My wife getting scared

[Paul Tomblin]

I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.

Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.

I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
little club is pretty scary for her.

At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
plane.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
interpreter. -- Nick Petreley

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
> plane.
>

During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've
buried 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through
forty of those years and knew many of these people personally.
I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to others.
I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
situation as a pleasure pilot.
I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
consideration to my advice.
When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can
of course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a
safe pastime.
But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.


In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
what can happen when things go wrong.

The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.

In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
What you want to do is steer your wife into thinking of you as a pilot
separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as
just another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group
where some get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks
at you individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of
danger and competent enough to stay away from it.
She will feel better knowing that.

All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will
solve these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once
in a while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can
address this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes
understanding, but most of all it means recognizing her fears as
legitimate instead of down playing them with safety statistics.
Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
Hope this advice has been of some help.
DH


--
Dudley Henriques

[BT]

I'll echo Dudley.. and add .. let her see that you are actively staying up
to speed to remain safe
- get on the faa mailing list and attend local pilot safety meetings
- attend AOPA safety meetings.. take their on line courses
- take a weather course..
- add that next rating.. a commercial rating is the simplest to add.. a new
rating means "additional training received".
- don't wait for a sunny day and decide to go flying.. pick a day two to
three weeks out.. and then if the weather is bad or something "just is not
right"... make the decision not to go and let her know why you decided that
it was not a good day to fly.. maybe it was just because you had a "bad day"
at the office the day before.. and "your mind was not in the game"..
remember and practice IMSAFE

BT


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
> plane.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> ...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
> suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
> interpreter. -- Nick Petreley

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 30, 10:36 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've
> buried 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through
> forty of those years and knew many of these people personally.
> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to others.
> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.

Hi,

I'm a student pilot, and I am very curious to know what percentage of
that 32 can be attributed to pilot error.

Also, I agree.

When I get my certificate, I plan to use same discipline that I use on
my bike. I (very ocassionally) get up to 150 mph on my VFR-800, and
this freaks people out, especially my sister, who worries and asks me
if it is dangerous, and I tell the truth. But the danger is not on a
straightaway. Danger happens during momentarily lapses of self-
discipline at 30mph. On a recent 440 mile round-trip to family
gathering, on the way home, it was 3:00 A.M, with about 8 miles to go,
my legs were cramping up so bad that none of the "stick-leg-out-while"
tricks would work. I started musing about all the bad things that
could happen, because of simple leg cramps. "What if there is a
mattress in road, not able to rake because legs won't move..what if I
pass out..." Then, in an epiphanous moment, I thought, "Darwinism
might be in action, at this very moment. Pull over." I calmly pulled
my bike over to side of road, turned it off, parked it, and waited, in
total darkness, for 15 minutes until my circulation got right again.
My legs were so cramped, I could barely dismount without falling over.
I have no idea whether I would have wrecked if I had tried to hold out
those last 8 miles. But that's the point. I did not, because I made
sure. I managed my risk.

I told this story to my family and it helped them relax. Maybe you
could tell a similar story to your wife.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Drive faster. my wife worries more about me getting killed on th eway to
the airport.


Bertie

[James Sleeman]

On Oct 1, 3:58 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.

Stupid question, but does your wife fly with you? Do you actively
involve her in your flying, or is she completely dis-interested.

Sometimes, it's kinda like air-sickness, if your passenger is quezey,
get them on the stick for a bit - perhaps if you could get your wife
more involved, you could both enjoy it.

AIDS (Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome) is a fairly common affliction
unfortunatly, you may need to take some preventative action sooner
rather than later.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
>wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
> that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.

The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, James Sleeman > said:
>On Oct 1, 3:58 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
>
>Stupid question, but does your wife fly with you? Do you actively
>involve her in your flying, or is she completely dis-interested.

She flies with me if we're going somewhere she wants to go. But 90% of
the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I've gone through over-stressed to physical exhaustion -- what's next?"
"Tuesday."
-- Simon Burr and Kyle Hearn

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques > said:
>> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
>> wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
>> that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
>
> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
> that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
> anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.
>
>

Several of the 32 I have buried were Blue Angels and Thunderbirds.
Others were air show display pilots, test pilots, and military pilots.
These people represented the top of the heap and the best of the best.
My wife knew them all, but these people were not me.
How you convince your wife you are safe will be unique to your own
personal situation and how good you are at presenting that situation to
her.
Best of luck to you.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> She flies with me if we're going somewhere she wants to go. But 90% of
> the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
> I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.

Hey, that's the highest compliment a passenger can pay you.

(They can't sleep if they're terrified... ;-)

I have dealt with this fear from many angles. In fact, now it is ME
who is scared, when my only son goes up for a lesson, so the shoe is
truly on the other foot.

With my wife, Mary, the best thing I could have done was to get her
interested in flying. Once SHE had "the bug", there was no way she
could sit on the ground and worry -- she was right there with me.
This, of course, doesn't solve the very real problem of risk and risk
avoidance that comes with flying -- but it makes our marriage more
comfortable.

Our families have always been worried about us flying, especially when
we fly while our kids are in school. I must admit that Mary and I had
long, involved discussions over the wisdom of this practice (required
because our "weekends" are Wed/Thu, so if we want to fly it's going to
be during their school day), and it's not always been easy to
discuss.

Our "worst case scenario" is imagining what would happen to our kids
if we simply went up on a Wednesday and didn't come back. None of
our family lives in Iowa, so the kids would be on their own throughout
the ordeal that would inevitably follow an accident -- and this is
simply not something any parent would wish on their kids.

This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.

On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.

I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:

1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.

2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
week.

Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
-- in my world -- that means flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker.
>

As an aside, we as in "the GA community" should stop keeping those
secrets. I for one, have vowed to myself to speak up when I see dangerous
behaviour be "esteemed" peers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
> they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
> without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
> odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
> them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.

I don't think that's odd, Jay. No parent wants anything bad to happen to
their kids, and most would give their own lives to save their children;
but there's also a purely gut instinct that if anything's going to
happen, you hope you're all together, especially when they're
elementary-school age and completely dependent on you. That's both
caring and selfish -- caring in that you KNOW what the aftermath is like
for those left behind (esp kids that age), and selfish in that you don't
want to go and leave them behind to have lives that you won't experience
with them. The redeeming thing is that once they're older and you KNOW
they'd be able to understand, care for themselves (with help) and be
okay if anything happened to you, you can be more okay with them moving
forward in your absence.

Not only is that a possibility if you fly (or fill in the blank with any
other activity), it's also a medical possibility, and we have way less
control over that, assuming we take reasonably good care of ourselves,
than we do over safety in activities. Don't we all know of someone who
was WAY too young when a terminal illness struck without warning and
took them?

> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
> that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.

Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
failing.

Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns? We'd done a simulated engine
failure approach *and landing* on a dirt strip two weeks prior to our
accident. Just having thought about and actually flown the procedure and
then critiqued it later (it went very well but there's always something
you may have done differently/better) may have saved a few precious
seconds in thinking/reacting in the actual emergency. We continue to
practice engine-outs frequently, and not over airports that we're
comfortable flying in and out of -- but it's surprising how many pilots
only do them during BFRs or when getting checked-out in a rental
aircraft.

> I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:
>
> 1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.
>
> 2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
> week.

Although true, #2 doesn't usually do much to comfort anyone who is
worried about a loved one that flies.

My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
pictures! But I understood. She's a CFI now and also just became an ATC.
We've flown together some, and I'm comfortable that she's a safe,
competent pilot (and a good CFI) ... but I admit that it's still easier
to hear about her flights after rather than before the fact!

> Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
> alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
> -- in my world -- that means flying.

;-) -- a sentiment most of us agree with. The afternoon of our
accident, when we were driving back to the airport (plane was totaled),
we asked each other if we would fly again, and we both said "I don't
know." That feeling (sadness and uncertainty) lasted for two days. On
the third day, I awoke ANGRY and wanted to complete the flight that we'd
begun the day of the accident.

I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.

Shirl

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
>week.

Statistically, that's true. In human terms, though, my wife knows maybe
25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
daughters.)



--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works.

[news.verizon.net]

Have survived ( just barely ) a engine loss/crash , I went back up as soon
as I could. It was a little bit easier for me as I had no memory of the
accident.

John

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
>> they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
>> without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
>> odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
>> them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.
>
> I don't think that's odd, Jay. No parent wants anything bad to happen to
> their kids, and most would give their own lives to save their children;
> but there's also a purely gut instinct that if anything's going to
> happen, you hope you're all together, especially when they're
> elementary-school age and completely dependent on you. That's both
> caring and selfish -- caring in that you KNOW what the aftermath is like
> for those left behind (esp kids that age), and selfish in that you don't
> want to go and leave them behind to have lives that you won't experience
> with them. The redeeming thing is that once they're older and you KNOW
> they'd be able to understand, care for themselves (with help) and be
> okay if anything happened to you, you can be more okay with them moving
> forward in your absence.
>
> Not only is that a possibility if you fly (or fill in the blank with any
> other activity), it's also a medical possibility, and we have way less
> control over that, assuming we take reasonably good care of ourselves,
> than we do over safety in activities. Don't we all know of someone who
> was WAY too young when a terminal illness struck without warning and
> took them?
>
>> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
>> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
>> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
>> that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.
>
> Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
> do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
> failing.
>
> Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
> places you aren't used to flying patterns? We'd done a simulated engine
> failure approach *and landing* on a dirt strip two weeks prior to our
> accident. Just having thought about and actually flown the procedure and
> then critiqued it later (it went very well but there's always something
> you may have done differently/better) may have saved a few precious
> seconds in thinking/reacting in the actual emergency. We continue to
> practice engine-outs frequently, and not over airports that we're
> comfortable flying in and out of -- but it's surprising how many pilots
> only do them during BFRs or when getting checked-out in a rental
> aircraft.
>
>> I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:
>>
>> 1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.
>>
>> 2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
>> week.
>
> Although true, #2 doesn't usually do much to comfort anyone who is
> worried about a loved one that flies.
>
> My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
> the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
> to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
> pictures! But I understood. She's a CFI now and also just became an ATC.
> We've flown together some, and I'm comfortable that she's a safe,
> competent pilot (and a good CFI) ... but I admit that it's still easier
> to hear about her flights after rather than before the fact!
>
>> Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
>> alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
>> -- in my world -- that means flying.
>
> ;-) -- a sentiment most of us agree with. The afternoon of our
> accident, when we were driving back to the airport (plane was totaled),
> we asked each other if we would fly again, and we both said "I don't
> know." That feeling (sadness and uncertainty) lasted for two days. On
> the third day, I awoke ANGRY and wanted to complete the flight that we'd
> begun the day of the accident.
>
> I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
> occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.
>
> Shirl

[Jay Honeck]

> Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
> places you aren't used to flying patterns?

Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...

;-)

> My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
> the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
> to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
> pictures!

Hee hee! I even created a webpage for our son's solo flight, much to
his dismay. (Although I think he appreciates it now...)

> I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
> occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.

Well, my mentor experienced an engine-out landing in a corn field. He
did it expertly, neither damaging himself nor the plane. He flew a
few times after that incident, perhaps to prove to himself that he
could (?), but to my knowledge (he lives in Texas now, so we've lost
touch) he's never flown again.

I think his wife -- an adamant anti-flyer -- had a lot to do with
that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.

Paul,

Sounds pretty familiar... my wife is on the same page as your wife. I
had two co-workers die in a plane crash in 2002, and my boss barely
survived it.

The sad truth is that too many people die in GA accidents, many of
them unnecessarily (bad choices, bad luck, or all of the above).

The best you can do is to be as safe a pilot as you can, demonstrate
to her that you are doing everything you can to stay safe, and resign
yourself to the fact that she probably won't fly much with you. Solo
is how you will do most of your flying unless you have other pilot
friends to go up with.

Dean

[Jay Honeck]

> Statistically, that's true. In human terms, though, my wife knows maybe
> 25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
> years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
> crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
> guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
> another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
> daughters.)

Fear can paralyze people. If you read the papers, you'd never leave
your home, for fear of catastrophe at every step.

We've lost 3 friends to two flying accidents this year. One was
probably fuel exhaustion, the other was probably flying VFR into
IMC. These are the kinds of accidents it is easy to explain away
("That will never happen to me!") but in both cases the pilots were
known to be meticulous, skilled operators. So what can you do?

The kinds of crashes that REALLY scare me are the ones where a control
surface fails, or a wing comes off in flight. There was a Cherokee
235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
Grumman seaplane in Florida?

Second scariest (to me) are mid-airs, but that's not too worrisome out
here in the wide-open spaces of Iowa. Still, it happens, and it's (of
course) the one you DON'T see is the one that gets ya.

We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.

Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
grandkids...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

I for one am sold on the idea of a BRS. Lots of pilots poo poo the
idea, but I have seen lots of fatals that could have benefited from a
BRS, especially mid-airs that take off wings and tails but leave the
fuselage intact. The BRS is a last resort option for things that
might happen outside your control as a pilot.

Being conservative as a pilot is the best thing you can do, and I am
firmly in that camp. There is still a lot of fun to be had as a
conservative pilot.

Dean

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.

She's right.

> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her?

Follow her advice, and come back alive.

> The pilot community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.

I don't blame her. That's a lot of death, and it doesn't speak very well of
general aviation.

You can tell her that general aviation is safe when done correctly, which is
true. And you can prove it by flying aircraft that are properly maintained,
and flying in a safe way.

Overall, flying a small aircraft is about as dangerous as riding on a
motorcycle with someone. However, you can reduce the danger dramatically as a
pilot by safe flying practices and by flying only aircraft that are in good
condition and well maintained.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> I'm a student pilot, and I am very curious to know what percentage of
> that 32 can be attributed to pilot error.

Most such accidents are due to pilot error. Many of the rest are due to poor
maintenance.

A safe pilot in a well maintained aircraft isn't at much risk. Unfortunately,
there are lots of stupid pilots around flying poorly maintained aircraft, and
that makes the overall statistics rather grim.

> Then, in an epiphanous moment, I thought, "Darwinism
> might be in action, at this very moment. Pull over." I calmly pulled
> my bike over to side of road, turned it off, parked it, and waited, in
> total darkness, for 15 minutes until my circulation got right again.
> My legs were so cramped, I could barely dismount without falling over.
> I have no idea whether I would have wrecked if I had tried to hold out
> those last 8 miles. But that's the point. I did not, because I made
> sure. I managed my risk.

Well done.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
> that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
> anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.

What was the actual cause of his accident?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
> that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some point.

If you are indeed that conscientious, the risk is very small. Perhaps "****
happens," but not nearly as often as people who prefer to avoid or deny
responsibility would like to believe.

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
> do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
> failing.

Was it your own aircraft?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> Paul,
>
> Sounds pretty familiar... my wife is on the same page as your wife. I
> had two co-workers die in a plane crash in 2002, and my boss barely
> survived it.
>
> The sad truth is that too many people die in GA accidents, many of
> them unnecessarily (bad choices, bad luck, or all of the above).
>
> The best you can do is to be as safe a pilot as you can, demonstrate
> to her that you are doing everything you can to stay safe, and resign
> yourself to the fact that she probably won't fly much with you. Solo
> is how you will do most of your flying unless you have other pilot
> friends to go up with.
>
> Dean
>

Every time somebody drills a hole in the ground the "fear factor" can
and many times goes up for the families of some GA pilots.

It's a fact of life if you choose to fly. Wives especially are subject
to this fear factor and the basic reason for it sometimes escapes their
pilot husbands.
Wives can justify traffic dangers for example, where cars pass each
other going in opposite directions at closing speeds of up to 100mph a
scant 3 feet apart and at the same time worry themselves sick over a
husband getting killed in the airplane he flies for pleasure.
One of the reasons for this is that wives have a tendency to accept what
MUST be done as normal to everyday life, but flying on the other hand is
an optional endeavor and therefore a choice that not only adds to the
danger factor of life, but could have been avoided by the husband.
Make no mistake about it; at least part of what wives fear isn't fear at
all but rather a suppressed feeling that the dangers involved in flying
can be easily avoided if the husband didn't fly. Add children to this
equation and wives can begin to show a real concern for "any" risk they
deem to be an unnecessary risk taken by their husbands.
You can beat the psychology of all this to death, but the bottom line
for people who are individually involved in flying and have families, is
that for some of these individuals, this is an issue that might very
well come up and have to be dealt with.
How each pilot deals with this has to be based on individual situations
and no pat answer is available.
The bottom line is that if you choose to fly and have a family, the
chances are (with rare exceptions) that this decision to fly has been
made by YOU as an individual. To a wife, this can very well mean that
although she has gone along with you on this decision, that she has
suppressed fears and negative thoughts about the risks to HER FAMILY
that you making your decision to fly might not have considered as
seriously as you might have considered the issue.
As I have said previously, there's no set way to handle this situation
that fits everybody. If you make a decision to fly and you have a
family, it's up to YOU to consider the peripheral aspects of this
decision and how it might effect your family.
What works for one pilot won't work with another.
What worked for me was to seriously bring my wife into my world. I
listened to her fears and took them seriously and made damn sure she
KNEW I was taking them seriously. The end result in our case was that my
wife accepted the fact that I was working in a higher than normal risk
area and that I was not only aware of that but capable of dealing with
it on a constant basis. When she realized that the odds were in her
favor on my personal survival in this business, she relaxed and became
an active part of my flying rather than a bystander.
I should add here as well that there are indeed some wives out there who
will never lose their fear when it comes to flying. This is the exact
reason that I have encouraged EVERY student I have ever taught to fly
who had a family to sit down early and involve the family in the decision.
Informed wives are better prepared to handle aviation than uninformed wives.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
> > places you aren't used to flying patterns?

