Engine Failure Drills
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Age: 47
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angels One Fife
Chuck and LDM make a perfectly valid point. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong.
Your dismissal of other peoples learnings shows you to be very narrowminded. Perhaps your tunnel vision will help you steer your aircraft with pinpoint accuracy to the crash site.
I don't know who made you the arbiter of good teaching practice, but with the comments you make about other peoples suitability to teach flying, it would appear it is you that makes an unsuitable instructor.
Either you're purposely trying to wind people up or you're not half as smart as you think you are.
Chuck - thats an impressive CV.
Chuck and LDM make a perfectly valid point. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong.
Your dismissal of other peoples learnings shows you to be very narrowminded. Perhaps your tunnel vision will help you steer your aircraft with pinpoint accuracy to the crash site.
I don't know who made you the arbiter of good teaching practice, but with the comments you make about other peoples suitability to teach flying, it would appear it is you that makes an unsuitable instructor.
Either you're purposely trying to wind people up or you're not half as smart as you think you are.
Chuck - thats an impressive CV.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingspaniard:
Thanks for the comments.
Yesterday two of my customers received their check rides from the Dutch CAA for the PBY type ratings.
I gave the dutch inspector some dual including two water landings and after the rides were over he was so delighted with the opportunity to fly the Cat and the way my customers flew it that he went out of his way to complement me on how impressed he was with the training.
Angle's could be anyone and thus free to slam anyone he/she wants to, I on the other hand post in my real name and you can bet that I can back up anything that I post.
Chuck
Thanks for the comments.
Yesterday two of my customers received their check rides from the Dutch CAA for the PBY type ratings.
I gave the dutch inspector some dual including two water landings and after the rides were over he was so delighted with the opportunity to fly the Cat and the way my customers flew it that he went out of his way to complement me on how impressed he was with the training.
Angle's could be anyone and thus free to slam anyone he/she wants to, I on the other hand post in my real name and you can bet that I can back up anything that I post.
Chuck
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
You really do seem to want to try to score points all the time and make out that I am making personal attacks on you.
The point of this topic was Engine Failure Drills and what and how to teach them. You started then by saying that you saw no point in feathering a working engine. You seem to think that to do so is flirting with a major disaster. Well it is a fact of life in JAA land that for an initial issue of MEP a full shutdown and restart has to have been taught and it a very normal way of doing this most instructors teach this as part of the asymmetric flying lesson.
You gave the impression from your post that you are a JAA approved instructor teaching MEP for initial issue which it would appear you are not. It appears you are flying differances training
Do you need a type rating for the Consolidated or Vickers model PBY. It is only a 170 knot MEP of 16 Tonne is it not so it is just a class of MEP SEA? Not really in need of "advanced" handling is it? Slighty unusual aircraft perhaps in availability but definitley not advanced. You may choose to be nursing old engines designs to save expensive costs and that is your perogative.
But the threasd was not about Catalinas it was about Engine Failure Drills teaching. And as such it is part of the normal way of doing things for initial issue that a full shutdown and restart is expected to have at least been taught and could be expected to be seen by an examiner. talking of Catalinas or specific types is perhaps misleading. After all I could have said only use rudder to keep the Beta index centred but then I would be talking about a specific type not of much use to the folks who were after the info here.
Teach me how do you determine the exact power setting for "zero thrust" for the airframe you are flying without ever shutting the engine down?
I have no problem at all if some people don't want to shut down an engine. If they are not confident to do it then perhaps they should refrain from it and get someone else to teach that exercise. But it should still be done for an initail MEP. Some people don't like spinning as can be read elsewhere on these forums. All pilots need to know the limits of the aircraft and their limits and stick within their own abilities.
You will never see me flying an aircraft on firebomer missions let alone one that was not originally designed for it but other people do.
"Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots" So from that I take it you do a different drill every time. Hmm Standarised training gives Pavlov's odgs you say. Pehaps you should now be teaching the R.A.F. a thing or too
Flyingspaniard
LD Max and Chuck are two different beasts. LD Max was expressing fuzzy logic about avoiding the flames of a fire.
