26 Oct 2017 - 2 dead after plane crash near Springbank Airport, west of Calgary

[7ECA]

In any case and without judging this accident, I firmly believe that simulated engine failures during takeoff should never be done. The rewards do not justify the risks and the engine failure after overshoot exercise done at a safe ( ie 4000 AGL or higher) teaches all the skills needed to prepare a student for a real engine failure after takeoff scenario.

I have an old copy of the multi-engine flight test guide (Seventh Edition - April 2010), in it is listed Exercise 10 - Engine Failure During Takeoff or Overshoot:

EX. 10 - ENGINE FAILURE DURING TAKEOFF OR OVERSHOOT

Aim

To determine that the candidate can maintain safe control of the aeroplane following a simulated engine failure during an overshoot and carry out the appropriate emergency actions.

Description

At an operationally safe altitude, the candidate will be asked to establish the aircraft in a final approach descent to a simulated landing in a landing configuration at the recommended final approach speed.

Once the approach is stabilized, the examiner will call for an overshoot and simulate failure of an engine as the candidate increases the power during the overshoot. (snip)

It's a bit odd that the old guide mentioned takeoff in the title, but then in the entire description of the exercise there is no actual mention of takeoff - just an overshoot. Now, in the latest FTG for the multi-engine rating (Ninth Edition, April 2017), the exercise is called "Engine Failure During Overshoot".

Maybe, for some bizarre reason this instructor decided to simulate failures on takeoff - because it was sort of in the FTG? Either way, it's a really stupid idea.

[7ECA]

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say "turbocharger issues".

Isn't this then a more widespread issue with all piston aero engines, naturally aspirated, turbo'd, supercharged, etc.?

Consider this scenario:

You taxi your mighty Cessna 152 out to the runway, at which point you come to a stop. Holding the brakes, you apply full throttle and take note of the engine/prop RPM, which is somewhere in the range of 2280-2380RPM. But, when you release the brakes and accelerate down the runway, good god man!, RPM increases up towards the redline of 2550RPM. I think this is a much more widespread "issue" than first thought...

[Big Pistons Forever]

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say "turbocharger issues".

Isn't this then a more widespread issue with all piston aero engines, naturally aspirated, turbo'd, supercharged, etc.?

Consider this scenario:

You taxi your mighty Cessna 152 out to the runway, at which point you come to a stop. Holding the brakes, you apply full throttle and take note of the engine/prop RPM, which is somewhere in the range of 2280-2380RPM. But, when you release the brakes and accelerate down the runway, good god man!, RPM increases up towards the redline of 2550RPM. I think this is a much more widespread "issue" than first thought...

For aircraft with fixed pitch props it is indeed important to know the static RPM range so that you can assure your self the engine is developing full power. However for normally aspirated engines with a constant speed prop or turbo charged engines with a Variable Absolute Controller or a Sloped Controller you put the throttle to full in/up and what you see is what you get. The Seneca 2's cheepo fixed waste gate controller is unique in that there will be a substantial rise in MP as the aircraft accelerates.

[pelmet]

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say "turbocharger issues".

Isn't this then a more widespread issue with all piston aero engines, naturally aspirated, turbo'd, supercharged, etc.?

Consider this scenario:

You taxi your mighty Cessna 152 out to the runway, at which point you come to a stop. Holding the brakes, you apply full throttle and take note of the engine/prop RPM, which is somewhere in the range of 2280-2380RPM. But, when you release the brakes and accelerate down the runway, good god man!, RPM increases up towards the redline of 2550RPM. I think this is a much more widespread "issue" than first thought...

For aircraft with fixed pitch props it is indeed important to know the static RPM range so that you can assure your self the engine is developing full power. However for normally aspirated engines with a constant speed prop or turbo charged engines with a Variable Absolute Controller or a Sloped Controller you put the throttle to full in/up and what you see is what you get. The Seneca 2's cheepo fixed waste gate controller is unique in that there will be a substantial rise in MP as the aircraft accelerates.

Funny....my reply was going to say ask BPF to give your some recurrent explanation of the basics, but........already done.

Turbocharger issues.

[youhavecontrol]

I started teaching as a Multi instructor last year and I've been eagerly awaiting the results of this investigation. It's sad to read that what most likely happened was what I feared might have happened. (at least, given all the evidence, even Transport Canada mentions it's the most probable cause) How on earth did they think practicing an engine failure during an actual take-off was a good idea? Was this normal procedure for the school? I've never heard of anything like that before. Our instructors are taught a very clear minimum altitude for us to practice this, as well as promptly taking control if the student gets below Vsse during the practice.

The process can be practiced perfectly at a higher altitude, with that added safety margin. Even the intensity of an engine failure unexpectedly during take-off can be replicated during simulator sessions... not in real life.

This whole event is just brutal.