Jump to content

Engine Off Operations


FlyingVizsla
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is on the RAA Members Portal under Latest Notices - Operational Advisory (Group D Engine Off Operations). The following is an excerpt - I encourage you to read the full Advisory before commenting.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

A recent accident investigation involving a Group D operator has revealed a potential lack of understanding in relation to engine off operations with RAA registered aircraft. This has been promulgated in most cases by members transferring from HGFA operators where this practice is permitted.

 

REQUIRED ACTIONS

 

Operations remind all RA-Aus pilots and Instructors that engine off operations of any recreational aircraft

 

are not permitted in flight unless a declared emergency or under the command of a qualified CFI under controlled conditions only.

 

This stipulation is currently referenced in Section 3.04 - 44 of the Operations Manual. Issue 7 of the Operations Manual will more clearly outline this requirement in Section 3.02.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest ozzie

This is one of the stupid rules as to why i sold out and stopped flying. My Lazair that was around long before "tweedle dee" came along, it was designed to fly with both engines shut down. At no time ever was i or other soaring capable pilots consulted in this rule making.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like it is all designed around the worst possible pilot. Don't people know that this form of aviation was "knowing it isn't commercial aviation and all the risks" I agree to fly, or perhaps tell some applicants that they and aircraft don't mix, instead of taking their money and giving them a certificate out of a Kelloggs Corn Flakes packet. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie

Not the worst possible pilot, just the worst capable pilot. Either way it is both types that end up becoming the rule makers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the desire to shut down engines in flight, single or multi. The difference in an engine at idle versus one windmilling or stopped makes so little difference the associated risks just aren't worth taking, not to mention the damage it does to air-cooled engines. I'm all for simulating engine failures and believe partial failures aren't trained well enough. A partial failure can be more difficult to deal with in some ways as the decision to use available power or close the throttle and land needs to be made. I've seen some very interesting responses to these scenarios during flight tests and flight reviews.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the desire to shut down engines in flight, single or multi. The difference in an engine at idle versus one windmilling or stopped makes so little difference the associated risks just aren't worth taking, not to mention the damage it does to air-cooled engines. I'm all for simulating engine failures and believe partial failures aren't trained well enough. A partial failure can be more difficult to deal with in some ways as the decision to use available power or close the throttle and land needs to be made. I've seen some very interesting responses to these scenarios during flight tests and flight reviews.

If you think an idling engine is anything at all like a stopped engine you've obviously not had an engine failure nor deliberately shut one down. We taught engine failures with engine idling first then when the student was proficient we'd shut the engine down completely and the student was absolutely stunned at the difference, not just the difference in the glide performance but the control response, mainly different in pitch, and most particularly the complete difference to the senses when it actually goes quiet and the loudest sounds are the initially very distracting creaks and groans from some airframe types.

 

As far as 'associated risks' are concerned I'd say you're far safer flying with an instructor who has had plenty of practice with a properly stopped engine, than with one who might be going to experience it for the first time while you happen to be on board ...

 

Two stroke engines weren't worried by shock cooling from being shut down, though they could be a bit hard to start again if you decided to abort the glide, so when we switched off we always planned to land dead-stick. As part of the training we did also try the re-start, which was successful sometimes. Later, when the Rotax 912 came out there still wasn't a problem with shutting down because the liquid cooled heads prevented them suffering from thermal shock. As for pure air-cooled engines I had a friend in Victoria who owned an O-320 powered C172 and a Revmaster powered KR2. In the six years I regularly flew with him the Cessna hardly ever landed with the engine running and the KR, while a bit more challenging to fly dead-stick, had it's regular engine-off practice too. To my certain knowledge neither of those engines had any problems with shock cooling either as they were always given time to cool down at idle before switching off.

 

Quite a number of the students we taught in the 'old days' with complete engine shut-down for practice have since gone on and had real failures and the couple I've spoken with were very pleased to have had that experience, saying that it made the real thing much less of an event. I've had quite a number myself over the years too, and since we did so many in practice they've all turned out well so far but I'd not like to be one of the more recent students who really doesn't know what to expect.

