Feather or Simulated Feather: what's the usual?

[Oktas8]

Recently an experienced pilot told me that he flies practice instrument approaches (flying school stuff) with a fully shut down engine, for MECIR training.

An alternative is obviously to do the training with a simulated feather scenario.

I'm wondering which is more common, or whether both are regarded as common practice. I would have thought that doing full shutdowns was quite rare these days, once or twice in each student's flying school experience. Is that not so?

Now there are many threads of anti-mixture-cut rants, pro-mixture-cut hobby horses, CASA-requires-shutdowns speeches, etc. This isn't the place for that, please.

[Nomde plume]

Requires a lot of trust in the unfeathering accumulator, or a lot of airspeed to get going with the starter. Would guess most piston twins used for training wouldn't meet required missed approach gradients and approaches like YMEN ils explicitly forbid it. I think students need to actually feather props a few times in different configurations (climb, descent, turns, approach, etc), to actually see the difference a feathered prop makes, but at a safe height (2-3k) with visual reference without the stress of IFR training. Engine failures in IMC can be practiced in the sim with feathering. After initial multi training and if the student is comfortable with feathering a prop, zero-thrust is more than adequate for circuit and/or approach training. Lots of accident reports to go along with that I think!

[Nomde plume]

To answer your question, I don't know of anywhere where a full shutdown is 'common practice'. Maybe just shown once at some point towards the end of the training may be beneficial, but risky. Shock cooling of the engine also presents a major problem.

[Timocracy]

Full feather once to show the students what it looks like. Takes forever to get the engine back up to temperature.

Some schools do a landing with a shutdown engine to show the reverse yaw.(live engine creates more drag than a feathered engine when throttles are at idle)

Feathering the engine every time sounds like a hard life for the engine and an accident waiting to happen. Sure he didn't mean that he mixture cuts rather then simulating with throttle as some schools do?

[waren9]

i have never seen that as a student, nor have i done that as an instructor.

the benefits are outweighed by the risks in doing so, imho.

sure, feather it up high and unfeather for the exercise, but a 1eo approach for the sake of it?

even that reverse yaw thing? nah. if its on the ground surely the student will have the nouse to keep it straight.

edit. this raises a few questions for me. intentionally inducing a failure? is a pan call made? is atc notified that normal performance is not available should they require it? insurance validity in the event the running 1 stops? all sorts of implications...

[Buttscratcher]

Dumbest thing I've heard today

I mean, what's the benefit of shutting an engine down, only to fly a nicely trimmed aircraft down a 3 degree constant rate instrument descent profile?
Man, my grandma could do that.... Hell my dog could probably do that

Quick thought tho, I hope none of you guys have to risk your ass' flying the aircraft after this nut-job takes life outta those engines by shock-cooling those heads

Snapperhead!

[Old Akro]

I've done a full feather on each new a/c type and the CIR renewals are simulated.

The question is, why are you doing this? what is the training exercise?

I would suggest that you are trying to practice doing 3 things:
1. identify the dead engine
2. Go through the procedure of securing the engine & configuring the good engine to fly with.
3. Practice the transition to climb (ie go around) with the performance of a single engine.

As Buttscratcher suggests, there is little value in practicing the steady state condition. Its the transitions that require practice. There is also value in practicing this in the SIM because it keeps you fluent in the checklists & procedures.

Also, I rather like the idea of keeping the engine turning over, pumping oil, etc.

[dubbleyew eight]

from what I have been told Butson's troubles with the department arose from him not shutting the engine down during engine failure training.
his belief was that shock cooling would kill the engine. you can find the details of the ten year stouch with the department yourself.

a company favoured for their lead in training for commercial pilots here in perth has always shut the engine down in their duchess trainers. they have never had an engine die from shock cooling and in fact have taken each engine to its TBO, at last count one duchess was on I think its sixth set of engines.

there was a double fatality near perth not so long ago of two guys flying home in their reasonably newly acquired twin.
they lost an engine and it is believed that they applied the corrections to the wrong engine. it is possible that they had never experienced an actual dead engine before. both are dead so they can't tell us.

draw your own conclusions gentlemen.

[VH-FTS]

Sounds like a good way to kill yourself and a student pilot who doesn't really know any better.

While it isn't 'law', CAAP 5.23-1 about multi engine training states (para 4.17.9) :

"Propellers should never be feathered in flight during training below 3000ft
AGL"

You'd be a brave person to go against such recommendations. Previous flying schools and CAR217 organisations I have worked at stipulated something similar in their operations manual.

I'd say your 'fairly experienced' mate is either an idiot or has miscommunicated what "fully shut down" means. Closing the mixture doesn't mean fully shut down, but feathering the prop as well pretty much does.

Good luck getting it unfeathered when the (very likely) day comes that you need both engines. I've had many a unfeathering accumulator work poorly or not at all following a feathering exercise >3000ft.

Setting zero thrust is a MUCH more sensible option (and it doesn't matter if you cut the mixture or close the throttle as your failure technique). If you really want to demonstrate the 'reverse yaw' on touch down, don't close both throttles during the landing - leave that tiny bit of power on the 'failed' engine.

[Slippery_Pete]

Doing a shutdown and restart at higher altitude in VMC for an endorsement only (like most sane people), and flying approaches during IFR training with one shutdown and feathered are two completely different kettles of fish.

Why are we even discussing this?

Natural selection will eventually take care of this idiot, and we can all get back to CASA and ATSB bashing.

[Oktas8]

Thanks guys. I'm glad Australia was not late to class the day that airmanship was handed out!

Question answered, nothing more to be said.

