restart the egine

[Big Pistons Forever]

scopition.

I would agree with your assesment if there was no other way to show how the aircraft handles on one engine....but there is. All you have to do is retard a throttle and voila you have genuine actual single engine aircraft handling characteristics that are essentially the same as if a prop was actually feathered. I am quite confident that if my student can handle simulated engine failures he can handle the real ones. In fact since I get the student to bring the prop lever back to just above the feather gate the only difference between the simulated failure and the real one is about 1 in of prop lever movement. I think that is an acceptable reduction in training realism.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I had said I would not post in this forum again, but what I am reading here scares the hell out of me.

You young instructors are putting your students at high risk by deliberately shutting down an engine, you are creating an emergency that did not exist until you shut down the engine.

Big Pistons Forever and Lurch are trying to keep you alive and you would be wise to listen and learn. They are 100% correct in what they are saying.

Reading some of the comments here from young inexperienced pilots makes me wonder how long this madness of having instructors shutting down an engine so the student can " experience " what it looks like can go on before they kill someone who has the smarts and the power to sue them for negligence.

[mcrit]

Just wondering, has there ever been a case of someone going splat while doing this?

[Invertago]

Just wondering, has there ever been a case of someone going splat while doing this?

Nope, that's why we still do it, and will continue to do so until splat happens. Nothing changes till someone dies and then only if it plays long enough in the news.

[mcrit]

I'm kinda on the fence on this issue. I can see where people are coming from when they say that it has training value and it is a good confidence builder, but I also see where people are coming from in terms of risk. There is no doubt that there is a lot of potential to get yourself in trouble with this exercise if it's done without alot of forethought (ie. heavy, hot, no where near an airport), but on the flip side the same can be said for most exercises (What happens if you go to overshoot from a practice forced landing an the engine cacks? If you are low and don't have a good landing surface in front of you.......).

[Big Pistons Forever]

[quote="mcrit"]I'm kinda on the fence on this issue. I can see where people are coming from when they say that it has training value and it is a good confidence builder, but I also see where people are coming from in terms of risk. There is no doubt that there is a lot of potential to get yourself in trouble with this exercise if it's done without alot of forethought (ie. heavy, hot, no where near an airport), but on the flip side the same can be said for most exercises (What happens if you go to overshoot from a practice forced landing an the engine cacks? If you are low and don't have a good landing surface in front of you.......).[/quote

With respect to your PFL example I think my earlier point applies. There is no way to properly teach the forced landing without doing the full procedure. Therefore in this case the risk that the engine will not be there when you go to overshoot, is acceptable in order to achieve the required training value. As I stated earlier all of the requisit parts of handling an engine failure can be demonstrated without actually shutting down the engine. Therefore I do not feel there is an acceptable reward for the risk entailed, particularly given that there is no certification requirement that the manufacture has to actually ensure that an inflight restart is possible under all conditions. Every time you do an actual inflight restart you are in effect acting as a test pilot. Why would you want to do that ?

Finally what no has mentioned is the fact that an inflight cruise speed shutdown will inevitably shock cool the engine. The start up with a 120 plus kt wind over the cylinders is going to be equally hard on the engine. Again the value of the exercise IMO does not make up for the abuse to the engine.

My experience in talking with guys/gals doing the ME rating is that most have not really sat down and thougth about the potential risks of actual inflight shut downs and treat it like every other exercise required in the ME rating sylabus. I have also found that many instructors think that the engine can always be restarted in the air. I know that was what I thought when I was teaching the ME rating as a relatively low time pilot many years ago....until one day it just would not go and what had started out as a very nice day now really sucked.

So if any of this has caused folks to maybe think a bit harder about how they do ME training. than I think I will have made a positive contribution to this forum.

[iflyforpie]

Finally what no has mentioned is the fact that an inflight cruise speed shutdown will inevitably shock cool the engine. The start up with a 120 plus kt wind over the cylinders is going to be equally hard on the engine. Again the value of the exercise IMO does not make up for the abuse to the engine.