Chuck on the other hand was saying that he felt there is no point is shutting down the engine when it can be simulated by zero thrust settings but unless you demonstrate how that value is worked out all you are doing is telling the student to believe something blindly. He gave the opinion that it was as bad as flying above Vne which it is not. Many aircraft have a poor intolerance of even slight excursions above Vne and indeed as little as only 5 to 10 knots above can and has led to full structural failure. Nearly all MEP's are able to fly on one engine quite happily just with limited performance.
I make no claim to be the arbiter but it does not mean that I will not express my opinion.
You really do seem to want to try to score points all the time and make out that I am making personal attacks on you.
The point of this topic was Engine Failure Drills and what and how to teach them. You started then by saying that you saw no point in feathering a working engine. You seem to think that to do so is flirting with a major disaster. Well it is a fact of life in JAA land that for an initial issue of MEP a full shutdown and restart has to have been taught and it a very normal way of doing this most instructors teach this as part of the asymmetric flying lesson.
You gave the impression from your post that you are a JAA approved instructor teaching MEP for initial issue which it would appear you are not. It appears you are flying differances training
Do you need a type rating for the Consolidated or Vickers model PBY. It is only a 170 knot MEP of 16 Tonne is it not so it is just a class of MEP SEA? Not really in need of "advanced" handling is it? Slighty unusual aircraft perhaps in availability but definitley not advanced. You may choose to be nursing old engines designs to save expensive costs and that is your perogative.
But the threasd was not about Catalinas it was about Engine Failure Drills teaching. And as such it is part of the normal way of doing things for initial issue that a full shutdown and restart is expected to have at least been taught and could be expected to be seen by an examiner. talking of Catalinas or specific types is perhaps misleading. After all I could have said only use rudder to keep the Beta index centred but then I would be talking about a specific type not of much use to the folks who were after the info here.
Teach me how do you determine the exact power setting for "zero thrust" for the airframe you are flying without ever shutting the engine down?
I have no problem at all if some people don't want to shut down an engine. If they are not confident to do it then perhaps they should refrain from it and get someone else to teach that exercise. But it should still be done for an initail MEP. Some people don't like spinning as can be read elsewhere on these forums. All pilots need to know the limits of the aircraft and their limits and stick within their own abilities.
You will never see me flying an aircraft on firebomer missions let alone one that was not originally designed for it but other people do.
"Pavlov's dogs give standardised training, some of us have figured out that flying by rigid numbers and rote learned proceedures make for medicore pilots" So from that I take it you do a different drill every time. Hmm Standarised training gives Pavlov's odgs you say. Pehaps you should now be teaching the R.A.F. a thing or too
Flyingspaniard
LD Max and Chuck are two different beasts. LD Max was expressing fuzzy logic about avoiding the flames of a fire.
Chuck on the other hand was saying that he felt there is no point is shutting down the engine when it can be simulated by zero thrust settings but unless you demonstrate how that value is worked out all you are doing is telling the student to believe something blindly. He gave the opinion that it was as bad as flying above Vne which it is not. Many aircraft have a poor intolerance of even slight excursions above Vne and indeed as little as only 5 to 10 knots above can and has led to full structural failure. Nearly all MEP's are able to fly on one engine quite happily just with limited performance.
I make no claim to be the arbiter but it does not mean that I will not express my opinion.
Last edited by Angelīs One Fife; 20th Sep 2004 at 20:36.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Angel
You seem to express your views in an aggressive and bullying way, is this how you teach ?
I acknowledge your opinions and experience and indeed everything you say may be right but I am glad that I am not a student of yours or a fellow crew member.
You can now tell me how wrong I am.
.
Angel
You seem to express your views in an aggressive and bullying way, is this how you teach ?
I acknowledge your opinions and experience and indeed everything you say may be right but I am glad that I am not a student of yours or a fellow crew member.
You can now tell me how wrong I am.
.
