Multi Engine Instruction Dangers

[B2N2]

Currently working on getting my Multi Instructor rating....the most dangerous form of flight instruction apparently.
What are your experiences with students?
We all know they are perfectly capable of killing you while in the PPl stage, but what are the most common (and dangerous) things they'll pull on you in a multi?
Any horror stories out there?
Which plane what happened and what did you do to safe it?
Any experiences shared appreciated.

[kabz]

Just a few moments I've had as a student, but hopefully gonna be an MEI quite soon :

- Nearly ran one off the runway on the very first takeoff. Instructor hadn't warned me he was going to cut the mixture, but I kinda knew what to do. Kept it on the center-line after that.

- Sat in the back whilst a multi student got slow on a short field, and we just slammed in. This was a classic, cos the guy had been really on top until that point, then got real slow on the last landing and the stall warner started blaring as he started the round out .... eek

- Had a throttle set at sim feather vibrate back on me, and I got slow on approach in a seneca, that was probably my most scary moment in a plane to date, as it was taking everything I had just to fly in a straight line.

- First 'fuel-cut' engine failure in a Travel Air was interesting, cos the engine starts popping and banging and surging before the fuel actually completely quits.

Good luck.

[GT]

In my opinion it's got to be the simulated engine failure on the take-off roll. I really worry about this one! There is only one correct action for the student to take - if they do anything else you've got a problem. For example, had a student who failed to retard the throttles - he tried to control the now present asymmetry with rudder pedal - aeroplane gets airborne single engine turning towards the 'dead' - now flying down the runway sideways - took control and landed back on.

My advice, for what it's worth, is this: line-up and brief the student on what's going to happen and what their response must be. I'm sorry, but this is the one emergency I never spring, I always give warning, not realistic I know but.... If their response is not correct then you bring the 'good' mixture control back to ICO as well, eliminating the asymmetry. Oh, and by the way, let the tower know what you're up to - saves panic all round. Best of luck with the course, great fun.

Regards, GT.

[BigEndBob]

3 of us taking turns at doing some 1179 training with instructor.
New this was going to happen because of the way the checklist was written.
Instructor fails right engine, student idents dead eng. , pulls the throttle to confirm, feathers and mixture, eng. stops then rushes on with rest of checks from checklist, switching mags off killing the live engine! aircraft yaws.
Realises mistake switches mags on, engine made some interesting noises.

I,ve always taught once the aircraft has been CONTROLLED, the dead engine has been CONFIRMED and the problem CONTAINED then unless a fire is burning the wing off DON'T touch anything until you have double checked and re confirmed which engine you have shut down.
If necessary rewrite checklist so that there is a pause after mixture ICO.

Saves a lot of embarrasment (and lives).

[big pistons forever]

I have about 2000 hours of instructing including PPL, CPL, IRT, night rating, Tailwheel conversion and aerobatics. About 60 of the 2000 hours was initial training for the multi rating. ALL of the really scarey moments instructing were in that 60 hours. They included

1. A student inexplicably aplying full up elevator when I failed an engine during a simulated overshoot (at altitude thank god ). The airplane instantly stalled and snap rolled. I took control with the airplane inverted and pitched 45 deg nose down :uhoh:

2. A X airforce lightjet pilot who on short final got the knobs mixed up and pulled the blue ones all the way back when he meant to reduce power

3. A student who selected gear up instead of flaps up during a touch and go ,thereby writing off the airplane and ending 13 years of accident free flying for me:{ ( Thats why I never do touch and go's in complex airplanes anymore )

My advice.

1. Fully brief your flight and be very clear about what you exect the student to do.

2. Don't fail any engines close to the ground

3. Don't let your guard down for a second. It is incredable how fast things can turn to S***

[alphaalpha]

I speak from a student's point of view, not an instructor's. This experience was about four years ago.

I was genuinely scared when I got things wrong going-around off a single engine approach in a C310. I understood the correct sequence was: full power/full fine/full rich; pitch-up as you clean the aeroplane up: i.e. gear up and (while the gear is transiting) flaps up.

I hadn't twigged that the flaps should come up in stages. I was very focussed on getting the aeroplane clean as quickly as possible, so as to get some climb performance. As I reached flaps fully up, the stall warner started to sound very loudly. It needed a significant pitch down to recover flying speed. I don't remember the exact height, I guess we went around at commital height, so not very high.

I will never forget the moment, and hopefully never, ever make the same mistake again.

AA

[Tinstaafl]

After concentrating on keeping the a/c tits up & moving forward I got my students to STOP!, take a breath & then act in a (relatively) calm & unrushed manner. Not dawdling, but not moving knobs about until they've taken the time to reconsider the move.

[machonepointone]

I note some of the replies with a mixture of amusement and amazement. I am a multi-engine instructor with over 7000 instructional hours, of which close to 2000 are on twin piston aeroplanes. Now the very last thing I want to do is sound as though I know it all or make as though I am better than everybody out there. However, there were some comments that made the hairs on the back of my neck rise.

