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.
 
That's easy. Try to go around in a Seneca with a dead engine and windmilling prop, and you die.


wow. i thought the seneca did pretty well on one engine. granted, i never went around with one windmilling...but i got a pretty good rate with sim-feather. also, this was just 135 training stuff. i've never instructed in one.

just from what i've seen the seneca does a great job on one. i'd rather lose one in a seneca than a 402. what a pig. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for all the insight! I just got back from another training flight with my mei. Single engine ils's in imc. (very fun!) What my instructor did today was fail the engine (fuel selector) and than turn the fuel back on at around 500'. I think that is a lot better than waiting until rollout. At least if the engine doesnt respond, we'll have more time to figure out a solution.
 
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.

Our checklist mandated that this fuel selector check be done on every taxi. This keeps "debris" from being there in the first place, making the fuel valves just another component that is moved regularly. Our feds and DE's approved of the procedure, too.

Mind you, moving the selectors in flight means being prepared to lose that engine entirely, just as Avbug said. Returning the selctors to "on" before reaching the runup area virtually assures you that there is no lingering fuel problem, as the engines cannot run on the fuel remaining in the system downstream from the selectors long enough to complete the runup and taxi into position on the runway. Even so, be ready to abort every takeoff, and make it your mindset. Expect trouble.



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.

Yes.

Shutting down the engine during training is a real world sceanrio that CAN become an emergency. That's why sufficient altitude is require by our training syllabus (the aforementioned 3,000 AGL) along with easy reach of a suitable landing field. Altitude is your friend, since it gives you time to collect your wits, make a radio call, run the checklist, and prepare to follow your training. And we are talking about training, here, so let's mitigate as much risk, and add as much time for learning and thinking, as we can. Altitude can help you to have that time at your disposal.



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.

Absolutely. Some have said that a rudder should not be blocked, but too many people die during multi training to put me in that camp. I think we had a discussion about that here, or was it on the old board? I don't know. I tried to limit my engine shutdowns to no more than two per hour in flight, and always warmed the engine before loading it again.



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.

The question of the ability of the Seneca I to go around on one engine is a good reason to simulate the single engine scenario using throttle and zero thrust. That way, you have a better chance of having a learning experience instead of a final experience.

Multi pilots in this airplane need to remember that the single engine specs are ideals, and are limited by density altitude, which can be incredibly low in the summer. Now, take that limited ability of the aircraft, and add in the element of shock and disbelief, and you have the fabled "swimming in glue" scenario that takes what precious little time you have to do everything perfectly during an unexpected engine failure, say for instance during or just after takeoff, and effectively reduces that time you have left to almost nothing. In training, you are expecting things to go "wrong" in a relatively safe and predictable way. After training ends, you no longer expect all those failures, and you can become complacent. Don't.

ALWAYS expect to lose an engine at the most critical times. Don't be one of this year's stats in an NTSB report.



wow. i thought the seneca did pretty well on one engine. granted, i never went around with one windmilling...but i got a pretty good rate with sim-feather. also, this was just 135 training stuff. i've never instructed in one.

The sim feather will give you a good rate most of the time, that's true. I never had a problem as a student or as an instructor, but to try and go around with the drag of a windmilling prop is very unlikely to be a success. Don't confuse the powered prop in a sim feather with the draggy prop of an unfeathered DEAD engine. Get some altitude with the instructor and check your performance with one windmilling. It isn't pretty. Know the failure procedure and perform it methodically. Pilots HAVE feathered the wrong engine, with disastrous results.

Treat "blue line" as gospel. If pitching to blue means you are descending, you ARE going to be landing shortly. It is far better, in terms of accident survivability to land bottom-down, and not on your roof due to a Vmc roll as you try to stretch your glide.

There are two publications which I don't have handy that should be required reading for twins.

Flying Light Twins Safely and

Always Leave Yourself an Out
 
Last edited:
Go-Around!!!

