Was cutting some grass this morning. I look up,
I see a plastic twin coming in to land. With one
engine shut down.

They land, stop on the runway, turn around and
try to taxi. Doesn't work too well. Finally they
get the engine started, backtrack and take off.

I won't mention any names - you know who you
are, you son of a gun - but is that really a good idea?

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.

Fairly obviously, that's what they did - and couldn't
get it restarted. So, they had to approach and land
on one engine

IMHO, a self-inflicted wound.

Too many times, a simulated emergency becomes
a real one, and tin gets bent, and people get hurt and
killed. Forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that blood
sport - even if it is a "learning experience" for everyone.

Would it be possible to find a nice run up bay to do such a thing safely on the ground?

The educational value should be there. Bring up the RPM slightly, start a conversation about your favorite accessory, GPS, NDB, what have you. Maybe get them to call base on the radio for some extra fun/workload. Turn off the fuel or just the mixture and walla! Engine failure.

If they try to release the brakes someone should be able to prevent that. In flight later you can feather one and discuss how to do the same cause checks as the actual back on the ground.

Thoughts?

Beefitarian wrote:Would it be possible to find a nice run up bay to do such a thing safely on the ground?

The educational value should be there. Bring up the RPM slightly, start a conversation about your favorite accessory, GPS, NDB, what have you. Maybe get them to call base on the radio for some extra fun/workload. Turn off the fuel or just the mixture and walla! Engine failure.

If they try to release the brakes someone should be able to prevent that. In flight later you can feather one and discuss how to do the same cause checks as the actual back on the ground.

Thoughts?

Beef I was kidding about the Avitar!

J

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

Was required, for obvious reasons

Seems like the school is just asking to lift the plane out of the shrubs again.

Another Stupid idea in flight training that won't go away

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

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

How many tens of thousands of times are engines shut down, restarted, and the flight carries on as usual? Total non-event...?

Somebody got a single engine landing out of the deal, who cares?

I'm kind of surprised a plastic airplane couldn't be restarted in flight. Maybe I'm just falsely assuming that plastic means new-ish which means everything works. Is there some sort of FADEC voodoo that would prevent a restart?

LnS.

lownslow wrote:I'm kind of surprised a plastic airplane couldn't be restarted in flight. Maybe I'm just falsely assuming that plastic means new-ish which means everything works. Is there some sort of FADEC voodoo that would prevent a restart?

LnS.

If I take plastic literally, I thought they were also supposed to have unfeathering accumulators.

and tin gets bent

I think that the type suggested is very safe from this in any event.....

PilotDAR wrote:

and tin gets bent

I think that the type suggested is very safe from this in any event.....

The only tin I am aware of in any plane is in soldered connections and engine bearings.

The only tin I am aware of in any plane is in soldered connections and engine bearings

Well now, I've seen some aircraft sheet metal repairs........

lownslow wrote:I'm kind of surprised a plastic airplane couldn't be restarted in flight. Maybe I'm just falsely assuming that plastic means new-ish which means everything works. Is there some sort of FADEC voodoo that would prevent a restart?

LnS.

+1

If they couldn't get the engine restarted, then there's an issue with that engine. Or the instructor needs addtional training on doing airstarts.

Now, from another angle...If it's not required anymore for the rating, why did he shut down the engine? I still think it's good experience, but if you don't have to shoot yourself in the foot...why would you?

What's the big deal? I saw a guy land with both engines shutdown once - after doing some low level maneuvering and quasi-aerobatic stuff.

And I've seen guys flying without any engines...

5x5 wrote:What's the big deal? I saw a guy land with both engines shutdown once - after doing some low level maneuvering and quasi-aerobatic stuff.

Me thinks Bob, if that was his real name, had a little more experience prior to the time you watched that.

Sounds like this was a student guy like me, learning how to work the second engine and heavier plane that suddenly yaws hard and slows down when the extra engine stops before he identifies and feathers.

Maybe shutting off one, making him panic to the point of emptying his bladder is good training, as long as he doesn't spin it into the ground. That would be an embarrassing thing to have to write in red ink.

Remarks
When I shut down the engine to simulate failure, the student panicked and sprayed me with urine while allowing the aircraft to enter a spin. Taking control with my left eye stinging and closed. I heroically recovered but could not maintain altitude. I landed gear up in a field striking a fence. Aircraft damaged beyond economic repair.

Probably not going to get a very good letter of reference from that school.

Sprayed with urine? This makes me think that either they were 1. Wearing a skirt, 2. Their pants were off (which is a whole other issue that deserves it's own thread) or 3. Someone has a urethra the size of a fire hose and they should get that checked out.

[accent=Gaelic]IT'S NOT A SKIRT YA GIT! IT'S A KILT!! [/accent]

Beefitarian wrote:[accent=Gaelic]IT'S NOT A SKIRT YA GIT! IT'S A KILT!! [/accent]

Aye laddy, but when you've got knickers underneath, it's a skirt, Nancy.

Beefitarian wrote:

Remarks
When I shut down the engine to simulate failure, the student panicked and sprayed me with urine while allowing the aircraft to enter a spin. Taking control with my left eye stinging and closed. I heroically recovered but could not maintain altitude. I landed gear up in a field striking a fence. Aircraft damaged beyond economic repair.

.

So if you're flying along, shutting an engine down and can't restart it, wouldn't that be considered a real engine failure now? No emergency declared? No firetrucks or anything in case he botches the landing?

Seems a little negligent to me. And if I was the student, I would make a complaint to the CFI, wouldn't pay for the lesson and would NEVER fly again with that instructor!!

Airmanship Police wrote:So if you're flying along, shutting an engine down and can't restart it, wouldn't that be considered a real engine failure now? No emergency declared? No firetrucks or anything in case he botches the landing?

Seems a little negligent to me. And if I was the student, I would make a complaint to the CFI, wouldn't pay for the lesson and would NEVER fly again with that instructor!!

NEGLIGENT is putting yourself in a position where you might have to end up declaring an emergency, when no emergency should have occurred in the first place
There is NO reason this archaic practice should still be in place! None! TC themselves have killed some of their own pilots doing EXACTLY this.
I guarantee I have had more engine failures than you have.....and there is NO reason to demonstrate an actual shut down in training. None.
It is a very stupid, dangerous and unnecessary practice.
And before you take up arms to defend the practice as safe, I can name three pilots, all of whom had more experience than most here who DIED doing exactly this. GROW UP TC!