First were the ones from BigEndBob and let_me_fly who related the stories of when a student switched off the wrong mags. They do not say at what altitude this happened, but my questions are these: - Whatever happened to touch drills? How come a student is allowed (taught?) to switch magnetos off? Again, without knowing the exact circumstances, whatever happened to the rules about not shutting an engine down for practice below 3000 feet agl?

Next are the gems from kabz and GT who talk about retarding mixtures to simulate an engine failure. What, pray, is the problem with merely retarding the throttle to idle? The asymmetry is just as obvious and the technique is exactly the same. Difference is that it is all being done with two operating engines (albeit one of them is at idle). In all the time I have been instructing on twins the schools I have worked for NEVER used the mixture to simulate an engine failure.

On a lighter note, and to answer the original question from B2N2, I had a student some years back who applied the wrong rudder while practising an EFATO (fortunately at altitude). The aircraft behaved as expected and rolled very quickly through 360 degrees, by which time I had managed to close the other throttle. On remonstrating with him for applying the wrong rudder he passed the blame on to me for failing the wrong engine.

[Hudson]

Twin engine training is quite safe as such. It is the idiot instructors who are likely to get you killed. Those that cut the mixture control to "simulate ' engine failure at low altitude or on the runway are the most dangerous of them all.

For some strange reason it seems that Australian flying school instructors are the hairy chested ones that cut the mixture control. In UK the practice of mixture cuts is banned and in USA there is an NTSB warning against the practice as too dangerous. But not in good old OZ where only wimps use throttle closure to simulate engine failure. Youse have gotta be realistic matey, is the mixture cut motto.

Before embarking on a twin endorsement or initial twin training as a student, ensure you know exactly what method of simulated engine failure your instructor prefers to use. If he says mixture control simply offer to break his arm if he touches the mixture control - or just walk away and find an intelligent instructor - not a mixture cut cowboy.

Pilots and students have been killed using mixture cuts and in every case it is the instructor that started the chain of events that led to crash -burn-die a painful death.

[Keygrip]

Same story - different approach.

Piper Seminole. "Old style". All the switches mounted on the left cabin wall - by the pilots elbow.

Top row has four magneto switches and a two-way rocker switch for engine starting. Second row has landing light, nav lights, strobes, left fuel pump, right fuel pump. Third row just battery and alternator fields.

Cute little (multi-engine qualified) pilot gets airborne, climbs to 1,000 feet agl. and then turns off both fuel pumps at the same time. Problem is, he uses the top row of switches, not the second row. So, both right engine mags are now off - but with good fuel pressure.

The subsequent noises did make me sit up straight.

In a voice one octave louder than normal I emphasised that I had "done nothing - the problem was genuine" (as briefed for any aircraft malfunctions below 3,000 agl.).

I then spotted the cause - the right mags were both off. In a slightly lower voice I explained to pilot that he had turned off the mags and that it would probably reduce our tension if he were to turn both magneto switches back on again.

Now - somebody, please explain to me why the guy turned OFF the two left mags instead of turning ON the two right mags.

Despite a shoulder harness I managed to move sideways at an alarming rate and turned them all back on again.

Circle to land. Flight over!!

[M.85]

B2N2,
The best way to answer your question would be i believe:"what did I do to scare my instructor when I was a student..."
You may learn a lot that way:E

Happy and Safe flying

M.85

[BigEndBob]

I have never had any problems pulling the mixture back on a fully briefed student to simulate engine failure on the runway.
It is the only realistic way to do this exercise as the student should have a good grasp of the throttles ready to retard at the first sign of engine failure and it is difficult as an instructor to get a hold of a throttle. At recovery a full power check should be done before proceeding with further flying.
I seem to remember the CAA recommending not to pull mixture on climb out! Who would? We have all heard of instructors who do, the same ones try and do touch and goes with a cold engine
following sim. asymmetric landing.

Unless you are above 3000 feet then the mixture should never be pulled and in any case it is pointless as an exercise as the student can see which engine is going to fail. Much better to shut off the fuel.

My mag experience was as a rear seat pax awaiting my turn in the front left seat whilst type rating training on Seneca.
This was the students 3-4 hour in twins.
We were at 4000 ( and descending).
The instructor was ex airline with a zillion hours, sometimes you can't stop a student doing something you don't want him to do.
Brief, dry run and well written checklists are the key

[big pistons forever]

RTO

You cut the mixture at rotation:eek: . I think anybody who does that in a light twin is out of their MIND:confused:

[kabz]

Just one point, a full shutdown of one engine at altitude is a part of the faa multi ride.

On my private, this was done with the fuel selector.

On my commercial, I had to remind the examiner to do it, so he just pulled the mixture to cut-off. Just as well someone remembered. :}

[witchdoctor]

I remember my multi FI turning several interesting colours after he failed one of the engines at the start of our crosswind turn during assy circuits. The 'dead' engine was the inside engine and I was too slow to get full rudder in. Unsurprisingly the a/c rolled into the turn very quickly, and at 600' or so with a climbing a/c and dropping airspeed, being at some 60 - 70 degrees of bank and increasing I can understand his discomfort.

