Practice engine failures in SEL

[WhiteCloud]

I am an Aviation Safety Inspector (FG1825), a pilot, instructor, evaluator and I hope a safety professional.

We had one of those guys (Aviation Safety Inspectors) running around the local airport looking for violations he could report to the Flight Standards office. The guy was not an FAA employee but they gave him a badge, which he flashed around, and it made him feel important and empowered.

 

[dmspilot00]

Wouldn't it be irresponsible or illegal to purposely land on a road or someone else's field? Just wondering.

 

[avbug]

A lit cigarette or cigar will not ignite the avgas or car gas for that matter. The flash temperature of the gases is higher than the lit end temperature of both items. Physics 101.

Wanna bet? Toss your physics book in the trash and get your money back. As a firefighter, I've seen it happen. A static spark or a cigarette can be more than enough to touch off any accelerant/volatile fuel, including gasoline or kerosine. Conversely, a fusee or match tossed in a puddle or tank of gasoline may not ignite it if the mixture isn't right.

The temperature of the ignition source doesn't necessarily need to reach the flashpoint of the fuel. A small static spark in a plastic auxilliary gas can is far cooler than a cigarette or the flashpoint of fuel, but can still easily ignite it. Try shaking up half a can of gas in a plastic container and then fill it while resting it on a rubber truck bed liner. Good way to get badly burned. That won't have nearly the spark or heat that a cigarette will have, but it's more than enough to touch off the fuel.

Remember it's not the fuel that burns, it's the vapor. The flashpoint of the vapor varies with the fuel-air mixture. A mixed atmosphere can flash a whole lot lower.

Raise the temperature high enough, and everything will start burning, including the atmosphere around you...this usually starts at around 1,100 degrees farenheight. It's called a flashover.

Wouldn't it be irresponsible or illegal to purposely land on a road or someone else's field? Just wondering.

Not illegal, and not irresponsible if one takes proper precautions. These include verifying the suitability of the site in person, and obtaining any necessary permission from the landowner where one intends to land.

 

[Dutch]

Avgas or Jet-A

Working line service we used to have a tradition of burning the shoes of a guy who got away from the line for a "real' job. Did this a few times, both soaking the shoes or pouring a puddle first.

Never had a problem lighting off Avgas, Jet A was next to impossible to ignite. I don't know where my physics book is but I sure remember the avgas being VERY easy to burn.

Back to the original thread. A training enviornment leaves much to be desired in terms of realism. That said, there are certain steps I am unwilling to take in an attempt to expose my students to every possible emergency. The main concern I have with using actual fuel starvation to initiate an emergency is that you have just intentionally cocked the gun and placed it against your head. Sure, you need to put your students in stressful situations to teach them to deal with emergencies but an inadvertant slip of the finger and BANG! In order for flying to be safe we make every attempt to minimize risk, why would a reasonable person take that risk unless there were HUGE rewards for that risk. I'm open to the possibility that I'm not seeing the whole picture but don't currently see any benfits that come close to meeting that criteria.


Dutch

On a side note, I recognize that the performance (glide ratio) is different when the prop is stopped but wouldn't it be safer to simulate different performance by setting different power settings and make the student recognize the aircraft performance on that day? This would force the student to adapt to the situation and develop critical thinking skills.

 

[JAFI]

White Cloud,

Your quote:
"We had one of those guys (Aviation Safety Inspectors) running around the local airport looking for violations he could report to the Flight Standards office. The guy was not an FAA employee but they gave him a badge, which he flashed around, and it made him feel important and empowered."

As far as I know, ALL Aviation Safety Inspectors (FG1825) ARE FAA employees. I'm not sure what "badge" he/she had, but I would bet the local FSDO would just LOVE to talk to him about his/her badge and some words on who can conduct surveillance.

With the new security regulations I would bet some other Federal folks would be in on the conversation also. Look at the Inspectors 110A Credentials (a picture ID) and get the ID number. Call the local FSDO and report them. If they do not have the proper ID with a number, or if the FDSO says they are not an inspector, call the police.


As far as your “Inspector” goes, it would not be the first time some one made up a fake ID card or claimed to be an Inspector.

A word of caution, Make sure you find out who this person is before you do something you may regret later. Denying proper access to a real Inspector is not wise.


JAFI

 

[avbug]

Jafi,

I believe the poster was mistaking an Aviation Safety Counselor for an Inspector. An ASC is a volunteer, of course. As a volunteer and not an employee of the Adminstration, he or she does not hold a Form 110A, but usually some kind of identification with the FAA seal stating that he or she is an avaition safety counselor.

The ASC does represent the Adminstrator, but only insofar as he or she voluntarily participates at the FSDO level with an Aviation Safety Program specialist, in promoting safety. The ASC has no inspection or regulatory authority, and has no authority to take any action on behalf of the Adminstrator. The ASC does have an obligation to report unsafe activity, but the function of the ASC is different than that of the inspector.

