Practice engine failures in SEL

[buckdanny]

Hi,

I was wondering where I can find the official FAA guidelines (AC circular?) about how to practice those. More precisely, I'm looking for the paragraph that says you can't shut down the engine using the fuel selector...

Thanks,

Buck

 

[BobSmith_av8r]

this is a joke right?

 

[kabz]

What about using the mixture ?

Hell, in gliders we pull the tow release at 200 feet ....

 

[avbug]

You're going to run into a number of uninformed folks who will act with outrage and shock that you'd ask that question. However, you ask a legitimate question. Most of those who would respond to you in disbelief are ones who have never taught students to land off-field, never made a dead-stick landing, and who have never had a true engine failure. In other words, they don't have any basis to talk. Sadly, they pass on that same heritage of inexperience to their students, who are then released into the world as a certificated pilot without ever having experienced these things. That should be criminal.

You need to consider your own limitations, as well as those of the airplane, the location in which you're flying, etc. Can you shut down using the fuel selector? Yes. But do you understand the implications of doing so?

When you shut down with the fuel selector, you are shutting off fuel to the engine, to the fuel pump, etc. You risk running a fuel pump dry, where most fuel pumps are fuel-lubricated. You also risk cavitating the pump (part of running it dry), possibly leading to difficulty in restoring prime or getting it to pump, and also leading to vapor lock during restart. If you're running a carburetor, you're risking running the float bowl dry, another potential problem. You shut off the fuel, and you risk valve failure with the inability to restart if the valve won't open, or the control shaft shears. It happens. You also risk dislodging debris at the valve itself, and sending it to the engine. This also happens, and can lead to a plugged injector, etc.

On the other hand, you have a more realistic engine failure that can be initiated when the student isn't looking, and which happens later when you're clearly not doing anything to cause it. It gives the student that all important dose of reality.

Anytime you simulate an engine failure, it's imperitive that you be prepared to land the airplane without power. Simply pulling the power without being fully prepared to carry through to a landing is not a responsible act. Suppose you can't restore power? You must be prepared, able, and confident enough to be able to make that off-field landing, or a landing on the site you have chosen. If you're not prepared and able to do this, then don't pull the power.

This applies weather you're fuel chopping with the selector or shutoff valve, with the mixture, or with the throttle/power lever. Regardless of how you simulate the engine failure, always be prepared to follow through with the landing in the event that power cannot be restored.

With this in mind, if you are able to execute a landing to a road, field, etc, then the issue of weather or not the engine can be restarted is really quite mute. Never allow the student to take you to a place from which you cannot extricate yourself. I've heard many instructors ignorantly state that they can't be sure of getting the airplane safely to a landing site if power isn't available. I'll bet dollars for doughnuts that none of them have ever had to...and they have the luxury of thinking like that. They simply haven't been awakened to reality yet.

The fact is that the instructor had better be able to get the airplane to a safe landing, with the outcome never in doubt, as it's part of the most basic minimum level of certification for a private pilot, commercial pilot, or flight instructor. In other words, it's expected that you and I can do this as a minimum level of performance. Setting forth doubt that it can be accomplished safely is doing nothing more than calling one's competence into question.

Back to the subject of simulated engine failures, killing with the fuel shutoff can be done, but you need to question your motives for doing so, your own limitations, those of the aircraft the nature of the system, the risks vs. the benifits for all of the above, the surrounding terrain and population and potential landing sites, etc.

If you're going to be conducting prolonged descents without power, then you'd better be landing...don't cool the engine like that and then add power to go around. Land, restart, let the engine warm back up slowly, and then go again.

I've known folks who experienced the fuel selector shearing off in their hand. They ran a tank dry and were unable to select another tank. Don't let that happen to you. Landing without access to a full tank is embarassing, and can be dangerous if you make bad choices.

I've seen airplanes that experienced a stuck mixture in the off position. One in particular stood out to me; it was a Cessna 152 that was used heavily for training. I was called to a satelite field to work on it, because the student and instructor couldn't get the mixture out of the cutoff position. There was so much grit in the cable housing that the mixture control couldn't be moved. The student had shut it down on the ramp during a cross country flight, and couldn't start. Imagine this happening in flight.

Again, you may not be able to restart the engine after simulating the engine failure. If you kill the engine with the mixture or the fuel shutoff/selector, it's not a simulated engine failure, but the real thing. Getting it back is a bonus, but don't expect it. Once you kill that engine, be fully prepared to execute a landing. If you're not prepared, don't kill that engine.