Jay:
> Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
> outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

I just had a major engine overhaul done (Lycoming O-320) by a reputable
place. We're still in the break-in phase (15 hours to first oil change,
25 hours with no unusual airwork or touch-n-goes). I'm going to call and
ask the engine shop what their thoughts are about simulated engine
failures harming a healthy engine.

> We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...

I used to work at a flight school. It's amazing what people do in rental
birds that they wouldn't THINK of doing in their own! That said, those
airplanes are doing slow flight, stalls, engine-out practices and even
spin training (in some), and they keep faithfully building hours. Yes,
they are inspected every 100 hours and maintained reasonably well --
i.e., if it's necessary, yes; if it's optional, no -- but flight
school/rental airplanes aren't babied like privately-owned airplanes,
and in fact, they do all the things people say are "the worst thing you
can do to an engine" on a regular basis, yet most of them just keep on
ticking. Most get FLOWN a lot more often than privately-owned aircraft,
but doesn't seem that alone would make up for all the time they spend
doing "the worst possible things".

Will let you know what they say.

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
> > do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
> > failing.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Was it your own aircraft?

Yes. It's a rare occurrence. When something like this happens, you then
hear accounts from the few who knew of something similar. One such
account was of a NEW oil cooler that failed in its first 3 hours. No way
to predict it. Flushing/Pressure testing at suggested intervals may help
prevent it (I've heard a huge variance in what that suggested interval
should be -- there doesn't appear to be a black-and-white regulation).

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:

DH> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to
DH> convince her that rather than denying any danger exists, you
DH> are completely aware of the potential for danger in flying and
DH> are capable of avoiding that danger by the way you approach
DH> the issue of flying.

And this (saying you are are a safe pilot) is easier if you are a safe
person.

Do you speed on the highway? Zip between lanes?

Reckless with money or other areas of life that give her cause to
doubt?

My wife and I have an understanding, mostly unspoken but very real: I
don't twist her arm to go flying with me, she doesn't nag me to
stop. I don't take stupid risks, she doesn't stupidly question why I
like to fly. Maybe that's where you'll have to arrive.
--
It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh
at that man.
- Jack Handey

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 9:55 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Paul Tomblin writes:
> > The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
> > because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> > corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
> > that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
> > anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.
>
> What was the actual cause of his accident?

He crashed.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 02:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident.

Sorry, but you've peaked my curiosity a bit. I'm wondering how a DE, who
should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
stupid accident.

Can you tell us what happened?

--
Dallas

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 02:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
>> died in a stupid accident.
>
> Sorry, but you've peaked my curiosity a bit. I'm wondering how a DE, who
> should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
> stupid accident.
>
> Can you tell us what happened?
>

Happens frequently. I'm working with an accident right now that involves
a highly experienced demonstration pilot who suddenly and for no
apparent reason began a Split S at an altitude below that required for a
recovery.
Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack
of a better term. The study on how to prevent this from happening both
to myself and to others has occupied a great of my time for the last
fifty years or so.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Brian[_1_]]

As just a bit of food for thought, how conservative are you?

Are you conservative in that you limit the size of the box of aviation
activities and behaviors that you expose yourself to?

This is the normal definition that most pilots apply to
being conservative. The down side is that it can also limit your
abilities as a pilot. So the box of abilities that you carry with you
as a pilot can deteriorate down to size of the box of activities you
limit yourself to. I don't think this is being as conservative as most
people think it is.

How long should a conservative pilot go without doing any of the
following?
Stalls
Spin Recoveries
Slow Flight
Short Field Landings
Simulated Engine Failures
Simulated Control Failures
Flight by reference to the Instruments
An Instrument Approach
Reviewing specific aircraft emergency procedures.

The truly conservative pilot won't do these with passengers aboard or
maybe even by himself. He may insist on having an experienced
instructor with him while he practices these kinds of procedures
frequently. But if a pilot only does these things once every two
years for his flight review is he really being conservative? Is he
even safe if he hasn't done any of this for nearly two years? He may
be safe as long as nothing bad happens that puts him outside of his
"conservative" box.


To really be conservative you would be expanding your piloting
abilities rather than limiting them. The challenge here is to expand
you abilities without creating undue hazard doing so. So go get that
Instrument, Commercial or tail wheel rating. Go get a good instructor
and practice emergency procedures every few months. You don't need to
expand the box of activities you do normally, but you will be ensuring
that your abilities stay larger than the box you normally fly in.

This way when you are forced to inadvertently fly outside normal
personal limitations, there is a fair chance you will have the
abilities to deal with it.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
you carry with you as a pilot can deterioate down to size of the box
of activities you limit youself to.

[[email protected]]

> My wife and I have an understanding, mostly unspoken but very real: I
> don't twist her arm to go flying with me, she doesn't nag me to
> stop. I don't take stupid risks, she doesn't stupidly question why I
> like to fly. Maybe that's where you'll have to arrive.
> --

Yep, pretty much where I am (but she does make a remark on flying from
time to time).

Dean

[Paul Riley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>> tickets
>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>
> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've buried
> 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through forty of
> those years and knew many of these people personally.
> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to
> others.
> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
> I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
> about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
> situation as a pleasure pilot.
> I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
> enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
> consideration to my advice.
> When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can of
> course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
> favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a safe
> pastime.
> But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
> Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
> that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.
>
>
> In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
> flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
> what can happen when things go wrong.
>
> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
> her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
> of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
> danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.
>
> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your wife
> that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude that
> is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
> What you want to do is steer your wife into thinking of you as a pilot
> separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
> INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as just
> another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group where some
> get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks at you
> individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of danger and
> competent enough to stay away from it.
> She will feel better knowing that.
>
> All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will solve
> these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once in a
> while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can address
> this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes understanding, but
> most of all it means recognizing her fears as legitimate instead of down
> playing them with safety statistics.
> Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
> that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
> Hope this advice has been of some help.
> DH
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Hello to all,

If you don't mind, Dudley, I would like to add my 2 cents worth to what you
said, and with which I totally agree.

I am a retired US Army Master Aviator. I have a wife, and two children. We
have been married for 51 years. I started flying in 1959, Fixed Wing, and
Rotary Wing. Spent two years of my Army career in Vietnam, flying gunships
and slicks.

My wife and I talked about my going to flight school at great length. She
understood the risks, and how much I wanted this, and stood by my decision
to go.

While she worried while I was deployed, she kept the home fires burning. She
supported me , and understood while there was danger, there was also danger
in driving a car on the highway and getting hit by some drunk driver. She
also put up with two tours (unaccompanied) in Korea during this time. What
can I say--she was an Army wife, God Bless them all.

I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and then,
after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not economically
something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying retirement
activities

She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
these years, but I try.

My point with all this. As Dudley says, if you get your wife on board, all
will be well, If not, then I know many of my fellow Army aviators that have
gone through some bad times related to their flying and career choices.

Best wishes to you.

Paul

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>>> 10.
>>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>>> tickets
>>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>>> club
>>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>>
>>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>>> careful.
>>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>>> on.
>>>
>>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>>
>>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>>> plane.
>>>
>> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
>> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've buried
>> 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through forty of
>> those years and knew many of these people personally.
>> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to
>> others.
>> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
>> I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
>> about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
>> situation as a pleasure pilot.
>> I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
>> enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
>> consideration to my advice.
>> When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can of
>> course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
>> favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a safe
>> pastime.
>> But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
>> Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
>> that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.
>>
>>
>> In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
>> flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
>> what can happen when things go wrong.
>>
>> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
>> her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
>> of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
>> danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.
>>
>> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your wife
>> that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude that
>> is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
>> What you want to do is steer your wife into thinking of you as a pilot
>> separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
>> INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as just
>> another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group where some
>> get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks at you
>> individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of danger and
>> competent enough to stay away from it.
>> She will feel better knowing that.
>>
>> All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will solve
>> these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once in a
>> while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can address
>> this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes understanding, but
>> most of all it means recognizing her fears as legitimate instead of down
>> playing them with safety statistics.
>> Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
>> that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
>> Hope this advice has been of some help.
>> DH
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Hello to all,
>
> If you don't mind, Dudley, I would like to add my 2 cents worth to what you
> said, and with which I totally agree.
>
> I am a retired US Army Master Aviator. I have a wife, and two children. We
> have been married for 51 years. I started flying in 1959, Fixed Wing, and
> Rotary Wing. Spent two years of my Army career in Vietnam, flying gunships
> and slicks.
>
> My wife and I talked about my going to flight school at great length. She
> understood the risks, and how much I wanted this, and stood by my decision
> to go.
>
> While she worried while I was deployed, she kept the home fires burning. She
> supported me , and understood while there was danger, there was also danger
> in driving a car on the highway and getting hit by some drunk driver. She
> also put up with two tours (unaccompanied) in Korea during this time. What
> can I say--she was an Army wife, God Bless them all.
>
> I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
> wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and then,
> after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not economically
> something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying retirement
> activities
>
> She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
> out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
> these years, but I try.
>
> My point with all this. As Dudley says, if you get your wife on board, all
> will be well, If not, then I know many of my fellow Army aviators that have
> gone through some bad times related to their flying and career choices.
>
> Best wishes to you.
>
> Paul
>
>
I wish you and your wife all the best Paul.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> I should add here as well that there are indeed some wives out there who
> will never lose their fear when it comes to flying.

And why should they? GA flying is quite dangerous compared to driving. Their
fear is only rational.

> This is the exact reason that I have encouraged EVERY student I have ever
> taught to fly who had a family to sit down early and involve the family in
> the decision.

Good advice.

> Informed wives are better prepared to handle aviation than uninformed wives.

Indeed. Alas, many are misinformed, deliberately or otherwise. They may be
told that the drive to the airport is more dangerous than the flight. True
for driving vs. scheduled airline travel; profoundly untrue for driving vs.
private flying.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Shirl]

Jay's wrote:
>"Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine
>has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There
>is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use)
>that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do
>them very rarely."

I called the overhaul shop that just did a major engine overhaul on my
Lycoming O-320. First, these guys have been there for years and came
highly recommended by several independent sources in my search for a
reputable place to take the engine. I posed the question -- "How harmful
to a healthy engine is simulated engine failure practice?" I told him
that it was said that simulated engine-out practice is the worst thing
you can do to your engine.

He said he disagrees and assumed your concern was probably about shock
cooling, but said that while everyone needs to be aware of that, it is
of much greater concern with high-performance, turbo-charged engines
where people chop power and dive for the ground. With the 0-320, he said
in colder areas (I'm in AZ), you would use carb heat, and of course he
recommended what all CFIs I've ever flown with have done -- "clear" the
engine by adding some power for a few seconds one or two times during
the power-off glide/descent. Yes, that takes a little of the "reality"
out of the drill, but it is, in fact, practice/simulated.

He went on to say that if it were THAT easy to damage the engine by
pulling the power back to idle, how about when you pull the power abeam
the numbers and the hot engine is at idle through the rest of the
approach, landing and taxi and then is shut down completely (standard
practice every time for some)? He commented that it would be tricky to
just shut down a hot engine without damaging it if pulling power back to
idle is all it would take to do so.

You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
an engine than simulated engine-outs.

I'm just the messenger on this one, not a mechanic, and being a girl, I
did not grow up tinkering with engines. But I dealt regularly with the
mechanics when I worked at the flight school, and I never heard them or
any that have worked on my airplane(s) say anything about simulated
engine failures being potentially dangerous to the engines.

Shirl

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack of
> a better term.

Quite so. And the consequences of a pilot's BF are much more likely to be
fatal than a driver's.

Yet we often see posts in these groups from pilots who imagine that their
superior judgent and skill have made them sufficiently immune from these
lapses that they are safer flying than driving. This rather juvenile illusion
of superiority contributes to the distressing fatal accident rate of private
GA flying, I believe.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings,

How so?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
>> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack of
>> a better term.
>
> Quite so. And the consequences of a pilot's BF are much more likely to be
> fatal than a driver's.
>
> Yet we often see posts in these groups from pilots who imagine that their
> superior judgent and skill have made them sufficiently immune from these
> lapses that they are safer flying than driving. This rather juvenile illusion
> of superiority contributes to the distressing fatal accident rate of private
> GA flying, I believe.
>
>

Pilots have to learn early on that there is a difference between
confidence and over confidence. They also have to learn that being a so
called "conservative" pilot doesn't mean that when aggressive action is
required NOW that they will have the option of thinking out the problem.
Flying is not unlike many other endeavors where preparation, practice,
training, and the ability to think on your feet are absolute essentials
to survival.
Pilots who concentrate on only one of the many aspects required of the
flying venue are the ones prone to accidents.
It's fine to have superior skill. In fact, for a pilot, it's a
requirement. Where the problem arises isn't in thinking you have
superior skill. The problem arises when you think you have superior
skill and actually don't have it. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
>> places you aren't used to flying patterns?
>
> Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
> outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.

I personally think that is a myth. I've read about shock cooling until
I'm blue in the face and I simply don't buy it. However, the main
reason is that my primary flight instructor, who is also an A&P and was
an airport manager for many years, always flew all of his airplanes on
power-off gliding approaches. He operated 2 C-150s, 1 C-172 and 2 C-182
for probably two decades and several other airplanes for the two
decades prior to when I met him.

He operated N38 for something like 45 years and flew scenic tours over
the PA Grand Canyon in his 182s and 172. These flights lasted 10-15
minutes and he glided power-off from pattern altitude to landing and
shut-down between runs. His airplanes were started, stopped and "shock
cooled" literally dozens of times every Saturday and Sunday. His 150s
trained students to also fly the way he flew (I'm one of them).

He never had a engine failure in these airplanes to my knowledge and
they routinely ran to TBO. He often groused how the FAA made him
rebuild a perfectly good engine just because he was a commercial operator!

So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.

Let the games begin! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Shirl wrote:
> Jay's wrote:
>> "Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine
>> has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There
>> is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use)
>> that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do
>> them very rarely."
>
> I called the overhaul shop that just did a major engine overhaul on my
> Lycoming O-320. First, these guys have been there for years and came
> highly recommended by several independent sources in my search for a
> reputable place to take the engine. I posed the question -- "How harmful
> to a healthy engine is simulated engine failure practice?" I told him
> that it was said that simulated engine-out practice is the worst thing
> you can do to your engine.
>
> He said he disagrees and assumed your concern was probably about shock
> cooling, but said that while everyone needs to be aware of that, it is
> of much greater concern with high-performance, turbo-charged engines
> where people chop power and dive for the ground. With the 0-320, he said
> in colder areas (I'm in AZ), you would use carb heat, and of course he
> recommended what all CFIs I've ever flown with have done -- "clear" the
> engine by adding some power for a few seconds one or two times during
> the power-off glide/descent. Yes, that takes a little of the "reality"
> out of the drill, but it is, in fact, practice/simulated.
>
> He went on to say that if it were THAT easy to damage the engine by
> pulling the power back to idle, how about when you pull the power abeam
> the numbers and the hot engine is at idle through the rest of the
> approach, landing and taxi and then is shut down completely (standard
> practice every time for some)? He commented that it would be tricky to
> just shut down a hot engine without damaging it if pulling power back to
> idle is all it would take to do so.
>
> You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
> in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
> schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
> than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
> remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
> in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
> an engine than simulated engine-outs.
>
> I'm just the messenger on this one, not a mechanic, and being a girl, I
> did not grow up tinkering with engines. But I dealt regularly with the
> mechanics when I worked at the flight school, and I never heard them or
> any that have worked on my airplane(s) say anything about simulated
> engine failures being potentially dangerous to the engines.

Your mechanic is a wise man (or woman!).

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 02:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>>> tickets
>>> died in a stupid accident.
>>
>> Sorry, but you've peaked my curiosity a bit. I'm wondering how a DE, who
>> should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
>> stupid accident.
>>
>> Can you tell us what happened?
>>
>
> Happens frequently. I'm working with an accident right now that involves
> a highly experienced demonstration pilot who suddenly and for no
> apparent reason began a Split S at an altitude below that required for a
> recovery.
> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack
> of a better term. The study on how to prevent this from happening both
> to myself and to others has occupied a great of my time for the last
> fifty years or so.
>

What are your preliminary conclusions as to how to prevent this?
Obviously, ruling out the "stupid acts" is fairly easy, but I also
wonder about the pilots who really and truly seem very careful and
meticulous yet someone succumb to an apparent moment of weakness.

Matt

[Union Thug]

On Oct 1, 12:42 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
> She flies with me if we're going somewhere she wants to go. But 90% of
> the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
> I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.

Paul,
I have a similar situation after two local plane wrecks in two
consecutive weekends. My wife met both of the pilots a few weeks
prior. I liken General aviation to driving a sports car or riding a
motorcycle, we do what we can to mitigate the risks, but in the end we
accept certain inherent risks because of the reward (To us anyways).
This does not hold true for our families ! I would sugest that if your
wife doesnt enjoy flying you should not drag her along but find a
pastime the two of you enjoy and just go flying on your own time. The
reason that I bring this up is because I have met two women over the
course of my flying career who lost their families (Spouse and kids)
to GA accidents. Hope this helps ,
K Baum
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> "I've gone through over-stressed to physical exhaustion -- what's next?"
> "Tuesday."
> -- Simon Burr and Kyle Hearn

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>On Oct 1, 9:55 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> What was the actual cause of his accident?
>
>He crashed.

Failure to maintain separation from the ground.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of
mercury.
-- Biff

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>He crashed.
>
> Failure to maintain separation from the ground.

