ATSB Report Camden Duchess fatal accident
ok then.. let me ask you this question. Would you simluate an engine failure after takeoff in a single engine aircraft with the use of the mixture?
No. didn't think so.... I dont know but realistically if a ATO or otherwise did that to me at an alititude that was not safe I would be punching the mixture back up and say were going home. The cockpit it not the place the "talk" about such things.
The risk is not worth the experience.
No. didn't think so.... I dont know but realistically if a ATO or otherwise did that to me at an alititude that was not safe I would be punching the mixture back up and say were going home. The cockpit it not the place the "talk" about such things.
The risk is not worth the experience.
Having spent a consireable amount of time in GA, I have never had a Examiner/ATO/Check Pilot fail an engine by any other method other than moving the mixture control to cutoff.
Having said that, it has been a few years since I have done an endorsement/IR renewal. Has there been a change of thinking?
Having said that, it has been a few years since I have done an endorsement/IR renewal. Has there been a change of thinking?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Because people have have been given mixture cuts to simulate engine failure after take off for years and years and some have been killed as a result does not mean it was a safe practice. In fact it is plain idiotic. There is strong rumour of expensive legal action looming over the Duchess accident at Camden where the survivor was terribly burnt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is an article on asymmetric training practices in the latest edition of Flight Safety Australia just out. It is interesting to note CASA make a footnote at the end of the article which states:
"Note: CASA does not recommend propeller feathering or fuel starvation by mixture cut or fuel valve closure in asymmetric flight training operations at low level or in poor visibility.
"Note: CASA does not recommend propeller feathering or fuel starvation by mixture cut or fuel valve closure in asymmetric flight training operations at low level or in poor visibility.
Grandpa Aerotart
It's not. imho, how you fail the engine but where and under what circumstances...also how switched on is the trainee.
I have given endorsement training in Islanders, Aerostars, C402/404 and Falcon 200 jets...I'm endorsed (and expereinced) on about 8 other piston/turbine twins and 4 other jets....including one renewal on the BE76. Nice little plane.
I have never...and I repeat NEVER had a trainee frighten me significantly....I have been somewhat bemused as a trainee F/O bored out over the Palm Oil plantations at V2+30/35/40 etc
Use of the mixture control is not only valid but, in some aircraft, preferrable from an engine longevity point of view...C404s come to mind with their GTIO engines.
The problem is that many, if not most, people who give multi instruction, and many ATOs, have only that as their total aeronautical multi experience...oh and a few hours IFR charter if they a 'real' expereinced.
There are enough 'generic' twin sims out there so as to be able to simulate EFATO...to death so to speak, without having to take inordinate risks in the real thing...it's practicing bleeding.
The only 'twin' I have ever done 'V1' cuts in was the Falcon and at, even relatively heavy, training weights it went uphill at 2000'/min at V2+10
Everything else was not below 300' and NEVER at night.
Don't expect too much quality guidance from CASA...remember the average CASA employee is almost unemployable.
On the occasions when I was to be exposed to EFATO in light twins my briefing was delivered in a tone of voice and looking straight into the eyes of the examiner in such a way as to leave him/her in NO doubt as to how the excercise/real failure would be coped with...if the event happened during the phase of flight I had dictated was to be 'real ones only' then that's exactly how they would be carried out...if the result was a damaged aircraft then I would walk away and leave
to explain why.
Several real ones over the years, including one just airborne in a C402 with the gear in transit and tall timber looming (in low cloud and tropical downpour) have been the crucible in which my attitudes to multi engine training have been formed...and in excess of 10000 multi hours/7000+ in command and multitudinous simulated engine failures in aeroplanes and proper simulators.
When CASA clearly mandates zero tolerance for practice EFATO in other than sims then things will improve...not before.
Several people in this thread have used terms like 'accelerate stop/accelerate go' with respect to light twin training in general or the duchess in particular....I don't care what graphs have been incorparated into ever thickening AFMs by arsecovering lawyers these are inappropriate terms to be used in other than FAR25 certified aircraft....there has been way too much "well that's what they do in the airlines' (spouted by people who have nevr been in an airline) creep into GA training in recent years. GA and the big end of town are completely different mindsets.
rant mode off
I have given endorsement training in Islanders, Aerostars, C402/404 and Falcon 200 jets...I'm endorsed (and expereinced) on about 8 other piston/turbine twins and 4 other jets....including one renewal on the BE76. Nice little plane.
I have never...and I repeat NEVER had a trainee frighten me significantly....I have been somewhat bemused as a trainee F/O bored out over the Palm Oil plantations at V2+30/35/40 etc
Use of the mixture control is not only valid but, in some aircraft, preferrable from an engine longevity point of view...C404s come to mind with their GTIO engines.
