Teaching emergencies

[USMCmech]

Another thread caused me to think about this.


I have noticed a dangerous concept that I was taught, and I have heard taught to the vast majority of students.

Durring simulated emergencies many CFIs are talking too much about taking care of the airplane.

In a real emergency taking care of the airplane is a distant 2nd to staying alive. The airplane has betrayed you and deserves zero consideration. In a real emergency the airplane is an expendable asset to be used and discarded in order to save your life.

This is a real problem because the law of primacy will take effect if the real thing ever happens. The pilot will useually react just like he did during training. In a real emergency (not a equipment malfunction) ie: low alt engine failure, fire, ect. spending precious seconds worrying about "shock cooling" could cost him his life.

CFIs please teach your students this, it may save their lives and their pasengers.





The other problem is CFIs teaching the wrong emergencies. Sudden engine failure is not very common, as opposed to electrical failure/short which happens all the time. Very few pilots I have talked to under stand how extreemly dangerous an engine fire is. Even if you shut off the fuel, there is still oil that will cause a very hot fire. Gas fed fires can burn through the firewall in less than 120 seconds. How fast can you make an emergency descent and landing?

Pilots need to have a good understanding of how the seperate systems work in their airplane. Every emergency or malfunction will be different and happen for a different reason.
Understanding your airplane may save your life when you need to act without looking up a reference.

While teaching engine out aproaches, have you ever taught (or been taught) how to crash land? It's not something you can demonstrate, but thinking ahead of time about how you might land in a field that is less than perfect might save your life. If you are running out of room to stop, clipping a tree can spin you around stoping much of your foward momentum.

Have you ever done a real emergency aproach all the way to touchdown? Have you ever seen an actuall engine failure (here's a hint, the prop dosen't stop)?



I was guilty of most of these when I graduated from "a big name school". Now that I have been out in the real world learning the tricks of the trade (and learning a lot from you guys ) I look at my CFI ticket in a whole new light.

[DE727UPS]

I don't do much private training but one of the things I always do is an engine failure to a full touchdown. In fact, I need to see it before I sign off a guy to solo.

When I pull an engine, there is always a runway to land on, if they can find it. If they can manouver the plane to make a safe engine out on the runway.....they are ready to solo. If possible, I let them land and stop on the runway.

[Windchill]

I've heard this bit of wisdom from an individual pretty high up in the aviation safety business concerning emergencies and the importance of the aircraft, or lack thereof.

He would ask students, "what's the most expensive plane you've flown?"

After soliciting answers of high dollar amounts, his response would be:

"Just a couple thousand, the cost of the deductable."

This was supposed to put into perspective for the student, the idea that the plane is expendable and not to focus on having to save an airplane because it costs sooo much and one might have to buy it if damaged.

[ QUOTE ]
The airplane has betrayed you and deserves zero consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an awesome perspective Scott.

[moxiepilot]

that perspective was probably one of the more valuable pieces of information i learned along the way...
when you put into thinking what even when you're flying around a larger a/c, the deductible is all it's worth to anyone and that is a hill of beans compared to your safety.

i'd have to say though as much as systems were taught, i never fully comprehended their interactions until i started flying turbine.

[moxiepilot]

that perspective was probably one of the more valuable pieces of information i learned along the way...
when you put into thinking what even when you're flying around a larger a/c, the deductible is all it's worth to anyone and that is a hill of beans compared to your safety.

i'd have to say though as much as systems were taught, i never fully comprehended their interactions until i started flying turbine.

[NJA_Capt]

[ QUOTE ]
...one of the things I always do is an engine failure to a full touchdown.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK....Deep breath. If I'm understanding correctly, I have to disagree (something you and I rarely do )

An in-flight shutdown in a SE airplane is not simulating an emergency, it's creating an actual emergency. Although I do basically the same procedure, but with the throttle at idle. I even like to use a short grass strip for effect.

Here is another perspective I like to give them: With an engine failed and windmilling you make an approach to an off airport landing with very little landing distance. As you progress into the flare, the remaining compression in the cylinders (if any) stops the prop. The sudden decrease in drag causes you to overshoot your landing stop and are projected into the "obstacle" at the far end.

Therefore, I liked to add, if altitude permits, slow the aircraft at altitude (ie slowflight, flaps up) and stop the prop. Truth be known, if the engine failed....its probably already stopped.