C'mon, guys. Don't respond to the bozo, even with glib remarks. Everyone
has been doing pretty good on refraining, lately.
--
Jim in NC

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Can you tell us what happened?

A Piper Navajo has a very complex fuel system, and you're not supposed to
take off or land on the outer tanks, nor are you supposed to use them in
maneuvering flight if they're less than half full. His plane was at a
nearby airport for service on one of the engines. The mechanic who worked
on the plane noted that the fuel selector on the plane was set to the
outer tanks, and the fuel gauges were reading empty.

After the service, both the mechanic and the line guy offered to call the
fuel truck, but the pilot said he was in a hurry because he wanted to get
out on his boat.

On the flight back to his home base, he reported that an engine had failed
(the one that had just been worked on) and he was returning to the airport
he'd just departed. A few minutes later he reported that the other engine
had failed as well, and he was going to try to land at a near-by airport,
then he reported he wasn't going to make that airport and he was going to
try for a field.

The plane crashed, he died, and one side burned. The other side had
nearly full inner and middle tanks. The fuel selectors in the plane were
still set to the outer tanks.

As far as anybody can speculate, he must have thought the first engine
failure was due to problems with the new engine, not a fuel problem, but
nobody can explain why he didn't switch tanks when the second one failed.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Ahhh, the permie offer. The "Please sign up with us clueless fsckwits
so you can spend all your time digging us out at a pittance" offer.
-- Dan Holdsworth

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> As far as anybody can speculate, he must have thought the first engine
> failure was due to problems with the new engine, not a fuel problem, but
> nobody can explain why he didn't switch tanks when the second one failed.

A very sad story.
I'm only a new pilot, but I reakon that the first thing my eye would go to
if I had an engine failure would be the fuel gauges. It just seems like
common sense or instinct to me. Maybe when you're faced with an engine
failure, common sense can sometimes go out the window in the panic.
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Crash Lander" > said:
>common sense or instinct to me. Maybe when you're faced with an engine
>failure, common sense can sometimes go out the window in the panic.

That's why as a student pilot you're drilled on the emergency checklist
until you know it without thinking. I don't know about the plane you fly,
but on mine it's
1. FLY THE PLANE
2. Pick a landing spot
3. FLY THE PLANE
4. Everything forward (throttle, prop, mixture)
5. FLY THE PLANE
6. Everything up (flaps, gear)
7. FLY THE PLANE
8. Fuel pump on. Switch tanks.
9. FLY THE PLANE
10. Carb heat or alternate air
11. FLY THE PLANE
12. Make emergency radio calls
13. FLY THE PLANE
14. Prepare to land.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
God is real, unless declared as an integer.

[Margy Natalie]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
> plane.
>

You're right honey, those rentals can be dangerous, we'd better buy our
own plane :-).

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
....
> We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
> superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
> we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
> don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
> fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
> much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
>
> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
I always say "boring flying is good flying" when it gets exciting it
usually means you did something stupid.

Margy
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...
>> We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
>> superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
>> we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
>> don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
>> fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
>> much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
>>
>> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
>> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
>> grandkids...
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
> I always say "boring flying is good flying" when it gets exciting it
> usually means you did something stupid.
>
> Margy
>>

.......................oh, I don't know........... :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter R.]

On 10/1/2007 5:42:34 PM, "Paul Riley" wrote:

> I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
> wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and
> then, after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not
> economically something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying
> retirement activities
>
> She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
> out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
> these years, but I try.

There are some people, even on Usenet, that just exude class and honor. Paul,
IMO you are one such gentleman.


--
Peter

[Margy Natalie]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
>>> superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
>>> we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
>>> don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
>>> fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
>>> much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
>>>
>>> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
>>> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
>>> grandkids...
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> I always say "boring flying is good flying" when it gets exciting it
>> usually means you did something stupid.
>>
>> Margy
>>
>>>
>
> ......................oh, I don't know........... :-))
>
Well, fun flying can be fun (but I tend to deposit my breakfast on the
neighbor's shrubbery soon after) but exciting, sucking in the seat
cushion flying is NOT fun. I'd much rather leave my plane in Richmond
or Lancaster (done both this year) than have an exciting flight home.
Avis loves us. Of course when the duputy director of the museum informs
you that you can "take whatever time you need" to go retrive your plane
it helps. I love having a job where I'd be in more trouble if I scud
run home to get to work on Monday than if I didn't show up :-).

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>
>>2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
>>week.
>
>
> Statistically, that's true. In human terms, though, my wife knows maybe
> 25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
> years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
> crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
> guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
> another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
> daughters.)
>
>
>
I'd rather die in my plane then get kidnapped, etc. For sure!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
>>>> superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
>>>> we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
>>>> don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
>>>> fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
>>>> much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
>>>>
>>>> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
>>>> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
>>>> grandkids...
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Honeck
>>>> Iowa City, IA
>>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>> I always say "boring flying is good flying" when it gets exciting it
>>> usually means you did something stupid.
>>>
>>> Margy
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ......................oh, I don't know........... :-))
>>
> Well, fun flying can be fun (but I tend to deposit my breakfast on the
> neighbor's shrubbery soon after) but exciting, sucking in the seat
> cushion flying is NOT fun. I'd much rather leave my plane in Richmond
> or Lancaster (done both this year) than have an exciting flight home.
> Avis loves us. Of course when the duputy director of the museum informs
> you that you can "take whatever time you need" to go retrive your plane
> it helps. I love having a job where I'd be in more trouble if I scud
> run home to get to work on Monday than if I didn't show up :-).
>
> Margy

This just shows that you're a first class pilot Margy. It's like Kenny
Rogers says, "You gotta know when to fold up" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Travis Marlatte]

This is the same approach the the King's have been pushing for a couple of
years. Flying is dangerous (as is crossing the street). Denying the danger
by citing safety stats is not addressing the inherent risks.

Dudley's advice is right on. Convince her that you are aware of the risks
and dangers and that you work proactively to avoid them. That doesn't mean
that you will fly forever but it does increase the odds. Nothing in life is
risk free. There are many people who have a similar experiences related to
other activites. Entire families that are killed in a car crash. Tornadoes
wipe out entire towns. Etc.

That and, gosh honey, maybe we should spend the money for a twin engine
plane and put in a stormscope and a better autopilot and a ...

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>> tickets
>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>
> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've buried
> 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through forty of
> those years and knew many of these people personally.
> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to
> others.
> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
> I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
> about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
> situation as a pleasure pilot.
> I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
> enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
> consideration to my advice.
> When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can of
> course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
> favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a safe
> pastime.
> But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
> Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
> that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.
>
>
> In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
> flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
> what can happen when things go wrong.
>
> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
> her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
> of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
> danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.
>
> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your wife
> that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude that
> is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
> What you want to do is steer your wife into thinking of you as a pilot
> separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
> INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as just
> another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group where some
> get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks at you
> individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of danger and
> competent enough to stay away from it.
> She will feel better knowing that.
>
> All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will solve
> these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once in a
> while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can address
> this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes understanding, but
> most of all it means recognizing her fears as legitimate instead of down
> playing them with safety statistics.
> Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
> that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
> Hope this advice has been of some help.
> DH
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Travis Marlatte]

I like that approach. When the day comes that the weather is right and the
rest of IMSAFE, she'll have a hard time stopping you. She'll feel so sorry
for all the times you didn't go. For that matter, I may just start planning
to fly every day... Think of the sympathy points!

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"BT" > wrote in message
...
> I'll echo Dudley.. and add .. let her see that you are actively staying up
> to speed to remain safe
> - get on the faa mailing list and attend local pilot safety meetings
> - attend AOPA safety meetings.. take their on line courses
> - take a weather course..
> - add that next rating.. a commercial rating is the simplest to add.. a
> new rating means "additional training received".
> - don't wait for a sunny day and decide to go flying.. pick a day two to
> three weeks out.. and then if the weather is bad or something "just is not
> right"... make the decision not to go and let her know why you decided
> that it was not a good day to fly.. maybe it was just because you had a
> "bad day" at the office the day before.. and "your mind was not in the
> game".. remember and practice IMSAFE
>
> BT
>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>> tickets
>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
>> ...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
>> suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
>> interpreter. -- Nick Petreley
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
> in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
> schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
> than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
> remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
> in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
> an engine than simulated engine-outs.

My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
says it this way:

The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
inactivity.

Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
are flown all day, every day.

Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
end. Bad, bad, bad.

Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
engine any more than necessary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
> is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
> landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.

I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
fairly insignificant.

But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
are harder on an engine than steady-state operation. Touch & goes
and engine out practice require this type of engine operation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Was it your own aircraft?
>
> Yes. It's a rare occurrence. When something like this happens, you then
> hear accounts from the few who knew of something similar. One such
> account was of a NEW oil cooler that failed in its first 3 hours.

Our oil cooler failed last year, too. Luckily it was a relatively
slow leak, and we weren't even aware of it till we landed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Sep 30, 10:58 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.

Paul,
How about trying to get her more involved in flight planning:
checking the weather, obtaining airport information etc? If she is
not interested in direct planning, you can explain to her your flight
planning procedure, your go or no-go criteria. Knowing more about the
flight will certainly make her feel more at ease. The same goes when
she is flying with you, you can ask her to help out by reading the
map, looking out for traffic, learning to use the GPS to check for
nearest airport, terrain etc. I'd think that being activively involved
in the flying process will make one feel safer, more in control.
Someone had already suggested you to attend safety seminars,
getting additional training, practicing emergency procedures. By doing
those things and letting your wife know that you are doing it, will
certainly make her feel safer. Better yet, take her along to safety
seminars. We attend safety seminars regularly and saw quite a few of
non-flying spouses.

Hai Longworth

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Oct 1, 4:47 pm, Brian > wrote:
> As just a bit of food for thought, how conservative are you?
>
> Are you conservative in that you limit the size of the box of aviation
> activities and behaviors that you expose yourself to?
>
>
Brian,
Great advices. Thanks.

Hai Longworth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

You don't fly and you wil never have a wife so you don't get to say
anything, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that
>> worked because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he
>> was a known corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two
>> died, I had to admit that I've flown with one of them a couple of
>> times and I couldn't fault anything he did. He seemed to me careful
>> and methodical and professional.
>
> What was the actual cause of his accident?
>



What's it to you?

You don't fly.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
>> do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
>> failing.
>
> Was it your own aircraft?
>

Why, you'll never have an airplane, wannabe boi

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
>> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
>> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all
>> know that "**** happens", and we could become statistics at some
>> point.
>
> If you are indeed that conscientious, the risk is very small. Perhaps
> "**** happens," but not nearly as often as people who prefer to avoid
> or deny responsibility would like to believe.
>


How would you know?

You don't fly and never will,.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time)
>> for 10. Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and
>> instrument tickets died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a
>> few times at flying club dinners and around the airport. A few weeks
>> ago, a club member who she'd also met several times died in his float
>> plane, a plane that I'd flown in a few weeks before that. He died
>> with his best friend, a former club member who I knew a bit but whom
>> my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own
>> flying. Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk.
>> "Be careful. Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back."
>> Etc. And so on.
>
> She's right.
>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her?
>
> Follow her advice, and come back alive.
>
>> The pilot community is pretty small, and losing three people
>> associated with our little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> I don't blame her. That's a lot of death, and it doesn't speak very
> well of general aviation.
>
> You can tell her that general aviation is safe when done correctly,
> which is true. And you can prove it by flying aircraft that are
> properly maintained, and flying in a safe way.
>
> Overall, flying a small aircraft is about as dangerous as riding on a
> motorcycle with someone. However, you can reduce the danger
> dramatically as a pilot by safe flying practices and by flying only
> aircraft that are in good condition and well maintained.


How would you know, moron?

You don't fly.

Bertie
>

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
> grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --

Is he a pilot? airplane owner?

> says it this way:
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.

They make it to TBO because they are flown many hours per week, the
numbers add up fast, and they are monitored, inspected and maintained
every 100 hours (which might be every other month) ... not simply
because flying them every day enables the engine to withstand doing the
"worst" possible thing 75% of the time it is in use.

> Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
> procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
> suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
> end.

And you do half of that every time you take off and land. That doesn't
damage your engine, but the one extra application of power during a
touch-n-go or go-around is going to do your engine in?

>Bad, bad, bad.

Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.

I understand and agree about inactivity and that most privately-owned
airplanes aren't flown enough. But you're saying that an engine that
flies for 8 hours/month and does touch-n-goes/engine-out practice during
ONE of those hours is more likely to be damaged than an engine that
flies 80 hours a month and does the damaging maneuvers during 60 of
those hours. If it's THAT bad, subjecting it to 60 hours a month would
still take a heavy toll even it flies every day.

I've heard many owners and mechanics agree that the worst possible thing
you can do to an airplane engine is to NOT FLY IT; I've never heard
anyone say that privately owned airplanes aren't flown enough to do
touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures without risking damage to the
engine. In fact, wasn't part of your training getting so familiar with
the airplane that you know how it acts and reacts to as many different
conditions/configurations as possible? How can you do that if you're
afraid that touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures are going to ruin
the engine?

> Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
> were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too.

I've never seen anything in my engine documentation that says it was
designed to be run every day.

> And when you are
> paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
> for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
> engine any more than necessary.

And as an airplane owner, that's your choice and your right.

I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.

Maybe your reactions in a real engine emergency today would be just as
sharp and accurate as they were when you'd been practicing engine-outs
frequently in your private pilot training in school airplanes. I'm not
good enough to maintain that level of competence if I don't continue to
practice it every so often.

In skating, we used to teach students that they could expect to lose up
to 25% of their actual ability/competence during their 4 minute routine
in a competition due to nerves and pressure; so if they wanted to show
the judges 100% of their capabilities, they have to be skating at 125%
in the weeks prior to the competition. I don't know if those numbers
translate to flying, but I think the concept itself does. I would hate
to lose a percentage of my ability in an actual emergency if I was only
at 80% to begin with. YMMV, of course. Everyone's different.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>
> But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
> are harder on an engine than steady-state operation.

But *why* do you believe it? Why is it the worst thing you can do to your
engine?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:56:51 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>
>> But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
>> are harder on an engine than steady-state operation.
>
>But *why* do you believe it? Why is it the worst thing you can do to your
>engine?

And why would a pilot use sudden movements of the controls? Aren't we
taught to be smooth?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bob Fry wrote:
> Reckless with money or other areas of life that give her cause to
> doubt?

Wreckless with money? Of course he's wreckless with money. He's a GA pilot.

[Paul Riley]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 10/1/2007 5:42:34 PM, "Paul Riley" wrote:
>
>> I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
>> wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and
>> then, after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not
>> economically something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying
>> retirement activities
>>
>> She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
>> out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
>> these years, but I try.
>
> There are some people, even on Usenet, that just exude class and honor.
> Paul,
> IMO you are one such gentleman.
>
>
> --
> Peter

Thanks Peter,

I am sure there are many others doing the exact same thing I am. My reason
for posting was to let the OP know that wives do adapt and become helpmates
as well as to confirm, from my own experience, all that Dudley said.

Regards,
Paul

[Paul Riley]

Thank you very much Dudley. I appreciate it.

Paul

[brtlmj]

> I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
> fairly insignificant.

Tell it to a towplane owner/operator :-)

Bartek

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Dallas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 02:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>>>> tickets
>>>> died in a stupid accident.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you've peaked my curiosity a bit. I'm wondering how a DE,
>>> who
>>> should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
>>> stupid accident.
>>>
>>> Can you tell us what happened?
>>>
>>
>> Happens frequently. I'm working with an accident right now that
>> involves a highly experienced demonstration pilot who suddenly and for
>> no apparent reason began a Split S at an altitude below that required
>> for a recovery.
>> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for
>> lack of a better term. The study on how to prevent this from happening
>> both to myself and to others has occupied a great of my time for the
>> last fifty years or so.
>>
>
> What are your preliminary conclusions as to how to prevent this?
> Obviously, ruling out the "stupid acts" is fairly easy, but I also
> wonder about the pilots who really and truly seem very careful and
> meticulous yet someone succumb to an apparent moment of weakness.
>
> Matt

Gen Des Barker of the South African Air Force (and ex demonstration and
test pilot) has done an in-depth work on these issues in his book "Zero
Error Margin" where all that has been learned on this subject has been
accumulated in print.
The subject itself is so hefty I wouldn't even try getting into it with
a Usenet post.
Basically what we have discovered in our situation is that although most
display pilots fare well in following set procedures, regulations, and
rules, the breakdown comes at the local level and in many accidents can
be coupled with the psychological circumstances prevailing during an
incident as those circumstances are affecting the individual display pilot.
This is just a pedantic way of saying that what's going on in a pilot's
mental and emotional processes as a display is being flown can under
specific conditions, be a killer.
The fact that we accept these conditions as being present and a danger
doesn't really help us much in solving the issue. The reason for this is
that each pilot will have a specific tolerance for situational
awareness, cockpit over task, and distraction.
In other words, you can take a highly trained professional pilot, fully
checked out on a specific type of aircraft, and with a proven over time
ability to fly a specific demonstration, and that pilot can on a
specific day at a specific instant, make a fatal error.
Again, we realize this can occur, but the actual solution alludes us.
Where we are right now is in making sure we educate the community so
they are collectively aware that this danger lurks out there waiting.
By educating the community to the problem rather than trying to find a
specific "fix" that we believe doesn't exist, we hope to better the
safety record.
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Oct 1, 11:20 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
> outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.
>
> We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...
>

Jay,
If you did practice emergency engine-out landing regularly in
rental birds, you must have believed that it was something useful, so
why doing it very rarely in your own bird?
I have stated it in a previous post (when you mentioned that you
did not practice short field landings in your bird either) that IMHO,
no amount of money is worth life or my limbs ;-). We spent $15K
overhauling our engine few years ago; the total cost including labor
was over $20K. I fly my Cardinal the same way as I flew training
school planes. We practiced emergency procedures and short field
landings regularly. Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number. I had only
done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

Hai Longworth

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> How would you know?

