Shutting off the fuel in a Seneca I

[tathepilot]

Again, let me say that I do appreciate the advice given here. I don't want to do anything that is unsafe nor do I want to endanger a student that I'm flying with. A couple of posts made me think about a few things that I haven't even thought about.


I just don't want it to taken as me being stubborn, with the mentality of 'I can do what I want' because it is nothing close to that.

 

[labbats]

Do you listen to yourself when you talk? I don't think you do.

Well, we can't teach you anything, and 100 other MEIs obviously know less than you do, so keep doing what you're doing, but don't say that you appreciate the advice you so strongly reject.

 

[tathepilot]

What are you talking about? If you read my posts I never rejected anything that any one said. The only think that might contradict what was said was shutting off the fuel during single engine ils's.
But in all honesty what was spoke about here has made me think about it differently.

 

[nosehair]

...hmmmm...

...We-e-l-l-l,... I'm suggesting you introduce as much "realism" as you possibly can in training so that the first real-life experience isn't the first-ever exposure to the adrenaline factor.
Engine cuts below 3000'?...sometimes that can be done in a safe controlled environment.
Yes, Yes, Oh, H-e-Double-Hockey-Sticks, Yes! All the points made here about the dangers of fuel valve cut-offs, and real engine cuts at low altitudes are valid points to weigh heavily in the consideration of "when and if" it can be safely done,...but, sometimes, it can be done safely enough to, IMHO, expose the student to a little adrenaline with his knee-jerk response at the controls.
Anytime I ever intentionlly shut down an engine, single or multi, I know (reasonably) that I can get to an airport - a non-busy airport. I have made the cut many, many times simulated, and am reasonably certain the real thing can be done safely with no stress on my part - just the student.

 

[Bandit60]

Nosehair..... Have you thought about what you are going to say to the faa when you do an intentional engine shut down and then you have an accident on a runway or an airport that you say you can get to safely. Can you say "careless and reckless operation"?

Is it really worth your ticket to be creating an emergency. Keep in mind that if you do have an accident they are going to point the finger at you and not your student and you can ruin any hopes of a career if that is what you are going to do.

Good luck and stay safe.

 

[Timebuilder]

Anytime I ever intentionlly shut down an engine, single or multi, I know (reasonably) that I can get to an airport - a non-busy airport. I have made the cut many, many times simulated, and am reasonably certain the real thing can be done safely with no stress on my part - just the student.

While I agree that it can be done, I can't say that the adrenaline value offsets the negatives, as Bandit60 suggests.

I'd rather reinforce the trained response as an antidote to fear, instead of making real fear a familiar feeling.

 

[Mickey]

Where I used to instruct we had the Seneca land twice with one engine running because the other engine didn't restart. Luckily both times the problem was discovered at altitude and not in the middle of a botched manuever. There have been plenty of accidents where the instructor shut an engine down and it never restarted on cue as the instructor had hoped. Good luck.
I would find a different instuctor before this one makes headlines and your name is included.

 

[Alchemy]

Still don't understand the point of using the fuel selector to fail an engine, especially at low altitude. There isn't a huge difference in drag between having the engine out there at idle and having the fuel shut off.

My MEI used the fuel selector on me once during training, but we were at 5500 AGL......yeah, it surprised me a little more than the throttle method, but it didn't feel a whole lot different control-wise. Engine shutdowns and VMC demos should only be done at fairly high altitudes in my book....no reason to play with fire in a fireworks factory.

 

[Timebuilder]

The idea behind using the fuel selector to fail an engine (at altitude, as I discussed earlier) is to provide no visual cues to the student when it comes to which engine has failed. You can hide the throttle quadrant with a checklist, but that interferes with the corrrect sequence of responses that the student must demonstrate; what we call the "multiengine mantra."

It is a bad idea, and has no reason, to actually shut down an engine below 3,000 agl, especially with no landing strip nearby. Even with a strip nearby, suppose you must do a real go around with one engine on a high density altitude day? You'll be SOL.

 

[falconpilot]

I would go with a different CFI.... Thats just me though... I did my initial multi in a seneca I. That thing barely has enough power with both engines running! I would definately not to any complete engine out ops in the pattern. Especially if there are alot of training flights at your airport. On the other hand.... I do think that it is extremely important to get as much engine out training as possible.. But do it at a safe altitude... There is nothing wrong with simulating zero thrust... Atleast you will have the engine running, just incase you need it to go around 50ft above the ground. But this is just my opinion... Best of luck with your training..