NDB approaches

[Whirlwind]

Instructors cannot prepare everyone for every possible emergency scenario.

No, they can't, but they can provide training in basis systems problems and help the student develop a thought process for dealing with those problems.

If only realistic emergencies happen then why do multiengine aircraft have a best glide speed?

Because people continue to run out of gas, which is just the most absurd reason to lose the engine(s) I can think of.

Pilots should be able to handle multiple emergencies, realistic or not, case closed.

Not quite, because one can always take it to the point where it becomes fatal, no matter what you do.

For example, take a Boeing 747. Have the flaps come down on only one side, then give a complete electrical failure, then fail the two engines on the side with the flaps down, then toss a wing fire into the mix. Just for kicks, give a partial gear failure while you're at it, and make it hard IMC at night in icing conditions.

Of course, if all that happened, then it just wasn't the pilot's day to get out of bed.

Fly Safe!

 

[uscpilot]

Whirley,
I knew that someone would bite at my best glide for a twin comment. It was only to help illustrate that unrealistic (multiple systems failures) situations will happen. Therefore instructors cannot teach complacency after there has been a system failure.

I am also getting sick of people on both sides of the argument citing some specific emergency, real or fictional. They are irrelivant. The point is that multiple emergencies will happen, and a pilot will never throw his or her hands no matter how hopeless the situation. Case closed.

 

[Whirlwind]

Whirley,
I knew that someone would bite at my best glide for a twin comment. It was only to help illustrate that unrealistic (multiple systems failures) situations will happen. Therefore instructors cannot teach complacency after there has been a system failure.

Do not misunderstand me, I was actually serious about the running out of gas part. That still happens and is one of the leading causes of engine failure, at least what I've read says so.

I am also getting sick of people on both sides of the argument citing some specific emergency, real or fictional. They are irrelivant. The point is that multiple emergencies will happen, and a pilot will never throw his or her hands no matter how hopeless the situation. Case closed.

Now that I totally agree with. In reality, you'll fight it all the way down.

The original post was along the lines of my 747 example, I think you can kill anyone in an airplane with enough going wrong.

The question then becomes, is such training all that useful? If the student is paying for the plane, are you giving them value for their dollar spent?

I lack the experience to be able to say one way or another, but my gut tells me that such an exercise is a waste of time.

Fly safe!

 

[uscpilot]

Here we go again, I feel dizzy and a little stupid for perpetuating this revolving argument. I think we are back on page one and two of this thread. Training a student to deal with multiple emergencies is not a waste of time, provided:
That it is done towards the end of training after the student has demonstrated profiency with single emergencies.
That it is not done on a regular basis.
That the intention is to teach the student to prioritize during multiple systems failures. For illustrative purposes the origional scenario proposed a single engine, partial panal NDB approach, with a gear failure. In this situation the student should request another appproach, and not get distracted by trying to extend the gear (or if it should be done in the first place).

 

[Four02Driver]

Keep this in mind boys and girls. Multiple emergencies may not happen often but they do happen. As some who flies light twins for a living I've seen it happen.

For example: On the climb out having a gear problem meaning it wont come up and lock. Before getting to the emerg. chk list an engine quits, from just a slight push on the throttle. Real life mult emerg. Oh and this one was about 200 lbs under max gross weight.
Even better a total electrical failure at night sloid IMC to mins for a 100 mile radius. How would you handle that kids


Best way to solve the problem undue the last thing you just did

 

[bobbysamd]

Multiple emergencies

Here we go again, I feel dizzy and a little stupid for perpetuating this revolving argument. I think we are back on page one and two of this thread. Training a student to deal with multiple emergencies is not a waste of time, provided:
That it is done towards the end of training after the student has demonstrated profiency with single emergencies.
That it is not done on a regular basis.
That the intention is to teach the student to prioritize during multiple systems failures.

Really, I think that's where most people are coming from. I've heard of flight training where one emergency per flight is given. It could be anything, from an engine failure, to gear failure, to a runaway prop, failed electrics, NRDO, etc. Then, later in training, come the multiple emergencies. You don't give the SE, PP, gear-failure NDB on the first day of shooting NDBs in the airplane. You might give them during the ground trainer portion of NDB training, but not right away in the airplane.

No, it's not a matter of continuously playing "stump the dummy." It's a matter of these probably-spoiled airline pilot offspring who think they know more than the instructor. They should take a lesson from their airline pilot parent. He/she will likely tell them to listen to the instructor because the instructor knows what it takes to train them properly and pass the @$#!! checkride!!

For illustrative purposes the origional scenario proposed a single engine, partial panal NDB approach, with a gear failure. In this situation the student should request another appproach, and not get distracted by trying to extend the gear (or if it should be done in the first place).

I guess we could debate that. I dunno if I'd request another approach in my typical marginally-performing light twin. I would still try to get the airplane on the ground. My first suspicion for one engine quitting would be bad fuel, which would lead me to believe that pretty soon the remaining engine will quit. Shame on me for not sumping the tanks properly! Or else, perhaps induction icing. In any event, I would do minimal troubleshooting and get on the ground, soon, but methodically and safely.

At least that's what I'd do.