The reign of bloody idiotic suggestions keeps continuing. So let's address them all. Once more, proof positive that stupid people shouldn't breed. Stupid people with stupid commentary and far-out ridiculous examples, by fools who can't read the material to which they reply. Did you bother to read any of this, brightspark, or did you just snap off at the mouth like so many others??
Here we talk about how to simulate an engine failure. Do we do it with this control, or that? A simple, straight-forward question.
The bottom line is that no matter how one elects to do it, one must do it safely. One must be assured that one can still conclude the exercise intact, safely. That means that regardless of weather one pulls the throttle or the mixture, one is still going to be able to land safely. One should never count on getting the power back once the engine is pulled, and accordingly, one will always prepare for the worse. The most basic requirement of a pilot; always be playing the what-if game, always be prepared with a contingent plan.
Is this such a hard thing to swallow? Only a fool, a total idiot, a brainless shell of a monumental tribute to stupidity, would argue otherwise, yet the arguements keep coming.
If one assures one' self of a safe landing, regardless of the mode of simulating the engine failure, then it really doesn't matter how the engine failure is simulated. The fact is that a minimum level of competence is required to simulate the engine failure in the first place, and to complete the evoloution to a safe landing. If one cannot do this, it's a competency issue, pure and simple. Can't do it, not competent. End of story. No great skill; we're talking the minimum level of competency here. Cannot do it equates to incompetent. Cannot be assured of making a safe landing, not competent to fly, instruct, perform the maneuver.
After all, at a bare minimum, one is required to be able to perform a maneuver with the outcome never seriously in doubt.
Guess we should start making gear up landings for the sake of practice
Ah, well, that about says it all, doesn't it? Similiar logic says that when the chicken coop burns down, we should dehorn all the cows. Makes perfect sense? No, but so does that example. What you are saying, then, is that if we are going to teach safe, realistic engine drills, then it equates to intentional gear-up landings, is that it?
Experiencing an engine failure and landing the airplane is about taking a bad situation, and salvaging it; it's about improving one's lot. Making a gear-up landing is about taking a good situation, and making it bad.
Sake of practicing what? We face the possibility of an engine failure every second of every flight, but certainly not the prospect of a sudden gear-up landing on every flight. A gear-up landing is entirely preventable, and need not be experienced to be prevented. Conversely, an engine failure may not be preventable at all; one may do everything right, maintenance may do everything right, the engine manufacturer may do everything right, and that engine can still fail. The ability to deal with it is absolutely essential. The need to be properly trained and prepared is absolutely essential.
With respect to landing gear-up, the time may occur during a forced landing when the gear should be left up; a water landing in particular, or one on soft ground. To experience, this, fly a seaplane. But certainly don't compare teaching a basic necessary skill applicable to all aviators, to doing intentional foolish damaging exercises in the airplane.
One can land off-field safely. One cannot intentionally perform a gear-up landing, safely. One can mixture kill an engine safely. The mixture may always be restored, either in flight, or on the ground. The same is not true of a gear-up landing. What an idiotic comparison.
might aswell make it gear up landings on interstates and mall parking lots.
To what end? Why the obcession with making unhyphenated gear-up landings? Would you make a gear-up landing on an interstate, and if so, why would you do that instead of landing with the landing gear down and locked? Is there something about a highway that you feel merits the gear being up for landing? Do you have experience doing this that you feel is valueable enough to pass on to a student? Do you feel perhaps that this will serve the student well in his or her flying, or that it's a valueable skill that will keep the student alive?
Perhaps a parking lot, then? Have you picked one out? Do you find that it's best to land gear-up going lengthwise in a parking lot, or diagonally? Do you prefer full parking lots, or empty ones? Do you ensure that student's bring adequate pocket change to handle parking fees, if any, you dunce? Why a mall?
At least to make a sensical comparison, one might suggest practicing forced landings on interstates or parking lots. To that end, I have no problem so long as practical precautions are taken. During training, one does not simply land willy-nilly where one elects, on a whim. Prior permission, walking of the site for wires, surface suitability, stopping distance, etc, should all be done long before-hand, and the location preapproved. But then that's part of being a responsible flight instructor, isn't it?
You do walk your landing sites and runways, checking for length, obstructions, surface suitability, etc, don't you?
That being the case, what on earth would be the point in landing there, gear-up, unless the gear could not be lowered?
Now I do spend time teaching about how to correctly land an airplane with the landing gear retracted, when instructing in one. If I could safely teach the student to do so in his or her airplane, of course, I would. But to date, I haven't arrived at any great ideas on how to accomplish that, short of teaching in an amphibian or a glider. Have you? Accordingly, it remains only in the realm of discussion. Experiencing an engine failure, however, does not.
$hit the insurance companies are going to be pissed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Perhaps your lack of experience, or the proclivity to suggest intentional gear up landings and running into trees might provoke an insurance company to shy away from you, or experience a level of exasperation akin to being "pissed." My own tendencies, a clean record and adequate experience, lead insurance companies to cover me when I instruct...to include engine failure drills, and all other training doen in the manner that my judgement and experience might deem necessary. That need not concern you. Perhaps you simply lack the judgement to do so. That being the case, you are right not to. One should know one's limitations, shouldn't one?
Did I mention I also drive around hitting trees to get used to my airbags
That really doesn't surprise me, given the tone and content of your post.