Happily, he caught the a/c a fraction before me and all turned out OK, but my flying buddy in the back was white for weeks.:}

[big pistons forever]

RTO


Your post said ( in relation to engine cuts on Take off ) quote The mixture cut is OK for a fairly switched on student and adds a touch of realism IMO unquote. Based on that statement I concluded you believe it is OK to cut the mixture thereby causing a total engine failure while the aircraft is very close to the ground at or only slightly above VMC, and almost certainly below blueline.:hmm: Yes I guess a smoking hole right next to the runway would add a " touch of realism " ....

[BigEndBob]

big pistons forever


I noted your comments regard flap and touch and go....i always raise the flap for the student and call out "Flap up, take off" the student then applies full power. Gives me a few seconds to abort if things aren't going right.

Also caution aircraft with electric flaps (cessna340), it can take the full length of a 1000m runway on touch and go for them to retract from full flap and stop producing drag. Full flap will always be a full stop landing.

Also from an instructors view always make sure the heaters work.
It can get quite cold at even 5000 feet here in the UK.
The student won,t notice the cold!

P.S. anybody know why Piper wired the stall warners through the u/c squat switch on the Seminole so that they can't be checked on the ground...seems a bit barmy to me, is there a reason?

[big pistons forever]

BIG END BOB

Your method is a good way to go if you want to do touch and goes. In the end I made the personal decision not to do touch and goes in complex aircraft for a couple of reasons.

1. I always insist that my students not to do ANYTHING untill the aircraft is clear of the runway. This is policy is pretty much a guarantee that the wheels will not be retracted on the ground or you will hit anything because you are head down doing stuff instead of looking where you are going. This policy has to be violated to do a touch and go and it represents a training inconsistancy I want to avoid.

2. A taxi back allows the student to relax for a second and mentally prepare for the takeoff and also allows the vital pretakeoff checks to be done in an unhurried and complete basis.
I also find this is the only time many students have any free brain cells which allows them to actually absorb the advice I am giving them.

3. IMO a touch and go bypasses an important part of the takeoff. Developing good habits in the monitoring of engine and flight instruments so that bad things will be detected early enough for an uneventfull on the runway RTO. I beat my students pretty hard to develop an efficent scan and get the required calls done properly.

OH Ya one other thing. I tell all students if they ever touch the gear lever when the aircraft is on the ground I will break all their fingers:E

[BigEndBob]

Safety aside it would be very nice to terminate each landing in a full stop, but in the Uk with average dual training costing £230 ($380 us ) an hour we are always thinking of the cost to the student.
We never live in ideal worlds.
What value can we put on the chance of things going wrong?

[big pistons forever]

BigEndBob

My accident happened near the ( preplanned ) end of my instructing career. For the last 13 or so years I have held non instructor flying jobs and only did a bit of instructing on the side. The beauty of this, is of course I can instruct on my terms, of which one is no touch and goes in complex aircraft. Actually no, the best part is I am not obligated to deal with the inevitable morons that walk in the door of the flying school. ;) Any way back to topic.

The real question IMO is wether or not the student can land a light twin. My experience has been that my students only take a couple of tries to make acceptable and safe landings. Therefore I feel more practice is essentially wasted. I would prefer to use the time to practice balked approaches, emergencies in the circuit etc. If I did have a student who had difficulty with landings then I am almost certainly seeing someone missing essential flying skills and would strongly recommend he/she got some dual on a intermediate ( and much cheaper ) complex single, before carrying on. In the long run I think this would probably save the student money. If they insisted on carrying on then, yes a series of touch and goes woud probably be appropriate untill the student gots their act together. However I would brief that when all three wheels are on the ground I will loudly and firmly call " I have control " they would then put their hands on their lap and I would reconfigure the aircraft , apply full power rotate and hand over the aircraft when it was above blue line and climbing. Since the aircraft is still moving fast the time from full power to rotate is only going to be a few seconds and I am the best equiped to deal with an actual emergency. Frankly I don't think the student is missing much because if they are still having trouble landing I can guarantee while ther hand may be advancing the throttles, their brain is still calling red blues and greens final check complete :D :D .

However I can appreciate you may not get a vote and must instruct the way your CFI says. In that case all I can say is you have to be totally alert. I was only a half second too slow on my fatefull day:ouch:

[despegue]

I fondly remember my ME instructor!

We did airwork during night-flights ( "do you think stalls only occur in sunshine amigo?)

On final, he had the habit of just turning the fuel selector off on one engine, saying nothing... I sure learned how to identify a real engine failure... (also, he forbade me to feather while on final approach if glide-path and blue line could be kept. )

During my first hour, he gave me an engine failure (at 4000') in the hold, in IMC (night) where I had to complete the drills including feathering and restarting.

Conclusion, yes, some might consider this "dangerous", but it made me a better pilot. He knew what he was doing (4000h multi-instructor, JAA CPL/ME examiner).

Oh, and all on a Seneca1!

[pilotbear]

Well at last, finally someone who understands. If they don't know what really happens they will die during their first real emergency.;)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

WOW :

I shouldn't read the instructors thread, just scares the hell out of me to read what some people get away with as flight instructors.