The problem is that many, if not most, people who give multi instruction, and many ATOs, have only that as their total aeronautical multi experience...oh and a few hours IFR charter if they a 'real' expereinced.
There are enough 'generic' twin sims out there so as to be able to simulate EFATO...to death so to speak, without having to take inordinate risks in the real thing...it's practicing bleeding.
The only 'twin' I have ever done 'V1' cuts in was the Falcon and at, even relatively heavy, training weights it went uphill at 2000'/min at V2+10
Everything else was not below 300' and NEVER at night.
Don't expect too much quality guidance from CASA...remember the average CASA employee is almost unemployable.
On the occasions when I was to be exposed to EFATO in light twins my briefing was delivered in a tone of voice and looking straight into the eyes of the examiner in such a way as to leave him/her in NO doubt as to how the excercise/real failure would be coped with...if the event happened during the phase of flight I had dictated was to be 'real ones only' then that's exactly how they would be carried out...if the result was a damaged aircraft then I would walk away and leave
to explain why.Several real ones over the years, including one just airborne in a C402 with the gear in transit and tall timber looming (in low cloud and tropical downpour) have been the crucible in which my attitudes to multi engine training have been formed...and in excess of 10000 multi hours/7000+ in command and multitudinous simulated engine failures in aeroplanes and proper simulators.
When CASA clearly mandates zero tolerance for practice EFATO in other than sims then things will improve...not before.
Several people in this thread have used terms like 'accelerate stop/accelerate go' with respect to light twin training in general or the duchess in particular....I don't care what graphs have been incorparated into ever thickening AFMs by arsecovering lawyers these are inappropriate terms to be used in other than FAR25 certified aircraft....there has been way too much "well that's what they do in the airlines' (spouted by people who have nevr been in an airline) creep into GA training in recent years. GA and the big end of town are completely different mindsets.
rant mode off
Chimbu Chuckles. What a fascinating mind-boggling career you have had in the check pilot world. Do tell us more about your death defying exploits in the world of jets and close shaves. Your adoring audience is waiting in breathless anticipation for the next chapter in your life as a world class expert in the field of engine failure advice. Come on, Chimbu - be a devil and tell us some more stories...
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey Centaurus,
some of us listen, some of us learn, some don't.
Two people died in horrible circumstances in that crash, one whom had 10K hours + decades of experience [perhaps his downfall, perhaps not, not my call], and his "student" who happened to be also a ATPL line pilot, so we're not talking about novices here ?
maybe the checkout pilot was off,mybe there was a gust, maybe there was..blah..blah.......whatever.
I listen to Chimbu, he's kinda right when you consider all the options......?
So why are you gunning ? Intellectual vanity perhaps?
some of us listen, some of us learn, some don't.
Two people died in horrible circumstances in that crash, one whom had 10K hours + decades of experience [perhaps his downfall, perhaps not, not my call], and his "student" who happened to be also a ATPL line pilot, so we're not talking about novices here ?
maybe the checkout pilot was off,mybe there was a gust, maybe there was..blah..blah.......whatever.
I listen to Chimbu, he's kinda right when you consider all the options......?
So why are you gunning ? Intellectual vanity perhaps?
Grandpa Aerotart
Centaurus unfortunately the written word doesn't convey intention sometimes..I in no way was having a play with myself. This is a bulletin board where people of varying backgrounds give opinion based on their experience.
It has never occurred to me to read into your various posts and or stories of your career in Lincolns etc anything other han helpfull (hopefully) advice and or entertainment.
My point is only that with proper training and experience of the trainers and proper standards set then the vast majority of the fatalities that occurr in this area of our profession could be avoided.
I feel lucky indeed that I was, from a very early stage in my career, within a system that did lots of good quality training and whose trainers were very expereinced individuals.
Talair was a supplemental airline where we were required to pass 6 monthly checks/IR renewals to a fairly high standard...whether we were in a Baron , BN2, C402 or a Twin Otter/Bandit..all of which were flown single pilot as was the fashion of the day. Even the piston twins required a ground course several days long with a VERY experienced training captain....I'm talking guys with well over 10-12000hrs multi command in PNG....and then 5 hrs endo + 10 hrs minimum ICUS.
I am aware, off the top of my head, of only two assy fatals in the history of Talair and one as absolutely unavoidable no matter the skills of the pilot due to terrain. That's 38 years of company history with god knows how many 100s of young pilots operating 100s of thousands of hours of piston twin time on upwards of 15-20 sectors a day all loaded to the gunnels, at least, 95% of the time. That's not to say we didn't have many engine failures..we did...just they were not generally followed by a fatal crash...despite the well known additional factors that being in PNG added.