Conversely, simulating an engine failure with the throttle gives you a wider range of flexibility. I'll be the first to assert the fact that every student should experience genuine engine failures, and some should be to landings. However, when generally training for the engine-out, one should maintain the flexibility offered by keeping the engine running by simulating with the throttle.

Using the throttle helps keep the engine warm, gives instant feedback about the ability to recover (by adding small amounts of power), and gives you the flexibility to simulate a windmilling prop, or a stopped or feathered prop depending on how you set the power. If the engine works as it should, it also gives you more options for the landing site, going around at the end, etc.

The FAA would prefer that you use the throttle.

 

[Astra Guy]

Always leave yourself "an out." I don't know what an AC might say but I can tell you that it does not make any sense to cage an engine unless you want to hold the all time record for dead stick landings as a pilot. Think about it a little. These students can do things you can't even imagine which causes you to react in ways that you never imagined you should. They will try to kill you, unknowingly.

Even in Army helicopter training many moons ago the IPs never shut the fuel off, even when we were practicing at a stage field with level ground to touchdown on. The autos were commenced with power to idle and a full touchdown, which I believe is now considered illegal. They found that they were losing more aircraft and crews in training this way than they lost in the field with actual engine failures. Keep in mind in a helicopter that rolling the power to idle provides no residual thrust during the autorotation.

Leave yourself and out and live to train another day! Heck you never know...you might live to get one of those coveted airline jobs!...sic.

 

[buckdanny]

Thanks for the replies. The reason I was asking this is because of the guy at our flight school who does all the checkouts. When I had mine last July, that's how he killed the engine on me and it made me very uncomfortable (we were over water too!) Then in the traffic he had me do a stall on the downwind.... The worst part is that he has thousands of hours. The guy is not a bad guy at all, as a matter of fact he has a lot of experience with aerobatics too. He really is one of the best pilots out there. I just believe he has a teaching style that is not of the safest. His justification is that most of the time engine failures happen because of a miss-ap with the fuel selector. I agree with everything you guys say, and I have always failed engines with the throttle (ME is a different story). Even if his argument is correct, I still think that he shouldn't touch the fuel selector, and just make sure the student includes it in the checklist or visual flow.

To keep a long story short, the subject was brought up yesterday with another school employee who was saying it's no big deal and perfectly legal, so I would like to find official FAA docs on that matter. I already have AC61-67C which take care of the stalls, but I can't find anything about the engine killing.

Buck

 

[moving2vegas]

shut down using the fuel selector

Avbug brought up some good points and I agree buckdanny, turning off the fuel selector in flight would make me a little uncomfortable too. That said, I feel primary flight instruction regarding engine failures is pretty weak today. I know mine was. The school where I received my private was a school that trained mostly foreign students. I was able to attend basically because I pumped gas at the local FBO. Engine failures consisted of memorizing the emergency checklist, and touching the appropriate item in order. Mix, prop, throttle, gas, pumps, ect....The procedure was good but you never really learned to solve the problem. I've spoke to many pilots my age and they said similar things, basically emergencies weren't stressed enough. That was until my commercial instructor. He did alot of things that made me thing about a problem. One involved shutting off the fuel selector or leaning the mix while taxing out. Not a problem at an uncontrolled airport with low power settings. He had a thousand tricks like that and it came in handy a couple of times when passengers kicked the fuel selector and killed the engine on me in flight. I think this guy is trying to make a better pilot out of you (or thinks he is), but fuel selector kill and stalls on downwind seem a little excessive.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To answer your specific question, you won't find any official word from the FAA prohibiting engine shutdown to practice engine failures in flight.

On the other hand, the wisdom of doing so is a topic on which you have already found some interesting viewpoints.

 

[bobbysamd]

(Simulated) engine failures

I like Avbug's well-reasoned post. The long and short of it is one should never actually shut down the engine on a single while in flight. The only way to do it is distract the student, quickly pull on carb heat and retard the throttle. You can bring up power momentarily from time to time to keep the engine clear. But don't shut it down with fuel selector or mixture.

We had a Riddle instructor who actually was a pretty good instructor and a good guy who shut down the engine one time with a student. They landed on a dirt road. It's been too many years to remember the exact outcome, but I believe he claimed the engine shut down for no apparent reason. Or something. I don't recall him setting into trouble. Just the same, don't do it. Pull on carb heat and pull back the throttle to simulate engine failures.

