Joys and complications of teaching emergencies
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was always taught: trim to best glide speed, try to identify the failure and rectify if possible THEN get out the checklist, make a MAYDAY call whilst choosing your field and do your committed checks using the checklist.
Simulated engine fires were always interesting; whats the best way to get down flaps to 40 and 'dive' or slipstream?
Simulated engine fires were always interesting; whats the best way to get down flaps to 40 and 'dive' or slipstream?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first instructor who was a former BoB pilot who said he saw many pilots trying to blow out flames by diving. Never worked.
Under discussion he made the suggestion to slow to the stall to stop the prop and stop feeding the fire with fuel and oil.
Have demonstrated this several times at height overhead the airfield.
Pull mixture and show the trainee the prop doesn't stop, until close to stall speed. Then have restarted the engine (yes I have done a few power off landings, bit silly looking back but nice to know what it feels like).
Reminds them the need to warm engine, just to check it's still running normally.
Under discussion he made the suggestion to slow to the stall to stop the prop and stop feeding the fire with fuel and oil.
Have demonstrated this several times at height overhead the airfield.
Pull mixture and show the trainee the prop doesn't stop, until close to stall speed. Then have restarted the engine (yes I have done a few power off landings, bit silly looking back but nice to know what it feels like).
Reminds them the need to warm engine, just to check it's still running normally.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderator
Thread Starter
crablab - thanks for contributing, but don't forget that you may be the only non-instructor on the discussion, and most of us have had a fair share of real emergencies to deal with as well.
G
G
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enoughEDIT: I don't doubt that - was only passing on what I'd been told to do, happy to accept alternative suggestions as that's the nature of the beast - there isn't 'one' solution...
Last edited by crablab; 8th Aug 2016 at 18:42.
Re: emergency drills, my 02 cents
1) I am a big believer in cockpit flows for all normal, abnormal and emergency checks. When I was last CFI at a flight school I rewrote all the checklist so that the actions all occurred in the same order. So that for a C 172 in this case, you started at the floor mounted fuel selector and made a counter clockwise circle around the instrument panel. The physical airplane then becomes the "ckecklist" and the written version was only consulted after the actions were complete, and in the case of emergencies if practicable and time permitting. I found that students who learned the flows well virtually never found that they had missed an action after doing the flows and then consulting the written checklist.
2) I see a lot of emergency drills handled by the student verbalizing the actions. I think this is poor practice as I think it is important to develop muscle memory so that the hands start going to the right places when the pressure is on. One good way to do this is to sit in a not running aircraft on the ground and practice moving all the appropriate knobs and levers as the student runs through each of the checks requiring memory vital actions.
3) I only simulate engine failure by closing the throttle never by pulling the mixture or shutting off the fuel. I once had a student go to shut down the engine. He pulled on the mixture knob and it came right out of the panel as the engine died because the mixture cable rod end failed at the carb end. We had just come back from doing practice forced approaches.........
Another instructor used to turn off the fuel on the C 150, until the day the handle came off in his hand, fortunately before the valve rotated to off........
1) I am a big believer in cockpit flows for all normal, abnormal and emergency checks. When I was last CFI at a flight school I rewrote all the checklist so that the actions all occurred in the same order. So that for a C 172 in this case, you started at the floor mounted fuel selector and made a counter clockwise circle around the instrument panel. The physical airplane then becomes the "ckecklist" and the written version was only consulted after the actions were complete, and in the case of emergencies if practicable and time permitting. I found that students who learned the flows well virtually never found that they had missed an action after doing the flows and then consulting the written checklist.
2) I see a lot of emergency drills handled by the student verbalizing the actions. I think this is poor practice as I think it is important to develop muscle memory so that the hands start going to the right places when the pressure is on. One good way to do this is to sit in a not running aircraft on the ground and practice moving all the appropriate knobs and levers as the student runs through each of the checks requiring memory vital actions.
3) I only simulate engine failure by closing the throttle never by pulling the mixture or shutting off the fuel. I once had a student go to shut down the engine. He pulled on the mixture knob and it came right out of the panel as the engine died because the mixture cable rod end failed at the carb end. We had just come back from doing practice forced approaches.........
Another instructor used to turn off the fuel on the C 150, until the day the handle came off in his hand, fortunately before the valve rotated to off........
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My very first multi-engine lesson, after we'd flown about 45 minutes and I get acquainted with the Apache, the instructor slapped the right mixture back to simulate an engine failure. After trimming and establishing proper SE flight, he returned the mixture control to cruise setting, and the engine failed to start. The cable had broken at the carb linkage. So my first ME lesion included a real SE approach and landing, which seriously wasn't all that difficult on a 5000' runway. We were based at a 2200' runway though, and that would have been interesting with one feathered.
I've also had the mixture control come apart at the panel. Engine died. I just crammed everything forward back in place and held it there while student flew back to base. New mixture control cable installed.
I've also had the mixture control come apart at the panel. Engine died. I just crammed everything forward back in place and held it there while student flew back to base. New mixture control cable installed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFL
Interested to know what height do other instructors go around after a PFL?
Scenario is a flat field, good Wx with a competent student and no obstacles.
I know some instructors who G/A at 500ft and others at 10ft. I'm usually somewhere between the two, but interested in other opinions.
IMC
Scenario is a flat field, good Wx with a competent student and no obstacles.
I know some instructors who G/A at 500ft and others at 10ft. I'm usually somewhere between the two, but interested in other opinions.
IMC
Moderator
Thread Starter
Personally rarely above 100ft unless there's an issue with separation from the usual, a safe go-around, or the student has made such a hash of it that it's already obvious to them (as well as me) it's never going to work out. I like the student (or me when practicing solo) to have a clear picture of where the roundout and landing will go. 50-100ft normally, so long as there is nobody to annoy and I'm not breaching "rule 5"*.
G
*Yes, I know that SESAR superceded rule 5, but it's still a useful label for the principle.
G
*Yes, I know that SESAR superceded rule 5, but it's still a useful label for the principle.
BPF. Fully support the flow approach which develops that important muscle memory and works well for pretty much all of the GA aircraft.
As for teaching it, the formal lesson is just that. I'm of the view that I'm introducing elements of the (P)FL from effect of controls (mixture, throttle, carb heat) onwards. FREDA has the fuel calculation and tank swap (where appropriate) element and when estimating the effects of wind on track and groundspeed I usually make a point of showing it in the glide as well as with power. All that builds towards the formal PFL teaching. After the formal lesson, my students can expect a PFL at any time and from any altitude on the transit to or from the training area right up until their skills test.
As for teaching it, the formal lesson is just that. I'm of the view that I'm introducing elements of the (P)FL from effect of controls (mixture, throttle, carb heat) onwards. FREDA has the fuel calculation and tank swap (where appropriate) element and when estimating the effects of wind on track and groundspeed I usually make a point of showing it in the glide as well as with power. All that builds towards the formal PFL teaching. After the formal lesson, my students can expect a PFL at any time and from any altitude on the transit to or from the training area right up until their skills test.
Not the Needle, Doc!
A calm, beautiful day greeted me on the occasion of my first post-solo flight. I performed a very thorough and deliberate preflight walk-around followed by entering the cockpit, buckling my seatbelt, and shouting "CLEAR" as I started 757WW's Lycoming 0-235 engine. A comm check gave me that morning's barometer as well as the current airport advisory. The tower gave me choice of runway; I chose 15 as its extended centerline proceeded directly over our oceanside house which was about one quarter mile from McKinnon airport. I loved to "waggle" my wings at my wife and son who were usually in our backyard or on the beach on severe clear days like this one.
