Question for the MEI's

KSCessnaDriver said:
Here is the main reason I asked about this fuel selector issue. I was talking to some guys who were very worried about getting air in the fuel lines by shutting the fuel selector off. I didn't think this would be an issue, because you could always turn a fuel pump on, to push the air through the line, and you'd get the fuel going again. correct?
Click to expand...

That could become a vapor lock issue and the fuel pump does not always respond well to the vapor lock issue. I shall say no more about vapor lock again. :D Not a good thing!
 
jhugz said:
I agree 100% if we are talking about below 1000' AGL type stuff. I thought we were talking about stuff higher up then pattern altitude, my bad.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about it that way but I suppose we could have been strictly discussing higher up stuff.

I don't know many MEIs that touch the throttle above 1000'...3000' at the highest. It gives everything away.

-mini
 
tgrayson said:
I normally use the fuel selector 3000 AGL and above. In the Seneca, it's located between the seats and you can shut the fuel off without the student seeing your hand move. Highly effective. I will occasionally use the mixture so the student has experience with other means of killing the engine.

During the takeoff roll, I use the mixture because it's quicker than the fuel selector. I cover my hand with a checklist so the student can't see which hand I'm using.

Other times, throttle only.

Some mechanics discourage the use of the fuel selector because they can be unreliable in some airplanes.
Click to expand...

Thats what I do. I also like to make a fake motion with my hand towards the throttle quadrant during takeoff and see if they stop, without actually failing the engine. Always good for a laugh.:rotfl:
 
I agree totally with the 3000' AGL. If I recall, didn't something of the sort happen a few years ago near Atlanta, GA with a multi? Rumor had it that the instructor pulled the mixture killing the engine at a low altitude... the airplane Vmc'd and exploded into a fireball. With the 3000' AGL, you'll get some cushion in case the engine doesn't restart (speaking from experience here). Of course you know what they say about multi-engine aircraft? The 2nd engine is only there to take you far enough to the crash site.
 
I suppose I should mention that I only used the fuel selector above 3500 which was the hard-deck for shutting down an engine in the Seneca according to the POH.
 
I'm not a GA MEI however I am a Part 121 check airman for a major airline flying the MD-80. We occasionally get to do actual "pilot trainers" in the real airplane. I can tell you the quickest was to get terminated from my company would be to actually shut off a fuel lever to simulate an engine failure! I actually cannot imagine ever needing to do this.

I understand the need to feather an engine and restart it for training but this should be done so as both the student and MEI are very clear about what is taking place. It should be briefed and done at altitude with a contingency plan if things don't go as planned. Simulating an engine failure by any other means than pulling a throttle to a zero thrust setting is crazy and wouldn't take place in my cockpit.

Chris
 
skysnake said:
I'm not a GA MEI however I am a Part 121 check airman for a major airline flying the MD-80. We occasionally get to do actual "pilot trainers" in the real airplane. I can tell you the quickest was to get terminated from my company would be to actually shut off a fuel lever to simulate an engine failure! I actually cannot imagine ever needing to do this.

I understand the need to feather an engine and restart it for training but this should be done so as both the student and MEI are very clear about what is taking place. It should be briefed and done at altitude with a contingency plan if things don't go as planned. Simulating an engine failure by any other means than pulling a throttle to a zero thrust setting is crazy and wouldn't take place in my cockpit.

Chris
Click to expand...

I hope you aren't pulling the fuel lever off on the MD-80.

As for pulling the mixture or fuel selector, as long as the engine is still windmilling which it will unless you decide to do slow flight after pulling the selector all you need to do is re-introduce the fuel and your good to go. Pretty much a non-event in a multi.
 
jhugz said:
I hope you aren't pulling the fuel lever off on the MD-80.

As for pulling the mixture or fuel selector, as long as the engine is still windmilling which it will unless you decide to do slow flight after pulling the selector all you need to do is re-introduce the fuel and your good to go. Pretty much a non-event in a multi.
Click to expand...


Either fix your signature, or pay your bills! Your website "domain" name is about to be deleted.

