PSA: Don't be rude on the radio

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...fcecd2c0126ad5

Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))

Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in the

"Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
'Oh ****!' experience. "

Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on the
checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I reflexively
checked the fuel lever first.

....When he asked me why I didn't go through the whole emergency procedure in
order, I said because I checked the fuel shutoff valve first because it's so
easy for some passenger to accidentally bump it. The rest of the maneuver
started with him saying something like "Okay [implied "smartass"], suppose
that wasn't the problem. What would you do?"

Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...fcecd2c0126ad5

Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))

Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in the

"Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
'Oh ****!' experience. "

Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on
the checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I
reflexively checked the fuel lever first.

...When he asked me why I didn't go through the whole emergency procedure
in order, I said because I checked the fuel shutoff valve first because
it's so easy for some passenger to accidentally bump it. The rest of the
maneuver started with him saying something like "Okay [implied
"smartass"], suppose that wasn't the problem. What would you do?"

Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?

Number 1 on the list for an actual engine out is to lower the nose and
maintain airspeed and control of the aircraft. Fly the airplane is always
number 1. Changing tanks and/or checking the fuel shutoff valve should be an
automatic first action on the checklist.
I don't believe in shutting an engine down completely to teach realism to a
student. Never had to do this, and don't recommend other CFI's do it either.
There's always the chance of packing up the engine playing around like this
and the gain in creating a more realistic scenario for the student can
easily be countered by the instructor facing an actual engine out and forced
landing.
The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the subsequent
power off approach and landing on the runway.
In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the
subsequent power off approach and landing on the runway.
In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
Dudley Henriques

Thanks, Dudley! That answers my question exactly.

-c

This quote you quoted was my post in that thread. I remember, but cannot
reference at this point, two instances where an instructor killed the
engine at altitude over an airport. When it became clear that the
student was going to overshoot the runway, the engine would not
re-start, and a crash ensued. Why take a chance on making a real
emergency trying to simulate one?

gatt wrote:


Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in the

"Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
'Oh ****!' experience. "



Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?

-c

gatt wrote:

Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on the
checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I reflexively
checked the fuel lever first.

When I took my PP-ASEL checkride (in 1996) my DE told me that they don't
do that anymore because of the risk of not being able to restart the
engine. I've always practiced engine out procedures by pulling the
throttle to idle. On my checkride, the DE didn't even do that. He said
something to the extent: "I'm not going to actually do a simulated
engine out, but if your engine quit right now, what would you do?" I
then went through the procedures with him without actually flying it.
He was satisfied. I asked him why he didn't want to even simulate the
engine out and he replied with "why take the chance on creating a real
emergency? If you can fly the airplane and you know what the emergency
procedures are, you can fly them. I don't need you to actually do it to
show you can." Which makes sense.

Interestingly, I was getting checked out in a new airplane a couple of
months ago and the instructor I was flying with had a friend with a
private grass strip near our practice area. When we did emergency
procedures, he had me use the grass strip as my "field" so we could take
it all the way to the ground. That was the first time I've done that
outside of a normal airport environment. It added a lot of realism to
the maneuver because I didn't have to artificially fly a pattern first
and had a realistic evaluation of my approach to the field. Most
simulated engine out practicing ends 500' above the ground. While that
is generally enough to know whether or not you will make the field you
picked, it's nice to actually prove it.

I think this approach is *far* more useful than killing the engine to
"simulate" an engine out. I've had an actual engine out in flight and
the difference between that and having the throttle at idle was
unnoticeable (at least until I went to add power, which is how I found
out my engine was dead). Instructors who feel that it is necessary to
actually kill the engine don't really understand the point of the
maneuver: it's about the approach and landing procedure, not the
attempt to restart a dead engine in flight. The restart portion of the
maneuver is stepped through so in a real engine out situation the pilot
knows what to do, but the main thing is to make sure the pilot can
safely land the plane if the engine doesn't restart. Anybody go through
an emergency checklist to switch fuel tanks, turn on boost pumps and
carb heat, or check the position of a mag switch. The skill is flying
the airplane at best glide, finding a suitable field, and then getting
there.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
-- Star Wars: Han Solo