I always practice single-engine go-arounds when doing multi-engine training. With simulated zero-thrust, not an actual feathered engine. Sometimes, we climb and sometimes we don't, very much, but the student gets a real work-out in heading and pitch control. With practice, the student can see how he can "play" the Vyse. The published Vyse is, of course, full gross, and the actual Vyse is usually a little below, depending on weight. The student gets some real live experience in determining actual best rate speed to coax a climb, and to make a low shallow turn to downwind or another runway.
C'mon, I thought this was standard practice in training. Sure, you want to avoid a go-around, and I might elect to land in the grass next to the runway, but I also might elect to go-around if I'm light. I want the skill and experience to make a judgement - not a rote procedure, and in any case, the training in basic aircraft control is invaluable.
 
C'mon, I thought this was standard practice in training.

It is standard procedure, using the fake feather so you can get it back if you need it.

What I am advising against is a feathered or shutdown engine that leaves you no alternatives in a training situation.

That is not standard.
 
"Sometimes, we climb and sometimes we don't, very much, but the student gets a real work-out in heading and pitch control. With practice, the student can see how he can "play" the Vyse. The published Vyse is, of course, full gross, and the actual Vyse is usually a little below, depending on weight. The student gets some real live experience in determining actual best rate speed to coax a climb, and to make a low shallow turn to downwind or another runway."

Sounds dangerous to me. Isn't flying about minimizing risk?

Who says you have to be at 50' ready to land to "practice" a single-engine go-around?

Although I've yet to fly a multiengine airplane, it would seem that the best of both worlds would be to simulate a single-engine go-around at, say, 3000AGL. Just an observation.
 
Although I've yet to fly a multiengine airplane, it would seem that the best of both worlds would be to simulate a single-engine go-around at, say, 3000AGL. Just an observation.

You can practice a lot of things at altitude. Drag demos, for instance.

You can do a single engine go-around from short final, and usually with no problem. Just don't paint yourself into a corner by shutting down and/or feathering a prop before you try it. A zero thrust setting should be all you need to simulate a feathered prop, while keeping the engine running and ready for almost instant use.

At altitude, you can try the go-around with a windmilling prop and a shutdown engine, to simulate the condition of an unplanned failure, and see how little performance you really get. It isn't much.
 
...virtually assures you that there is no lingering fuel problem, as the engines cannot run on the fuel remaining in the system downstream from the selectors long enough to complete the runup and taxi into position on the runway.

A lot of folks have thought that way, and learned otherwise...the hard way.

You might be surprised just how long that fuel will last. I've also seen fuel selectors shear off, either closed, or partially closed. They'll support fuel flow at idle, but not at takeoff power settings. As the fuel reserve in the header tank, gascolator, or other source is used up during the roll, the engine fails shortly after liftoff.

Any debris introduced into the system by moving the selector valve may not show up until the takeoff, when the highest fuel demand/fuel flow exists.

Every year one or two airplanes get away when someone forgets to tie them down during hand-propping. Old sage advice says to put the fuel selector in the off position to prevent the airplane from going anywhere during the handpropping exercise, especially if you're the only one present. However, even with the selector off, airplanes make it into the air every year, with no one aboard...and then fall from grace when the fuel finally runs out. Just how long that engine will run with the fuel shut off can be surprising...especially if you have a leaky valve or it's bypassing through your primer line. It happens.
 
You might be surprised just how long that fuel will last.

You're right, I might have been. :)

That is, until one day that a little experimnet revealed that the engines stopped before the runup was complete. I thought there might have been a substantial difference in the time an engine would run following a change from cross-feed to "on" (simulating a malfunctioning valve by selecting "off") when compared with how long an engine would run after "off" is selected in a training scenario at altitude. Pretty much no difference. Since the fuel flows were higher during runup power than during the cruise setting, they stopped running a little sooner on the ground.

So, we decided to stick with the checklist for the airplane, and observe the engine performance during the runup at near-takeoff power. We also were mentally prepared for a failure at the most critical time.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom