]

Since the thread seems to have creeped over to Multi engine training I thought I would post a quote from my Piper PA44 Seminole POH

Quote

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

Unquote

Another thing worth noting is a sudden complete failure of the engine is the least likely scenario for a real world engine failure. A partial failure or a surging engine is much more likely to occur and is almost never practiced in Multi Engine training ......

[SloppyJoe]

Sorry twin again but relevant.

Aircraft N74SA accident at La Verne, CA on 03/31/2004 (http://www.initialfix.com/reference/accident/2004/20040427X00517/N74SA.html)

I saw this plane hit the ground and cartwheel along the grass, am amazed they both lived.

Yes its not a bad idea to completely shut one down once during training at altitude to go through the drill but not to do it regularly to simulate a failure. It should be a high alt drill and once completed the engine restarted before doing anything else.

[Another_CFI]

Like Icelanta I utilise the system of turning off the fuel supply at least once during MEP training as the method of producing an engine failure. Done properly the student will not even notice what has been done until the engine fails. Also typically the engine will not "wind-down" completely smoothly; there will be some surging, which replecates a real engine failure more closely than covering the quadrant and retarding a throttle.

Having shut the engine down provides the opportunity to conduct those parts of the MEP course which require that an engine is shutdown and feathered.

[mad_jock]

If it was my engine cutting the fuel flow from cruise power to zero would cause the Instructor to be looking for another job unless the thing was on fire on a piston engine.

Turbine, crack on don't really care. Piston you are playing with metal and temprature gradients and really not getting value for money.

That surging is damage being done. Maybe nothing that you can see but its damaging the metal and its fatigue life.

IF YOU LOOK AFTER YOUR ENGINES THEY WILL LOOK AFTER YOU WHEN YOU REALLY NEED THEM. DON'T RAPE THEM FOR NO REASON.

[sevenstrokeroll]

AS the thread has now entered the twin engine relm , may I say:

There is almost NO training in an engine failure during descent/reduced power situation.

Leveling off in the traffic pattern in a twin, with one engine dead (but not caged) is a surprise that many pilots may not deal correctly with.

[Oktas8]

Well, if an instructor employed by me cut fuel as a means of generating a more realistic engine failure, I would tell them not to do it again. Radical isn't it?

Why not fire them instantly?
- I used to do it myself as that's the way I was taught. Then I was educated properly, and now I don't. I'd like to offer the same opportunity to someone else.
- Less importantly for me, I would be opening myself to employment court claims, unless the Book of Rules specifically prohibited that particular behaviour.

And Joemas, I suggest you don't pull the mixture in a SE aircraft. You could argue forever that it's not more risky than anything else, but if an accident did occur it would be very hard to defend. More so now that most manufacturers recommend against it. Just a pragmatic recommendation from someone who has done all sorts of silly things in the past through ignorance, but now knows better. :ok:

[mad_jock]

The single engine syllabus should be documented to death in the course documentation and also in the flying order book.

An instructor that doesn't understand that an engine spluttering and farting is killing it shouldn't be teaching.

[Big Pistons Forever]

When I first started working as an instructor the Chief Flying Instructor told us to fail the engine using the mixture control when teaching the PFL exercise.

Being a low hour newbie I followed the direction. One day I was doing the PFL exercise ( C 150) and it was not going well. After 2 tries, both completely botched, we were about to start a third attempt when I decided this students head was not in the game and told him to just fly us home. When we parked he pulled the mixture out and the knob plus about a foot of cable came out just as the engine died :hmm:. It turned out the mixture cable failed at the termination fitting at the carburator end.

If I had done the last PFL the end would have stopped with no way to get it going and we would have turned a practice force landing into a real one.:uhoh:

After that lesson, I simulate an engine failure in both single and multi engine airplanes by retarding the throttle. :ok:

[Another_CFI]

The same could happen when closing the throttle - The cable should break. Does this mean that we do not teach PFLs since we are introducing an increased element of risk?

Whilst I think that Elfin Safety is overdone a Risk Assesment would show that pulling the Mixture would fall into the ALARP category.

[justanotherflyer]

Hahahaha! Man, what a tosh, unsafe condition?!

By definition it is less safe. That's why the FAA discourage it below 3000ft AGL.

Macho blustering is no substitute for a considered discussion of an important safety-related question.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The same could happen when closing the throttle - The cable should break. Does this mean that we do not teach PFLs since we are introducing an increased element of risk?



The throttle design on all modern trainers is deliberately designed to be much more robust than the simple wire in a sheath system used for mixture and carb heat controls. It will also have a proper rod end fitting at the carburator end eliminating the main failure point of mixture/carb heat controls. This makes throttle cable failures extremely rare.

A good knowledgeable instructor should know all of this .....