Edit: Your a sterotypical CFI. No money to pay bills.
 
jhugz said:
I hope you aren't pulling the fuel lever off on the MD-80.
Click to expand...
He said up there he wasn't.
jhugz said:
As for pulling the mixture or fuel selector, as long as the engine is still windmilling which it will unless you decide to do slow flight after pulling the selector all you need to do is re-introduce the fuel and your good to go. Pretty much a non-event in a multi.
Click to expand...
Instead of being this long winded, can't you just say "I'm gonna do it anyway."
 
skysnake said:
I'm not a GA MEI however I am a Part 121 check airman for a major airline flying the MD-80. We occasionally get to do actual "pilot trainers" in the real airplane. I can tell you the quickest was to get terminated from my company would be to actually shut off a fuel lever to simulate an engine failure! I actually cannot imagine ever needing to do this.

I understand the need to feather an engine and restart it for training but this should be done so as both the student and MEI are very clear about what is taking place. It should be briefed and done at altitude with a contingency plan if things don't go as planned. Simulating an engine failure by any other means than pulling a throttle to a zero thrust setting is crazy and wouldn't take place in my cockpit.

Chris
Click to expand...

Thanks for the broad stroke generalization supported by zero applicable experience. After your example I think I'll go lecture a few Viper pilots on the dangers of the trans-sonic range.

My students are very well briefed and are told to expect surprise engine failures of all types. The problem with pulling an engine back to idle is they see you do it and they react accordingly. When you close the fuel selector they have to deal with an actual in flight issue. Notice I didn't call it an emergency because it's not. There is nothing reckless, unsafe, or even approaching dangerous about closing a fuel selector in a multiengine aircraft as long as you do so in accordance with reasonable safety protocols.

Guess what? I falling-leaf or even spin aircraft too which isn't something you'll ever experience in an MD-80. That doesn't make it dangerous.
 
skysnake said:
I'm not a GA MEI however I am a Part 121 check airman for a major airline flying the MD-80. We occasionally get to do actual "pilot trainers" in the real airplane. I can tell you the quickest was to get terminated from my company would be to actually shut off a fuel lever to simulate an engine failure! I actually cannot imagine ever needing to do this.

I understand the need to feather an engine and restart it for training but this should be done so as both the student and MEI are very clear about what is taking place. It should be briefed and done at altitude with a contingency plan if things don't go as planned. Simulating an engine failure by any other means than pulling a throttle to a zero thrust setting is crazy and wouldn't take place in my cockpit.

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,
While I'm sure your experience and knowledge on the MD80 is vast, it has zero relationship to a piston twin of any kind.

Turning off the gas in a piston isn't even close to the same thing as turning off the gas in a turbine aircraft. As was said, with the engine continuing to windmill, we've got our air and spark all we need to do in the pistons is re-introduce fuel and we're golden. Quite a bit different from a re-start procedure in ... any turbine aircraft I've ever flown. I'm sure the MD80 is similar...similar principles.

As for what's "crazy". Personally, I think burning that much gas in an MD80 to do some training when simulators are available and more than capable of doing the same (and sometimes "better") training is crazy. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

-mini
 
esa17 said:
Thanks for the broad stroke generalization supported by zero applicable experience. After your example I think I'll go lecture a few Viper pilots on the dangers of the trans-sonic range.
Click to expand...

I do have about 700 hours in Piper Navajo's and almost 3000 in Metroliners and Brasilias. I think I have been through a few Part 91 and Part 135 checkrides before my 121 experience. NEVER, EVER have I had an instructor, check airman or FAA examiner EVER fail an engine by shutting off the fuel source.

Your comments just show your inexperience AND ignorance.
 
skysnake said:
I do have about 700 hours in Piper Navajo's and almost 3000 in Metroliners and Brasilias. I think I have been through a few Part 91 and Part 135 checkrides before my 121 experience. NEVER, EVER have I had an instructor, check airman or FAA examiner EVER fail an engine by shutting off the fuel source.

Your comments just show your inexperience AND ignorance.
Click to expand...
Still apples and oranges, possibly some sour grapes.

A Navi or a Metro share little "training" value with a Seneca, Seminole, or 310 so you'll forgive me if I'm not impressed.

Just because you can drive a standard Civic doesn't mean you could parallel park an 18 wheeler. So it sounds like you and I are at the same four way stop which begs a question. Is it possible we're both on the right or are you going to make that left onto "I've never done it so it must be wrong" avenue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top