Spins and Engine Failures Solo Practice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jamestkirk,
In my view, that is the implication when one says students should not practice stalls and PFL's on their own. I suppose most would agree that a pilot needs to occasionally practice such things in order to maintain their skills, right?
If a student is first told that "these things are too dangerous for you to do on your own", and then, one skill test later, they are expected to do it on their own, then you do get that contrast between pre-skill test and post-skill test flying. ...
Jumbo744,
Now are they really? Performing stall recoveries mechanically, by the book, is easy... Performing the recovery when you know you are going to perform the recovery is also easy. But I think (very!) slow flight, a couple knots above stall, and how the aircraft feels, sounds and behaves at those speeds, is something one needs to remind oneself of periodically, don't you think? And to really feel where the limit is, one has to progress to the point of the stall, IMV. Also, performing the recovery well, with minimum height loss and maximum control, is less easy than performing it at all...
I don't agree that PFL's are so easy that they don't need practiced either. Judging how far you can glide, judging the wind accurately, and dealing with complications such as spotting a powerline from 1,500 ft and suddenly have to change one's plans or flying into a strong thermal when turning base, is something one needs to be exposed to often to stay really sharp, IMV.
Furthermore, my opinion is that judging one's own performance is something every pilot should be able to do!
Who said that and in what context.
If a student is first told that "these things are too dangerous for you to do on your own", and then, one skill test later, they are expected to do it on their own, then you do get that contrast between pre-skill test and post-skill test flying. ...
Jumbo744,
Aren't those manoeuvers extremely easy to do ? It really is nothing extraordinary. But as someone said on this thread, I don't see the point of doing them solo. I want to do them, and I want an instructor next to me to judge my performance.
I don't agree that PFL's are so easy that they don't need practiced either. Judging how far you can glide, judging the wind accurately, and dealing with complications such as spotting a powerline from 1,500 ft and suddenly have to change one's plans or flying into a strong thermal when turning base, is something one needs to be exposed to often to stay really sharp, IMV.
Furthermore, my opinion is that judging one's own performance is something every pilot should be able to do!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I think (very!) slow flight, a couple knots above stall, and how the aircraft feels, sounds and behaves at those speeds, is something one needs to remind oneself of periodically, don't you think?
Also, performing the recovery well, with minimum height loss and maximum control, is less easy than performing it at all...
I don't agree that PFL's are so easy that they don't need practiced either.
I can definitely judge my performance, but I think an instructor will always be a better judge. It's not a question of being scared or not confident. It's a question of being sure that I do things right, and that I don't catch bad habits while training solo.
That's each and everyone's personnal choice to decide to practice those manoeuvers solo or with an instructor.
Last edited by Jumbo744; 24th Aug 2009 at 23:18.
My 0.2 cents (for PPL students)
Solo Stalls: absolutely after demonstrated competance during dual flights and properly briefed
Solo Spins: Not under any circumstances
Solo PFL. No, but I encourage PPL's who are nearing the end of the course to do power off glide landings when traffic/wx conditions permit. The root cause of poor PFL's is almost always a lack of abilty to judge the aircrafts actual flight path against the desired flight path.
Speaking of PFL's, a pet peeve of mine is the way the flight training organizations present the exercise. Since 80 % of power loss incidents are a result of pilot actons/inactions, if Joe PPL actually has to do a real forced landing he/she has probably allready made more than one really stupid decsion/ommision and the forced landing is the last chance to save their sorry ass. It is far better to avoid the requirement to do a forced landing, by not having the engine stop in the first place
When briefing this manoever I spend a lot of tine talking about the causes of engine failures and of the role of Pilot to help prevent/mitigate power loss incidents. This is one area I think schools generally do not do a very good job and treat the ability to do a good PFL as an end in itself, instead of emphasizing what it really is: a last chance manoever to save your life.
