C172S Landing accident

[Greg Esres]

A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
aircraft is totaled.

Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?

[Neal]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:15:33 -0500, Greg Esres >
wrote:

>It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?
>

Sure..., just as long as they're able and willing to pay the $150-200
per hour rent that you're gonna have to charge them to help pay the
insurance premiums.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Greg Esres wrote:
> A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
> nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
> slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
> aircraft is totaled.

*sigh*

One time not long after DH learned to fly, we arrived at the
airport to pick up our rented steed.

Uh-oh. News vans all over. Rescue vehicles.

Then we saw it: a C152, perched on the roof of a hangar. In order
to get there, he had to leave the 75 ft wide runway, cross a wide
grass strip to the taxiway, cross a wide ramp, and stall out onto
the hangar roof.

The soloing student was unhurt. He was damned lucky, he could
easily have been killed if he hadn't had a convenient hangar
roof to stall onto.

> Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
> It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?

IMHO, it is unwise to be putting solo students out in any sort of
airplane if they don't "know when to go" (ie, know when to abort
a landing and go around) and have a reasonable safety margin of
proper reactions to a botched landing.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ted Huffmire]

Student pilots are safer. Your fleet of
new 172's is in better hands than with
a bunch of weekend warrior pilots who
have to scrape the rust off their license
when they go for a $100 hamburger once
a month.

Ted

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
> nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
> slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
> aircraft is totaled.
>
> Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
> It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
> nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
> slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
> aircraft is totaled.

Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? I ask because
(as far as I can recall) porpoising was never mentioned before my solo, or
even by the time I got my Private certificate. When I eventually did
porpoise an airplane (C172), I didn't immediately understand what was
happening. After the first bounce, the plane was just a few feet above the
ground, and I expected it to settle down. After the second bounce, the
porpoising was more pronounced, and I then recognized the phenomenon--not
from my training, but from a cartoon I'd seen somewhere that showed a
porpoising plane making progressively higher bounces before crashing
nose-first. That changed my expectation of what was about to happen, just
in time for the third bounce, which left me ten feet above the runway with
the bottom starting to drop out. But >that< was a situation I'd been
trained for, so I instantly added power and landed gently, with no damage.
(I later learned that pulling way back on the yoke is a good way to stop the
porpoising.)

> Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
> It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?

A student who isn't ready to risk a $170,000 plane isn't ready to risk her
or his life.

--Gary

[Doug Carter]

Yossarian wrote:

...stalled the airplane in a slightly nose down attitude.

Stalled it with a negative angle of attack?

[Ryan Ferguson]

Doug Carter wrote:

> ...stalled the airplane in a slightly nose down attitude.
>
> Stalled it with a negative angle of attack?

Why do you assume that the attitude of the airplane has anything to do
with its angle of attack?

[Kev]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Yossarian wrote:
>
> ...stalled the airplane in a slightly nose down attitude.
>
> Stalled it with a negative angle of attack?
>
>

Stalls can occur in virtually any attitude and at virtually any airspeed.

Attitude isn't the equivalent of angle of attack.

Angle of attack depends on relative airflow, not attitude. It is a very
minute, but important distinction. The aircraft can be stalled by gusting
winds while in a relatively steep dive, or while in "cruise" attitude if it
was reached from a dive too abruptly...

Stall-speeds are approximations that GA'ers use because angle-of-attack
gauges are uncommon, and because they provide an approximation based on
ordinary performance envelope.

Cheers,

Kevin

[Greg Esres]

<<Your fleet of new 172's is in better hands than with a bunch of
weekend warrior pilots who have to scrape the rust off their license
when they go for a $100 hamburger once a month.
>>

You're probably right about that. ;-)

[Greg Esres]

<<if they don't "know when to go">>

Probably the instructor is at fault, sometimes, when they teach
students how to "save" landings. The student isn't always capable of
determining which should be saved, and which shouldn't. I know I
scared myself once or twice as a student pilot.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? >>
>
> Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during
> pre-solo training?

Well, it's something that could be discussed a lot, even if it's not
actually demonstrated (the same way "spin awareness" is taught to primary
students without actually demonstrating a spin).

> My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is
> trained to give a near-stall landing.

Spinning is unlikely too, but both are worth being prepared for.

> <<A student who isn't ready to risk a $170,000 plane isn't ready to
> risk her or his life.>>
>
> In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5
> airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students.
> Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go,
> which ended touch and go's for students.
>
> No one was ever hurt duing these accidents, so clearly there are many
> more bent airplanes than bent pilots.

Point taken. Overall, only 1% of landing accidents are fatal, according to
the Nall Report. But presumably the fatality rate is higher among accidents
serious enough to total the plane, and the rate of serious injury or death
is higher still. Crashing any vehicle at 50 or 60 MPH is dangerous, and
older airplane cabins have nothing like the crashworthy design of modern
automobiles.

A loss rate of one plane per year (out of 20 planes) is quite high, isn't
it? I wonder if your club is being lax in its training and proficiency
standards. My FBO has about the same number of planes, and I don't think
we've lost any in the three years I've been around (although we did have a
prop strike this year when someone forgot to extend the landing gear).