Lets juxtapose that with my limited experience of the same situation in Oz. The total time spent on ground courses for PN68/B58/C441 type ratings does not add up to 2 days...my 'endorsement' on the BE76 comprised of the "the fuel goes here, the oil goes there and you know the rest!" + 1 hour or so encompassing 1 engine failure and a couple of IF approaches. In the trainers defence this was not long ago and I wasn't a 19 yr old with 180 hrs TT.
The groundcourse for the C550 lasted 1 day and the highlight was being told "if you lose an engine on takeoff don't select full power on the other because you'll lose control and roll upsidedown" The CASA approved ATO would not accept or did not understand the certification process of FAR25 and the relationships between Vmca and V2.
Horror stories abound of stupidly dangerous practices in light piston twin assy training and CASA does very little if anything....in my personal experience of CASA as a CP they were not interested in stopping one individual I was aquainted with from instructing and flying IFR Charter in a high performance piston twin when he clearly had some of the lowest standards I have ever witnessed first hand....I sacked him.
I think I have more than enough experience within various systems to have an opinion. If my first post came across arrogant or boastfull I appologise...it was not my intention.
One poster above relates the story of VMCA at altitude...I had a long discourse with one 'experienced' multi instructor once who didn't understand the dangers of demonstrating Vmca at a 'safe altitude' ...never occurred to him and he had apparently never been told that Vmca decreases with altitude in a normally aspirated piston twin, as with turbine twins, risking the real possibility of an assy stall/spin.
How many assy crashes will it take Centaurus?
edit.
I have just reread my post and fail to see what got up your nose??
I can assure you the close calls I have had left my knees shaking and heart going like mad...if not for the good advice and excellent training I recieved from 300TT to the present, with the few exceptions listed above, I would be DEAD.
These sorts of threads are among the most valuable on PPrune...if I can help one pilot survive long enough to be labelled an experienced cynic then I'm a very happy chappy.
It has never occurred to me to read into your various posts and or stories of your career in Lincolns etc anything other han helpfull (hopefully) advice and or entertainment.
My point is only that with proper training and experience of the trainers and proper standards set then the vast majority of the fatalities that occurr in this area of our profession could be avoided.
I feel lucky indeed that I was, from a very early stage in my career, within a system that did lots of good quality training and whose trainers were very expereinced individuals.
Talair was a supplemental airline where we were required to pass 6 monthly checks/IR renewals to a fairly high standard...whether we were in a Baron , BN2, C402 or a Twin Otter/Bandit..all of which were flown single pilot as was the fashion of the day. Even the piston twins required a ground course several days long with a VERY experienced training captain....I'm talking guys with well over 10-12000hrs multi command in PNG....and then 5 hrs endo + 10 hrs minimum ICUS.
I am aware, off the top of my head, of only two assy fatals in the history of Talair and one as absolutely unavoidable no matter the skills of the pilot due to terrain. That's 38 years of company history with god knows how many 100s of young pilots operating 100s of thousands of hours of piston twin time on upwards of 15-20 sectors a day all loaded to the gunnels, at least, 95% of the time. That's not to say we didn't have many engine failures..we did...just they were not generally followed by a fatal crash...despite the well known additional factors that being in PNG added.
Lets juxtapose that with my limited experience of the same situation in Oz. The total time spent on ground courses for PN68/B58/C441 type ratings does not add up to 2 days...my 'endorsement' on the BE76 comprised of the "the fuel goes here, the oil goes there and you know the rest!" + 1 hour or so encompassing 1 engine failure and a couple of IF approaches. In the trainers defence this was not long ago and I wasn't a 19 yr old with 180 hrs TT.
The groundcourse for the C550 lasted 1 day and the highlight was being told "if you lose an engine on takeoff don't select full power on the other because you'll lose control and roll upsidedown" The CASA approved ATO would not accept or did not understand the certification process of FAR25 and the relationships between Vmca and V2.
Horror stories abound of stupidly dangerous practices in light piston twin assy training and CASA does very little if anything....in my personal experience of CASA as a CP they were not interested in stopping one individual I was aquainted with from instructing and flying IFR Charter in a high performance piston twin when he clearly had some of the lowest standards I have ever witnessed first hand....I sacked him.
I think I have more than enough experience within various systems to have an opinion. If my first post came across arrogant or boastfull I appologise...it was not my intention.
