Multi-engine training mixture cuts
Thread Starter
Multi-engine training mixture cuts
Am up-dating my briefing notes on multi-engine (piston) asymmetric training after re-reading the CAAP 5.23-1(0) - which covers the syllabus of ME training-day and night. Would appreciate feed-back from instructors who simulate engine failure on take off by cutting the mixture rather than closing the throttle.
Have you struck any handling errors with this technique (student identifying wrong engine, slow to react to swing, time delay after mixture cut to re-introduction of mixture and zero thrust throttle setting during climb out etc). In general what altitudes and speeds do you initiate the mixture cut?
Also is there value in cutting a mixture at rotation with the training intention of teaching the student to immediately land on remaining runway length? Appreciate real experience anecdotes on the subject of simulated engine failures on take off in light piston twins as all instructors can learn from others experiences.
Have you struck any handling errors with this technique (student identifying wrong engine, slow to react to swing, time delay after mixture cut to re-introduction of mixture and zero thrust throttle setting during climb out etc). In general what altitudes and speeds do you initiate the mixture cut?
Also is there value in cutting a mixture at rotation with the training intention of teaching the student to immediately land on remaining runway length? Appreciate real experience anecdotes on the subject of simulated engine failures on take off in light piston twins as all instructors can learn from others experiences.
Hi centaurus, I thought you'd covered this one before. . .
Anyway, yes I use mixture cuts after takeoff successfully, but I have encountered a few 'problems' from time to time. I've found particularly with a green students (Fresh PPL and initial multi) that there is still the tendancy to 'look inside' for the problem/anecdote rather than look outside and see whats going on and correct it.
With regards to altitudes and time delays, I have my own limits in place and if the person hasn't recovered the yaw or reacted to the engine failure by my limits then it's "Taking over" and I recover the aircraft and discuss what (or what didn't) happen.
I have had the wrong rudder put in on a few occasions, I found if I got the student to remove the 'dead leg' from the rudder pedal altogether, it tended to minimise the confusion. But it does depend on the person.
I've never cut the mixture on rotation and the reason in my madness is because I believe the controlabilty (nose wheel wise) on most twin trainers out there is fairly questionable close to rotation speeds. I emphasise trainers because I've found these to be the worst. This coupled with a slow reaction time could end up rather nasty.
My two cents. . .
GA Driver
Anyway, yes I use mixture cuts after takeoff successfully, but I have encountered a few 'problems' from time to time. I've found particularly with a green students (Fresh PPL and initial multi) that there is still the tendancy to 'look inside' for the problem/anecdote rather than look outside and see whats going on and correct it.
With regards to altitudes and time delays, I have my own limits in place and if the person hasn't recovered the yaw or reacted to the engine failure by my limits then it's "Taking over" and I recover the aircraft and discuss what (or what didn't) happen.
I have had the wrong rudder put in on a few occasions, I found if I got the student to remove the 'dead leg' from the rudder pedal altogether, it tended to minimise the confusion. But it does depend on the person.
I've never cut the mixture on rotation and the reason in my madness is because I believe the controlabilty (nose wheel wise) on most twin trainers out there is fairly questionable close to rotation speeds. I emphasise trainers because I've found these to be the worst. This coupled with a slow reaction time could end up rather nasty.
My two cents. . .
GA Driver
Last edited by GA Driver; 18th Aug 2003 at 21:10.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have had done to me in the past as a multi student:
The mixture cut on the take off roll just prior to rotation - all OK though I assume the instructors feet wernt too far away had I miss-identified.
Havnt had the engine failure ON rotaion requiring me to reland (wouldnt be enough runway I dont think anyway), usually the instructor would wait till a couple of hundred feet AGL. Fortunatley rotate speed was almost the same as Blue Line anyway.
As an initial multi student I found that as long as I paused ever so briefly to identify the yaw it wasnt difficult to correctly identify the engine - where I found I had to be more switched on was with an engine being failed on the turn onto base or final with a low power setting AND partway through a turn.