Myself and a fellow instructor got into a discussion about determining the zero thrust power setting as we both felt that school SOP ( 13 in of MP in a Seneca 1 if I remember correctly ) was too high. So we went flying and established the recommended two engine out glide speed and recorded sink rate vs power setting. When the results were plotted we found a kink in the curve where sink rate noticably decreased with additional power just above 11 in of MP. Therefore we adopted 11 in as the zero thrust setting. Anybody got any other ideas on how to determine this value ?
I am firmly in Chucks camp on the question of actual feathering.
I have had to make 3 actual single engine landings in light twin engineaircraft. 2 were the result of mechanical failures the third was when a engine feathered during a multi engine training flight would not restart. I feel the requirement for a actual in flight shut down needless created a unsafe condition in this instance. I now do all the engine feather shut down drills on the ground with airplane parked. This includes moving all levers and switches ( except for the landing gear ! ) as per the checklist. I have found this is equally effective at teaching a student how to feather an engine,
In flight I block the prop lever above the feather detent with my hand. The student still retards the prop lever to the stop ( my hand ) and then I set zero thrust. As for the argument that students have to see an actual feathered prop inorder to be safe
then using that logic I should set fire to the carpet so they can do the cockpit fire drills, crash on landing so that we can do aircraft evacuation drills , have an actual heart attack to properly teach cockpit incapacitation etc etc
What is so special about seeing a stopped prop
I am firmly in Chucks camp on the question of actual feathering.
I have had to make 3 actual single engine landings in light twin engineaircraft. 2 were the result of mechanical failures the third was when a engine feathered during a multi engine training flight would not restart. I feel the requirement for a actual in flight shut down needless created a unsafe condition in this instance. I now do all the engine feather shut down drills on the ground with airplane parked. This includes moving all levers and switches ( except for the landing gear ! ) as per the checklist. I have found this is equally effective at teaching a student how to feather an engine,
In flight I block the prop lever above the feather detent with my hand. The student still retards the prop lever to the stop ( my hand ) and then I set zero thrust. As for the argument that students have to see an actual feathered prop inorder to be safe
then using that logic I should set fire to the carpet so they can do the cockpit fire drills, crash on landing so that we can do aircraft evacuation drills , have an actual heart attack to properly teach cockpit incapacitation etc etc
What is so special about seeing a stopped prop
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Big Pistons.
You saved me a lot of typing to explain to Angles how I demonstrate what flying with one engine feels like, and we both have figured out the safety signifigance of having the "failed" engine avaliable for use should you suddenly need it.
Angel's :
You in my opinion exibit most of the arrogant know it all attributes that I abhore in some pilots, and when present in the form of a professed " instructor pilot" I pity your students.
With regard to the type rating issue, that is what the Dutch CAA inspector issued to my two customers on Sunday so go and argue with him about your thoughts on it.
As to the issue of my use of the word "advanced" in my flight training program let me put it this way Angel's, when they have reached the stage that they can handle the aircraft in the manner I teach them, they have advanced.
If the PBY is not to your standards of what you feel is a difficult airplane to fly please explain why you feel that it is not.
Maybe you would be more comfortable discussing the Airbus and the complexities of the three laws of flight and the various computer relater methods of handling failures of systems?
Hell, I'll debate you on that also, and it might be right up your alley as flying the Bus is just like a video game.
Once again Angles I have been flying multi engine aircraft for over forty years and please don't be so condesending with your posts, I just may have forgotten more types of airplanes that I have flown than you actually have flown.
Chuck E.
You saved me a lot of typing to explain to Angles how I demonstrate what flying with one engine feels like, and we both have figured out the safety signifigance of having the "failed" engine avaliable for use should you suddenly need it.
Angel's :
You in my opinion exibit most of the arrogant know it all attributes that I abhore in some pilots, and when present in the form of a professed " instructor pilot" I pity your students.
With regard to the type rating issue, that is what the Dutch CAA inspector issued to my two customers on Sunday so go and argue with him about your thoughts on it.
