Turning off the donkey in flight. Yes or No?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turning off the donkey in flight. Yes or No?
I am following on a discussion thread in Wannabes entitled 'Crashes - they happen'.
The thread is a little large and off topic now so I've started it here. Go read it.
Personally I've done plenty of engine off landings but in motor gliders whichmust be safe becasue it was done with the Air Training Corps and that it overseen by Central Flying School RAF. I've been in Group A aircraft when its been done but I don't condone it and was not the captain. I absolutely hate the people who liek to take out the keys etc and throw them in the back/dangle them out of the window.
What do you think/do?
WWW
The thread is a little large and off topic now so I've started it here. Go read it.
Personally I've done plenty of engine off landings but in motor gliders whichmust be safe becasue it was done with the Air Training Corps and that it overseen by Central Flying School RAF. I've been in Group A aircraft when its been done but I don't condone it and was not the captain. I absolutely hate the people who liek to take out the keys etc and throw them in the back/dangle them out of the window.
What do you think/do?
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's quite normal to shut down the single engine of a self-launching motor glider. However, in a 'Group A'(old term) aeroplane I personally think that it is crass stupidity to do so. And anyone who dangles the keys out of the window should be dangled out of the window themselves!
I couldn't find any reference to deliberate engine shut-downs in single-engined aeroplanes in the AIC concerning guidance to training captains conducting engine failure training - either the CAA cannot believe that any one would deliberately do so, or the topic is covered elsewhere?
I couldn't find any reference to deliberate engine shut-downs in single-engined aeroplanes in the AIC concerning guidance to training captains conducting engine failure training - either the CAA cannot believe that any one would deliberately do so, or the topic is covered elsewhere?
Moderator
When in doubt of the wisdom of these things, think to yourself "If the worst happens, will the insurance company pay up?" If the answer is no, don't do it.
I think insurance companies would crack up laughing at this one. Including the life insurance companies, I think it would probably be classified as suicide.
------------------
I think insurance companies would crack up laughing at this one. Including the life insurance companies, I think it would probably be classified as suicide.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
I personally would like to try it at least once, but with only myself in the plane and not for a couple of thousand more hours yet. However although I'm not the sort of chap to thump people, I probably would if somebody did it to me. While I'm sure it has some benefit as a training exercise (which is why I'd like to try it) I can't help but feel the minuses more than outweigh the pluses.
Cheers DB6
Cheers DB6
Guest
Posts: n/a
No you don't want to switch off the donkey, particularly in winter as the heater stops working!!
Like you WWW I have done lots of eng off in the motor glider. Thats okay as we typically lose 200FPM. In the Cherry Tree its more like 1000FPM. Much less time to restart the eng in case of b*lls ups!
I was certainly never taught to switch the engine off in the air during my AFI.
Did switch the right engine off in the Seneca during my twin training. We almost maintained straight and level flight!
Like you WWW I have done lots of eng off in the motor glider. Thats okay as we typically lose 200FPM. In the Cherry Tree its more like 1000FPM. Much less time to restart the eng in case of b*lls ups!
I was certainly never taught to switch the engine off in the air during my AFI.
Did switch the right engine off in the Seneca during my twin training. We almost maintained straight and level flight!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been shown the prop-stopped handling of a piston single. Thought it an experience but wouldn't teach it to my PPL students.
Definitely agree with the sentiments about insurance.
Don't think it's safe to even do it in favourable circumstances, ie at a reasonable height in the overhead of a suitable airfield on a 5kt-straight-down-the-runway sort of day, because you're leaving a big hostage to fortune (will it or won't it start) and you can bet that if your luck's out in the engine dept, it's bound to be out in other ways too.
------------------
Get there eventually
Definitely agree with the sentiments about insurance.
Don't think it's safe to even do it in favourable circumstances, ie at a reasonable height in the overhead of a suitable airfield on a 5kt-straight-down-the-runway sort of day, because you're leaving a big hostage to fortune (will it or won't it start) and you can bet that if your luck's out in the engine dept, it's bound to be out in other ways too.