The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience. Most people are
taught many of them in driver education, although many don't absorb what they
are taught.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
> aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience.
>

True. However, they require other things you lack.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Big John]

----clip----

I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or
other occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up
flying.

Shirl

************************************************** ******

Shirl

I ejected from a fighter type aircraft, in the middle of winter, in
the middle of a snow storm, in the middle of Greenland and after being
picked up by a Danish chopper and my return to the 'Big PX', jumped in
another jet and started flying at regular intervals again.

Not even bad dreams.

Continued to fly GA and instruct, after retirement, until came down
with A-Fib which I felt it was not then safe for me to fly.

Now get my kicks from reading and posting to users groups :o)

Big John

[Kingfish]

On Oct 2, 12:27 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.
>
> Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
> were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
> paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
> for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
> engine any more than necessary.
> --

Interesting points you bring up here Jay. I've had similar
conversations with the maintenance mgr at the flight school I taught
at a few years back. As the consumate gearhead, I'm always picking up
data points from mechanics & operators/pilots and attempting to
separate real usable advice from the old wives' tales (and outright
BS) which seem to be prevalent in aviation.

Letting a plane sit idle is bad as it invites corrosion & seals drying
out etc. Starting the engine and letting it run for a 10 minutes
(thinking you're helping by circulating oil) and shutting it down is
even worse, as all that does is introduce more moisture into the
engine. You can't get an engine up to operating temp without flying
it, which will evaporate moisture in the crankcase. Flying is the only
way to properly excercise all the plane's systems IMHO.

Touch & go landings are probably harder on an engine than cruise
flight because of the short cycle heat/cool effect from full power/low
airspeed flight followed by reduced/idle power (repeat ad nauseum) I
think this is much less an issue in a low HP engine like the 160/180HP
O-320/O-360 or even the 200hp IO-360. I'd never do T&G with a high HP
plane like a Saratoga/C210/Bonanza because those engines generate more
heat (I'm told) because of their higher power output, and air cooled
engines can only dissipate so much heat effectively. I have talked to
one pilot who did T&G landings somewhat regularly in a Turbo Bonanza,
which made me cringe. I doubt that engine made it to TBO with its
original cylinders. For those planes, full stop & taxi back landings
are preferred. They also eliminate the possibility of grabbing the
gear handle instead of the flaps when cleaning up the plane on the go.
(seen this happen a few times with predictable results)

After hearing all the stories and warnings about shock cooling, I've
come to understand it's an issue mainly with turbo'd high HP engines
(Duke, 421, P-Navajo) that operate in the flight levels where the
cooling effect is not great. A "chop n drop" approach without careful
CHT monitoring can cost big $$$ if cylinders cool too fast and warp.
This just isn't a problem in a low HP, non-turbo'd aircraft IMO. It
doesn't mean you can be ham-fisted when operating your engine, just
that there's a bigger margin for error with a lower performance acft.

BTW, did your 540 overhaul only cost $20k? That sounds like a steal!

Will

[Jay Honeck]

> BTW, did your 540 overhaul only cost $20k? That sounds like a steal!

Well, that was 5 years ago now, so figure 20% higher today.

And, the guy is just a gem. He's fair, and incredibly knowledgable...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Shirl wrote:
>
>I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
>occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.
>

I had a low altitude engine failure in my first plane (it was totalled). I
never seriously contemplated quitting. Three days after I was released from
the hospital, I joined a flying club and got checked out in one of their
planes. That was 14 yrs. and about 1800 flying hours ago.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> There was a Cherokee
>235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
>far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
>at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
>Grumman seaplane in Florida?
>

I know the final report isn't out on that accident, but the preliminaries
showed obvious signs of overstress failures to both the wings and the tail.
It is not unusual for wings to come off of a GA plane when control is lost
(as seems to be the case in the Cherokee 235) and the recovery is done
improperly ( which is often the case if the pilot has had no aerobatic
training or extensive unusual attitude recovery training).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Longworth" > wrote

> Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
> instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
> we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
> we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
> machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
> and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

Sounds like it would be more fun than the best roller coaster ride!

> I had only
> done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
> often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
> maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
> engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
> but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
> confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
> the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

It sounds like you do have your priorities in line, with the right
compromises of possible engine life sacrifice (a matter not clearly
established) and skills maintenance.

Doing a chop and drop when your engine isn't as hot as a firecracker should
not be harmful, in the least bit. Considerations of the towplane engine
long life is a good example, and one that is hard to argue with. They are
no doubt pretty hot when they start their rapid descent to pick up another
tow.

If one were to start the rapid drop (engine failure simulations) after
letting the engine cool a bit (by reducing power settings, or richening the
mixture, or both) and stabilize for a few minutes, the amount of additional
cooling from that power level, even in a worst case scenario, should not
cause a measurable increase in wear. It is mainly the hot piston cooling
more slowly than the cylinder bore, cutting down on the clearances, that can
increase wear. The stabilizing should eliminate that problem, all together.

The concern of hitting the throttle for a go around may be a concern,
although it is hard to see why that is any harder on the engine as the
takeoff full power applications. If that go around full power is what
concerns you, (or Jay) don't do a go around, except for the occasional
practice, (or real go-around) then just do the full stop, taxi back and
takeoff after everything is nicely cooled down.

I agree with the people that are saying that the practice of emergency
engine failures would have to be a good thing to practice. Doing it
carefully as to not damage your engine would seem to be prudent. Not doing
them may be not prudent.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Big John" <> wrote

> Continued to fly GA and instruct, after retirement, until came down
> with A-Fib which I felt it was not then safe for me to fly.
>
> Now get my kicks from reading and posting to users groups :o)

Do you ever get the chance (or have the desire) to go up with friends and
knock about a bit?
--
Jim in NC

[Paul Riley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
> given time and place.
> It ain't much......but it helps!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>

Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.

Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>> given time and place.
>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley,
>
> You are exactly right.
>
> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
> 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
> on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
> replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
> instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
> the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
> did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
> minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
> Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
> GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
>
> Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
> PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!
>
>

Reminds me of that great line from Fate Is The Hunter by Ernie Gann.
With engines going out one by one on their DC6 on the GCA into Thule I
think it was, the pilot (Rod Taylor) is happily singing away with "Blue
Moon". It's 0-0 and the co-pilot, realizing that they only will have one
shot at the landing is REALLY getting worried. Finally he can't stand it
any longer and interrupts Taylor's singing;
"How the hell can you be so damn calm?"
"Don't worry" says Taylor, "The runway will be there".
"Suppose we screw up the approach. Suppose the radar is off a degree or
two. Suppose the controller is tired. How the HELL are you so certain
the damn runway will actually be there?"
Taylor stops singing just as the number 3 goes dry on fuel. He looks
over laughing at the Co-Pilot and says quietly with a smile,
"Because it HAS to be there, that's why!".
Then they break out and make the landing.
You have to love this story. Gann could really put a flying yarn
together sitting on that mountaintop home of his.
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
>> in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
>> schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
>> than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
>> remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
>> in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
>> an engine than simulated engine-outs.
>
> My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
> grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
> says it this way:
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.
>
> Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
> procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
> suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
> end. Bad, bad, bad.

I don't believe the data supports this as being bad, bad, bad.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> > My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
> > grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
>
> Is he a pilot? airplane owner?

He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)

> They make it to TBO because they are flown many hours per week, the
> numbers add up fast, and they are monitored, inspected and maintained
> every 100 hours (which might be every other month) ... not simply
> because flying them every day enables the engine to withstand doing the
> "worst" possible thing 75% of the time it is in use.

Correct. That's what I was aiming to say, even it if didn't come out
quite right.

> And you do half of that every time you take off and land. That doesn't
> damage your engine, but the one extra application of power during a
> touch-n-go or go-around is going to do your engine in?

Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
*will* break something.

Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
bad thing to do with your engine.

> Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
> they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
> damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
> doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.

Is this damage something you can quantify? When my buddy's engine
crapped out 700 hours before TBO, was it directly attributable to his
doing a zillion touch & goes?

I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
today. THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.

> I understand and agree about inactivity and that most privately-owned
> airplanes aren't flown enough. But you're saying that an engine that
> flies for 8 hours/month and does touch-n-goes/engine-out practice during
> ONE of those hours is more likely to be damaged than an engine that
> flies 80 hours a month and does the damaging maneuvers during 60 of
> those hours. If it's THAT bad, subjecting it to 60 hours a month would
> still take a heavy toll even it flies every day.

I would agree with that. Full power/idle power cycles are very hard
on engines -- and that is what you're doing in a touch & go.

> In fact, wasn't part of your training getting so familiar with
> the airplane that you know how it acts and reacts to as many different
> conditions/configurations as possible? How can you do that if you're
> afraid that touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures are going to ruin
> the engine?

Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
process is something to be avoided.

That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."

Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...

> I've never seen anything in my engine documentation that says it was
> designed to be run every day.

Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
adding oil and gas.

But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)

> I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
> intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
> of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
> in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.

Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...

> In skating, we used to teach students that they could expect to lose up
> to 25% of their actual ability/competence during their 4 minute routine
> in a competition due to nerves and pressure; so if they wanted to show
> the judges 100% of their capabilities, they have to be skating at 125%
> in the weeks prior to the competition. I don't know if those numbers
> translate to flying, but I think the concept itself does. I would hate
> to lose a percentage of my ability in an actual emergency if I was only
> at 80% to begin with. YMMV, of course. Everyone's different.

Agree. Staying sharp is your best defense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
>> is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
>> landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.
>
> I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
> fairly insignificant.
>
> But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
> are harder on an engine than steady-state operation. Touch & goes
> and engine out practice require this type of engine operation.

Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Gen Des Barker of the South African Air Force (and ex demonstration and
> test pilot) has done an in-depth work on these issues in his book "Zero
> Error Margin" where all that has been learned on this subject has been
> accumulated in print.
> The subject itself is so hefty I wouldn't even try getting into it with
> a Usenet post.
> Basically what we have discovered in our situation is that although most
> display pilots fare well in following set procedures, regulations, and
> rules, the breakdown comes at the local level and in many accidents can
> be coupled with the psychological circumstances prevailing during an
> incident as those circumstances are affecting the individual display pilot.
> This is just a pedantic way of saying that what's going on in a pilot's
> mental and emotional processes as a display is being flown can under
> specific conditions, be a killer.
> The fact that we accept these conditions as being present and a danger
> doesn't really help us much in solving the issue. The reason for this is
> that each pilot will have a specific tolerance for situational
> awareness, cockpit over task, and distraction.
> In other words, you can take a highly trained professional pilot, fully
> checked out on a specific type of aircraft, and with a proven over time
> ability to fly a specific demonstration, and that pilot can on a
> specific day at a specific instant, make a fatal error.
> Again, we realize this can occur, but the actual solution alludes us.
> Where we are right now is in making sure we educate the community so
> they are collectively aware that this danger lurks out there waiting.
> By educating the community to the problem rather than trying to find a
> specific "fix" that we believe doesn't exist, we hope to better the
> safety record.
> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
> given time and place.
> It ain't much......but it helps!

Every little bit helps in the grander scheme of things.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>> given time and place.
>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley,
>
> You are exactly right.
>
> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
> 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
> on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
> replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
> instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
> the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
> did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
> minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
> Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
> GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>

Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
started with that night! :-)

I'm glad you made it!

Matt

[[email protected]]

>
> The kinds of crashes that REALLY scare me are the ones where a control
> surface fails, or a wing comes off in flight. There was a Cherokee
> 235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
> far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
> at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
> Grumman seaplane in Florida?

Yeah, structural failure would be the scariest emergency one could
have - something where the "keep flying the airplane" advice could
suddenly become quite hard to follow even for an experienced pilot.
Its a worse situation than engine failure on takeoff but it must be
quite rare. The Killing Zone book's central point was that most
accidents can be attributed to a lack of currency and experience and
the number of deaths are mostly in the 50-150 hr range. Outside of
this range the number of accidents go down quite a bit if I remember
right. I don't remember the statistic on control surface failure
accidents but I am guessing it is quite low. One way to beat it would
be to take some skydiving lessons and always fly with a parachute
strapped on. ;-)

>
> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...

True, the conservative strategy also makes flying less stressful and
more enjoyable, just the way it was meant to be.

[Paul Riley]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Riley wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>>> given time and place.
>>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Dudley,
>>
>> You are exactly right.
>>
>> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
>> late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
>> relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in,
>> even the replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I
>> had an instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go
>> crash in the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was
>> clear). Since we did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing
>> area--more than 45 minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our
>> only option. Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to
>> aircraft or crew. The GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker
>> Red the next morning. <G>
>
> Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
> started with that night! :-)
>
> I'm glad you made it!
>
> Matt

Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err, uhhh,
imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))

Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it to
the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul

[Big John]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:29:22 -0500, "Paul Riley"
> wrote:

>
>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>> given time and place.
>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>Dudley,
>
>You are exactly right.
>
>I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
>1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
>on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
>replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
>instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
>the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
>did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
>minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
>Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
>GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
>
>Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.
>
>Regards,
>Paul
>PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!

Paul

Welcome to the crowd. There are only a few of us.

I too made ONE zero zero at Hamilton AFB in F-94C.

Finished mission and went RTB and as we approached the field watched
the San Francisco Bay fog roll in before we could land. No fuel for
alternate so continued with a GCA. Hit GCA minimums and no runway.
Told GCA to keep talking and rotated to a landing attitude and
continued decent. Next thing I knew was rolling down runway.

Like you, when you gotta do you gotta do.

Big John

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Riley wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>>>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>>>> given time and place.
>>>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Dudley,
>>>
>>> You are exactly right.
>>>
>>> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
>>> late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
>>> relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in,
>>> even the replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I
>>> had an instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go
>>> crash in the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was
>>> clear). Since we did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing
>>> area--more than 45 minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our
>>> only option. Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to
>>> aircraft or crew. The GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker
>>> Red the next morning. <G>
>> Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
>> started with that night! :-)
>>
>> I'm glad you made it!
>>
>> Matt
>
> Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err, uhhh,
> imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))
>
> Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it to
> the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Paul
>
>


A good GCA final controller, if they are REALLY good, can calm down a
jittery pilot just by the tone of their voice.
It's funny about things like that. Good pilots remember a good final
controller.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
> constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
> certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
> part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
> bad, bad, bad thing.

My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> How would you know?
>
> The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
> aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience. Most
> people are taught many of them in driver education, although many
> don't absorb what they are taught.
>


Then how come you so consistently get it al wrong?


Bertie

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
> several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
> project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
> that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)

Cool. Sounds like an interesting, knowledgeable guy.

> Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
> the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
> the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
> harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
> *will* break something.
>
> Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
> bad thing to do with your engine.

The engine was designed with the knowledge that in order to fly, the
transition from full power to idle will have to be made at some point
.... that in itself is not "a bad thing". If that's ALL you're constantly
doing in every flight, then yes, I would agree with you, but that isn't
what I meant by practicing simulated engine failures more often than
every other year (during BFRs). Certainly a healthy engine can do them
more often than that without being damaged.

> When my buddy's engine crapped out 700 hours before TBO,
> was it directly attributable to his doing a zillion touch & goes?

Maybe, maybe not.
But again, I wasn't talking about doing a zillion touch-n-goes, I was
talking about practicing simulated engine failures often enough that
*IF* the real thing occurs, you don't waste several precious seconds
reacting, trying to remember the drill, or make any mistakes because you
(not you personally) haven't flown enough power-off approaches/landings
in the airplane you always fly.

> I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
> engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
> today.

No, you can't. Not doing touch-n-goes is not a guarantee that any engine
will make it to TBO or still be running. It's hard to make ANY
guarantees where engines are concerned...we do what the experts we know
and respect recommend, and hope for the best, but even they don't make
guarantees.

> THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
> power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.

I'm not disagreeing that there is wear and tear involved. But again, I
also was not talking about a plane that ONLY does touch-n-goes. Of
course cruise flight should make up the bulk of the time.

> Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
> landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
> T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
> process is something to be avoided.

It isn't a matter of "having it down pat" -- most of us have landings
down fairly pat by the time we get our ticket. But just because a person
has done 1000 landings doesn't mean it's never necessary to practice
touch-n-goes. Is there anyone who flies religiously once- or
twice-a-week *without fail*, FOREVER? If so, they likely don't have to
practice touch-n-goes. But who hasn't had to be off for a month or more
once in a while due to other priorities in life or when a mechanical
issue takes a month or more to resolve? When you get back in the air
after a long period off, are your approaches and landings just as sharp
as ever? If so, kudos to you! I'm not a professional pilot, and mine
aren't always as good as they could be after I've been off for a month
or more, and in those instances, three or four touch-n-goes is usually
just what the doctor ordered. And once again, I'm not suggesting that
EVERY flight should consist of touch-n-goes or include an engine-out
practice.

> That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."

That's not the only reason. "Trainers" take a lot more forms of abuse
than just touch-n-goes.

> Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
> feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
> do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...

Good. As a friend, I'm glad to hear that.

> Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
> would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
> hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
> adding oil and gas.