[Centaurus]

Hahahaha! Man, what a tosh, unsafe condition?! so you also never give a student a failure and feather and secure exercise?! And then airlines complain about declining training standards
This procedure has been standard at the BAS, Belgian aviation school, later Sabena Flight academy. You call them dangerous?
Idling an engine on a twin is not at all representative to an actual failure. the full procedure must be trained onboard the actual aircraft.
Not unsafe at all, and not bad for the engine

It looks like the operators you mention have not bothered to learn from the experiences of others. The following extracts from the US NTSB (Google it if you don't know what it means) are applicable to your statement.
National Transportation Safety Board Warning On Simulated Engine-Out Maneuvers

The fatal crash of a light twin in which a flight instructor and an applicant for a multiengine rating were killed, prompted the NTSB to issue an urgent warning to all pilots simulating an engine-out condition on multiengine airplanes.

The Board's investigation revealed that some flight instructors do use the fuel selector or the mixture control to shut down an engine to test the applicant. Although this is a recommended procedure, the urgent warning was aimed at flight instructors who were using this proceure 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 operation at the lower altitudes should be accomplished by retarding the throttle and this should be done slowly and carefully to avoid engine damage or failure.

The Lycoming Service Bulletin No 245 stated that if the power was abruptly terminated, it must be accomplished with the mixture control. Of course, this was intended for the higher altitudes where a complete engine shut-down could be conducted safely. However, any practice of simulated engine-out condition at low altitudes should be best accomplished by a slow retardation of the throttle in accordance with the NTSB recommendation. This careful techique will protect the engine, and at the same time provide for instant power it it is needed.
............................................................ .....................................

Instructors would indeed be foolish to disregard the advice given by the NTSB. Legal action against the flying school and instructor would likely follow if this recommendation was ignored causing an accident

[LostYetAgain]

I would immediately fire any instructor that did what you recommend. Not only is it very hard on the engine, it involves deliberately creating an unsafe condition when there is a perfectly safe alternative by simulating a failure by retarding the throttle to idle.I see that in CAP601 "Multi Engine Piston Aeroplane Class Rating", Flight exercise 3 requires the MEP syllabus to include:
"Demonstrate full feathering drill (engine shut-down) using checklist procedures." followed by a restart:
"Demonstrate un-feather drill using checklist procedures"

I believe the student is also required to fully shut down/feather + unfeather/restart an engine as part of the MEP exam.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I see that in CAP601 "Multi Engine Piston Aeroplane Class Rating", Flight exercise 3 requires the MEP syllabus to include:
"Demonstrate full feathering drill (engine shut-down) using checklist procedures." followed by a restart:
"Demonstrate un-feather drill using checklist procedures"

I believe the student is also required to fully shut down/feather + unfeather/restart an engine as part of the MEP exam.

In Canada the requirement to do an actual engine shutdown/feather/restart was removed from the ME training requirements after a safety audit showed that this practice contributed to numerous actual engine failures/failed restarts and several accidents.

Since there is no performance difference between setting zero thrust and actually feathering the engine it was deemed that there was no actual training value in the full feather exercise. Similarly the restart procedure is airplane specific and therefor the training in this exercise would only have value if the student never flew any other model of twin.

[Jim59]

NPPL SLMG syllabus pages 11 to 14 covers a full shutdown.

http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/PDFs/Syllabus/NPPL%20SLMG%20SYLLABUS%20v4%2017%20Feb%2010.pdf

[LostYetAgain]

So in the UK, an MEP instructor would probably be fired for NOT performing a shutdown with the student!

I wonder how the accident rates compare between the UK & Canada ;) (now standing well back from the keyboard!)

[Big Pistons Forever]

So in the UK, an MEP instructor would probably be fired for NOT performing a shutdown with the student!

I wonder how the accident rates compare between the UK & Canada ;) (now standing well back from the keyboard!)

North America has more GA aircraft operations than the rest of the world combined and the the lowest accident rate as measured by accidents per 100,000 flight hours..........

[justanotherflyer]

Instructors who employ surprise engine stops via surreptitious cutting of the fuel flow may flatter themselves that they're increasing the 'realism' of the exercise. But in my experience this is an illusion, and often they're simply massaging their own ego, providing little or no training value.

For one thing, there are many ways (some of them quite subtle and insidious) in which an engine can cease to function, partially or fully. So focusing on this one scenario, generally presented once only in a training course, as the "true" example is counter-productive.

The purpose of the deliberate engine shut-down in a ME course, done at altitude and briefed properly, is to demonstrate (and give the student confidence) that the airplane can be flown safely home on one engine, not primarily to provide an opportunity to practice emergency drills.

Further, the airplane doesn't fall out of control just because an engine has stopped - it does so when uncommanded yaw is either not recognized, nor contained effectively. Learning how to deal with uncommanded yaw/undesireable aircraft state/unusual attitude/loss of stability is the first priority. Only subsequently can, or should, the "why" be properly analyzed.


Per Big Pistons Forever:

In Canada the requirement to do an actual engine shutdown/feather/restart was removed from the ME training requirements after a safety audit showed that this practice contributed to numerous actual engine failures/failed restarts and several accidents.

Similarly with the removal of spin training from the FAA - or CAA as it then was - private pilot syllabus in 1949 (!). After that the incidence of stall/spin accidents decreased substantially. The training had become more dangerous than the contingency it was supposedly addressing.