Engine Off Operations

[turboplanner]

Yes you do, for at least three reasons:

 

1. An uncomfortably large percentage of pilots(?) either have inadequate training, or an ongoing thirst for any loophole they can find to do what they want to do, such as aerobatics, overloading (full pax and full fuel) and so on, and openly use the "I wasn't told excuse", and frequently there is some justification for that.

 

2. Innocent passengers need to be protected from the outcomes of negligent flying operations.

 

3. CASA, RAA, aircraft owners, airfield owners need to practise ongoing vigilance, and exercise their duty of care when an accident arises which could be eradicated by preventing the same thing happening again.

 

I don't see Ballpoint's comments as paternalism, but quite a good summary to help a pilot focus his thoughts. For example I'd suggest it would be a lot more rewarding to learn the true art of aerobatics from an expert in an aircraft designed for them, and also cheaper to hire an aerobatic aircraft than buy and illegally fly (sometimes with consequences) an RA aircraft which was not designed for aerobatics and does not perform to aerobatic standards anyway.

 

So many threads on this forum are transparently written by people who think the grass is greener over the fence.

 

If the safety record in recreational aviation showed a declining accident and fatality rate, then there would be reason to be grumpy, but for a recreational activity it is grinding its way up to a level where knee jerk reactions are more and more likely from governments.

 

There used to be a thing called airmanship, and aside from any safety issues, joining a circuit where there may be a Beech Baron behind you and turning the engine off in what will usually be the slowest in the circuit is just plain bad manners.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

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.

I'm wondering if there is a typo in the above proposed rule because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

As written it indicates that it'll be OK to shut your engine down if your engine doesn't have a starter, like some VW powered homebuilts, Tiger Moths and the like.

 

So - you could shut the engine down if you have no means of restarting it, but you can't shut it down if you do have a starter, when all you would have to do is press the button to restart it. Does this make sense to anyone?

 

And while we're on the subject - all these folks who are so much against shutting the engine down - are they aware that all it takes with the more modern 4 strokes that most planes have now, is to just press the button, or turn the key, to restart the engine - so what's the big issue?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm wondering if there is a typo in the above proposed rule because it doesn't make sense to me.As written it indicates that it'll be OK to shut your engine down if your engine doesn't have a starter, like some VW powered homebuilts, Tiger Moths and the like.

 

So - you could shut the engine down if you have no means of restarting it, but you can't shut it down if you do have a starter, when all you would have to do is press the button to restart it. Does this make sense to anyone?

 

And while we're on the subject - all these folks who are so much against shutting the engine down - are they aware that all it takes with the more modern 4 strokes that most planes have now, is to just press the button, or turn the key, to restart the engine - so what's the big issue?

That probably is an error, so should be reported to CASA - usually there will be a correction made - often with your wording if suitable.

 

With your background I'd be expecting your engines to start instantly, but many engines, because of design or poor maintenance are not in that category and require extended cranking, and sometimes being left for a while, which is frustrating on the ground, but will get the pilot's head down in the cockpit when he needs it outside for traffic, and if the cranking is too extended he has to depart the circuit for any runway he can, which can cause issues elsewhere (for example at Moorabbin a couple of Sundays ago I counted four on final at once)

 

 

[frank marriott]

The section after the quoted one for "engine with starter" refers to "engine without starter" - so it is covered in the proposal

 

 

[rankamateur]

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?

While I share your concern about living in a nanny state like we ever increasingly do, BUT if the other choice is not flying at all, I am happy to comply with the demand of the nanny. Even with the rigidly defined restrictions, there seems still to be a fair margin of interpretational freedom, as with the "in the circuit" statement in the engine off ruling.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Back to the 'whether we should, whether we shouldn't' debate - frankly I couldn't give a rats whether some people want to limit their skills development or not. From my point of view I want to be able to practice so as to retain my skills and improve them further.

 

Since many people seem to feel that they don't want to have the liberty to stop their engine - don't forget no-one is forcing them to do so anyway, and no-one is saying it should become a mandatory part of training - then to protect the less experienced from themselves perhaps there should be an 'engine off' endorsement? This is recreational flying after all, as Ozzie pointed out so well.

 

Judging from some of the comments though, the major problem might be the distance between instructors willing to stop the engine to issue the endorsement ...

 

 

[Teckair]

HITC I have found the majority of pilots do not even like doing power off engine idle approaches let alone engine shut down. As for doing it with students it would not be my choice, there are enough risks without deliberately increasing them. There is a risk a engine may not restart quick enough if required at the last minute in the event of wind change/shear, sink, some sudden unforeseen reason for a go round and even if it does start the shock cooling/heating is not ideal.

