![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 1, 11:20 am, Jay Honeck wrote:
Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely. We used to practice them regularly in rental birds... Jay, If you did practice emergency engine-out landing regularly in rental birds, you must have believed that it was something useful, so why doing it very rarely in your own bird? I have stated it in a previous post (when you mentioned that you did not practice short field landings in your bird either) that IMHO, no amount of money is worth life or my limbs ;-). We spent $15K overhauling our engine few years ago; the total cost including labor was over $20K. I fly my Cardinal the same way as I flew training school planes. We practiced emergency procedures and short field landings regularly. 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 had only done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such maneuver can harm my engine. 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 ;-) Hai Longworth |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Longworth" wrote 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. Sounds like it would be more fun than the best roller coaster ride! I had only done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such maneuver can harm my engine. 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 ;-) It sounds like you do have your priorities in line, with the right compromises of possible engine life sacrifice (a matter not clearly established) and skills maintenance. Doing a chop and drop when your engine isn't as hot as a firecracker should not be harmful, in the least bit. Considerations of the towplane engine long life is a good example, and one that is hard to argue with. They are no doubt pretty hot when they start their rapid descent to pick up another tow. If one were to start the rapid drop (engine failure simulations) after letting the engine cool a bit (by reducing power settings, or richening the mixture, or both) and stabilize for a few minutes, the amount of additional cooling from that power level, even in a worst case scenario, should not cause a measurable increase in wear. It is mainly the hot piston cooling more slowly than the cylinder bore, cutting down on the clearances, that can increase wear. The stabilizing should eliminate that problem, all together. The concern of hitting the throttle for a go around may be a concern, although it is hard to see why that is any harder on the engine as the takeoff full power applications. If that go around full power is what concerns you, (or Jay) don't do a go around, except for the occasional practice, (or real go-around) then just do the full stop, taxi back and takeoff after everything is nicely cooled down. I agree with the people that are saying that the practice of emergency engine failures would have to be a good thing to practice. Doing it carefully as to not damage your engine would seem to be prudent. Not doing them may be not prudent. -- Jim in NC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
snip 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. Oh, I'm not sure of that. How about touch & goes on a 172 on a 10,000 X 200 runway with 1,000 foot overrun at each end? However I don't do touch & goes. I come to a full stop, clean up the airplane, then critique the last landing and ponder what I need to do next time to make it better while taxiing back. I see lots of people doing touch & goes repeating the exact same, less than optimal (to put it mildly) thing each and every time. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay,
I did put a smiley behind my comment about practicing emergency spiral landing being fun and worth the cost of my engine overhaul. It is clear that our main objective for obtaining the training and frequent practice is safety. I would never jeopardize my life or harm my bird just to have fun! I have over 700hrs with thousands of takeoffs/landings. We average about 250hrs a year and fly pretty much every week year around. Aside from several long cross country trips a year, most of our hours are practice flights either on our own or with instructors. We try to mix instrument practices with visual flight maneuvers. Safety is always our utmost concern. We don't do any non-traditional patternworks without asking for tower permission or making clear and frequent announcement at uncontrolled fields. We also don't do unsual patternworks at busy airports or during busy time. One of our favorite practice spot is Sullivan County airport (MSV) with 6300x150' runway. At its busiest time, there are usually no more than 2 or 3 planes in the pattern. We always learn something new from a new instructors, always find room for improvements in our flying skills, and never feel that we are good enough that no practices are needed. I fully expect that the pilots who go out for their practices would take the same kind of precaution and they do so for safety and not for thrill seeking. I don't know the accident statistics of training or practice flights but at the start of my flight training in 2001, I spent many hours reading NTSB reports. As I recall, I would not go flying at a new airport without checking the reports. Anyway, I recalled there was only a handful of accidents occurred during flight training or practices. Lack of skills, lack of preparation etc. were the major contribution factors. Hai Longworth |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
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. But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance? 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. (don't remember whose quote this was) When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all* the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that level of competency if you never practice it again? I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even though sometimes that's all we have. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 3, 1:56 pm, Shirl wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: 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. But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance? 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. (don't remember whose quote this was) When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all* the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that level of competency if you never practice it again? I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even though sometimes that's all we have.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Shirl, It is my statement. Regarding your question "when exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all* the time?", the answer can be found in my followup post: "We always learn something new from a new instructors, always find room for improvements in our flying skills, and never feel that we are good enough that no practices are needed." Hai Longworth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
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. Jay, I think that is because there are no such statistics. I believe it is pretty widely accepted that the most wear and tear on an engine is during the first few seconds after start. Matt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Honeck" wrote 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. I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay. I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that different than takeoffs? -- Jim in NC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:53:59 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: "Jay Honeck" wrote 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. I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay. I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that different than takeoffs? Exact point I was going to make. You take off at least once every flight anyway, so why worry about it? And as Matt says, running the engine before the oil has spread through it is probably a lot worse. When I was learing to start my fuel-injected engine, I ran it close to 2000rpm by accident after starting, a couple of times. That really bothered me and I expected John Deakin to show up and yell at me. I quickly learned the importance of throttle position. randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG http://www.telemark.net/randallg Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at: http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |