RAAus and engine-off

[motzartmerv]

Greybeard. Nobody's giving you advice. You arent permitted to to stop the engine and nobody is recommending that you do. The discussion is on the benifits of it being used as a training practice.

 

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard. Nobody's giving you advice. You arent permitted to to stop the engine and nobody is recommending that you do. The discussion is on the benifits of it being used as a training practice.

Funny how the written word can be misconstrued, I thought that was exactly what was being recommended.

Not sure what you meant when you said

 

Becky, the raa has a facility in the rules for fanstops in the cct with a cfi

[motzartmerv]

Are you a CFI?

 

 

[farri]

I`m a fairly active member of this forum and I havn`t read anywhere that it says " No advice shall be given on this forum" or " Any advice given on this forum must be taken seriously and accepted by those who choose to read it."

 

If this forum isn`t about exchanging and discussing ideas,then what is it about

 

Frank.

 

 

[greybeard]

Nope, not a CFI.

 

And I don't see the relevance unless we're heading to arguing the man instead of the point.

 

I've been following aviation related topics for a couple of years and in most parts there seems to be a general consensus regarding most aspects of aviation, be it training, rules, airmanship etc. But, like most things there is conflicting opinions and ideas. Nothing wrong with that, nor in discussing them. Logical argument is good, we can all learn from it.

 

However, if for example, the general consensus for bungee jumping is to have the rubber band tied to both ankles and someone stands up and says that they are a bungee jumping instructor and it's safe to only tie the rubber band to one ankle as it's good practise then I'm wanting to know how the cost/benefit has altered from the general consensus. If discussion brings up conflicting points then I'm asking for clarification.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nope, not a CFI.And I don't see the relevance unless we're heading to arguing the man instead of the point.

I've been following aviation related topics for a couple of years and in most parts there seems to be a general consensus regarding most aspects of aviation, be it training, rules, airmanship etc. But, like most things there is conflicting opinions and ideas. Nothing wrong with that, nor in discussing them. Logical argument is good, we can all learn from it.

 

However, if for example, the general consensus for bungee jumping is to have the rubber band tied to both ankles and someone stands up and says that they are a bungee jumping instructor and it's safe to only tie the rubber band to one ankle as it's good practise then I'm wanting to know how the cost/benefit has altered from the general consensus. If discussion brings up conflicting points then I'm asking for clarification.

Greybeard. The CFI thing is very relevant, and please dont make this personal. The rules state that fan stops are permitted in the circuit ONLY BY A CFI in appropiate conditions. So My statement that im not recommending that you do it, and that you are not permitted to do it, is very relevant to weather you you are a CFI or not due to the regulation specifying this as pre requisite.

 

I believe I presented a logical argument as to why I CHOSE to do it with my students. If you have an opinion to the contrary then by all means share it. But please use something to back your opinion. Knife throwing and bunjy jumping anoagolies are not really relevant here. If you believe its not safe then thats your opinion. My opinion is that its not safe for a pilot NOT to understand his machine in ALL realms of flight. Please see my above post for the positive learning outcomes I (and most other instructors who have commented here) believe are possible when the sequence is managed properly.

 

Regardless of opinions, it is a permitted activity in RAA training aircraft. So it appears at least your statements about the 'general consensus' are not accurate.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I certainly think engine out training within the correct parameters is a very good idea, I don't like the idea of someone killing the engine on me without a prior brief that would not make me any new friend.

 

I don't think the glide ratio difference of a dead engine to a live engine is important, I think the most important thing is (as has been said already) getting to experience the silence in a 'controlled environment'

 

 

[dazza 38]

In the future with electric engines, turning them on or off is going to be a piece of cake compared to internal combustion engines.

 

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard. The CFI thing is very relevant, and please dont make this personal. The rules state that fan stops are permitted in the circuit ONLY BY A CFI in appropiate conditions. So My statement that im not recommending that you do it, and that you are not permitted to do it, is very relevant to weather you you are a CFI or not due to the regulation specifying this as pre requisite.I believe I presented a logical argument as to why I CHOSE to do it with my students. If you have an opinion to the contrary then by all means share it. But please use something to back your opinion. Knife throwing and bunjy jumping anoagolies are not really relevant here. If you believe its not safe then thats your opinion. My opinion is that its not safe for a pilot NOT to understand his machine in ALL realms of flight. Please see my above post for the positive learning outcomes I (and most other instructors who have commented here) believe are possible when the sequence is managed properly.

