C finishes off his post by saying “…imagine the lawyers having your guts for garters…” now he doesn’t actually say why they would want to do that, (apart from money) but leaving that aside I would prefer to start my reply by saying how would you feel if one of your students killed themselves because you did not train them to the best of your ability.
In my mind it all boils down to what is the most realistic way of failing an engine for a multi engine student so that they get the most benefit with a reasonable level of safety.
Now reasonable to me is possibly not reasonable to you, but we should all make our own decision based on knowledge, not on anonymous posts (including mine) on the internet
C introduces a few bogey-men in his post so we might start off by shining a bit of light on them.
C understands that the UK CAA frown upon mixture cuts, perhaps he should read R.D. Campbell’s Multi Engine book again or some of Alan Branson’s multi engine articles and see what they do.(Both UK authors)
C talks about the Lycoming article, re simulating engine failures in training, which recommends using the mixture control rather than the throttle. He states they say it is safer to use the throttle as you can reintroduce power if a stuff up occurs and that the US NTSB concur. A wonderful piece of selective quoting.
Lycoming say that simulated engine failures “must be accomplished with the mixture control” but because of a NTSB recommendation you should use throttle (slowly and carefully to avoid engine damage and failure) to fail an engine at traffic pattern altitudes in case the trainee makes an error.
Part of the thrust of C’s argument is that you don’t do it in a single so why do it in a twin. Well the reason is you have different objective’s. In a single you don’t have to identify which engine has failed. In a single you can slowly close the throttle without losing any training benefits. In a twin this is not the case, you are trying to teach a trainee to cope with a sudden swing after take off.
C talks about a mixture cable breaking, do they have a higher failure rate than throttle cable’s ?. Would you be in a better situation if the throttle cable broke ?
C introduces a number of other emotive issue’s without any substantiation but it really comes down to my opening paragraph. What is the best way of teaching a trainee to handle an engine failure after take off with reasonable safety.
These are facts not supposition:
Lycoming say that the engine would be happier if you pulled the mixture.
The student will be happier (and safer in the long run) if the training is realistic
The instructor must be aware that one (or more) of his trainees is one day going to try and kill him.
The instructor must be aware of these facts as well as his own knowledge, his experience level, his knowledge of and experience with the aircraft he is flying and the ambient conditions prevailing and make a decision that will give the most benefit to his student with a reasonable level of safety.