Multi Training - Shutting Down An Engine

[Colonel Sanders]

Practising in flight shutdowns seems pretty damn mild to me

When you go to OSH, does Bob Hoover ask for your autograph?

Do you think Rob Holland is a pussy compared to your god-like
stick & rudder skills?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB5DbR9bNo4


If you answer "yes" to both of the above, sure, shut 'em down.

[Colonel Sanders]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I had to run after
a pilot yesterday, who was taxiing out for takeoff
with his tow bar still attached to his nosewheel

Bit of a reality gap, wouldn't you say?

[Doc]

Loosing the exhaust thrust on a Caravan "doubles" the sink rate?
What ARE you smoking? Why would anyone even consider pulling the fuel lever off on a feathered PT6?? For shits and giggles? The exhaust "thrust" on an idling engine wouldn't even mess up your hair doo!

A few more "dinged trainers" is worth a few less "smoking holes" filled with passengers?

"I never shut down in a place where I couldn't land..... So, you just turn the engine off as a matter of course over a suitable landing sight? Hope you pack camping gear. Right in the running for the dumbest post on the sight for more than a wee while.

Have you tried it Doc? Because I can assure you you sink a lot faster at best glide with the stove out than with the engine feathered. The difference is shocking. Perhaps it doesn't fully double your sink rate but it's damn close.

As to why would you shut it down? Same reason you'd practice any other emergency in flight and not on the ground. The best way to train for an air assisted restart on a turbine is to do an air assisted restart. Turns out it's not that big a deal, but it seems like it is the first couple times or do, so practice it. Not everybody flying Caravans VFR has the benefit of a level D simulator.

Same goes for the Garrett Otter. The fuel system isn't built like a Pratt or Walter conversion - there's no header tank -, so standard fuel management on longer trips is to take the tanks to within a few seconds of fuel exhaustion. Should you miss that window cue the barking dog; but no big deal because a relight literally takes about two seconds. It's childs play compared to blowing a tank on a beaver (which btw is another example of doing an inflight shutdown that is universally trained for). Still, if you haven't seen it before it would be a little unnerving. It's worth while experiencing the NTS system in action and experiencing a full relight should that system fail.

And if on the VERY outside chance you can't get the engine started, well if you can't put a lightly loaded Caravan/Otter down on a mile long runway or several mile long piece of water perhaps you shouldn't be there in the first place. Should we never fly into one-way strips with no over shoot options? Should helicopter pilots never experience auto rotations all the way to the ground? Should ferry pilots never venture beyond the point of no return? Practising in flight shutdowns seems pretty damn mild to me.

I've had enough real shut downs thanks. You seem quite the authority on the subject...ever had a real one? After you've brought it back on one a couple dozen times, you'll grow out of such foolishness.

[sky's the limit]

Sorry Doc,

Gotta say, I'm with Ragbag 100% here. What next, we stop doing flight training altogether and just fly SIMs?

Mountains out of molehills here guys, not much else.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The post are pretty binary for and against so far here but FWIW I am totally with Doc on this one. The only place for a shutdown is in the Sim.

[Colonel Sanders]

I will try to develop a thicker skin about people
crashing airplanes.

Next person I know that dies in an airplane, I
will urinate on their grave.

So many pilots based within a stone's throw
of my hangar have died in airplanes:

Joe Broeder
Bob Sterling
Andrew Philips

None of those pilots thought they were doing
anything dangerous when they killed themselves.

Why should I care?

[sky's the limit]

May as well just hang it up right now then, I guess? Sounds like a very dangerous thing, this "flying" stuff.

[Colonel Sanders]

A cheesy movie for sure, but this certainly
describes the "Bob Hoovers" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpj7o_kNJ48


They can't even turn back a single when they
have an engine failure after takeoff.

[DHQ]

I'm with STL on this one. This is blown a bit out of proportion. I love how landing a twin on one engine is now a "Bob Hoover" maneuver, ha.

It might be mind blowing for some of you to know there's a whole gang of us out there that have landed thousands of times without any engines at all! Not even one installed!

[Doc]

I'm with STL on this one. This is blown a bit out of proportion. I love how landing a twin on one engine is now a "Bob Hoover" maneuver, ha.

It might be mind blowing for some of you to know there's a whole gang of us out there that have landed thousands of times without any engines at all! Not even one installed!

It's about taking unnecessary risks. Ask your insurance underwriter, then get back to us.
Gliders are another matter. So are helicopters. You bend your light twin, because you just felt like landing on one.....you will be paying the bill.

