Even though as of April this won't be required anymore... I'm glad I did it.
The most fun I've had next to dragging a float on a glassy river .
For the record: our single engine climb rate was supposed to be over 500fpm for the critical (S.L.), and we were cruising at 140mph with power to spare (3000').
Plus the flight test might just happen this month.
Screw it up....just one time.....get behind the power curve....a little too slow...a little too low to get the speed back.....and the prick won't restart.....THEN tell us about how much FUN it was! I pity da fool! WHY would anybody put themselves in that position???
well, at least you're out over Lake Ontario, so you won't likely hurt anybody on the ground if things go south fast... If that's the aircraft I think it is, then you know it breaks fairly frequently and takes forever to be repaired.
btw:
For the record: our single engine climb rate was supposed to be over 500fpm for the critical (S.L.), and we were cruising at 140mph with power to spare (3000').
try loading up to gross and doing this.... remember the published numbers assume gross weight, not just you and your instructor with a case of oil in the cargo compartment to bring the CG within limits.
tca wrote:remember the published numbers assume gross weight
If you're referring to the single engine climb rate, its derived from a chart referencing a range of weights. The +500fpm was based on that flight's 4300lb takeoff weight. Based on the same chart the absolute single engine ceiling should have been over 11000' [density alt].
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by ETOPS on Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think an engine failure is something everyone should experience in a twin, at least once during their training. Nothing like a real engine out. I purposely failed an engine on my civilian multi-engine rating and on my Hornet course (3 times on the same flight actually) and you have to experience it to feel it. As long as the aircraft is certified and you are with an instructor that knows what he is doing, it should be a non issue. A good instructor won't let a student put himself in a corner where it would be unrecoverable.
ETOPS wrote:Even though as of April this won't be required anymore... I'm glad I did it.
The most fun I've had next to dragging a float on a glassy river .
For the record: our single engine climb rate was supposed to be over 500fpm for the critical (S.L.), and we were cruising at 140mph with power to spare (3000').
Plus the flight test might just happen this month.
Flame away.
Frankly you have flamed yourself. If you are not smart enough to figure out why this is a bad idea, no amount of comment from the plethora of very experienced pilots on this forum will likely have any effect.....
Auxbaton: What is he single engine Rate of Climb of a CF18 ?
I got to do that exercise twice! There was a mix up with instructors and one thought I had not done it yet so we did it again. Good thing we were pointed at the airport and had lots of altitude because that engine did not restart. It was a great experience dragging it in on one engine but if we had to overshoot for whatever reason... Apache's don't climb with one engine on a hot day.
I think its great that the exercise is not required anymore due to the safety issues surrounding it but on the other hand it is good experience. Kind of.
The Hornet was a non issue. I can't remember the numbers, but I could maintain a decent climb gradient at 20 000' with Afterburner on the good engine. Restarts on a jet are straight forward. Eighter a windmilling start or an assisted start if RPM is too low.
The twin piston was more a challenge. It was good to experience it and I don't think it's an unnecessary risk to take if the aircraft is able to do it. You better experience it in a controlled environment with some altitude below your butt than at minima on an ILS in shyte. That way, you know what to expect and how to react. If the aircraft is certified Multi-IFR, it should be able to maintain your MEA with an engine out and a 200'/NM gradient all the way up to a safe IFR altitude.
AuxBatOn wrote:The Hornet was a non issue. I can't remember the numbers, but I could maintain a decent climb gradient at 20 000' with Afterburner on the good engine. Restarts on a jet are straight forward. Eighter a windmilling start or an assisted start if RPM is too low.
The twin piston was more a challenge. It was good to experience it and I don't think it's an unnecessary risk to take if the aircraft is able to do it. You better experience it in a controlled environment with some altitude below your butt than at minima on an ILS in shyte. That way, you know what to expect and how to react. If the aircraft is certified Multi-IFR, it should be able to maintain your MEA with an engine out and a 200'/NM gradient all the way up to a safe IFR altitude.
Re the high lighted red. IMO you get exactly the same training value from zero thrusting the engine. Why create a situation where you have deliberately removed 85 % of the climb performance of the airplane ?
Re the highlighted blue....There is No requirement for a light twin to have the performance you describe and twin with a stall speed below 61 kts doesn't even have to have climb at all. None of the common twin trainers will achieve this kind performance especially in the summer.
IMO negative training has occured in the case of the original poster because he now has a totally false impression of piston twin performance. If he is really feeling brave he should figure out what a Navajo Chieftien at 7440 lbs has for single engine climb and then load up his twin commanche to get the same performance....
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AuxBatOn wrote:If the aircraft is certified Multi-IFR, it should be able to maintain your MEA with an engine out and a 200'/NM gradient all the way up to a safe IFR altitude.