I taxied to 15's runup area, pointed the aircraft into what little breeze there was, and did a mag drop and carb heat check. Everything indicating in the green, I sought and was granted permission for immediate takeoff. My seat was a little further forward than I liked, so I slid it backwards, recinched the belt, and closed the door which I'd left open for ventilation. I swung on to the runway, selected full power and 10 degrees of flap. More than 3,000 feet of runway was before me and fuel was full in both wing tanks. A smooth rotation and I was airborne seconds later. That is when ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE!
A very loud and rapid metallic clattering filled the cockpit and permeated my headphone set. With heart in throat, I scanned the instrument panel and found all to be within normal limits. As I gained speed the volume and frequency of the cacophony increased! I was waiting to see pistons flying out of the cowling, followed by oil and flames. I had enough runway to land, but knew if I miscalculated that I might wind up in our backyard with my son and wife wrapped around a windmilling prop!
Then, for reasons I cannot explain, I glanced to my left and noticed that the distal end of my safety belt was hanging about six inches outside of the aircraft. Its metallic end was beating the $hit out of double shot's fuselage and pulling some sort of serious sadomasochistic punishment on my withering brain. I maintained climb and power, opened my door, retrieved the errant belt, closed the door, closed my eyes, and thanked the Almighty for His intervention in a very brief but very heartfelt prayer.
I flew for a joyous and redemptive hour out over the Atlantic and the Golden Isles of Georgia. When I returned, I noted with satisfaction the fact that my little Cessna had narry a blemish from the seatbelt's flagellation. When I told my flight instructor what had transpired, he asked me if I had followed my mental emergency checklist. I assured him that I had and he congratulated me. Then he said "That's one mistake you'll never repeat!" And I never did...
- Ed
I taxied to 15's runup area, pointed the aircraft into what little breeze there was, and did a mag drop and carb heat check. Everything indicating in the green, I sought and was granted permission for immediate takeoff. My seat was a little further forward than I liked, so I slid it backwards, recinched the belt, and closed the door which I'd left open for ventilation. I swung on to the runway, selected full power and 10 degrees of flap. More than 3,000 feet of runway was before me and fuel was full in both wing tanks. A smooth rotation and I was airborne seconds later. That is when ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE!
A very loud and rapid metallic clattering filled the cockpit and permeated my headphone set. With heart in throat, I scanned the instrument panel and found all to be within normal limits. As I gained speed the volume and frequency of the cacophony increased! I was waiting to see pistons flying out of the cowling, followed by oil and flames. I had enough runway to land, but knew if I miscalculated that I might wind up in our backyard with my son and wife wrapped around a windmilling prop!
Then, for reasons I cannot explain, I glanced to my left and noticed that the distal end of my safety belt was hanging about six inches outside of the aircraft. Its metallic end was beating the $hit out of double shot's fuselage and pulling some sort of serious sadomasochistic punishment on my withering brain. I maintained climb and power, opened my door, retrieved the errant belt, closed the door, closed my eyes, and thanked the Almighty for His intervention in a very brief but very heartfelt prayer.
I flew for a joyous and redemptive hour out over the Atlantic and the Golden Isles of Georgia. When I returned, I noted with satisfaction the fact that my little Cessna had narry a blemish from the seatbelt's flagellation. When I told my flight instructor what had transpired, he asked me if I had followed my mental emergency checklist. I assured him that I had and he congratulated me. Then he said "That's one mistake you'll never repeat!" And I never did...
- Ed
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EGHH
Age: 24
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Was discussing this topic briefly with my instructor today;
For what it's worth, when carrying out PFLs (and precautionary landings) all three instructors I've flown these exercises with initiated the go-around not at a specific height, but only once certain (well. . confident) that we would make it into the selected field successfully in a real life scenario.
Difficult to say accurately what sort of height this is usually at, as we've often got our home airfield's QNH or the RPS on the altimeter and practice forced landings near rural areas of high ground, but definitely well under 500ft or so.