 

[WhiteCloud]

Re: (Simulated) engine failures

I like Avbug's well-reasoned post. The long and short of it is one should never actually shut down the engine on a single while in flight.

Absolutely. Having given a lot of ME training where we routinely shut down engines in flight I can tell you a prompt restart is not always possible. Good posts.

 

[CFI'er]

Bobbysamd is right on the money. Carb heat should always be applied on the older aircraft that still have carburetors. Keeps out that nasty ice block which could cause all kinds of problems.

 

[JAFI]

Shutting down a perfectly good piston engine in flight. Several things come to mind, but lets think about this. First of all, I am not talking about turbine engines, only single piston engines.

We could forget that sometimes piston engines just don’t restart. Ask any multi instructor about having to land with an engine that won’t come out of feather or restart.

But, some of you are talking about a single engine shut down and practicing an off airport landing? I would like to hear what your insurance company’s position on that is. Or your chief pilot, head of your flight school, or better yet I would like to hear your explanation to a FAA Law judge why you decided to shut down the only operating engine to give better instruction in emergency landing. If all doesn’t go well, You have created the emergency. So what would be next? How about practicing a real engine fire? Jammed elevator? Landing blindfolded to practice a zero - zero landing? Where will it end?

If you look at the PTS is says “SIMULATED Engine Failure. Nowhere does it say shut the engine down. Some one said nowhere does it say you can’t. I’ll remind you that nowhere does it say you can’t soak your self with high-octane fuel and fly while smoking a cigar. Stupidity is not covered in the FAR’s.


If you can’t tell by now I am against shutting an engine down in a single engine aircraft unless you can step out and walk away.

 

[Learjetplt]

Off subject slightly, I know of a ME engine training flight that the Right engine was "killed" with the fuel on the downwind leg. The engine failed as the pilot flying turned base. He was in close to the runway so started his turn to final as he verified the wrong engine and retarded the good engine throttle. Make a long story short the aircraft impacted a tree burst in flames and hit the ground short of the runway on a road. Pilot flying lived but will never be able to fly again. Instructor an one other in aircraft recovered several months later after a long recouperation.
DONT ever use the fuel to shut down an engine even in a ME unless you absolutely have the runway made. The instructor in this incident had thousands of ME instructor time, you just never know.

 

[avbug]

Ah well, there's no accounting for stupidity. It hurts.

Unless you have the runway made? Teaching engine-outs only to a landing on a nice, hard, long, dry runway is criminal. Do you really want your student's first experience in realistic training to coincide with his first real emergency? I surely don't. Let the student leave the training prepared for the real world, because he or she has already experienced it.

Jafi, your published information states that you're a FAA inspector. We both know this isn't the case.

Does the FAA have FAA law judges? C'mon. You're a FAA inspector. You know this one. No? Administrative Law Judges...but not FAA law judges. The FAA takes administrative action, and an appeal may be heard before an ALJ...but an ALJ that hears administrative law across the board. Not simply FAA regulation...and not an FAA employee.

http://www.ntsb.gov/abt_ntsb/olj.htm

Shutting down a perfectly good piston engine in flight.

You're probably one of those wuffos that thinks it's cute to talk about jumping out of a "perfectly good" airplane, too. Are we talking a perfectly good engine, or perfectly good training? By your logic, a perfectly good engine is never perfect unless it's producing rated power at all times in flight, right? How ever might we reduce power to land? If we can reduce power, we can shut it down. We're not going to do that until we're certain we can get on the ground, anyway.

If all doesn’t go well, You have created the emergency.

Ah, yes. That IS the idea.

So what would be next? How about practicing a real engine fire? Jammed elevator? Landing blindfolded to practice a zero - zero landing? Where will it end?

You cloud the issue with multiple apples and oranges. How many times in your career have you experienced an engine fire? A jammed elevator? Truly landed zero-zero? Let's address that. I've had multiple fires; cockpit fires, engine fires, stack fires, etc. I believe in lighting a fuel fire and allowing a student to put it out with an extinguisher...is that good enough for you? I'm putting six students through that next week; all over a flash pan of either Jet A or Avgas, and each will get multiple chances to fact it and put it out. As for training for an engine fire in the airplane...first and foremost we make the student comfortable with the idea that it's not the end of the world, and that it is manageable. Then we must face the fact that teaching a realistic engine failure can be done safely and easily, whereas presenting an inflight fire cannot.