 

 

[facthunter]

There was a DCA examiner whowhen turning off the keys dropped them somewhere on the floor and they couldn't be retrieved in flight. Key start planes are stupid. The plane was then in an emergency situation because of the stupid design. Are some of us being a bit hairy chested with this subject? It WAS taught as an engine restart in flight without starter and IS an extreme action in some aircraft as it requires near vertical orientation of the plane , a strict consideration of Vne, height loss and airframe loads. Most of the motors we have will not reliably restart without a starter., so there is no point in trying it. There is no real necessity to stop a motor in normal flight in a conventional aeroplane. There may be inadvertent shut down through fuel mismanagement or a poorly functioning idle, so a quick "normal" restart should be taught perhaps. Having a pilot experience engine off (with the CFI ) should be part of the training experience. Most people think the plane "FALLS out of the sky" when the engine stops so the silence (Except for the airframe creaks) and the fact it still flys normally can be experienced. Whether the plane glides better or worse with the prop not rotating is knowledge any pilot should have about the plane he/she flys. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is a risk a engine may not restart quick enough if required at the last minute in the event of wind change/shear.....

Good point, I've had two wind shears on late final, both saved only by instantaneously firewalling the throttle to finish up maybe 20 to 30 feet above the threshold rather than 20 or 30 feet below it.

 

I'm not familiar with glider operations but I'd imagine wind shear is handled by a steeper approach and then using air brakes once over the threshold.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Back to the 'whether we should, whether we shouldn't' debate - frankly I couldn't give a rats whether some people want to limit their skills development or not. From my point of view I want to be able to practice so as to retain my skills and improve them further.Since many people seem to feel that they don't want to have the liberty to stop their engine - don't forget no-one is forcing them to do so anyway, and no-one is saying it should become a mandatory part of training - then to protect the less experienced from themselves perhaps there should be an 'engine off' endorsement? This is recreational flying after all, as Ozzie pointed out so well.

 

Judging from some of the comments though, the major problem might be the distance between instructors willing to stop the engine to issue the endorsement ... [ATTACH=full]31021[/ATTACH]

I like the idea of an Engine Off Endorsement HITC

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Good point, I've had two wind shears on late final, both saved only by instantaneously firewalling the throttle to finish up maybe 20 to 30 feet above the threshold rather than 20 or 30 feet below it.I'm not familiar with glider operations but I'd imagine wind shear is handled by a steeper approach and then using air brakes once over the threshold.

No, it's not really a good point in my view. If you're doing a normal landing with power available you may well be aiming for the piano keys and if you don't have excess height or speed available you may well need to use power to make your aiming point. That's not considered to be good airmanship in my book. If it's windy you should be allowing for wind gradient - which most people mistakenly call wind shear - and if the conditions are unstable you should be expecting wind shear. If either of those conditions are prevailing you should aim a little further down the runway than the threshold or alternatively have excess speed or height available and slip to your aiming point on the threshold. Any need to "instantaneously firewall the throttle" to avoid being 20ft below the threshold is simply poor planning and poor reading of the conditions - no offence meant, we all make mistakes and this is the very reason for practicing with engine off where you're forced to think more carefully.

 

BUT - you don't have to pay any penalty for getting it wrong when you practice engine off forced landings, any more than than when you practice with the engine idling, because in any forced landing practice you aim 1/3 of the way down the runway and that gives plenty of margin for error or adjustment.

 

AND - this whole engine off thing - who says that when you switch the engine off you always plan to be practicing forced landings? Much of the time when I go slope soaring or thermalling I restart the engine and continue the flight, to the next thermal perhaps, or to the destination, so why should that be outlawed? It doesn't involve anyone else, or the traffic circuit, it's just a part of the fun of flying. I have no plan to make a landing but I have selected a suitable outlanding in case I don't get a successful restart.

 

As far as being hairy chested with the subject FH, no I don't think so. I don't see it as anything other than having more fun flying and developing more competence. The hairy chested ones are the ones who go flying even though they're still terrified of the day they will have an engine failure, that takes real guts!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... Whether the plane glides better or worse with the prop not rotating is knowledge any pilot should have about the plane he/she flys. Nev

Some convincing posts on both sides of this argument. Perhaps the problem is that bureaucracies paint with a broad brush. What's damned dangerous behaviour at Moorabin may be pretty safe at many quiet country strips.

