Engine Off Operations

[eightyknots]

Yes ...This engine off thing is clearly a very emotive subject, every time it comes up in discussion, regardless of the pretext some people get a bit heated about it.

 

The thing is - some people want to be able to practice their engine failures in a fully representative manner i.e. with the prop stopped and the 'eerie' silence and less responsive tailfeathers and all that, and some people don't want what they perceive to be 'added risk'. The argument is a little similar to the spin training thing - some want to be able to get out of any situation and others would rather just learn how not to get into the situation in the first place. Unfortunately though, we can't guarantee that we won't have a real engine failure sometime or other.

 

There is another aspect though - some of us came from a gliding background, hang-gliders and/or gliders/sailplanes and I, for one, just enjoy switching off and gliding around for a while. When I want to fly I don't always have somewhere I want to go and visit and am very happy stooging around the slopes with engine off and trying to make a little height gain, or travel a distance across country 'free' or getting out on the flatlands and working a thermal. I once had a height gain of around 6000 ft in a Drifter and at a rate of over 2000ft/min. It was a hell of an exciting and bumpy ride too, in among the hawks, dust, leaves and insects. A good incentive to keep your mouth shut or get bugs in your teeth.

 

I can't find it right now but I'll keep looking, there is (or was) a video on Youtube of a wily old fella in the USA midwest and he loved to take his Piper Pacer/Tripacer (I think I recall that's what it was) up on a hot afternoon. He'd use the engine up to about 2000ft AGL and then switch off and IIRC the video showed him thermalling up to about 14,000ft and then gliding back down to a landing. It was a really inspiring video, he worked and worked really hard for every foot of height gain and his pleasure at every gain on the altimeter was so evident. He'd have an hour or two of flight and use only a litre of fuel.

 

I'll keep looking but if anyone has a link to that video please post it here.

I know someone on this forum who, for many years, has flown in an Ra-Aus plane and has had 'free' rides by switching off the engine (not in circuit!). The plane involved was never designed to be a glider but he enjoys the times that he is able to glide. Is this wrong or not wrong ...that is the question?

 

 

[Tomwantstobeapilot]

 

Apart from the constant tapping on the altimeter, this is a pretty great video.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I would like to see a Piper Tripacer get to 2000 ft on one litre of fuel. That would be fearsome thermals.

Jeez Teck, talk about people niggling ... maybe it was 2 litres, it was just an example that's all. I think an 0-200 or whatever they have uses about 20lt/hr in the cruise, say 30lt/hr in climb? With one PoB and half fuel a Pacer/tripacer would have a climb rate of about 1000ft/min I would guess, so that's 2 mins to 2000ft at 30lt/hr = 1lt. Maybe the climb rate is 700ft/min and it's burning 36lt/hr at WOT - that's 3 mins to 2000ft and therefore uses 1.8 lts. With an A65 engine or whatever I think the consumption would still be about the same. My point was it's still a miniscule cost to go and fly for an hour or two isn't it? And - working a thermal occasionally is not only skill-building because you're flying at best L/D close to the stall in turbulent air, but it's also more fun than just trawling around the usual local triangle just for somewhere to go.

 

I don't think it's wrong 80kts. I say more people should enjoy it and get familiar with their craft's gliding characteristics.

 

Well done Tom, that's one I was referring to. He's made a number of similar videos. Note the 'bowl' on the panel, he puts a tennis ball in it in other vids and flies around balancing the ball up on the edge of the rim, one side then the other - as well as keeping it dead centre when he wants to of course.

 

It's a long time since I saw it so I hope I got some of the details right. There's a very good reason for tapping the altimeter. It's because it won't move smoothly when you're gliding so you won't know if you're gaining or losing height. Just like Grandma's wall barometer which she tapped every morning to see what the weather will be doing. When the plane's engine is running the engine vibration serves as a constant 'tapper'. Glider pilots use a visual and/or audio variometer to know about instantaneous lift or sink but many of us are still altimeter tappers too ...

 

EDIT - just watched his great video again, his strip's at 6000ft, he switched off at 8500 and climbed above 10,000ft, so 1500ft height gain. Note how comfortable he is flying without power and no problem with steep turning to position for a spot landing - and no likelihood of a stall/spin final turn. If only more folks practiced ... IMHO

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I wonder why the raa use the word recreational?

 

Maybe rename to power flight only mob.

 

I tried for years to get away from raa and join either hgfa or gfa. No had to stick with numnut mob.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

It seems all the answers you got were correct, but didn't answer the question of whether or not it is prohibited. Yes RAAus makes the rules, but if they are not in the Ops/Tech manuals they are not rules, just opinions or views which have no more validity than anyone else's.

 

The simple test for any type of operations are .. If i did "xxx" are there any rules/laws that I would break and perhaps be sanctioned/grounded or otherwise in trouble. IMO, If the Ops Manual does not prohibit engine off ops RAAus can take no action against someone who does it and an individuals opinion (Ops Manager or not) is not really worth much. Her opinion may be different than those that originally wrote the Manual. If those that wrote the Manual wanted to prohibit engine off ops, it would have been put in there. It was obviously thought about as it was mentioned in the context of students, being low experience pilots not allowed to do it in the circuit where there may be other traffic or problems.

 

It would be different if an Ops manual specified "all operations other than those specified within are prohibited" (or similar) but then we would have a 300 page ops manual that needed constant updating.

 

I am not against rules/laws and try hard to keep within them, whether i agree with them or not, but I do have a real problem when anyone tries to enforce rules/laws that don't exist just because, as an individual, they don't like whats happening.

 

If RAAus want to prohibit engine off ops, put it in the Ops Manual! Unless I can find where this is specified as an unlawful act I will continue to occasionally shut down and enjoy the beauty of quietly parachuting back to earth, legally.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

If RAAus want to prohibit engine off ops, put it in the Ops Manual! Unless I can find where this is specified as an unlawful act I will continue to occasionally shut down and enjoy the beauty of quietly parachuting back to earth, legally.

Operations Manual Issue 6 - Section 3.04-44

 

"Operations with engine stopped in the circuit may only be conducted by a CFI in controlled situations in suitable flying conditions"

 

Rightly or wrongly, it seems fairly unambiguous to me

 

John

 

 

[eightyknots]

It seems all the answers you got were correct, but didn't answer the question of whether or not it is prohibited. Yes RAAus makes the rules, but if they are not in the Ops/Tech manuals they are not rules, just opinions or views which have no more validity than anyone else's.The simple test for any type of operations are .. If i did "xxx" are there any rules/laws that I would break and perhaps be sanctioned/grounded or otherwise in trouble. IMO, If the Ops Manual does not prohibit engine off ops RAAus can take no action against someone who does it and an individuals opinion (Ops Manager or not) is not really worth much. Her opinion may be different than those that originally wrote the Manual. If those that wrote the Manual wanted to prohibit engine off ops, it would have been put in there. It was obviously thought about as it was mentioned in the context of students, being low experience pilots not allowed to do it in the circuit where there may be other traffic or problems.

 

It would be different if an Ops manual specified "all operations other than those specified within are prohibited" (or similar) but then we would have a 300 page ops manual that needed constant updating.

 

I am not against rules/laws and try hard to keep within them, whether i agree with them or not, but I do have a real problem when anyone tries to enforce rules/laws that don't exist just because, as an individual, they don't like whats happening.

 

If RAAus want to prohibit engine off ops, put it in the Ops Manual! Unless I can find where this is specified as an unlawful act I will continue to occasionally shut down and enjoy the beauty of quietly parachuting back to earth, legally.

It seems that 'in circuit' is the only place you can not have engine-off operations. If a special case is designated (in circuit) then, by implication, it is permissible elsewhere. I cannot see that anyone can be sanctioned or grounded when they are not in the circuit and their engine is switched off.

 

 

[SDQDI]

But then having said that if you got to the ground with your engine off you could be classed as being in the circuit could you not? After all even if landing in a paddock we still have a 'circuit area' don't we? I could have that wrong maybe it would be worthwhile looking up what is classed as a circuit area

 

 

[SDQDI]

I've done a quick search but can't find a definition of what does and does not get classed as a circuit area seems to me that that could be an area for a prolonged argument.

 

I think for myself that even if it is legal for me to stop my engine at a safe altitude that with my low hours it would be foolish to do so without a CFI but having said that if there are those with more experience and the desire to do it I don't want to be holding them back unreasonably

 

 

[eightyknots]

But then having said that if you got to the ground with your engine off you could be classed as being in the circuit could you not? After all even if landing in a paddock we still have a 'circuit area' don't we? I could have that wrong maybe it would be worthwhile looking up what is classed as a circuit area

It really looks as if this engine-off rule needs to be clarified. Rule should be simple to follow for the average person. If there are mixed messages and different interpretations, it is time to re-write the intention of the rule in plain English.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

You are right Crezzie, but that is in the training syllabus and has already been determined to only apply to students, and furthermore only restricts the student whilst in the circuit. If the student was solo and flying away from the circuit area, it seems an instructor could authorise his student to shut the engine down. (might be a brave instructor!!)

 

 

[Teckair]

Jeez Teck, talk about people niggling ...

That was not a serious comment I get what you mean.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Looking at the Ops Manual again i see there might be a problem with enforcing that statement regarding engine off ops as well. It appears not to be part of the actual syllabus but a NOTE attached to it. As far as I am aware, a note is just advisory information and not actually a rule. If it is a rule it would be within the syllabus with a number attached. Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could clarify?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

It really looks as if this engine-off rule needs to be clarified. Rule should be simple to follow for the average person. If there are mixed messages and different interpretations, it is time to re-write the intention of the rule in plain English.

Actually, 80kt perhaps we've gone far enough down that path. The more we try to clarify the rules, the more prescriptive they become and the less freedom we have. Let's leave this one a bit woolie.

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

The draft of the new part 91 contains the following within it. When (if) this comes into force is will make the shut down of engines illegal.

 

91.410 Shutting down engine or simulating engine failure — single-engined aeroplanes

 

 

Shut-down of engine — aeroplanes with starter mechanisms

 

(1) The pilot in command of a single-engined aeroplane commits an offence if:

 

(a) the aeroplane has a starter mechanism; and

 

(b) the pilot in command shuts down the engine during a flight; and

 

© immediately before the shut-down, the engine was serviceable.

[Aerochute Kev]

That will make it pretty final Nobody. I hope it doesn't get through. It would have been nice to have some input into our Ops Manual, but until then ..................

 

 

[frank marriott]

Kev

 

The reference to 91.410 is the proposed CASRs. i.e. CASA not RAA ops manual.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Thanks for that Frank, will that still cover RAAus ops or is that specifically just for GA?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Yes, basically we have to comply with all aviation rules other then the ones there is a specific exemption for - exemptions become a minefield of their own - but generally this applies.

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

KevThe reference to 91.410 is the proposed CASRs. i.e. CASA not RAA ops manual.

Correct. These are the draft of the new CASA rules fro GA aircraft. What isn't clear is which of these RA-Aus aircraft will be exempt from when they are introduced....

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

That will make it pretty final Nobody. I hope it doesn't get through. It would have been nice to have some input into our Ops Manual, but until then ..................

Not nobody. Just aircraft that are meant to operate with their engine running, any gliders, SL sailplanes or motor gliders, hang gliders etc etc will continue to soar on as they always done completely safe and legal as always. Decide where you want to operate and be happy there.... I believe HGFA have a path now for wheel based paragliders to operate up to 70kg.

 

If I want to glide I get in a glider

 

If I want to do aeros , I go fly an aerobatic aircraft

 

If I want to get somewhere fast and on time( well mostly) I catch the kero burner.

 

If I want to fly a defined "power driven aeroplane as defined in the CAR's then so be it.

 

Sounds like a lot of freedom to me.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The draft of the new part 91 contains the following within it. When (if) this comes into force is will make the shut down of engines illegal.

who is responsible for writing this crap?

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

who is responsible for writing this crap?

Do you mean what I wrote or the stuff from casa?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

from casa of course

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...If I want to glide I get in a glider

If I want to do aeros , I go fly an aerobatic aircraft

 

If I want to get somewhere fast and on time( well mostly) I catch the kero burner.

 

If I want to fly a defined "power driven aeroplane as defined in the CAR's then so be it.

 

Sounds like a lot of freedom to me.

I used to be taken in by this sort of creeping paternalism. Do we need to have our freedoms defined so rigidly?

 

Bureaucracies are increasingly inhabited by people with narrowly-defined qualifications, little industry experience, even less imagination, and no incentive to adopt innovation- even safety improvements.

 

Are these proposed rule changes based an actual evidence of a need? How many accidents have been attributed to engine-off flying? On the roads our attention is too often taken up trying not to be booked, rather than focussing on safety. Do we want flying to go the same way?