Moreover, a student is far more likely to experience an engine failure than a fire.

How many times have you had a jammed elevator? I haven't, personally (though I did have a frozen control at altitude, once). Can a control surface be jammed successfully and the aircraft flown? Setting aside the fact that the aircraft would be very unairworthy, the ability to do so is questionable (short of leaving in a control lock), and is not easily dealt with in flight. It can be more effectively simulated manually without the need to physically lock the control. Moreover, the liklihood of this occuring is infinitesimally small.

Conversely, the likelihood of an engine failure is much greater...much, much greater. Your reply suggests strongly that you don't have real world experience with engine failures away from the airport, or even realworld emergency experience. You could not hold that viewpoint if you did; your viewpoint is not realistic, and does not speak to realism in training, nor effectiveness in training.

Further, whereas a control jam cannot be adequately duplicated in flight, an engine failure certainly can. An instructor who cannot confidently execute an engine failure to a landing as necessary, or who doubts his or her ability to do so, is not competent to hold the certification to instruct...or to fly. The ability to perform any necessary maneuver with the outcome never seriously in doubt is universal from the earliest stages of certification. Most certainly the ability to successfully address an engine failure is an important, critical skill; absolutely a necessary one.

Comparing a jammed control surface in flight, to effectively and realistically teaching an engine failure, is a nonsensical comparison; apples and oranges. More like carrots and mangos.

Landing blindfolded? Would there be any point to that training? How does that compare in any way to the necessity to prepare the student for an engine failure? The student will face the potential for a forced landing on every flight, and during every moment of every flight for the remainder of his or her flying life. The same can in no way be said for facing the prospect of making a zero-zero landing during every flight. No comparison, and a poor example by comparing dissimiliar topics. Try again.

If you look at the PTS is says “SIMULATED Engine Failure. Nowhere does it say shut the engine down.

Ergo, during a practical test, simulate the failure. That has nothing to do with the fact that a student who is sent into the world without the experience of making forced landings and being prepared for the real thing...is a very unprepared student. Your commentary strongly suggests that you've never had the experience yourself. If not, you're not aware of the cold clammy feeling that can accompany loss of power, the hesitation that a student may feel, the indecision, the fear. That can be effectively mitigated by realistic training and exposure.

That exposure should be such that the student doesn't experience it for the first time, when it really happens for the first time. That's bad news. And a very poor commentary on a pathetic excuse for failed instruction. Either prepare the student to face reality, or do the world a favor and steer clear. Let someone else teach that student who can prepare the student...that preparation may save the students life. Don't try to sell the student on your own inheritance of inexperience...you're cheating the student and doing no one a favor.

My chief instructor? I have none. Ergo, he or she has nothing to say. What will the insurance say? That depends on the insurance, and on the operator, as well as the person giving the instruction. As someone who has spent much of his adult life landing on roads, gravel strips, and wherever will support the weight of an airplane, insurance companies specifically cover me to do it. I can only imagine the shame and potential liability after a student is badly injured or killed, if I had failed to prepare the student. I would share in the blame for the accident and the results. No thanks.

Stupidity is not covered in the FAR’s.

Actually, it is. See 14 CFR 91.13.

If you can’t tell by now I am against shutting an engine down in a single engine aircraft unless you can step out and walk away.

Ah, now on that, you and I agree. You should never pull an engine period, even if it's just with the throttle, unless you are 100% fully prepared to execute that evoloution to a landing. You had better be prepared to step out and walk away every time. Therefore, you will NOT simulate an engine failure at any time unless you are completely prepared to deal with it as an engine failure. If that can't be done, it's a competency issue.

 

[lymanm]

...

"I believe in lighting a fuel fire and allowing a student to put it out with an extinguisher...is that good enough for you? I'm putting six students through that next week; all over a flash pan of either Jet A or Avgas, and each will get multiple chances to fact it and put it out."

I wasn't sure I read that correctly. But I cut & pasted it, so I know you wrote it. Unfathomable. You are going to start a fire in flight. Wonderful. Somehow, the very 91.13 you reference in your post doesn't apply to LIGHTING A FIRE inflight??????