--Gary

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<if they don't "know when to go">>

> Probably the instructor is at fault, sometimes, when they teach
> students how to "save" landings. The student isn't always capable of
> determining which should be saved, and which shouldn't. I know I
> scared myself once or twice as a student pilot.

Well, there's a balance here. On the one hand, the student
does (IMO) need to be taught how to save a landing, because
something can go awry and the correct reaction needs to be
there. Just pushing in the throttle won't always do it.

OTOH, sometimes this is taught as almost a "normal" procedure,
rather than "when in doubt go around NOW". I think solo landings
should be like landings in a strong crosswind: plan to go around,
and if you find yourself over the runway correctly aligned at
the correct airspeed in the correct attitude, go ahead and land.

But that's just my opinion and I'm not a CFI.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Doug Carter]

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

>
> Why do you assume that the attitude of the airplane has anything to do
> with its angle of attack?
>

The attitude created by the the tail dropping after the nose wheel
impacts the ground creates the positive angle of attack; airplane flys
again... Terrified student crams the stick forward, lowering the
attitude AND angle of attack and flys the airplane into the ground with
the wing unstalled.

Hopefully the student after repairing the $170,000 airplane will receive
instruction on maintaining the proper attitude after the "bounce."

Since I fly mostly aerobatics I do test the relationship between
attitude, angle of attack and speed rather frequently but those cases
where you can, in reality stall the wing while nose down hardly apply in
this case.

Now if you told me the student was attempting an outside snap roll on
takoff, then we would be there... nose down, stalled (and dead).

[G.R. Patterson III]

Neal wrote:
>
> Sure..., just as long as they're able and willing to pay the $150-200
> per hour rent that you're gonna have to charge them to help pay the
> insurance premiums.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

They're currently renting for around $100/hr at many places in the U.S.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Judah]

Sounds to me like the problem is more with the trainers, not the
trainees...

Greg Esres > wrote in
:

> <<Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? >>
>
> Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during
> pre-solo training?
>
> My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is
> trained to give a near-stall landing.
>

Do you mean to say that students perform their landings "to-spec" every
time at 10 hours? I had some very specific discussions about adding power
during a bounce to avoid porpoising down the runway. Maybe I was lucky to
have an instructor who knew what to talk about, although I was his first
full-time student.

IIRC, the topic was listed on a sort-of checklist of things that we
covered in training. We didn't follow it to the letter, but it did serve
as a syllabus to help monitor progress as we went, and to review
periodically to make sure we were on track and didn't miss anything.

Perhaps you should have your club write up something similar...

> <<A student who isn't ready to risk a $170,000 plane isn't ready to
> risk her or his life.>>
>
> In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5
> airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students.
> Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go,
> which ended touch and go's for students.
>
> No one was ever hurt duing these accidents, so clearly there are many
> more bent airplanes than bent pilots.
>

Sounds to me like you have been lucky till now. Does your club want to
count on luck to prevent more serious consequences?

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? >>

> Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during
> pre-solo training?

Um, well, I was. Porpoising was described, including what
causes it, how to avoid it, and what to do if it is encountered.

> My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is
> trained to give a near-stall landing.

True. Provided they don't f*** up

> In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5
> airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students.
> Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go,
> which ended touch and go's for students.

Greg, I don't know, but this seems very high to me.

Perhaps pre-solo instruction and procedures at your club are
over-due for review?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Scott Skylane]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
/snip/
>> In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5
>> airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students.
>> Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go,
>> which ended touch and go's for students.
>
>
> Greg, I don't know, but this seems very high to me.
/snip/

Actually, this is an *extremely* high accident rate. In the eleven
years I was involved with a very busy flight school, during ten's of
thousand's of student solos *per year*, there was exactly one aircraft
lost due to the student's inadequate control of the situation. I would
recommend the persons in charge of Greg's flying club do an immediate
"stand down", and re-evaluate every aspect of their flight operation
before any aircraft is allowed to fly again.

Happy Flying! (students included!)
Scott Skylane

[Greg Esres]

<<I wonder if your club is being lax in its training and proficiency
standards.>>

Possibly. Of course, I'm inclined to agree, because my students tend
to have a lot more hours at any milestone. The earliest I've soloed
someone is at about 17 hours. I've been criticized as being
"excessive."

[Greg Esres]

<<Terrified student crams the stick forward, lowering the attitude AND
angle of attack and flys the airplane into the ground with the wing
unstalled.>>

That may have well been what happened, though it's certainly possible
to have a nose down attitude and have the AOA exceeding the critical
AOA.

[Greg Esres]

<<Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid it,
and what to do if it is encountered.>>

Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely
"describing." ;-)

Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed
by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I
can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on
the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air
will be radically different.

However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you
can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise.

[Big John]

Why is it rare to see a 'JC" maneuver in a tail dragger?

This question should start another group of posts from the 'been there
done that' guys (and gals) <G>

Big John

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:15:33 -0500, Greg Esres >
wrote:

>A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
>nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
>slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
>aircraft is totaled.
>
>Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
>It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?
>

[Judah]

The poster to whom you responded asked if the student was specifically
trained about porpoising. IN HIS OWN POST he says that "the topic of
porpoising wasn't even mentioned to" him during his entire training
process, implying that he believes that some discussion of porpoising might
have qualified as training even if one was never demonstrated. In fact, it
is strongly implied that he was not trained in dealing with a bounce
either, because he describes his third bounce down the runway when he
remembered a cartoon that helped him recognize his iminent stall situation
and add power.