Also, as far as sacrificing the airplane. If rolling out and collision with trees are imminent, aim between two closely spaced trees. The wings will be sheared off (absorbing some of the impact energy) and will put more distance between you and the fuel/fire.

[EatSleepFly]

Heh, my jackass check pilot on my CFI ride a couple years ago decided to pull my mixture in the Arrow (yes, Arrow) at <3000 AGL and said it was a good way to simulate an engine failure to students.

At the time I was intimidated, and he was in charge of the CFI program (and thus hiring) I didn't want to be a jerk and ruin my chances for a job (that I never got anyway), so I didn't really say much other than (sternly) to please put it back and leave it and that I didn't wish to create an engine failure just for the sake of simulating one.

Now if someone were to do that me, there would be no end to the a$$ reaming they would get. I'd be bashing them in the head with one hand and dialing the FSDO on my cell with the other. It pisses me off to this day that I didn't let him have it, especially since I wasn't ever hired there. Freakin' tool could've caused us to make an unscheduled landing in an orange grove.

Sorry...kind of off topic, it just reminded me of that.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]

Now if someone were to do that me, there would be no end to the a$$ reaming they would get. I'd be bashing them in the head with one hand and dialing the FSDO on my cell with the other. :

[/ QUOTE ]

Who'd be flying the plane at that moment?

[EatSleepFly]

I meant after we got on the ground...be it the orange grove or preferably the airport.

[Grabo172]

[ QUOTE ]

Who'd be flying the plane at that moment?

[/ QUOTE ]

His good Friend Otto... Otto Pilot

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
An in-flight shutdown in a SE airplane is not simulating an emergency, it's creating an actual emergency. Although I do basically the same procedure, but with the throttle at idle. I even like to use a short grass strip for effect.

[/ QUOTE ]


In my opinion pulling the mixture to demonstrate what an actual engine failure looks and sounds like, is a valuable lesson. My CFI for PPL was an old salt and turned of the fuel selector for my first emergency approach. He taught power off landings and nothing else.

If it is done with plenty of altitude, it isn't an emergency. Two of the three requirements for the engine are still there. The pistons are still moving, and the mags are still sparking. Once you reintroduce fuel, the engine will start producing power again everytime.

The only possiblity that this could go arwy is the fuel selector handle breaking off (you do carry a pair of pliers in your flight bag, don't you?).

When I flew skydivers my fuel lines would often run dry durring descent due to the configuration of the tanks. I got very good at power off landings, and today I have complete confidence that I can land safely in the event of an engine failure. Occasionly I would have to wait on the runway untill fuel had refilled the carb so I could taxi to the pumps .

I would never try this at low altitude (ESF I think I know who you are talking about), nor in any area that didn't have plenty of good landing feilds.

However I respect the differing opinons on this issue. I found it very valuable, but some people think differently.


On the other hand, full emergency approaces to touchdown with the engine idleing shoud be a requirement prior to solo. I have met several CFIs that haven't done this.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant after we got on the ground...be it the orange grove or preferably the airport.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, that's cool! I was just screwing around with my comment!

[BoilerPilot2007]

Shutting down an engine in flight (single engine), regardless of HOW its done is just one more step through the "Swiss Cheese." ... you're really asking for an incident folks.

How about just not doing it? Then you won't have to explain why your engine wasnt running when it hadn't failed.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
Shutting down an engine in flight (single engine), regardless of HOW its done is just one more step through the "Swiss Cheese." ... you're really asking for an incident folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people belive that a engine might not start after the mixture is pulled in flight. This is not true.

Flying along at normal cruise speed and power settings, you can pull the mixture to "idle cuttoff". In about 2 seconds the engine will stop producing power, but it will continue turning. Imeaditly after you return the mixture controll to "rich" the engine will start making power again.

As I said before, don't try this at low altitude. My rule with a student is, "the engine must be making power by 3K AGL"

The engine in a SE airplane is no different from the one in a light twin. If you don't belive me, go up and try it in a twin.


I have had several people say to me "everybody knows how hard airplane engines are to get started, I would be worried that it wouldn't start back up"

There is a huge difference between starting a cold engine from a dead stop with a puny starter and a wimpy battery, and reintroducing fuel to a warm engine already turning.

This is the exact same way turbines are started. The air is compressed, and the igniters are sparking, once fuel is introduced combustion starts.

[averyrm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shutting down an engine in flight (single engine), regardless of HOW its done is just one more step through the "Swiss Cheese." ... you're really asking for an incident folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many people belive that a engine might not start after the mixture is pulled in flight. This is not true.