One poster above relates the story of VMCA at altitude...I had a long discourse with one 'experienced' multi instructor once who didn't understand the dangers of demonstrating Vmca at a 'safe altitude' ...never occurred to him and he had apparently never been told that Vmca decreases with altitude in a normally aspirated piston twin, as with turbine twins, risking the real possibility of an assy stall/spin.
How many assy crashes will it take Centaurus?
edit.
I have just reread my post and fail to see what got up your nose??
I can assure you the close calls I have had left my knees shaking and heart going like mad...if not for the good advice and excellent training I recieved from 300TT to the present, with the few exceptions listed above, I would be DEAD.
These sorts of threads are among the most valuable on PPrune...if I can help one pilot survive long enough to be labelled an experienced cynic then I'm a very happy chappy.
Centaurus
I must say that, from my perspective, your response to CC's post was more than a little churlish. His considerable experience, and yours, should not be treated so disparagingly.
What fascinates me about the subject matter of this thread (upon which, I can assure you, I have very little experience) is that it is typical of so many in aviation: diametrically opposed opinions, notwithstanding decades of experience using the same equipment, in the same conditions.
This schizophrenia gets worked into the 'rules': don't practice low level assy at night; here's some guidance on practising low level assy at night; don't pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure; do pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure; never run your engine LOP; always run your engine LOP.
Perpetually fascinating….
I must say that, from my perspective, your response to CC's post was more than a little churlish. His considerable experience, and yours, should not be treated so disparagingly.
What fascinates me about the subject matter of this thread (upon which, I can assure you, I have very little experience) is that it is typical of so many in aviation: diametrically opposed opinions, notwithstanding decades of experience using the same equipment, in the same conditions.
This schizophrenia gets worked into the 'rules': don't practice low level assy at night; here's some guidance on practising low level assy at night; don't pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure; do pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure; never run your engine LOP; always run your engine LOP.
Perpetually fascinating….
Chimbu and Creampuff. Good replies both. I think the original purpose of the opening post by Menen has been lost in the slanging match which inevitably happens between pilots who should know better - and that includes moi.
Having a cheap shot at CASA pilots as Chimbu did, however, does rather drop the standard of these discussions, more is the pity.
With very few exceptions the FOI's that I have come into contact with have been sound level headed airmen. It is unwise to generalise in such matters.
The Camden Duchess accident had to happen eventually. I sometimes wonder if ATSB tend to tip-toe around such messy prangs for fear of criticism by lawyers in a Coroner's Inquiry. My impression of the ATSB report on Camden was it was carefully worded to avoid offence to anyone involved one way or another.
At least the author of the article in the latest FSA has opened up the subject in no uncertain manner.
Anyone that still insists that low level engine failure simulation by mixture cut is safe as houses providing the instructor is experienced and knows his aircraft, is either overconfident of his own ability or has rocks in his head.
Having a cheap shot at CASA pilots as Chimbu did, however, does rather drop the standard of these discussions, more is the pity.
With very few exceptions the FOI's that I have come into contact with have been sound level headed airmen. It is unwise to generalise in such matters.
The Camden Duchess accident had to happen eventually. I sometimes wonder if ATSB tend to tip-toe around such messy prangs for fear of criticism by lawyers in a Coroner's Inquiry. My impression of the ATSB report on Camden was it was carefully worded to avoid offence to anyone involved one way or another.
At least the author of the article in the latest FSA has opened up the subject in no uncertain manner.
Anyone that still insists that low level engine failure simulation by mixture cut is safe as houses providing the instructor is experienced and knows his aircraft, is either overconfident of his own ability or has rocks in his head.
Grandpa Aerotart
Centaurus
I never mentioned FOIs in my post I said employees
Every personal experience I have had with CASA has been a negative one....sure there are some ood guys working there...I can think of three I know...the idiots and Lawyers outnumber them.
To mixture cuts.
I would certainly agree that we are products of our own training/trainers. I can't think of anyone who didn't do mixture cuts during my own training...there must have been one or two but my overwhelming memory is people cutting the mixture. To my mind there is no reason the engine won't run again instantly when re-instating the mixture...the spark and air is unchanged all that's needed is fuel....I have never experienced an engine not restarting instantly upon selecting mixture back to where it was before the simulated failure. Even in cases where the prop was feathered as part of the training excercise (at altitude) putting it back to fine and waiting while it builds up some revs then mixture back to an appropriate setting (not necesarily full rich) has, in my expereince, always resulted in the engine running normally very soon after.
I have had it explained to me by engineers why, in the 404, it was better to fail on the mixture...even internal pressures on crankshaft, not detuning counterweights etc. You obviously don't agree...I'm always ready to learn something new so please give us reasons.