The ASC is there as someone who may be used by the safety program manager, or others at the FSDO through the safety program manager, to counsel with an airman (usually in lieu of immediately pursuing enforcement action). The ASC is also someone who may elect to provide counsel prior to bringing unsafe activity to the attention of the FSDO.

As an example, this past summer I witnessed several events that may well have resulted in enforcement action. In each case, it was obviously more an education issue than something that warranted a police action. As an ASC, I approached those involved and discussed the situation with them. We talked about what could have been done differently, what might be a safer approach, etc. I reported my counseling to the safety program manager, but this was not handled as an issue that warranted further action, and that's the way the ASM wanted it.

Other incidents did occur in which safety was a big concern. A local college chief flight instructor, for example, who was having his people conduct night landings with no aircraft lights and no runway lights. I contacted him directly when I first saw his instructors doing it. My intent was to let him deal with the instructors to correct the problem. He informed me that this was a practice he had insisted be done, and that it was an FAA approved practice. I approached the ASM at the FSDO, who brought the operations inspector in who oversaw the colleges part 141 program. Both assured me that it was not approved, nor would they approve training student pilots to land with no landing lights, no position lights, no beacon, no strobe, and no runway lights. It then became an FAA matter, with which I was no longer involved.

I never showed a "badge" or ID to these folks, as I had no more authority than any other schmoe at the airport. My function as an ASC was to help. If I could not help, then my obligation was to pass it on to others who could deal with it more effectively.

The other primary function of the ASC is to enhance community awareness and promote safety by setting up Wings seminars, placing posters in FBO's, and performing various safety related functions. Demonstrations, presentations at schools, and all manner of activities to promote aviation safety are conducted by the FAA Aviation Safety Program Manager at the FSDO level,using avaition safety counselors.

Occasionally ASC's may forget that they are there as a volunteer to give service under the direction of the FAA.

 

[nosehair]

Well, as I have watched this thread grow, I see the common denominator of a lack of skill and judgement among the pilots and instructors of today. What I mean is that people are outraged and horrified at the thought of actually shutting down an engine in flight. A single engine.
If you are nervous about doing it in a controlled, safe environment, can't you see the amount of stress that will occur if it actually happens when you least expect it? No amount of "simulation" will overcome that fear of reality. Idling the engine and doing the drill will not prepare you for the psychological effect of an actual stopped prop and the whistle of the wind turning final with the very real teacher of nature staring you in the face.
If you are afraid of that, you really know in the deep recesses of your psyche, that you need to practice it.
Forty years ago, (oh,god,here he goes again) we used to do all kinds of stuff that. And I am really grateful that I was able to gain that experience and not get killed. Yes, it can be dangerous. Flying can be dangerous. We do all kinds of things to guard against the odds so that we can overcome the dangers. Smart people did this wisely back in the days. Stupid people got themselves hurt or killed and lawyers used the case to point to "dangerous" activities and the Government Protectors (FAA) were backed into a corner and had to issue edicts of "Thou shalt not..." because they do not have the resources to supervise each instructor's activity, and if they say one person can, then everybody else says "Why can't I?"
The painful truth and fact is, we are not all alike. Having a CFI certificate does not mean you posses judgement.
In 1962, when I was working on my CFI, I used to practice engine out landings while I was solo. I was fortunate to be near an old abandoned military field. No traffic. 3 runways in a triangle shape. Long and wide. I would make about 3 touch and goes to get the feel of the wind and get my judgement and skill honed to a sharp edge, then climb up to 5000' over the field, pull the mixture, shut it down and stop the prop. I found that the ensuing minutes in my "glider" soon produced a calm sense of complete control. I would circle around constantly estimating the glide performance, nailing the best glide speed, circling to the intended runway, but always knowing that, if I looked short on downwind-to-base, I could turn into final in another runway. I wasn't stupid. I was prepared for all possible events.
Then, one day, I was up at altitude, not far from the field, practicing upper airwork, and decided to do a steep spiral to a lower altitude to practice ground reference. When I pushed the throttle to clear the engine during the spiral, viola! nothing happened! I immediately turned toward the old field and nailed the best glide speed, and my heart was jumping up into my throat, but I felt more prepared because of my self-training. I glided and just barely floated across the over-run grass onto the runway. Maybe if I had not been prepared, my instinct would not have been so sharp and I might not have been able to smoothly and calmly "get to it" and I might have come up a few feet short...
My point is...Of Course it has to be in a completely safe environment...Of Course it has to be done with discretion, but it can be done in a completely safe manner. Isn't gliding safe?
And I am only talking about gliding with the prop stopped. Not all the other emergency practice stuff like fires that I saw on this thread. My idea is that you can create the ability to remain calm and collected with this engine out drill, then hopefully, you can remain calm in other emergencies and "do the drill".
Finally, the reality is that I, or we, cannot prove, with our present resources, that this training will reduce accidents, but I came into the flying business because I like to fly, and I like to feel competent and confident that I am not hanging my life on the operation of an engine.
It is this feeling of confidence that I am promoting - not a statistic.
And if you read this far, you must have feelings, too.