[triplese7en]

I'm still a bit on the fence with this matter but I do agree that this is getting a bit blown out of proportion.

I think that the lack of proper and thorough training with regard to engine failures is part of the problem. Having inexperienced instructors fresh out of flight school teaching brand new students is part of the problem—blind leading the blind. There are some good inexperienced instructors but they're seemingly rare these days and even then, they don't have much experience. An in-flight shutdown is a dangerous maneuver—taking off in an airplane is also a dangerous maneuver. When properly trained for both maneuvers, both can be accomplished with a relatively high degree of safety. How much time is spent landing and taking off during training? And how much time is spent shutting down engines and practicing one engine inop flight maneuvers? Maybe if we had an instructor who was experienced in in-flight shutdowns teaching that exercise we would have less mishaps?

The problem I have with just banning in-flight shutdowns because some people have screwed up is, how far are you going to go? Will you ban spin training? What about stall training? Are stalls becoming too dangerous that we're only going to teach "approach to stall" exercises in small airplanes? In the Metro 3 there is a stick pusher and a warning to not stall the aircraft with the stick pusher/stall system INOP. The reason for that is it has abnormal/unstable stall characteristics if 'aerodynamically' stalled. When you stall a Metro 3 with the systems working, you're not actually 'aerodynamically' stalled. I'm in support of only teaching approach to stall exercises in this airplane due to the fact that a failure of the stick pusher to activate at the proper time might aerodynamically stall the airplane, and if it's at a far enough aft CG then control may be lost. On most training flights the CG is near the forward CG limit, however, I'm not one to start experimenting with what point the CG needs to be at when aerodynamically stalled to lose control! Now in my opinion this is more of a safety issue than practicing in-flight engine shutdowns while at a safe speed—you're not flirting with the limits of airplane control as you are when stalling the Metro 3... this is assuming you're correctly performing both maneuvers. Obviously if you get too slow when one engine inop then you are flirting with the control limits but that is not normal for the exercise.

Yes, I agree that as it stands today, the safety of in-flight shutdowns is not where it should be. I'm not sure that discontinuing them is the correct action though. Do instructors do a thorough briefing before the flight as to what will happen when they encounter problems with the exercise such as the student getting too low on airspeed or if the engine does not restart as planned? What fields are nearby that can be used in an emergency? If the engine does not start will an emergency be declared? Who will fly the airplane to the landing? A review of the engine fire drill would be prudent as well.

I can tell you from all my experiences as a student when I was doing shutdowns, none of that was briefed before the flight! It was all assumed. It shouldn't have been.

The military does dangerous exercises all the time. How do they do it safely? They thoroughly brief and debrief all flights. I think this part is lacking a bit in the civilian world. I know many of my instructors didn't brief well. When I've been instructing I haven't always given a good briefing or debriefing—whenever I instruct in the future I will work on that.

[sky's the limit]

It's about taking unnecessary risks. Ask your insurance underwriter, then get back to us.

Doc et al,

What are "necessary risks?" I ask, because in thousands and thousands of hours over an extremely wide range of tasks in both airplanes and helicopters, including SAR, Medivacs, and other such applications, there's not one single flight I can look back on where I would say it was necessary. Honestly. That is not to say some of that flying has not included substantial "risk," it most certainly has given where and what I do. That said, there is nothing "necessary" at all about flying in any realm imho, so really, flight training of any kind is not a "necessary" exercise, but it does include significant risk. Why is it that an engine shut-down is unacceptable but Forced Landing practice or aerobatic training is ok? Where is this line, and why are you guys trying to draw it there? Every time you fire up an airplane or a helicopter there are associated risks - what you may deem acceptable I may not, what I do you may find unnecessary. Every twin engined airplane or helicopter I have flown has included full shutdowns not only on initial training, but also in annual recurrent... I find it to be a very valuable scenario in real life, in the air. The argument they are not to be done is along the lines of Helicopter Operators who refuse to allow full-on Autorotation training for their pilots each year - it just doesn't make sense, nor is it in line with the concept of striving for better and more well rounded training.

We all know FW ab initio flight instructors in Canada are horrendously unprepared, but that is where the focus should lie, not playing down to the lowest common denominator.

As for Insurance Underwriters, well, they are leading our industry down a truly frightening path. But that's another topic entirely.