I will not do the following.

(1) Use a fuel shut off to fail an engine.

(2) Use the mixture to fail an engine.

(3) Practice go arounds on one engine below a safe altitude and never less than 3000 above ground.

(4) Fully feather an engine unless it must be feathered due to a mechanical failure.

Before anyone starts all the B.S. about how important it is for a student to see a propellor stopped all you have to do is let them look at it before you start the engines on the ramp....and I have probably flown more miles with engines shut down and feathered than most on here, and it was never comfortable, especially way up in the high Arctic hundreds of miles from the nearest airport.

Now I know a lot of you out there are going to jump all over my methods, but I am still alive and instructing on large multi engine piston airplanes. And I have managed to get through some where around thirty thousand hours flying most everything with wings or rotors. And never smashed one up.

Just my thoughts on all this for what ever its worth.

And all the best in the new year and all those after....:ok:

Chuck E

[B2N2]

OK ladies and gentlemen, I passed my test yesterday.
Thank you very much for all your stories and replies.
Keep them coming please, I actually remembered some of them as I was busy with my test.:}
This is what the examiner put me through:
>When we got to the plane he asked me a whole lot of questions about the plane (Aztec), recent flights I did, engine temps during those flights, which engine is harder to start, which engine would I start 1st etc. Normal enough I guess.
>After the runup he wanted me to request a touch and go first, he didn't like my first approach ( high and steep full flaps) so made me do a go-around at 150 feet.
No big surprise he pulled the throttle on the crirical engine(left, the one with the hydraulic pump)just after I applied full pwr.
Had to pump the gear up manually and climb to 500' when he gave the engine back. Liked the 2nd appraoch and I managed to kiss it on with very sweaty hands.
>At 3500' he wanted to see a Vmc demo which went fine.
Steep turns next, as I rolled out of one we went trough our own wake so he goes "what the hell is that?"That was kinda funny.
>Asked me to crossfeed, right engine fuel from left outboard.
Tried to trick me into slowflight while crossfeeding.
>Slow flight dirty and slowflight clean. Failed the right engine during slowflight with the fuel shut-off at 3500'.
As I was going through the drills I drifted down intentionally at 200fpm and reduced the pwr on the good engine. He wasn't too happy as he expected me to hold altitude.
So I told him there was no rush, no need to burn up the good one, no rush to feather since we where at 3500 AGL and within 10 miles of the airport.:8
>Then he decides to play the experienced multi-guy who needs a checkout. Told me to test him on his single-engine drills.
So I told him I assumed we would have briefed everything on the ground prior to flight on which he replied "No I felt that wasn't necessary since I'm so experienced" OK
So I pointed at the right engine told him I would fail the RIGHT and slowly pulled the right throttle back. He was (pleasantly?) surprised that I used the throttle iso mixture. Anyway he kept the wings level and tried to feather right away. He couldn't since I had my hand on the quadrant so we started discussing the need for fix or feather as I noticed him slowing down below blueline. Pushed on the yoke with a couple of fingers to remind him when he shouted "who's flying this plane you or me?" So I told him.
:eek: So we agree he can sim feather so he pulls the left lever back, only about an inch since I kep my hand there during this whole scene. I'm looking at it thinking something's wrong here, after all his distractions it took a second to realize he was about to pull the wrong one. Almost missed that one :ouch:
> Now we head back for the airport, he's flying.
We' re doing about 180mph in the descent so I knew he was going to try to get me too fast on downwind. I also noticed that he had been messing with the gear lights as I was scanning for traffic. So when he looked outside (it took two tries) I screwed the bulb back in when he scanning for traffic.:ok:
Now we're at 170mph on downwind with a gearspeed of 150mph.
He tried to put the gear down but his hand never made it to the handle. Asked me to slow it down by now we're at the end of downwind with the gear still up. So I used the handpump again to speed the process up a little and told him "3 greens" at which he raised an eyebrow (he's good at doing that, it freaks me out) and looked down. Got him on that one. So he wanted to do the landing and told me to give him flaps as he was turning base. Which I did, so now he starts talking about possible flap assymetry and whether it is even possible with an Aztec.
While we talking about this he turns (fairly) steep for final at 300' and asks for full flap which I refused.
Now he tries to land with partial power so I pulled the throttles back. He taxies in and parkes since there are no brakes on the r/h side. As I'm doing the shut down checks with my head down I noticed the ground move in the corner of my eye and yelled "BRAKES" as we where on a very busy ramp. He liked that one.
I'm now 5lbs lighter but very happy.
Any comments on this ride? Easy or hard?
I personally feel he didn't do everything in the book but he certainly tried to rattle me on everything I did. Up to the very last second even.
Not to mention the fact I was so nervous before he showed up I could not decide between
:{ and:yuk:
For the careful readers. I did follow some of your advice; mainly not to rush things, keep my eyes on a stick, not to use the mixture if it is not absolutely necessary and oh did I mention that keep my eyes on a stick.
Thanks.