Flying along at normal cruise speed and power settings, you can pull the mixture to "idle cuttoff". In about 2 seconds the engine will stop producing power, but it will continue turning. Imeaditly after you return the mixture controll to "rich" the engine will start making power again.

As I said before, don't try this at low altitude. My rule with a student is, "the engine must be making power by 3K AGL"

The engine in a SE airplane is no different from the one in a light twin. If you don't belive me, go up and try it in a twin.


I have had several people say to me "everybody knows how hard airplane engines are to get started, I would be worried that it wouldn't start back up"

There is a huge difference between starting a cold engine from a dead stop with a puny starter and a wimpy battery, and reintroducing fuel to a warm engine already turning.

This is the exact same way turbines are started. The air is compressed, and the igniters are sparking, once fuel is introduced combustion starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still doesn't make it a good idea.

99.9% of the time it'll work, but the one time it doesn't you'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Cutting the engine at any point in a single serves little purpose. Above 3000 ft, you're not doing any sort of landing, all it's showing is "I can shut the engine down, and it'll turn back on pretty easily" - if you re-read the above statement you've accomplished the same thing without endangering lives.

Showing a student what it feels like to have an engine shut down won't take away any sudden suprise they will have if the engine actually fails. Besides that, pulling the throttle to idle simulates that same "suprise."

You also have the worry that now the student's going to do exactly what you did with their friends on board, or to show someone else.

So why kill the only engine above 3000 feet, or at all?

[GregCollins2]

I have flown a number of twins that would not start again, even after driving the prop out of feather and getting the engine wind milling. I would not want to explain to the NTSB inspector why I hit that deer that ran in front of the airplane because the engine was shut down and a go around was impossible. If your student screws up the landing and initiates a PIO, or floats most of the way down the runway, life could get complicated.

[bike21]

[ QUOTE ]
I have flown a number of twins that would not start again, even after driving the prop out of feather and getting the engine wind milling. I would not want to explain to the NTSB inspector why I hit that deer that ran in front of the airplane because the engine was shut down and a go around was impossible. If your student screws up the landing and initiates a PIO, or floats most of the way down the runway, life could get complicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! It is simply not worth the less than 1% chance that it does not start again. A very good point was raised that your student will probably go out with his/her friends and show them the same thing. Ouch! It is VERY true that our students mimic us CFIs knowingly or not. If we exhibit not-so-sound judgement, then they just might too. If we exhibit nothing but utmost professionalism and sound decision making, then we are doing our job of molding safe and long lasting pilots.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
99.9% of the time it'll work, but the one time it doesn't you'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Showing a student what it feels like to have an engine shut down won't take away any sudden suprise they will have if the engine actually fails. Besides that, pulling the throttle to idle simulates that same "suprise."

You also have the worry that now the student's going to do exactly what you did with their friends on board, or to show someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very good points.

I don't want to give the impression that I encourage doing this regularly. It is indeed an extra risk that must be accounted for. I would never have a student attempt a full power off landing. My original instructor did it with me, but that was his call, I would not do so with any students of my own.


However, I do feel that it is valuable as a one time demonstration. Especially for commercial or CFI students.

Having seen what an engine failure acctually looks and feels like will definatly reduce the suprise factor if and when the real thing occurs.

One mans opinion, take it or leave it.

[NJA_Capt]

If all else fails.....it's 91.13

There is very little difference in the thrust of any SE airplane (short of a P-51) at IDLE and "0" thrust when the engine is OFF. Not enough of a difference to be able to justify turning off your only power source.

Doing it just to "see what it's like" doesn't hold water. It looks just like it does on the ramp. All engine gauges are at ZERO and it's quiet. The only difference is you would be moving at altitude and have oil on the windscreen.

Let me twist another wrench:
When I was on one of my solo x/c flights I made a fuel stop and pulled the mixture to shut down the engine (on the ramp). When I pulled the handle, it and 3 feet of cable came out in my hand !!!!! Imagine if you would have been "simulating" your engine failure and that happened to you airborne.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing it just to "see what it's like" doesn't hold water. It looks just like it does on the ramp. All engine gauges are at ZERO and it's quiet. The only difference is you would be moving at altitude and have oil on the windscreen.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is my point!

The prop will not stop.

The guages will not be at Zero.