Ok, all that said, I'm off on the dirt bike to ride some of Oregon's finest trails with a crazy Russian friend now...! Talk about unnecessary! But damn, it's fun...

stl

[Colonel Sanders]

FW ab initio flight instructors in Canada are horrendously unprepared

No kidding. Remember the Seneca Class 1 ATP instructor
that couldn't keep the wings level at night?

Do we want people less experienced and less skilled than
he, shutting down engines in 4 cyl twins?!

Here's a test. If you can:

1) turn back at 400 AGL after an EFATO in a light
single and make the runway, and

2) 1/2 roll inverted immediately after takeoff, and

3) do a vanilla inside loop at the surface

Sure, pull all the levers back that you want in any
airplane you're in.

It's hilarious that every pilot is convinced that they
are above average, when in actuality, I am certain
that a normal distribution applies.

I suspect that a lot of the very brave, self-proclaimed
Bob Hoovers here wouldn't measure up in real life.

[Big Pistons Forever]

STL

It is interesting that you talk about "necessary" risk. To me it is obvious that more risk is present when you have actually shut down an engine in a light twin vs setting zero thrust. Yet the training value is exactly the same. If the correct zero thrust power is set the airplane will perform the same as if the prop was actually feathered and the same pilot actions are required.

Bottom line the inflight shut down is "unnecessary risk". If you don't teach stall recognition and recovery then a student will obviously be missing core skills, but the student who is trained to deal with engine failures in a twin by having the instructor fail the engine with the throttle gets the same training as if you had actually failed the engine so IMO that is a specious argument.

Actually shutting down a piston engine in flight on a cold day is very bad for the engine. So we are in effect trying to teach "better" by demonstrating poor airmanship with respect to engine handling. To me that doesn't make any sense.

Finally do you actually shut down the engine in your helicopter when you do practice auto's ?

[TG]

The military does dangerous exercises all the time. How do they do it safely? They thoroughly brief and debrief all flights. I think this part is lacking a bit in the civilian world.

I disagree, military is a total different world.
They train hard to be able to cope with situations where they can ultimately be shot down!
Still, they have their own limits to risk acceptance during peacetime.

Maybe that is something the French Sécurité Civile and its fleet of CL-415 should have a look at.
2 of their 3 crashes on type happened during training! Where is their gain here?

Back on topic, I am with CS and Doc about intentional in-flight shut down.
As they said:
"Unnecessary risk/ Self-inflicted wound/ Too many times a simulated emergency becomes a real one/ It's why we have simulators/etc..."
and, where is the gain versus the associated risk ?


All in all, anyone should be able to quickly gasp the differences in handling between a zero trust simulation and a real engine failure...

[Schooner69A]

"...Finally, do you actually shut down the engine in your helicopter when you do practice auto's?"

I don't have a puppy in this fracas, but I thought I'd offer the following: in a JetRanger and the like, if you've started the flare and realize you've screwed up the PFL, you can bring back the engine with a coordinated throttle roll-on and collective pull. In the AStar, the throttle is a separate floor mounted lever; a situation that would require three hands if you attempted a recovery from a botched PFL. So... In that helicopter, once you bring the engine to idle, you are committed to a "full on" landing. Early on in the procedure, it would be possible for a safety pilot to manipulate the throttle, but it would pretty well have to be done before "UP" collective is required.

John

[ragbagflyer]

CS, I know you are an experienced aerobatics pilot. What I can't figure out is why you view shutting down an engine at a high altitude as equivalent or greater in risk to low level aerobatics, or engine out aerobatics; and why a pilot doing a shut down with the intention of restarting the engine requires 'god like' stick and rudder skills. Perhaps if you state your reasons succinctly without posting random acro videos or name of friends that have passed away - with absolutely no context??? We all have dead friends you know - I'd have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Doc, feel free to attack my experience I'm sure I have less than you considering I've only been at this for ten years but I've got 6000 hrs PIC and miraculously have not had any engine failures. I'll probably take early retirement if I get even part way to having "dozens" of them. BTW I called Marsh Canada Insurance and there's absolutely no problem shutting down engines in training.

Big Pistons, based on your name and location I'm guessing you probably have a chunk of Beaver time. Did you never blow a tank in training? It's an essential exercise in that machine, especially on an initial checkout given the design of the fuel system and the amount of time you spend exhausting or nearly exhausting the fuel supply of individual tanks when you are working the aircraft. Tanks will continue blow, intentionally or not, and it's necessary to be comfortable and familiar with the procedure for restarting because aside from just getting it going you need to know how much time and altitude the recovery requires.