I hope that safety-conscious pilots aren't denied the chance to fully experience the performance limitations of their single-seaters in a fairly safe setting.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I accept most of those arguments, some people have the additional skills and training, and pick the appropriate places. I used to do my country trips by car at around 180 km/hr in the 1970's, but

 

Casa has already made a decision based on safety statistics.

 

This is a little like the EFATO thread where some people put forward quite complicated procedures which, if followed, will produce safe outcomes, but which, if applied to the mean average of pilots produce the statistics we see year after year.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Casa has already made a decision based on safety statistics.This is a little like the EFATO thread where some people put forward quite complicated procedures which, if followed, will produce safe outcomes, but which, if applied to the mean average of pilots produce the statistics we see year after year.

Yup, I guess that's right, we must all be reduced, by legislation, to the level of the least competent of all - why not eh?

 

That's a far better plan than legislating to raise the average standard of training ...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Lol, you've seen some initiatives to raise the level of training in the past five years?

 

Reducing is what happens when self administration is treated with contempt; it's not happening in other high risk sports where safety is continually improved.

 

 

[Teckair]

HITC I understand your reasoning with this and think it is more related to the the earlier days of the AUF when only the more dedicated flyers built and flew their planes and engine failures were more common.

 

Now days with RAAus marketing flying similar to cartons of milk in a supermarket, GYFTS and such, things are different. I think the demand for engine off ops would be relatively quite small and more of interest to people like yourself.

 

I have had people ring me and ask what I require in a BFR and when I say I like to see throttle off glide approach / simulated engine failure I never hear from them again.

 

Some time ago I was involved with a thread on here about this that got a bit heated about glide approaches it was after a plane had crashed into the water and the pilot was killed. At the time I was getting concerned about how many prangs we were having in what looked like places they should not have.

 

The vast majority of people reckoned powered approaches were the way to go. When I said during BFRs there were people with very poor skills at doing simulated engine failures it was suggested it was up to me to to turn around years of poor flying habits during a BFR.

 

I learnt to fly in a aircraft which had to to be hand started and on a short strip surrounded by tall timber and I had no intention of shutting down the engine.

 

My preferred method is to reduce power slowly and fly base and final without using the throttle, aim to be high and slip it off when you think you are sure you will make it. This has worked for me just fine over many years but probably not if I had to be in the circuit with others doing half power approaches from a couple of miles away.

 

If you choose to go slope soaring / thermaling without power and do not have any problems where is the the issue?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC I understand your reasoning with this and think it is more related to the the earlier days of the AUF when only the more dedicated flyers built and flew their planes and engine failures were more common.Now days with RAAus marketing flying similar to cartons of milk in a supermarket, GYFTS and such, things are different. I think the demand for engine off ops would be relatively quite small and more of interest to people like yourself.

 

I have had people ring me and ask what I require in a BFR and when I say I like to see throttle off glide approach / simulated engine failure I never hear from them again.

 

Some time ago I was involved with a thread on here about this that got a bit heated about glide approaches it was after a plane had crashed into the water and the pilot was killed. At the time I was getting concerned about how many prangs we were having in what looked like places they should not have.

 

The vast majority of people reckoned powered approaches were the way to go. When I said during BFRs there were people with very poor skills at doing simulated engine failures it was suggested it was up to me to to turn around years of poor flying habits during a BFR.

 

I learnt to fly in a aircraft which had to to be hand started and on a short strip surrounded by tall timber and I had no intention of shutting down the engine.

 

My preferred method is to reduce power slowly and fly base and final without using the throttle, aim to be high and slip it off when you think you are sure you will make it. This has worked for me just fine over many years but probably not if I had to be in the circuit with others doing half power approaches from a couple of miles away.

 

If you choose to go slope soaring / thermaling without power and do not have any problems where is the the issue?

I quite see where you're coming from, Teck, and you make some very good points, as always.

 

To answer your last question first, sure there is no issue if I'm willing to flout the regulations. On the basis that if nothing goes wrong where's the harm, after all I'm away from everyone else and who's going to know whether I have my engine running or not? Well, actually it doesn't work like that at all. As well as a rec flying certificate I also hold a commercial GA licence and if seen to be doing the wrong thing, whether in an ultralight or a Jetranger the consequences are the same, I still lose my Licence even though I might have been flying on my Certificate at the time. As a commercial pilot I'm expected to know better, be more disciplined than the average Sunday flyer, and all that. And as for not getting caught, well I wouldn't want to count on that. I can tell you for sure that every time someone sees a powered plane flying around with the engine stopped they start talking about it and it wouldn't be unlikely that at some stage someone might record the registration and report it in good faith, perhaps thinking that the plane is in strife.

