Simulated single engine
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sacking of flight instructors
Well, if an instructor employed by me cut fuel as a means of generating a more realistic engine failure, I would tell them not to do it again. Radical isn't it?
Why not fire them instantly?
- I used to do it myself as that's the way I was taught. Then I was educated properly, and now I don't. I'd like to offer the same opportunity to someone else.
- Less importantly for me, I would be opening myself to employment court claims, unless the Book of Rules specifically prohibited that particular behaviour.
And Joemas, I suggest you don't pull the mixture in a SE aircraft. You could argue forever that it's not more risky than anything else, but if an accident did occur it would be very hard to defend. More so now that most manufacturers recommend against it. Just a pragmatic recommendation from someone who has done all sorts of silly things in the past through ignorance, but now knows better.
Why not fire them instantly?
- I used to do it myself as that's the way I was taught. Then I was educated properly, and now I don't. I'd like to offer the same opportunity to someone else.
- Less importantly for me, I would be opening myself to employment court claims, unless the Book of Rules specifically prohibited that particular behaviour.
And Joemas, I suggest you don't pull the mixture in a SE aircraft. You could argue forever that it's not more risky than anything else, but if an accident did occur it would be very hard to defend. More so now that most manufacturers recommend against it. Just a pragmatic recommendation from someone who has done all sorts of silly things in the past through ignorance, but now knows better.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The single engine syllabus should be documented to death in the course documentation and also in the flying order book.
An instructor that doesn't understand that an engine spluttering and farting is killing it shouldn't be teaching.
An instructor that doesn't understand that an engine spluttering and farting is killing it shouldn't be teaching.
When I first started working as an instructor the Chief Flying Instructor told us to fail the engine using the mixture control when teaching the PFL exercise.
Being a low hour newbie I followed the direction. One day I was doing the PFL exercise ( C 150) and it was not going well. After 2 tries, both completely botched, we were about to start a third attempt when I decided this students head was not in the game and told him to just fly us home. When we parked he pulled the mixture out and the knob plus about a foot of cable came out just as the engine died
. It turned out the mixture cable failed at the termination fitting at the carburator end.
If I had done the last PFL the end would have stopped with no way to get it going and we would have turned a practice force landing into a real one.
After that lesson, I simulate an engine failure in both single and multi engine airplanes by retarding the throttle.
Being a low hour newbie I followed the direction. One day I was doing the PFL exercise ( C 150) and it was not going well. After 2 tries, both completely botched, we were about to start a third attempt when I decided this students head was not in the game and told him to just fly us home. When we parked he pulled the mixture out and the knob plus about a foot of cable came out just as the engine died
. It turned out the mixture cable failed at the termination fitting at the carburator end. If I had done the last PFL the end would have stopped with no way to get it going and we would have turned a practice force landing into a real one.
After that lesson, I simulate an engine failure in both single and multi engine airplanes by retarding the throttle.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 24th Feb 2013 at 16:16.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same could happen when closing the throttle - The cable should break. Does this mean that we do not teach PFLs since we are introducing an increased element of risk?
Whilst I think that Elfin Safety is overdone a Risk Assesment would show that pulling the Mixture would fall into the ALARP category.
Whilst I think that Elfin Safety is overdone a Risk Assesment would show that pulling the Mixture would fall into the ALARP category.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahahaha! Man, what a tosh, unsafe condition?!
Macho blustering is no substitute for a considered discussion of an important safety-related question.
A good knowledgeable instructor should know all of this .....
Hahahaha! Man, what a tosh, unsafe condition?! so you also never give a student a failure and feather and secure exercise?! And then airlines complain about declining training standards
This procedure has been standard at the BAS, Belgian aviation school, later Sabena Flight academy. You call them dangerous?
Idling an engine on a twin is not at all representative to an actual failure. the full procedure must be trained onboard the actual aircraft.
Not unsafe at all, and not bad for the engine
This procedure has been standard at the BAS, Belgian aviation school, later Sabena Flight academy. You call them dangerous?
Idling an engine on a twin is not at all representative to an actual failure. the full procedure must be trained onboard the actual aircraft.
Not unsafe at all, and not bad for the engine
National Transportation Safety Board Warning On Simulated Engine-Out Maneuvers
The fatal crash of a light twin in which a flight instructor and an applicant for a multiengine rating were killed, prompted the NTSB to issue an urgent warning to all pilots simulating an engine-out condition on multiengine airplanes.
The Board's investigation revealed that some flight instructors do use the fuel selector or the mixture control to shut down an engine to test the applicant. Although this is a recommended procedure, the urgent warning was aimed at flight instructors who were using this proceure at altitudes too low for continued safe flight. The NTSB observed that use of such procedures at traffic pattern altitudes may not permit instructors enough time to overcome possible errors on the part of the applicant.