[GT]

Interesting story, and I'll tell you why (I think so). I'm a part-time FI in the U.K. and I'm the only instructor who teaches multi at my school. However, I did my basic multi training (PPL initial, not instructor which I did in the U.K.) at St. Petersburg, FL.

Now, your flight test sounds pretty tough to me, and you should be pleased that you coped so well, but this ties up with my own experience in the U.S.

When I was doing the multi course there it just had to be done perfectly or we did it again (perhaps the instructor was just knocking up multi hours - I don't know). Everything had to be just exactly spot on. Come the test, the oral seemed to go on forever, way past solely multi-engine issues (perhaps the examiner didn't trust a Brit!). The flight test was one of the most rigorous I have ever experienced. I was solely resonsible for R/T and navigation (in and out of CAS). We started late afternoon and went into the night! I don't think multi-engine ratings of any sort are given away in the States, despite what you sometimes hear. Well done, and enjoy it.

Regards, GT.

[FlyingForFun]

I've been quietly reading this thread since the start. Since I'm not (yet) an instructor, and I'm not (yet) multi-rated, I haven't really had much to contribute, but I've enjoyed reading from it and learning from it, and trying to apply what I'm reading to the few hours of dual multi-engine flight that I did a couple of years ago.

What prompted me to post, though, was B2N2's excellent description of his test. All I can say is Wow! Well done, it sounds to me like a bl00dy difficult test, and it also sounds like you handled it bl00dy well. If you can handle everything the examiner threw at you, then I'd be more than happy to have you as my multi-instructor when the time comes! (And I particularly like the bit about screwing the bulbs back in.... :D)

FFF
-------------

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Big Pistons Forever:

I have not done any multi engine training in the flying school end of aviation for many years and am not all that familiar with some of the methods taught at the ab-initio level.

When you referred to the " required calls " being done what exactly are " required calls " and required by whom?

Who do they call out to and what do they call out, and for what purpose.....do they also do this when alone?

When do they call out and what other actions are they performing as they are calling out?

I am only courious as I am not familiar with this " requirement "

Thanks,

Chuck

[Big Pistons Forever]

Chuck

When instructing often the only way to know what your student is thinking/doing is for them to verbalize it. Therefore I require them to makr the following calls on Takeoff. ( in a typical non turbo light twin )

1. In position: sweep engine and vacuum/electrical guages by pointing with their finger in a quick but complete circuit then call
" Two good Engines "

2. When the throttles reach forward stop , scan MP and RPM guages and call " Full Power "

3. At 70 Kts observe airspeed and MP. RPM, Oil Pressure guages and Call " 70 Knots, two good engines "

4. At rotation speed call " rotate "

5. At blue speed call " blue line , positive rate , gear up "
( note I consider blue line with the gear selected up as the decision speed as IMO it is unsafe to attempt to continue the takeoff with the airspeed below blueline close to the ground ).

Obviously these calls would not be verbalized in the context of single pilot commercial operations but I believe they are the best way to conduct training as they keep me in the loop and pedagogical theory has proven verbalizing actions helps students learn. Anyway to answer your questions, they are "required" because I am the PIC:D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Big Pistons Forever:

Thanks for your answer, I now understand the "required" part. :ok:


I havent instructed on the light ones since I sold my flying school many years ago, did you fly my Geronimo that Jack leased for a while?

Chuck

[Dude~]

Hmmm, interesting topic. I did my initial twin training in Bisbane, Oz. My instructor frequently pulled the mixture back to create failures, including one on take off (fully brifed though) and one on downwind for our final landing when I feathered the right engine on the Duchess for real. Great fun and experience. My instructor was highly experienced ex DC3 pilot who had being flying around Northern Territory since I was a tot.

I never realised it was other than common practice elsewhere.

I assume that one advantage was that when he pulled a mixture back, he could easily cover it from my sight with a clipboard so I was forced to work out the dead engine without cheating. As soon as I had done the 'all the levers forward' movement, he would set zero thrust on the dead engine, and then I carried on.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Dude:

Have you ever noticed that you can just ignore where the levers are and just identify which way the aeroplane has yawed, then maybe that phenonen will give you a clue to which engine failed?

Flamboyant use of mixtures, fuel shutoff levers and ignition switches are just asking for trouble, when reducing a throttle will give you a loss of power for the purpose of training.

I recall almost crashing many years ago on a check ride in a DC3. There were two of us being checked and I was in the jump seat for the first take off. The Chief pilot whipped the right engine mixture to idle cut off just as we were airborne with insufficient runway ahead to land and the gear still in transit.

The mixture lever broke right off the pedestal and we damn near lost a perfectly servicable airplane, thankfully we were light and the thing flew.

Chuck

[Tinstaafl]

Chuck,

You can't use yaw in a C336/337. You have to use the knobs & dials to determine the failure. I reckon it's more difficult in one of these than in a 'conventional' twin. Also, what about multi's with more than one engine on each wing? Surely you're not advocating yaw alone be used to determine failure? (yes, there's nearly always a second pilot & probably an FE to do the determining....)


