![]() |
| 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 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
... Unless you do every landing power off with room to spare, yes. The flip-side of doing every landing power-off, particularly when training in the pattern, is that you *may* be putting enough extra stress on the engine to make it *more* likely that the engine will fail in a difficult position. Hence you may be increasing the overall risk by that pattern of behaviour. With typical trainers, it seems unlikely that it would have much long-term effect. But with larger engines that require more delicate handling, I'd be very reluctant to fly power-off landings on a regular basis. The effect may be small but so is, as Michael said, the chance of a catastrophic engine failure during the period when your glideslope makes a difference. I'm surprised that the only two accidents that have been cited involve IFR flights on an approach. They may not have had a choice of glideslope. Julian Scarfe |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final" | Jim Cummiskey | Piloting | 86 | August 16th 04 07:23 PM |
| Diesel engine | Bryan | Home Built | 41 | May 1st 04 08:23 PM |
| Night engine failure in Boston | Dan Luke | Piloting | 8 | February 13th 04 06:33 AM |
| Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 05:09 PM |
| Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 05:29 AM |