Feel free to correct me STL, but doesn't an auto right to touchdown more or less put you in same position as if you were engine-out because of rotor rpm decay (recovery impossible?) in the flare.

Mountain out of a mole hill for sure, and I'm wondering how many are staying out of this mess because they aren't interested in being bullied.

[Colonel Sanders]

being bullied

Oh, please. If you really have 6k PIC I would
hope that your feelings wouldn't be quite so
delicate

Here's the deal. You die in an airplane anytime
soon, can you arrange someone to post here
the location of your grave so that I can urinate
on it? I'll take a selfie and post it here.

I'm tired of seeing people crash airplanes and
die. I'm tired of going to funerals. I'm seeing
a lot of really inexperienced people in the cockpit,
whom ought to be careful about taking on more
than they can handle. A good example is that
Seneca class 1 ATP that couldn't keep the wings
level at night, and everyone died.

The problem with low-time pilots is that they
don't know, what they don't know. This results
in them sometimes getting themselves into a
heap of trouble.

If you're a supernatural stick, with many decades
and tens of thousands of hours, sure, you can do
stuff that less experienced people should refrain from.

I do stuff in an airplane that would surely send you
screaming from the room. But I have an engineering
degree, two ATP's, an SAC, and many decades of
experience. I understand the risk and mitigate it.
If I didn't, I would have died a long time ago.

Example: how to safely do aerobatics at low altitude:

http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/ai ... radius.htm

At the risk of hurting people's delicate feelings here,
I am NOT seeing that level of competence.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Big Pistons, based on your name and location I'm guessing you probably have a chunk of Beaver time. Did you never blow a tank in training? It's an essential exercise in that machine, especially on an initial checkout given the design of the fuel system and the amount of time you spend exhausting or nearly exhausting the fuel supply of individual tanks when you are working the aircraft. Tanks will continue blow, intentionally or not, and it's necessary to be comfortable and familiar with the procedure for restarting because aside from just getting it going you need to know how much time and altitude the recovery requires.

.

FYI "Big Pistons" have at least 1820 Cubic inches . The last time I was in an aircraft where there was an intentional shut down of one engine I was not too concerned as there were 3 more Big Piston engines on the aircraft that were still running at the time . Interestingly the company stopped doing the full shut down drill in training because maintenance felt it was contributing factor to some relatively low time engines failing.

Re the Beaver I think you have a point. Working over blowing a tank with the aircraft over a landable surface, usually the case in float ops may be a worthwhile exercise although I still think it is very hard on the engine.

I still don't think I see the correlation between somebody who is transitioning to a Beaver and is learning a skill which can't be practiced any other way, to a shut down in the initial ME training where exactly the same effect can be experienced by setting zero thrust with the throttle.

I also would expect that in the case of a Beaver checkout, both the instructor and the student would have much more practical experience than what you typicaly see in FTU multi training

[sky's the limit]

STL

It is interesting that you talk about "necessary" risk. To me it is obvious that more risk is present when you have actually shut down an engine in a light twin vs setting zero thrust. Yet the training value is exactly the same. If the correct zero thrust power is set the airplane will perform the same as if the prop was actually feathered and the same pilot actions are required.

Bottom line the inflight shut down is "unnecessary risk". If you don't teach stall recognition and recovery then a student will obviously be missing core skills, but the student who is trained to deal with engine failures in a twin by having the instructor fail the engine with the throttle gets the same training as if you had actually failed the engine so IMO that is a specious argument.

Actually shutting down a piston engine in flight on a cold day is very bad for the engine. So we are in effect trying to teach "better" by demonstrating poor airmanship with respect to engine handling. To me that doesn't make any sense.

Finally do you actually shut down the engine in your helicopter when you do practice auto's ?

BPF,

As Schooner pointed out, in an Astar, effectively yes it is shut down. In any full-on Auto once committed to the flare a panic roll-up of the engine in a turbine machine would just add to the issue that caused the training pilot to roll it up in the first place, it all happens very fast.

Flying itself is an "Unnecessary risk," of that I think we can all agree. However, your assertion that bringing it to zero thrust is of equal training value is one I cannot agree with. There is no substitute for actually moving levers, seeing them in their proper places, pulling FIRE Handles, and properly securing an engine. None. I absolutely consider it a risk worth taking when training in twins of any variety. I know for me it has proven beneficial when the times have come. Zero Thrust is not "No Thrust," and a/c handle differently, they sound different, and the experience is different, just like a power recovery Autorotation removes the most poignant phase of the exercise.