Re the mixture control breaking:

That the mixture lever happened to fail doesn't make this example supportive of your argument. There is the same outcome regardless of what device is used to 'fail' the engine. An idling engine is just as failed if the throttle lever breaks off & you can no longer restore useable power.

There is no single point failure protection built in to any of these classes of engine's controls, except perhaps single engine CSUs that default to max RPM (thereby enabling max power to still be available) if the governer gubbins go tits up. I'm ignoring the C208's manual FCU since this engine installation WAS designed to have some amount of backup.

I could argue a **possible** workaround in a few Piper twins that use the pressure x-feed logic eg Aztecs, Chieftans etc. The workaround would be to use the fuel selector to provide the 'failure'. This MIGHT have a backup in case the fuel selector handle broke, by selecting the x-feed switch to 'ON' - bypassing that engine's fuel selector - & allowing fuel to be fed from the other engine's supply.

I'm presuming in the above that OFF is bypassed by x-feed select. Not sure if this is the case anyway. All the manuals I've seen for these types require/presume x-feed is OFF when they mention switching the fuel supply off but none seem to say what would happen with x-feed on. I don't have any fuel schematics to view to work it out myself.


Just a thought...
:ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Tinstaafl :

O.K.

I was negligent in my post when I used the broken mixture example and forgot to clearly tie that event into the cowboy, flamboyant agressive manner in which the check pilot performed the mixture cut off.

It was that idiot thoughtless agressive use of the mixture control that was in all likelyhood partly responsible for the lever breaking.

Also the airplane was a DC3... what do you think about sudden power reductions in a large radial engine?

The 337 is not used for multi engine training....it is two engine center line thrust training.

Do they let you fly any multi engine down there with a 337 endorsement?

As to more than one engine on each wing that is another subject and not really part of this discussion...oh you could have added BMEP as a quick reference with the four engine machines.

Anyhow to each his own, we are all free to use our airplanes in any manner we want to.

I'll stick with my methods, they have served me well over the years.


Just one more comment before some ace jumps into this and starts the " You have to make it realistic " argument. Here is a question for that mindset...do you set your engine on fire so the student experiences what the the real thing looks like, when you are teaching the engine fire proceedures?

Chuck

[hoey5o]

Big Pistons Forever,

Interested by your "required" calls section.
You state you regard blue line as your decision speed. Decision to do what ? I am surprised no one has mentioned the option of abandoning the climb out ( on one ) and landing ahead.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Decision speed in the context of a takeoff should only mean one thing. It is the point in the takeoff where you switch from automatically rejecting the takeoff by closing the throttles to carrying out the engine failure drills anf continuing the flight , in the event of an engine failure. If the airplane has a positive rate of climb , is at blueline, and the landing gear is retracting than it will fly away, therefore that is my light twin V1.
I think it is important to note transport category methodology is once you pass V1 you go. There is no big mental debate about wether there is sufficent runway ahead when the engine fails, You go EVERYTIME. Granted the difference is transport aircraft are still on the ground at V1 while the light twin will allready be in the air but the concept is the same. There is ample evidence that under the stress of a late takeoff engine failure a preprogrammed response that does not require intellectualizing the situation and then deciding on a course of action is the safest way to go in virtually all circumstances. In the context of this discussion why should we expect a low houred light twin student to make decisions not required of even a gazillion hour 747 captain. BTW I teach my students to keep their hands on the throttle untill blue line is reached, they then use the throttle hand to select gear up and then return to the throttle quandrant and firmly grasp both prop levers. The drill is really simple. If your hand is on throttles and you get that sickening lurch sideways , close the throttles, if your hands are on the prop levers feather and fly.

[ROB-x38]

Big Pistons Forever:

Thanks for sharing your takeoff calls. I've been taught a similar method but not as detailed. Next time i'm lined up i'm gonna use your ideas.

Cheers :ok:

[B2N2]

Any other ideas out there?
Horror stories?
C'mon most of you will have flown multi!
In the mixture debate...I was under the impression that it's quite ok to do mixture cuts on the runway if you're still below 1/2 Vmc.
Mixture cuts>3000' shouldn't really be a problem either.
Just not between Vmc and 3000'.
Thats what most of the instructors I know do anyway.
Mixture cut has a more agressive effect that's for sure...sounds different also:}

[Chuck Ellsworth]

"Mixture cut has an more agressive effect thats for sure. "

That is precisely why I do not use the mixture to simulate a power failure.......

Engines under high power do not like agressive changes in inertia, it induces reverse loads that can result in a real failure.

Teaching control of a multi engine aircraft is not a game in which he who makes the most agressive moves wins.

Also rote learned actions are not always the best way to stay alive......especially rote learned and quickly performed in a critical situation

Here is an example:

I was taking off in a fully loaded waterbomber with a load of long term retardent on a narrow gravel runway in northern Alberta, the strip was a forestry strip surrounded by trees. There was a wicked 45 degree x/wind.

Just prior to VR the left hand throttle broke off , I had two choices continue the take off and get into the air with an uncontrollabel engine at full power or reject the take off.....

What would you guys have done...and what vital actions would you have performed?

Would the rote learned vital actions have been the proper way to handle this situation...???

Chuck

[ROB-x38]

What did you do? How can you abort when you cant retard the throttle?

Cut the fuel :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

OK :

First a broken throttle is not an engine failure, but do we want to get airborne in a very heavy air tanker with one engine ( P&W R1830 ) at full rated power and risk exceeding the max full power time limit? Furthermore suppose for some reason there is a problem dropping the long term retardent?And do I want to wrestle this thing back on to a narrow runway on one engine with the serious x/wind?

Anyhow I rejected the takeoff and at the same time dropped the load.

Getting back to rote learned proceedures, if I had reacted in the normal manner and pulled the power by closing the remaining throttle I would have become the biggest most powerful tree cutter in the province.

The actions I took were because the mixtures were above and behind me and I was unable to use the intercom to get the first officer to pull the mixture levers down to ICO due to the horrendous noise these things make under full power I reached down and pulled the ignition kill switch....instant both engines off solution. And of course at the same instant with my other hand I pushed the drop button to get rid of the nine thousand pounds of retardent in the tank. ( The province didn't even pay me for painting the gravel strip bright red. )

Soooo as all this happened just as we were coming up on VR and the time frame to recognize the danger, make the decision and choose the safest method to stop both engines at once was very, very limited........

The secret is do not perform rote learned proceedures before you pause and think it out.

That is if you wish to stay alive. :D

Chuck

[B2N2]

Thanks for all your input Chuck.
But with all due respect I disagree with some of your arguments.
You're obviously a very experienced pilot but you're in a different ballgame than what I'm talking about.
I mean nobody can prepare you for a broken throttle at Vr on a gravel strip at (or over) MTOW.
You did what you felt was right and lived.
All respect a great display of airmanship.
But the original thread was about the TRAINING environment where we try to train (low time) students to survive the more common of failures.
You cannot expect somebody with maybe a 100hrs TT to perform on the same level as you.
You can only do your best to get them as good as they can get within the limited timeframe you have as an instructor.
I'm talking general aviation level here.
You cannot train for all emergencies, you can only pass on some of your knowledge, eventually they have to develop the airmanship on their own, essentially similar to training for PPL.
As a freshly minted pilot (hell, you were a student only yesterday)
you need to understand your limitations and act accordingly.
As you gain more experience your limitations grow with you.
And maybe somtime you have to make a live or die decision.
Most make it some don't, we read about them.
Comments welcome.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

B2N2 thanks for the compliments, however I guess I did not clearly explain my underlying thought process.

So let me try to put it in its simplest form.

I teach "all" my students no matter at what level from their first flight to the most experienced among us a very simple mantra....

Always plan and visualize ahead of the airplane.

No matter what happens be it a sudden stoppage of an engine, a rough engine, a control problem or anything abnormal.....do not do anything until you identify exactly what will best fix the problem... that is why I am not a firm believer in just snapping into rote learned physical actions until there is an intellectual game plan to go with it.

Airplanes in motion have inertia, always ensure that the inertia is vectored in the path which you want the airplane to go in. When something very catastrophic ( to your senses ) goes wrong let inertia drive the airplane in the vector that you have put it in and take a brief few seconds to analize what to do...then go through the actions.

Try something just for the hell of it, at a safe altitude put your airplane in a situation, say just established in the climb and at the recomended climb speed and fail the engine, closely moniter how many seconds you have before airspeed decays to a critical number.

Then always use a speed that will give you several seconds to go through the mental emergancy check of " what in hell is it doing now" that willl give you a chance to maybe recognize something important as to what action is needed.

In short always think before acting....no matter what your experience level.

Respectfully:

Chuck.

[Tinstaafl]

G'day Chuck,

I certainly agree with your stance about taking the time to think. It's rare that an instantaneous action would achieve a better result than a considered response.

Sorry about the delay responding to your earlier comments.

You're quite right, a C337 doesn't count for 'standard' multi training. It's probably a bad example however I was trying to highlight that relying on a single symptom without corroboration isn't a 'good thing'.

BMEP is what I had in mind re not using just yaw cues. Also EGT.

Re mixture cuts, Lycoming recommended mixture cuts for their engines in the 'Lycoming Flyer'. They maintain it is less stressful for the engine than a throttle cut. They argue that using the mixture leaves airflow still able to get into the cylinders which, in turn, gives the piston & it's connecting gubbins something to push against. As it was designed to do.

The next issue, I suppose, is whether or not adequate safety can be maintained using mixture. Many of us believe so, many others don't. Fair enough. I believe it's important for the student to have to choose which which engine has failed & test the assumption without having a throttle position cue.

As a slight change of direction: How many here feel that engine power won't be restored when the mixture is returned to full rich (or even less than full rich, if that's more appropriate for the conditions), and how many feel it would be restored?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Tin.....

First to answer your question regarding getting power back with the mixture.... I can see no reason why it would not come back every time...barring something breaking.

However before you return the mixture to the position that restores the fuel flow you have that extra chore of reducing the throttle setting to prevent the engine from surging as fuel flow is restored.

