restart the egine

[mcrit]

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?

You're pretty much right on the money there. The C90B has a lot more power than anything a civilian is likely going to train on. I think the biggest thing a civi school might use is a Barron with ~350hp a side (If I have that # wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me ). I agree that the engine shut down does increase confidence and if it's planned out well it doesn't consitute all that much more risk (or in some cases consitiutes less risk) than some other exercises. If it's not planned out well I can see it very easily getting someone into trouble. I can see where others are coming from in terms of stress on the engine (shocking cooling). This isn't a problem with a turbine engine, and if you are patient you can mitigate it with a piston engine.
In answer to your other question, I don't think there are any schools in Canada that teach intial multi ratings on a turbine for exactly the reason you cited; cost.
Just a quick question for SAR_YQQ, do the instructors there ever practice PFLs in the actual A/C?

[iflyforpie]

Most flight schools that operate Barons anymore would have the B55 with 260 hp a side. Most are 285-300 hp per side (C55-G58). The 56TCs with 380 per side are pretty rare and are avoided like the plague by schools, commercial operators, and private individuals equally.

Barons and Aztecs are astronomically better than most other light twins single engine (ie Seminole, Seneca, Dutchess, Cougar, Travelair, Twin Commanche) but still not as good as even the lowest powered turbine twin.

[mcrit]

Most flight schools that operate Barons anymore would have the B55 with 260 hp a side. Most are 285-300 hp per side (C55-G58). The 56TCs with 380 per side are pretty rare and are avoided like the plague by schools, commercial operators, and private individuals equally.

Like I said, if I had the numbers wrong I was sure someone would correct me.

[FlaplessDork]

I've been avoiding this topic in order to keep the blood pressure down but after that last post I can't bite my tongue any longer.

WHY the heck are people going out and purposely causing themselves emergencies?

Yes I know TC says so, who cares? Do you really think after to plow into the ground that anybody is going to care. NO, this is a dangerous flirt with disaster you are playing and nobodies going to be there to protect your butt after the fact.

If TC says you need to demo a spin at 500' for the CPL are you going to do it because they said so?

TC cannot come into my airplane and have me do something unsafe. If anything happens it's my butt.

There are a few stories above that luckily ended safely but they could have easily ended up with your death.

Why does this happen?

Easy you have a instructor with only 50 hours multi time and they can't wait to build that golden MPIC. They don't have the experience or smarts to question why. All they care is that the time is going into a new column.

Go to the sim and practice this, you'll have lots of room for error, live longer, and maybe the joy of crashing the sim. My favorite way to end every sim session.

Lurch

I recall a C-310 in Airdrie that came up short after shutting down an engine for practice not that recently. Stupid!

[co-joe]

There's no real rule here but if you are able to hold altitude, or have enough altitude to play with I would always attempt a re-start if the prop is still turning.

Simuflite really pushes this. Usually they give you a failure where the turbine is still turning (N1) so you do a re-start and it might work or it might not. The point is that you try every option before you give up and shut it down. It sure would be nice to have that 2nd GEN/ALT back wouldn't it? Even if the engine doesn't produce much power, having more bleed air or suction air for pressurisation or to run de/anti ice systems would a good thing.

Now if you are already beacon or procedure turn inbound. If you are on fire. If you can't hold MSA, min vectoring, or any other minimum safe altitude. If you are running out of options faster than you are running out of ideas:

SHUT DOWN and FEATHER immediately.

I think most examiners want to see you think outside the box and show that you have common sense as well as know how to follow checklists and SOP's.

Now if an examiner makes you do a single engine go around near the ground tell him NO. It can easily and safely be simulated at altitude. Tell him/her that your school rules prohibit such a dangerous move. Stuff like that is best left for the sim. But really this should come up in the pre flight briefing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To add to co-joe's comments the cardinal rule is.

Think before you act, period.

Emergencies are not all the same especially concerning engine problems.

Or if you are going to do something stupid do it slow so there is not to much done to get it corrected.

[Big Pistons Forever]

co joe

There has been a bit of thread drift as the thread originator asked a question with respect to restarting a feathered engine as part of the ME training sylabus. Since the prop will by defintion be stopped, advice to try always try a restart with the prop windmilling, while in general extremely sound, does not really apply. I think one must also use caution when applying procedures and considerations applicable for high performance aircraft, to the very first lessons students recieve on multi engine aircraft.
The concept of "relationship" in flying training ( Sorry . , I could not resist ) says to teach the simple to the complicated. The "simple" in the ME sylabus is IMO an emphasis on 2 concepts

1) Fly the airplane first , last and always and,

2) treat the emergency by first utilizing an orderly and logical set of procedures that are performed slowly and methodically.