Solo Stalls: absolutely after demonstrated competance during dual flights and properly briefed
Solo Spins: Not under any circumstances
Solo PFL. No, but I encourage PPL's who are nearing the end of the course to do power off glide landings when traffic/wx conditions permit. The root cause of poor PFL's is almost always a lack of abilty to judge the aircrafts actual flight path against the desired flight path.
Speaking of PFL's, a pet peeve of mine is the way the flight training organizations present the exercise. Since 80 % of power loss incidents are a result of pilot actons/inactions, if Joe PPL actually has to do a real forced landing he/she has probably allready made more than one really stupid decsion/ommision and the forced landing is the last chance to save their sorry ass. It is far better to avoid the requirement to do a forced landing, by not having the engine stop in the first place
When briefing this manoever I spend a lot of tine talking about the causes of engine failures and of the role of Pilot to help prevent/mitigate power loss incidents. This is one area I think schools generally do not do a very good job and treat the ability to do a good PFL as an end in itself, instead of emphasizing what it really is: a last chance manoever to save your life.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bjorn
What we need to avoid is the widespread and very dangerous notion that you do things one way during training and a completely different way as soon as you get the PPL.
And again. The student has not got the experience or skill to judge his/her own performance. Even though I DO think its a great achievment to gain a PPL, 40 ish hours is not alot.
In my view, that is the implication when one says students should not practice stalls and PFL's on their own. I suppose most would agree that a pilot needs to occasionally practice such things in order to maintain their skills, right?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jamestkirk,
I am a little surprised that you can not follow what I am saying. You keep telling me I am not addressing points I do not address; well, so far we at least agree. Let me try to express what I'm saying more clearly then:
- If you are not allowed to do an exercise prior to achieving your PPL, but are expected to do that exercise after your skill test, then there is a difference between how you are supposed to fly before and after the skill test.
- If you are not taught how to perform the exercise safely on your own, then there is a good chance you will not be able to perform it safely on your own. Some people are still so freaked out by stalls, a perfectly safe and ordinary maneuver, that they hardly dare to do them at all without an instructor. Others will think "wow, now I have a PPL, now I get to do everything!" and go out to practice intentionally aggravated stalls with 50 hours experience and little knowledge of the factors involved.
- Students should probably not generally be practicing stalls solo with 25 hours. They should, IMV, do so with 40 hours.
- A 40 hour student will have sufficient experience to judge their own performance sufficiently well. Not as well as their instructor, but they won't be able to do that with 50 hours and a PPL either. It is imperative, IMV, that a fresh PPL is able and encouraged to practice and improve on their own, particularly in that all-important time frame of 50 hours past their skill test. Part of their PPL training should be to prepare them for that self-training, IMV. Telling them "you can't do this on your own since you're not an instructor" is unhelpful, IMHO.
I am a little surprised that you can not follow what I am saying. You keep telling me I am not addressing points I do not address; well, so far we at least agree. Let me try to express what I'm saying more clearly then:
- If you are not allowed to do an exercise prior to achieving your PPL, but are expected to do that exercise after your skill test, then there is a difference between how you are supposed to fly before and after the skill test.
- If you are not taught how to perform the exercise safely on your own, then there is a good chance you will not be able to perform it safely on your own. Some people are still so freaked out by stalls, a perfectly safe and ordinary maneuver, that they hardly dare to do them at all without an instructor. Others will think "wow, now I have a PPL, now I get to do everything!" and go out to practice intentionally aggravated stalls with 50 hours experience and little knowledge of the factors involved.
- Students should probably not generally be practicing stalls solo with 25 hours. They should, IMV, do so with 40 hours.
- A 40 hour student will have sufficient experience to judge their own performance sufficiently well. Not as well as their instructor, but they won't be able to do that with 50 hours and a PPL either. It is imperative, IMV, that a fresh PPL is able and encouraged to practice and improve on their own, particularly in that all-important time frame of 50 hours past their skill test. Part of their PPL training should be to prepare them for that self-training, IMV. Telling them "you can't do this on your own since you're not an instructor" is unhelpful, IMHO.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalls - maybe. But only clean stalls.
