Garfly

Ch7 News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2G7Yo8GZM

Absolutely, they seem to worry him a lot ... even airframe parachutes worry him - a substitute for good piloting. That must please his GA Cirrus colleagues a lot. I guess their training is never going to save their lives. Equally opinionated folks worry about other things, like the dangers of a GA fleet full of 40 or 50 year old machines. And just look at that shiny RAAus, Bristell leading the story ... but a few years young. What a messed up piece of crap-journalism. Training saved pilot's life Pilot Keith Link from Cohuna in regional Victoria survived a plane crash after the engine of his commercially built Cessna failed mid-flight near Bendigo in 2020. He said his pilot training helped save his life but that more improvements in the sector were needed. Pilot Keith Link survived a light plane crash in 2020. (ABC News: Tyrone Dalton) Mr Link said he wanted licensed aircraft maintenance engineers to sign off on all aircraft after every 100 hours of flight or every 12 months. "When I see a plane with a parachute attached to it, I sort of think that's a substitute for being a good pilot," he said.

True, but whenever I've done (dual) engine-off practice glides the Rotax has burst back to life instantly. But still, nobody depends on it so that training is always done within easy reach of an ample runway.

Sorry no substance.

The scene depicted in the Italian video (above) would be legal here. In pursuit of greater competence and safety, I would gladly seek out such training just as I would seek out, say, upset recovery training.

I have also done that kind of testing with a CFI (and we reached the same conclusion) and it is legal under RAAus rules.

Unintended touchdown WWW.FLIGHTSAFETYAUSTRALIA.COM As it was a nice day, I thought it would be good to take the plane out for a trip around the local area and was wondering about performing an engine-off landing as I had practised doing them now and again quite...

Aren't those the figures you reported in the original post of this thread (4 years ago)? "For the Savannah, 50kts is the speed for best glide ratio, as determined by earlier testing. Times recorded for these tests are - at idle 101 seconds, at prop stopped 94 seconds. At idle - 101sec/1000ft = 594fpm descent rate = 8.5:1 glide ratio @ 50kts. Prop stopped - 94sec/1000ft = 634fpm descent rate = 7.9:1 glide ratio @ 50kts. So for each 1000 feet of descent, the aircraft will glide 8,500ft at idle or 7,900ft with prop stopped. So that’s 600ft (182m) less distance at prop stopped than at idle."

While looking for that anti-heat-soak cowl-flap story for re-posting in Skippy's Linear Actuator thread I was taken back to the main topic of JG3's original thread: Prop Stopped. I reckon it's probably worth a bump; some interesting discussion around whether we should, from time to time, practise real dead-stick landings. And then, out of the blue, I came upon this example. (I see the instructor returned the switches to ON ready for a restart if needed) :

This'd be the post you're referring to, Marty. As you say (and AFAIK) the device is only meant to reduce heat soak under the cowl on the ground.

Agreed, and in the second video story I thought he did well to descend underneath the converging Cessna because even though he too was in a high wing he probably had a better chance of keeping sight of the threat looking forward and upwards until it passed over (as opposed to climbing and losing it under the nose.) In the first story he says they were both vertically constrained by a cloud layer just above circuit overfly height. In that case, he reckoned his take-away was he should have been less fixated on his original joining plan when faced with unexpected same level traffic.

This fairly recent video by a young YLED (Lethbridge) pilot tells two stories from which, he says, he took lessons about traffic conflicts near airports. The first shows how the other plane's OzRwys traffic helped with separation when his own radio comms were, he thought, somewhat lacking. And the second (04:00), shows how it was the other plane's landing lights that saved the day when that pilot's radio call had placed him somewhere else entirely. I guess we all agree, see-and-avoid needs all the help it can get. Anyway, kudos to FlightFix for sharing what he's learned in such engaging, well produced videos.

It seems this is the fuel consumption range Turbotech claims: 109hp/140hp/160hp 19l/h / 20l/h / 21l/h eco cruise 24l/h / 32l/h / 35l/h 75% power

I'm pretty sure I have been awake. Unless ... Anyway, I'm not the only one: "The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights OnPilots ... pilots are further encouraged to turn on their landing lights when operating below 10,000 feet, day or night, especially when operating within 10 miles of any airport, or in conditions of reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds may be expected, i.e., coastal areas, lake areas, around refuse dumps, etc." airplaneacademy.com | AIRPLANEACADEMY.COM

Theatrics aside, Skippy, landing lights on final are very often visible before the airframe that they're stuck to. This is a big help for anyone about to enter who might have missed the call. Not to mention, for tower controllers everywhere.