My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about
this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week
to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being
most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an
engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for
10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in
extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but
even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit.

The person in the hangar across the taxiway from me was there for the
first time this morning -- I'd never even seen or met him in the entire
time I've been there. He said he hasn't flown in 2 years, and his C-180
hasn't either. It's having an annual now and he's about to begin flying
again. It was not pickled, and I'll be interested to hear what was done
in this annual, with that in mind. (I didn't ask why he was off for 2
years...guessing it might have been a medical issue.)

> But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
> schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
> they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
> way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)

We had a C-152 at our flight school. It had 13K hours on it when I got
my ticket in it, and while it had its own little quirks, it obviously
had been reliable. It was nearing 14K hours when a customer had an
emergency, landed in the desert, flipped it onto its back and totaled
it. Thankfully, they walked away. It had been a reliable, fun little
bird. I do not know how many overhauls it had or if it went to TBO each
time, but considering how much abuse it took doing T&Gs, spin training,
being khablammed by people learning to land, and who-knows-what else
customers put it through, it served everyone well and did Cessna proud.

> > I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
> > intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
> > of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
> > in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.
>
> Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
> engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
> procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
> very expensive engine needlessly...

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".

Shirl

[Matt Whiting]

Shirl wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
>> constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
>> certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
>> part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
>> bad, bad, bad thing.
>
> My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
> idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.

I believe that is a good idea also. Constant RPM is great for engines
that will ALWAYS run at constant RPM (stationary generators, etc.).
However, for engines that must run across a range of RPMs, I believe it
is better to operate them across that full range as often as practical.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Paul Riley wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Paul Riley wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be
>>>>> in a constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform
>>>>> at any given time and place.
>>>>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Dudley,
>>>>
>>>> You are exactly right.
>>>>
>>>> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield
>>>> in late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had
>>>> just been relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground
>>>> fog had moved in, even the replacement aircraft was not aware of
>>>> it. No one expected it. I had an instrument rating, my copilot did
>>>> not. Our other option was to go crash in the jungle someplace (with
>>>> the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we did not have enough
>>>> fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45 minutes away
>>>> (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option. Obviously, we
>>>> made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The GCA
>>>> Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
>>> Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the
>>> crew started with that night! :-)
>>>
>>> I'm glad you made it!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err,
>> uhhh, imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))
>>
>> Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it
>> to the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>
> A good GCA final controller, if they are REALLY good, can calm down a
> jittery pilot just by the tone of their voice.
> It's funny about things like that. Good pilots remember a good final
> controller.
>

I guess you really pay attention when this may be the last voice you
hear! :-)

I've never flown a GCA approach, but it sounds like fun ... in practice!

Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
> engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
> procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
> very expensive engine needlessly...
>

Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Shirl" wrote:
>> but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
>> very expensive engine needlessly...
>
> Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
> practice is "needlessly".


And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
be damaged, and why?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> > Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
> > practice is "needlessly".
>
> And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
> be damaged, and why?

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
> effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
> every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
> constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
> certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
> part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
> bad, bad, bad thing.

True enough. It is good for your engine to vary RPMs gradually and
gently.

In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
as a renter...)

Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
shorten its lifespan.

At the core I think we're talking about a matter of degree and
technique here. In my experience of doing engine out practice with
CFIs, we would get down to within a few hundred feet of the ground
(this in the wide-open Midwest, remember) and then quickly apply full-
power when we knew we had made (or not made) the chosen field.

I am going to try to practice them with a gentler technique next time
I fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater
>> negative effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few
>> simulated engine outs every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile
>> short after a real engine out?
>
> Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
> are (thankfully) quite small.

That's the point. We practice lots of things that have pretty small odds of
actually happening. If things happen every flight or every 5th flight we
don't have to practice them because we do them.

[Jay Honeck]

> Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
> instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
> we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
> we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
> machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
> and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

> I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
> maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

> Even if it does shorten the life of my
> engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
> but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
> confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
> the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

I'm not putting myself, my engine, or my plane at increased risk
because it's exhilarating. The maneuver you describe, while not
aerobatic, is a relatively high-risk maneuver in that it takes place
directly over the airport, and involves a completely non-standard
approach to landing. Almost all mid-airs occur near an airport, and
this maneuver can end badly if not executed properly.

Which brings up another interesting line of thought. How many actual
accidents occur whilst practicing these kinds of maneuvers? When
does practicing engine out (for example) landings cause more problems
than it fixes?

For example, spin training was eliminated from the Private training
because it was determined that more pilots were being killed by
teaching it than could be saved by teaching it. The debate about this
decision still rages on today, but it can be extended to many parts of
flight training.

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

So I must ask: When does the risk outweigh the benefit?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

<snip>

> Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
> & goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
> debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
> hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
> the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
> die each year doing them.

Oh, I'm not sure of that.

How about touch & goes on a 172 on a 10,000 X 200 runway with 1,000
foot overrun at each end?

However I don't do touch & goes.

I come to a full stop, clean up the airplane, then critique the
last landing and ponder what I need to do next time to make it
better while taxiing back.

I see lots of people doing touch & goes repeating the exact same,
less than optimal (to put it mildly) thing each and every time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
> gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
> apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
> lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
> as a renter...)

I do, too, but I did this as a renter, too. My dad was a carpenter -- he
insisted that we go easy on EVERYTHING! If we changed channels on the TV
"too fast", we were in trouble because that was considered "hard" on the
dial and the TV. Not to mention that everything in life generally
responds better when treated gently and with respect rather than being
manhandled!
;-)

> Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
> this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
> look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
> me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
> hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
> repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
> shorten its lifespan.

I think part of this is learned and sinks in more once you start paying
for your own stuff and its associated maintenance out of your own
pocket, with money YOU have earned!

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
> > effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
> > every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?
>
> Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
> are (thankfully) quite small.

Yeah, I used to say that, too!

Shirl

[Longworth[_1_]]

Jay,
I did put a smiley behind my comment about practicing emergency
spiral landing being fun and worth the cost of my engine overhaul.
It is clear that our main objective for obtaining the training and
frequent practice is safety. I would never jeopardize my life or harm
my bird just to have fun!

I have over 700hrs with thousands of takeoffs/landings. We average
about 250hrs a year and fly pretty much every week year around. Aside
from several long cross country trips a year, most of our hours are
practice flights either on our own or with instructors. We try to mix
instrument practices with visual flight maneuvers. Safety is always
our utmost concern. We don't do any non-traditional patternworks
without asking for tower permission or making clear and frequent
announcement at uncontrolled fields. We also don't do unsual
patternworks at busy airports or during busy time. One of our
favorite practice spot is Sullivan County airport (MSV) with 6300x150'
runway. At its busiest time, there are usually no more than 2 or 3
planes in the pattern. We always learn something new from a new
instructors, always find room for improvements in our flying skills,
and never feel that we are good enough that no practices are needed.

I fully expect that the pilots who go out for their practices
would take the same kind of precaution and they do so for safety and
not for thrill seeking.

I don't know the accident statistics of training or practice
flights but at the start of my flight training in 2001, I spent many
hours reading NTSB reports. As I recall, I would not go flying at a
new airport without checking the reports. Anyway, I recalled there
was only a handful of accidents occurred during flight training or
practices. Lack of skills, lack of preparation etc. were the major
contribution factors.

Hai Longworth

[Shirl]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
> > instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
> > we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
> > we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
> > machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
> > and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.
>
> I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
> REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
> NORDO planes, however.
>
> > I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
> > maneuver can harm my engine.
>
> I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
> only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
> this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
> in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
> that causes the most wear and tear.

But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS
going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for
and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to
include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it
doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now
it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware
of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some
reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance?

> > Even if it does shorten the life of my
> > engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> > flawlessly all the time.

(don't remember whose quote this was)
When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all*
the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's
accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that
level of competency if you never practice it again?

I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound
over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even
though sometimes that's all we have.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Oct 3, 1:56 pm, Shirl > wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
> > > instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
> > > we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
> > > we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
> > > machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
> > > and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.
>
> > I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
> > REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
> > NORDO planes, however.
>
> > > I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
> > > maneuver can harm my engine.
>
> > I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
> > only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
> > this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
> > in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
> > that causes the most wear and tear.
>
> But unless you're SO confident in your ability that you know it's ALWAYS
> going to turn out right -- and of course that's what we all strive for
> and usually accomplish -- you can't guarantee that it's *only* going to
> include cutting power to idle. If you misjudge something and/or it
> doesn't turn out as planned, you execute a go-round, don't you? So now
> it includes full power from idle. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware
> of or concerned about wear and tear, but doesn't there need to be some
> reasonable exchange of wear and tear for competency assurance?
>
> > > Even if it does shorten the life of my
> > > engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> > > flawlessly all the time.
>
> (don't remember whose quote this was)
> When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all*
> the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's
> accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that
> level of competency if you never practice it again?
>
> I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound
> over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even
> though sometimes that's all we have.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Shirl,
It is my statement.
Regarding your question "when exactly are you certain that you can
execute it flawlessly *all* the time?", the answer can be found in my
followup post: "We always learn something new from a new instructors,
always find room for improvements in our flying skills, and never feel
that we are good enough that no practices are needed."

Hai Longworth

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Shirl wrote:
>
>My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about
>this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week
>to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being
>most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an
>engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for
>10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in
>extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but
>even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit.
>

Your mechanic is a bit off on the pickling time frame. If the Lycoming
documentation he is referring to is Service Letter L180B (Engine Preservation
for Active and Stored Aircraft), the interval is actually 30 days of
inactivity, not 10 days.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Shirl]

> > > > Even if it does shorten the life of my
> > > > engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> > > > flawlessly all the time.
> >
> > (don't remember whose quote this was)
> > When exactly are you certain that you can execute it flawlessly *all*
> > the time? after 2 in a row? after 5 in a row? And once that's
> > accomplished in the present, do you assume you'll always maintain that
> > level of competency if you never practice it again?
> >
> > I'm sure I'm probably over-doing it here, and I apologize if I sound
> > over the top. I guess I'm just not comfortable with assumptions even
> > though sometimes that's all we have.

Longworth > wrote:

> It is my statement.
> Regarding your question "when exactly are you certain that you can
> execute it flawlessly *all* the time?", the answer can be found in my
> followup post: "We always learn something new from a new instructors,
> always find room for improvements in our flying skills, and never feel
> that we are good enough that no practices are needed."

Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. I realize the point you were making
when you said that you would continue to practice it until you could
execute it flawlessly all the time was that you would never stop
practicing it on occasion. I just wanted to emphasize that our
competency levels fluctuate and may not be the same three months in the
future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be told that.
Shirl

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> > Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
>> > practice is "needlessly".
>>
>> And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts
>> will
>> be damaged, and why?
>
> Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
> more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
> operation?

No, Jay, not until I know what the "wear and tear" is, and why increasing and
decreasing the power at short intervals causes it.

It's a serious question. Off-hand, I can't think why t&g engine operation
would be more harmful per hour than takeoff/cruise/land, as long as no
operating limits are exceeded.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Paul Riley]

Hi Big John,

Nice thing about doing it in a helicopter, you can slow down, WAY down, when
you get near the ground. Rate of descent about 1 foot per minute, pretty
much a landing from a hover on instruments, just ease it down until you
find a runway light for reference or can see the pavement through the chin
bubble. :-)))))))

I would not like to try it in a fighter jet, they do not hover well. Or do
they??? :-)))))

Anyway, that was the one and only time, and I am happy it never happened
again. :-))))

Regards,
Paul





"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:29:22 -0500, "Paul Riley"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>>> given time and place.
>>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>Dudley,
>>
>>You are exactly right.
>>
>>I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
>>late
>>1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
>>relieved
>>on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
>>replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
>>instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
>>the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
>>did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
>>minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
>>Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew.
>>The
>>GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
>>
>>Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your
>>training.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Paul
>>PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!
>
> Paul
>
> Welcome to the crowd. There are only a few of us.
>
> I too made ONE zero zero at Hamilton AFB in F-94C.
>
> Finished mission and went RTB and as we approached the field watched
> the San Francisco Bay fog roll in before we could land. No fuel for
> alternate so continued with a GCA. Hit GCA minimums and no runway.
> Told GCA to keep talking and rotated to a landing attitude and
> continued decent. Next thing I knew was rolling down runway.
>
> Like you, when you gotta do you gotta do.
>
> Big John
>

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
>>> practice is "needlessly".
>> And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
>> be damaged, and why?
>
> Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
> more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
> operation?

I am not at all convinced that this is the case. Prolonged idling on
the ground probably isn't that good due to lack of cooling air flow, but
other than that, I don't think that varying the throttle from low to
high power settings necessarily causes any damage and I've read a fair
bit that suggests just the opposite.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
> only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
> this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
> in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
> that causes the most wear and tear.

Jay, I think that is because there are no such statistics. I believe it
is pretty widely accepted that the most wear and tear on an engine is
during the first few seconds after start.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I have no statistics to back
> this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
> in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
> that causes the most wear and tear.


I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay.

I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did
that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that
different than takeoffs?
--
Jim in NC

[randall g]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:53:59 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> I have no statistics to back
>> this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
>> in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
>> that causes the most wear and tear.
>
>
>I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay.
>
>I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did
>that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that
>different than takeoffs?


Exact point I was going to make. You take off at least once every flight
anyway, so why worry about it? And as Matt says, running the engine
before the oil has spread through it is probably a lot worse. When I was
learing to start my fuel-injected engine, I ran it close to 2000rpm by
accident after starting, a couple of times. That really bothered me and
I expected John Deakin to show up and yell at me. I quickly learned the
importance of throttle position.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Jay Honeck]

> I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay.
>
> I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did
> that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that
> different than takeoffs?

Whenever we practiced engine-out emergencies, as students, it seemed
we always jammed the throttle full forward when we figured we had the
field made. Of course, we also didn't lean the engine at all, and had
no compunction about running the engine at high RPMs immediately after
start-up.

I don't think there's any reason to NOT apply the throttle slowly
during an engine-out exercise, other than student "panic" as the
ground approached. I'll give it a whirl next time we go up.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Shirl wrote:

I just wanted to emphasize that our
> competency levels fluctuate and may not be the same three months in the
> future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be told that.
> Shirl

Actually, your competence level can fluctuate from flight to flight,
even within a specific flight.
This is a subject of much concern in the air show community, and carries
over as well to all pilots.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I really don't understand your thoughts on this stance, Jay.
>>
>> I know you have said you slowly apply power for takeoffs, but if you did
>> that at the end of the engine out emergency landing practice, how is that
>> different than takeoffs?
>
> Whenever we practiced engine-out emergencies, as students, it seemed
> we always jammed the throttle full forward when we figured we had the
> field made. Of course, we also didn't lean the engine at all, and had
> no compunction about running the engine at high RPMs immediately after
> start-up.
>
> I don't think there's any reason to NOT apply the throttle slowly
> during an engine-out exercise, other than student "panic" as the
> ground approached. I'll give it a whirl next time we go up.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I hate to get into this one while you guys are hashing this out, but
from my perspective, the secret to handling an aircraft engine correctly
is in "managing the pressures and temps". This is how we treat high
powered radials and in lines and it flows over to light engines as well.
There's no huge issue with go arounds or shock cooling as long as you
use common sense with the way you handle the throttle on an aircraft engine.
The trick is smooth power application and reduction; it's that simple.
Jamming in a throttle or going straight down to idle from a high power
setting is simply poor engine management technique. Anything sudden that
changes the pressures and temps should be avoided as a general rule in
handling an aircraft engine.
If you plan what you are doing with the airplane so that it precludes
sudden power changes you are pretty much in the ok ball park.
Even engine clearing during an approach should be slow and smooth.
It's all in the technique you use on the throttle, and in how you manage
the engine pressures and temps. This of course includes the proper use
of cowl flaps.
DH


--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > I just wanted to emphasize that our competency levels
> > fluctuate and may not be the same three months in the
> > future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be
> > told that.

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Actually, your competence level can fluctuate from flight to
> flight, even within a specific flight. This is a subject of much
> concern in the air show community, and carries over as well
> to all pilots.

That was what I was trying to say, that competency doesn't just stay at
a high level all by itself. Isn't that the best reason for practicing
emergencies from time to time (not on *every* flight)? or for doing
occasional T&Gs or an intentional go-around every once in a while? In
teaching skating, *timing* was the first thing to go when competitors
had a gap in training or were having more "off" than "on" days, and the
source of the problem was often a very basic element in the maneuver,
and correcting it required a reiteration/brush-up on that element before
putting it all back together again. Sometimes if you train *too* much on
days when you're "off", whatever isn't going well can inadvertently be
reinforced and harder to undo. I've wondered if that happens w/air show
pilots?

Shirl

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Shirl wrote:
> Shirl:
>>> I just wanted to emphasize that our competency levels
>>> fluctuate and may not be the same three months in the
>>> future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be
>>> told that.
>
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Actually, your competence level can fluctuate from flight to
>> flight, even within a specific flight. This is a subject of much
>> concern in the air show community, and carries over as well
>> to all pilots.
>
> That was what I was trying to say, that competency doesn't just stay at
> a high level all by itself. Isn't that the best reason for practicing
> emergencies from time to time (not on *every* flight)? or for doing
> occasional T&Gs or an intentional go-around every once in a while? In
> teaching skating, *timing* was the first thing to go when competitors
> had a gap in training or were having more "off" than "on" days, and the
> source of the problem was often a very basic element in the maneuver,
> and correcting it required a reiteration/brush-up on that element before
> putting it all back together again. Sometimes if you train *too* much on
> days when you're "off", whatever isn't going well can inadvertently be
> reinforced and harder to undo. I've wondered if that happens w/air show
> pilots?
>
> Shirl


Absolutely. In fact, with display pilots one of the more serious issues
if not THE most serious issue involved in this venue is in NOT over
practicing something to the point of acquiring a rote response which is
too rigid and structured as opposed to the more fluid response available
when a bit more relaxed.
It's a tight rope that has to be walked VERY carefully. The rub is that
no two pilots are alike in response and knowing exactly when enough is
enough when it comes to practice is highly individual.