During the certification process of aircraft (the Western world, anyway) there is a tolerance in terms of handling parameters that must not be exceeded. Among other things the stall in the landing configuration must be benign. If you are happy to fly an aircraft that has an obvious landing flap stall defect such as severe wing drop or tendency to spin - and thus by definition, un-airworthy, then that is your choice and ultimate responsibility. Just remember litigation is on the cards if something goes wrong. It is also unfair on the student to risk his neck to satisfy your ego.
If, on the other hand, the aircraft you are flying exhibits normal benign stall characteristics with or without landing flaps extended (in other words airworthy), then not allowing your student to conduct solo stall recovery practice with landing flaps down, would suggest you lack the confidence in your student to undertake the manoeuvre. That being so, the student should not be allowed to fly any solo - period. A change of instructor may be advisable?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tower
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember during my student days, performing/practicing power-on stalls are not allowed when I'm solo, only power-off stalls are allowed. A strict requirement from school but gave the school a good safety record.
In an Engine failure simulation, while looking for a good field for emergency landing, you also attempt to restart the engine, (could be carb ice, could be fuel tank empty on the other side, could be some huge particles stuck in your carb and a thousand other possible reason that's beyond a PIC's control).
Since 80 % of power loss incidents are a result of pilot actons/inactions, if Joe PPL actually has to do a real forced landing he/she has probably allready made more than one really stupid decsion/ommision and the forced landing is the last chance to save their sorry ass. It is far better to avoid the requirement to do a forced landing, by not having the engine stop in the first place.
main problem with a student doing it would be forgetting to warm the engine, or advancing the throttle too violently on the go around causing a real engine failure
Students should probably not generally be practicing stalls solo with 25 hours. They should, IMV, do so with 40 hours
A glance at my first log book shows first solo at 8 hours but not before my instructor had placed a stamp in the log book certifying I had been instructed in, and found competent to recover from all spins and stalls.
Another stamp said I had read and understood Air Board and RAAF Sation Flight Orders relating to the flying and operational limitations of the DH-82 aircraft and Gypsy Major engine, and that I was conversant with action in event of fire - procedure of abandoning the aircraft (we wore parachutes) -fuel oil and ignition systems and starting and stopping of the engine, including airscrew swinging.
We had no radio and no flaps and no brakes in the Tiger Moth. Interestingly, most students went solo in under 10 hours. Perhaps that reflected instructor experience and sound judgement of when a student was safe for first solo. Often we had six aeroplanes in the circuit with no radio. We relied on light signals from ATC.
Then after two more periods of solo circuits a further dual check saw me sent solo to practice stalling and spinning. Total logged hours before being authorised for solo stalls and spins in the Tiger Moth was 12 hours.
And the above quoted Ppruner suggests at least 25 to 40 hours before solo stalls presumably in a Jabiru or Cherokee Warrior or similar designed light plane with benign stalling characteristics. A slight overkill maybe?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand most of these comments. Is it different for power as opposed to gliding? When I went solo in a glider, one had to demonstrate profiency at spin recovery. Shortly after solo I was keen to practice stalls and spins by myself and continued to do so every several flights. 1980s, in Australia.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tower
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On power on stalls, you're simulating stalls encountered on takeoff. on power-off stalls you're simulating stalls which are encountered on landing (with throttles on idle).
There's a probability that your power-on stall will develop into a spin if handled incorrectly, and those spins are not easy to get out of.
Power-off stalls are easier and safer to simulate for students.
There's a probability that your power-on stall will develop into a spin if handled incorrectly, and those spins are not easy to get out of.
Power-off stalls are easier and safer to simulate for students.
C-N
Reference your earlier post (#49) where you mentioned attemping to restart the engine. I of course teach this but I cannot aggree with your point that the engine failure could be "a thousand things beyond a pilots control". In fact the accident statistics show approximetely 80 % of loss of power accidents are caused by the pilots actions or inactions. If your average pilot finds him/herself without power than they are either in the 20 % unlucky minority and have the engine just up and fail with no warning, or much more likely represent the 80% majority by being ignorant, lazy, or careless. I teach the ground portion of the Forced approach exercisse in 3 phases.