After these are mastered than I start introducing the complicated, such as the "so what" of the failed engine condition (ie load sheding, fuel system considerations, ATC calls, passenger brief etc) and "non standard" failures like the partial power loss and surging engine exercises I described in an earlier post.

I do firmly endorse both Co-joe's and .'s admonition to not rush through the drills. Speed in completeing the drill is a regretable trend that is either not discouraged or even worse actively encouraged by some ME instructors.

I make my students establish a 5 degree nose up attiutude with the wings level and the ball centred first, and then count three potatoes out loud before touching anything.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[iflyforpie]

Why everyone insists on teaching an overly complicated drill which
is certain to result in a fatal EFATO crash is a trifle mystifying to me.

I don't know. I got crucified in this forum a while ago when I suggested plowing through the fence EFATO in light twin under certain circumstances rather than fighting a plane that is reluctant to leave ground effect while trying to get gear up (did the engine with the pump fail?) and not feather the wrong engine....

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Big Pistons Forever]

In the multi piston catagory, I mostly fly a VG equiped pressurized twin Cessna. It has a 100 kt blue line which makes the EFATO situation easy to deal with. I make every takeoff no flap and rotate at 100kts. If the engine fails before positive rate ,gear selected up, I will simply close both throttles. If there is a total engine failure after I have selected gear up, I will establish a 5 degree nose up attitude and correct the yaw with rudder, identify with the dead foot, verify by bringing the prop lever back to the feather gate observing what the aircraft is doing and then go ahead and feather. One movement (of the prop lever) in total and I will be in pretty good shape with the airspeed above blueline , gear and flaps up and the prop feathered.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[scm]

Excellent advice from above. I still don't know what to do when I depart a short runway near gross and an engine fails below the treeline.

Make sure someones headset cord didn't pull the firewall shutoff? Otherwise it's as Hedley says, feather only. And if the plane doesn't climb mixture ICO on both sides and 'land'.

Edit* Of course..verify the throttles too if it isn't a complete power loss.

[SAR_YQQ]

Just a quick question for SAR_YQQ, do the instructors there ever practice PFLs in the actual A/C?

We do not.

Edited to add:

We don't practice any dual engine failure scenarios. In the simulator, the students practice everything with a shut-down engine. In the airplane, we retard the prop lever to min governing and add about 100#Q. In that set-up we conduct approaches, landings and GA's.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[co-joe]

I see what you mean about the derailment issues with this one Big Pistons. I went back and re read the original question and I have no idea what got me typing. Some really good advice has come up though.

[mcrit]

mcrit wrote:
Just a quick question for SAR_YQQ, do the instructors there ever practice PFLs in the actual A/C?


We do not.

Edited to add:

We don't practice any dual engine failure scenarios. In the simulator, the students practice everything with a shut-down engine. In the airplane, we retard the prop lever to min governing and add about 100#Q. In that set-up we conduct approaches, landings and GA's.

Just a quick question for SAR_YQQ, do the instructors there ever practice PFLs in the actual A/C?

We do not.

Thanks for the answer, hope all is well there.

[CSk3RampBOY]

Barons and Aztecs are astronomically better than most other light twins single engine (ie Seminole, Seneca, Dutchess, Cougar, Travelair, Twin Commanche) but still not as good as even the lowest powered turbine twin.

Oh ya! Flew the Seminole once and that was enough for me. I'm really fortunate to work on the Aztec since its a great machine for the student and instructor.

Couldn't agree more with Hedley on engine failures during initial climb. Some really great tips for student pilots here on this forum to read. Basic, straight forward, to the point and no bull crap!

Just want to pull a twist here and ask the experts what they think about engine restarts when experiencing an in-flight failure? Many FTUs train students to check for fire and if no fire, attempt engine restart.
Now what if you experience a failure, and hear a God awful noise coming out of the engine, with oil leaking like crazy? If you know something is wrong with the engine, one should have the common sense to fly the plane, feather and clean up rather then attempting restart. Right?
Now what if Mr. Bob, who's fresh out of a multi, flies his brand new Seneca and faces this situation. Will he go by common sense or stick to the training he so religiously followed? "No fire, attempt engine restart."

The point I'm trying to make is that many FTU aren't emphasizing these real life scenarios. They just hand over emergency procedures/checklist and pound it in Shouldn't we also expand a bit and encourage good decision making, rather then having students mechanically executing a script???
I remember reading a newsletter from aopa mentioning how unintentinal in-flight shutdowns is usually associated with defective engines and therefore shouldn't be restarted.
Just my humble observation??

