Whirlycopter
Yes, I do think touchdown autos should be part of the PPL syllabus. I did Engine Off Landings through most of my PPL training in the UK and have since been exposed to autos with recovery in ground effect.
I accept that in the likes of an R22, the entry into autorotation is the most important factor in surviving an engine failure. However I want to know that I can complete an EOL to a satisfactory stop, not that I can merely enter autorotation, turn into wind, get to my landing site, flare
and then forget my usual trained response and do something different at the bottom.
Some instructors like EOLs, some don't. Flying cultures vary around the world, but where EOLs are practiced, in machines they may be practiced in, I suspect the reasons for varying enthusiasm amongst instructors are primarily competence, currency and the resulting confidence. I'm not knocking those who don't like them, but I'd rather be instructed by someone who is happy to do them than someone who isn't.
Gaseous
Insurance may also affect teaching of EOLs, I don't know. If EOLs are a real insurance issue, I guess you may get a cheaper rate if practice autos to ground are excluded. I'd rather pay a higher premium and practice EOLs than pay a lower one and be limited to autos with recovery.
I think that when I was a low time pilot, despite doing dozens of EOLs with an instructor, a real failure would have been pretty messy. The improved handling skills aquired with since then make me confident that unless I pick a rotten landing site, all will be well - even though I no longer practice them. This implies that practising them is pretty pointless.
Doesn't it imply that
you think practicing them
now, ie EOL currency, is pretty pointless? How would you feel about them now if you hadn't done loads as a student?
As an aside, I initially found EOLs easier than normal landings!
FlyAnotherDay