Multi Training - Shutting Down An Engine

[Colonel Sanders]

What I have noticed about inexperienced people
(e.g. low-time pilots) is that:

they don't know, what they don't know

This may sound obvious, but the implication of
the above is that they don't know when they are
taking on a boatload of risk, and doing something
that has a measurable probablility of severely
injuring or killing them.

Something might not look scary, when in fact it
most certainly is.

Other times, something might look scary as hell,
when in fact it is not.

Experience teaches you many valuable lessons -
if you pay attention, and survive. Many people
do not.

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

[Doc]

Purposely coming in on one engine is a stupid idea, for several obvious reasons.

However, doing an in-flight shutdown (and restarting it before starting an approach) is good experience. Also, if I recall correctly, it is required for the multi-engine rating.

So you can't restart it, therefore you are purposely coming in on one engine, which is, as you stated "a stupid idea...." Brought about by the stupidity of "purposely" shutting it down in the first place??
How would this be a "good experience" to anyone? Another shining example of TC stupidity!

In an effort to establish one iota of credibility on your behalf, how many actual inflight failures have you, personally had, and how did a training shutdown assist you in your ultimate survival?

[Doc]

Sorry kids

I can't stand stupidity.

I have NO use for those who condone it.

Shutting down a healthy engine just to "show" some student what it's like is folly.

It's why we have simulators.

[Colonel Sanders]

Doc: unfortunately, generations speak different languages.

What you said: "Don't be stupid"

What they heard:

[Doc]

Doc: unfortunately, generations speak different languages.

What you said: "Don't be stupid"

What they heard:

Methinks you are correct. Frightening.

[iflyforpie]

My first in-flight shut down (during my multi-rating) nearly resulted in a single-engine landing. Other than looking at the prop and thinking 'this is cool', it did not give me a fuzzy feeling and felt no different performance-wise than setting zero-thrust.

We don't shut down the engine on singles so that we can experience a 'true' forced approach, so why would we do it on anemic and cantankerous piston twins?

[Colonel Sanders]

My first in-flight shut down (during my multi-rating) nearly resulted in a single-engine landing

My in-flight engine shutdown DID result in an engine-out
landing, during my multi training.

I was not impressed.

[Doc]

There are those who will argue that anything mandated by TC, is both safe and intelligent. Pity. Legal is not always safe, and illegal is not always dangerous. WHY is this still a requirement?? It has no value, and has the potential to really bite you in the ass. Perhaps the supporters of the practice need to view that video one more time? Keep in mind....your "INSTRUCTOR" probably has 25 hours of multi engine time. There's a confidence builder.

[Big Pistons Forever]

For the record TC no longer requires an actual inflight shut down as part of the initial ME rating. I stand by my comment that any instructor that performs an actual in flight shut down today, is being very stupid.

[TC Aviator]

BPF is correct. TC no longer condones or requires that a student for the Multi-Engine Class Rating have experienced an in-flight shutdown and restart. The change occurred in early 2010 and was long overdue. Whatever might have been learned by the experience was not worth the risk involved.

[Colonel Sanders]

Stopping the prop on an engine on a twin is
a bit like stopping the prop on an engine on
a single.

You're making one heckuva commitment.

I'm not saying it's always a bad thing, but
it's very high risk, and I'm not sure it often
passes a basic cost/benefit analysis, as TC
Aviator opines.

Fundamentally, it comes down to people not
understanding risk, and unknowingly taking
on a lot more than they can sometimes handle.

[Beefitarian]

My instructor had me shut down the engine on a nice day in a 172 decades ago. It was a total nonevent. Admittedly it was neat and interesting but... No training value in my opinion.

If it had not started we would have landed in a field. Maybe good forched approach experience but then what?

Best case we would have had to walk some where to find a phone. I did not know people that just owned personal cellular phones back then.

Worst case we'd crash hard. Maybe die, or one us could lose an eye and our medical. I bet TC would never let me try to be like Roscoe.

[Ehlectric]

Also, if I recall correctly, it is required for the multi-engine rating.

It used to be required. It's not required any more.

This is correct, how we practice coming in on one engine, is just a throttle cut and then a simulated feather when called for.

[ragbagflyer]

I've found a lot of value in in flight shut downs whether in a twin or a single, piston or turbine. I've never shut down in a place where I couldn't land on a runway or body of water. Without a high level sim (FlightSafety) doing it on the ground just isn't the same. The mind doesn't react the same way as when is actually happens in reality, and after seeing it happen in reality once or twice it becomes MUCH less intimidating and easier to get on with the task at hand. You also see first hand what zero thrust feels like. I personally never would have guessed that loosing the exhaust thrust on a feathered Caravan would double the sink rate. I'm not even sure that the sim demonstrates that does it?

Would those of you hear arguing against shut downs also argue against helicopter schools that practice autos right to the ground? Perhaps there is more risk in actually shutting down an engine, but our jobs are full of risks. I think a few more dinged trainers is worth a few less smoking holes in the ground filled with passengers.

How often do we hear people lament the dumbing down of aviation? Well this is it folks! We are already well on our way to having a whole generation of 'pilots' who are deathly afraid of the machines that they are supposed to be in control of.