For what it's worth, when carrying out PFLs (and precautionary landings) all three instructors I've flown these exercises with initiated the go-around not at a specific height, but only once certain (well. . confident) that we would make it into the selected field successfully in a real life scenario.
Difficult to say accurately what sort of height this is usually at, as we've often got our home airfield's QNH or the RPS on the altimeter and practice forced landings near rural areas of high ground, but definitely well under 500ft or so.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Select and trim for best glide, select field and plan how to get to it come first. Then try to identify reason for failure - reason for this is that all the time spent not finding the field is lessening your options.
The reason people tend to stick to their original choice even when a better field presents itself is mental overload - they don't have the capacity to change their plan. The solution is more practice.
Go around height - the better the approach is, the lower I let them get because this gives them confidence that it really would have worked and Im confident that if the engine fails to pick up when asked then we can land safely - I climb away much earlier when its clear they are making a mess of things and my options if the engine really fails are disappearing.
I did once have an engine cough and splutter when at about 100' - that concentrates the mind a bit!
The reason people tend to stick to their original choice even when a better field presents itself is mental overload - they don't have the capacity to change their plan. The solution is more practice.
Go around height - the better the approach is, the lower I let them get because this gives them confidence that it really would have worked and Im confident that if the engine fails to pick up when asked then we can land safely - I climb away much earlier when its clear they are making a mess of things and my options if the engine really fails are disappearing.
I did once have an engine cough and splutter when at about 100' - that concentrates the mind a bit!
Typically, it will need around 3 flights to ensure the candidate has the skill to glide the aircraft from around 2500 ft to a survivable landing in a field
A bit of history from the early 1950 era when I learned to fly on Tiger Moths where every approach to land was by a glide - not a powered approach. If power was needed to salvage a under-shooting approach to land, you lost Brownie Points and needed further dual until such times you could consistently land safely off a full glide approach from the time you closed the throttle on mid-base leg.
.
Same technique of glide approaches applied to Austers, Chipmunks and Cessna light singles. Turn base in level flight, maintain height on base, and when you judged you could safely glide in you simply closed the throttle and used airmanship. If you were forced to fly further downwind in the circuit because of an idiot flying a 747 circuit, you maintained circuit height as usual on base and if necessary early final still in level flight, then closed the throttle when you felt you had it made and did a glide. Of course with heavier types powered approaches made sense. A full flap glide approach in the Australian Wirraway (similar to a Harvard) was quite alarming with its very nose down steep approach to keep the speed up and gradual early round-out because of inertia. Powered approaches were the norm in those types
For the light trainers, when the time came for practice forced landings in the training area you were already reasonably competent at glide approaches.
Somewhere along the years all that changed when the first Cessna and Piper singles equipped with flaps came into the aeroclubs. Now glide approaches were only introduced for practice forced landings in the circuit. Engine assisted landing approaches became the norm, despite it was unnecessary. The Cessna manuals said landings could be done with or without power. So you didn't need powered approaches except under certain circumstances. So today we have the complicated version of turning base clean, throttle set to 1500RPM - lower a little flap at a certain airspeed. Progressively lower a bit more flap at a new airspeed (flap against power..) and the resulting combination was different speeds for variable flap settings settings; all the while maintaining 12-1500 RPM for a powered approach.
No wonder students had trouble remembering all the combinations of RPM, airspeeds and flap settings.
Why do you think the time to first solo has blown out to 15-20 hours as against the average of 8-10 hours in the early days of Tiger Moths which had no flaps, no radios and required a keener judgement of the glide path
Last edited by Judd; 6th Jan 2018 at 10:44.
A bit of history from the early 1950 era when I learned to fly on Tiger Moths......