The mixture cut on the take off roll just prior to rotation - all OK though I assume the instructors feet wernt too far away had I miss-identified.
Havnt had the engine failure ON rotaion requiring me to reland (wouldnt be enough runway I dont think anyway), usually the instructor would wait till a couple of hundred feet AGL. Fortunatley rotate speed was almost the same as Blue Line anyway.
As an initial multi student I found that as long as I paused ever so briefly to identify the yaw it wasnt difficult to correctly identify the engine - where I found I had to be more switched on was with an engine being failed on the turn onto base or final with a low power setting AND partway through a turn.
Thread Starter
Thanks so far. Would appreciate any discernable difference in mixture cuts on take off between fuel injected types and normal carby types - specifically in how quickly the engine picks up once the mixture is re-introduced.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that it would be more prudent to fail engines AT ALTITUDE with the mixture, and any failures in the circuit after takeoff be limited to using the throttle. Initially, the candidate pilot should also be told what engine is to be failed and how the engine is to be failed. There should be no doubt or misconception as to what is about to occur.
After some proficiency is attained in handling the failure and proper identification & recovery technique is demonststrated by them, then a few 'trick' failures where the candidate doesn't know in advance which engine is acceptable and is going to be less risky.
The aim is to transfer knowledge - not to play smart@rse instructor who can trick the student - and in the process,increase the risk in having a 'training accident'.
Engine failures after take off should be limited to at least 300 feet agl.
There is no extra benefit to be gained by failing engines at low level after takeoff. The candidate pilot will get as much benefit with failures at or ablove 300 feet agl and having to clamber up to circuit height as is by doing so from a lower altitude, and the risk involved is reduced considerably. There is more margin for error should the excercise go pear shaped in the process.
The aim is to minimise risk involved in engine failure demonstration and practice.
Don't be misled by plenty of bravado that may be displayed by some regarding this subject.
Risk management and reduction is the key to safe training practices.
Don't just take my word for it; call up old timers like Ken Andrews and Ces Sly in Sydney who have been doing twin training for decades and see what their opinion on low level engine failures are, as well as any other advice you can get from these guys' experience.
Here endeth the sermon.
After some proficiency is attained in handling the failure and proper identification & recovery technique is demonststrated by them, then a few 'trick' failures where the candidate doesn't know in advance which engine is acceptable and is going to be less risky.
The aim is to transfer knowledge - not to play smart@rse instructor who can trick the student - and in the process,increase the risk in having a 'training accident'.
Engine failures after take off should be limited to at least 300 feet agl.
There is no extra benefit to be gained by failing engines at low level after takeoff. The candidate pilot will get as much benefit with failures at or ablove 300 feet agl and having to clamber up to circuit height as is by doing so from a lower altitude, and the risk involved is reduced considerably. There is more margin for error should the excercise go pear shaped in the process.
The aim is to minimise risk involved in engine failure demonstration and practice.
Don't be misled by plenty of bravado that may be displayed by some regarding this subject.
Risk management and reduction is the key to safe training practices.
Don't just take my word for it; call up old timers like Ken Andrews and Ces Sly in Sydney who have been doing twin training for decades and see what their opinion on low level engine failures are, as well as any other advice you can get from these guys' experience.
Here endeth the sermon.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cor - memories! Old Chew Chew Andrews was one of my instructors on Wirraways a million years ago at Central Flying School on the instructors course. Nice man with a bristling moustache. And Cec Sly and self were RAAF instructors at Uranquinty also a million years ago. He was a very popular chap. How about that -amazing what Pprune comes up with at times.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ME Training
I recall back when I was doing ME training with Centaurus himself that engine failures where initially done at altitude with a mixture cut. I consider this a better option than at low levels as it allowed me to concentrate the drill of identifying and securing the dead engine without the added pressure of height at this early stage in training.