The recommendation by the NTSB means that all simulated engine-out operation at the lower altitudes should be accomplished by retarding the throttle and this should be done slowly and carefully to avoid engine damage or failure.
The Lycoming Service Bulletin No 245 stated that if the power was abruptly terminated, it must be accomplished with the mixture control. Of course, this was intended for the higher altitudes where a complete engine shut-down could be conducted safely. However, any practice of simulated engine-out condition at low altitudes should be best accomplished by a slow retardation of the throttle in accordance with the NTSB recommendation. This careful techique will protect the engine, and at the same time provide for instant power it it is needed.
............................................................ .....................................
Instructors would indeed be foolish to disregard the advice given by the NTSB. Legal action against the flying school and instructor would likely follow if this recommendation was ignored causing an accident
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Far to the West
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would immediately fire any instructor that did what you recommend. Not only is it very hard on the engine, it involves deliberately creating an unsafe condition when there is a perfectly safe alternative by simulating a failure by retarding the throttle to idle.
"Demonstrate full feathering drill (engine shut-down) using checklist procedures." followed by a restart:
"Demonstrate un-feather drill using checklist procedures"
I believe the student is also required to fully shut down/feather + unfeather/restart an engine as part of the MEP exam.
I see that in CAP601 "Multi Engine Piston Aeroplane Class Rating", Flight exercise 3 requires the MEP syllabus to include:
"Demonstrate full feathering drill (engine shut-down) using checklist procedures." followed by a restart:
"Demonstrate un-feather drill using checklist procedures"
I believe the student is also required to fully shut down/feather + unfeather/restart an engine as part of the MEP exam.
"Demonstrate full feathering drill (engine shut-down) using checklist procedures." followed by a restart:
"Demonstrate un-feather drill using checklist procedures"
I believe the student is also required to fully shut down/feather + unfeather/restart an engine as part of the MEP exam.
Since there is no performance difference between setting zero thrust and actually feathering the engine it was deemed that there was no actual training value in the full feather exercise. Similarly the restart procedure is airplane specific and therefor the training in this exercise would only have value if the student never flew any other model of twin.
NPPL SLMG syllabus pages 11 to 14 covers a full shutdown.
http://www.nationalprivatepilotslice...20Feb%2010.pdf
http://www.nationalprivatepilotslice...20Feb%2010.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Far to the West
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in the UK, an MEP instructor would probably be fired for NOT performing a shutdown with the student!
I wonder how the accident rates compare between the UK & Canada
(now standing well back from the keyboard!)
I wonder how the accident rates compare between the UK & Canada
(now standing well back from the keyboard!)
North America has more GA aircraft operations than the rest of the world combined and the the lowest accident rate as measured by accidents per 100,000 flight hours..........
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructors who employ surprise engine stops via surreptitious cutting of the fuel flow may flatter themselves that they're increasing the 'realism' of the exercise. But in my experience this is an illusion, and often they're simply massaging their own ego, providing little or no training value.
For one thing, there are many ways (some of them quite subtle and insidious) in which an engine can cease to function, partially or fully. So focusing on this one scenario, generally presented once only in a training course, as the "true" example is counter-productive.
The purpose of the deliberate engine shut-down in a ME course, done at altitude and briefed properly, is to demonstrate (and give the student confidence) that the airplane can be flown safely home on one engine, not primarily to provide an opportunity to practice emergency drills.
Further, the airplane doesn't fall out of control just because an engine has stopped - it does so when uncommanded yaw is either not recognized, nor contained effectively. Learning how to deal with uncommanded yaw/undesireable aircraft state/unusual attitude/loss of stability is the first priority. Only subsequently can, or should, the "why" be properly analyzed.
Per Big Pistons Forever:
Similarly with the removal of spin training from the FAA - or CAA as it then was - private pilot syllabus in 1949 (!). After that the incidence of stall/spin accidents decreased substantially. The training had become more dangerous than the contingency it was supposedly addressing.
For one thing, there are many ways (some of them quite subtle and insidious) in which an engine can cease to function, partially or fully. So focusing on this one scenario, generally presented once only in a training course, as the "true" example is counter-productive.
The purpose of the deliberate engine shut-down in a ME course, done at altitude and briefed properly, is to demonstrate (and give the student confidence) that the airplane can be flown safely home on one engine, not primarily to provide an opportunity to practice emergency drills.
Further, the airplane doesn't fall out of control just because an engine has stopped - it does so when uncommanded yaw is either not recognized, nor contained effectively. Learning how to deal with uncommanded yaw/undesireable aircraft state/unusual attitude/loss of stability is the first priority. Only subsequently can, or should, the "why" be properly analyzed.
Per Big Pistons Forever:
In Canada the requirement to do an actual engine shutdown/feather/restart was removed from the ME training requirements after a safety audit showed that this practice contributed to numerous actual engine failures/failed restarts and several accidents.