Secondly, if the student was properly trained to handle a bounce, as you
say, then by your own definition he would not have porpoised down the
runway and destroyed a perfectly good $170,000 airplane!

IMHO training involves education, not necessarily by actual demonstration.
For example, I learned to fly in a non-spin-rated aircraft, so performing a
spin was not permitted. Yet I still was educated and trained on how to
avoid, and if necessary, recover from a spin.

By your definition, I did not receive "real" spin training. For that
matter, I did not receive "real training" in several other techniques, such
as basic instrument flying, short-field landings, soft-field landings, or
flying partial panel. I did not receive "real training" in detecting ice,
dealing with Pitot-Static system problems, or carb ice. Heck - for that
matter, I did not receive "real" training in Emergency Landing Procedures -
because it was all simulated.

In any event, it is all semantics. The Original Poster's question was
actually whether students should be allowed to solo in $170,000 airplanes.
And I think you and I both agree that the answer is "only if they are
properly educated." And from your last comment, it seems that we would both
agree that "REAL Porpoise Training" is probably not a requirement for being
properly educated to solo in a $170,000 airplane.

But I DO believe that proper education on preventing with and dealing with
bounces and porpoises is... Whatever you want to call that is fine with me.


Greg Esres > wrote in
:

> <<I had some very specific discussions about adding power during a
> bounce to avoid porpoising down the runway.>>
>
> Certainly the students have had training to handle bounces. If this
> is properly handled, they'll never see porpoising.
>
> The original poster regarding "porpoising training" asked about
> "training", and I don't consider mentioning porpoising to be
> "training."
>
> To be real training, the instructor would have to set up a porpoising
> event and then turn the aircraft over to the student. I'll have to
> think about whether that's a real good idea...... :-)

[Greg Esres]

<<the topic of porpoising wasn't even mentioned to" him during his
entire training process
>>

Which may, or may not, be true. Student pilots have lots and lots to
learn, and unless an item of knowledge is imparted multiple times by
the instructor, it's not likely to be retained.

What's the Chinese proverb: I hear and I forget, I see and I
remember, I do and I understand.

The vast majority of study that is not constantly reinforced by flight
activities is forgotten by most pilots.

[David Brooks]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<if they don't "know when to go">>
>
> Probably the instructor is at fault, sometimes, when they teach
> students how to "save" landings. The student isn't always capable of
> determining which should be saved, and which shouldn't. I know I
> scared myself once or twice as a student pilot.

Agreed - my primary instructors never wanted to teach a go-around, but
always wanted to land (or touch-n-go) somehow or the other. I had to
practically beg my instructor to do a couple of G-A's. That was on the
lesson just before I had to do it for real, solo.

-- David Brooks

[David]

In article >, Greg Esres
> writes
><<I wonder if your club is being lax in its training and proficiency
>standards.>>
>
>Possibly. Of course, I'm inclined to agree, because my students tend
>to have a lot more hours at any milestone. The earliest I've soloed
>someone is at about 17 hours. I've been criticized as being
>"excessive."
>
Back in the early 1950s I was sent solo after 7 hours 10 minutes. I did
3 consecutive landings that satisfied my instructor who got out when I
was ready to take off and walked back across the field! That was on tail
draggers of course. I could not have done that today I am sure as we had
no radios or procedures to worry about!

In 2:55 solo and 13:45 dual we had covered stalling and spinning, steep
turns, cross wind landings, forced landing practice, short take-offs and
a few compass turns as well as use of flap including a go-around with
full flap set.

Then I gave up for various reasons, one of which was that I did not feel
that I would make a good pilot, perhaps because my father had been a
professional pilot in the RAF. I had also had a couple of encounters in
the air with other aircraft. One with the instructor and one solo. I
regret giving it up now a little but I also enjoyed the day many years
later when my son took me flying.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
"C J Campbell" > wrote:

> I think that it is better to put a solo
> student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a run-out
> $34,000 jalopy.

Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
Front and rear anti-lock brakes?

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[Newps]

> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
>
>>I think that it is better to put a solo
>>student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a run-out
>>$34,000 jalopy.
>

Yeah, right. What safety features? The better seat? Give the kid the
cheap plane.

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| "C J Campbell" > wrote:
|
| > I think that it is better to put a solo
| > student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| > $34,000 jalopy.
|
| Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
| Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
|

Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel lines,
an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system, more
reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has more
redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston aircraft
that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes, it
is a different type of aircraft.

I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172 SP
and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP easier
to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.

[C J Campbell]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
|
|
| > "C J Campbell" > wrote:
| >
| >
| >>I think that it is better to put a solo
| >>student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| >>$34,000 jalopy.
| >
|
| Yeah, right. What safety features? The better seat? Give the kid the
| cheap plane.
|

Actually, I have only one student under thirty years old. My schedule is
full of older pilots who are learning to fly. They are used to nice cars and
they expect their airplanes to be something other than thirty year old
trashed out relics.

[Kev]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
> ...
> | In article >,
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote:
> |
> | > I think that it is better to put a solo
> | > student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
> run-out
> | > $34,000 jalopy.
> |
> | Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
> | Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
> |
>
> Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
> better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel
lines,
> an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system,
more
> reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
> greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
> instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
> higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
> electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
> sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
> busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has
more
> redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston
aircraft
> that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
> improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes,
it
> is a different type of aircraft.
>
> I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172
SP
> and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
> newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP
easier
> to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.
>
>

I find that the 172SP is harder to land. Maybe it's just my experience, but
it seems to want to float along the runway longer than the old 172P models,
it just doesn't want to settle onto the runway... The fleet at my flight
school is a 4 new/8 old mix and I've experienced the "floating" with all of
the new ones, and none of the old ones. I much prefer the new ones, except
for warm starts on a warm day...

Kev

[Judah]

When training for spins, do you actually put the plane into one? When
training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags? When training
for partial panel, do you actually turn off the master? When training for
failed pitot-static do you actually block the pitot tube and/or static
ports?

I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing fire!


There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...

;)

Greg Esres > wrote in
:

> <<Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid it,
> and what to do if it is encountered.>>
>
> Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely
> "describing." ;-)
>
> Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed
> by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I
> can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on
> the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air
> will be radically different.
>
> However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you
> can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise.

[journeyman]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:44 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>When training for spins, do you actually put the plane into one? When

Yes.

>training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags? When training
What I've been flying lately has no mags. In fact, no engine at all.

>for partial panel, do you actually turn off the master? When training for
>failed pitot-static do you actually block the pitot tube and/or static
>ports?

No, but I've done instrument currency work in a sim and the instructor
has done both to me.

While I haven't done 'porpoising training' per se, my tailwheel training
involved recovering from a bounce by avoiding porpoising. The rule of
thumb was, on the first bounce you could try to recover by going to
3-point attitude. On the second bounce, you go around.

Be that as it may, as a some-day-to-be instructor, I'm not sure I'd
feel comfortable exposing a pre-solo student in a tricycle gear
airplane to a porpoising situation, but I'd make sure the student
at least understood the concept. In fact, I'd probably start the
training with go-arounds as the first choice.

Morris

[Big John]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:44 GMT, Judah > wrote:

Judah

Let me parse your questions.


>When training for spins, do you actually put the plane into one?

Unless bird is placarded against, Yes.


>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?

After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
list.


> When training for partial panel, do you actually turn off the master?

No, you cover the instruments that would become inop and only leave
the partial panel instruments exposed to use to fly.

What do you mean by the "master"? Do you mean the battery master
switch (and generator switch) to kill all electrical things in
bird???? That would simulate a electrical failure.



>When training for failed pitot-static do you actually block the pitot tube and/or static ports?

No, you cover the instruments that require the pitot tube or static
ports.


>I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing fire!

Only way in basic GA aircraft is to ask the student to give you, by
memory, the action items for fire. This should be repeated enough
times that it becomes second nature if he/she ever has a fire.

If you have a simulator, you can give the fire symptoms and let the
student recognize and go through the fire procedures.


>There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...

I guess what you are saying is that a student can read a book about
how to fly and then go fly??? Sounds like a Laurel and Hardy Movie
after they got airborne and the book fell out the window.

On the SE which started this thread, the rudder peddle pressure and
the trimming surprises a pilot the first time he/she loses a engine.
If you have the rudder trimmed to take out the peddle pressure and
then bring the engine back in and power up, you have to make a large
trim change again.

With the bird trimmed for SE and you make a SE landing, when you cut
the good engine all the trim reverses and you have to re trim in the
flare or hold a large amount of opposite rudder to the trim to land
and not be in a bad crab.

This is similar to where the FAA did not require upset training for
anyone and then Airline Pilots crashed a few birds because they had
never been in a steep bank or over on their back. These pilots are now
required to have upset training in their simulator on a regular basis
and are safer pilots. Haven't heard of upset accident since this was
changed a few years ago.

Enough of my rant.

Big John


>Greg Esres > wrote in
:
>
>> <<Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid it,
>> and what to do if it is encountered.>>
>>
>> Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely
>> "describing." ;-)
>>
>> Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed
>> by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I
>> can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on
>> the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air
>> will be radically different.
>>
>> However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you
>> can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise.

[Judah]

Morris,
That was exactly my point. Greg seems to think it's doesn't qualify as
training unless it is demonstrated. And by his definition, your approach
would not qualify either, since you never actually demonstrate a porpoise.

My point was that he's talking about semantics. Training is education,
which includes actual demonstrations, but also includes ingraining
information into the student on how to deal with certain situations that
are never demonstrated.

(journeyman) wrote in
u.com:

<snip>
> While I haven't done 'porpoising training' per se, my tailwheel
> training involved recovering from a bounce by avoiding porpoising. The
> rule of thumb was, on the first bounce you could try to recover by
> going to 3-point attitude. On the second bounce, you go around.
>
> Be that as it may, as a some-day-to-be instructor, I'm not sure I'd
> feel comfortable exposing a pre-solo student in a tricycle gear
> airplane to a porpoising situation, but I'd make sure the student
> at least understood the concept. In fact, I'd probably start the
> training with go-arounds as the first choice.
>
> Morris

[Judah]

Big John > wrote in
:

<snip>

>>There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
>>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...
>
> I guess what you are saying is that a student can read a book about
> how to fly and then go fly??? Sounds like a Laurel and Hardy Movie
> after they got airborne and the book fell out the window.