[Dashtrash]

Many years ago as a multi instructor I used to do inflight shutdowns at altitude as part of the initial multi endo and I planned the exercise to be within a short distance of an airfield. Beneficial to actually see the feathered prop but more so for showing how to get it started again. (CAO20.6 used to refer to the availability of a shutdown engine for restart. Or some such wording) I did stack the cards in my favor. At a safe alt/airport nearby/100USG is not required for a 1 hour flight/ and 1 of 2 aircraft (Be76) that we used all the time and I knew the charge in the accumulators was good. I would do 1 and only 1 feathered landing as part of an initial multi but with similar personal minimums to mitigate some of the risks. With sound judgement, I believe these things can be done safely but there are limitations on man and machine that must be understood. Mixture cuts at night at low level are just stupid.

[Centaurus]

Recently an experienced pilot told me that he flies practice instrument approaches (flying school stuff) with a fully shut down engine, for MECIR training.

The RAAF learned the folly of that over 55 years ago after several crashes where propellers were feathered for practice asymmetric landings and engine failures after take off. There were two major crashes at Townsville three years apart but for the same reason. These were Lincoln four engine bombers where an outboard engine was cut and its prop feathered for landing.

In the first instance the instructor was an experienced former wartime Lancaster pilot who only nine years earlier had won a DFC when his Lancaster was hit by another Lancaster at night during a raid over Germany. Not only did he have part of one wing torn away, but lost two engines. He felt it was safer to continue to the target on two engines using almost full aileron and rudder (in IMC single pilot by the way) than do a 180 and risk a head on collision with one of a few hundred Lancasters of the incoming bomber stream.

But I digress. The point being he was an experienced multi-engine flying instructor and a good one too. I know, because I flew with him many times at Townsville. The pilot he was converting at Townsville was a experienced wartime pilot, so he was no sprog CPL in a Duchess. The instructor was demonstrating a feathered landing in the usual 10 knot cross wind on 02 at Townsville (the old wartime runway) and because of the poor visibility over the nose of the Long Nosed Lincoln (worse still at night), he found himself straddling the left edge of the runway during the hold off with No 1 feathered. He went around again but below VMCa.

By dint of full rudder and considerable aileron he was able to keep it clear of the ground but the aircraft continued in ground effect in a half circle around the aerodrome boundary until it hit a power pole. The Lincoln crashed and caught fire but the three man crew escaped with minor injuries. The Court of Inquiry blamed the accident on pilot error which of course it was. But in those days feathered practice asymmetric landings were the norm in training.

Then a few years later, another instructor was training new pilots (they had about 230 hours and the Lincoln was their first multi engine type). This was at Townsville, too. On final for 20 this time with the port outboard feathered for a practice asymmetric landing. The Lincoln bounced (and my, how a Lincoln could bounce...) and the instructor (by coincidence another wartime Lancaster veteran) took over and tried to cushion the bounce by applying power on the remaining three engines and letting the aircraft down gently. The asymmetric yaw got too much and he tried to go-around. VMCa all over again and the Lincoln crashed and burned. No casualties although it was close to the then civilian terminal. Pilot error once more was the verdict.

By now the RAAF brass had had enough and belatedly brought in an Air Force directive that practice asymmetric landings were to be confined to throttled back zero thrust only. Meanwhile in civilian flying feathered landings continued to this day with the loss of many aircraft and lives.

OK, so todays instructors on the Duchess and Seminole are not expected to know history of old accidents- but that doesn't preclude the use of good old fashioned airmanship and commonsense - or it shouldn't. But I sometimes wonder!

[dubbleyew eight]

mixture.

be careful of the image you create. I wouldnt want to fly with anyone I thought was a feral redneck. others probably feel the same. you never know.

[LeadSled]

his belief was that shock cooling would kill the engine

doubleyew8,
Quite simply no so --- Butson refused to do as demanded by an FOI, operate the aircraft outside its certified flight envelope as established in the AFM, per CAR 138. -- he wasn't concerned about the life of his engines, he was concerned about the life of his employees and himself.

Despite the CAAP mentioned in another post, we are still seeing pressure from some FOIs and equally dumb instructors/ATOs to "practice V1 cuts", something that does not exist in most FAR 23 certified aircraft.

As to the "training value" of shutting dowm engines completely (other than at a safe height, say min. 3000' AGL, daylight VMC) it is very clear that the "training value" does not exist --- compared to properly conducted zero thrust simulation of an engine failure.

The toll in dead bodies is there for all to see.

[Jack Ranga]

Isn't it a fact there are far more fatalities from multi engine training than there are from actual engine failures?

[LeadSled]

Jack,
A very short answer: YES!!

[dubbleyew eight]

well it looks like Butson got the last laugh.
if the stories are correct CASA had to pay out $10 million in compensation.

[Centaurus]

if the stories are correct CASA had to pay out $10 million in compensation.

I heard from a lawyer that compensation was also paid by CASA to the survivor (now safely back in Canada) of the Duchess accident at Camden several years back. That was the mixture cut shortly after lift off and the aircraft finished up skating along on its belly until it hit farm machinery and burst into flames. The ATO later died of burns.

[dubbleyew eight]

this drifts the tread a bit but there is a need for quality training.

of all the guys who learnt with me at Albury not one that I know of has ever pranged an aeroplane.
we were taught by ex point cook WW2 RAAF instructors in the main.
these guys weren't afraid to teach circuits in 25 knot crosswinds if they thought the student capable enough.
that is my background.

on our airfield over the last few years there has been a spate of minor accidents. all seem to have been taught by one instructor. I have heard one of his lessons when he keyed the mike accidentally and the delivery was immaculate. but his students keep on pranging aircraft so what gives?

what do you need to do to turn out a thoroughly competent pilot?
I suppose that is the $64 question, and the conundrum for CASA as well.