"...a student who is sent into the world without the experience of making forced landings and being prepared for the real thing...is a very unprepared student"

By your logic, actually making your fingers turn the transponder to 7700 is the only way to really, truly understand how that would feel. Or, perhaps, an airline captain should in fact shut off his two engines over the Pacific on his 207 ETOPS flight with 291 passengers behind him because doing it in the simulator wouldn't give him the "real life" experience of having to deal with that emergency for real.

My brother played Romeo in a highschool play. Should I advise him that he should kill himself to best understand the part? My father owns a business. Should I advise him to bankrupt himself and have his assets liquidated so he would know how it feels were it to really happen naturally? Should I eat Draino in order to recognize the symptoms just in case my crazy roommate decides to poison me? Stupid examples to illustrate stupid logic.

The point is, reducing the throttle to idle accomplishes the EXACT same thing as leaning the mixture or shutting the fuel off: you must fly the aircraft in a specific profile. Configuring for best glide speed is nearly identical whether the prop is spinning or not, and the difference is negligeable. Shooting for a feild is identical. Simulating radio calls is identical. So why go the whole way? Reducing the power to idle already addresses every component of dealing with an in flight engine failure. And you get a margin of safety that is infinitely higher to boot.

 

[nosehair]

Avbug, you are the man! My sentiments exactly! We, as instructors, should be competent enough to glide a deadstick airplane from a downwind position to a runway with the prop stopped. Every pilot applicant should have this experience. I am a firm believer that many "accidents" occur that would otherwise become "off-airport landings", if the pilot had been exposed to this mind-numbing experience during training.
Someone mentioned about helicopter autorotation training. In days long ago the Army routinely did autorotations to the ground, engine-idling, but many of the new instructors did not have a sufficient amount of proficiency, so they said "we are losing more in training than in the field, so let's stop doing them to the ground." Now they do a "power recovery" to a hover. So the new Army pilots are not trained in actual autorotation touch-downs.
Thta's bean-counter mentality. The right action would be to increase training in touchdowns to new instructors.
In Army Fixed-Winged training, long,long ago, in Multi-Engine training in a Baron, we routinely did engine failures on rotation.
The student WAS going to get an engine failure (throttle, mixture, or fuel valve) around the rotation point: right before, during, or right after while still having available runway and gear down, or just having reached the point of no available runway and raising the gear. The point was to develop the instant response to the required action. In all my years there, we never had an incident. We were well trained. That is the whole problem. No one wants to be well trained anymore. Costs too much money. And the FAA can't say anything because of "Liability".
It is criminal that we are failing in our responsibility to provide adequate emergency training.

 

[Astra Guy]

Nosehair,

I agree with you about the autos and the Baron training. Had the IP/SIP gig for a number of years in airplanes. The Baron was, in most cases, much more difficult for pilots to handle on a SE. Much less forgiving than the U-21s and C-12s that followed. The bad part about the Baron was the throttle quadrant created negative habit transfer, particularly noticeable when flying them and King Airs on the same assignment. Had a maintenance officer who was undergoing a transition to King Airs while qualified to fly Barons feather both props after takeoff. Never got above 70' before he stalled the airplane, killing all three on the aircraft. He was single pilot and not authorized to do maintenance test flights without another qualified pilot along.

Those were the days when we had training flights every 90 days and semi-annual checkrides. Nothing can make up for stupidity and ego overriding one's capabilities.

 

[bobbysamd]

SE v. ME training

In Army Fixed-Winged training, long,long ago, in Multi-Engine training in a Baron, we routinely did engine failures on rotation.
The student WAS going to get an engine failure (throttle, mixture, or fuel valve) around the rotation point: right before, during, or right after while still having available runway and gear down, or just having reached the point of no available runway and raising the gear. The point was to develop the instant response to the required action . . . .

We did the same things during ordinary civil ME training. Used mixture while the airplane was still on the ground. Used throttle after takeoff. At altitude, we shut down an engine routinely at least once during each Private and Commercial multi course, and spent time flying on one before restarting, running the shutdown checklist all the while. Although one or two times were close, I never failed to restart the "failed" one in flight.

Of course, for single-engine in the pattern, I'd pull throttle, and after the student identified, verified and began to feather, I'd set zero thrust.

I don't know of a proper multi course anywhere that does otherwise.

Originally posted by Astra Guy
The bad part about the Baron was the throttle quadrant created negative habit transfer, particularly noticeable when flying them and King Airs on the same assignment.

I got my multi in a B55 Baron, which had the same power quadrant format. It took some getting used-to when every high-performance single I heretofore had flown had the throttle on the left and prop lever in the center.

