Engine failure training.

[farri]

Recently, I was talking to a very experienced commercial GA pilot, we discussed engine failures and training for them, he said that it was dangerous to bring the aircraft all the way back onto the runway, as it was the last bit, getting back onto the ground, that was causing the accidents in training.

 

My thinking is……If when in training, accidents are occurring when landing,then there is something wrong with the instruction and the student hasn`t learnt to be able to land the aircraft safely, in the event of an engine failure, so what is the point of the instruction.

 

Should training for engine failure in flight, in RAA aircraft, be all the way back to the runway and the landing carried out to a full stop.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Spin]

Absolutely, otherwise it is going to be awfully disappointing come reality and you can't just power up and fly away from 50'. Landing is the logical conclusion of the exercise and although important, everything else merely serves to get you to a place where you can land safely. It goes along with the "fly the aircraft as far as possible into the crash" thinking - you should never just be along for the ride.

 

This was one of the aspects I particularly enjoyed about my RA conversion, I was expected to be able to roll the wheels on a little farm track that I had lined up on, before applying power - definitely added a dose of realism and made me concentrate on landing accurately:keen:.

 

Similarly deadstick landings were a definite bonus, although understandably these were carried out onto the airfield. In the Tecnam Golf there was a small but noticeable difference in elevator feel and effectiveness compared to a gliding with the engine at idle.

 

 

[Guest Stixy]

Engine out Training

 

Yes, I think that the whole procedure should be completed if the surface is suitable. (not so much for the beach landing!).

 

I have just done some engine out training again,and enjoyed the actual challenge. We did it over the strip which I found quite easy, but after 4 or 5 of those, we picked an actual ponit on the runway to land, rather than just anywhere. This was a more challenging task, but I managed to do it within 10mtrs of the selected point. I drove home feeling a lot more confident that I would be able to bring my aircraft down safely if the situation ever came up.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Absolutely Farri.

 

The CFI who trained me would say that "if you crash, what the hell was the instructor doing!"

 

In my training we did lots and lots of glide approaches from different places in the circuit and over the airfield, to either a full stop or touch and go. In addition, there were quite a number in the training areas where I had to pick the field. One day, he pulled the power on take-off without any warning at about 150'.... and yes, it did take me a second or two to react. His response... "Get the nose down, you're about to stall". One day the CFI said that he was going to allow me to get very low during a simulated engine failure. At 20' AGL in a paddock between trees, I asked him if he actually wanted me to land, because we were going to be on the ground in a couple of seconds... he then said, no that's fine, power up.

 

I had three simulated engine failures during my licence test. One EFATO, one away from the field and one to a landing on the AD.

 

Do I think I have been served well by my training.. You bet.

 

 

[Guest Stixy]

Yeah David, the same thing happened to me.

 

The instructor pulled the power on me at around 150ft and I had to select the paddock. I selected a landing point to the left of a large tree and got there, but I also said to him 'do you want me to land'? cos we were only 10 to15ft off the ground when he said, no just go around. I thought for a second that maybe he had landed in this spot before but I made sure that I was clear with his intentions. I was prepared to land though.

 

Stixy

 

 

[Skip]

I have had 2 engine failures 1 at 1100ft and 1 efato at 80ft and you would be surprised how your training comes back to you.

 

Skip

 

 

[foxy]

i agree.

 

Practising an engine failure up to 500 ft, or to just before touch down is pretty pointless. its all well and good to know how to glide the aeroplane back safely...but what then?? if the student hasnt been taught how to actually LAND the thing with the fan stopped....(at idle obviously)...then how are they going to cope if it happens as a real scenario....????

 

as in every training situation, everything will be handled with complete caution, but as i said in my post re: practising this sorta stuff......learning how to do this correctly....to the complete point, could be what saves your life.

 

no matter whether it be a light aircraft, or one of the massive boys, if the engine decides to no longer play the game.......u wanna live to tell the tale.

 

cheers,

 

liz

 

 

[Tomo]

In my RAA training we did lots of engine failures, and most times it was over approved farm land (for low flying and landing), so it was the real m'coy on dirt tracks etc... obviously that can be done in a drifter, but wouldn't want to attempt that in a HP thing!

 

Here's a bit of praise for us RAA pilots, a GA instructor who is a little anti RAA said the thing that most RAA pilots do well is PFL's, and glide approaches to landing (his excuse was that we're always on the look out, because the engines fail all the time!)

 

Apparently one thing that catches people out is easing out of a high descent rate sometimes occurring with full glide approaches. I used to do engine off landings in the Drifter until it was pointed out you aren't supposed to without an instructor.

 

 

[farri]

Excellent Guys,so far everyone agrees RAA EFATO training should be all the way to a full stop on the runway.