Not at all. I was simply responding to Greg's opinion that it doesn't
qualify as training unless it is demonstrated. And by his definition, some
of your approach would not seem to qualify by his definition either, since
you never actually demonstrated, for example, the actual behavior of the
instruments during a vacuum failure (gyro get's "lazy" before falling over
- which can be confusing and disorienting as compared to a black stick-on
cover appearing), or a pitot-tube ram-pressure block (where the airspeed
increases as you raise the nose so you keep raising it and reducing power
until you stall out at a higher altitude), etc.

My point was that he's talking about semantics. Training is education,
which includes actual demonstrations, but also includes ingraining
information into the student on how to deal with certain situations that
are never demonstrated.

<snip>
> Enough of my rant.

Yeah, me too. ;)

>
>>Greg Esres > wrote in
:
>>
>>> <<Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid
>>> it, and what to do if it is encountered.>>
>>>
>>> Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely
>>> "describing." ;-)
>>>
>>> Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed
>>> by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I
>>> can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on
>>> the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air
>>> will be radically different.
>>>
>>> However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you
>>> can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise.
>

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Big John wrote:

>>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?

> After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
> list.

*blink* in a SE trainer? *blink*

Not in civilian life, anyhow. I think a CFI who simulated engine
failure by actually stopping the engine (with mixture, say) and
THEN shut off the mags, would get bar-b-qued for sure if something
went wrong.

I know a CFI who tried that on me (in my SE fixed-pitch-prop plane)
would be lucky to bring his intact hand back to the right side after
he tried to reach across me and shut off my mags, unless this was
a procedure he'd clearly discussed with me on the ground and I approved.
I know who is paying my insurance premiums, and it ain't my instructor!

>>I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing fire!

> Only way in basic GA aircraft is to ask the student to give you, by
> memory, the action items for fire. This should be repeated enough
> times that it becomes second nature if he/she ever has a fire.

I could be mistaken, but I think what you're saying here is exactly
Judah's point.

We all work with a combination of actual demonstrations and physical
practice, vs verbal instruction/readback which we hope will (through
drill) become second nature.

To me, both are "training". Greg wants to call only the former
"training" and the latter "education" or some other word.

To me, something you drill in the plane is still training, whether
it involves actual physical practice, or some degree of simulation
(be it slapping instrument covers over the gyros rather than actually
disabling the vacuum, or saying "your engine is on fire, what do you
do?" and expecting the student to go through a checklist while touching
the relevant items.

YMMV

Of course, the more realistic and physical the training, the better,
but we all have to strike a balance between what's realistic and what's
reasonably safe (and legal). I'd love to put a little valvie in my
plane so that our CFI could fail our vacuum gyros realistically for
partial panel practice, and that might be a 'safer' way to train
overall, but the FAA says I'd have to jump through a head-high set
of hoops to do it

>>There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
>>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...

> I guess what you are saying is that a student can read a book about
> how to fly and then go fly???

No, I don't think that's what he's saying, see above.

[Peter R.]

Sydney Hoeltzli ) wrote:

> Big John wrote:
>
> >>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?
>
> > After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
> > list.
>
> *blink* in a SE trainer? *blink*
>
> Not in civilian life, anyhow. I think a CFI who simulated engine
> failure by actually stopping the engine (with mixture, say) and
> THEN shut off the mags, would get bar-b-qued for sure if something
> went wrong.

I interpreted his comments to imply after he is safely on the ground
performing the shut-down/tie-down portion of the checklist. :)


--
Peter












----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[journeyman]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:16:28 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>> Not an unreasonable positions, but the post to which I responded did
>> not support the position. You listed a bunch of things not to do that
>> are, in fact, done in the context of training.

You rhretorically asked whether one does actually does A, B, C, D, or
do they just simulate/study it. I said that I have actually done A,
made a facetious comment about B, said C was done in a simulator, and
made a comment about training for D-avoidance (actually having done
more than my fair share of "bounce, Bounce, GO AROUND!" on tailwheel).

IOW, you chose some less-than-optimal examples to support your position.


>Absolutely. I don't think we're disagreeing at all. Quite the contrary. I

*shrug* The larger issue is there are things one should "train for"
that one can't actually do. On that, we agree. I don't have an
issue with what we call that "training".


>Incidentally, have you ever seen a gyro fail? Or had a pitot tube blocked?

One of the benefits of IFR training in a sim, the instructor can fail an
instrument in a way closer to how it would likely to fail IRL. He
nailed me for not turning on pitot heat, and I didn't notice it had
iced over until he started giving me climbs and descents.


>It's very different in reality than having an instructor put a black cover
>on the instrument... When it happened to me, I had a blocked pitot tube and

Agreed.


>Yet no one ever actually demonstrated it to me.
>
>Was it luck? Or was it adequate training?
>
>I believe that people can learn things without ever actually seeing them
>demonstrated...

Clearly, it was training or education or study or something. Call it what
you will.