 

So - if the regulations say I can't switch my engine off then I won't be doing so and the regulator will be responsible for reducing my flying skills because I can't then practice. It'll also reduce my enjoyment of my sport - and for what reason? Solely because there are others who have joined the sport and aren't willing to, or capable of, becoming sufficiently proficient to save their own ass when the fan stops.

 

To return to the earlier part of your post - you said, "The vast majority of people reckoned powered approaches were the way to go". This I find very concerning because it is the very thing we spent so much extra time in the earlier days, in re-training people who came from GA to stop doing these powered approaches because it was so damned dangerous particularly with our 2 strokes of the time and even more particularly with people coming from GA to use those 2Ts who weren't fully versed with their peculiarities. You, Teck, of course, know well what I mean, their tendencey to stop if allowed to idle for too long, cool and oil up the plugs, either they'd just cough and stop or they'd die when you opened the throttle if you happened to need an extra burst of power on final.

 

So - we trained people to avoid the risk of being garroted when hitting the approach fence by having a bit more height and/or speed up their sleeve, and/or get used to aiming a bit further down the runway than the piano keys. And learn how to slip ...! I had a couple of thousand ultralight/hangie/gliding hours when I went for my GA licence and they tried valiantly to get me to adopt their ridiculous powered approaches and also aim for the piano keys and also not exceed 1.3Vs. What a load of cobblers, and I told them so in no uncertain terms. I'm eternally smug to report that I later took my GA instructors and CFI to our ultralight school and in a short while they had adopted our methods instead and one of them is still instructing and teaches glide approaches with excess height and slips in GA. He's actually well regarded for his 'superior handling skills'.

 

Sadly though, I see that the GA invasion into our sport has now become complete and even the instructors no longer control the procedures that are taught. I suppose we are to imagine that our engines have now reached the same level of reliability that the GA engines have? Does this mean no-one is flying 2Ts any more? All our 4T engine types are known to be highly reliable and very unlikely to stop? I think not.

 

I'm not surprised that some people are concerned about what might be expected of them during their BFR. Before ultralight BFRs only instructors used to check each other out and I was sometimes asked the same thing. I used to just answer "nothing to worry about, no-one's ever failed yet". That tended to start the thing on a relaxed note but it didn't mean it was going to be a walk in the park, we were all typically very tough on each other. But - no-one did ever fail, we just kept doing exercises until we got it right.

 

When I went for a check-ride about six years ago I think the instructor felt a bit intimidated because although very competent he didn't have many hours and after about 20 mins he said I was right to go. He was a little surprised when I said I didn't think so, we hadn't yet done any engine failure practice nor been quizzed about current rules and regs, or inflight emergencies, fire etc. He said it was OK, he was sure I knew what I was doing. Now that kind of thing might come as a relief to some people who weren't confident about their ability and are afraid they might fail but it certainly doesn't help them with being safer in the air, and that reduced safety is where this is all leading. The irony of it all is that some folks seem to be so afraid of failing yet I've never heard of anyone actually failing - anyone know of someone who has? Come to that, does anyone not know of someone who they reckon should have failed, or at least been given a bit more helpful training rather than a rubber stamp job? I'm not pointing any fingers by the way, and mostly my examples refer to GA rather than Recflying.

 

 

[facthunter]

I guess it depends on the aviation environment you have been in. There have been failures and incidents . Some are given extra training and some depart. Also many such as myself don't really enjoy check rides although I always try to be totally prepared. IF someone really has it in for you, you get a hard run. This shouldn't be the case and it is not too common. I can't accept the "no one fails" mantra in GA. Perhaps we may be a bit easy in the RAAus. It's possible people fare badly as a result, on occasions. I doubt if I could live with somebody stuffing up because I gave them an easy run or cut corners or overlooked anything. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

The official view is that you can fail in GA flight reviews and that would lead to further training. The flight review is also considered to be training and is logged as such. I see a problem here with a flight review in a single seater GA plane.

 

Personally I have had many reviews in RAAus flying and I like to alternate with my single seater and a two seater that I have probably never flown before. As the two seaters are usually nose wheel planes it is different from the taildragger, and in other ways they differ from my plane, but so far no problems changing from one to the other.

 

I did a GA review last year before I test flew my new plane and it was a C150. It was in such poor condition I couldn't read the compass and the rest of the instrumentation was sad. No avionics apart from radio and I was very happy to get out of it at the end, especially a I did engine out procedure in 30 plus heat and was down below the tree tops when the instructor said go around. I had visions of putting it into a paddock it would neve have got out of. Climb out was about 200' per minute. Not impressed with the instructor.

 

 

[storchy neil]

twice now I have had my motor shut down on late final once at shep and once at loocksley cant say why here might up set some one

 

now it is totally different with a dead motor so why cant it be taught I feel that it should be

 

up around toc I have encountered thermals many times and pulled the power off and sailed like an bird neil

 

 

[TK58]

If the safety record in recreational aviation showed a declining accident and fatality rate, then there would be reason to be grumpy, but for a recreational activity it is grinding its way up to a level where knee jerk reactions are more and more likely from governments.

Actually Turbo you're wrong about that. On a per hour flown basis RA-Aus has more than halved its fatality rate over the past 10 years, last year notwithstanding. The average number of fatalaties per year (including last year) has been fairly steady (actually a statistically insignificant decrease) while the number of hours flown has more than doubled.

 

 

[Teckair]

HITC as I said before I tend to think it should be left up to the PIC but what has stirred this all up was an accident where a RAAus A/C collided with a caravan and someone on the ground ended up with a broken neck.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Actually Turbo you're wrong about that. On a per hour flown basis RA-Aus has more than halved its fatality rate over the past 10 years, last year notwithstanding. The average number of fatalaties per year (including last year) has been fairly steady (actually a statistically insignificant decrease) while the number of hours flown has more than doubled.

I was talking about recreational aviation, not just RAA ("CASA, RAA, aircraft owners, airfield owners need to practise ongoing vigilance, and exercise their duty of care when an accident arises which could be eradicated by preventing the same thing happening again.")

 

However, why would present a minimalist type statistic when the key issue for pilots is "what is the percentage chance of not being around next year" (fatalities per student/pilot) or the most critical statistic, the raw numbers per year.

 

The reason the raw numbers are the most critical is that is what the media and governments look at, and the media tends to attack the government and the government tends to take action to eradicate these statistics.

 

More importantly for RAA, it can be bankrupted by just one quadriplegic crash not covered by insurance, or just a couple of fatals.

 

If you try to minimalise the situation using hours flown you open up a pandora's box, including the massive demographic change from localised flight of two strokes to the dominance of cross country flying in more reliable aircraft or the expectation that greater hours equals greater experience, so incidents should be declining etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

Relating the statistics requires thought. Flying times include more cross country hours with less time in circuits and less landings per hour., than used to be the case. This fact alone should reduce accidents related to flying hours, as taking off and landing traditionally is more risk associated. Weather related incidents should relate more to cross country work. While we aim for NIL accidents, we have to realise it is NOT achievable in reality.. The improvements that require less loss of freedoms and cost should be implemented first. Making flying unattractive will save lives but forgive me if I don't accept that as a proper way of going about it. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

That probably is an error, so should be reported to CASA - usually there will be a correction made - often with your wording if suitable.With your background I'd be expecting your engines to start instantly, but many engines, because of design or poor maintenance are not in that category and require extended cranking, and sometimes being left for a while, which is frustrating on the ground, but will get the pilot's head down in the cockpit when he needs it outside for traffic, and if the cranking is too extended he has to depart the circuit for any runway he can, which can cause issues elsewhere (for example at Moorabbin a couple of Sundays ago I counted four on final at once)

Slightly off topic, but a historical note - when I was doing my basic training, Moorabbin was an "all over" grass field; do you remember the procedures for that kind of airfield? You simply turned base after the fellow in front, and then turned final so your landing run would be 50 yards to the right of the aircraft ahead of you; on landing, you taxied straight ahead to the perimeter track, and taxied back around the perimeter - which was one-way traffic, in the circuit direction. If the fellow in front was already at the far edge of the field, you started afresh at the near edge, because by then the aircraft on that bit of the field would have reached the perimeter track. I've been No. 12 on final, at Moorabbin. 5 or 6 on final was fairly typical. It didn't cause any problems. Moorabbin was at that time the busiest airfield (in terms of movements per hour) in the southern hemisphere.

However, several years later Moorabbin got a sealed runway, so those procedures were dropped and it was no longer the busiest airfield in the southern hemisphere. Why? Because the airport manager got promoted a grade in the public service, if he was in charge of a sealed runway.