CFI cut engine..

comair25

comair25

Well-Known Member
If this has been discussed before forgive me, Ive been away for quit some time. Maybe its just me, but as I watch this video I get even more irritated. I'm trying to get some views of CFI's. What in the world is this CFI thinking. Dead stick landing without the simulate part. I just don't see the point in this. If my first instructor did this to me during my PPL training I would have asked for another instructor. For me, pulling the throttle to idle is good enough. Yes knowing what the aircraft will do without it being under power is excellent to know first hand on how it will perform, but this is just going over the top. Yes it is done doing ME training, but this is PPL. In a Cessna 150, where you don't have a second engine. He has zero room for error. A nice gust on that 150 over the numbers with no power, I would hate to see what happens.

 
No problem. Correctly supervised, this is a great exercise in energy management. Obviously it's up to the instructor to ensure the student never puts them in an unrecoverable position. As you can see in the video, they are using S-turns, etc, staying nice and close in, and make a nice landing (although 500' long). It takes away a lot of the fear that students have of engine failures. If the instructor has really screwed up, which I doubt would ever happen, the engine will restart at the flick of a switch.
 
You mention ME training. I don't think there are many instructors that would train a single engine landing with an engine shut down. Simulated only for ME was always my choice.
 
comair25 said:
. What in the world is this CFI thinking. Dead stick landing without the simulate part. I just don't see the point in this. If my first instructor did this to me during my PPL training I would have asked for another instructor. For me, pulling the throttle to idle is good enough
Click to expand...

I would occasionally pull the mixture at altitude to show a student what an engine failure really looked like. Never tried it at low altitude though.
 
It's doable, but has to be done with precision, as while there is a narrow margin for error, it's not an impossible one. Being able to bring the engine back online at any given time would be important obviously. While it's not something Id do all the time, there are times and places that it can be accomplished safely as a confidence builder for the reasoning of a student not experiencing a true engine failure the first time when it's a real emergency.
 
the runway is very long, as long you stay close of the runway, and dont go to far on base, no problem.
worse case, you turn the starter, and hope the engine starts.I would nt do it.
in multi, no engine cut below 5000ft.and 5000ft is the minimum, so higher is better.

I don't like the term dead stick. I prefer no engine landing, dead engine landing, emergency landing wit 0 fuel,....
 
Dphoenix said:
Once you kill that engine, there's really no guarantee you'll be able to get it back.
Click to expand...

Correct. Which is where the risk comes from, and why you position yourself for success pattern-wise at any given time. It's something which would be a very controlled maneuver, which should truthfully be no different from the "normal" method of pulling the engine to idle, as there is no guarantee the won't hiccup and die then too.

Back in my PPL days, engine failure practice and forced landing approaches were always taken down to a touchdown, as it's the last few hundred feet where you succeed or fail......the spiral down to there isn't necessarily the challenge. So whether it was an airfield, a road, a canal bank.....I had to make the initial touchdown; demonstrating that I picked somewhere useable and not just anything. Granted, there was some artificiality in that where this was practiced had a number of useful areas such as these, but there's only so much one can simulate.
 
squeezemylemon said:
the runway is very long, as long you stay close of the runway, and dont go to far on base, no problem.
worse case, you turn the starter, and hope the engine starts.I would nt do it.
in multi, no engine cut below 5000ft.and 5000ft is the minimum, so higher is better.

I don't like the term dead stick. I prefer no engine landing, dead engine landing, emergency landing wit 0 fuel,....
Click to expand...

Dead stick is the classic term, semantics aside. They're all the same situation.
 
Good grief... it's a 150, if an airplane/kid on a bike/moose/pink walrus magically appear on the previously empty runway -and- your starter quits working, side step 25' and roll to stop in the grass.

What do you think happens to gliders when they cannot start their engine on short final? Oh yeah, they land.
 
squeezemylemon said:
the runway is very long, as long you stay close of the runway, and dont go to far on base, no problem.
worse case, you turn the starter, and hope the engine starts.I would nt do it.
in multi, no engine cut below 5000ft.and 5000ft is the minimum, so higher is better.

I don't like the term dead stick. I prefer no engine landing, dead engine landing, emergency landing wit 0 fuel,....
Click to expand...

Well, just to be specific here, the multi-engine PTS says 3000 ft AGL for multi-engine cuts, although certain POH's (like the Piper Seminole) state 4000 ft AGL...
 
Confidence building? I can't see this scenario building confidence for a real engine out as I suspect a real engine out won't come complete with a 2 mile air strip.

On the other hand, you could cut the engine over a densely populated area and successfully stuff it into someones back yard. That would certainly build confidence as it would be realistic. If you live.

My point is simple, unrealistic scenarios don't build confidence. If you want confidence with engine out flying, go fly a glider. A scenario like the one posted here, in my opinion, brings unnecessary risk without any reward.
 
shdw said:
Confidence building? I can't see this scenario building confidence for a real engine out as I suspect a real engine out won't come complete with a 2 mile air strip.

On the other hand, you could cut the engine over a densely populated area and successfully stuff it into someones back yard. That would certainly build confidence as it would be realistic. If you live.

My point is simple, unrealistic scenarios don't build confidence. If you want confidence with engine out flying, go fly a glider. A scenario like the one posted here, in my opinion, brings unnecessary risk without any reward.
Click to expand...

It's part task training. It's just one technique to teaching. Of course one can't duplicate the entire scenario 100%, as there has to be some measure of safety and risk mitigation built in...hence the runway below; but insofar as dealing with an engine that's out and you knowing that you'd better do everything right, it's useful. Is it something you do the first time you demonstrate this? No. But doing it as an advanced training maneuver here and there, where appropriate and where risk-mitigated? No problem.
 
MikeD said:
you knowing that you'd better do everything right, it's useful.
Click to expand...

That's my point, you can do everything wrong in this scenario and still land fine. It's lack of realism prevents learning.

I've no certain opinion as to whether or not we should actually fail an engine. That said, I believe a realistic scenario with a simulated failure provides infinitely greater learning benefits than this video's unrealistic scenario with a real engine failure.
 
shdw said:
That's my point, you can do everything wrong in this scenario and still land fine. It's lack of realism prevents learning.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You can still screw things up just fine. And I guarantee you that having an engine that's really not coming back with just a push of the throttle, there to save you instantly, is a good motivator that things are a tad more realistic, than artificial. Being part-task, the realism is there for the task being learned.

I've no certain opinion as to whether or not we should actually fail an engine. That said, I believe a realistic scenario with a simulated failure provides infinitely greater learning benefits than this video's unrealistic scenario with a real engine failure.
Click to expand...

How about completing the "last 500 feet" and landing on trails/roads/canal banks, etc? There's realism for you.....little more on the risky side definitely; but realistic. And that's even with the "simulated" engine failure.

Then again, combine the two above, and you have.....well.......:)
 
Great video thanks for posting. One time I had trouble to find a CFI who can show me this. The one agreed took me up higher and first practiced stop and restart in the air. After he got comfortable with restarting, he stopped the prop and landed. Then we went up couple times he let me do it talking me down to the first third of the runway. Wind and traffic matters. Since then I do the exercise myself once a month. Yes, there is an adrenaline every time. No, I will not tell you what airplane it is but it has new engine ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top