Morris

[Peter R.]

journeyman ) wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:47:38 -0400, Peter R.
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?
> >>
> >> > After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
> >> > list.
> >>
> >> *blink* in a SE trainer? *blink*
> >>
> >I interpreted his comments to imply after he is safely on the ground
> >performing the shut-down/tie-down portion of the checklist. :)
>
> Educate me. What fixed-pitch piston trainers have featherable props?

Huh? Where was that either directly written or indirectly implied in the
above quoted text?

Or did you mistakenly reply to the wrong post?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[G.R. Patterson III]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> Big John wrote:
>
> >>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?
>
> > After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
> > list.
>
> *blink* in a SE trainer? *blink*

Are there *any* single-engine trainers that have the ability to feather
the prop?

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> Huh? Where was that either directly written or indirectly implied in the
> above quoted text?

"After engine is stopped with prop feathered"

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Big John wrote:

> Thread started, taking about the 'JC' (Jesus Christ) maneuver in a SE.

Thought it started talking about a student pranging a plane by letting
it porpoise (that what you mean by JC maneuver?

> Judah then injected ME training into the thread and shutting a engine
> down. I responded to her ME comment.

Here is the entirety of Judah's post to which you were responding.
I see absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about ME training nor
shutting the engine down specifically in a ME plane. But feel free
to direct it to my attention if you feel I missed it. Judah wrote:
>>When training for spins, do you actually put the plane into one? When
>>training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags? When
>>training for partial panel, do you actually turn off the master?
>>When training for failed pitot-static do you actually block the
>>pitot tube and/or static ports?
>>I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing
>>fire!
>>There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
>>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...

Nope, don't see a thing in there about ME training. Maybe in another
"branch" of the thread, but if so, don't assume that's what's being
discussed in this branch. If you feel I missed it, point it out...
whole post available on http://www.groups.google.com

If you intended your comment to apply only to ME training, makes
much more sense. But nothing in Judah's post, nor your post,
indicated this restriction that I could find.

Best,
Sydney

[Big John]

G.R.

Yes.

Some of the SE turbine birds can go 'beta' for an air brake and also
into reverse pitch and back up.

When shut down they go to the feathered mode (as I'm sure you have
seen in pictures and on the ramp).

The T-6A (Texan II) TRAINER can probably do all as outlined above.
It's engine, the PT-6A feathers the prop on shut down.

Where do we go from here? <G>


Big John


On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:09:33 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>>
>> Big John wrote:
>>
>> >>When training for engine out, do you actually turn off the mags?
>>
>> > After engine is stopped with prop feathered, Yes, it's in the check
>> > list.
>>
>> *blink* in a SE trainer? *blink*
>
>Are there *any* single-engine trainers that have the ability to feather
>the prop?
>
>George Patterson
> The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
> pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
> James Branch Cavel

[Big John]

Sydney

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:06:29 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>
>> Thread started, taking about the 'JC' (Jesus Christ) maneuver in a SE.
>
>Thought it started talking about a student pranging a plane by letting
>it porpoise (that what you mean by JC maneuver?
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````
"JC", yes, it's a common expression in the Air Force (probably Navy
and Marines also) when the pilot gets 180 degrees behind the
oscillations of an aircraft and excursions get bigger and bigger until
something comes unglued (breaks nose wheel off, etc).
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````````
>> Judah then injected ME training into the thread and shutting a engine
>> down. I responded to her ME comment.
>
>Here is the entirety of Judah's post to which you were responding.
>I see absolutely nothing whatsoever in it about ME training nor
>shutting the engine down specifically in a ME plane. But feel free
>to direct it to my attention if you feel I missed it. Judah wrote:
> >>When training for spins, do you actually put the plane into one?

WHEN TRAINING FOR ENGINE OUT, DO YOU ACTUALLY TURN OF THE MAGS?

> >>When training for partial panel, do you actually turn off the master?
> >>When training for failed pitot-static do you actually block the
> >>pitot tube and/or static ports?
> >>I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing
> >>fire!
> >>There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
> >>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...
>
Feel free to borrow my glasses. I put the sentence in all caps to help
you read. Just what training for "engine out" do YOU do in a SE
aircraft?


>Nope, don't see a thing in there about ME training. Maybe in another
>"branch" of the thread, but if so, don't assume that's what's being
>discussed in this branch. If you feel I missed it, point it out...
>whole post available on http://www.groups.google.com
>
>If you intended your comment to apply only to ME training, makes
>much more sense. But nothing in Judah's post, nor your post,
>indicated this restriction that I could find.
>
>Best,
>Sydney

Bottom line is that training should be as close to what happens during
flight as possible and within safe limits. What are safe limits might
be argued but some of us know that spins, stalls, engine out , etc.
practice (training) all makes better, safer pilots during his/her
flying career.

Big John

[Judah]

Never heard of a Multi-Engine student? Or a student getting his Complex
endorsement?

It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane with a
constant speed prop. At the flight school where I got my PPL, they had a
couple of Socata Tampicos and a Tobago. If the tampicos were tied up,
students could rent the tobago for training, and the instructor would work
the prop control. I did that several times in my training.

Sometimes students actually buy planes before they get their PPLs and fly
constant speed props during training because that's what they bought. It's
not unheard of...