------------------
Get there eventually
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've let this one run a bit without comment because I could not believe the original question was serious.
Having discussed it with a colleague at SRG, the party line is that, should such stupidity come to the ears of the Authority, they would seriously consider a prosecution on the grounds of reckless endangerment. The idiot's licence would not last long in any event.
Having discussed it with a colleague at SRG, the party line is that, should such stupidity come to the ears of the Authority, they would seriously consider a prosecution on the grounds of reckless endangerment. The idiot's licence would not last long in any event.
It depends on your definitions: "turning off the engine" can mean simply pulling the mixture for a practice engine failure.
That is a required part of light aircraft training! Glide approaches from base - as the Practice Forced Landing is rarely completed to landing in a paddock, I would have done this with every student.
Turning off the mags (switching off the keys) is a little rarer - removing the keys is stupidity, as it serves no training purpose.
Stopping the prop? I was introduced to this in my aerobatic rating, and it happens as a matter of course in a power off spin in a Robin (at least the one I fly) so it has a positive training value to demonstrate restarts to students who intend to fly aerobatics - both with the starter motor and using a dive start technique.
I wouldn't stop the prop for a glide approach and landing, though, as I cannot see any training benefit over a glide approach with a windmilling prop - and a much larger risk increase, as in the "remove the key" case.
That is a required part of light aircraft training! Glide approaches from base - as the Practice Forced Landing is rarely completed to landing in a paddock, I would have done this with every student.
Turning off the mags (switching off the keys) is a little rarer - removing the keys is stupidity, as it serves no training purpose.
Stopping the prop? I was introduced to this in my aerobatic rating, and it happens as a matter of course in a power off spin in a Robin (at least the one I fly) so it has a positive training value to demonstrate restarts to students who intend to fly aerobatics - both with the starter motor and using a dive start technique.
I wouldn't stop the prop for a glide approach and landing, though, as I cannot see any training benefit over a glide approach with a windmilling prop - and a much larger risk increase, as in the "remove the key" case.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to say, from a realism point of view, shutting down the engine cannot be more true to life, but what will the commision of enquiry think of it? Bloody stupid idea!
On my second PPL renewal, the examiner did just that to me (pulled the mixture) inspite of my warning him beforehand that if the engine did die, I'd treat it as an emergency. I terminated the test there and then, and returned to the field, where the examiner was treated to my grumpiest style of disagreement. (before my CRM course!
)
I tested the next day with a proper instructor, and passed!
Now that I am an instructor, in the pre-test briefing, I make sure that the candidate is fully aware that if the engine dies, we have a full emergency. I don't even simulate the engine failure after take-off at our base, because of too many houses nearby, I prefer to do it on the Go-around from either the forced landing or the precautionary.
As an aside, the local parachute club had a couple of jokers who liked to take the keys with them as the dispatched, until a rather large Irish mate of mine was flying. On the completion of the successful landing, the skydiver spent a weekend in hospital for wounds recieved during the "de-briefing".
In brief, don't do it, and don't fly with those who do!
On my second PPL renewal, the examiner did just that to me (pulled the mixture) inspite of my warning him beforehand that if the engine did die, I'd treat it as an emergency. I terminated the test there and then, and returned to the field, where the examiner was treated to my grumpiest style of disagreement. (before my CRM course!
)I tested the next day with a proper instructor, and passed!
Now that I am an instructor, in the pre-test briefing, I make sure that the candidate is fully aware that if the engine dies, we have a full emergency. I don't even simulate the engine failure after take-off at our base, because of too many houses nearby, I prefer to do it on the Go-around from either the forced landing or the precautionary.
As an aside, the local parachute club had a couple of jokers who liked to take the keys with them as the dispatched, until a rather large Irish mate of mine was flying. On the completion of the successful landing, the skydiver spent a weekend in hospital for wounds recieved during the "de-briefing".
In brief, don't do it, and don't fly with those who do!