Your concern about cold engine shutdowns is valid, so don't do them in winter. On a turbine, who cares as long as the values are within Flight Manual parameters?

I guess I am just having a hard time given all ills facing flight training in this country in FW, that shutting down an engine seems to be the hill several of you wish to die on? I don't get it. What is necessary risk? The Colonel playing around with low-level aerobatics for his own amusement? Me flying a bunch of rich people heli-skiing in severe winter conditions in the mountains? Training a pilot who only wishes to fly for fun? Attempting a third Instrument Approach in an airliner? A strong case can be made for all of them being "unnecessary," so once again I am somewhat baffled that the crowd who constantly bemoan the entirety of Canadian flight training are so against something so trivial.

At any rate, nothing I will say will change your minds, but I thought it necessary to present an alternative along with Ragbag to the points being made by the three of you. It just isn't the full story and any young or potentially multi-rated pilot should hear other points of view.

stl

[Colonel Sanders]

It just isn't the full story

Ok, let's try to keep this simple. I have been told
over and over again, by young flight instructors,
that they don't have the aircraft handling skills to
land a 172 on one wheel, as you would during a
crosswind landing.

I accept the above as axiomatic. Given that,
these young instructors simply don't have the
aircraft handling skills required to safely drive a
4 cylinder twin around with one prop stopped.

Please point out the flaws in my reasoning.

[Doc]

Ragbag....I wouldn't even consider "attacking" your experience level. Nothing personal here. We just disagree. The only hard "evidence" I can offer against the practice is the unnecessary deaths of several Transport Canada employees in a Twin Otter engine shut down many years ago. That incident set me dead against the practice.
Another cold hard fact is, that a good number of these shut downs are committed by instructors with very little ME experience themselves.
There's a huge difference between you and I, shutting down an engine in a King Air (but why would you? You can feather them and leave them running) and a 300 hour instructor pulling the mixture, and turning off the mags on a 90 hour student in a Seneca 1! I'm just hoping people see the difference here?

[sky's the limit]

It just isn't the full story

Ok, let's try to keep this simple. I have been told
over and over again, by young flight instructors,
that they don't have the aircraft handling skills to
land a 172 on one wheel, as you would during a
crosswind landing.

I accept the above as axiomatic. Given that,
these young instructors simply don't have the
aircraft handling skills required to safely drive a
4 cylinder twin around with one prop stopped.

Please point out the flaws in my reasoning.

Good morning, coffee's on.

Your reasoning is sound Col., but once again this is not about the concept, it's about the level of competence of the instructors. Would I go out in an Astar with you and perform full-on Autorotations? No, I'm not a Training Pilot who does hundreds if not thousands of them a year and is very sharp in that particular manoeuvre. Would I take you out and give you a Mountain Course or Long Line training, or ski training, absolutely.

Again, if we have so-called Instructors who cannot even handle a simple airplane in a cross-wind then there are an entire series of lessons they should not be performing long before they get to Multi training. Just because we have people who are incapable of handling simple, easy to fly airplanes teaching, does not mean you dumb the training down even further than what it already is, and we all know it's pretty poor already.

I think we can agree the issue is not the practice, but who is performing it. My focus is not changing the training, it's changing the quality of Instruction. None of this is to say there aren't some very competent Instructors out there doing multi training, there are and potential students need to seek them out. It would just be a shame if one of them were to read this thread and go through training in fear of shutting off an engine in a twin.

I'd be interested to know the unknowable stats on this, but I'm sure an Actuary has done the math already: How many times/yr are engines in multi-engined airplanes and helicopters shut down intentionally? How many times do they not restart? How many of those end up with and incident or accident? Of those, how many involve bodily harm? I would wager a fair packet the first number is exponentially higher than the last and deemed "Acceptable Risk."

Ok, coffee....

[Doc]

Ah yes, coffee.

[Colonel Sanders]

My focus is not changing the training, it's changing the quality of Instruction

I think this is a philosophical difference ... the
probability of us being able to improve the quality
of flight training in Canada is right up there with
the probability of us being able to affect climate
change. Tilting at windmills.

All I can do, is fix my little corner of aviation. People
don't crash much at my airport (compared with others)
and I'm pretty happy about that. And I can improve
aviation a little bit in eastern Ontario and western Quebec,
but that's about it.

You might call me cynical, but I'm just trying to
be realistic. Greater forces at work. As Mao said
in his little red book, the wise willow bends with the
strong breeze.