Otherwise, you are correct. I cannot think of any fixed pitch trainer that
would offer feathering of the prop. Except perhaps unless that prop was
underneath the plane in a nose-down position after porpoising down the
runway a while. :)

(journeyman) wrote in
u.com:

>
> Sorry, I went a little overboard. Big John was talking about
> feathering an engine. AFAIK, only multi-engine aircraft have
> feathering props.
>
> Sydney was pointing that you don't shut down the single engine on a
> single-engine trainer. Which is what this discussion started with.
>
> You suggested the shutting off the mags was meant to be part of the
> shutdown checklist "after the prop is feathered".
>
> The kinds of single-engine trainers a solo student is likely to be
> flying only has fixed pitch. You wouldn't feather it even on shutdown.
>
>
> Morris (going into Emily Latella mode)
>

[Judah]

Big John > wrote in
:

> Sydney
>
> WHEN TRAINING FOR ENGINE OUT, DO YOU ACTUALLY TURN OF THE MAGS?
>
>> >>When training for partial panel, do you actually turn off the
>> >>master? When training for failed pitot-static do you actually block
>> >>the pitot tube and/or static ports?
>> >>I'd hate to think how you train your students for an engine or wing
>> >>fire! There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
>> >>demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...
>>
> Feel free to borrow my glasses. I put the sentence in all caps to help
> you read. Just what training for "engine out" do YOU do in a SE
> aircraft?
>

I'm sorry, what part of Engine Out Training implies ME? Do single engines
not fail in flight? Do SE students not train to manage an engine failure in
a single? Do you mean to imply that your PPL students are never trained in
engine out procedures? Do they even know what Best Glide Speed is then?

Absolutely scary.

>
> Bottom line is that training should be as close to what happens during
> flight as possible and within safe limits. What are safe limits might
> be argued but some of us know that spins, stalls, engine out , etc.
> practice (training) all makes better, safer pilots during his/her
> flying career.

THAT I agree with. But the OP, Greg Estes, seemed to disagree. He
disqualified anything that was not actually demonstrated from being
considered training.


BTW: Judah is a "he". The female version of me would be named "Judy". :)

[journeyman]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:13:05 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane with a
>constant speed prop. At the flight school where I got my PPL, they had a
>couple of Socata Tampicos and a Tobago. If the tampicos were tied up,
>students could rent the tobago for training, and the instructor would work
>the prop control. I did that several times in my training.

I've flown a Tobago. I *know* it doesn't have a feathering prop.
Controllable prop doesn't mean feathering prop.

I know, I know, I introduced fixed pitch into the discussion, but, as I
said, that was going overboard.

Sure, as Big John points out, when training for the military, they put
you into single-engine turboprop "trainers" which have feathering props,
but for most of the rest of us, our initial training is in single-engine
pistons. Most likely fixed pitch, but even the ones with constant-speed
props don't feather.


>> Morris (going into Emily Latella mode)

"Nevermind"


Morris

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Big John wrote:

> The T-6A (Texan II) TRAINER can probably do all as outlined above.
> It's engine, the PT-6A feathers the prop on shut down.
>
> Where do we go from here? <G>

We say "gosh, them military student pilots sure got to have more
fun", we hope a couple people are educated that constant speed
prop (in a SE piston) does not necessarily imply feathering,
and that's that.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Big John]

Judah

My appoligies on name. We are getting so many 'others' in the business
that some of the unusual names can be ????? <G>

This thread has been simular to what in the 'old' days was considered
'hanger flying". Lots of ideas and give and take of exerience,
druthers, etc. <G>

Big John

----clip----


>BTW: Judah is a "he". The female version of me would be named "Judy". :)

[Big John]

Sydney.

I never shut down a SE (conventual engine) when training anyone
(Military or GA). Never heard of any Instructor who did? To practice a
engine out forced landing I set the power to 'zero thrust' and bird
flew very similar to what it would if engine was out.

To have a student go through recovery of a dead engine I agree all you
can do is talk and touch the procedure (No actual engine shut down)
GA.

NASA uses a somewhat similar procedure in their Shuttle trainer. They
set up drag and power to make the trainer fly like the Shuttle in
landing pattern.

I did shut down the engine (Jet) on the T-33 to give students the
actual air start experience.

Would get 15K or so over either one of the aux fields or 'home plate'
and after doing some things with idle throttle (power off stalls,
etc.) I'd very gently pull the throttle back to 'Idle Cut Off' from
the rear cockpit. It would take the student a minute or so to say "the
engine isn't running". Surprise, Surprise <G>

I'd then have them go through the air start procedure saying each step
out loud to me as they did it. Engine always started. If it hadn't, I
was proficient enough in the bird to make a dead stick landing on
field with no problem.

Doing this, my students had no fear of a flame out when they went out
into the wide cold world (Operational Squadrons).

Lots of good discussion on thread. Just need a beer (and spittoon) to
make it like old time 'Hanger Flying' <G>

Big John



On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:31:07 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote:

----clip----


>> Bottom line is that training should be as close to what happens during
>> flight as possible and within safe limits. What are safe limits might
>> be argued but some of us know that spins, stalls, engine out , etc.
>> practice (training) all makes better, safer pilots during his/her
>> flying career.
>
>Concur. But in a SE plane, I think the student is best taught to
>*touch* the fuel valve and mags while reciting the checklist, rather
>than actually shutting them off during training. That's where my
>"safe limits" lie, in any case.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````
I can live with both but feel that my way has more merit <G>

BJ
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``

>Cheers,
>Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Big John wrote:

> I never shut down a SE (conventual engine) when training anyone
> (Military or GA). Never heard of any Instructor who did?