 

Regarding this business of not being permitted to switch the engine off anymore - has anyone waded through the new set of CARs to see if that applies to GA as well, or is this yet another example of RAAus having more arduous regulation than GA? And with that in mind, can anyone point me to the 'rule' which said we're not to be more arduously regulated than GA? I think it's time someone started to challenge some of these nonsenses.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Head in the clouds. I have had several complete and many partial engine failures in my flying career and in my earlier instructing days did shut engines down. I stopped doing that after two different aircraft were found to have cracked cylinders, both in aircraft we regularly shut down engines for practice glide approaches. As far as difference in sound / feel I address that when briefing the student and reinforce it during simulations in-flight. Once your FTF has its SMS in place I'm sure you could run the exercise through a risks assessment process and decide from there whether you do or don't shut down in flight. BTW I recently trained and tested a guy who's subsequently had 2 engine complete engine failures and both he and his aeroplane are still flying.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree and gaining simulated partial / complete engine failure experience in a variety of different aircraft types will improve your ability to handle real failures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie
I don't understand the desire to shut down engines in flight, single or multi. The difference in an engine at idle versus one windmilling or stopped makes so little difference the associated risks just aren't worth taking, not to mention the damage it does to air-cooled engines. I'm all for simulating engine failures and believe partial failures aren't trained well enough. A partial failure can be more difficult to deal with in some ways as the decision to use available power or close the throttle and land needs to be made. I've seen some very interesting responses to these scenarios during flight tests and flight reviews.

Ahh the serenity and just listening to the breeze in the airframe. Two strokes don't like to idle for hours. Why waste the fuel. Etc etc etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie
I don't understand the desire to shut down engines in flight, single or multi. The difference in an engine at idle versus one windmilling or stopped makes so little difference the associated risks just aren't worth taking, not to mention the damage it does to air-cooled engines. I'm all for simulating engine failures and believe partial failures aren't trained well enough. A partial failure can be more difficult to deal with in some ways as the decision to use available power or close the throttle and land needs to be made. I've seen some very interesting responses to these scenarios during flight tests and flight reviews.

Ahh the serenity and just listening to the breeze in the airframe. Two strokes don't like to idle for hours. Why waste the fuel. Etc etc etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the current version 3.04-44 statement clearly says "in the circuit", so it must be ok elsewhere.

This is what the Board decided when it considered this matter in March 2014. Further, since the restriction is only mentioned in the context of training, the Board has determined it doesn't apply to qualified pilots. Same goes for the new Ops Manual (soon to be released). It removes the "in the circuit" part but still only mentions it in the context of training.

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what the Board decided when it considered this matter in March 2014. Further, since the restriction is only mentioned in the context of training, the Board has determined it doesn't apply to qualified pilots. Same goes for the new Ops Manual (soon to be released). It removes the "in the circuit" part but still only mentions it in the context of training.

OK TK - what else is changed with the proposed Ops manual other than deletion of CTA access and High/Low Power differential and Power Off Training?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Ops team making such a public (to members) statement regarding the folly of something they consider such unsafe operations, and clear breach of rules that do not exist, is this an attempt by RAAus to restrict engine off ops when they have no actual authority to do so?

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly "creative" Tech, either engine off ops are prohibited or they are not. Everything I have read indicates it refers to in the circuit, students only. The Board seems to have realised the same thing that such ops are not prohibited under the Ops Manual, yet RAAus has, and still, promotes engine off ops as forbidden.

 

Whilst I won't comment on the airmanship of the PPC pilot which is the subject of the original post, apart from stuffing up the landing there is no indication he/she actually did anything wrong. Yet the statement from RAAus clearly indicates that in their view he/she was conducting engine off ops when not supposed to.

 

This leaves the question I asked as very simple, if engine off ops are not prohibited for a fully certificated pilot under our Ops Manual, why would RAAus actively try to promote it as being prohibited and further, try to publicly embarrass/chastise a pilot that had not actually broken the rule they were referring to?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I seem to have upset you Tech, I was under the impression this was a discussion forum and not just somewhere to pat RAAus on the back. I may be wrong, but you have not claimed i was wrong or explained why you thought so. The old "ring RAA/Rep" line is really a cop out as you well know they would need another dozen phone lines and half a dozen extra staff. Plus there would no longer be a need for a forum. I'm not sure why you would think the possibility of RAA making up rules isn't worthy of discussion. If it's true, I'm sure this has affected a lot of students and pilots over the years.

 

I don't think there is a real problem with continual negative whinging. Every one that has had a whinge seems to have had a real problem with whatever their subject was. We do need to keep in mind that if no-one whinged, nothing would ever change.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I seem to have upset you Tech,

No not upset but tired of people who complain about everything.

 

The old "ring RAA/Rep" line is really a cop out as you well know they would need another dozen phone lines and half a dozen extra staff

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.

 

I don't think there is a real problem with continual negative whinging. Every one that has had a whinge seems to have had a real problem with whatever their subject was. .

Wrong again some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm not sure why you would think the possibility of RAA making up rules isn't worthy of discussion.

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd have an hour or two of flight and use only a litre of fuel.

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...