Phase 1: Pre engine failure. This is a comprehensive review of common causes of engine failures and concentrates on fuel management to avoid engine failures due to lack of/mismanaged fuel and engine guage monitoring to catch the early onset of carb ice or early signs of engine mechanical/electrical failure. The intent is to give the student the knowledge and skills to recognize an impending engine failure early enough to divert and/or conduct a precautionary approach before the engine fails.
Phase 2: Immediately after the engine has failed. After a trimmed glide, carb heat full on,fuel boost pump on and the aircraft is pointed at a suitable landing area, then check for engine fire. Assuming no fire, the main objective of phase 2 is to get the engine going again. How much time is devoted to this depends on the altitude the airplane is at. Low to the ground this is a 15 second FMS check (fuel on/fullest tank,mixture full rich,both mags on). If the aircraft is high enough that there is some time after the forced approach plan is determined and the aircraft is well positioned for the field than a more complete troubleshooting plan is started as fols
1)scan all engine fuel guages and see if there is anything obviously wrong
2) Select all other available fuel tanks.
3) apply full throttle and then slowly reduced the throttle to half as the engine may run at only one throttle setting. If this does not work return to full throttle and slowly lean the mixture. If this does not repeat at 3 quarters and half throttle.
4) Try pumping fuel to the engine with the manual primer.
5) try selecting one mag at a time.
Obviously how much of this you get done depends on how much time you have but if the engine fails at 5000 ft then you would glide for at least 8 min so you should be able to do most or all of the list.
Phase 2 ends in one of two ways.
1) You get the engine going again and now must decide if you must still land ASAP (eg a sick engine, or very low fuel) or the issue that caused the engine
failure has been resolved ( eg running a fuel tank dry with lots in the other tanks)
2) You cannot get the engine started again in which case we move to phase 3
Phase 3: Engine failure with no restart. At this stage we completely forget about starting the engine and concentrate solely on flying the airplane to a survivable forced landing. It starts with the engine shut down actions and copmprises the traditional forced approach procedure instruction.
BTW: When I was a full time instructor, the school I worked for required every renter pilot to do an annual proficency check. I always included a practice forced approach and in 3 yrs not one PPL I flew with was able to fly a satisfactory forced approach on the first attempt and many were so bad they probably would not be survivable. Off hand I can recall 3 forced approaches by aircraft based at my home field. One was caused by uncorrected carb ice, one by running a tank dry (with fuel available in the other tank) and the the third was completely running out of gas about 15 miles short of the airport. No fatalites, thank got but some serious injuries and all three planes were destroyed. It seems to me that in general during training not enough emphasis is placed on engine failure prevention and there exists a fallacy that as long as Bloggins can fly an OK PFL in training than they are good to go.
Reference your earlier post (#49) where you mentioned attemping to restart the engine. I of course teach this but I cannot aggree with your point that the engine failure could be "a thousand things beyond a pilots control". In fact the accident statistics show approximetely 80 % of loss of power accidents are caused by the pilots actions or inactions. If your average pilot finds him/herself without power than they are either in the 20 % unlucky minority and have the engine just up and fail with no warning, or much more likely represent the 80% majority by being ignorant, lazy, or careless. I teach the ground portion of the Forced approach exercisse in 3 phases.
Phase 1: Pre engine failure. This is a comprehensive review of common causes of engine failures and concentrates on fuel management to avoid engine failures due to lack of/mismanaged fuel and engine guage monitoring to catch the early onset of carb ice or early signs of engine mechanical/electrical failure. The intent is to give the student the knowledge and skills to recognize an impending engine failure early enough to divert and/or conduct a precautionary approach before the engine fails.
