Solo Engine Start - Good idea or bad?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solo Engine Start - Good idea or bad?
At my current FTO the trend seems to be that if the student is competant, you let them start the engine by themselves and when you get there they throttle back and you climb on board with the engine running. This is usually after they have begun ex 12/13, so you have been on board for quite a few engine starts.
This has some good plus points, the student becomes more familiar with the start procedure and trouble shooting alone without you if they can't get the thing going. Also, it gives you time to finish your coffee and chat up the ops girl a bit longer
.
However, if something really went wrong, engine fire, brake failure etc, how would an insurance company view this. Particularly if the student has not yet flown solo, or without medical etc.
Another consideration I have had is that it makes the student think people getting in/out with the engine running is normal, and having read a few accident reports recently of people going in to props on the ground I wonder if this is a good association to have.
Does every school have this solo engine start policy?
This has some good plus points, the student becomes more familiar with the start procedure and trouble shooting alone without you if they can't get the thing going. Also, it gives you time to finish your coffee and chat up the ops girl a bit longer
.However, if something really went wrong, engine fire, brake failure etc, how would an insurance company view this. Particularly if the student has not yet flown solo, or without medical etc.
Another consideration I have had is that it makes the student think people getting in/out with the engine running is normal, and having read a few accident reports recently of people going in to props on the ground I wonder if this is a good association to have.
Does every school have this solo engine start policy?
If it is a dual flight I am the PIC for the entire flight so that to me means that the engine doesn't get started until I am strapped in.
In any case the PIC is responsible to ensure the aircraft is airworthy. That IMO means at a Minimum I have briskly walked around the aircraft for a "nothing hanging/open/dripping" check and I have personally checked that the fuel level is sufficient and fuel caps and oil filler/oil dipstick are secure. This is pretty hard to do when the engine is already running.
In any case the PIC is responsible to ensure the aircraft is airworthy. That IMO means at a Minimum I have briskly walked around the aircraft for a "nothing hanging/open/dripping" check and I have personally checked that the fuel level is sufficient and fuel caps and oil filler/oil dipstick are secure. This is pretty hard to do when the engine is already running.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what everyone else said........Bad idea!
The instructor is responsible and should observe what his students is doing at all time, ESPECIALLY if that student has not yet gone solo.
Oh, and I don't think the student can be in training without a medical!
The instructor is responsible and should observe what his students is doing at all time, ESPECIALLY if that student has not yet gone solo.
Oh, and I don't think the student can be in training without a medical!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, these are my thoughts, but a lot of UK schools do it, including the one I did my PPL with.
UK - the student only needs a medical to go solo. They can do as much dual instruction as they like without.
Oh, and I don't think the student can be in training without a medical!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you wouldn't think twice if you saw an engineer jump in and taxi off would you and they have neither a license or a medical (well some of them do if pilots as well)
And the only way your going to find out is by asking the insurance company they might not be the same.
The other thing is it in the pilot order book? If its not ask for guidlines to be put in.
Personally in the past I have, through reading pprune and the list of accidents that have occured in the past 10 years I wouldn't these days.
In fact opening my facebook this morning there was a post about an instructor/prop accident with an instructor getting out with engine running which is something I used to do regularly but again isn't something I would do now.
And the only way your going to find out is by asking the insurance company they might not be the same.
The other thing is it in the pilot order book? If its not ask for guidlines to be put in.
Personally in the past I have, through reading pprune and the list of accidents that have occured in the past 10 years I wouldn't these days.
In fact opening my facebook this morning there was a post about an instructor/prop accident with an instructor getting out with engine running which is something I used to do regularly but again isn't something I would do now.
Why would you get on board with the engine running?
No time to quiz them and ask systems questions during the start-up procedure.
Solo start-up also doesn't add anything in the student confidence building department.
Too risky in my book.
No time to quiz them and ask systems questions during the start-up procedure.
Solo start-up also doesn't add anything in the student confidence building department.
Too risky in my book.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This used to happen regularly when I was training, although not till after a few solos, so I had done complete flights on my own. This in C152 so fairly easy to avoid the prop.
As a student (then) I though it made sense.
As a student (then) I though it made sense.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a student myself, I found this practice very useful and it helped build my confidence. We did it a few times around the time of my first solo but can't remember specifically which came first. I do understand the concerns raised here though.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting question. Every FTO I trained at and taught at in the U.K. allowed post-solo students to start up without the instructor being on board; never considered it to be an issue. Never been to a school in the U.S. however where it has ever been permitted. Bit like F/O's not being allowed to taxy in most U.S. airlines.
B2N2
Why would you want to distract them during start-up? I've seen this many times in the U.S. - almost constant interuption from the FI during a procedure with questions like "what's the purpose of this or that" or "why do you start with one magneto rather than both" etc. Let them get on with it and if they make a mistake either intervene appropriately or let them realise on their own and correct it, make a note then....discuss in the debrief.
B2N2
No time to quiz them and ask systems questions during the start-up procedure.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing this has been common practice at every flying school I've worked at, I also did it during my PPL training, so maybe I'm just pre-conditioned into thinking it's normal.
Other than my current establishment, it was done just when the FI thought the student was up to it, sometimes IIRC pre-solo/medical. At one of them, we had a share of the MoD FSS contract for a few years and I don't ever recall CFS disapproving of the practice.
Nowadays, I'm less sure it's a good idea. We do allow it, but have a "pre-solo engine start-up" check sheet in the individual student records. If we're honest I think it's mostly for a**e-covering purposes in the event of an incident. It contains such items as, familiarity & competence with normal & emergency procedures and being legally entitled to act as PIC (medical & age).
