My wife getting scared

Jay Honeck wrote:
Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.

Yeah, I used to say that, too!

Shirl

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

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.

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

Shirl wrote:

My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about
this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week
to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being
most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an
engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for
10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in
extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but
even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit.


Your mechanic is a bit off on the pickling time frame. If the Lycoming
documentation he is referring to is Service Letter L180B (Engine Preservation
for Active and Stored Aircraft), the interval is actually 30 days of
inactivity, not 10 days.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1

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.

Longworth wrote:

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."

Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. I realize the point you were making
when you said that you would continue to practice it until you could
execute it flawlessly all the time was that you would never stop
practicing it on occasion. I just wanted to emphasize that our
competency levels fluctuate and may not be the same three months in the
future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be told that.
Shirl

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".

And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts
will
be damaged, and why?

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?

No, Jay, not until I know what the "wear and tear" is, and why increasing and
decreasing the power at short intervals causes it.

It's a serious question. Off-hand, I can't think why t&g engine operation
would be more harmful per hour than takeoff/cruise/land, as long as no
operating limits are exceeded.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Hi Big John,

Nice thing about doing it in a helicopter, you can slow down, WAY down, when
you get near the ground. Rate of descent about 1 foot per minute, pretty
much a landing from a hover on instruments, just ease it down until you
find a runway light for reference or can see the pavement through the chin
bubble. :-)))))))

I would not like to try it in a fighter jet, they do not hover well. Or do
they??? :-)))))

Anyway, that was the one and only time, and I am happy it never happened
again. :-))))

Regards,
Paul





"Big John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:29:22 -0500, "Paul Riley"
wrote:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew.
The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G

Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your
training.

Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!

Paul

Welcome to the crowd. There are only a few of us.

I too made ONE zero zero at Hamilton AFB in F-94C.

Finished mission and went RTB and as we approached the field watched
the San Francisco Bay fog roll in before we could land. No fuel for
alternate so continued with a GCA. Hit GCA minimums and no runway.
Told GCA to keep talking and rotated to a landing attitude and
continued decent. Next thing I knew was rolling down runway.

Like you, when you gotta do you gotta do.

Big John

Jay Honeck wrote:
Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".
And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
be damaged, and why?

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?

I am not at all convinced that this is the case. Prolonged idling on
the ground probably isn't that good due to lack of cooling air flow, but
other than that, I don't think that varying the throttle from low to
high power settings necessarily causes any damage and I've read a fair
bit that suggests just the opposite.

Matt

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