We of course could wear out our fingers discussing our favourite methods of teaching, none of us are perfect and we alll have different ideas molded by our own personal experiences.

Me I go for the least stressful methods of performing any exercise and try and teach it in a manner that will fit more complex engines that can be damaged by sudden power loss.

Engine failures in twin engine aircraft ( one engine failing. ) will result in yaw being induced, I teach them recognize and control yaw and think at the same time.

Chuck

[Big Pistons Forever]

This has been a most interesting thread.

Chuck

At the risk of placing words in your mouth I would argue that in fact you did use a rote procedure when the throtle snaped off, because you rejected the TO primarily based on the fact that you were below V1. I would also wager that your initial instinctive action was to pull back the throttles and you used critical thinking to override that action with a better one. I think B2N2's point about the challenges faced by low time new twin rated pilots is very important. I believe the best way to train new pilots is to give them a framework of standard actions as place to start. But you are right Chuck, they must be used in conjunction with critical thinking. One point nobody has addressed yet is the point that a mixture cut simulates a instant total engine failure. However I think this is the least likely failure scenario in a light twin. A slow run down in power and/or rough running caused by internal mechanical failure or a ignition problem , or a surging engine caused by a fuel problem is IMO a more likely real world event.
Yet from what I have seen many students complete the multi rating course with out any exposure to these situations.

When I teach the muti rating I always make sure to distract the student when the aircraft is in a turn and then slowly pull the inside throttle back. I also hide the quandrant on final approach and reduce power on one engine. These exercises provide a good example of ther fact that a engine failures can be subtle and the massive yaw experienced with a high power low airspeed rapid throttle cut is not the only way engines fail.
To simulate a surging engine I cover the throttle quadrant and then rapidly move one throttle back and forth from idle to cruise. This demonstrates that with a surging engine, It may not initially be obvious which engine is acting up. Careful observation of the engine quages is vital before any actions are taken.
Finally one of my concerns with the standard multi curiculum is that the prop overspeed scenario seemes to be at best glossed over. A prop overspeed could cause a yaw away from the malfunctioning engine, so instead of reducing power and airspeed and flying away on two engines the pilot could feather the good engine and crash. This execise is very difficult to simulate in flight. The best I have come up with is to cover both RPM guages . hide the quandrant with my clipboard and reduce the RPM on one engine to the minimum allowed. I expect the student to call " suspected prop over/underspeed", point to the RPM guages and verbalize his corrective actions. Its not a great exercise but at least it does provide the tactile cues of yaw combined with the sound of the engines going massively out of sync, and will hopefully mean the student will not consider every power abnormality only within the context of a engine failure.

I believe the instructor must adequately prepare their students for the real dangers of multi engine flight, but in a way that does not put the instructor or the student deliberately in danger.

Finally I bet that virtually all those instructors who do mixture cuts at takeoff are low time themselves and have probably
little or no time as a working line pilot. I tell all my students that the yellow stripe down my back has gotten a lot bigger since I started flying 27 years ago:D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

B.P.F. :

How can I possibly disagree with your thoughts............

Did I train you? :E

Chuck

[Big Pistons Forever]

Chuck

I was never your student

[B2N2]

Saw a program on TV last night about the airplane crash that killed half of the rock band Lynnard Skinnard(?) in the '70-ties.
Convair 240, lost the left engine somewhere over Alabama,
pilots didn't get the crossfeeding quite right and the right engine quit also.....
Must admit don't know anything about the fuel system of a Convair bit I bet it's a little more conplicated than the average twin.
Chuck or Big Pistons any experience on this type of plane?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The piston Convair fuel system is I believe the same as the turbine 580 series which is very simple. Each wing is one big wet wing fuel tank which feeds its respective engine. The fuel controls are 5 switches. 2 fuel on/off, 2 fuel dump, and one fuel crossfeed on/off. I have not sen the report of the crash you mentioned but I would guess there were other factors which contributed to the crash.

[ActiveWilly]

Horror stories (from the infamous cabbage patch field of Jandakot, Western Australia)

- Applied incorrect rudder: aircraft then flick rolled upside down

- Rejected takeoff: Applied opposite brake pedal and continued! Resulted in tyre replacement, and instructor blood pressure check...

-Applied incorrect rudder during EFATO: not a repeat effort of the first, but those power lines came awful close in the recovery! (or at least thats the way they looked)

- Excursions below blue line whilst on crosswind, downwind, base...

- Negative climb peformance after takeoff during practice EFATO (had to give the student a little more "zero thrust" on "failed engine)

- Decided Vmca practice recovery was fun so turned into wingover session...

- Decided drill is actually gear and flap down whilst given an E/F on crosswind.

The biggest advice to those getting there multi training approval, but also applies to all instructing...

PUSH THE STUDENT TO THEIR LIMIT, NOT TO YOURS...

Not really a horror story, but my favourite:

Established on YPPH 03 ILS, at dusk, student asks to turn cockpit lights up (they were already giving me a healthy tan). Chief instructor observing in back asks if the student would prefer to take his sunglasses off from under the IFR hood...