 

Regardless of opinions, it is a permitted activity in RAA training aircraft. So it appears at least your statements about the 'general consensus' are not accurate.

Ok, fair enough now that you've explained the small print regarding an RAA CFI providing actual engine out training. That constraint didn't leap out in what I'd read in previous posts. I've learnt something.

As far as general consensus is concerned I stand by the accuracy of my point. Aviation is rather larger than RAA. The learning outcomes aren't in dispute, the requirement to stop the engine is. And the general consensus in the aviation industry is that the risk/benefit isn't there. Understanding how a machine behaves in all realms of flight requires a risk/benefit decision, since aviation began this has been an ongoing process. I'm still not hearing an argument that makes deliberately shutting down an engine in an RAA machine any less risky or providing any greater benefit than how the rest of the aviation industry has been providing training for engine outs. Just because you can isn't an argument.

 

You're obviously comfortable with the risk/benefit, I'm not. I'd hope any prospective training participants would have risk/benefit and the information regarding how and why the greater part of the aviation industry practice doesn't actually stop the engine explained to them so they can make an informed decision regarding their participation.

 

 

[metalman]

In the future with electric engines, turning them on or off is going to be a piece of cake compared to internal combustion engines.

Like a Prius ,just push the button and silently move forward,,,unless we have a horn fitted as suggested elsewhere.

As for shutting the engine down, our roots are in 2strokes when an engine stoppage was a matter of when not if, now a lot of our aircraft are fitted with an engine that has an ,,,erm,,, reputation ,,,,,I'd like to think the first time you have to deal with a stoppage isn't alone ( or worse ,with a loved one on board) ,I thank my instructor for the training I've had, some schools not doing some things that should be done, I've met pilots from a certain Qld school who have NEVER actually stalled an aircraft ,the FI did the stall, and recovered immediately ,the student sat and watched,,,,I've got a mate who did a check ride in a Vic GA school with a instructor who wouldn't let him stall an aerobatic aircraft,,,,to me that is terribly dangerous! The instructor has a duty to prepare the student to avert dying,,,,tootleling around the sky on a nice day is a side benefit

 

Matty

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No problem greybeard. I should have been clearer about the requirements.

 

When you sign the dotted line and accept tht you are to be trained in accordance with the raa ops manual and publications, you are agreeing to the training syllabus and all that entails.

 

I agree that aviation is bigger than the raa.. There is also a glider federation..;)

 

 

[dazza 38]

Like a Prius ,just push the button and silently move forward,,,unless we have a horn fitted as suggested elsewhere.As for shutting the engine down, our roots are in 2strokes when an engine stoppage was a matter of when not if, now a lot of our aircraft are fitted with an engine that has an ,,,erm,,, reputation ,,,,,I'd like to think the first time you have to deal with a stoppage isn't alone ( or worse ,with a loved one on board) ,I thank my instructor for the training I've had, some schools not doing some things that should be done, I've met pilots from a certain Qld school who have NEVER actually stalled an aircraft ,the FI did the stall, and recovered immediately ,the student sat and watched,,,,I've got a mate who did a check ride in a Vic GA school with a instructor who wouldn't let him stall an aerobatic aircraft,,,,to me that is terribly dangerous! The instructor has a duty to prepare the student to avert dying,,,,tootleling around the sky on a nice day is a side benefit

Matty

God help the pilots who were never stalled a aircraft, what else have not been ever taught ?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This was discussed elsewhere. Recovery from an incipient stall does not tell you what will happen if you are a bit slower and experience the real thing. That is never demonstrated.

 

 

[greybeard]

This was discussed elsewhere. Recovery from an incipient stall does not tell you what will happen if you are a bit slower and experience the real thing. That is never demonstrated.

I was taught an incipient spin not an incipient stall. ( PPL never been through RAA apart from having flown a Skyfox under GA )

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Insipient stall? wing drops (recovery's) are meant to be taught as per 3.04 of the ops manual.

 

 

[Yenn]

My CFI turned the fuel off and as I saw him do it I turned it back on again. A photo of the two smug pilots would have been good. He then turned it off again and said what are you going to do. No problem.

 

 

[facthunter]

So you turned it back on again, told him not to be silly? Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'll say it again just once more.

 

Get the RAAus out of Canberra. Get set up on an airport and start training instructors to higher and same standard!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

There's something I find rather amusing about this prohibition of turning the engine off - unless you're a CFI.

 

Because it was the 2 stroke era, when I was teaching people we taught every landing, right from the first training flight, as a simulated forced landing, pulled the power to idle on downwind and managed the landing without further use of power except a throttle blip every half minute or so to stop the plugs fouling. As soon as the student could manage the circuit, judge the glide and land well reliably we started actually switching the engine off by going to idle for a minute from 2-3000ft for the engine to cool before switching it off. Those silent glides and approaches became the highlight for most students and I would estimate that about 30% of all landings after that stage were dead-stick.

 

After solo the students were encouraged to practice idling circuits and landings on their own just as they had when they first started and once they were proficient they went on to doing regular dead-stick landings. These students became exceptionally proficient flyers and while gliding they went on to do stalls and accelerated stalls which are also quite different with the engine silent than with it idling. It was also noticeable that those students became what we preferred to call flyers rather than pilots, they were truly at ease in the air and not at all worried by the prospect of an engine failure.

 

I've also been pleased to have never come across a crash report mentioning any of those flyers and engine failure in the same sentence, so to speak. But I've read plenty of reports where some 'pilot' describes his/her lack of preparation when the engine did stop, no pre-planned landing place, shock and nervousness at the sudden silence, poor situational awareness during the glide, poor decision making when choosing a landing area and a bent aircraft, but it's all very good because they walked away from it ...

 

And now for the 'amusing irony' - under the present RAAus rules none of those flyers who became so skilled are now permitted to maintain their skill levels by practicing. And worse still, as far as I'm concerned, is that I used to be a CFI and I have done and have taught hundreds or thousands of dead-stick landings but I'm not a CFI anymore so presumably I'm not as capable as I used to be because I'm not allowed to switch the donk off anymore. Well I suppose they're right, by not switching it off I'll reduce my skill level so I shouldn't be allowed to switch it off ... hmmm

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hey, at least it's still provisioned in our regs and they havnt taken it out. The new ops manual has it included in a more meaningful and realistic way I'm told. Thank heavens we still hve 'some' connection to our specific form of flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it's become a world industry standard. I know of DCA examiners who have switched the engine off with the keys but they come out of the dash and go somewhere on the floor, out of reach. There are other instances in multi's of identifying the wrong engine and ending up with none running. IF you are close to the ground you are pretty committed to applying most of your attention to landing the thing. Remember our priority of FLY it and maintain CONTROL. IF you can't land with a prop blade in front of you how are you going to cope with the windshield covered in oil or even small water drops. I agree with making the instructor standards higher. The student must have full confidence in the instructor and the instructor must be able to let the student go a fair way into the error before correcting it SAFELY if needed.

 

My first days as an instructor were such a learning curve. You can't anticipate ALL the crazy things some students will do, so pulling a rabbit out of a hat is needed sometimes. Instructing is one of the most challenging things in aviation at all levels, particularly at the elementary level. A student shouldn't have to have to UN-learn a badly taught technique. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

My first couple of thousand flights were all engine off, then again I didn't have one anyway, nor did I have airbrakes or anything else but I could land my Hang Glider almost anywhere, including in a tree and on a single rock in the ocean. Both of these were because at the time there was nowhere else. It kind of focuses your mind.

 

When I began powered flight & forced landing practice, everything was expanded massively but not hard after a bit of instruction & practice. My GA instructor never turned the engine off but allowed me to get down to 50 feet or so before telling me to apply power. If he hadn't I would have continued on. I did some RA training in a Foxbat & the CFI switched the engine off at about 3000' over the aerodrome (after telling me he was going to do so). With that sort of height and plenty of time available even the first landing without a donk was pretty straight forward with about 20 knots of breeze & about 10 knots crosswind. The silence was good & that dirty great straight black thing was always in view. Recommended.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Gotta remember most of these crazy cannot do rules have been written up by those that can't, get scared easily or really should be in another profession. Maybe we should leave casa and the raa in canberra and we start again somewhere else.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Why can't we have an engine off endorsement? This is sport aviation after all. I can't see why I'm no longer permitted to switch the engine off when I've done so quite legally many hundreds of times before. Surely if the CFIs are teaching it and people become proficient at it they should be able to practice it to keep current. I can see why it might not be permitted without training but when you're trained perhaps it should just be another endorsement.

 

Of course if it was an (optional) endorsement it would then encourage others to take the training and overall standards of proficiency would improve ... fewer crashes, cheaper insurance ...

 

 

[coljones]

Hey, at least it's still provisioned in our regs and they havnt taken it out. The new ops manual has it included in a more meaningful and realistic way I'm told. Thank heavens we still hve 'some' connection to our specific form of flying.

New Ops Manual?