Colin posted a comment to my last entry citing an NTSB report wherein a CFI and a pilot under instruction performed a simulated engine failure at 700 AGL on take-off in a Cirrus SR20, stalled, spun, and died. Such reports call into question the wisdom of practicing engine failures on take-off. Colin asserts that engine-out take-offs should be practiced at safe altitudes to reduce the risk.
I respect Colin’s opinion on matters of piloting, so I gave his comments long and serious consideration. After that consideration, I must respectfully disagree with Colin on this matter. Praticing engine-out situations after real take-offs isn’t inherently more dangerous than practicing any other engine-out situation in the pattern. Every student pilot practices engine-out scenarios in the pattern—at only 1000 AGL where a spin is as unrecoverable as at 700 AGL.
The presence of an NTSB report for a fatal accident involving a specific maneuver doesn’t inheritely make the maneuver unsafe. Numerous reports exist about pilots entering spins on the turn from base to final, but we still fly rectangular patterns. The presence of an NTSB report should give pilots pause and make them consider their actions carefully when performance something new or unordinary, but isn’t grounds in itself for avoiding the given maneuver.
Emulating engine-outs on take-off at safe altitudes is a very different experience than having the ground 700 feet below you and a real runway with which to line up. I, personally, don’t visualize well and doubt that the practice at altitude would translate into good performance during a real engine-out at 700 AGL. That said, practicing the engine-out tear-shaped 180-degree turns at altitude certainly wouldn’t hurt—but it’s only part of the equation and (in my humble opinion) isn’t a substitute for simulating engine-out at 700 AGL on take-off.
In the NTSB report cited, the aircraft was a Cirrus SR20—well known for its poor handling characteristics in slow flight, unpleasent stalls, and tendency to spin. By contrast, a DA40 has very pleasent slow flight characteristics, gentle stalls, and is relatively hard to spin. Should the SR20 pilot have been practicing engine-out scenarios after a take-off? Maybe, maybe not—I’d like to hear from other Cirrus flight instructors. Speaking for myself, I’m comfortable with performing the tear-shaped 180-degree turn with engine-out. Further, I think that the experience has made me a safer pilot. Just like the experience of handling an engine out everywhere else in the pattern makes me a safer pilot.
My mind is not set on this matter, so I’m open to persuation if anyone feels strongly, sees holes in my reasoning, and cares to leave a comment.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, I talked more to my brother about this (he and I did our PP training together and we each have about 275hrs). I would be curious where John (Aviation Mentor) falls on this debate.
Here are a couple more things that I consider:
When you are at pattern height above a landing strip you are, by definition, gliding distance from the field. This is important, since the changes you make to engine speed and mixture as you descend and enter a pattern are, statistically, the sort of events that lead to engine failure.
Which brings us to the most important point: Looking at the NTSB database, how often does an engine less than ten years old fail under the full power of takeoff? Statistically, you are putting yourself in *more* danger doing the practice than you are in just committing to "whatever is straight ahead I will glide to/into if the engine fails" looking at the small number of failures. (If you commit to that choice, which is often debated in flight training magazines as possibly the best choice *anyway,* then you don't need to do any additional training for engine-out-on-takeoff.)
With the G1000 and a good CFI that knows the glass panel you don't need to visualize well. They should be able to put a pink line on the screen, have you take off on that head with the altitude bug as ground level. Then you pull the power at +700ft and try to turn back to the pink line. (Obviously, any good GPS will do it, but the G1000 has such a nice big screen...)
Those sort of statistics are really important to me as a pilot. Things like: VFR pilot into IMC conditions is a vast portion of the accidents for VFR pilots. Therefore, if you don't fly into clouds, you can't be in that portion of the pie chart and that eliminates a lot of accidents.
The most accidents with fatalities occur when pilots have 50hrs to 350hrs. It's called "The Killing Zone" and there's actually a book about it. I am really glad that I am approaching the end of the zone.
--Colin
I'm below the zone (6 hours!), and truthfully I have butterflies in my tummy reading this. The logical part of the brain says "Do it, do it realistically, be prepared." The part that recognizes that landings aren't in my skill set yet gets squeamish!
Looking forward to reading more...
I am mid way to 350hrs. Practicing engine out on take off should be done both ways at the safe altitude and around the airfield.
One thing we need to bear in mind is that our only line of defense is the safe airspeed and coordinated flight.
Post a Comment