As i recall most of the ME drills were performed at altitude including go arounds. I can see the perspective from an instructors viewpoint as to why higher altitude assymetric training is beneficial in that if the green student was to apply the wrong rudder to counteract yaw and one wasn't ready they could easily end up inverted in no time and at low level... well you know the results.
As far as mixture cut compared to throttle, I have only ever seen instructors including during my CIR test that the mixture has been cut with a loud an audible "SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURE" to ease confusion. It gets back to classic human factors that if a student doesn't hear the word simulated and the expectation is just that then confusion can easily set in.
Thats me two cents worth...
Ang
As i recall most of the ME drills were performed at altitude including go arounds. I can see the perspective from an instructors viewpoint as to why higher altitude assymetric training is beneficial in that if the green student was to apply the wrong rudder to counteract yaw and one wasn't ready they could easily end up inverted in no time and at low level... well you know the results.
As far as mixture cut compared to throttle, I have only ever seen instructors including during my CIR test that the mixture has been cut with a loud an audible "SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURE" to ease confusion. It gets back to classic human factors that if a student doesn't hear the word simulated and the expectation is just that then confusion can easily set in.
Thats me two cents worth...
Ang
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to those more experienced than me, and acknowledging the difference between primary students and line pilots...I can't believe you would consider cutting an engine right at or after take off. On the roll perhaps and maybe just maybe at/after takoff by a power reduction (and with a complete briefing), but not by pulling the mixture.
Have there been any studies into accidents or fatalities during training verses in real operations? I'd say it created an unecessary risk that wasn't worth the potential benefit...and I'd hate to have to tell someone that I'd hurt their family member in a situation of my making.
Have there been any studies into accidents or fatalities during training verses in real operations? I'd say it created an unecessary risk that wasn't worth the potential benefit...and I'd hate to have to tell someone that I'd hurt their family member in a situation of my making.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Antipodes & ....
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Colonel Kurtz
Well done with regard to your sound, safe and sane words of wisdom regarding ME training - I wish more instructors understood the ideas of risk management and the fact that they are there to train someone - not trick them.
Fark.
Fark.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest these "fuel mixture cutters" consult their pilot operating handbook on correct way to simulate engine failures....retarding the throttle ......more Aussie know-how sprouting.....
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe thats why alot of owners of the larger twins dont like people doing m/e endorsments in there a/c,I know i wouldnt like someone pulling the mixture on my 60,grand engine.My instructer briefed me before the exercise and said he would be closing the throttle to simulate the eng failure.I think if you are training thats what you should be doing.If a student lost control the instructer only has to advance the throttle, not advance the mixture reach across and hit the boost pumps bit of throttle get it going!!!!Well I guess thats what I think.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very good info here. Cheers Col, well put.
I tend to use the mixture to simulate the engine failure. I find it gives a much more realistic result. The engine does not tend to stop unless you feather the prop. As the student brings the pitch back to simulate feathering, advance the mixture.
I also use the mixture control in singles to simulate the failure as it makes the student use all the correct techniques. If you close the throttle to simulate the engine failure, the student most times does not include moving the throttle to idle in their checks, as it is already there.
And I never fail an engine below 300 agl. My life is worth to much. Leave that for the sim. You can crash that as much as you like.
I tend to use the mixture to simulate the engine failure. I find it gives a much more realistic result. The engine does not tend to stop unless you feather the prop. As the student brings the pitch back to simulate feathering, advance the mixture.
I also use the mixture control in singles to simulate the failure as it makes the student use all the correct techniques. If you close the throttle to simulate the engine failure, the student most times does not include moving the throttle to idle in their checks, as it is already there.
And I never fail an engine below 300 agl. My life is worth to much. Leave that for the sim. You can crash that as much as you like.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to use the mixture to simulate the engine failure.
