My wife getting scared

Jay:
Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.
Shirl:
Yeah, I used to say that, too!

Thomas Borchert wrote:
They still are, even thought you've experienced one.

Yes, that's true.
What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
happen to *someone*.

Shirl,

What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
happen to *someone*.


Excellent point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Shirl writes:

What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
happen to *someone*.

If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more dangerous
than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried out in a real
aircraft.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Shirl writes:

What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for
never practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean
that they happen to *someone*.

If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more
dangerous than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried
out in a real aircraft.



Yeah, right, fjukkwit.


Bertie

Shirl:
What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
happen to *someone*.

Mxsmanic wrote:
If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more dangerous
than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried out in a real
aircraft.

The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
it is "when". Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
flying, with only 700 hours on the engine. No guarantees, no matter how
anyone thinks they're doing all the "right" things with regard to engine
care and use. And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
that is now spin "awareness" training.

Shirl writes:

The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
it is "when".

That would depend on the aircraft.

Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without having to
deal with an engine failure on an actual flight. Simulators are invaluable in
this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
dangerous and expensive).

Piston-driven aircraft are much less reliable and so engine failures are much
more likely to occur. But still, practicing them in the real aircraft is
dangerous and potentially expensive. If they aren't handled correctly, you
(potentially) write off the aircraft, and perhaps the pilots as well.

Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine, and
simply setting it to idle or something. Unfortunately this isn't the same as
an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem. A simulator would be
ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are hard
to find.

Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
flying, with only 700 hours on the engine.

What type of aircraft?

And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
that is now spin "awareness" training.

Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an engine off
completely?

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine,
and
simply setting it to idle or something.

"or something"?

Unfortunately this isn't the same as
an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.

How is it different?

A simulator would be
ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are
hard
to find.

Why does this require a full-motion sim?

BDS

Shirl:
The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
it is "when".

Mxsmanic wrote:
That would depend on the aircraft. Airline pilots, for
example, can go for their entire careers without having to
deal with an engine failure on an actual flight.

We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice engine-out
emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The degree of danger
in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft vs. in an airliner
is not the same.

Simulators are invaluable in
this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
dangerous and expensive).

What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in a
simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real airplane in
flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real in-flight emergency.
In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.

Piston-driven aircraft are much less reliable and so engine failures are much
more likely to occur. But still, practicing them in the real aircraft is
dangerous and potentially expensive.

Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
dangerous that no one should ever practice it.

If they aren't handled correctly, you
(potentially) write off the aircraft, and perhaps the pilots as well.

Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice various
things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations re pilot
currency and periodic review exist.

Odds may be small, but if a REAL engine out isn't handled correctly,
there's even more of a chance of writing off the aircraft and the
pilot/passenger(s). That's why the drill is taught to private pilot
students, why it is included in checkrides, why (some) CFIs include it
in BFRs, and why (some) pilots practice it on occasion to maintain some
level of skill/proficiency.

Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine, and
simply setting it to idle or something. Unfortunately this isn't the same as
an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.

Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice is
as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting down
the engine in flight ... close enough to provide experience and develop
skills that can and HAVE helped in actual emergencies.

A simulator would be ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators
for these small aircraft are hard to find.

No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING the
plane, making decisions, etc.? No. To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator; it
must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!

Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
flying, with only 700 hours on the engine.

What type of aircraft?

Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small, too,
but thankfully, he was well prepared.

That said, it's up to each individual whether or not they do them
between BFRs. I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
differently). IMO, many more factors exist when an engine doesn't make
it to TBO than *occasional* engine-out practices, go-arounds or
touch-n-gos. And even some engines with the best possible care and use
don't make it to TBO. But that's JMO.

And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
that is now spin "awareness" training.

Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an engine off
completely?

Of course not. Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite the
same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle) in a
small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel and
experience than a simulator.

On 10 Oct, 20:13, Mxsmanic wrote:
Shirl writes:
The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
it is "when".

That would depend on the aircraft.

Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without having to
deal with an engine failure on an actual flight. Simulators are invaluable in
this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
dangerous and expensive).


Wrong again asshole.


I've had catastrophic failures in two nearly new JT8s, shut down three
others, shingled yet another and had to cage two turboprops and I'm
far from done yet.


Bertie

On 10 Oct, 20:36, "BDS" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote



Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine,
and
simply setting it to idle or something.

"or something"?

Unfortunately this isn't the same as
an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.

How is it different?



A simulator would be
ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are
hard
to find.

Why does this require a full-motion sim?


It doesn't, but even if it did he wouldn't know why.

Bertie