In the more relaxed world of normal pleasure flying, a pilot still needs
to practice but not at the same levels. What I have always recommended
to GA pilots is that they start early on in their flying careers to
develop a habit pattern that treats each flight as a learning
experience. Even flying locally around the airport on a Sunday
afternoon, a pilot should pick something on that flight to concentrate
on and try to make better. It could be coordination into and exiting
turns; a practice power off approach from a key position, or my favorite
for a Sunday flight.......keeping the altimeter needle covering a
specific digit on the altimeter face for an exercise in simple straight
and level flight :-)
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Shirl wrote:
>
> I just wanted to emphasize that our
>> competency levels fluctuate and may not be the same three months in
>> the future as they are today. I know no one here needs to be told
>> that. Shirl
>
> Actually, your competence level can fluctuate from flight to flight,
> even within a specific flight.
> This is a subject of much concern in the air show community, and carries
> over as well to all pilots.

Yes, mine fluctuates from the start of a long flight until the end of
the flight! :-)

Matt

[vincent norris]

>> In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
>> gently.
>
>> Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
>> this.
>
> I think part of this is learned and sinks in more once you start paying
> for your own stuff and its associated maintenance out of your own
> pocket, with money YOU have earned!

A friend of mine, whose four kids were all a little older than my four
kids, told me his car maintenance and repair bills had gone up 25% when
his kids began to drive. He said a mechanic told him that was typical.

Learning from his experience, I told my kids that when they began to
drive, they would have to pay the additional insurance premium, plus
their share of gas, oil, and maintenance.

When they discovered the incremental insurance alone was about $160 per
year, they decided they really didn't want to drive after all.

One benefit of that is that they are all still alive.

vince norris

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> I would agree with that. Full power/idle power cycles are very hard
> on engines -- and that is what you're doing in a touch & go.

I wonder where you would get a hint of data to support that statement.
Certainly not from flight schools.

> Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
> landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
> T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
> process is something to be avoided.

No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
into. Not everybody gets to fly as often as you do, for various reasons.
Not everybody owns a plane. Those of us with lengthy pauses in their flying
do indeed need to practice touch&gos after a while. Those of us flying
different models need to, too. There's a ton of other reasons why to do
T&Gs. Apart from that, I don't see the "beating" part as a necessary
consequence, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul kgyy]

To a large extent, the outcome of this will depend on her perception
of you as a person. If you demonstrate a high level of caution and
competence in your flying (and when you drive together), her fears may
gradually abate.

My wife was pretty fearful of flying with me when I started again
after 30 years on the ground. However, after a fairly serious auto
accident on the freeway, she feels more secure to fly now, although
still has some reservations about IMC.

These problems are based more on perceptions than statistics, right or
wrong.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
> more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
> operation?
>

No. Why?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Shirl,

> > Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
> > are (thankfully) quite small.
>
> Yeah, I used to say that, too!
>

They still are, even thought you've experienced one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
> > more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
> > operation?
>
> No. Why?

I'm no thermodynamist, but I believe it's commonly accepted that
taking an internal combustion engine from steady state/low RPMs to
full power/high RPMs (as one would repeatedly do during touch & goes
and engine-out practice) is more harmful to the engine than simply
steady-state/mid-RPM power settings.

A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'm no thermodynamist,

......and owning your own hotel, it's an odds on bet you didn't sleep at
a Holiday Express last night ether!!!!!!!
:-))
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jay Honeck]

> No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
> your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
> into.

Perhaps (and, no offense, of course), but I believe I'm exposed to
more general aviation experiences, both personal and through the
hotel, in a month than you are in a year.

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
a new pilot.

I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
quality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
> engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.

That's *too* rough. Unlimited drag racers are blown to a jillion horsepower
and burning nitro. It ain't the cycles that breaks 'em, it's the internal
pressures.

I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known. ;)

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
> argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
> that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
> than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
> quality.

It isn't obvious, Jay, and you haven't produced any evidence that it is a
fact. Maybe it *is* bad for an engine, but you haven't even said what damage
you think is being done.

Our insisting on evidence for a claim like that is not at all remarkable. I,
and I know Thomas, insist on empirical reasons for things we will believe.
Why does that seem strange?

Can't you find some empirical evidence to support your claim? If you can
produce some, I'll change the way I do some things. Otherwise, I'll keep
doing t&g's and simulated engine failures as much as always.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
> partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
> It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
> aerobatic) use, period.
>
> Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
> maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
> equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
> aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
> increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.
>
> This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
> your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
> don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
> a new pilot.
>

The insurance goes up if you are using your plane for training because the
actuarial tables show that having people who don't know how to fly yet have
a higher than normal rate of accidents.

While I will agree that idle to firewall is marginally more taxing on the
engine, let's remember where this thread started. It started with you being
concerned about engine life and that it is reduced because of practicing
engine out landings. The T&G debate got added later.

It all boils down to the fact that you are not doing yourself or your
aircraft a favor by not practicing engine out landings. Even if it is just
one a month at the end of a normal flight, treat the landing as a failure in
the pattern. You will have ZERO added stress on the engine because you are
just going to idle a few minutes sooner. Hell, it is probably less net
stress on the engine.

[Jay Honeck]

> I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...

So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?

My mechanic would love your business...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It isn't obvious, Jay, and you haven't produced any evidence that it is a
> fact. Maybe it *is* bad for an engine, but you haven't even said what damage
> you think is being done.
>
> Our insisting on evidence for a claim like that is not at all remarkable. I,
> and I know Thomas, insist on empirical reasons for things we will believe.
> Why does that seem strange?

Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice.

As for you looking for "proof" that rough-handling an engine isn't
worse for it than treating it with kid gloves, well, Dan, I don't know
what to tell ya. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
one.

Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
end of that looooong glide.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
> engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
> days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
> end of that looooong glide.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>



This is really the crux of this issue. It's not the touch and go's per
se' that are the real issue, but rather the way an aircraft engine is
managed. In the training environment, it is not uncommon to have many
different pilots and different instructors all managing an engine
differently instead of with a standardized procedure.
It's for this direct reason that every pilot and instructor who ever
flew our airplanes was subjected to as an integral part of our checkout
procedure, an in-flight demonstration on how we wanted our engines
managed throttle wise UNDER NORMAL NON EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
Smooth throttle and prop use use and in relevant cases correct use of
cowl flaps is the key to long engine life. It's the smooth management of
temps and pressures up and down that's important, and this means
strict focus on how power is transitioned from idle to full and visa versa.
Aside for an emergency condition, any application of power up or down
that isn't smooth indicates poor planning on the part of the pilot.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...
>
> So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
> and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?

Oh no you don't, Honeck! ;^)

1) I never said that.

2) You still haven't answered the questions: Why is "running your engine from
900 to 2700 RPM over
and over again" harmful? What parts of the engine are harmed and how?

Be sure and show your work.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> It's for this direct reason that every pilot and instructor who ever
> flew our airplanes was subjected to as an integral part of our checkout
> procedure, an in-flight demonstration on how we wanted our engines
> managed throttle wise UNDER NORMAL NON EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
> Smooth throttle and prop use use and in relevant cases correct use of
> cowl flaps is the key to long engine life. It's the smooth management of
> temps and pressures up and down that's important, and this means
> strict focus on how power is transitioned from idle to full and visa versa.
> Aside for an emergency condition, any application of power up or down
> that isn't smooth indicates poor planning on the part of the pilot.

Amen, brother!

Thanks for restating it in better terms, Dudley.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
>>> more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
>>> operation?
>> No. Why?
>
> I'm no thermodynamist, but I believe it's commonly accepted that
> taking an internal combustion engine from steady state/low RPMs to
> full power/high RPMs (as one would repeatedly do during touch & goes
> and engine-out practice) is more harmful to the engine than simply
> steady-state/mid-RPM power settings.
>
> A rough analogy would be to think of drag racers versus rally car
> engines. One lasts 20 to 30 seconds, the other lasts 1000 miles.

And one makes more horsepower PER CYLINDER than the rally car makes in
total!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> I'm no thermodynamist,
>
> .....and owning your own hotel, it's an odds on bet you didn't sleep at
> a Holiday Express last night ether!!!!!!!
> :-))
> D
>

Oh, that was a low blow! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I think you're just going on gut feeling, and you know...
>
> So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
> and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?

Yes, I would say that. When I was learning to fly, the C-150 engines
ran longer with less problems than did the 172 and 182 and they DID run
like this all day long.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
> argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
> that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
> than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
> quality.

Jay, this simply isn't an "obvious fact" and I'm not convinced it is a
fact at all. You have provided one mechanic who thinks your way and
several of us have provided mechanics who disagree. This is hardly the
scenario that would surround an "obvious" fact.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" <> wrote

> Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
> just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
> with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
> of his own voice.
>
> As for you looking for "proof" that rough-handling an engine isn't
> worse for it than treating it with kid gloves, well, Dan, I don't know
> what to tell ya. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
> one.

Jay, I think you would agree that I am not an overly argumentative person,
and that I'm a pretty fair wrench turn'er. (remember me putting in a
transmission into my van, in the field at Oshkosh? <g>)

What Dudlley said in the next post is pretty much my view on the whole
thing. Quote by The Dud:

It's the smooth management of temps and pressures up and down that's
important, and this means strict focus on how power is transitioned from
idle to full and visa versa.

End quote.

On the subject of going from idle to full power, that covers it all. If you
treat the engine with the temp and pressure in mind, it really does not care
if it changes RPM often. All day long if you wanted to. Exceeding cylinder
pressure limits wear the piston, rings, and cylinders, and put extra strain
on the rod and main bearings.

Think of it like this. If you are cruising along at cruise with the engine
making 70% power, that is still a lot of HP being made, and pressure is
being applied to all of the moving parts of the engine, and a lot of it, at
that.

If you accelerate an engine nicely, you do not put as much pressure on it,
and it is not making as much HP as it would be subjected to at cruise power
settings. Therefore it won't hurt the engine, following those guidelines.

The problem with training planes is that renters don't apply the power
smoothly, or watch the temperatures, and end up lugging it, and putting
extra pressure on everything. THAT is what hurts engines that are going
from low power to high power.

You care about the life of your engine, and if you are aware of possible
pitfalls, you will not hurt your engine.

In conclusion, I would agree that unless you can come up with real numbers
on how touch and goes and such, hurt your engine, I don't think it is
a -given- that low power to high power cycles hurt the engine. If you don't
exceed the cylinder pressures and temperatures, it can't do anything bad,
because the engine is -designed- to output much higher amounts of power for
extended periods of time, and all in an engine that is designed to make its
power at very conservative HP to Cubic Inch levels. This isn't a dragster,
or road racer, making 1 1/2 ot 2 HP per cubic inch, but an engine only
putting out around 1/2 HP per cubic inch. These are very sustainable power
levels.

> Here's something I know we all agree on: I will endeavor to practice
> engine-out procedures more often -- and (as opposed to our training
> days) I will also endeavor to apply power slowly and carefully at the
> end of that looooong glide.

That's a good thing, I guess, and if nothing else, it will probably make you
and Mary safer pilots.

Happy flights!
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> but I believe it's commonly accepted that
> taking an internal combustion engine from steady state/low RPMs to
> full power/high RPMs (as one would repeatedly do during touch & goes
> and engine-out practice) is more harmful to the engine than simply
> steady-state/mid-RPM power settings.
>

Judging from the thread, it's not that accepted, it seems.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> So, you're saying that running your engine from 900 to 2700 RPM over
> and over again is no worse for it than running at 2300 RPM all day?
>

YOU are saying that it IS worse. So prove it. Or at least give a hint
at why it should be so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Perhaps (and, no offense, of course), but I believe I'm exposed to
> more general aviation experiences, both personal and through the
> hotel, in a month than you are in a year.

You're exposed to engine wear & tear and the analysis of the reasons for it?
Come on, Jay, get real.

> There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
> partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.

There are? Which? What kind of aircraft? What kind of rental outfit? I would
wager that the reasons are very different from what you pretend to think.

> It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
> aerobatic) use, period.

Again, give us a hint at the reasoning.

> Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
> maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, loss-of-control accidents are common
during landing and take-off. That has nothing to do with engine wear, of
course.

> It's harder on the
> equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
> aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
> increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

You're dodging the topic, my friend - and you know it. You where talking
engines exclusively, not the rest of the plane.

> This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
> your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
> don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
> a new pilot.

See above. You're dodging the topic in true MX style.

> I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
> argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
> that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
> than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
> quality.

Jay. Please. In case you haven't noticed, there's more than a handful of people
here arguing your point. So there's no reason at all to get personal. Sadly,
you do. As always.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
> just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
> with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
> of his own voice.
>

Nice. Very nice. Why are you doing this?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> Our insisting on evidence for a claim like that is not at all remarkable. I,
> and I know Thomas, insist on empirical reasons for things we will believe.
> Why does that seem strange?
>

Thanks. I was beginning to ask myself what my problem might be in communicating
about this. Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
it. Usenet, indeed...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Dan,
>
>> Our insisting on evidence for a claim like that is not at all remarkable. I,
>> and I know Thomas, insist on empirical reasons for things we will believe.
>> Why does that seem strange?
>>
>
> Thanks. I was beginning to ask myself what my problem might be in communicating
> about this. Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
> What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
> oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
> it. Usenet, indeed...
>

I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
stating his belief about engine operation. That is a huge difference.
I believe Jay is incorrect, unfortunately, I'm not aware of any real
data on the subject one way or the other so we all get to share our
opinions and that is the best we can do.

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:22:14 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
>What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
>oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
>it. Usenet, indeed...

Such a bias toward comrades is not unique to Usenet.

I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Thanks. I was beginning to ask myself what my problem might be in communicating
> about this. Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
> What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
> oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
> it. Usenet, indeed...

Facts and reality rise above personal squabbles, and so it serves no purpose
to "do something" about anyone, except perhaps for those who do not understand
or possess facts and reality.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
> result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
> Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
> non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
> occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
> how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
> lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
> segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

Is this good or bad?

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
> stating his belief about engine operation.
>

I would think the following does count:

"Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
of his own voice."

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

You have an ecxcellent point - and state it so nicely!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:40:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>I'm not aware of any real data on the subject




http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP400.pdf
Descent

Plan ahead to make a smooth temperature transition between cruise
and descent. Start descent early and allow airspeed to increase
within aircraft limits. Maintain power as required and mixture
setting. Cylinder head temperature change rate should not exceed
50 degree F per minute to avoid rapid shock cooling.




http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf
And finally, power-off letdowns should be avoided. This
is especially applicable to cold-weather operations when
shock-cooling of the cylinder heads is likely. It is recommended
that cylinder head temperature change not exceed 50° F. per
minute. Plan ahead, reduce power gradually and maintain some
power throughout the descent. Also keep the fuel/air mixture
leaned out during the descent. If an exhaust gas temperature gage
is installed with a normally aspirated engine, keep it peaked to
ensure the greatest possible engine heat for the power setting
selected; for a turbocharged installation, lean to peak during
descent unless otherwise specified in the Pilot’s Operating
Handbook, or under conditions where the limiting turbine inlet
temperature would be exceeded.



http://whitts.alioth.net/Pageb31%20Engines%20and%20Systems.htm#SC_
Shock Cooling

An aircraft engine spends much more time developing near full
power than does an automobile engine. The wear on an aircraft
engine is made shorter through negligent operation, non-operation,
corrosion, and the shocking effect of hot and cold cycles. Shock
heating cycles the metals of an engine just as much as does shock
cooling.

Heat shock can be reduced by starting the engine at idle leaning
to reduce oil dilution by excess fuel and then allowing the oil
pressure to rise before aggressive leaning. The start of an engine
its most damaging cycle of operation.

A sudden reduction of engine power after a period of increased
power causes a rapid reduction of engine heat being generated.
This heat change inside the cylinders is reflected in the heat
released by the cooling fins and increased cooling airflow through
the engine plenum. The result is called shock cooling. Lycoming
says that shock cooling results in worn piston grooves, broken
rings, warped exhaust valves, bent pushrods, and plug fouling.
Recommended cooling rate is no greater than 50-degrees per minute.

Shock cooling occurs when the pilot reduces power to off and goes
into a descent. The effect of this is to suddenly reduce the
internal heat of the engine and greatly increasing the cooling
effect of the air over the cooling fins of the engine. This may be
a damaging shock to the bimetallic cylinder blocks. The principal
effects of shock cooling are cylinder-head cracking, valve seat to
valve seat, plug to plug. Anywhere inside the engine where tool
marks, sharp edges and other stress points are liable to damage.
Any engine operation that makes it possible for the valve guide to
shrink faster than the valve will cause sticking. Valves stick
open and the pushrod bends. A raised valve hits the piston dome,
breaks and is redistributed throughout the engine and turbo if
any. This situation often occurs when poor navigational planning
causes the pilot to arrive over his destination at several
thousand feet too high. Never make descents that will shock cool
the engine. It may not fail on your but it will on some pilot down
the road.

To prevent all these bad things from happening to your engine keep
some power on the engine, re-lean during altitude changes to keep
the EGT near cruise values. If you have CHT on all cylinders
maintain a controlled (slow) decrease rate. Use of factory CHT on
one cylinder is a very poor second. Regardless, always reduce
power in increments so that engine temperature changes will be
gradual. Retard the throttle during descents. Do not enter a
descent that will both give a throttle reduction and an increase
in engine cooling air. Use landing gear and flaps to keep the
speed down. control the thermal changes of the engine to limit
temperature and cooling related damage.

When on the ground, take advantage of any cooling wind, lean the
mixture, open cowl flaps on the ground and during climb. All
engines should be run for at least two or three minutes on the
ground after a long flight to allow the oil to carry heat away
from the engine. In hot weather or with a turbo engine allow more
time. Before killing the engine run it up to 1200 and lean to but
not into roughness for 20 seconds. This will clean the plugs from
any residue of lead or carbon.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
> > just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
> > with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
> > of his own voice.
>
> Nice. Very nice. Why are you doing this?

Short attention span, eh? Here's why: (From your post):

> No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
> your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
> into.

I've tried for years to ignore your rude posts. I've tried to humor
you. I've tried to engage you. All to no avail. Therefore, when you
respond with your typically inappropriate, arrogant remarks, you may
expect a mild (too mild, I might add) rebuke from me.

I don't know why you can't keep a civil tongue in your head while
holding a discussion, but to whine about this as if you've been
"zinged" unexpectedly only reinforces my opinion of you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

On Oct 6, 7:43 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
> > stating his belief about engine operation.
>
> I would think the following does count:
>
> "Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
> just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
> with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
> of his own voice."

Which, of course, was in response to your post:

> No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
> your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
> into.

A fact that you conveniently omit.

I am never rude here unless provoked. Keep a civil tongue in your
head, and you'll get nothing but sugar and honey from my keyboard...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>Mxsmanic writes:
> Larry Dighera writes:
>Thomas Borchert writes:

Ah, this is truly a rare alignment of the stars, to have all three of
these guys present in one thread...

My work here is done. I can achieve no higher goal.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Such a bias toward comrades is not unique to Usenet.
>
> I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
> result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
> Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
> non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
> occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
> how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
> lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
> segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

Sorry, Larry, but the truth is that your Usenet persona is that of a
humorless drone who would rather die than laugh at himself. To those
of us who find humor everywhere, especially within ourselves, this
personality trait is the funniest thing of all.

THAT is why you (and Borchert, and MX) find little support here --
because you take yourself too danged seriously.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
> > argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
> > that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
> > than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
> > quality.
>
> Jay, this simply isn't an "obvious fact" and I'm not convinced it is a
> fact at all. You have provided one mechanic who thinks your way and
> several of us have provided mechanics who disagree. This is hardly the
> scenario that would surround an "obvious" fact.

I am apparently speaking a foreign language here, because I'm having a
hard time comprehending how normally intelligent people can argue this
point. Let's see if I can 'splain myself.

1. High power operation of an engine puts increased strain on
EVERYTHING. Seals, rods, gears, accessories. You name it, high power
operation is harder on your engine than low power operation.

2. Going from low to high power abruptly (and that, remember, is the
crux of this issue; I don't think anyone is arguing that gradual/
gentle application is terrible for your engine -- although it WILL
wear it out faster) puts sudden, abrupt pressue on those
aforementioned seals, rods, gears, pistons, cylinders, accessories.
This is what is known as "BAD", in my world.

3. Your engine has a certain number of revolutions in it before it
reaches TBO. Might be a million, might be a billion -- I don't know.
Whatever that number, if you run at higher RPMs, you will reach that
finite limit sooner. Stuff run at high RPM wears out quicker.

And, most importantly to this thread, engines rammed from 900 RPM to
full power, and back, over and over, are going to wear out sooner.
Same with props, automobiles, lawn mowers, motorcycles, blenders,
chain saws, snow blowers, and virtually any other mechanical device
you can name.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:48:52 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>> Such a bias toward comrades is not unique to Usenet.
>>
>> I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
>> result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
>> Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
>> non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
>> occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
>> how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
>> lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
>> segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.
>
>Sorry, Larry, but the truth is that your Usenet persona is that of a
>humorless drone who would rather die than laugh at himself. To those
>of us who find humor everywhere, especially within ourselves, this
>personality trait is the funniest thing of all.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I haven't seen the
mention of humor in the newsgroup charter, have you?

>THAT is why you (and Borchert, and MX) find little support here --
>because you take yourself too danged seriously.

More groundless imaginings; that may be true in your little circle of
cronies, but as Bush is learning, there is a larger world beyond
cronyism.

In my opinion, it is the news, expertise, and information exchanged in
rec.aviation.piloting that is valuable, not the social prattle and ill
informed opinion. Should the newsgroup charter ever be amended to
value humor above information, you may see a change in my style.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I haven't seen the
> mention of humor in the newsgroup charter, have you?
>

Concerning ANYTHING even remotely associated with getting something
across flight safety wise (or even in normal dialog between people )
that will be remembered by the most people either reading or hearing it,
humor is the catalyst in the communication equation that will be most
effective.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Ah, this is truly a rare alignment of the stars, to have all three of
> these guys present in one thread...
>
> My work here is done. I can achieve no higher goal.

A useful suggestion from a very experienced user of USENET: Never take
anything on USENET personally.

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> I don't think Jay has intentionally insulted anyone in the process of
>> stating his belief about engine operation.
>>
>
> I would think the following does count:
>
> "Borchert would argue that black-eyed beans are really black-eyed peas,
> just for the sake of arguing. His arguing a point has little to do
> with anything, real or imagined, other than that he enjoys the sound
> of his own voice."
>

Counts for what?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:40:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>> I'm not aware of any real data on the subject
>
>
>
>
> http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/troubleshooting/resources/SSP400.pdf
> Descent
>
> Plan ahead to make a smooth temperature transition between cruise
> and descent. Start descent early and allow airspeed to increase
> within aircraft limits. Maintain power as required and mixture
> setting. Cylinder head temperature change rate should not exceed
> 50 degree F per minute to avoid rapid shock cooling.
>

Like I said, there is no data on the subject. Lots of opinions, but no
data. The GAMI folks are some of the more data oriented out there and
they have refuted several OWTs, even some that come from the engine
manufacturers.

Maybe you can point how to me the test data in an of the references you
posted that shows multiple identical engines, some that were run only at
steady RPM and some that were used for touch and goes all day, and the
component measurements at tear-down. I didn't see this in anything you
posted.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:22:14 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he himself is the problem.
>> What saddens me is that this "community" does nothing about it if it's our
>> oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams bloody murder when someone like MX does
>> it. Usenet, indeed...
>
> Such a bias toward comrades is not unique to Usenet.
>
> I see the bias you mention as the result of at least two factors: a
> result of Mr. Honeck's "contribution" to GA, contrasted against Mr.
> Atkielski's maligning of GA (and indeed most other aspects of
> non-artificial aviation). Couple that with the social bonding that
> occurs among drinking buddies and EAA members, and it's easy to see
> how Mr. Honeck's frequent lack of insight and subjective opinion in
> lieu of empirical fact are overlooked and tolerated by a certain
> segment of the readership of the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup.

Really? Must be my ISP is missing posts as what I've seen is running
almost unanimously contrary to Jay's opinion.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Really? Must be my ISP is missing posts as what I've seen is running
> almost unanimously contrary to Jay's opinion.

In other words, you disagree. The tyranny of viewpoints.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Thanks. I was beginning to ask myself what my problem might be in
>> communicating about this. Turns out, as Jay revealed so nicely, he
>> himself is the problem. What saddens me is that this "community" does
>> nothing about it if it's our oh-so-esteemed Brother Jay, but screams
>> bloody murder when someone like MX does it. Usenet, indeed...
>
> Facts and reality rise above personal squabbles,



You've never posted a fact in your life you didn't cut and paste.
Betie

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
>>> argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
>>> that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
>>> than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
>>> quality.
>> Jay, this simply isn't an "obvious fact" and I'm not convinced it is a
>> fact at all. You have provided one mechanic who thinks your way and
>> several of us have provided mechanics who disagree. This is hardly the
>> scenario that would surround an "obvious" fact.
>
> I am apparently speaking a foreign language here, because I'm having a
> hard time comprehending how normally intelligent people can argue this
> point. Let's see if I can 'splain myself.
>
> 1. High power operation of an engine puts increased strain on
> EVERYTHING. Seals, rods, gears, accessories. You name it, high power
> operation is harder on your engine than low power operation.

Stress (and the strain it induces) isn't a problem in a well-designed
engine or any other structure. As long as the strain remains well below
the elastic limit, virtually no harm is done. I say virtually, as
depending on the material fatigue issues may arise if the stress is high
enough and the cycles large enough. As long as the oil film isn't
compromised, the higher stress does NOT cause any additional wear. Why
can't you understand this?

And the seals and accessories are not much aware of how much power the
engine is producing. They are much more concerned with RPM and the RPM
isn't a direct measure of power output.


> 2. Going from low to high power abruptly (and that, remember, is the
> crux of this issue; I don't think anyone is arguing that gradual/
> gentle application is terrible for your engine -- although it WILL
> wear it out faster) puts sudden, abrupt pressue on those
> aforementioned seals, rods, gears, pistons, cylinders, accessories.
> This is what is known as "BAD", in my world.

Again, unless you are exceeding the limits of the materials, the metal
doesn't much care how fast you apply the load. Jay, you need to
understand that not all things yield to intuition. Many material
properties and engineering principles are not intuitive.


> 3. Your engine has a certain number of revolutions in it before it
> reaches TBO. Might be a million, might be a billion -- I don't know.
> Whatever that number, if you run at higher RPMs, you will reach that
> finite limit sooner. Stuff run at high RPM wears out quicker.

Do you have even one shred of data to back up this claim? I believe
that NOT running an engine is THE fastest way to kill it. Starting it
often is the next fastest way. And running it is the way to make it
last longest. I doubt that the average number of revolutions per hour
is much higher for T&G practice in the pattern as it is for cruise.
Many folks fun at lower than cruise RPM in the pattern and the higher
RPM during climb-out is offset to a large degree by the lower RPM during
descent.

RPM alone does not wear out an engine.


> And, most importantly to this thread, engines rammed from 900 RPM to
> full power, and back, over and over, are going to wear out sooner.
> Same with props, automobiles, lawn mowers, motorcycles, blenders,
> chain saws, snow blowers, and virtually any other mechanical device
> you can name.

I don't believe that to be true and you have shown absolutely no data to
substantiate that. I worked as a logger for 5 years and we used Stihl
brand saws almost exclusively. They ran at 6 - 8,000 at full tilt and
were started and stopped dozens of times each day and went from idle to
full throttle to idle hundreds to thousands of times each day (several
times limbing just one tree). The engines were simply bullet-proof. We
literally never wore out a single Stihl engine. Something else always
happened to the saw before the engine wore out. We ran these probably
1,500 to 2,000 hours per year as we worked 6 day weeks and often 10 hour
days.

Jay, I appreciate that you are saying what you believe to be correct
based on your intuition, but I don't believe your intuition is correct
in this case. The skidders, saws, and trucks that we ran the hardest
always lasted the longest. We had one skidder that the operator ran
more sedately as he thought it would make it last longer (he felt as you
do about engines). It didn't make 3,000 hours (not much for a Detroit
Diesel). When we tore down the engine, the transfer ports were half
closed with carbon. When the engine shop saw it the reason they said
the engine had to be rebuilt prematurely was that it wasn't operated at
FULL THROTTLE as Detroit Diesel intended it to be operated. This caused
it to run too cool and build up carbon.


Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Ah, this is truly a rare alignment of the stars, to have all three of
>> these guys present in one thread...
>>
>> My work here is done. I can achieve no higher goal.
>
> A useful suggestion from a very experienced user of USENET: Never take
> anything on USENET personally.
>
Or, if you posted, it, as fact.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> Really? Must be my ISP is missing posts as what I've seen is running
>> almost unanimously contrary to Jay's opinion.
>
> In other words, you disagree. The tyranny of viewpoints.
>

God I love usenet.

Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> Jay, this simply isn't an "obvious fact" and I'm not convinced it is a
>> fact at all. You have provided one mechanic who thinks your way and
>> several of us have provided mechanics who disagree. This is hardly the
>> scenario that would surround an "obvious" fact.
>
> I am apparently speaking a foreign language here, because I'm having a
> hard time comprehending how normally intelligent people can argue this
> point. Let's see if I can 'splain myself.

[snip assertions totally devoid of supporting evidence]

Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
language.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> > Ah, this is truly a rare alignment of the stars, to have all three of
> > these guys present in one thread...
>
> > My work here is done. I can achieve no higher goal.
>
> A useful suggestion from a very experienced user of USENET: Never take
> anything on USENET personally.

I never do. Been here a long time, and I ain't goin' anywhere...

Larry, Thomas, and, yes, even you, Anthony, would receive nothing but
hospitality (and a cold one or three) at my dinner table, should you
ever find your way to Iowa.

Under all the bluster and hard blowing here, I have yet to meet anyone
who hasn't been a perfect gentleman, no matter how crazy they may seem
here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
> language.

Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
much else I can say but "To each, his own."

I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
>> language.
>
> Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
> it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
> much else I can say but "To each, his own."
>
> I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.

************************************
I think you may be starting to get defensive, now.

NOBODY here would think that an engine that is getting beaten will last as
long as an engine running at constant output.

The debate is whether running from idle, up to full power (gently) often
will be worse on it than constant output.

You and your mechanic have an opinion on the subject, and that is your
right.

I (and others) just don't agree that frequent power changes (done correctly)
are significantly detrimental to the life of your engine, and no studies or
numbers have been offered on either side to prove the case, either way.

Beat an engine, no contest. Beyond that, it all comes down to opinion.
That is all it could be, at this point.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Jay, old sport, I fear the problem is that you are *hearing* a foreign
>> language.
>
> Whatever. If you guys don't believe that beating an engine won't kill
> it quicker than babying it, because I lack "evidence", there's not
> much else I can say but "To each, his own."
>
> I will continue to fly my engine carefully and gently, nonetheless.

And I'll continue to run mine as suggested by the service manager at the
BMW shop when I bought my 1200LT ... "run it like you stole it." He
said that BMW engines that weren't run hard right from the get-go tended
not to seat the rings well and then always had oil consumption issues.
So far, at nearly 4,000 miles, so good! The K engine really sings above
6 grand!

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1191703656.050532.274020
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> > Ah, this is truly a rare alignment of the stars, to have all three of
>> > these guys present in one thread...
>>
>> > My work here is done. I can achieve no higher goal.
>>
>> A useful suggestion from a very experienced user of USENET: Never take
>> anything on USENET personally.
>
> I never do. Been here a long time, and I ain't goin' anywhere...
>
> Larry, Thomas, and, yes, even you, Anthony, would receive nothing but
> hospitality (and a cold one or three) at my dinner table, should you
> ever find your way to Iowa.

Well,if you could insert your dinner table into MSFS, he's there.


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:48:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Well,if you could insert your dinner table into MSFS, he's there.
>

There ya' go, Jay!

One of the pre-programmed "Adventure Flights" in MSFS should arrive at
the home airport of the Alexis Park Inn for the pre-OSH simulated pool
party!

The second leg of the flight could continue on to OSH.

You read it here first, folks!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:48:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Well,if you could insert your dinner table into MSFS, he's there.
>>
>
> There ya' go, Jay!
>
> One of the pre-programmed "Adventure Flights" in MSFS should arrive at
> the home airport of the Alexis Park Inn for the pre-OSH simulated pool
> party!
>
> The second leg of the flight could continue on to OSH.
>
> You read it here first, folks!
>

Actually, it coudl be done. If you go to one of the bulletin boards that
simmers hang out at someone could do that for you.

BTW, Anthony isn't exactly popular in those palces either.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> >Well,if you could insert your dinner table into MSFS, he's there.
>
> There ya' go, Jay!
>
> One of the pre-programmed "Adventure Flights" in MSFS should arrive at
> the home airport of the Alexis Park Inn for the pre-OSH simulated pool
> party!

Well, it's almost been done. Go here:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/iowa_city_scenery_for_flight_simulator.htm

to download free Iowa City enhanced scenery -- which includes detailed
renditions of the Alexis Park Inn & Suites!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> And I'll continue to run mine as suggested by the service manager at the
> BMW shop when I bought my 1200LT ... "run it like you stole it." He
> said that BMW engines that weren't run hard right from the get-go tended
> not to seat the rings well and then always had oil consumption issues.
> So far, at nearly 4,000 miles, so good! The K engine really sings above
> 6 grand!

With a motorcycle engine that is nearly disposable (and easily/cheaply
repairable) I agree 100%. Goose that hog till it squeals. Besides,
what's the worst thing that can happen if you blow it up?

With my aircraft engine, no way. Not only is my butt hanging
suspended two miles in the air, but the engine itself is currently
valued at nearly $30K. For that kind of money I will do things
gently, carefully, and by the book.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/iowa_city_scenery_for_flight_simulator.htm
>

I think you should pursue having it added to the retail distribution
CD package! Make sure the user passes "Atlas" and the Mighty Pea
while taxiing.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> And I'll continue to run mine as suggested by the service manager at the
>> BMW shop when I bought my 1200LT ... "run it like you stole it." He
>> said that BMW engines that weren't run hard right from the get-go tended
>> not to seat the rings well and then always had oil consumption issues.
>> So far, at nearly 4,000 miles, so good! The K engine really sings above
>> 6 grand!
>
> With a motorcycle engine that is nearly disposable (and easily/cheaply
> repairable) I agree 100%. Goose that hog till it squeals. Besides,
> what's the worst thing that can happen if you blow it up?
>
> With my aircraft engine, no way. Not only is my butt hanging
> suspended two miles in the air, but the engine itself is currently
> valued at nearly $30K. For that kind of money I will do things
> gently, carefully, and by the book.