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The point I'm trying to make is that many FTU aren't emphasizing these real life scenarios. They just hand over emergency procedures/checklist and pound it in Shouldn't we also expand a bit and encourage good decision making, rather then having students mechanically executing a script???

Once again I can not refrain from commenting in the flight training forum because what I am reading truly disturbs me.

To answer your question CSk3RampBOY, yes you should expand more and not only encourage good decision making you must insist on it.

CHECK LISTS ARE TO CONFIRM YOU ARE PERFORMING THE CRITICAL ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PERFORMED.

Check lists are not supposed to be the " How to think " part of flight training.

Blindly following check lists and the beloved SOP's without being aware of what is actually happening can end up in a fatal crash.

Once again I fear that flight training at far to many FTU's is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and will result in a further lowering of the pilot proficiency pool.

[CSk3RampBOY]

Once again I can not refrain from commenting in the flight training forum because what I am reading truly disturbs me.

To answer your question CSk3RampBOY, yes you should expand more and not only encourage good decision making you must insist on it.

CHECK LISTS ARE TO CONFIRM YOU ARE PERFORMING THE CRITICAL ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PERFORMED.

Disturbed by what FTUs are doing??

There's no question about the importance of the checklist and I'm a hard ass about it when it comes to my students.
But in regards to the situation I proposed before, where Mr. Bob's engine failed and is seriously messed up. Do you go with the engine restart checklist or engine lean up? Now I think the answer is pretty obvious, but I find that the multi needs to emphasize that more.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Disturbed by what FTUs are doing??

Read what I said.

I did not say all FTU's

But just to clarify my position one more time I do believe the training industry needs a complete reorganizing and higher experience requirements for instructors beyond the ab-inito level

The blind leading the blind results in people bumping into things.

NOTE:

This is not aimed at you personally as I have no idea who you are nor your qualifications and experience level let alone your ability to teach.

O.K.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Csk3Rampboy

In general: I think it is important that the engine failure case should not be considered as some sort of "special" emergency. What is needed in flight training is the development, in the student of a consistant, methodical, and sensible approach to dealing with any emergency. This should obviously be shaped by the situation the aircraft is in (ie what phase of flight) and the severity of the emergency. The time to start inculcating this is not in the ME course, it starts in the PPL and should be refined in the CPL.

Assuming you are in cruise flight (the case for 90% of an average flight) and anything bad starts to happen to an aircraft system, the first thing you should ask is "what did I just do to make that system act in an abnormal fashion". Because it is often the case that your actions/inactions were directly responsible for the problem.

Therefore specific to ME training, I think it is important to start the training with a comprehensive discusion of why engines fail and the fact that the majority of engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Success is not dealing with the engine failure; it is not letting it fail in the first place. If the engine does fail than yes we have procedures to deal with it, and checklists to make sure we have done the necessary actions, but the truely hard part is just starting . That is the Pilot Decision Making that you need to apply to answer the "so what now" of this situation. This is where IMO the ME rating course falls down. Typically as soon as the drills are carried out the exercise is terminated and it is on to the the next exercise, totally missing an important opportunity to get the student to think and make decisions appropriate to the situation.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Which bring us back to the need for experienced teachers.

And to attract same requires a pay scale one can comfortably live on..

[CSk3RampBOY]

The time to start inculcating this is not in the ME course, it starts in the PPL and should be refined in the CPL.

Exactly! These are the skills that are lacking big time, even in the CPL.

Therefore specific ME training, I think it is important to start the training with a comprehensive discussion of why engines fail and the fact that the majority of engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

Of course, and I try to review this with students on all levels.

But in regards to the Mr. Bob example I gave in the first post. When you obviously have a defective engine, shouldn't you have the common sense to proceed with an engine clean up checklist rather then an attempt engine restart.
What I find is missing, is exactly as you say it! (you put in better words then I do)

What is needed in flight training is the devlopment, in the student of a consistant, methodical, and sensible approach to dealing with any emergency.

Typically as soon as the drills are carried out the exercise is terminated and it is on the the next drill, totally missing an important oportunity to get the student to think and make decisions appropiate to the situation.

Not so long ago, I was reading an aopa newsletter addressing various crashes which involved engine re starts on defective engines.

No offense taken at all Cat, i'm a young fellow constantly looking for good advice!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Rampboy

Should Mr BoB attempt to restart his engine that "made a god awfull noise and was leaking oil" ? A great PDM question. I would turn it around and ask under what circumstances would attempting to restart the engine be the best course of action and in what circumstances would it be inadvisable ? I can think of several circumstances in each catagory.