I was an AME when I did my multi-training, and when my instructor told me to shut down and feather the engine, I cringed (especially since it was turbocharged). We managed to maintain altitude (we were about 7 miles from the airport) thanks to the cool March weather. Good thing, because it took us until we were nearly over the airport until we could get it started.

We took the plane in for maintenance and found out the camshaft on the engine we shut down was making metal and had been for many hours before (the previous AME neglected to check the oil filter).

There is nothing to be learned from this exercise other than learning to restart and unfeather an engine. If you have a failure, and have the altitude and time to do a cause check, do it with the prop windmilling so the engine will restart with minimal effort (ie, bad fuel pump, bad mag, empty tank, etc). IMHO, once an engine is feathered, there is no turning it back on.

A safer way to learn to re-start and unfeather an engine is do it on the ground....

Shut the engine down with the prop at low RPM. The low pitch stops (typical light twin) won't lock the blades and they will go to feather. Then, restart the engine. It makes a terrible sound (like driving at 5 MPH in 5th gear) and I am sure that it is really hard on engines, starters, and tempers.

If you think starting a piston engine on the ground with the prop feathered is bad, why would you do it in the air?

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[x-wind]

The Be95 I instructed on had an accumulator built into the one engine, never had I a problem un-feathering or restarting it. The exercise is significant and has inherent risks which are discussed beforehand in detail, diligence is necessary for the student to complete the drill. Im not going to say Im right on this issue, I haven’t an ego problem, and also would cringe when it had to be shutdown. But I felt confident in my abilities to handle the situation properly, give the pupil a valuable lesson and get the a/c home if it wouldn't start.

BPF, the examples you've used with the exception of pulling all the CBs are more dangerous than a planned in-flight shutdown. That’s what this argument boils down too. How dangerous really is it. Civilian multi ratings have been going on since the 50’s, I believe, and no accidents because of it?

Im curious to know the average life span of one of those engine. Also, MICO vs. rapid retarding of the throttle- which is worse?

Beside the truck too, PDM should be the #1 priority of instructing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

x - wind:

Do you do the inflight shut down on only the engine equiped with an unfeathering accumulator ? If so do you ever shut down and feather the engine without the accumulator ? If the answer is no to shutting down the engiine without the accumulator, then why not ?

I am not out to flame you, I am simply curious as to what the reasons you (and presumably your FTU) have used to generate this particular your training SOP.

[iflyforpie]

Without a doubt, an unfeathering accumulator makes life a lot easier. It is interesting that TC doesn't see a difference in safety and mandates the procedure regardless of the aircraft's design or capabilities.

I wonder if any of them have ever done an engine shut down in a Lancer, a certified aircraft with fixed pitch props and twin engine performance comparable to a 150 (the single engine ceiling is below sea level).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champion_Lancer

Im curious to know the average life span of one of those engine. Also, MICO vs. rapid retarding of the throttle- which is worse?

It is tough to say. It will depend on a variety of factors including the design of the engine and cylinders, the position of the cowl flaps, whether the engine was stage cooled before ICO (in the training environment most likely not), the speed of the aircraft, and temperature of the air.

A few things to worry about.

Cylinder cracking/separation. The cylinder is steel and is screwed into an aluminum head, which is shrunk over it to give a really tight fit. The coefficient of thermal expansion for aluminum is much greater than steel, so the head changes size much faster. This is okay, the designers have allowed for it. The thermal conductivity of aluminum is also much greater, so it heats up and cools down much faster.

So if we take an engine and rapidly take power off it and expose it to the airflow, we have an aluminum head that is cooling and contracting much faster than the steel barrel. This has in many cases lead to cylinder cracking and barrel separation. I've replaced quite a few jugs that failed in this manner (not a catastrophic failure, or even an engine failures in those cases, but many have been).

This is why we stage cool engines. One inch per minute to allow the barrel and head remain at close to the same temperature. This is why we keep an eye on our CHT, and leave the mixture lean for descents.

