My wife getting scared

Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Do you have the slimmest of clues here?

Have you ever read how to conduct engine-out
training in a real GA aircraft, let alone
experience it?

Engine-out training is typically done by pulling
the throttle to idle, not shutting down the
engine.

In the pattern, the drill is conducted all the
way down to a dead-stick landing, at least by
my instructor.

In the country, the plane is flown down to about
50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
evaluation of landing site selection and approach
speed and altitude.

Engine-out training is one of the most interesting
and satisfying flight training drills there is.
I've never felt that it's particularly dangerous.
But then, I fly and you don't.

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

I thought you knew all about it? Why in the
hell do you vent your silly-assed opinions
then ask the most basic question after you've
made a fool of yourself?

There's not much difference in drag between
a prop in front of an idling engine and a
stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
^
What does that mean?


and I'm far from done yet.


Bertie

Jim Stewart wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
^
What does that mean?

Sorry, tried to get clever. What
does shingled mean?





and I'm far from done yet.


Bertie

BDS writes:

"or something"?

I presume there are multiple ways to simulate engine failure, depending on how
much realism one is prepared to sacrifice.

How is it different?

The engine hasn't actually failed, and in particular an idling engine is very
different from a stopped engine.

Why does this require a full-motion sim?

It doesn't, but many people here believe that anything that isn't moving isn't
realistic.

Jim Stewart writes:

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

[...] There's not much difference in drag between a prop in front
of an idling engine and a stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

Different story for a light twin. In Canada, getting the multiengine
rating requires a sign-off on having experienced at least one actual
in-flight engine shutdown (and one hopes, its restart). I haven't
done it on my own bird yet, but on the flight school's Aztec it was
surreal.

- FChE

Shirl writes:

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.

What is the difference in danger level?

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.

Not true. The great value of simulation is that it can create reflexes and
familiarity that are extremely useful for handling real-world emergencies.
Pilots practice emergencies so frequently in the simulator that they
automatically do all the right things when such emergencies occur in real life
.... and that's the whole idea behind the simulator practice.

Those who cannot suspend disbelief for a simulation often have other problems
that may interfere with being a safe pilot. Those who say "it's just a
simulation" and dismiss every sim exercise in consequence also tend to be the
ones who dismiss procedures, checklists, and regulations because they don't
see immediate, life-threatening danger in doing so. Incidentally, this
correlates with low intelligence, although that's not the only cause
(testosterone can do it, too).

In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.

Again, not true. Accurate simulations are much more like the real thing, in
addition to being safer.

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.

Maybe, although the curriculum used to include spin practice, too, until it
became clear that it was more dangerous than it was worth.

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.

And they practice a lot of this in simulators.

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 ...

A good on-the-ground simulator can provide a more realistic experience than
any safe real-world attempt to simulate the situation.

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.

YES, it is. That's why simulators are used. They are safer, more convenient,
and more faithful to the real thing (because simulating in a real aircraft to
the same degree of realism is much too dangerous).

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!

Regulations don't always keep up with the real world.

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.

If it took 30 years, the odds were indeed small.

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).

But if you mess up on the drill, you might be killed.

Of course not.

Why "of course"? When an engine is out, it stops running completely, and
that's very different from an engine that is idling. For an accurate
simulation, you need to shut the engine down completely. If this isn't done,
the simulation is flawed, and potentially dangerous in that it doesn't teach
the right things.

This is where a simulator on the ground helps. In that simulator, you really
can simulate a total engine failure, safely and accurately.

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.

Not true ... the simulator is superior. However, I don't think there are many
top-level simulators for small aircraft.

Jim Stewart writes:

Have you ever read how to conduct engine-out
training in a real GA aircraft, let alone
experience it?

I've discussed it with pilots, and I know of the problems and false sense of
security that improper simulation in a real aircraft can provide. Simulation
on the ground is more accurate.

Engine-out training is typically done by pulling
the throttle to idle, not shutting down the
engine.

When real engines fail, they don't just throttle back to idle, they stop.

It's a bit like practicing "landings" without ever actually touching down.

In the country, the plane is flown down to about
50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
evaluation of landing site selection and approach
speed and altitude.

So a large part of the experience is missing. In real life, the landing
doesn't end at 50 feet above the ground. And it doesn't matter much how well
you handle it to that point if you mess it up thereafter.

This is why simulators are useful. In the simulator, you can fly all the way
to landing, and learn and pratice things that may prevent you from being
killed if it ever happens in real life. But that's too dangerous in a real
airplane.

Engine-out training is one of the most interesting
and satisfying flight training drills there is.

I think that's a matter of opinion.

I've never felt that it's particularly dangerous.
But then, I fly and you don't.

How many engine-out emergencies have you experienced?

I thought you knew all about it?

About the curriculum for private pilots? No, I haven't examined it in depth.

There's not much difference in drag between
a prop in front of an idling engine and a
stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

That's not what other pilots have told me. But perhaps your plane is
different.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Stewart writes:

In the country, the plane is flown down to about
50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
evaluation of landing site selection and approach
speed and altitude.

So a large part of the experience is missing. In real life, the landing
doesn't end at 50 feet above the ground. And it doesn't matter much how well
you handle it to that point if you mess it up thereafter.

You don't have a fsking clue.

Of course you're not going to land your
airplane with a perfectly good engine
in some farmer's field unless you have
a real good reason.

But if it were real, you would do a
soft field landing in his field. Something
that you *have* trained and practiced
doing.

Why the fsk do we have to keep going over
this with you. I assume that you have a
little bit of brains. I know you're not
totally ignorant.

If you want to intelligently discuss training
and procedures, get the manuals and study
them.

Jim Stewart writes:

Of course you're not going to land your
airplane with a perfectly good engine
in some farmer's field unless you have
a real good reason.

So the simulation is seriously defective.

On a computerized ground simulator, you _will_ land your airplane in a
farmer's field.

But if it were real, you would do a
soft field landing in his field. Something
that you *have* trained and practiced
doing.

With the engine shut off?

Why the fsk do we have to keep going over
this with you. I assume that you have a
little bit of brains. I know you're not
totally ignorant.

I'm just demonstrating different viewpoints. Many pilots here clearly have
limited experience and even more limited perspective. A little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.

If you want to intelligently discuss training
and procedures, get the manuals and study
them.

I do.

On 10 Oct, 22:54, Jim Stewart wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
^
What does that mean?

Sorry, tried to get clever. What
does shingled mean?


Sorry. It's slang. The blades on the fans of most fanjets have a set
of shrouds, or snubbers about half span of the fan. They lightly touch
each other, and in fact, when the engines are windmilling in the wind
on the gound, you can hear them clatter against each other. If you
chuck a bird or something in there, you can knock a blade so hard that
it's shroud rises over top of the adjacent shroud and causes a domino
effect throughout the entire fan causing each one to rise up on the
next and twisting the fan blades in their slots. In my indcident, it
happened during the flare when we took a very large bird into the
engine. We knew we'd hit him and had a look at the engine but didn't
immediatly notice any damage. At the same time something didn't look
right and a bit of running back and forth between the two eventualy
revealed the damage. We had to get engineering in form base and they
used the PW approved method of getting them back by prying the first
shingled blade with a lead pipe! I kid thee not. The fan was limited
to 20 hours of operation after that and needed replacing as soon as we
got home.


I've seen a pic or tow of shingling on the net, I think, but most of
the pics I've seen the engines had suffered bad blade damage as well.
It wasn't the case with our incident.
google it though. you will probably find a pic somewhere.

Bertie