Why do you think the time to first solo has blown out to 15-20 hours as against the average of 8-10 hours in the early days of Tiger Moths which had no flaps, no radios and required a keener judgement of the glide path
Why do you think the time to first solo has blown out to 15-20 hours as against the average of 8-10 hours in the early days of Tiger Moths which had no flaps, no radios and required a keener judgement of the glide path
Emergency procedures seem a bit more complicated on Phantoms
F-4 Phantom FGR2, 228 Phantom OCU, RAF Coningsby and RAF F4 Phantom XV436
Scroll to "The sad end of F4 Phantom FGR2 XV436"
F-4 Phantom FGR2, 228 Phantom OCU, RAF Coningsby and RAF F4 Phantom XV436
Scroll to "The sad end of F4 Phantom FGR2 XV436"
Why do you think the light aircraft accident rate was 4 times worse in 1950's compared to today ?
Whatever the case you quote, if true, there is no correlation between an experienced instructor sending a student on his first solo under 10 hours and an inexperienced instructor taking 20 hours.
Judd
If the sky god instructors of the 1950's were so great you would think that their superiorly taught students that were good enough to solo in 8 to 10 hrs would not have crashed at rate 4 times higher than today.
My perception of the The subtext of your comment was yet another tiresome iteration of the old "yesterdays instructors were so much better then today's instructors" mantra.
It bothers me because it shuts down any objective conversation around looking at what was good and not so good with instructional techniques back in the day and compare that to today's instruction with the aim of combining the best parts of both. A simplistic example is applying Treat and Error Management concepts to an issue but also keeping the ball in the middle.
For what it is worth after almost 30 years of instructing I found that my students time to solo increased but the time to complete the PPL decreased and the flight test scores were much higher.
This is because I came to understand the importance of properly teaching the foundation flying skills before the student started into the circuit as well as wanting to make sure that no matter what happened on that first solo the student was well prepared.
If the sky god instructors of the 1950's were so great you would think that their superiorly taught students that were good enough to solo in 8 to 10 hrs would not have crashed at rate 4 times higher than today.
My perception of the The subtext of your comment was yet another tiresome iteration of the old "yesterdays instructors were so much better then today's instructors" mantra.
It bothers me because it shuts down any objective conversation around looking at what was good and not so good with instructional techniques back in the day and compare that to today's instruction with the aim of combining the best parts of both. A simplistic example is applying Treat and Error Management concepts to an issue but also keeping the ball in the middle.
For what it is worth after almost 30 years of instructing I found that my students time to solo increased but the time to complete the PPL decreased and the flight test scores were much higher.
This is because I came to understand the importance of properly teaching the foundation flying skills before the student started into the circuit as well as wanting to make sure that no matter what happened on that first solo the student was well prepared.
As for fully preparing the student for the first solo, I couldn't agree more which is why all of our students practice a diversion and landaway before first solo. There's no guarantee that the airfield will stay open once they have taken off.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Ll...ature=youtu.be
If the conditions are right, the instructor is really qualified, the area is wide open with many options out of field, pushing the limits is the best way to learn, bearing in mind that the best and safest action will always be to fight the instinct to go back to that stretch of concrete, land ahead, be ready to sacrifice the a/c..
If **** ever hits the fan one day, less startling effect delaying actions and preventing smooth and coordinated inputs, enhanced confidence and control to avoid stall and spin scenario,will come to rescue, it can mean the difference betwen life and death.
Know your plane, know your limits, know the safe parameters speed and altitude, practice the real life scenario.
If the conditions are right, the instructor is really qualified, the area is wide open with many options out of field, pushing the limits is the best way to learn, bearing in mind that the best and safest action will always be to fight the instinct to go back to that stretch of concrete, land ahead, be ready to sacrifice the a/c..
If **** ever hits the fan one day, less startling effect delaying actions and preventing smooth and coordinated inputs, enhanced confidence and control to avoid stall and spin scenario,will come to rescue, it can mean the difference betwen life and death.
Know your plane, know your limits, know the safe parameters speed and altitude, practice the real life scenario.