[triplese7en]

It seems everyone on here is vehemently against shutting down an engine on a training flight. I do agree that there are risks associated with shutting down an engine in flight but there are also risks associated with stalling and/or spinning an aircraft... should those not be included in the training? In the US, spin training is not required to get a private license, as far as I know. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the matter. An engine can be "simulated" failed but there is a difference between simulated and actual—just the same as there is a large difference between simulated IMC and actual IMC.

Every time a new engine is put on a Metroliner it requires an in-flight shutdown before being released to the line. Line pilots are the ones that do the test flight and shutdown the engine. If there is a malfunction then they possibly will be landing single engine. Are these line pilots "stupid" for shutting down the engine?

[Colonel Sanders]

Are these line pilots "stupid" for shutting down the engine?

Sigh. If nothing goes wrong, they must be heroes.
If something goes wrong, they are donkeys.

Why do people insist upon being one or the other?

If you're Bob Hoover, sure, shut down an engine.
Heck, shut down both and do surface level aerobatics
and roll to a stop at show center.

Most pilots I meet don't fly as well as Bob Hoover,
though.

I suppose you could argue that because it's a turbo-prop
nothing could go wrong:

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

[triplese7en]

Sigh. If nothing goes wrong, they must be heroes.
If something goes wrong, they are donkeys.

That's one thing that bugs me. Dispatch will sometimes thank me and tell me I'm awesome because I got in on an approach and was able to drop the passengers and cargo off—it makes dispatch's life easier. Don't thank me for that! I wasn't the one who orchestrated the weather to be what it was. I just flew the approach, I happened to get the field visual and was able to make a landing. If I don't correct dispatch immediately when they thank me for that, I can expect to get b*tched at when the weather isn't favourable for a landing.

Back to the topic of shutting down engines... we are required to do these test flights where we shutdown one engine—it is not an option, CS!

[Colonel Sanders]

With all due respect to your company management,
whom I understand mandate engine shutdowns but
are never on board the aircraft when it happens ....

Most of us will live longer if we are just a bit more chicken.

[triplese7en]

CS, I haven't been clear. It is not management who mandates the engine shutdowns, it is an airworthiness requirement. M7 Aerospace and/or Transport Canada and/or the FAA would probably have been the ones who determined that the airplane requires an in-flight shutdown before re-entering it into service. Management doesn't make these decisions.

[TC Aviator]

In reference to triplese7en's reference to engine test flights, whenever maintenance or repairs are carried out on a Honeywell/Garrett TPE-331 an in-flight shutdown must be conducted and is mandated by airworthiness requirements to verify that the "negative torque sensing system" (quasi-auto-feather) functions correctly. I have personally conducted several of these test flights on aircraft that had substantial climb performance capabilities if an in-flight restart using the unfeathering pump had failed.

Intentional in-flight shutdowns for training purposes are not warranted by a cost/benefit analysis nor are they wise.

[TC Aviator]

Sorry, in my previous post I should have made it clear that the test flight is required when maintenance or repair involves the engine gear box.

[Doc]

I've found a lot of value in in flight shut downs whether in a twin or a single, piston or turbine. I've never shut down in a place where I couldn't land on a runway or body of water. Without a high level sim (FlightSafety) doing it on the ground just isn't the same. The mind doesn't react the same way as when is actually happens in reality, and after seeing it happen in reality once or twice it becomes MUCH less intimidating and easier to get on with the task at hand. You also see first hand what zero thrust feels like. I personally never would have guessed that loosing the exhaust thrust on a feathered Caravan would double the sink rate. I'm not even sure that the sim demonstrates that does it?

Would those of you hear arguing against shut downs also argue against helicopter schools that practice autos right to the ground? Perhaps there is more risk in actually shutting down an engine, but our jobs are full of risks. I think a few more dinged trainers is worth a few less smoking holes in the ground filled with passengers.

How often do we hear people lament the dumbing down of aviation? Well this is it folks! We are already well on our way to having a whole generation of 'pilots' who are deathly afraid of the machines that they are supposed to be in control of.

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.

[Doc]

Sorry, in my previous post I should have made it clear that the test flight is required when maintenance or repair involves the engine gear box.

Happy to hear that....I've flown a couple of Metros with fresh engine changes that did NOT require an inflight shut down. I do find this practice questionable, at best. Absolutely stupid, at worst.
I shall research this. It's the first I've heard of the practice.
It in NO way supports training shut downs, however.

[Colonel Sanders]

Doing something dumb in an airplane because
someone safe on the ground thinks you should
is a really, really bad idea.

A few years back, a guy took off with a B747
from LAX and lost an engine right after takeoff.

Instead of landing like a normal person, he headed
east, all the way across North America. On three
engines.

And, he didn't stop there. He then proceeded to
head east out across the Atlantic Ocean. Ran
low of fuel, of course - couldn't cruise as high -
and had to land short of LHR.

Was that good decision making by the pilot? The
FAA didn't think so - they were furious, and wanted
to charge the pilot with careless and reckless,
regardless of how happy the airline accountants
were about that insane episode.

Some people just don't understand PIC. Sometimes
you can't make everyone happy, and you might have
to hurt someone's feelings.

[ragbagflyer]

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.