rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I have no problem with MEI's shutting down an engine as a training tool. However, a Cessna, different story.
It is a very different story, it's much safer in the single engine Cessna.
I have no problem with MEI's shutting down an engine as a training tool. However, a Cessna, different story.
Nobody "needs" to fly gliders and MEI's could just explain what single engine operations are like too. Some things are best experienced.
It is a very different story, it's much safer in the single engine Cessna.
Some things are best experienced.
It is a very different story, it's much safer in the single engine Cessna.
Yeah, but canning one at rotation is probably a bad idea.I have no problem with MEI's shutting down an engine as a training tool. However, a Cessna, different story.
It's stupid.
You're painting yourself into a box you might not be able to get out of. What if Joe-Bob decides to taxi on the active with his Piper Cub?
I still do not see the huge upside inducing an emergency landing.
If a flight instructor can't create scenarios for a student that are realistic representations of an emergency, that's the instructors fault. Shutting off an engine in flight for anything other than a real emergency is negligent.
Except you can shut off a gliders engine and I don't think any MEI in the world would do a landing with an engine shut down.
You're painting yourself into a box you might not be able to get out of. What if Joe-Bob decides to taxi on the active with his Piper Cub? What if you get a stiff wind that pushes you short? What if the student isn't quick enough to crank the motor when he needs it? Painting yourself in a corner.
Could you imagine sitting across the table from the FAA trying to explain that one
funny...and I did fly a single engine last night. With no landing light!
you can bet, I was wide awake
I dont consider a planned and controlled deadstick glide to an airport to be an induced emergency landing because the airplane is fully controlled, energy is fully managed, and all systems are functioning as the pilot intends.
We've had this discussion on this board several times in the past few years. It comes down to the people who had it as part of their training understand how unexceptional it really is and the people who've never done it think its crazy.... so whatever. I'm not worried about changing your mind. I just think it's funny when people see things they haven't done and feel the need to label it risky/negligent/dangerous. Seems we've had several threads along these lines lately.
I'm sorry you think so.
Gliders generally dont have engines, yet amazingly, hundreds fly every day and they dont even suddenly smack into a bunch of airplanes on final/departing.
The fatal accident rate due to a single engine being out in a twin is 5x higher than an engine failure in a single engine airplane. So, you're argument is based on an emotional response due to lack of experiencing the situation presented, not reality.
If someone gets in the way you can hit the starter and go around. If you cannot manage energy well enough to make it to a runway when its windy you shouldn't be teaching, but lets say a mysterious front moved in from the time you turned downwind-to-base and now there's a 20 knot headwind.... hit the starter. In the very unlikely case that the starter now died, you side step and land in the grass or taxiway... wow that was exciting. It's a Cessna/Piper, not a DC-10.
Funny you mention it, one of the instructors I know who endorses this IS an FAA inspector now.
Think he'll be on the board at your revocation hearing?
That's my point. You comparing a glider landing to a Cessna with the engine purposefully shut off is apples to potatoes.
I guess the same if I shut off the gas in a hot air balloon?Ok. So what if you did this in a Diamond Motorglider. What's your opinion of it then.