C172S Landing accident

Big John wrote:

I never shut down a SE (conventual engine) when training anyone
(Military or GA). Never heard of any Instructor who did?

They exist. There's a flight school in this area where it
(used to, any way) be the normal procedure to simulate by
shutting off the fuel in a C152. That wouldn't go over
real well with the PIC in this girl's plane. I never heard
of an accident from it though (at that flight school).
There have been such accidents, though, where the engine
wouldn't restart fast enough.

OTOH, there've been accidents where an engine left
throttle idle wouldn't put out power on request, either
(carb ice probably). So who am I to vote? I suppose
I do have an opinion that overall retarding the mixture
is the most reliable method in a carburetted piston
single, but I fly a plane with a carb installation that's
not particularly ice-prone for several reasons, so I
don't object to the throttle.

And of course, if the instructor is proficient enough
to dead-stick the plane onto the runway, it's a moot
point. I'm not sure that's true of the average instructor
today though

To practice a engine out forced landing I set the power to
zero thrust' and bird flew very similar to what it would
if engine was out.

Is there such a setting for a piston single w/ a controllable
prop? How would you find it?

For a stone-simple fixed pitch piston single like mine,
unfortunately there's no way (that I know of) to simulate
engine-out. I just try to land w/ a good chunk of runway
behind me when I'm practicing, to allow for the drag of a
windmilling prop.

Unless of course my Tiger does an Inhofe. *avert*

I did shut down the engine (Jet) on the T-33 to give students the
actual air start experience.

Would get 15K or so over either one of the aux fields or 'home plate'
and after doing some things with idle throttle (power off stalls,
etc.) I'd very gently pull the throttle back to 'Idle Cut Off' from
the rear cockpit. It would take the student a minute or so to say "the
engine isn't running". Surprise, Surprise G

Interesting, thanks for the story.

I bet you're the sort of CFI who would palm the TC fuse on
a student, too *g* or make them fly IFR without the entire
pitot-static instruments. You and my CFI would probably get
along all too well.

Lots of good discussion on thread. Just need a beer (and spittoon) to
make it like old time 'Hanger Flying' G

Well, if you're near St. Louis Big John and you let me know, the
beer's on me. By a flexible definition of "near" mind you...

Concur. But in a SE plane, I think the student is best taught to
*touch* the fuel valve and mags while reciting the checklist, rather
than actually shutting them off during training. That's where my
"safe limits" lie, in any case.

I can live with both but feel that my way has more merit G

Now I'm confused, didn't you start off saying you'd never shut
down a piston SE during training? So aren't we agreeing?

Best,
Sydney

You are correct. I was equating a feathering prop with a constant speed
prop, and it's not the same... My mistake, sorry.


Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane
with a constant speed prop.

That's true, Judah, but by definition, a constant-speed prop is not
fixed pitch.

Otherwise, you are correct. I cannot think of any fixed pitch trainer
that would offer feathering of the prop.

I have not flown a SE plane with a constant-speed prop which offers
feathering of the prop. It was my understanding that the control
mechanism differed from that installed in ME constant speed props.

I wouldn't want to make the statement they don't exist. I'm just
not aware of any.

Cheers,
Sydney

You're right. My brain immediately converted Feathering Prop to a
Constant Speed prop... My mistake, sorry.

(journeyman) wrote in
u.com:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:13:05 GMT, Judah wrote:

It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane with
a constant speed prop. At the flight school where I got my PPL, they
had a couple of Socata Tampicos and a Tobago. If the tampicos were tied
up, students could rent the tobago for training, and the instructor
would work
the prop control. I did that several times in my training.

I've flown a Tobago. I *know* it doesn't have a feathering prop.
Controllable prop doesn't mean feathering prop.

I know, I know, I introduced fixed pitch into the discussion, but, as I
said, that was going overboard.

Sure, as Big John points out, when training for the military, they put
you into single-engine turboprop "trainers" which have feathering
props, but for most of the rest of us, our initial training is in
single-engine pistons. Most likely fixed pitch, but even the ones with
constant-speed props don't feather.


Morris (going into Emily Latella mode)

"Nevermind"


Morris

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:22:45 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
I have not flown a SE plane with a constant-speed prop which offers
feathering of the prop. It was my understanding that the control
mechanism differed from that installed in ME constant speed props.

They are around, but not as trainers (I don't think!) My friend's Europa
has an electric CS prop which is featherable (you can buy glider wings
for the plane, and you'd want to feather the prop when soaring).
Of course, many bona fide motorgliders have them too, but they aren't
in the "Airplane" category (unlike my friend's Europa, which is. Which
is an interesting question - in the US, the Europa is "airplane, single
engine, land" - if you swap the wings for the glider wings - an
operation that takes on the order of 30 minutes - does the same aircraft
suddenly change category?).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"