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about doing it on the AFI course for us instructors? I think there may be some benefit to doing it as it is perfectly possible for us to encounter the engine stopping during stalling or spinning. Its happened to me twice and although I've experienced it going very very quiet many times in the Vigilant MG it could easily instill panic in a new instructor. If we practice spin recovery then it seems to me the an actual engine stop carries equal risk and is equally as likely to be encountered and cause panic.
Just a thought.
WWW
ps removing the keys ought to be a criminal offence.
Just a thought.
WWW
ps removing the keys ought to be a criminal offence.
Guest
Posts: n/a
.......and start a small fire in the cabin so the student instructor can practise dealing with those as well??
Spoke to a very experienced instructor who teaches SLMG and PPL yesterday. The basic difference is that the half-airbrake approach in an SLMG is a totally different technique to the glide approach or FLWOP in a Spamcan. My Flying Order Book specifically prohibits using the ignition or mixture controls to simulate an engine failure in a single-engined aircraft. I would immediately pass the details of any pilot who disobeyed these orders to the CAA's enforcement branch and urge that the miscreant be prosecuted with the maximum severity. After we'd finished kicking the living sh*t out of him!!
Spoke to a very experienced instructor who teaches SLMG and PPL yesterday. The basic difference is that the half-airbrake approach in an SLMG is a totally different technique to the glide approach or FLWOP in a Spamcan. My Flying Order Book specifically prohibits using the ignition or mixture controls to simulate an engine failure in a single-engined aircraft. I would immediately pass the details of any pilot who disobeyed these orders to the CAA's enforcement branch and urge that the miscreant be prosecuted with the maximum severity. After we'd finished kicking the living sh*t out of him!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is interesting, with some very emotive discussion! If anyone cares to consult the CAA syllabus you will find a section under emergencies titled 'air starts', this is the technique of using altitude and attitude to re-start a failed engine with a stationary prop. All quite legit, so the SRG are lacking a bit on this one BEagle!
When I was a 509 instructor the HoT (he was also Standards) took me to one side and asked me how I was teaching this, I gulped and said I was'nt, he smiled in his usual wry manner and said 'ok lets try it'! I was, I admit, a wee bit apprehensive, but I was all for trying something new. We went up to above 5 grand and stopped the engine and the prop and glided for half a minute or so, exploring the characteristics then re-started it with no drama. We did both key start and air start. No throwing the keys in the back seat or dangling out the window, that is plain stupid and silly.
I was converted after this, and it is a valuable lesson to teach that an engine can be restarted even when the prop has stopped, and it shows how the aircraft can still be handled normally if the prop is stationary, and in this we prove the glide after a catistrophic engine failure.
There we have it, all legal and proper!
When I was a 509 instructor the HoT (he was also Standards) took me to one side and asked me how I was teaching this, I gulped and said I was'nt, he smiled in his usual wry manner and said 'ok lets try it'! I was, I admit, a wee bit apprehensive, but I was all for trying something new. We went up to above 5 grand and stopped the engine and the prop and glided for half a minute or so, exploring the characteristics then re-started it with no drama. We did both key start and air start. No throwing the keys in the back seat or dangling out the window, that is plain stupid and silly.
I was converted after this, and it is a valuable lesson to teach that an engine can be restarted even when the prop has stopped, and it shows how the aircraft can still be handled normally if the prop is stationary, and in this we prove the glide after a catistrophic engine failure.
There we have it, all legal and proper!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It seems my original post that WWW refers has kicked of a great professional debate. BEagle already knows my views about the subject however...
I think a prop stopped exercise is a valuable training situation. I don't believe that removing the keys, tossing 'em in the back or hanging them out the window is responsible or ethical.
What I DO maintain is that a properly structured exercise is a beneficial task for the student and poses little more risk (if any) than say, asymmetric rejected take-offs. To differentiate from gliders or any other non-powered, heavier-than-air type is fallacious. As long as the aircraft is operated within it's glide performance envelope then what's the difference?