What's your definition of low level? I came to believe simulated failure below 200-300' were not worth the risks associated, in piston twins, I did do them with the nose wheel just off the runway in the Falcon (no sims for DA200s). Note I came to the above conclusion not because of personal bad experiences but due to reading of other peoples misfortune. I never, EVER failed engines at night...not in anything. As far as I'm concerned they're like assy go arounds (in piston twins) at low level...you just don't do them...an ex RAAF examiner who was checking me for C&T approvals for the C404 wanted me to do one from very short finals..."Nope sorry...won't be doing that!!" He contended the aeroplane was more than capable..empty it was but my contention was no matter who taxied out in front I'd find somewhere to land....to my mind it was a dangerous excercise for no appreciable return...how many go arounds do we do from short finals in general...I can't remember doing one ever.
The technology is availble to have really good sims that represent FAR23 certificated aircraft...Chesty has them at Cooly, most excellent trainer I ever expereinced in Oz! It's people like him and Centaurus who should be doing assy training...not grade 3s who just need the twin time for their QF application.
CASA is twenty years behind the times, as it always has been in my memory. We have the technolgy and there are plenty of people with real experience to teach multi training. What we need CASA to do is make multi training approvals much harder to get (ie impossible without significant real multi experience). They need also to be much harder to keep...significant 6 monthly refresher training for starters.
Chuck.
I never mentioned FOIs in my post I said employees
Every personal experience I have had with CASA has been a negative one....sure there are some ood guys working there...I can think of three I know...the idiots and Lawyers outnumber them.
To mixture cuts.
I would certainly agree that we are products of our own training/trainers. I can't think of anyone who didn't do mixture cuts during my own training...there must have been one or two but my overwhelming memory is people cutting the mixture. To my mind there is no reason the engine won't run again instantly when re-instating the mixture...the spark and air is unchanged all that's needed is fuel....I have never experienced an engine not restarting instantly upon selecting mixture back to where it was before the simulated failure. Even in cases where the prop was feathered as part of the training excercise (at altitude) putting it back to fine and waiting while it builds up some revs then mixture back to an appropriate setting (not necesarily full rich) has, in my expereince, always resulted in the engine running normally very soon after.
I have had it explained to me by engineers why, in the 404, it was better to fail on the mixture...even internal pressures on crankshaft, not detuning counterweights etc. You obviously don't agree...I'm always ready to learn something new so please give us reasons.
What's your definition of low level? I came to believe simulated failure below 200-300' were not worth the risks associated, in piston twins, I did do them with the nose wheel just off the runway in the Falcon (no sims for DA200s). Note I came to the above conclusion not because of personal bad experiences but due to reading of other peoples misfortune. I never, EVER failed engines at night...not in anything. As far as I'm concerned they're like assy go arounds (in piston twins) at low level...you just don't do them...an ex RAAF examiner who was checking me for C&T approvals for the C404 wanted me to do one from very short finals..."Nope sorry...won't be doing that!!" He contended the aeroplane was more than capable..empty it was but my contention was no matter who taxied out in front I'd find somewhere to land....to my mind it was a dangerous excercise for no appreciable return...how many go arounds do we do from short finals in general...I can't remember doing one ever.
The technology is availble to have really good sims that represent FAR23 certificated aircraft...Chesty has them at Cooly, most excellent trainer I ever expereinced in Oz! It's people like him and Centaurus who should be doing assy training...not grade 3s who just need the twin time for their QF application.
CASA is twenty years behind the times, as it always has been in my memory. We have the technolgy and there are plenty of people with real experience to teach multi training. What we need CASA to do is make multi training approvals much harder to get (ie impossible without significant real multi experience). They need also to be much harder to keep...significant 6 monthly refresher training for starters.
Chuck.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paradise
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK?
All I was simply trying to state was that I nearly got caught out practising manoeuvres even at altitude and recovered without any problems, thats what training is all about.
If you try and become a test pilot at low level you will get bitten hard one day. I use a similar technique as you describe but sometimes S@#t happens and you can get hurt if there is not sufficient altitude to recover or not fast enough.
I did also state that the aileron was the culprit not the rudder.
All I was simply trying to state was that I nearly got caught out practising manoeuvres even at altitude and recovered without any problems, thats what training is all about.
If you try and become a test pilot at low level you will get bitten hard one day. I use a similar technique as you describe but sometimes S@#t happens and you can get hurt if there is not sufficient altitude to recover or not fast enough.
I did also state that the aileron was the culprit not the rudder.
