Interesting drill

[ayavner]

So... I'm bored at work and thought I would try this out and I found the results interesting. Give it a try and see what you think!

 

1. Grab a sheet of paper and divide into 3 columns

 

2. Get a stop watch.

 

3. Say to yourself "engine failure" , start the timer, then write down everything you know about what to do and mentally perform the action.

 

4. When done, stop the watch and write down the time. do this a few times to get an average.

 

What I found out:

 

1. my times got better with each repetition. no surprise there. After a few goes the limiting factor was how fast can I write.

 

2. The times were around a minute and a half.

 

Obviously this would vary in real world and there may be other factors (ie freaking out PAX or whatever), but the point is you can train yourself not to get flustered if you realise that it doesn't take as long as you think. Of course if you are 500' AGL there wouldn't be time, but for the normal testing situation where you are at 2500' or flights well above that - its reassuring to know you've got plenty of time to get it right.

 

Give it a try and see what you come up with. Remember as you write down each step, go through the motions mentally. Do the mayday calls and pax brief outloud. When you complete FMMM hit the watch. You'll see the times improve with each repetition, and not be burning AVGAS to do it :-)

 

 

[facthunter]

You won't be flying a plane at the same time either. Try playing god save the queen with one finger on the piano at the same time and see how your playing deteriorates, and how much extra rime it takes and what you leave off the list. It is all interesting though, but the more you concentrate on one thing the less you will be aware of anything else. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

Yes, of course these times would go up with workload and distractions. Next time I might work in some distractions and see how I go. Not at all suggesting this is a substitute for the real thing, just another way to burn it into memory for quicker recall if needed. In any case theres bound to be a bit of psychological advantage or a calming effect to feel like it mght not take as long as one thinks.

 

And of course thingse will be left out depending on time available and the nature of the emergency, but I do suspect many just fold up because they either dont beleve they have time or didnt do everything they could do to burn it in.

 

If asked on the ground what are the steps, and i hesitate, how much more so if i were in the air?

 

But yes point taken and appreciated Nev! Ill add in some distractions and test again.

 

 

[Ultralights]

there is a difference between running through an emergency checklist, and actually doing whats on the checklist. rather than just saying, check switches/fuel/oil etc, actually perform a check on those items. check, touch, the switches to confirm position, visually check the fuel gauges and read out the contents level. read out oil pressure etc etc.

 

 

[ayavner]

true, but of course that was acknowledged in the first post. Of course it won't be the same, but what I did was not just say what's on the check list but to go through it as close to real actions as I can - actually "reach" for the carby heat, actually say the mayday call and pax brief, etc... so "mentally perform the action" per step 3.

 

I did it again last night, this time while in the circuit in flight sim and as predicted it did take a bit longer, but again its just a drill...

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Next time your up with an instructor get him to time you and see how you go, many pilots can get the first decision sets right then become overloaded as pressure increases closer to the modified final approach path- paper planes won't kill you but you raise a good point. Remember whilst knowing and accurately and performing checks is important it should never take a higher priority than flying the plane.

 

There is no substitute for practice as close as possible to "real" we can do. While Avayner you've highlighted the TIME required, this is only one aspect of effective emergency procedures. Assessment, judgement, situational awareness, ADM, and the human elements all need to be factored in and practiced as well. And even with all this locked away it will always come down to the circumstances and decisions on THE DAY when it happens for real. A highly qualified sample of ATPL's were given a simulation of the fated flight 1549 which Capt."Sully" Sullenberger successfully landed in the Hudson river. NONE of them were able to either replicate or deliver a challenge -response outcome in the way that "Sully" did. His book Highest Duty is a good read and insight it how all this can gel together. Remember practice make PERMANENT.

 

 

[ayavner]

Sounds like a good read! Practice makes Permanent - couldn't agree more! I'll see about getting timed in the air too, also a good drill. I guess my thing here was to do whatever i could (however small) in between times to help solidify things. It won't replace experience or real pressure, but surely it won't hurt either. Was thinking about the way astronauts train to repair space gear in a large underwater tank, though thats stretching the metaphor a bit :)

 

Another great book is QF32 - now talk about pressure! and in the end he had so many checklists and alerts coming at him at once its hard to believe his brain didn't explode. Wish they would do an air Crash investigation show on that one, him and Sully are in a pretty exclusive club.

 

 

[Dieselten]

Capt. Chesney Sullenberger and Capt. Richard De Crespigny faced similar challenges but with one important difference. Sullenberger knew his aircraft was only going in one direction - down - whereas De Crespigny had an aircraft cruising and with thrust available which gave him time to develop a strategy for survival.

 

Sullenberger had a couple of minutes only, and he shut out everything that wasn't an immediate priority. He did not waste valuable time - and altitude - trying to re-start what he had to assume were bird-strike-damaged engines. He got the RAT (ram-air-turbine) out for emergency electrical power and began a controlled descent, evaluating the performance envelope that was left to him. His increasingly terse, almost monosyllabic replies to the controllers offering him alternative runways and airports shows how focussed he was (1- Fly the aeroplane).

 

His decision to land in the Hudson was taken early and he didn't deviate from it (2- Navigate:- make it go where it had to go for the forced-landing).

 

He did less and less radio communications as the situation unfolded and he and his F/O concentrated on getting the aircraft into ditching configuration and making a survivable water-landing. He told the controllers he was going down in the Hudson quite early in the piece...and that's precisely what he did (3- Communicate - but only if you have the time and not at the expense of points 1 and 2).

 

Result? A successful outcome.

 

De Crespigny and his F/O had time on their side...time enough to work out the aircraft whether the aircraft was flyable or not. Trained to trust what the computers were telling him, he and his F/O at first worked through the established procedures, but ever-multiplying fault menus and critical alarms - both valid and spurious due to the severity of the damage to wiring for both data and flight-controls - were leading them into a deeper and deeper hole. The turning-point came when a decision was made to cease actioning the ever-increasing pages of faults and determine how much of the aircraft was left for them to use to get back on the ground. At that point the situation became retrievable. Using basic knowledge, a calculator and some prudent airmanship, good judgement and sheer aeronautical common-sense, they managed to build a basic "Cessna-style" aircraft which they could control and configure for landing. The aircraft's computers simply failed to come up with a solution to the approach and landing-speed problems because too many faults were present for them to find an algorithm that would deliver an answer. So the crew worked out a speed which they felt, given their level of experience and knowledge of that particular aircraft at the time, would allow them a single attempt at an approach and a landing and enough deceleration to not over-run the runway.(1- fly the aircraft)

 

Knowing they had a basically controllable aircraft, albeit with massively impaired capabilities, they began descent and headed back to the airport. (2- Navigate - make it go where it has to go).

 

As far as the third requirement - communication - De Crespigny and his crew kept his cabin-crew, his pax and the controllers on the ground well-informed. Time was available for this and good use was made of it in terms of keeping the passenger-cabin calm and organised as well as letting controllers know what facilities would be needed for the aircraft's arrival (3- Communicate with who you need to communicate with, as and when time permits).

 

Result? A successful outcome.

 

Both situations could have been catastrophic in terms of lives lost. Both were effectively catastrophic in terms of damage done to the aircraft. But both are excellent examples of what professionalism, staying focussed on the priorities, and not getting sidetracked by irrelevancies can achieve.

 

Where do we fit in with all this? As recreational aviators we can, and should, practice our emergency procedures and drills, in our minds as well as in our aircraft. However I would add a caveat; to wit:- if you want to practice emergency procedures, I strongly urge you to do so with an Instructor in the aircraft with you.

 

Practice makes permanent is true, but proper practice makes perfect and if it's going to be permanent then let it be perfect.

 

 

[Yenn]

The 2 cited situations were very well executed, but there is another you may not have heard about. I can't remember which aircraft or which airport it was, but the scenario gaes as follows.

 

Passenger jet on long final, suddenly all power is lost. The pilot got the plane onto the end of the runway and safely landed.

 

It was later re run in the simulator and even with the foreknowledge that the engines were going to fail, nobody could better the actual pilots performance.

 

I think that was a great schievment, but have no idea who the pilot was, nor even the airline.

 

 

[gandalph]

The crew of the British Airways B747 with all engines failed in the volcanic ash cloud over Indonesia and the crew of the "Gimli Glider" are also esteemed members of that exclusive club.

 

 

[Guernsey]

So... I'm bored at work and thought I would try this out and I found the results interesting. Give it a try and see what you think!. Of course if you are 500' AGL there wouldn't be time,

 

Try practicing at 10,000ft and keep repeating the exercise over and over whilst you are descending, by the time you get down to 500ft you would be so good at it you would do it easily in the remaining time. .

 

Alan.

[facthunter]

With your actions try to realise what effect each one has on the aircraft's situation. The checklist will have more meaning to you. Also in any emergency situation ask yourself "what have I still got going for me? then make the best use of what you have. A quick rattling off of a list might impress some checkie types but often the same people will recite it but not notice that something is NOT as it is called. I had a bloke call a hydraulic response. which was "Bypass down , gear latched pressure and quantity checked". and not notice there was no pressure or quantity. Not much of a check if you are not actually checking. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

... remembering of course I did spell out the purpose of the exercise was to call them out and physically go through the motions or radio calls as needed. I agree, just calling stuff out without acting on it is useless. Its definitely burned into my brain, when I say to myself "ts and ps are green" i look and be sure they actually are.

 

Now after some time to reflect since having gotten my ticket, I have made somewhat of an effort towards streamlining these types of things and just "flying the plane", and I am sure part of that is just getting comfortable and gaining more experience. But doesn't stop me from thinking about it all day, i really am a tragic... i need a more exciting job.

 

 

[prwood]

The 2 cited situations were very well executed, but there is another you may not have heard about. I can't remember which aircraft or which airport it was, but the scenario gaes as follows.Passenger jet on long final, suddenly all power is lost. The pilot got the plane onto the end of the runway and safely landed.

It was later re run in the simulator and even with the foreknowledge that the engines were going to fail, nobody could better the actual pilots performance.

 

I think that was a great schievment, but have no idea who the pilot was, nor even the airline.

Yenn,

I believe you are referring to a BA 777 in 2008 that had ice crystals forming in the fuel lines on final to 27L at LHR. They manage to just clear traffic on the perimeter road & landed on the grass about 300 metres short of the runway. Only one serious & 4 minor injuries. Aircraft was written off.

 

Pete