I do think it has some benefits in building student confidence and self-reliance, but only up to a point. Also, if we're being honest, I've done it as a time saver, although that's really in the past, don't let myself succumb to time pressure these days. Having said that, is it an unnecessary risk? I may have to reconsider whether to continue doing it.
I am aware of how badly wrong it can go, the place I did my PPL had a couple of wrecked aircraft sometime before I started, when a student started up with loads of throttle and no brakes and drove their's into another one across the apron. Surprisingly perhaps, they didn't stop people doing it though, I don't think there was any problem with the insurance or trouble for the instructor from the CAA. That was decades ago though and we live in a very different regulatory and litigious environment now.
Very interesting point regarding getting in/out with prop's running, it seems to be common practice, especially when conducting dual to solo circuit training. As has been said, we shouldn't allow students to think this is acceptable practice, other than in certain controlled circumstances. As we've seen of late, this can have horrendous consequences.
However, don't we have to accept we're going to do one or the other of the above "bad practices". If we don't shut down, then we are forced into an engine running crew change. If we close down to get out, then we're going to need to let the student do a solo hot start. We can't avoid both situations, can we?
Other than my current establishment, it was done just when the FI thought the student was up to it, sometimes IIRC pre-solo/medical. At one of them, we had a share of the MoD FSS contract for a few years and I don't ever recall CFS disapproving of the practice.
Nowadays, I'm less sure it's a good idea. We do allow it, but have a "pre-solo engine start-up" check sheet in the individual student records. If we're honest I think it's mostly for a**e-covering purposes in the event of an incident. It contains such items as, familiarity & competence with normal & emergency procedures and being legally entitled to act as PIC (medical & age).
I do think it has some benefits in building student confidence and self-reliance, but only up to a point. Also, if we're being honest, I've done it as a time saver, although that's really in the past, don't let myself succumb to time pressure these days. Having said that, is it an unnecessary risk? I may have to reconsider whether to continue doing it.
I am aware of how badly wrong it can go, the place I did my PPL had a couple of wrecked aircraft sometime before I started, when a student started up with loads of throttle and no brakes and drove their's into another one across the apron. Surprisingly perhaps, they didn't stop people doing it though, I don't think there was any problem with the insurance or trouble for the instructor from the CAA. That was decades ago though and we live in a very different regulatory and litigious environment now.
Very interesting point regarding getting in/out with prop's running, it seems to be common practice, especially when conducting dual to solo circuit training. As has been said, we shouldn't allow students to think this is acceptable practice, other than in certain controlled circumstances. As we've seen of late, this can have horrendous consequences.
However, don't we have to accept we're going to do one or the other of the above "bad practices". If we don't shut down, then we are forced into an engine running crew change. If we close down to get out, then we're going to need to let the student do a solo hot start. We can't avoid both situations, can we?
I don't see how getting out with the engine running so as to allow the student to solo has anything to do with letting them start the engine on a dual training flight before you get in the aircraft.
Dual is dual, solo is solo. When I am conducting dual training I am responsible for the entire flight and therefore think I should personally check the airworthiness of the aircraft and be in the aircraft before it is started. If after the commencement of a dual flight I elect to to send the student solo I have already fulfilled my responsibilities as PIC. I see no danger in a properly trained instructor getting out of a running aircraft and indeed consider it a normal competency for an instructor.
Obviously if you are dispatching a student on a solo exercise then it is up to them to safely start the aircraft, a responsibility they have as a result of being PIC.
Bottom line: I think you are short changing both yourself and the student if you only get aboard after the student has already started the engine
Dual is dual, solo is solo. When I am conducting dual training I am responsible for the entire flight and therefore think I should personally check the airworthiness of the aircraft and be in the aircraft before it is started. If after the commencement of a dual flight I elect to to send the student solo I have already fulfilled my responsibilities as PIC. I see no danger in a properly trained instructor getting out of a running aircraft and indeed consider it a normal competency for an instructor.
Obviously if you are dispatching a student on a solo exercise then it is up to them to safely start the aircraft, a responsibility they have as a result of being PIC.
Bottom line: I think you are short changing both yourself and the student if you only get aboard after the student has already started the engine
Moderator
It could be interesting if something like this happened and the insurance company asked "who was the pilot in command?" uh, he was having a coffee inside..."
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
I don't know what this insurance thing is, that comes up with almost every thread. The only way an insurance can refuse payment is by proving, that the instuctor or pilot in command has been grossly negligent or even acted deliberately to cause damage.
No court in the world would rule for gross negligence, if a student - who for years is used to starting the engine of a car, motorbike, boat, bus, lorry! - and has started the engine of an aeroplane a dozen times under the supervision of an instructor, is allowed to do that on his own. It's really not rocket science. Otherwise no instructor in the world could ever dare to send a student solo!
That said, I still wouldn't do it. Simple because I am also the kind of PIC who insists on doing his own quick walkaround (too many oil dipsticks found untightened or overtightened...).
Happy landings
max
...insurance...
No court in the world would rule for gross negligence, if a student - who for years is used to starting the engine of a car, motorbike, boat, bus, lorry! - and has started the engine of an aeroplane a dozen times under the supervision of an instructor, is allowed to do that on his own. It's really not rocket science. Otherwise no instructor in the world could ever dare to send a student solo!
That said, I still wouldn't do it. Simple because I am also the kind of PIC who insists on doing his own quick walkaround (too many oil dipsticks found untightened or overtightened...).
Happy landings
max
As a slight extension of this, I've always been amazed that instructors very rarely check that there is sufficient fuel for the flight. I know that often they have previously flown the same a/c and know how much it has 'done from full', but not always.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no danger in a properly trained instructor getting out of a running aircraft and indeed consider it a normal competency for an instructor.