I, too, was required to do prop stopped, air & starter motor restarts for both my initial aerobatics endorsement & later my aero. instructor approval. In both cases the situation was set up over an airstrip, with enough height to use either direction + no TFC. Of course the controls were set for a restart once the engine was stopped.
There is a large change in glide performance between an idling & a stopped engine. It can make a few hundred ft/min difference & that's only a Cessna 150!.
As for the argument about 'what if someone cuts in front?' - then land beside / behind as appropriate. Similarly this is no different to doing a shutdown & feathered approach & landing in a light twin. Once commital height is reached then that's what it means.
My (twin) students were in no doubt about going around or not below decision height if I gave them an asymmetric approach. (Of course I told them that I might countermand their decision if it was a non-feathered situation. But the message was: If the performance doesn't allow it - then don't try it.)
I really can't see the difference.
Doing it at Bankstown (one of the busiest GA aerodromes in the S. hemisphere? No, of course not. Doing at Upper Whoop Whoop airstrip as nearly the sole operator? Different story.
As an aside, just try the bloody shaking & vibration that happens at best glide IAS with a windmilling but stopped engine. It really can be horrendous.
------------------
Don't mess with the red switches.
I think a prop stopped exercise is a valuable training situation. I don't believe that removing the keys, tossing 'em in the back or hanging them out the window is responsible or ethical.
What I DO maintain is that a properly structured exercise is a beneficial task for the student and poses little more risk (if any) than say, asymmetric rejected take-offs. To differentiate from gliders or any other non-powered, heavier-than-air type is fallacious. As long as the aircraft is operated within it's glide performance envelope then what's the difference?
I, too, was required to do prop stopped, air & starter motor restarts for both my initial aerobatics endorsement & later my aero. instructor approval. In both cases the situation was set up over an airstrip, with enough height to use either direction + no TFC. Of course the controls were set for a restart once the engine was stopped.
There is a large change in glide performance between an idling & a stopped engine. It can make a few hundred ft/min difference & that's only a Cessna 150!.
As for the argument about 'what if someone cuts in front?' - then land beside / behind as appropriate. Similarly this is no different to doing a shutdown & feathered approach & landing in a light twin. Once commital height is reached then that's what it means.
My (twin) students were in no doubt about going around or not below decision height if I gave them an asymmetric approach. (Of course I told them that I might countermand their decision if it was a non-feathered situation. But the message was: If the performance doesn't allow it - then don't try it.)
I really can't see the difference.
Doing it at Bankstown (one of the busiest GA aerodromes in the S. hemisphere? No, of course not. Doing at Upper Whoop Whoop airstrip as nearly the sole operator? Different story.
As an aside, just try the bloody shaking & vibration that happens at best glide IAS with a windmilling but stopped engine. It really can be horrendous.
------------------
Don't mess with the red switches.
Guest
Posts: n/a
We'll have to agree to differ mate!! And I'm convinced by my SLMG mucker that flying a glide approach in a Spamcan and flying a half-airbrake approach in a glider or SLMG are most emphatically not the same thing!! But if you've got hundreds of Oz miles available in all directions, then I guess things are different to over here in Blighty!! Oh-and I flew a T67 a couple of years ago (useless damn thing it was too - desperately poor roll rate for half-decent aeros!!) which invariably went silent (prop stopped) if the student got lost in the vertical. Always started on pressing the tit - but I certainly always stayed within gliding range of a reasonable aerodrome as I'd never be overconfident enough to assume that the little sod wouldn't let me down when I least expected it to!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle,
I figured in the other thread we'd have to agree to differ. Doesn't negate discussing the pro's & cons of the topic though.
I too have always stayed within gliding range of an aerodrome for engine stoppages.
I'm interested in what your friend said about it none the less. Feel free to email me if you prefer.
----------
Tinny with the outbourd stopped :-)
I figured in the other thread we'd have to agree to differ. Doesn't negate discussing the pro's & cons of the topic though.