 

[bobbysamd]

Realistic v. "Realistic" training

Well, as I have watched this thread grow, I see the common denominator of a lack of skill and judgement among the pilots and instructors of today. What I mean is that people are outraged and horrified at the thought of actually shutting down an engine in flight. A single engine.
If you are nervous about doing it in a controlled, safe environment, can't you see the amount of stress that will occur if it actually happens when you least expect it . . . . .
Forty years ago, (oh,god,here he goes again) we used to do all kinds of stuff that. And I am really grateful that I was able to gain that experience and not get killed . . . .

. . . or violated for careless or reckless operation. 14 CFR 91.13.

In 1962, when I was working on my CFI, I . . . would make about 3 touch and goes to get the feel of the wind and get my judgement and skill honed to a sharp edge, then climb up to 5000' over the field, pull the mixture, shut it down and stop the prop. I found that the ensuing minutes in my "glider" soon produced a calm sense of complete control . . . . Then, one day, I was up at altitude, not far from the field, practicing upper airwork, and decided to do a steep spiral to a lower altitude to practice ground reference. When I pushed the throttle to clear the engine during the spiral, viola! nothing happened! I immediately turned toward the old field and nailed the best glide speed, and my heart was jumping up into my throat, but I felt more prepared because of my self-training. I glided and just barely floated across the over-run grass onto the runway. Maybe if I had not been prepared, my instinct would not have been so sharp and I might not have been able to smoothly and calmly "get to it" and I might have come up a few feet short . . . .

Sorry, must beg to differ. There is realistic training and "realistic" training. Thousands of single-engine pilots have been trained to deal with unexpected engine shutdowns competently by simulating the shutdown via closing the throttle. If shutting down the engine deliberately in flight was a recommended procedure, you would see it in FAA pubs and commercial manuals. The trick to maintaining competency and prompt reactions is through quality recurrent training.

Having said all that, you do have a point that in such instances pilots could be better airmen. So, why not give them training in aircraft designed ab initio not to fly with engines at all, i.e. gliders? There was a school in Denver, Enterprise Airline Academy, later known as Global Alliance Academy of Flight, that did just that. It included a glider rating as part of its 141 course. How about something like that for a reasonable compromise? (The same school trained pilots for all of their initial airplane ratings in Barons.)

 

[avbug]

Getting a glider rating is all well and good. There's nothing wrong with it. However, it's a poor substitute for learning to make a forced landing in the aircraft in which the student is trained. A glider with a 26:1 glide ratio is very different from one with a 2.5:1 or a 7:1 glide ratio. Further, the mentality from one to the other is very different.

The FAA sets minimum standards, and it seems that many pilots are content to settle for the minimum standard. It's a sad day when a craftsman settles for the bottom rung, instead of seeking the best training and exerting his or her best effort.

Sadly today, I see complacency, inexperience teaching inexperience, and a minimum level of competency all too often. Occasionally I've just whitnessed outright incompetency...even in professional turbojet cockpits, places where one would hope the lower rung-dwellers had already been weeded out.

Accepting the minimum standards for training doesn't help any of that.

 

[Vector4fun]

One more opinion for the ravens to pick at:

Many years ago, when I was an active CFI at a small College, I became aquainted with the "Distract the student and turn the fuel selector off" trick. Before hand, I had had throttles and mixtures pulled, and once had a mixture control broken in the full lean position by the instructor during my multi training.

I wasn't too enamored of the fuel shutoff method at first, but I tried it with a few students who had already been exposed to several sessions of "normal" engine-out training. What changed my mind about the usefullness of this procedure in a carefully controlled manner was the SHOCKING number of students who would do the drill, touching the selector/shutoff, mixture, mag switch etc, but never actually looking at the selector and verifying it was ON!!! Some just about totally freaked out at the engine stopping without any apparent action on my part. Many I had to promt to check everything twice, and STILL didn't notice the fuel selector off.

I want to stress that I only did it on small, carburated engines in our C-150/152 fleet, and that I always had lots of altitude when we began (normally practicing stalls and associated clearing turns), I always already had a suitable landing area picked out in case the engine HAD failed to re-start, and I never carried this exercise below about 1000' without re-starting the engine, and then perhaps continuing the drill to an appropriate altitude using throttle alone. I would never advocate anyone trying this on high-horsepower, hot running, fuel injected engines for many of the reasons already enumerated.

I feel very strongly that the exercise, used judiciously , has merit. I think all those students learned something usefull beyond a simple flow or memorized procedure. It made them actually USE those procedures in a real (to them) emergency, and show them that they actually had to THINK and DO the checklist items, not just follow a script. It also made them think about what keeping their wits about them really meant.

I'm not about to set any aircraft on fire though.....