What's your favourite euphemism for a practice forced approach?

[photofly]

The amount of notice you give a student regarding a simulated engine failure is entirely dependant on where that student is in their training.

Let's distinguish between learning and practice. Clearly a student has to learn what to do - which means a bunch of advance discussion. For practice? Well, no, I don't think so. There's a fairly simple flow of actions to take, none of which need notice. But short notice isn't the same as "surprise". Some seconds will do, either way. That is after all the whole point of the exercise. More junior students may need more coaching, encouragement and confirmation; and the criteria by which "success" is judged will be different, even some of the actions you hope would be taken might vary, but I don't think more notice is needed.

[Mayor_McCheese]

It's a little bit like overhearing people talking about someone's "junk" or "ladybits", but overheard in the circuit at a nearby airport, was a trainer asking for a "Bravo". My home base has everyone asking for a "sim-echo". Why the reticence, and what else have you heard a practice forced approach called?

Each of the towers I've worked at have had different codes for the same exercises. One uses "Alfa" for the forced approach, the other uses "Bravo", as well each had different codes for a missed approach initiated by the tower, or a simulated engine failure after take-off, etc.... Seems to be no real logic to why they are called what they are, it's just an agreement between the flight school and the tower.

[ahramin]

Ran across this in an FAA publication from this summer (emphasis added).

Jargon
As with any technical specialty, aviation has its own idioms. There are also “dialects,” given that the words and concepts you hear in airworthiness — my own specialty area — are necessarily different from those used on the operations (pilot) side. For successful communication to occur, you need to become fluent in the language of your own aviation specialty or specialties. Aviation is not the place for linguistic freelancing, so you also need to use well-established and well-understood vocabulary. One of the best tools available to pilots for this purpose is the Pilot/Controller Glossary. It’s free and it’s readily available online, so use it!

Here's a copy of the Canadian one.

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... ssue07.pdf

Perhaps the reason everyone is making up their own homemade phraseology is that while the glossary contains an entry for "Simulated Flameout", it doesn't have one for "Practice Forced Approach". When the people in charge of such things can't do their jobs, you're pretty much guaranteed topics like this one.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Canada as a signatory of ICAO follows ICAO format for its radiotelephony procedures. I have not been able to find any provision for a practice forced approach call although other countries have one as a filed differences. For example the UK has "Fanstop" as an ICAO difference for a call denoting a PFL.

Canada could file a difference and adopt a code word for PFL, but for that to happen someone would have to direct a formal proposal to TC. I would suggest that absent any significant push from Nav Canada or flight schools TC does not see any need to amend the manual

If someone feels very strongly about this issue I would suggest making a formal submission to TC outlining what should change and why.

[photofly]

“fanstop” is something else:

FANSTOP
I am initiating a practice engine failure after take off. (Used only by pilots of single engine aircraft.) The response should be, “REPORT CLIMBING AWAY”.

I think we should have that, too.

[tsgarp]

The amount of notice you give a student regarding a simulated engine failure is entirely dependant on where that student is in their training.

Let's distinguish between learning and practice. Clearly a student has to learn what to do - which means a bunch of advance discussion. For practice? Well, no, I don't think so. There's a fairly simple flow of actions to take, none of which need notice. But short notice isn't the same as "surprise". Some seconds will do, either way. That is after all the whole point of the exercise. More junior students may need more coaching, encouragement and confirmation; and the criteria by which "success" is judged will be different, even some of the actions you hope would be taken might vary, but I don't think more notice is needed.

I think we are on the same page. The first couple of times you do forced approaches with the student, the engine failure should be preceded by a fair bit of discussion/warning. Also, the first couple of times a student practices a forced landing the criteria for success should be pretty basic (make the landing zone on speed). As the student gets more skilled, more checks should be added, until they are doing the full procedure. Once they can do the full procedure has been learned the student should be able to carry it out with no notice. Does that sound like the way you approach it?

[photofly]

Pretty much. I don't see it very differently from any of the other air exercises.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'm coming close to my flight test, so I'm reading and rereading the flight test guide. It has this little evaluation metric, exercise #22:

Engine failure will be simulated from 3,000 feet AGL without advance warning by the examiner by closing the throttle to idle or by bringing the power lever to flight idle and declaring “Simulated Engine Failure”.

(first emphasis mine, second emphasis theirs)

So if for no other reason, a power loss would need to be "surprise taught" because this is the prescribed method by which one is evaluated on a flight test. Whether or not it should be tested this way is a separate matter, but given that there will be no warning on a flight test, I would think it should be taught to such a metric as well, no?

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... -13723#e22

[photofly]

It's not going to be a surprise. It can't possibly be a surprise. A PPL flight test in history that didn't have a forced approach in it hasn't yet happened*. If you're not expecting it, you don't deserve a PPL. If you're expecting it, then it's not a surprise.

*Well, unless you fail before the exercise is reached, i guess.

I wonder if the prisoner paradox applies? "One if the next fifteen flight exercises is going to be the forced approach, but the test requires you don't know until it happens..."

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Well there's a difference between your "few seconds" notice, and no notice at all, for sure. You argue for a couple of seconds' notice.

And yes - it will surely happen on a flight test. But a flight test is a rather stressful time. My last one was decades ago and I remember it like yesterday (admittedly, that was in a glider, so engine failure was not tested, for obvious reasons).

One cannot spend an entire flight test thinking about an engine failure. It's too stressful a situation. Knowing this, Transport has prescribed that the exercise will come without warning. So in that way, it is a surprise, in that you won't be thinking about it before it happens. You'll be thinking about being 50' too damned low on your steep turn evaluation or that your wing dropped too far in that power-on stall, throwing you off course by 30°.

