Forced landings w/o power training

[nonradio]

Gliding students have no qualms from the beginning about engine-less approaches and landings, so is it the case that some power instructors are in some way passing on their own discomfort with the idea of gliding, glide approaches and off tarmac landings?

Equally, the idea is prevalent that aerodromes with lots of tarmac are the only safe places to alight and pretty much everything else underneath you between these safe havens is no man's land.

Is it me or is there a culture developing that dramatises such things so that the mindset produced is one of apprehension and not one of quiet confidence in the outcome of any FLWOP?

[CaptAirProx]

Maybe its got a lot to do with the fact that they are constantly watching their six for Belgrano Spies.

They are out there and we never know when they are going to strike.

Has any instructor be prosecuted yet for carrying out the required training that the authority set out as a requirement in the first place?

[FormationFlyer]

I certainly dont have any worrys about it - having learnt from grass strips and now teaching at both grass and tarmac - makes no difference to me regarding FLWOP...

Re: EFATO/PFL prosecutions due breaches of rule 5 - I would be interested to know as well...

Tangent: How do you all feel about the proposed rule 5 change that makes rule 5 a min height rule (as per ICAO) rather than min sep distance - personally I think it will kill the effectiveness of any PFL/EFATO training....

[fireflybob]

>Tangent: How do you all feel about the proposed rule 5 change that makes rule 5 a min height rule (as per ICAO) rather than min sep distance - personally I think it will kill the effectiveness of any PFL/EFATO training....<

Formation Flyer, I am with you on this one the 500 ft rule is perfectly ok the way it is at the moment and I am concerned that the CAA want to tinker with Rule 5 - what for?

[The Stooge]

I think that you would have to be a fu@king idiot to play around with that sort of stuff. WHY put yourself in that sort of danger. In a twin you loose an engine and you loose around 70-80% performance in a single you loose 100%. Fair enough you are conducting it over an airstrip but there is only one problem, and that is you are comitted to the landing there is no second stab. The old saying "Always leave yourself an out" :ugh:

[nonradio]

Stooge says: "only one problem....there is no second stab."
As I said before, gliding students seem to take this concept of 'one stab' in their stride, and Stooge seems to illustrate my point, if I understand him correctly?. My view is that instructors should be showing by attitude and example that FLWOP is an event that uses skills that a pilot already possesses in good measure and therefore the happy result is likely to be a successful landing, perhaps off airport. Clearly, some guidance is necessary about the sort of terrain over which one may fly and still expect a happy result (the helis are, to some extent, bound by rule 5 (1)(b) on this) but simple feelings self preservation or at least a weighing of risk should be encouraged.
Plenty of discussion and comment on techniques for FLWOPs is a good thing but I get the feeling that it is due to fear over getting it grossly wrong rather than perfecting technique that produces a scratch free aircraft, which I hasten to add, is not an excuse to accept any old result so long as you walk away. Instruction is about encouraging the highest standards and student's pride in his skill and a desire to improve in the future.
"be surprised when the engine keeps going, not the other way around..." is a cliche, but a very useful one, sadly wasted on folk who are encoraged by commission or omission to view FLWOP practice with trepidation, as a necessary evil perhaps something to get through on a skill test...