For starting up, anything below 200F CHT is going to give you piston slap and score the cylinders and piston skirts (this is because the aluminum piston needs to expand to fill the steel barrel). You need to leave the RPM below 1000 until you have adequate temperatures (I do believe most POH tell you to do this).

[x-wind]

It's been a few years since I was a multi and IFR instructor. .

I wouldn't shutdown the engine without the accumulator, and if the unit wasn't serviceable and charged I would postpone the in-flight shutdown. Why? I worked with planes that had an accumulator. I have started it without the accumulator without diving the aircraft.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It's been a few years since I was a multi and IFR instructor. .

I wouldn't shutdown the engine without the accumulator, and if the unit wasn't serviceable and charged I would postpone the in-flight shutdown. Why? I worked with planes that had an accumulator. I have started it without the accumulator without diving the aircraft.

Every light twin I flew while doing ME training did not have a unfeathering accumulator, which I think is the norm in flight training. I still feel that it is an unnecessary practice but it is certainly much safer in an aircraft fitted with accumulators. Of course this also makes the restart a trivial exercise so I would argue the "experience" gained is not very significant.

[TC Aviator]

After having spent many years in industry and having borne the cost of engine abuse, I agree with . and Big Pistons Forever that the added value of an actual in-flight engine shutdown for training purposes is neither worth the high risk of a failure to restart nor the added engine maintenance costs, especially when instructors do not stage cool the engine in preparation for the shutdown.

After stage cooling, a simulated failure by bringing the throttle to idle will be equally effective to demonstrate the reaction of the airplane and the lack of performance that results. The effect of residual drag from a windmilling propeller, an extended landing gear or both can be very convincing that a configuration clean-up is required to maintain or gain altitude.

There is discussion internally to get rid of the requirement for an actual in-flight shutdown and restart. More and more of us believe that more effective training can be conducted on a fairly high fidelity flight training device (FTD). That battle of the wits has not been won yet, but stand by for change as more flight schools are investing in better FTDs.

Good discussion fellas. Keep pressuring TC for change.

[Big Pistons Forever]

TC Aviator;

Thanks for the post. We do not see very many from TC folks as regretably you always seemed to get flamed regardless of what you say
I am glad see TC is revisting the inflight shutdown reqiurement and hope it is eliminated soon.

Cheers BPF

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There is no reason for a flight school to have to do full feather shutdowns of engines now.

When I owned my flight school I refused to do full engine shut downs and TC flight training said I had to or lose my FTU OC.

I wrote them a letter and said that I would not be forced into an unnecessary action namely shutting down an engine which had the risk of my losing my airplane or life.

I advised them that I would be teaching full feathering and engine shut down " PROCEDURES " as outlined in their paper work, however I would not be performing actual full feathering and shut downs of my engines during training.

Furthermore I advised them that a copy of the letter was being forwarded to my lawyer and my member of Parliament as a start for my defense should they carry through with the threat of suspending my FTU OC or refuse to issue multi engine ratings to my students.

They never refused to issue a rating and I never heard from them again regarding that issue.

[Lurch]

I'm glad to see you post on this one Cat

My questions to the instructors who feel they need to shut the enigine down for the "experiance"

What do you do when you teach MIFR and fail the engine on the GS?

If zero thrust is the technique you use on the approach why not use it during the multi training?

The plane behaves the same but if you ever need the engine it's as quick as pushing the levers forward.

Why is zero thrust good enough for single engine approaches but not for multi training?

Lurch

[Big Pistons Forever]

Apologies for the thread creep but another pet peeve I have with ME instruction is all simulated engine failures are sudden and total. Unfortunately real life is seldom so unambigous. Partial power failures and surging engines IMO are actually more likely failure modes. Therefore I simulate these conditions as fol

Partial failure: I set the student up in a level left turn and the distract them with some imaginary traffic. As soon as the student is looking out the side window I reduce the inside engine power by 7 or 8 inches of MP. As soon as they roll out of the turn I ask them some skill testing question to continue to distract them. They will usually not notice anything is wrong untill I ask them why the airplane is flying sideways. I then point out the engine indications and ask what do we do now if this occcured and both throttles were lined up? I invariably get a blank look as this situation doesn't neatly fit into the standard engine fail drills.