Single-engine training is a different ball of wax. Actually shutting it down in flight, as has been discussed, is inviting disaster, in terms of safety and for your certificates. Retarding the throttle to idle accomplishes everything you need.

 

[JAFI]

Avbug:


You are correct, the person sitting behind the bench is called an Administrative Law Judge. Pilots do call them FAA Law Judges or NTSB Law judges. Some times I too fall back into old habits. Both terms are incorrect, but IMO this is minor to the discussion.

I think the point of having a discussion with colleges is to present views and information to better the collective knowledge on a subject. In this forum any thing else (flaming), is a waste of time, IMO.

I disagree with your point that 91.13 addresses stupidity.


Not knowing or remembering everything, I looked this up. Not in FAR 1, or in any legal interpretation I could find. I went to the dictionary as I have seen the ADIMISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE do on several occasions.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online


Stupidity: 1 : the quality or state of being stupid

Stupid: 1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
4 a : lacking interest or point

-------------Stupidity is some times confused with Ignorance.


Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant

Ignorant: 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

FAR 91.13 does not use either term, it does use the terms careless and reckless.

Reckless: 1 : marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2 : IRRESPONSIBLE

Careless 1 a : free from care : UNTROUBLED <careless days> b : INDIFFERENT, UNCONCERNED <careless of the consequences>
2 : not taking care
3 : not showing or receiving care: a : NEGLIGENT,

Or in short:
My point:

Stupid: slow of mind, Lacking intelligence or reason.

Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension

FAR 91.13

Reckless: irresponsible

Careless: negligent

IMO this is apples and oranges.


But back to the original post thread;

I do not advocate practicing emergency landings in a single engine aircraft with the engine shut down. You have just reduced any ability to go around if all does not go well. I understand that your point is that you do not land unless you have the landing made. You assume all instructors are as brilliant a pilot as you. IMO it is an unsafe practice to suggest to CFI’s.


This is probably a waste of my time, but I will make an exception here.

With out knowing you jump to the conclusion:

…your published information states that you're a FAA inspector. We both know this isn't the case…

I don’t see how “WE” came to this conclusion, or do I care how you came to your assumption.

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

As far as you calling me a “wuffos”, I say thank you. I will add that to my list of creative names I have been called. It is better than “Sim Wennee” and many others that I cannot list here. I will have to find out what a “wuffos” is.

You gave your opinion, I gave mine. My hope is that the readers will make up their own mind. I hope they will always err to the safety side. This will improve their chances of making it to retirement in one piece.

“There are no old, bold pilots”

 

[bugchaser]

Ok, I can't stay out of this one anymore. First, I am an active primary CFI and I have experienced the real thing several times. I also have spent a lot of my flying career landing on roads, pastures, or wherever else we could stuff an airplane into. This experience does help one realize that an airplane can be safely landed in lots of places that most pilots would never attempt. Having said that, I don't think that it is a good idea to kill the engine with mixture in flight. For one thing, I do not think that most insurance would be happy with that. If any of you own the airplane you instruct in like I do, you will agree that we certainly cannot stand to do anything to increase the already prohibitive rates. Avbug, I understand your point. Most instructors give way too little in the way of emergency procedures. This has come about because of the lack of true emergencies experienced by most pilots. Simply pulling the throttle and asking the student to run through the standard drill does little to prepare for an engine failure when it really happens. The simple fact is that suggesting to low time/experience CFIs that they simulate an emergency by using mix will probably lead to more accidents. It will probably be the first time for the instructor as well as the student. If the manuever is carried out to completion, the airplane may be damaged if a suitable landing area is not picked. If this is done, the CFI had better scout out the are before hand and make sure the intended landing area is suitable. Suitable for an emergency landing in a real situation is a lot different than suitable for a practice emergency landing. In my training I try to stress to my students that the number one thing is to continue to fly the airplane and find a spot to put the airplane where they have the best chance for the least injury. Sometimes in the real deal it is better to sacrifice the airplane if it means a better chance for them. Trying to make a road and then realizing at the last min that there are wires or other obstacles in the way is one example. In many cases it might be safer to set up in a field from the start even though it might result in damage to the aircraft. One way this could be practiced with some realism is to start the exercise over a known good landing site. I would never suggest that these be practiced on a road because of the legalities of this. Like I said, I agree that most students get little realistic training in this area, but lets be careful what we suggest to lower time instructors.