As to the issue of my use of the word "advanced" in my flight training program let me put it this way Angel's, when they have reached the stage that they can handle the aircraft in the manner I teach them, they have advanced.
If the PBY is not to your standards of what you feel is a difficult airplane to fly please explain why you feel that it is not.
Maybe you would be more comfortable discussing the Airbus and the complexities of the three laws of flight and the various computer relater methods of handling failures of systems?
Hell, I'll debate you on that also, and it might be right up your alley as flying the Bus is just like a video game.
Once again Angles I have been flying multi engine aircraft for over forty years and please don't be so condesending with your posts, I just may have forgotten more types of airplanes that I have flown than you actually have flown.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Flung Dung:
Thanks for the info. Fortunately I DON'T teach ME. I'm a SE PPL instructor, but do hold an ME class rating. I must admit to being a but rusty on ME theory so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always understood that if the ball was in the centre, then it indicated the aircraft was flying in balance (multi or single engine). If the ball was out to one side or another, this would indicate a sideslip.
When Assymetric, Banking the aircraft to the good engine and relaxing rudder is purely to minimise drag, and although this WOULD put the aircraft into a sideslip, (ball half way caged), it is the best compromise from a drag point of view.
When a ME engine aircraft in assymetric configuration is turned, the angle of bank is (generally) limited to about 15 degrees towards the failed engine and this is nothing to do with fire. The base to final turn is probably the most critical since this is when there is the greatest risk of the speed bleeding off (if mishandled) and approaching VMC - and you really don't want to be banked towards the failed engine when the rudder runs out of authority. While I agree that turns are not directly related to sideslip, I have never been able to avoid it one way or another when assymetric. (...and I would happily admit this is probably due to shortcomings in my own handling technique).
Now I hear what you say about the outboard tanks. Good point and I hadn't considered it. My training has always concentrated on keeping the fire away from the cockpit.
Regards,
Thanks for the info. Fortunately I DON'T teach ME. I'm a SE PPL instructor, but do hold an ME class rating. I must admit to being a but rusty on ME theory so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always understood that if the ball was in the centre, then it indicated the aircraft was flying in balance (multi or single engine). If the ball was out to one side or another, this would indicate a sideslip.
When Assymetric, Banking the aircraft to the good engine and relaxing rudder is purely to minimise drag, and although this WOULD put the aircraft into a sideslip, (ball half way caged), it is the best compromise from a drag point of view.
When a ME engine aircraft in assymetric configuration is turned, the angle of bank is (generally) limited to about 15 degrees towards the failed engine and this is nothing to do with fire. The base to final turn is probably the most critical since this is when there is the greatest risk of the speed bleeding off (if mishandled) and approaching VMC - and you really don't want to be banked towards the failed engine when the rudder runs out of authority. While I agree that turns are not directly related to sideslip, I have never been able to avoid it one way or another when assymetric. (...and I would happily admit this is probably due to shortcomings in my own handling technique).
Now I hear what you say about the outboard tanks. Good point and I hadn't considered it. My training has always concentrated on keeping the fire away from the cockpit.
Regards,
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jerez
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
You sem to feel that you are allowed to be as high handed and domineering in opion on this thread as you wish to be but when someone tries to give you a taste of your own medicine you take major exception and go off in a huff like a child.
If someone dares to be against your opinion you promptly change the subject with a one line quip to try to scare them with your knowledge e.g. your line about the S 61 is a classic example; or the computer laws of Airbus which you then have to show your no doubt Boeing preferance by calling it a video game.
It is funny that when you get the same treament back at you you react so maligned.
On your posts here you have been derogatory and derisive of the following;
the CAA; Since you opinided that they advocated a mandatory shutdown and because an aircraft couldn't restart then this was major folly. I do not kow of the icident you talk of but the failure to restart cold have been from many reasons. I know of one collegue you failed to restart because he forgot the aircrat did not have un-feathering accumulators and forgot he could restart by cranking the starter.
The R.A.F because you think standardised training is for Pavlov's dogs. It seems to work rather well for them. It woild be a much better place if all pilots learned from a standard training method by standardised instructors and then perhaps the training lottery would be a distant memory.