Surging engine: I bring the IFR hood along and set them up in a cruise climb. I then cover the throttle quandrant and smoothly but quickly move one throttle back and forth from cruise to near idle. Most students find the way the nose yaws back and forth very disorientating and will let the airspeed decay. It is a great exercise in maintaining control and the importance of using the engine guages to figure out what is happening. It is also a great use of the "intensity" learning factor in ME training.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm glad to see you post on this one Cat

Thank you Lurch.

Every once in a while I see a discussion going on here that is so extremely important that I feel I owe it to the industry to give my thoughts on it.

The shutting down of engines is one of the exercises that has a real risk factor that is totally unnecessary because not only can you simulate it with a power reduction you can make it more difficult by reducing power to idle thus making it more difficult than it would be with the prop feathered. If you get behind the power curve all you have to do is add power....that can not be done if it is shut down.

If the argument is it gives the student exposure to what it looks like and feels like when you have a real engine problem and have to feather why don't they set fire to the airplane in flight so the student can experience what it is like?

Many years ago I lost a friend who was working for TC and they feathered an engine on a IFR flight test and spun in in the proceedure turn.....He was one of the pilots who I looked up to and wanted to be like.

That was when I started to look a little differently at the practice of feathering engines for training purposes. ( Over forty years ago. )

By the way I have had my share of real engine shut downs and fire in flight and believe me the last thing you worry about is the fuckin " intensity " factor.

When a real emergency presents it's self you will follow the procedures you have been taught and the stress factor will set in after it is all over and you are on the ground.

[Big Pistons Forever]

.

I do not understand why you are against setting up a situation that is a bit dramatic (although always safe). This is what the definition of "intensity" as it is understood in modern flying training. The way I set up my demonstration was designed to make it most effective and in particular to make it a memorable demonstration for many reasons including I did not want to have to do it twice. The correct descriptor to apply to this concept is "intensity". What part of this do you have a problem with ?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

.

I do not understand why you are against setting up a situation that is a bit dramatic (although always safe). This is what the definition of "intensity" as it is understood in modern flying training.

Big Pistons, believe me I understand the methods that are used in modern flight training having been in the teaching game since the mid fifties.

The comment about intensity was not directed at you in the context you used it, so please don't take it personally. I used the word in the context that intensity has many meanings.

The way I set up my demonstration was designed to make it most effective and in particular to make it a memorable demonstration for many reasons including I did not want to have to do it twice. The correct descriptor to apply to this concept is "intensity". What part of this do you have a problem with ?

Go back and read my comments Big Pistons, you will find I am supporting you and agree with what you are saying on this subject.

You and I have been at odds on to many occasions for no real good reason, by doing so we are diluting our collective ability to advise these young people and thus help them.

Truce??

[Big Pistons Forever]

.

Light is always better than heat when discussing things of importance.

I have no desire to personally attack you. Return the favour and we will get along just fine.

Welcome back to the training forum

BPF

[SAR_YQQ]

This must be a twin vs turbo-prop issue.

We take our students up on early clearhood missions and shut down an engine for handling and confidence. Then again, the BE-90 is a perfectly capable aircraft on 50% of its available power.

Do any schools teach ME on turbines, or is the cost too prohibitive?

[iflyforpie]

Do any schools teach ME on turbines, or is the cost too prohibitive?

None teach initial multi ratings on one AFAIK but I've heard of a few (Montair??) that had a King Air that you could buy training on. But the astronomical costs (for both the flight school and the student) and the steep learning curve coming off piston singles makes this a pretty rare thing. Advanced flight simulators have far more bang for the buck.


When I was at Kelowna Flightcraft, they used to do inflight shut downs for training on the Convairs. A few too many times coming back into YLW single engine ended that practice, even though the 580 has nearly the same power in one engine as the old 340 had in two.