Knowing it will happen before you leave the ground is completely different from knowing it will happen ten seconds beforeso.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to teach engine failures, nor am I saying this is the correct way to test one's performance afterwards.. What I am saying that it is tested as a surprise, so perhaps it should be taught that way as well.

[photofly]

One cannot spend an entire flight test thinking about an engine failure. It's too stressful a situation.

You don't spend the entire flight test above 3000 agl. You can easily spend the entire flight test that you're above 3000 agl and not otherwise engaged in demonstrating a flight test exercise thinking about an engine failure. Lots of people (including me) spend hours flying in single engine airplanes running through various emergency scenarios in our heads. What else do have to do up there? If that's too stressful, you're not ready for a flight test. If the forced approach exercise is a surprise, you're not ready for the flight test. What difference could ten seconds notice possibly make to you? The examiner can ask for a power-off stall with no notice, or ten seconds notice, or a minute's notice. What's the difference? Just do the exercise as trained.

You'll be thinking about being 50' too damned low on your steep turn evaluation or that your wing dropped too far in that power-on stall, throwing you off course by 30°.

If those things are stressing you - you're not ready for a flight test.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I don't see a lot of difference between no warning, three seconds warning, or thirty seconds warning.

I do - I suppose that is where we disagree, at least in regards to a simulated emergency.

The examiner can ask for a power-off stall with no notice, or ten seconds notice, or a minute's notice. What's the difference? Just do the exercise as trained.

But he/she can't ask for a forced approach with ten or sixty seconds' notice. It must be done without warning. Should it not then also be taught to such a standard?

(And I am reasonably certain of my ability to perform well for this portion of a flight test. I've been taught well enough. I'm merely arguing against your stance that there is no benefit to teaching engine failures without warning - even if it's only for the purpose of passing a flight test.)

[photofly]

It must be done without warning.

It's not done without warning. You have nine months' notice that you're going to be asked to demonstrate a forced approach on your flight test. How much more warning could you get?

[Pilotdaddy]

It's hard to classify it as a surprise, when it's meant to only be done at 3000 AGL or greater. I'm constantly thinking of an engine out scenario from rotation all the way to landing on a "real flight" so I don't think it's any added stress to think about it on a smaller subset of flight (3000 AGL or higher) in a flight test. I'd argue that you should always be thinking of "where to put her down" during every minute of every flight, flight test or otherwise, so your "best field" should already be set the moment the plane shows any sort of trouble.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

It must be done without warning.

It's not done without warning. You have nine months' notice that you're going to be asked to demonstrate a forced approach on your flight test. How much more warning could you get?

Ten seconds more than the flight test guide prescribes. Clearly we disagree on the definition of "warning". But - I do agree with what I think you're saying; the forced approach portion of the flight test should be approached like any other part of the test. You've practiced for it, rehearsed it, and chair flown it. It shouldn't be different from any other part of the test. Where we disagree, I think, is that it should be taught to the same standard it is tested.

It's hard to classify it as a surprise, when it's meant to only be done at 3000 AGL or greater. I'm almost constantly thinking of an engine out from rotation all the way to landing on a "real flight" so I don't think it's any added stress to think about it on a small subset of flight (3000 AGL or higher) in a flight test. I'd argue that you should always be thinking of "where to put her down" during every minute of every flight so that your "best field" should already be set the moment the plane shows any sort of trouble.

Also some very good points. I have no idea how much of a flight test is conducted above 3000' AGL. And I agree with your assertion that one should always be thinking about where to land, especially with only one engine. I did recently do my solo cross country, the first time I'd ever flown alone that far from my home airfield, and you're right - that thought was never far from the forefront of my mind. There ain't a lot of places to set down north of the Trent-Severn.

[photofly]

The examiner closes the throttle; you deal with it. You know it's going to happen. I don't really understand the problem.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

The examiner closes the throttle; you deal with it. You know it's going to happen. I don't really understand the problem.

The problem is that I am in disagreement with your assertion that engine failures should not be a surprise to a student pilot - if it's tested that way, should it not be taught that way?

(And please for the sake of argument accept my definition of "surprise" - I can elaborate on that but I think you understand what I mean by it)

Or, how would you teach forced approaches? Would it align with how Transport dictates that it's tested?

[photofly]

I would teach forced approaches so that the student does the right thing at the right time. Since every flight test has a forced approach, it cannot possibly be a surprise to the student that they are asked to do one.

What error are you afraid of making?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I would teach forced approaches so that the student does the right thing at the right time. Since every flight test has a forced approach, it cannot possibly be a surprise to the student that they are asked to do one.

Okay, but would you drill students on forced landings "without advance warning"? (and why?) From what I understand, you wouldn't, yet that is how it's tested.

[photofly]

I cannot imagine a well prepared student reacting any differently to an examiner announcing he was going to close the throttle in ninety seconds, ten seconds, two seconds, as he does it, or not at all. The steps you're going to take are the same in all cases. It's not the least bit surprising because you know with absolute certainty why the engine lost power - because the examiner closed the throttle.

The flight test guide makes a big deal about it, and you've sucked it up - that because the flight test guide makes a big deal out of it, it must be a big deal. It isn't.

Don't give yourself permission to react differently if you're surprised, or not surprised. Just follow the steps you know you need to take.

If the engine quits for real, you're going to get a real surprise. That's totally different from the non-surprise surprise (apparently, some people are surprised by it!) of having to conduct a forced approach in a flight test. I would take my cue from the airline training industry that the best way to teach the correct response to a (real) surprise situation is to practice the situation many many times in a scenario where it's not really a surprise. The couple of times that I have had real surprises in flight, that has worked well for me.