Just because anyone has flown for a long time does not necessarily make you then an expert. It just means that they may have been lucky. Many a Poor fellow has died from the outcome of their first real experience of an event even if they have been around since Pontius was a pilot so your use of a vast number of years or hours is another way you try to shut the discussion down.
You see I have only given back you what you have done to others and it is very apparant to me by the way you reacted that when it comes back at you you find to be rather annoying to say the least
You will note that you made no reply to askmelater but only to the person who treated you as you had treated others
I am sure you have many great stories to tell and no doubt many are funny and enlightening. I am sure I would enjoy an evening in your company.
I was not argueing with you regarding the type rating I was asking you a question. The Netherlands is a JAA EASA country but I cannot find the mention of a specific type rating required for the PBY either Vickers or consolidated so I was asking you. The question was since it is a MEP sea and only 16 tonnes does it require an actual type rating. Is it not just differances training? It is not being facetious or to belittle it is a question.
But you have failed to answer any question specifically but only in your dismissive way.
As for my line to LDMAX about he should not be teaching in a MEP it stems from a line of his on another thread that he had only just qualified as a SE FI(R) and should not be teaching MEP at the moment. He also came out with some fuzzy logic.
Chuck; if you really want to just bicker and throw up new far fetched questions all day long at me go ahead by why not use PM instead of this thread now being well and truly away from the original and most relevant thead for those engaged at the present time of learning and teaching engine failure drills in puddle jumpers.
The binders I have for the Airbus type are over two foot long on the shelf so it could be a rather, rather, rather long post.
You sem to feel that you are allowed to be as high handed and domineering in opion on this thread as you wish to be but when someone tries to give you a taste of your own medicine you take major exception and go off in a huff like a child.
If someone dares to be against your opinion you promptly change the subject with a one line quip to try to scare them with your knowledge e.g. your line about the S 61 is a classic example; or the computer laws of Airbus which you then have to show your no doubt Boeing preferance by calling it a video game.
It is funny that when you get the same treament back at you you react so maligned.
On your posts here you have been derogatory and derisive of the following;
the CAA; Since you opinided that they advocated a mandatory shutdown and because an aircraft couldn't restart then this was major folly. I do not kow of the icident you talk of but the failure to restart cold have been from many reasons. I know of one collegue you failed to restart because he forgot the aircrat did not have un-feathering accumulators and forgot he could restart by cranking the starter.
The R.A.F because you think standardised training is for Pavlov's dogs. It seems to work rather well for them. It woild be a much better place if all pilots learned from a standard training method by standardised instructors and then perhaps the training lottery would be a distant memory.
Just because anyone has flown for a long time does not necessarily make you then an expert. It just means that they may have been lucky. Many a Poor fellow has died from the outcome of their first real experience of an event even if they have been around since Pontius was a pilot so your use of a vast number of years or hours is another way you try to shut the discussion down.
You see I have only given back you what you have done to others and it is very apparant to me by the way you reacted that when it comes back at you you find to be rather annoying to say the least
You will note that you made no reply to askmelater but only to the person who treated you as you had treated others
I am sure you have many great stories to tell and no doubt many are funny and enlightening. I am sure I would enjoy an evening in your company.
I was not argueing with you regarding the type rating I was asking you a question. The Netherlands is a JAA EASA country but I cannot find the mention of a specific type rating required for the PBY either Vickers or consolidated so I was asking you. The question was since it is a MEP sea and only 16 tonnes does it require an actual type rating. Is it not just differances training? It is not being facetious or to belittle it is a question.
But you have failed to answer any question specifically but only in your dismissive way.
As for my line to LDMAX about he should not be teaching in a MEP it stems from a line of his on another thread that he had only just qualified as a SE FI(R) and should not be teaching MEP at the moment. He also came out with some fuzzy logic.
Chuck; if you really want to just bicker and throw up new far fetched questions all day long at me go ahead by why not use PM instead of this thread now being well and truly away from the original and most relevant thead for those engaged at the present time of learning and teaching engine failure drills in puddle jumpers.
