Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Shutting off the fuel in a Seneca I

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

tathepilot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Posts
884
Has anyone had an experience in a Seneca I where you shut off the fuel to an engine (prop still windmilling) and the engine didn't start back up when the fuel was turned back on?.

The reason I'm asking is because when I did my initial multi-engine my mei shut off the fuel as the localizer came alive, he than turned the fuel back on around 500 feet and than simulated zero thrust. That seems like the best way to go.

Currently I'm doing training for my mei and the instructor that I use shuts off the fuel as I'm entering the pattern and than he doesn't turn it back on until I'm rolling out. This doesn't seem like the safest way to go. It runs through my mind that 'what if I botch the landing and need to go around'? What if the engine doesn't start when the fuel is turned back on?

How does everyone else do single engine fuel cut-off's in a Seneca I
 
Last edited:
Shutting off the fuel in the traffic pattern is a little risky, IMO. Personally, I wouldn't do any engine shutdowns below 3500 agl. 3500 AGL is the minimum altitude for VMC demonstrations in the POH, so I figure it's a good minimum for engine shutdowns too. Below that I'd just pull one throttle to idle (to practice IAP's and Landings). I've got about 80 hours in the seneca I.
 
There's a lot of risk to multi engine training as it is, why create an engine out that low, when zero thrust works just fine?

I agree with Alchemy.
 
GET ANOTHER INSTRUCTOR!

I suggest getting another instructor...your instructor is unsafe....why create a real emergency for yourself?...no fuel selector cutoff and mixture cutoffs below 3000 AGL...period!...remember... most of the safety considerations in the PTS (altitude suggestions) is written in blood...usually because of stupid tricks like you mentioned...your instructor is probably one of those that gives engine out when your speed is below vmc also....anyway, good luck with your training.
 
While there is NO requirement for an actual engine shutdown during multi-engine training, it is an excellent idea for the student to actually shutdown and restart an engine in flight. That being said, however, it is one of the dumbist ideas out there in the training enviroment to shut one down below 3000 feet. There are way too many things that can go wrong to play that game. Even at the professional level, that I am doing my instruction at.
 
Get a new MEI

You need to get a new MEI, or at least ask his/her boss for their input on what's going on during your flights. The Crapaca I flies like a dumpster single engine, and that's on a good day (low density altitude, lightly loaded, etc)...the last thing you want in any twin, let alone one that performs poorly single engine, is to turn a training scenario into a real emergency.

For what it's worth, basic rules that I was taught by Feds, other MEIs, and that I also teach:

1. Below 3000' AGL, any engine failures are with simulated with throttle only. Per the PTS, the MEI or examiner should then set or allow you to set zero thrust.
2. No Vmc demos or prolonged single-engine airwork (ie, full shutdown/feather/xfeed/restarts, drag demos) below 5000' AGL.
3. Any engine failures on takeoff are done with throttle only and prior to reaching 1/2 of Vmc.
4. No single-engine go-arounds below 500' AGL...
Disclaimer #1: Very few situations would warrant going around single-engine. If at all possible, land the aircraft.
Disclaimer #2: 500' AGL is the absolute minimum. Know your aircraft, and its single engine performance and limitations. If you are flying a loaded 421 single engine during the summer in PHX and #1 occurs, guess what, you'll need more than 500' to make it happen. In fact, that SE climb will probably not exist, because pitching for blue line can sometimes at best yield straight-and-level, or worse, a descent. You're now experiencing the true limits of Vyse and single engine ops.

Ask your instructor what you should if, while the fuel is shutoff with the selector and/or mixture, you need to go around and you're at traffic pattern altitude or lower. If you've ever been shown or have tried a single-engine go-around aloft, its an eye-opener. I always show this to students to demonstrate exactly why you are committed to land, regardless of what happens, when you descend below 500' AGL.

Good luck with the MEI!
 