Umm... no. Pulling out a plate for Cranbrook Intl', I see transitions at 12,700; 11,400; and today's winner, 9,700. MSAs are 11,400; 11,000; and 12,200. Safe 100NM is 13,900. An Apache, Twin Commanche, or even an IFR 172 is still certified for IFR operations around this airport provided they can make the climb gradients with all engines running; even though these altitudes are pipe dreams with an engine failure on any of these aircraft. This is because aircraft performance with a failed engine is not a basis for IFR certification for Normal Category aircraft.
Just remember because you are legal doesn't mean you are safe. I would only operate a King Air or bigger in hard IFR out of this airport...
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
IMO you get exactly the same training value from zero thrusting the engine. Why create a situation where you have deliberately removed 85 % of the climb performance of the airplane ?
I have experienced both, the failed engine and the "simulated" failed engine, both in a prop and in jets. And in both "simulated" cases, you have the feeling it's an academic exercice. Yes, it's a psychological aspect, but an important one in my opinion. If gives you confidence that you, and the aircraft, can actually do it. It's a demonstration of the capability of the aircraft and a demonstration to yourself that it's not rocket science. Again, if the aircraft can safely do it, why won't you do it? If you don't want to do it, then why are you flying that aircraft in the first place?
If anyone flies a twin and is not confident the aircraft could safely make it backy on 1 engine is out of his mind IMHO.
iflyforpie: I don't know where I got that, probably from military regs. I wasn't aware you could fly an aircraft that won't outclimb obstacles on 1 engine IMC.
ETOPS wrote:Even though as of April this won't be required anymore... I'm glad I did it.
The most fun I've had next to dragging a float on a glassy river .
For the record: our single engine climb rate was supposed to be over 500fpm for the critical (S.L.), and we were cruising at 140mph with power to spare (3000').
Plus the flight test might just happen this month.
Flame away.
I could not help but notice that in your picture the cylinder head temp for the stopped engine is sitting on the bottom (ie minimum value) peg. So from my point of view this means either of two things.
1) You have no understanding of temperature management of piston engines, especially in cold weather and the fact that it is extremely bad for engines to be started in flight with totally cold cylinders subjected to a 140 mph breeze, or
ETOPS wrote:Nice try.
The cowl flaps were closed and the CHT never fell below the 200deg lower limit.
It was always in the operational green range.
By the way, coming from someone who obviously has allot of experience, the term "totally cold" is pretty weak.
You just keep on defending an action, I find foolish and unnecessary. More than a few pilots with way more experience than you, have met their sorry, very preventable end, doing just what you did. The list includes three dead TC inspectors, who got "behind" a Twin Otter near Hamilton, Ontario. It's just a bad practice. If you want to experience an engine out safely, do it in a SIM, or feather a PT6 (engine stays running). However, making comments like your last sentence is, well, "pretty weak".
IMHO ... anyone who is comfortable shutting down an engine in a twin
and stopping the prop - is presumably also comfortable shutting down an
an engine in a single - and stopping the prop.
I guess we're lucky to have lots of Bob Hoovers around here! You guys
also do surface level aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes, too?
Unfortunately the pic of the prop stopped can be blamed on Transport Canada. During a Multi engine rating, one of the requirements before a student is recommended for a flight test is to do a complete engine shutdown/feathering, and hopefully a restart. I have always HATED doing this as a instructor!!! Some freshly rated multi pilots get a idea in their head its ok to fly around on one!
Lets put the obvious safety concerns aside, flying around in a low performance training piston twin on only one engine, but now factor what the shock cooling is doing to the engine and the possibility of no restart. I have a golden finger on starting small pistons. If no one else can fire her I always can. In the 2000 hours of instructing on twins, I have had no restart 3 times and had to come in single engine. Thank goodness there was no possibility of a go-around!!
Transport Canada needs to realize this beets the sh** out of the engines. But what do they care!
I am aware of the TC requirements and am greatly relieved that TC has finally come to their senses and will eliminate this stupid requirement. I guess what got my spun up was ETOPS delight in the manoever and his "flame away" comment. I guess I should have just ignored the troll....
Anyway ETOPS you have obviously made up your mind on this issue .... you are a low time wannabe... and yet you are allready think you are smarter than me, Hedley, Doc, Lurch, TC Guy, and pretty much all of the high time pilots on this forum
Indeed. You can expect plenty of cracked cylinders. If you have to do this, immediately close the cowl flaps on the caged engine - and open the cowl flaps on the engine that you are now wailing on.
Unforunately this sort of ancillary control thing is often a low priority and doesn't get done. Of course, in real life, you don't care, but in training, it's nice not to crack all the jugs - or cool it such that you can't restart it.
I presume that everyone pulling this stunt has serviceable unfeathering accumulators? IMHO it would be insane to intentionally cage an engine without them, but nothing much surprises me any more.
[quote="ETOPS"]Even though as of April this won't be required anymore... quote]
Where did you get your info? I talked about that with an TC inspector/flight test examiner this morning and he never heard about this one!
so do you have a link or something else?
I just want to know because I wasn't able to answer him when he asked me where i got that! I just reply I don't know.. i saw this on the web so i ask you to know if it's true or not!? you're TC
.