The binders I have for the Airbus type are over two foot long on the shelf so it could be a rather, rather, rather long post.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angel's :
I concur, you and I are not getting anywhere.
As to the type rating on a PBY, to the best of my knowledge to fly one on most of the planet you need a type rating...in any case I make a fair amount of money training pilots for the type rating.
With regard to the Airbus versus the PBY, there is no comparison between the two, the PBY requires hands on flying skills and operates in two different enviorments land and water. The Airbus is a different machine alltogether sort of like flying your home computer.
One of my most frustrating problems with jet pilots , especially Airbus drivers is they have forgotten that an aircraft has a rudder.
And with regard to flying by set numbers, it doesen't work worth a damn in the PBY especially trying to fly the blue line.
Chuck
I concur, you and I are not getting anywhere.
As to the type rating on a PBY, to the best of my knowledge to fly one on most of the planet you need a type rating...in any case I make a fair amount of money training pilots for the type rating.
With regard to the Airbus versus the PBY, there is no comparison between the two, the PBY requires hands on flying skills and operates in two different enviorments land and water. The Airbus is a different machine alltogether sort of like flying your home computer.
One of my most frustrating problems with jet pilots , especially Airbus drivers is they have forgotten that an aircraft has a rudder.
And with regard to flying by set numbers, it doesen't work worth a damn in the PBY especially trying to fly the blue line.
Chuck
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One of my most frustrating problems with jet pilots , especially Airbus drivers is they have forgotten that an aircraft has a rudder.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, Angels One Fife...
I really don't know what your beef is. This thread was started by someone wanting to know how to conduct an engine failure drill. Myself and others have done our best to answer that.
While I don't mind criticism - and am quite happy to admit when I'm wrong - there are many ways to do it and frankly I find your attitude insulting. There really is no need for it.
I don't teach MEP. Never have. I do teach SEP and the drills for engine failures in the JAA syllabus are as I have described. Like 'em or not.
Now exploring the reasoning behind those drills is another matter, and if my logic is fuzzy then I will happily do more study on the subject. But please don't get high handed. We're all trying to share information here.
My understanding of MEP procedures is based only on the fact that I hold a JAA ME and FAA ME Commercial licence.
I really don't know what your beef is. This thread was started by someone wanting to know how to conduct an engine failure drill. Myself and others have done our best to answer that.
While I don't mind criticism - and am quite happy to admit when I'm wrong - there are many ways to do it and frankly I find your attitude insulting. There really is no need for it.
I don't teach MEP. Never have. I do teach SEP and the drills for engine failures in the JAA syllabus are as I have described. Like 'em or not.
Now exploring the reasoning behind those drills is another matter, and if my logic is fuzzy then I will happily do more study on the subject. But please don't get high handed. We're all trying to share information here.
My understanding of MEP procedures is based only on the fact that I hold a JAA ME and FAA ME Commercial licence.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD Max:
Cheer up mate, Angle's only thinks you shouldn't teach multi engine flying, he not only said the same about me but went on to add that I shouldn't even fly multi engine airplanes.
So you are way ahead of me if we were to pay any attention to his opinion. Just go back and read the style he uses to cut people down by making unwarranted judgements regarding these subjects. For instance note how he decided that I have an Airbus bias and am in favour of Boeing........what a leap of logic for anyone to come to......
For comparison read the posts on Pprune that Big Pistons Forever makes, then compare Angle's style and choose who you would prefeer to fly with.
Gertrude:
Hows things going? Are you going to visit Vancouver Island again soon? If you do give me a call.
Chuck E.
Cheer up mate, Angle's only thinks you shouldn't teach multi engine flying, he not only said the same about me but went on to add that I shouldn't even fly multi engine airplanes.
So you are way ahead of me if we were to pay any attention to his opinion. Just go back and read the style he uses to cut people down by making unwarranted judgements regarding these subjects. For instance note how he decided that I have an Airbus bias and am in favour of Boeing........what a leap of logic for anyone to come to......
