Feather or Simulated Feather: what's the usual?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In; for two bob.
I was, determinedly, going to stay out of this discussion; but rather than leave my two bob in my pocket:- Let's take three sprogs; Fred, Pete and Bill and do some multi engine training.
Fred has superb engine handling skills, reasonable stick and rudder but is slow on transition to instruments and getting from 'failure' to fix.
Pete has the book off pat, can quote the rules and checklist, but stick and rudder clumsy, doesn't 'get' the internal combustion engine, is prone to making quick decisions and rushing through checks.
Bill is OK generally, but when he reaches across the cockpit to reset #2 altimeter, the hand follows the eyes and thus the aircraft creeps 10° off heading and he is slow to correct it.
The list is as long as your arm, common or garden sprog basic issues. Now a good trainer should be able to identify and correct these by developing a hand crafted 'program' for either of the lads; develop their confidence and get them to a standard where OEI operations are basically an interesting, safe learning experience. Feathered or simulated? academic in a 'safe' – AFM supported environment, (FAR 23 certification - carefully considered) CAO 40 (IMO) being for the "guidance of wise men". etc.
But no amount of ticked boxes will correct the radical errors. One dark and stormy, when the number one is about to make a monkey of the engineers, is probably the only time in a career where all of the basic errors, not corrected will surface, this is not the time to start learning. How we get pilots to the stage of seamless transition and almost faultless execution under 'real' pressure is a matter of quality training and establishing sound 'default' settings. So that once in a lifetime event finishes in the bar, not at another cold wet gravesite.
Tick-a-box, black letter law, cover your arse, micro management cannot replace good, sound, 'intuitive' basic training. If the folk doing the training can't or don't recognise the errors, all the slavish dedication to tick-a-box training cannot and will not help. If the natural 'intuition' found within a good training pilot is beaten down by enforced, prescriptive legislation; how can we be certain that a box ticked is indeed, a job done well? At least later in life, a half decent check pilot will hone in on and target perceived weakness, this is as it should be; but is the candidate the problem or the training system??. Have a look about and see just who holds sway these days; it's most certainly not men of the calibre, intelligence and hard won experience Centaurus recollects.
Aye well, that's my two bob's worth; although I'll probably regret it later....
Fred has superb engine handling skills, reasonable stick and rudder but is slow on transition to instruments and getting from 'failure' to fix.
Pete has the book off pat, can quote the rules and checklist, but stick and rudder clumsy, doesn't 'get' the internal combustion engine, is prone to making quick decisions and rushing through checks.
Bill is OK generally, but when he reaches across the cockpit to reset #2 altimeter, the hand follows the eyes and thus the aircraft creeps 10° off heading and he is slow to correct it.
The list is as long as your arm, common or garden sprog basic issues. Now a good trainer should be able to identify and correct these by developing a hand crafted 'program' for either of the lads; develop their confidence and get them to a standard where OEI operations are basically an interesting, safe learning experience. Feathered or simulated? academic in a 'safe' – AFM supported environment, (FAR 23 certification - carefully considered) CAO 40 (IMO) being for the "guidance of wise men". etc.
But no amount of ticked boxes will correct the radical errors. One dark and stormy, when the number one is about to make a monkey of the engineers, is probably the only time in a career where all of the basic errors, not corrected will surface, this is not the time to start learning. How we get pilots to the stage of seamless transition and almost faultless execution under 'real' pressure is a matter of quality training and establishing sound 'default' settings. So that once in a lifetime event finishes in the bar, not at another cold wet gravesite.
Tick-a-box, black letter law, cover your arse, micro management cannot replace good, sound, 'intuitive' basic training. If the folk doing the training can't or don't recognise the errors, all the slavish dedication to tick-a-box training cannot and will not help. If the natural 'intuition' found within a good training pilot is beaten down by enforced, prescriptive legislation; how can we be certain that a box ticked is indeed, a job done well? At least later in life, a half decent check pilot will hone in on and target perceived weakness, this is as it should be; but is the candidate the problem or the training system??. Have a look about and see just who holds sway these days; it's most certainly not men of the calibre, intelligence and hard won experience Centaurus recollects.
Aye well, that's my two bob's worth; although I'll probably regret it later....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the mid 60s we would shut the engine down and feather the prop at 300 feet after takeoff in a twin Dart airplane for asy practice. Made lots of actual single engine landings and go arounds. We had the engine that was shut down ready for a relight. I had an actual engine failure at 500 feet once with the other engine shut down and got it running in time, but it was exciting for a while.
Had 5 engine problems requiring shut down in that airplane and the experience gained in training was invaluable. Made them non-events.
The policy was changed to only allowing simulated shut downs but not for any problem we might have had, just that it was felt to be safer.
I did appreciate the experience and think that I know a lot more about single engine flight because I had that opportunity. The point about the landing swing is a good one and there is no way to simulate that, even by leaving the failed engine at high idle. The yaw with an engine feathered is very dynamic.
I have had problems a couple of times with setting the wrong simulated power, in that the prop drag was worse than a feathered prop would have been and the airplane was on its way down, requiring quick action to save it. Usually turboprop engines that have a big prop drag, such as Garrets.
Twice have had a student roll almost inverted due to Vmca during training with the failed engine at idle, so I am familiar with the risks. My first twin was the DC3 and that airplane really teaches you a lot.
I shut an engine down in an Aztec for training and could not get it running again due to battery failure. Generator on good engine failed too, so we had no electrical power and sun went down before we could land. No radio etc luckily runway lights were already on. Of course the running engine did not have the hyd pump. It was a great learning experience for the student. Most pilots never have a chance to do this in their entire flying career.
You could not buy that experience. But in retrospect I think using the throttle to simulate an engine failure is best.
Had 5 engine problems requiring shut down in that airplane and the experience gained in training was invaluable. Made them non-events.
The policy was changed to only allowing simulated shut downs but not for any problem we might have had, just that it was felt to be safer.
I did appreciate the experience and think that I know a lot more about single engine flight because I had that opportunity. The point about the landing swing is a good one and there is no way to simulate that, even by leaving the failed engine at high idle. The yaw with an engine feathered is very dynamic.
I have had problems a couple of times with setting the wrong simulated power, in that the prop drag was worse than a feathered prop would have been and the airplane was on its way down, requiring quick action to save it. Usually turboprop engines that have a big prop drag, such as Garrets.
Twice have had a student roll almost inverted due to Vmca during training with the failed engine at idle, so I am familiar with the risks. My first twin was the DC3 and that airplane really teaches you a lot.
I shut an engine down in an Aztec for training and could not get it running again due to battery failure. Generator on good engine failed too, so we had no electrical power and sun went down before we could land. No radio etc luckily runway lights were already on. Of course the running engine did not have the hyd pump. It was a great learning experience for the student. Most pilots never have a chance to do this in their entire flying career.
You could not buy that experience. But in retrospect I think using the throttle to simulate an engine failure is best.
The point about the landing swing is a good one and there is no way to simulate that, even by leaving the failed engine at high idle. The yaw with an engine feathered is very dynamic.