I too have always stayed within gliding range of an aerodrome for engine stoppages.
I'm interested in what your friend said about it none the less. Feel free to email me if you prefer.
----------
Tinny with the outbourd stopped :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
But what about my point of including the exercise in the FI training course? Must admit I've only ever done one proper windmill air start before (SLMG again) - not sure how efficiently I could try one in my current PA38/28's... might come in useful some day.
WWW
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Doing it at 3000', practicing aeros or spin recoveries, is very different to deliberately killing the donk and trying to glide the bastard in.
As a student my CFI had delusions of Hoover and used shut down the Decathlon at 4000' over the field, do aeros all the way down to 500', land and taxi in to the school. One day he misjudged the winds and couldn't restart the Donk... we all had to go out and push him in from the end of the runway.
Another fella I know was doing a checkout in remote NW Ozmate at night.... the Chief pilot failed the lights on him. He was trying to hold the torch in his mouth etc etc etc when the chief pilot pulled the mixture... and a Cessna 206 doesn't glide real well!
The Chief Pilot was promptly told to get knotted and J. restarted the engine, landing without incident.
As Col Pay says, "Why turn a practice emergency into a real one?"
As a student my CFI had delusions of Hoover and used shut down the Decathlon at 4000' over the field, do aeros all the way down to 500', land and taxi in to the school. One day he misjudged the winds and couldn't restart the Donk... we all had to go out and push him in from the end of the runway.
Another fella I know was doing a checkout in remote NW Ozmate at night.... the Chief pilot failed the lights on him. He was trying to hold the torch in his mouth etc etc etc when the chief pilot pulled the mixture... and a Cessna 206 doesn't glide real well!
The Chief Pilot was promptly told to get knotted and J. restarted the engine, landing without incident.
As Col Pay says, "Why turn a practice emergency into a real one?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
(This is the transfer of a reply to this thread that was posted in 'Tech Log'. CFI: Damn good point about insurance. The practice would have to be in Ops Manual).
What a marvellous topic. I recall this starting a rather heated debate back in my
instructing days. In viewpoint is
(re: pistons)....
TWIN
----
For engine failures, simulate by closing the throttle. Set zero thrust when student completes drill. Never simulate by 'slotting' the mixture. Exception? Yes. I am a firm
believer in experiencing a fully feathered approach. Thus, full engine shutdown is ok if
1,000'+ and ATC is notified (to keep traffic away).
SINGLE
------
Provided a decision height is chosen (the point at which any attempt to restart the
engine is abandoned and the pilot commits himself to a forced landing, I see no problem
in doing so. I had MY instructor take the keys out of the IGN once. I never did that.
You are just asking for trouble. Delib. shutting down of an engine is of benefit to teach the student (1. the aircraft really DOES still fly, 2. how to do an airstart and 3. How much fun a silent barrel roll is). Shut down of an engine during a PFL would kill your ability to have a decision/committal height (thus VERY unwise).
This is just my opinion. Let the debate continue.
What a marvellous topic. I recall this starting a rather heated debate back in my
instructing days. In viewpoint is
(re: pistons)....
TWIN
----
For engine failures, simulate by closing the throttle. Set zero thrust when student completes drill. Never simulate by 'slotting' the mixture. Exception? Yes. I am a firm
believer in experiencing a fully feathered approach. Thus, full engine shutdown is ok if
1,000'+ and ATC is notified (to keep traffic away).
SINGLE
------
Provided a decision height is chosen (the point at which any attempt to restart the
engine is abandoned and the pilot commits himself to a forced landing, I see no problem
in doing so. I had MY instructor take the keys out of the IGN once. I never did that.
You are just asking for trouble. Delib. shutting down of an engine is of benefit to teach the student (1. the aircraft really DOES still fly, 2. how to do an airstart and 3. How much fun a silent barrel roll is). Shut down of an engine during a PFL would kill your ability to have a decision/committal height (thus VERY unwise).
This is just my opinion. Let the debate continue.