Teckair

Because it would not be practical. You would have to be naive to think that would work. It would be a real problem if the board members were silly enough to go for that idea. We have way to many people who do nothing but complain who don't vote or communicate with their Reps.

First post mentioned a cracked cylinder stud.

No. That does not normally happen with any governing body. The answer will be no.

Once again talking to your board member would be the best way. The problem with forums is you get trolls and other morons that spoil things.

I think not, best way is to contact the board members, it works for me. Our biggest problem has been apathy of most of the members who do not vote, communicate or participate on this forum.

To the instructor, well done.

What's new?

Some how I can not see that happening.

Its not the first time and won't be the last at least this guy did not get hurt. Some time ago a pilot did a stall turn at a air show in Mt Gambier in a Air Tractor which went wrong and was killed.

I thought this guy got carried away in the competition and stood too hard on the brakes.

David you probably said something that someone didn't like, it is a wonder I have not had a million of them.

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.

Woops. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151597748988554

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?

Yeah damn climate change.

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.

You can't tell from these photos.

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

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

No not upset but tired of people who complain about everything. Wrong I rang the Ops manager to get her take on this and was told RAAus does not train or cater for gliding which is correct. HGFA or GFA are appropriate for gliding also correct. RAAus registered aircraft are meant to be flown under power whether they are capable of gliding or not also correct. This has all come about because a engine off aircraft hit a caravan and someone who was not the pilot was seriously injured. Wrong again some people will complain about anything. Who do think makes the rules, writes the Ops manual? I have survived more than 20 engine failures and I do not practice turning the engine off in flight. The students I have trained do power off glide approaches and can deal with an engine failure but if you take notice you will see most people do powered approaches and when the engine quits it's a big panic job. I personally think it should be up to the PIC but when people get hurt then maybe that might not be right. The Ops manager said anybody with issues with this should ring her.

If you think something is not right ring the Ops manager if you are not happy with that explanation ring your area rep. Making accusations on a public forum is not going to help, don't you think there are enough problems with continual negative winging? Try doing something constructive.

OK dutchroll do you have a theory you may be able to share? Being in the industry you could have a better idea than some.

I wouldn't get to 400 ft, you couldn't see it.

Wouldn't the pilot know he would be shot down?

From first hand experience when the engine stops different planes do different things some glide better but it is common for some to glide worse. I have found if you practice power off (engine idle) approaches then you will be able to handle engine failures.