They exist. There's a flight school in this area where it
(used to, any way) be the normal procedure to simulate by
shutting off the fuel in a C152. That wouldn't go over
real well with the PIC in this girl's plane. I never heard
of an accident from it though (at that flight school).
There have been such accidents, though, where the engine
wouldn't restart fast enough.

OTOH, there've been accidents where an engine left
throttle idle wouldn't put out power on request, either
(carb ice probably). So who am I to vote? I suppose
I do have an opinion that overall retarding the mixture
is the most reliable method in a carburetted piston
single, but I fly a plane with a carb installation that's
not particularly ice-prone for several reasons, so I
don't object to the throttle.

And of course, if the instructor is proficient enough
to dead-stick the plane onto the runway, it's a moot
point. I'm not sure that's true of the average instructor
today though :(

> To practice a engine out forced landing I set the power to
> zero thrust' and bird flew very similar to what it would
> if engine was out.

Is there such a setting for a piston single w/ a controllable
prop? How would you find it?

For a stone-simple fixed pitch piston single like mine,
unfortunately there's no way (that I know of) to simulate
engine-out. I just try to land w/ a good chunk of runway
behind me when I'm practicing, to allow for the drag of a
windmilling prop.

Unless of course my Tiger does an Inhofe. *avert*

> I did shut down the engine (Jet) on the T-33 to give students the
> actual air start experience.

> Would get 15K or so over either one of the aux fields or 'home plate'
> and after doing some things with idle throttle (power off stalls,
> etc.) I'd very gently pull the throttle back to 'Idle Cut Off' from
> the rear cockpit. It would take the student a minute or so to say "the
> engine isn't running". Surprise, Surprise <G>

Interesting, thanks for the story.

I bet you're the sort of CFI who would palm the TC fuse on
a student, too *g* or make them fly IFR without the entire
pitot-static instruments. You and my CFI would probably get
along all too well.

> Lots of good discussion on thread. Just need a beer (and spittoon) to
> make it like old time 'Hanger Flying' <G>

Well, if you're near St. Louis Big John and you let me know, the
beer's on me. By a flexible definition of "near" mind you...

>>Concur. But in a SE plane, I think the student is best taught to
>>*touch* the fuel valve and mags while reciting the checklist, rather
>>than actually shutting them off during training. That's where my
>>"safe limits" lie, in any case.

> I can live with both but feel that my way has more merit <G>

Now I'm confused, didn't you start off saying you'd never shut
down a piston SE during training? So aren't we agreeing?

Best,
Sydney

[Judah]

You are correct. I was equating a feathering prop with a constant speed
prop, and it's not the same... My mistake, sorry.


Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane
>> with a constant speed prop.
>
> That's true, Judah, but by definition, a constant-speed prop is not
> fixed pitch.
>
>> Otherwise, you are correct. I cannot think of any fixed pitch trainer
>> that would offer feathering of the prop.
>
> I have not flown a SE plane with a constant-speed prop which offers
> feathering of the prop. It was my understanding that the control
> mechanism differed from that installed in ME constant speed props.
>
> I wouldn't want to make the statement they don't exist. I'm just
> not aware of any.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
>

[Judah]

You're right. My brain immediately converted Feathering Prop to a
Constant Speed prop... My mistake, sorry.

(journeyman) wrote in
u.com:

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:13:05 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>It's even possible for a student working on his PPL to fly a plane with
>>a constant speed prop. At the flight school where I got my PPL, they
>>had a couple of Socata Tampicos and a Tobago. If the tampicos were tied
>>up, students could rent the tobago for training, and the instructor
>>would work
>> the prop control. I did that several times in my training.
>
> I've flown a Tobago. I *know* it doesn't have a feathering prop.
> Controllable prop doesn't mean feathering prop.
>
> I know, I know, I introduced fixed pitch into the discussion, but, as I
> said, that was going overboard.
>
> Sure, as Big John points out, when training for the military, they put
> you into single-engine turboprop "trainers" which have feathering
> props, but for most of the rest of us, our initial training is in
> single-engine pistons. Most likely fixed pitch, but even the ones with
> constant-speed props don't feather.
>
>
>>> Morris (going into Emily Latella mode)
>
> "Nevermind"
>
>
> Morris

[Dylan Smith]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:22:45 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote:
>I have not flown a SE plane with a constant-speed prop which offers
>feathering of the prop. It was my understanding that the control
>mechanism differed from that installed in ME constant speed props.

They are around, but not as trainers (I don't think!) My friend's Europa
has an electric CS prop which is featherable (you can buy glider wings
for the plane, and you'd want to feather the prop when soaring).
Of course, many bona fide motorgliders have them too, but they aren't
in the "Airplane" category (unlike my friend's Europa, which is. Which
is an interesting question - in the US, the Europa is "airplane, single
engine, land" - if you swap the wings for the glider wings - an
operation that takes on the order of 30 minutes - does the same aircraft
suddenly change category?).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"