RPM will not change untill airspeed changes (the governer will try to maintain set RPM)

The MAP will vary with throttle movement (despite the engine producing no power)

Oil pressure will be completely normal. (unless you have sprung a leak)

The amp meter will indicate no change.

Fuel pressure will not change. (unless you have exausted all fuel the pump is still pumping).

Only the sound of the engine will change, and you will not be able to maintain both altitude and airspeed (you'll have to give up one or the other).

These rules apply to either a real failure, or intetional pulling of the mixture control.

Pilots (especially CFIs) need to know this, I found seeing the real thing very informative when I did my training.

[EatSleepFly]

What I was concerned about when I got this on my CFI checkride was this:

1.) Low altitude (under 3k, can't remember exactly now), with no particularly great landing areas, and none planned ahead of time...he just pulled it (the mixture) after I pulled the power to idle to begin the maneuver. But mainly...

2.) The fact that he was touting this as "a good way to simulate an engine failure," when your students don't expect it (his exact words). Now what if I did it to my students, who in turn did it to theirs, who remembered it when they became CFI's....you can see where I'm going with this.

So as to whether it's a good demonstration or not, I guess it could be argued both ways. I personally wouldn't do it in a single. I just don't see the need, or think that the benefits outweigh the risks...even though they may not be as high as some believe. Just my $.02.

[Grabo172]

I'll put in my $.02 on the matter too I guess...

I've never had it done to me, and I haven't ever done it to a student, and I don't think I ever will.

BUT... Some of the things USMC Mech was listing about how it looks, I didn't know. So I could see how it being done at a safe altitude would be a good expirience.

Maybe it would be useful just to show what it would look like if an engine failure happened, and that the airplane still flys wityhout the engine producing power.

I do not think it should be used as a way to do a simulated engine failure.

You are taking a risk if you do choose to do it, but I don't think it's any more risk than if you pulled the throttle (like if you never clear the engine or forget to add carb heat, or the throttle itself falls out).

Just my thoughts

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was concerned about when I got this on my CFI checkride was this:

1.) Low altitude (under 3k, can't remember exactly now), with no particularly great landing areas, and none planned ahead of time...he just pulled it (the mixture) after I pulled the power to idle to begin the maneuver. But mainly...

2.) The fact that he was touting this as "a good way to simulate an engine failure," when your students don't expect it (his exact words). Now what if I did it to my students, who in turn did it to theirs, who remembered it when they became CFI's....you can see where I'm going with this.

So as to whether it's a good demonstration or not, I guess it could be argued both ways. I personally wouldn't do it in a single. I just don't see the need, or think that the benefits outweigh the risks...even though they may not be as high as some believe. Just my $.02.

[/ QUOTE ]


Doing this at low altitude is just plain stupid.


This demonstration shouldn't be a Gotcha moment, it should be a breifed part of the lesson.

I think it is similar to demonstrating spins. The student probably won't ever do them again, but they need to be demonstrated.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
You are taking a risk if you do choose to do it, but I don't think it's any more risk than if you pulled the throttle (like if you never clear the engine or forget to add carb heat, or the throttle itself falls out).

Just my thoughts

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you guys ever stop to think that even if the engine doesn't restart, that if you've (like you should've) picked a useable landing spot, that you should have no trouble making a simulated forced-landing into a real one?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was concerned about when I got this on my CFI checkride was this:

1.) Low altitude (under 3k, can't remember exactly now), with no particularly great landing areas, and none planned ahead of time...he just pulled it (the mixture) after I pulled the power to idle to begin the maneuver. But mainly...

[/ QUOTE ]

In a single, you should always be noting useful landing areas, hence they should always be "planned ahead".

[ QUOTE ]

2.) The fact that he was touting this as "a good way to simulate an engine failure," when your students don't expect it (his exact words). Now what if I did it to my students, who in turn did it to theirs, who remembered it when they became CFI's....you can see where I'm going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

When will a pilot ever expect an engine failure? I wouldn't think it's great training (following initial training of performing forced landings) to only do things a student expects. I mean, initially a stud will be trained in the maneuver under controlled conditions. Later in training, giving it unexpectedly in order to getting him thinking on the fly, is necessary.

[ QUOTE ]

So as to whether it's a good demonstration or not, I guess it could be argued both ways. I personally wouldn't do it in a single. I just don't see the need, or think that the benefits outweigh the risks...even though they may not be as high as some believe. Just my $.02.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends, I guess.