Phase 2: Immediately after the engine has failed. After a trimmed glide, carb heat full on,fuel boost pump on and the aircraft is pointed at a suitable landing area, then check for engine fire. Assuming no fire, the main objective of phase 2 is to get the engine going again. How much time is devoted to this depends on the altitude the airplane is at. Low to the ground this is a 15 second FMS check (fuel on/fullest tank,mixture full rich,both mags on). If the aircraft is high enough that there is some time after the forced approach plan is determined and the aircraft is well positioned for the field than a more complete troubleshooting plan is started as fols
1)scan all engine fuel guages and see if there is anything obviously wrong
2) Select all other available fuel tanks.
3) apply full throttle and then slowly reduced the throttle to half as the engine may run at only one throttle setting. If this does not work return to full throttle and slowly lean the mixture. If this does not repeat at 3 quarters and half throttle.
4) Try pumping fuel to the engine with the manual primer.
5) try selecting one mag at a time.
Obviously how much of this you get done depends on how much time you have but if the engine fails at 5000 ft then you would glide for at least 8 min so you should be able to do most or all of the list.
Phase 2 ends in one of two ways.
1) You get the engine going again and now must decide if you must still land ASAP (eg a sick engine, or very low fuel) or the issue that caused the engine
failure has been resolved ( eg running a fuel tank dry with lots in the other tanks)
2) You cannot get the engine started again in which case we move to phase 3
Phase 3: Engine failure with no restart. At this stage we completely forget about starting the engine and concentrate solely on flying the airplane to a survivable forced landing. It starts with the engine shut down actions and copmprises the traditional forced approach procedure instruction.
BTW: When I was a full time instructor, the school I worked for required every renter pilot to do an annual proficency check. I always included a practice forced approach and in 3 yrs not one PPL I flew with was able to fly a satisfactory forced approach on the first attempt and many were so bad they probably would not be survivable. Off hand I can recall 3 forced approaches by aircraft based at my home field. One was caused by uncorrected carb ice, one by running a tank dry (with fuel available in the other tank) and the the third was completely running out of gas about 15 miles short of the airport. No fatalites, thank got but some serious injuries and all three planes were destroyed. It seems to me that in general during training not enough emphasis is placed on engine failure prevention and there exists a fallacy that as long as Bloggins can fly an OK PFL in training than they are good to go.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 25th Aug 2009 at 16:08.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bjornhall
I do not necessarily disagree with everything you say.
But what is your experience to base some of these assumptions on. Especially saying that 40 hour PPL's can critique their performance sufficiently well.
Out of the students you have taught, is this true of some of them or all of them. Its not my experience but maybe the demographics are different.
Remember that a PPL is effectively a licence to learn.
But what is your experience to base some of these assumptions on. Especially saying that 40 hour PPL's can critique their performance sufficiently well.
Out of the students you have taught, is this true of some of them or all of them. Its not my experience but maybe the demographics are different.
Remember that a PPL is effectively a licence to learn.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the above quoted Ppruner suggests at least 25 to 40 hours before solo stalls presumably in a Jabiru or Cherokee Warrior or similar designed light plane with benign stalling characteristics. A slight overkill maybe?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFL's are an important part of flight training, as a student I would start a PFL from around 2000-2500 feet and go down to about 500-600feet AGL before going around. If a student has been sent solo then clearly they have shown the ability to perform the necessary engine warms and airmanship skills to be able to complete their sortie in a safe and benificial manor.
As for spinning solo, that can be quite dangerous, without training aerobatically I don't think I would do such things without an instructor... although I've heard some fly themselves out if you let go of the controls.
As for spinning solo, that can be quite dangerous, without training aerobatically I don't think I would do such things without an instructor... although I've heard some fly themselves out if you let go of the controls.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I did not believe it at first when I heard that they had stopped spin training for private pilots in the UK. To do your commercial we do spin recovery under the hood here allthough it is not required to stop at a specified heading like spin recovery VFR for your private licence.
What I really find strange is all the people spouting off how dangerous solo spinning is. How long ago did the UK stop solo spin practice?
What I really find strange is all the people spouting off how dangerous solo spinning is. How long ago did the UK stop solo spin practice?