Agreed, there's no reason to tempt fate in the "crapaca I". It's been a while since I did engine shutdowns in it, but we were doing well to maintain 4000 MSL on one engine during the summer. 200 horspepower doesn't go too far with an airplane of that size. If for some reason the engine would not restart you would be screwed if you had to go missed.
 
Thanks for all the input. I just got back from a training flight. I expressed my concern with the practice that he uses. (Fuel shutoff until rollout). He basically said that when you turn the fuel back on the engine will start back up. Again I said "what happens if I botch the approach and you need to go around ?". He said in real life with an engine out you are comitted to land. I guess he thinks that it is ok with what he does.
The next time we fly I will insist that he simulate zero thrust.
 
The PA 34-200 was my first twin. I instructed in it.

There is only one training scenario where you turn off the fuel for an engine shutdown procedure. At a minimum of 3,000 AGL, and near a field where a forced landing is not a problem.

Not a corn field, a real landing field.

A word about fuel valves.

You should always test those fuel valves on the taxi. After starting, go to cross feed for the taxi. At least a minute before you reach the runup area, go back to the normal fuel position, which is "on" for takeoff and landing. If you have no trouble during the runup with fuel flow, you have good evidence that you have successfully reestablished normal same-side fuel flow. Don't wait until the last minute to go from crossfeed to "on." You can't trust the valves, even these mechanical valves, to restore flow when returned to the "on" position.

Below 3,000 AGL, such as on an ILS intercept for single engine approach training, use ONLY the throttle reduction and the zero thrust setting. The only landing you should be making with a feathered or shutdown engine is an emergency landing.

As someone pointed out above, multi training is dangerous enough without making it more so.

One other thing. I don't want to embarass a former colleague, but this is a good example of how an assumption in this airpplane can bite you on the keister. When you operate the gen switches to look at the outputs during the runup, make sure they end up in the "on" poistion, too. My friend left them "off" by mistake, after happily moving them back and forth several times, and took off for some night flying. He was good for a while, but an instrument check during the cruise checks would have found the problem. He had an interesting time of it, and made it back safely, a little wiser.

And a little embarassed.
 
Are you sure your Seneca has unfeathering accumulators?

In my vast experience of flying one Seneca, it didn't have them. If you caged an engine you'd have to use the electric starter to get it turning again. Not good below 3000'.
 
JimNtexas said:
Are you sure your Seneca has unfeathering accumulators?

In my vast experience of flying one Seneca, it didn't have them. If you caged an engine you'd have to use the electric starter to get it turning again. Not good below 3000'.

The pa34 that I train in doesn't have unfeathering accumulators. In my first post I state that when the mei shuts off the fuel the prop is still windmilling.
 
I'm not aware of any Aztecs that have accumulators, but I know nothing of Senecas. I was under the impression that Piper didn't make accumulators available.
 
In my first post I state that when the mei shuts off the fuel the prop is still windmilling.

Sure, but if you feather it the prop will stop turning in short order. You won't be able to restart unless some force makes the turn.

Either the electric starter does it, or put your hand out the window and spin it.
 
JimNtexas said:
Sure, but if you feather it the prop will stop turning in short order. You won't be able to restart unless some force makes the turn.

Either the electric starter does it, or put your hand out the window and spin it.

I'm aware if you feather the prop it will stop turning. I think I'm being misunderstood. The situation that I'm concerned about is when he shuts off the fuel. When he does that the prop is still turning (not feathered). I'm just concerned about what happens if I botch the approach and I need to go around.
 
"I'm aware if you feather the prop it will stop turning. I think I'm being misunderstood. The situation that I'm concerned about is when he shuts off the fuel. When he does that the prop is still turning (not feathered). I'm just concerned about what happens if I botch the approach and I need to go around."

That's easy. Try to go around in a Seneca with a dead engine and windmilling prop, and you die.
 
Hey Jim, why don't you lighten up?

This is the training forum last I checked, and people come here to ask questions that they don't know the answer to.
 