For comparison read the posts on Pprune that Big Pistons Forever makes, then compare Angle's style and choose who you would prefeer to fly with.
Gertrude:
Hows things going? Are you going to visit Vancouver Island again soon? If you do give me a call.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose I should consider myself honoured then!
By the way, I consulted my "guru" today, and was told in no uncertain terms that turning away from the fire was, (pretty much), a useless exercise, but if it makes you feel better about it..... why not.
Sideslip away..... arguable, providing the other priorities (such as descent planning) don't suffer.
But in a ME, turns towards the good engine is a performance issue, but again in most modern light twins, it hardly matters also.
So I stand corrected.
By the way, I consulted my "guru" today, and was told in no uncertain terms that turning away from the fire was, (pretty much), a useless exercise, but if it makes you feel better about it..... why not.
Sideslip away..... arguable, providing the other priorities (such as descent planning) don't suffer.
But in a ME, turns towards the good engine is a performance issue, but again in most modern light twins, it hardly matters also.
So I stand corrected.
LD MAX When asymmetric with wings level and ball centred there is a balance between the asymmetric yawing moments from the live engine and the rudder side force; if you draw a picture you'll see that the resultant force (and therefore direction of flight) is not in line with the fuselage - hence sideslip with ball centred. A small amount of bank towards the live can give a sideslip to oppose the thrust-rudder resultant which can then achieve zero nett sideslip; in other words, minimum drag. I suspect (hope) your ME instructor covered this in the long brief for ME theory.
On your other point; turns in either direction are not an issue when asymmetric , this would have been demonstrated in asymm2. Min control speed is always an issue, regardless of whether straight or turning.
HFD
On your other point; turns in either direction are not an issue when asymmetric , this would have been demonstrated in asymm2. Min control speed is always an issue, regardless of whether straight or turning.
HFD
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh
Thanks for the refresher. I've looked it all up too, so no arguments.
I'm sure this was all covered when I did my ME CR, but it was a while ago. I'm afraid I don't fly them regularly enough to remember all the theory. That's the good thing about procedures!
I really must get back into it though.
Regards,
Andy
Thanks for the refresher. I've looked it all up too, so no arguments.
I'm sure this was all covered when I did my ME CR, but it was a while ago. I'm afraid I don't fly them regularly enough to remember all the theory. That's the good thing about procedures!
I really must get back into it though.
Regards,
Andy
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jerez
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD MAX + Chuck Ellsworth
This is my final word on this. You are both correct in that I did, have expressed myself in a rather high handed, rude manner towards you and for that I am truly sorry.
It is good to read that LD has now realised that his logic was wrong and has learned something or perhaps reaquianted himself with the knowledge he once had about ME procedures.
Why I have been so rude to both of you; well it beats me. Not my normal way but sometimes the amount of drivle that is banded about on here as "the real way" to do things just annoys me intensely. There is far too much crap and down right wrong instruction given out at times that it just made me have to get some words done on here and as that is something I usually refrain from doing then I went for the wrong tone and from that I dug a hole of blatant rudeness towards the two of you. As I say I usually never bother to post on this site so perhaps I should have just typed the long explanation of the theory and left it at that. But I didn't and the rest is history.
I am sorry.
This is my final word on this. You are both correct in that I did, have expressed myself in a rather high handed, rude manner towards you and for that I am truly sorry.
It is good to read that LD has now realised that his logic was wrong and has learned something or perhaps reaquianted himself with the knowledge he once had about ME procedures.
Why I have been so rude to both of you; well it beats me. Not my normal way but sometimes the amount of drivle that is banded about on here as "the real way" to do things just annoys me intensely. There is far too much crap and down right wrong instruction given out at times that it just made me have to get some words done on here and as that is something I usually refrain from doing then I went for the wrong tone and from that I dug a hole of blatant rudeness towards the two of you. As I say I usually never bother to post on this site so perhaps I should have just typed the long explanation of the theory and left it at that. But I didn't and the rest is history.
I am sorry.
