CFI cut engine..

Ill stipulate that it's not anything someone should be required to do. It's not anything that, if not done, makes someone a less able pilot or anything like that. It's simply an advanced level maneuver that adds some extra stress to make an EP more of an EP, while still mitigating some of the risk; rather than it being "just another simulated engine failure again" that becomes a rote task to be bothered with for some people, after a while.
 
I'll also stipulate that this isn't something that should be done willy-nilly. It needs to be planned and the appropriate risks mitigated, as one can get themselves in a bind, what with the tight margins for error that there can be. Just because someone saw Bob Hoover do the dead-stick maneuvering act in the Shrike Commander or Saberliner and make it look easy, doesn't mean it can be treated that way. :)
 
MikeD said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, you could screw this one up about as bad as you could pulling your engine over Black Rock Desert.

I'm aware of the real implications of dead stick landings as I've done them in gliders many times. As for the last 500 feet, you can get that with a simulation that includes a realistic scenario.
 
shdw said:
I guess you're right, you could screw this one up about as bad as you could pulling your engine over Black Rock Desert.

I'm aware of the real implications of dead stick landings as I've done them in gliders many times. As for the last 500 feet, you can get that with a simulation that includes a realistic scenario.
Click to expand...

A glide would be great too. Great learning there to be had.

Like I said, I don't think this kind of training is any sort of requirement of any type (nor should be), or even should be done all the time; and especially shouldn't be done without good pre-planning and high SA, as the risk is definitely high, like you mention. It's just an advanced tool that, when used for a specific application, enables more challenge to forced landing training and is something nice to see; but not required to see [ie- there isn't a rash of pilots that haven't seen it, who are now crashing because of not having seen it].
 
Trick of the day;)

If starter doesn't work,you can still pitch down, get speed and prop will spin,engine will start as long your mixture is ok and magneto is on.

Of course,forget at low altitude.


To stop spinning, cut mixture,nose little up until prop stop then go best range speed,so trim it....

Do this when high...
 
rframe said:
What do you think happens to gliders when they cannot start their engine on short final? Oh yeah, they land.
Click to expand...

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=59665
59665_4a257eb8b3974N818FM.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 59665_4a257eb8b3974N818FM.jpg
    59665_4a257eb8b3974N818FM.jpg
    465.8 KB · Views: 88
The only value to be gained from such an event is a demonstration of the difference in glide ratio with an idling engine, a dead engine with a windmilling propeller, and a dead engine with a stopped propeller. That same training can be safely provided without stopping the engine. Varying the power setting and flaps will vary the glide angle and allow the student to plan their landing based upon a different than normal glide ratio. It provides the same fundamental training without the associated risks.

As an example, an instructor could put in a little power (in effect a zero thrust) and challenge the student to land without changing the power setting. Then later raise the bar by asking for the same thing without adding flaps. That would simulate a landing with a stopped propeller and dead electrical system to operate the flaps.

Besides the associated risks with stopping the engine, there is the risk one would face in court should something go wrong. Even if the problem had nothing to do with shutting down the engine, a good lawyer would have a field day making the instructor look like the most reckless pilot since Cal Rodgers.
 
Houston said:
Besides the associated risks with stopping the engine, there is the risk one would face in court should something go wrong. Even if the problem had nothing to do with shutting down the engine, a good lawyer would have a field day making the instructor look like the most reckless pilot since Cal Rodgers.
Click to expand...

Partly why I discuss mitigating the risk heavily, as well as not doing this all the time. In addition to being nice to see, versus need to see.
 
Doesn't seem like too big of a deal to me. In both videos there are many precautions taken and the instructors are obviously competent and comfortable with what they are doing. They aren't trying to stuff it into a backyard, but have a whole mile of runway to hit.
 
tlewis95 said:
Doesn't seem like too big of a deal to me. In both videos there are many precautions taken and the instructors are obviously competent and comfortable with what they are doing. They aren't trying to stuff it into a backyard, but have a whole mile of runway to hit.
Click to expand...
power only pilots seem to think it is a big deal. Us glider pilots just approach it as a glider with a horrible L/D
 
Inverted25 said:
power only pilots seem to think it is a big deal. Us glider pilots just approach it as a glider with a horrible L/D
Click to expand...
With gliders the no power thing is a given. The pilot weighs the risk vs the rewards and chooses to go anyway. I guess the same could be said of powered pilots doing dead stick approaches. the difference is I have a really hard time intentionally limiting the performance capabilities of the aircraft.

We talk all the time about our bag of tools or tricks that we can use to get us out of trouble. I don't like the idea of intentionally removing tools or tricks. Someone else said it earlier...why simulate an emergency all the way to the point of becoming an emergency?
 
The OP...this was my private and multi instructor. He is the guy that does DC-3 type ratings in GA. FO at southernjets...
 
Mike H said:
Does anybody ever ask themselves "if something goes wrong, how's this going to read in the accident report?" anymore?
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely, but that one factor by itself is not a reason to dismiss a good training opportunity.

Re: landing single engine airplanes dead stick.

During my primary training, one of the old timers at my home airport took me up in his plane, pointed out a crop duster strip, turned off the mags, put the key in his pocket, and told me to land it.

When I was flying skydivers the '67 182 would run the fuel lines dry during the descent as all the fuel flowed to the front of the tank. After the first few times learning how to manage the energy, I would just point the nose down, cross the runway at Vne and 200 AGL, pull up to the downwind, turn base and final, land and coast up to the fuel pumps.
 
Lots of good points made here.
Would I do this with a student? No.
My thoughts are if something goes wrong during the sequence from engine stop to the plane coming to rest on the runway or ramp (think of aircraft taxiing into position without seeing you, bird strike on final, balloon on landing) what will a jury of your (non) peers think of your action during the civil/criminal/wrongful death suit.
To a jury of CFI's or other aviators you can quantify the additional risk and probably get a favorable verdict. But to the standard person who is stuck on a jury and wants to find you guilty so they can get out of there by dinner time...good luck.

Generally an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top