 

For years I`ve watched a local GA aero club use my strip for simulated engine failure, in the Cessnas, they do it regularly,and I`d be supprised if any of them would landed safely,they pull up anywhere from 400 to 500 feet AGL or above.

 

Yes it is a fact that the engines most RAA aircraft use,fail more than GA and therefore we need to be able to land safely and that means training all the way to a full stop on the runway.

 

Frank.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The 5 schools i have been involved in SkyFox Flight training- Ausfight -CFI- Marc Auer, Certificate Test with CFI/PE John McBride, GFPT test- Southern Skies -ATO -Allan Dunbar, Scenic Rim aviation -Mark Steinmuller and Airsports QLD BFR- CFI-Greg Neale. IN every case, i had to land.Not a few hundred feet of the deck-You would have made it Blah blah. Honestly i thought everybody did it and had to do it.I didnt relize some people have never actualy put the wheels on the deck.

 

PS- i have mentioned the schools, some are not around anymore.Just so if someone isnt getting all the training, go to them.

 

PPS- I forgot about Peter Reid at Koralbyn.Same as above,when i flew with him, done glide onto the strip with the engine turned off not at idle.Drifter 503

 

 

[farri]

Honestly i thought everybody did it and had to do it.I didnt relize some people have never actualy put the wheels on the deck.

To my knowledge,GA stoped training for EFATO all the way to a stop on the runway,years ago,because they were creating the accidents they were trying to avoid.

 

As far as I`m aware,it`s not compulsory for RAA training to be carried out all the way to a landing and I was just wondering how RAA schools are instructing these days and what the opinion is on the subject.

 

Frank.

 

 

[djpacro]

In GA training it is common (refer to the individual school's Ops Manual - if I knew of a CASA rule offhand I'd refer to it but the Fly Neighbourly agreement in our local training area is one reason) to abort PFL's at 500 ft AGL whether in the training area or at random on a navex. i.e. if a strip doesn't meet guidelines (CASA plus school Ops Manual) and/or we don't have approval from the owner to land then 500 ft is the minimum height to abort.

 

However, the CASA syllabus mandates engine failure in the circuit hence a glide approach to a landing so all aspects of the PFL are addressed.

 

 

[farri]

However, the CASA syllabus mandates engine failure in the circuit hence a glide approach to a landing so all aspects of the PFL are addressed.Hi djp,thanks for that.

 

Do I take that to mean that GA instruction from an aerodrome such as Cairns,would include a glide approach back onto the runway?

 

Frank.

[dazza 38]

Thanks DJP and Frank,that clears things up, my GFPT was in 1998, the training area South of Archerfield, down to about 3 or 4 feet off the deck into a field.The reason down to 3 0r 4 feet was because the field wasnt very long, so he wanted to make sure i was over the closest fence, but with enough room left before hitting the opposite fence (simulated).Well he did say, that you wouldnt fail if you hit the other fence, at a slow speed.Mainly he didnt want me to used up to much of the field and land long.I guess he had a better estimate me going that low, than if he said to me at 3 or 4 hundred feet, "your in, power up and go" The on the Deck landing was x wind at Archerfield airport.Basicly i was told that, if i stuff it up, i fail the test.I knew it was coming because Allan was on the radio getting approval from the tower.RAA BFR's i have had, depending where i have done them.Was either simulated EF at idle , or engine turned off, in the circuit.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

The 5 schools i have been involved in SkyFox Flight training- Ausfight -CFI- Marc Auer, Certificate Test with CFI/PE John McBride, GFPT test- Southern Skies -ATO -Allan Dunbar, Scenic Rim aviation -Mark Steinmuller and Airsports QLD BFR- CFI-Greg Neale. IN every case, i had to land.Not a few hundred feet of the deck-You would have made it Blah blah. Honestly i thought everybody did it and had to do it.I didnt relize some people have never actualy put the wheels on the deck.PS- i have mentioned the schools, some are not around anymore.Just so if someone isnt getting all the training, go to them.

PPS- I forgot about Peter Reid at Koralbyn.Same as above,when i flew with him, done glide onto the strip with the engine turned off not at idle.Drifter 503

I must have done 20 or more with 4-5 students in the last six weeks. The importance of landing it is to confirm your correct judgement of the aiming point. It is my experience many students in practice are too conservative and crowd themseves and leave no room to manouvre to get into the chosen landing area. Judgement is important at 500' but more critical the closer to landing. Airspeed management is also far more critical as a shorter PFL area may not tolerate the luxury of that "extra 5kts for safety" type thinking- particularly in aircraft that are prone to float.

 

Chosen landing area's should be effective for the exercise but the idea of the training is to ingrain the correct procedures and ensure we aviate all the way to the ground. Wrecking a training aircraft to prove that you could do it is not the aim, but may well be better in a real situation as acceptable collateral to get the occupants down safely.

 

Keep landing them guys!:)