Not in accordance with the airplane pilot operating handbook or engine manufacturers instructions of course
The engine does not tend to stop
These heroes ought to have their tickets pulled before they kill a student....let alone get their grubby hands on a real plane full of good pax...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having not taught multi conversion I have never considered what the a/c manual says about simulating engine failures (twins).
From what Ive seen tho, I havnt seen how retarding the throttle would be significantly safer than the mixture. Once the mixture is reintroduced power is instantaneous without requiring the fuel pumps. Ultimately if full power is suddenly required during the simultation all that need to be done is to advance the mixture back to full rich and your away. Im sure these methods would vary depending on a/c type.
The engine never grinds to a halt as if your at a good IAS (usually blue line) the falied engine will continue to windmill and cutting the mixture seems to result in less 'snap crackle pop' by the engine (in my own opinion). Wouldnt do it in a single myself tho.
Well thats how Ive always seen it and its how the flight examiners do it over here anyway.
From what Ive seen tho, I havnt seen how retarding the throttle would be significantly safer than the mixture. Once the mixture is reintroduced power is instantaneous without requiring the fuel pumps. Ultimately if full power is suddenly required during the simultation all that need to be done is to advance the mixture back to full rich and your away. Im sure these methods would vary depending on a/c type.
The engine never grinds to a halt as if your at a good IAS (usually blue line) the falied engine will continue to windmill and cutting the mixture seems to result in less 'snap crackle pop' by the engine (in my own opinion). Wouldnt do it in a single myself tho.
Well thats how Ive always seen it and its how the flight examiners do it over here anyway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Centaurus. You asked about mixture cut on fuel injected engines. Recall an instructor that pulled the mixture on a Seneca type and got the student to fly a full asymmetric circuit with mixture cut in order to simulate a windmilling prop. It's called double jeopardy.
Student told to do a touch and go while the instructor brought the mixture to rich on touch-down. Student advanced both throttles but due lack of fuel in the lines after several minutes of windmilling at altitude, the engine did not deliver immediate power.
Aircraft swung off the strip during the touch and go and hit an obstruction off the flight strip and ground looped and burnt. Student got badly scorched while exiting aircraft. It is true that mixture cuts can make a simulated engine failure more "realistic" - but there is a limit to that sort of thing. Some call it "practicing bleeding". Very apt description.
And by the way. Seems awfully risky to actually get the student to pull back the pitch lever towards feather as a "touch drill"
Must say that some people really do love taking risks in the name of "training". What's that adage about "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but not many old, bold pilots". I'll go along with that.
Student told to do a touch and go while the instructor brought the mixture to rich on touch-down. Student advanced both throttles but due lack of fuel in the lines after several minutes of windmilling at altitude, the engine did not deliver immediate power.
Aircraft swung off the strip during the touch and go and hit an obstruction off the flight strip and ground looped and burnt. Student got badly scorched while exiting aircraft. It is true that mixture cuts can make a simulated engine failure more "realistic" - but there is a limit to that sort of thing. Some call it "practicing bleeding". Very apt description.
And by the way. Seems awfully risky to actually get the student to pull back the pitch lever towards feather as a "touch drill"
Must say that some people really do love taking risks in the name of "training". What's that adage about "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but not many old, bold pilots". I'll go along with that.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When doing engine cuts with throttle your valve train is still getting lubrication from the lead in the fuel,when its windmilling at idle cutoff theres no fuel going to the cylinders,So no lubrication to the valve stems.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gottom 2 Dollar. Not being an LAME I don't know the ramifications of loss of oil to valve stems. Does this mean mixture cuts can cause severe engine damage long term? If so, why has not CASA issued a warning on this type of engine failure simulation?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menen,Oil dosnt lube valve stems(unless you have leaking valve stem seals)Its the fuel air mixture flowing thru the cylinder head that lubes valve stems(thats what the lead in the fuel does)Thats also why my ute loves AVGAS!!!PS this is what my theory books for Piston engine theory and construction said!!F@#$ CASA!!!