I got a crap load of Seneca and Aztec time and have shut down both with the fuel control.. Never had a problem and find it a great training tool because the student doesn't expect it and doesnt't see your hand pulling the throttle back.
Relax and have fun, don't take it too seriously. You will live through the training and instructing process.
 
I see nothing wrong with failing an engine using the fuel selector assuming you're above 3000 AGL. Call me paranoid but I wouldn't want to do it lower than that. Having the throttle at idle on one side really isn't that much different, and it really isn't much less of a surprise to reach over and grab a throttle than it is to move the fuel selector.
 
If you're going to shut down an engine in flight, regardless of how you accomplish it, be prepared to not get it back. Regardless of weather you're 3,000', or 3'. Unless you're fully prepared to deal with that consequence, then don't do it. Period.

Killing an engine with the fuel selector is fine and dandy, except that you're starving your fuel-wetted/lubricated components, primarily the engine driven fuel pump. That increases wear, and also the possibility of a failure. Not just at the time you're simulating the engine failure, but later.

Stopping fuel flow introduces air throughout the fuel system, leading to an increased possibility of hydraulic lock, as well as the near-certain liklihood of pump cavitation.

Killing the engine isn't necessarily a bad thing; if one is prepared to land the airplane it doesn't matter how high it's done. During my ATP ride, the examiner killed the engine at 200'. I had made it clear that if the engine quit below 400', we'd consider it an emergency and treat it as such, and I did. Unable to mount much of an effective climb, and unwilling to seek a restart there, I returned to land on an intersecting runway, with a very low pattern. I'm not going to second guess the examiner in that case; he was outside of the Administrator's guidelines...however, we were continuously in a position to make a safe landing, and we did. He also pulled the engine using the throttle.

He also knew that I've spent a great deal of my flying career below 200', and that it was a comfortable environment for me. I don't know if he would have done that to someone else, or not.

I don't have a lot of seneca time. About four hundred fifty hours of so. The Seneca II or III will easily hold 8,000 MSL with one engine out and feathered, and the airplane full of fuel and people. It's got quite a high single engine service ceiling. The Seneca I doesn't have that high a service ceiling, being normally aspirated, but it's still high enough, so long as one engine is feathered.

Messing with fuel selectors during taxi is not a very wise thing to do. Releasing debris that may be trapped behind selectors, or having a selector fail without your knowledge in an intermediate position or an off position, can get you killed. You may have just enough fuel between that failed selector and the engine to keep it running through the takeoff...and then you lose it. It happens. Debris that may be trapped behind the selector valve can be released, just in time to mess with a fuel controller, injector plug, carburetor jet, etc. Just not a wise idea...because it's quite likely to get to the worst possible place, at just the worst possible time. Leave those selectors alone. Either check them before start on the preflight before a long taxi and runup, or don't touch them until you're over a safe landing site once airborne.

Block rudders for engine-out work and Vmc work, stick with zero thrust for most single engine work (using a throttle), and always warm up an idled or killed engine before going again. For those of you conducting single engine approaches, no go-arounds. Land, warm that engine back up, and go again. If you've shut one down, warm it up.

On the subject of going around single engine, I once had an examiner demand to see a single engine go-around in a Seneca II. He told me I would be flying a single engine ILS under the hood, then executing a single engine go around. I told him I wouldn't. The checkride was for a small 135 operation. He told me I'd not pass, I told him I didn't care. He told me it was a test standard, I told him it wasn't. Not unless it's a part 25 airplane, and the Seneca II definitely isn't. He got lippy, told me I was goign to fail the ride. I told him that would be fine, and asked him if he preferred to get out now, or wait until we got back to the airport. He shut up and finished the ride, I passed.

He asked what I would do if I flew a single engine approach in the airplane and found the runway fouled on arrival. I told him I'd land anyway. But what if the runway is blocked? I'd land adjacent to it. Wassamatter, Mr. examiner? Never landed on grass? In snow? On anything but hard dry pavement?

I don't know that I'd agree that going around will kill you...but it won't do you any good, and your odds aren't great of success. Especially at any significant density altitude of note.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top