Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

I'm not putting myself, my engine, or my plane at increased risk
because it's exhilarating. The maneuver you describe, while not
aerobatic, is a relatively high-risk maneuver in that it takes place
directly over the airport, and involves a completely non-standard
approach to landing. Almost all mid-airs occur near an airport, and
this maneuver can end badly if not executed properly.

Which brings up another interesting line of thought. How many actual
accidents occur whilst practicing these kinds of maneuvers? When
does practicing engine out (for example) landings cause more problems
than it fixes?

For example, spin training was eliminated from the Private training
because it was determined that more pilots were being killed by
teaching it than could be saved by teaching it. The debate about this
decision still rages on today, but it can be extended to many parts of
flight training.

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

So I must ask: When does the risk outweigh the benefit?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"