Does Lycoming tell you not to practice emergency landings? I hadn't
seen that before.

If believing a myth gives you comfort, then by all means. :-)

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Well, it's almost been done. Go here:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/iowa_city_scenery_for_flight_simulator.htm
>
> to download free Iowa City enhanced scenery -- which includes detailed
> renditions of the Alexis Park Inn & Suites!

Done! I shall try it out.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Well, it's almost been done. Go here:
>>
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/iowa_city_scenery_for_flight_simulator.htm
>>
>> to download free Iowa City enhanced scenery -- which includes detailed
>> renditions of the Alexis Park Inn & Suites!
>
> Done! I shall try it out.
>

How pahtetic are you, really?


I mean on a scale of one to ten?


About a 57?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> How pahtetic are you, really?

I've seen wrose.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> How pahtetic are you, really?
>
> I've seen wrose.
>


I haven't


Bertie

[TheSmokingGnu]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> How pahtetic are you, really?
>
>
> I mean on a scale of one to ten?
>
>
> About a 57?


Oh c'mon, you know he /transcends/ any known measurement of suck thusfar
proposed.

In fact, I think this latest stiffy he's having with NASA is only
because they've denied his claims to be classified the latest black hole.

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote in
news:0fYNi.559$j14.106@trnddc06:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> How pahtetic are you, really?
>>
>>
>> I mean on a scale of one to ten?
>>
>>
>> About a 57?
>
>
> Oh c'mon, you know he /transcends/ any known measurement of suck thusfar
> proposed.
>
> In fact, I think this latest stiffy he's having with NASA is only
> because they've denied his claims to be classified the latest black hole.
>
>:P
>

Bwawhahwhahhwa!

They'll change their minds when Paris disappears.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> TheSmokingGnu > wrote in
> news:0fYNi.559$j14.106@trnddc06:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> How pahtetic are you, really?
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean on a scale of one to ten?
>>>
>>>
>>> About a 57?
>>
>> Oh c'mon, you know he /transcends/ any known measurement of suck thusfar
>> proposed.
>>
>> In fact, I think this latest stiffy he's having with NASA is only
>> because they've denied his claims to be classified the latest black hole.
>>
>> :P
>>
>
> Bwawhahwhahhwa!
>
> They'll change their minds when Paris disappears.
>
> Bertie


As one Indian said to the other Indian as they were exchanging smoke
signals on respective mountaintops in the Nevada desert and an atom bomb
test went off between them on the desert floor;
"Holy **** Red Eagle; I wish I'd said THAT!!!!!!!"

--
Dudley Henriques

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> More groundless imaginings; that may be true in your little circle of
> cronies, but as Bush is learning, there is a larger world beyond cronyism.


A: I disagree. Jay has a pretty BIG circle ...of "cronies".

B: (OT) Bush (his administration) is going through (on par) what other two
term presidents have been through, in year 7. He is not unique in muddling
through to the end.

(revisited)
A: Jay's circle of "cronies". A possible explanation:

1. Jay runs a top notch (nationally known) aviation theme Hotel

2. He flies 3 days a week (sometimes more)

3. Former (Chairman?/President?) of his airport's very successful Big Kids'
Toys event

4. Raised money for an Aviation Wing at an Iowa Children's Museum

5. Represented GA + (flying) Families at the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum (Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center) event

6. Is a mainstay at OSH - 25 years and counting

7. Was at the 2003 National Air Tour's (home field) celebration

8. Has flown to Sun-n-Fun

9. Has flown to Reno for the Air Races

10. Has participated in CAP with his son

11. Has flown numerous Young Eagles

12. Host's one of the most visited 'aviation video' sites on the web
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

13. Has hosted the Ninety-Nines at his hotel - more than once.

14. Won Best Cherokee(?) at the National Cherokee Fly-In

15. Is a member of Antique Airplane Association (National Fly-In,
Blakesberg)

16. Built the "Kiwi"
<http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm>

17. Hosts FREE (aviation) Movie Night every Tuesday, at his hotel

18. Operates a Friends Of... mailing list for his local airport

19. Maintains detailed records ('minutes') of local airport meetings, for
his large IOW (supporters) network

20. Flew in for the National Stearman Fly-In (I was his guest <G>)

21. Has been featured in numerous national publications

22. Hosted the crew of the "Connie" at his hotel - got some right seat
time, too

23. Has hosted the rec.aviation (H.O.P.S.) party, 5 years running @ OSH
(By hosting, I mean.... oh nevermind. <g>)

24. Shares flying time with Mary, his co-pilot wife.

25. It's late, I'm tires - I know I've missed a bunch!


Paul Montgomery

> In my opinion, it is the news, expertise, and information exchanged in
> rec.aviation.piloting that is valuable, not the social prattle and ill
> informed opinion. Should the newsgroup charter ever be amended to value
> humor above information, you may see a change in my style.


Don't get me wrong, just because I may insinuate it's like ...ducks in a
barrel, doesn't mean we're not all looking forward to Larry's 'make-over'
into a comic swan.


Montblack
....and running <g>

[Thomas Borchert]

Montblack,

> A: Jay's circle of "cronies". A possible explanation:

...>

Impressive. Seriously. But all that doesn't mean he's infallible or
couldn't be a jerk at times.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I haven't

I know.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I haven't
>
> I know.
>

I'll bet you do.



Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> I think you should pursue having it added to the retail distribution
> CD package! Make sure the user passes "Atlas" and the Mighty Pea
> while taxiing.

The "Mighty Pea"? Please....our fuel hauling truck is the "Mighty
Grape"!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I haven't seen the
> > mention of humor in the newsgroup charter, have you?
>
> Concerning ANYTHING even remotely associated with getting something
> across flight safety wise (or even in normal dialog between people )
> that will be remembered by the most people either reading or hearing it,
> humor is the catalyst in the communication equation that will be most
> effective.

I don't know how you said that with a straight face, Dud...

;-)

The fact that this must be explained to Larry illustrates my point
better than anything. Thanks for making me smile this morning!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Impressive. Seriously. But all that doesn't mean he's infallible or
> couldn't be a jerk at times.

You may now approach the throne and kiss my ring...

:-)

Seriously, I don't ever want to be a jerk, Thomas. I don't know if
it's a second-language thing with you, or what, but you'll be tootling
along in a thread just fine, doing a wonderful job of communicating
your experiences, and then -- BOOM! -- you just unload a personal
insult for no apparent reason.

I get that way when I'm overworked and haven't flown for a while. My
recommendation (to everyone, including me): Fly more, post less.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >http://www.alexisparkinn.com/iowa_city_scenery_for_flight_simulator.htm
>
> > to download free Iowa City enhanced scenery -- which includes detailed
> > renditions of the Alexis Park Inn & Suites!
>
> Done! I shall try it out.

A couple of notes.

1. This scenery package was created for us, for free, out of the
kindness of two enthusiast's hearts. I don't want to hear any
bitching or nit-picking about it, because the amount of work those
guys did -- for free, remember -- is astounding. (You can taxi right
into our parking lot, for example!)

2. I offer it for free download with no implied warranties. I've run
it on our flight simulator since it was created, without problems, but
that doesn't mean it won't corrupt your children, harm the
environment, or erase *your* hard drive.

3. The hotel is located just to the north of the arrival end of Rwy
25, both in the sim and in the real world. (I tell you this so you
can find it in the sim....)

Have fun!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> Impressive. Seriously. But all that doesn't mean he's infallible or
> couldn't be a jerk at times.


"Impressive": Agreed!

....and 'NO!' to the Kool-Aid. I prefer ice water, Diet Coke ("...& the left
side of the menu"), Mike's, and beer.

Part Deux: Agreed, also.

Part One ("Impressive" revisited): My 4am list was anything BUT complete.

Part Three: I do not have you and Larry on the same list as (#%^&*) Ms
Maniac X. That idiot needs to be sent "Danger Seeking" in the Muslim Quarter
(Third? Half?) of Paris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYzsskE5ObA
"Danger Seekers" Kentucky Fried Movie (1977)
NAC (Necessary Aviation Content) ...Rex Kramer

<http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=43292523>
Schlitz Beer - original formula - is back in my area.


Montblack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid
Kool-Aid history

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > I think you should pursue having it added to the retail distribution
> > CD package! Make sure the user passes "Atlas" and the Mighty Pea
> > while taxiing.
>
> The "Mighty Pea"? Please....our fuel hauling truck is the "Mighty
> Grape"!

I thought he was referring to something entirely... ;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> I think you should pursue having it added to the retail distribution
>> CD package! Make sure the user passes "Atlas" and the Mighty Pea
>> while taxiing.
>
> The "Mighty Pea"? Please....our fuel hauling truck is the "Mighty
> Grape"!

Hold on; I'm confused! (OK, you out there; don't pass up a straight line
like this! <g>)

I thought the old truck was the mighty grape, and the new one
was-....what???
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> > Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
>> > they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
>> > damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
>> > doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.
>
> The Lycoming AEIO-540's in Pitts S-2's have a TBO of 1200 hours.
> Pilots who fly Unlimited and Advanced maneuvers typically average
> 600-700 hours since new before the engines are replaced.
> The constant stresses of going from full throttle to idle and back to
> full throttle definitely take their toll on an engine.

I suspect that the gyroscopic forces have a very large part in wearing out
the engines, also. Plus, as you said, the idle to full throttle (wide open,
high RPM prop setting all the time, at that) operation that does not allow
time to go up to full power gradually.

Totally different than the average Joe out there shooting touch and go's and
go-arounds.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> > The "Mighty Pea"? Please....our fuel hauling truck is the "Mighty
> > Grape"!
>
> I thought the old truck was the mighty grape, and the new one
> was-....what???

The old Nissan was purple, so we called it "The Mighty Grape".
(Usually shortened to just "The Grape")

The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
it..."The Grape"...

A fortuitous choice of colors, I say...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > The "Mighty Pea"? Please....our fuel hauling truck is the "Mighty
>> > Grape"!
>>
>> I thought the old truck was the mighty grape, and the new one
>> was-....what???
>
> The old Nissan was purple, so we called it "The Mighty Grape".
> (Usually shortened to just "The Grape")
>
> The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
> it..."The Grape"...

Ahh- A Chardonnay refueler!
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:32:05 -0400, john smith >
wrote in >:

>The constant stresses of going from full throttle to idle and back to
>full throttle definitely take their toll on an engine.

Not to mention the inertial loads induced as a result of constantly
changing angular momentum, right?

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:47:35 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
>it..."The Grape"...

Peas are green, too...

[Montblack]

("B A R R Y" wrote)
>>The new Toyota (well, okay, 1995 vintage) is green, so we also call
>>it..."The Grape"...

> Peas are green, too...


....and kiwi(fruit), too.

WOW, nutritious little devils.
<http://www.kiwifruit.org/SpotlightOn/Quicktime/quicktime%20small.htm>
I like the NFL Films "Green" Bay Packers background music


Montblack

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
>> > practice is "needlessly".
>>
>> And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts
>> will
>> be damaged, and why?
>
> Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
> more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
> operation?

Considering that the overwhelming majority of W&T occurs during a cold
engine start, that would be an odd conclusion. The worst W&T on an engine is
DISuse.

What's worse for your car; short trips and multiple startups, or stop and go
driving?

[Dallas]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

> 9. FLY THE PLANE
> 10. Carb heat or alternate air

I see some logic to moving carb heat to number one on engine outs with the
thought that if it was carb ice, you don't want to give the exhaust
manifolds a chance to cool down and you want to give carb heat all the time
you can to melt any accumulations.

Make any sense?

--
Dallas

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> 9. FLY THE PLANE
>> 10. Carb heat or alternate air
>
>I see some logic to moving carb heat to number one on engine outs with the
>thought that if it was carb ice, you don't want to give the exhaust
>manifolds a chance to cool down and you want to give carb heat all the time
>you can to melt any accumulations.
>
>Make any sense?

Yes, I think you're right. The checklist was taught to me as a left to
right flow across the panel, but the one time I lost power on take-off in
the winter, I actually did the carb heat immediately and it worked.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Three of your friends throw up after eating chicken salad. Do you think
"I should find more robust friends" or "we should check that refrigerator"?
-- Donald Becker, on vortex-bug, suspecting a network-wide problem

[Union Thug]

On Oct 7, 2:06 am, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>
> > More groundless imaginings; that may be true in your little circle of
> > cronies, but as Bush is learning, there is a larger world beyond cronyism.
>
> A: I disagree. Jay has a pretty BIG circle ...of "cronies".
>
> B: (OT) Bush (his administration) is going through (on par) what other two
> term presidents have been through, in year 7. He is not unique in muddling
> through to the end.
>
> (revisited)
> A: Jay's circle of "cronies". A possible explanation:
>
Monty, I think you are missing the point. The cronieism LD is refering
to has to do with RAP and not his personal accomplishments . I am
always amazed at how these threads degrade into arguments that noone
will ever win. To get back to the gist of this discusion, I have
overhauled and repaired a few of these engines and I have read much of
the Lycoming factory material and from what I have seen and read the
biggest problem is the RATE of tempurature change in these engines
that causes the problem. With some planning and care you can go
practice approaches, pattern work, engine emergencies, etc, and
minimize the wear or damage to your engine. There is no doubt that
repeated approaches is harder on an engine than straight and level
cruise, but most pilots would sacrifice some engine wear to maintain
proficency (Wasnt that the gist of this ?)
>
> Don't get me wrong, just because I may insinuate it's like ...ducks in a
> barrel, doesn't mean we're not all looking forward to Larry's 'make-over'
> into a comic swan.

Having a condisending day are we ?
>
> Montblack
> ...and running <g>

[Jay Honeck]

> There is no doubt that
> repeated approaches is harder on an engine than straight and level
> cruise, but most pilots would sacrifice some engine wear to maintain
> proficency (Wasnt that the gist of this ?)

The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal by
some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
been making) as true and correct.

I will restate my point: Repeated application of full-power-to-idle
throttle management (as done in go-arounds, touch & goes, and engine
out practice) will wear your engine (and prop governor, fuel pump,
throttle linkage, etc.) out faster than NOT applying full power to
idle.

The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
wear was actually occurring.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Adhominem]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I don't know if
> it's a second-language thing with you

It may be a discussion-culture thing, if I may chime in. The way I saw it,
and I do not imply that this is what you wanted to do, Thomas reasonably
asked you to back up your claims either by presenting evidence or by
reasoning, which you refused to do for quite some time. Instead, you
alternated between "if you really are so stupid that you do not see this
entirely obvious point, pity, I will not be bothered to explain it"
and "believe me, for I am the mighty and all-knowing Jay Honeck" (some
exaggeration to get the point across). Thomas finally grew frustrated and
attacked you personally - not the high art of debate, but not completely
unprovoked, either.

It takes two to tango, etc.
--
The mail address works, but please notify me via usenet of any mail you send
to it, as it has a retention period of just a few hours.

[Union Thug]

On Oct 8, 8:16 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal by
> some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
> been making) as true and correct.

The tripping point of Monty's post was that he seemed to feel that by
boasting about your qualifications it would somehow discredit other
posters (odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications ). You are
pretty well endowed, aviation wise (I for one admire your passion and
comitment to GA) , but Montie failed to explain how this makes your
posts any more relevant than anyone elses.

>
> The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
> worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
> Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
> wear was actually occurring.

The gist ought to be maintaining proficency with minimal wear and tear
on your plane. Lycoming recomends no more than 100 degrees per minute
temp decline in CHT. Those of you who fly with an engine analizer will
find that this not difficult to acomplish and still get the benefit of
practice. Take a look at glider tow operations. These guys do low
speed high power climbs and then dive back to the pattern to do it
again 4 to 5 times an hour all day long and most of them regularly
make it to recomended TBO (The careful ones). Ask them how it is done
sometime.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Union Thug > wrote in news:1191867568.240364.167630
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 8, 8:16 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>> The tripping point in this discussion has been the absolute refusal
by
>> some participants to accept your last statement (and the point I've
>> been making) as true and correct.
>
> The tripping point of Monty's post was that he seemed to feel that by
> boasting about your qualifications it would somehow discredit other
> posters (odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications ). You are
> pretty well endowed, aviation wise (I for one admire your passion and
> comitment to GA) , but Montie failed to explain how this makes your
> posts any more relevant than anyone elses.
>
>>
>> The gist of the thread *was* whether or not engine out practice was
>> worth the expense (and risk) of this added engine wear.
>> Unfortunately, that debate was lost in the muddle over whether the
>> wear was actually occurring.
>
> The gist ought to be maintaining proficency with minimal wear and tear
> on your plane. Lycoming recomends no more than 100 degrees per minute
> temp decline in CHT. Those of you who fly with an engine analizer will
> find that this not difficult to acomplish and still get the benefit of
> practice. Take a look at glider tow operations. These guys do low
> speed high power climbs and then dive back to the pattern to do it
> again 4 to 5 times an hour all day long and most of them regularly
> make it to recomended TBO (The careful ones). Ask them how it is done
> sometime.


I did it once upon a time and we were restricted to a min of 1500 revs
(IIRC) during the initial descent. Before that we cracked a lot of jugs.
OTOH, we had a lot of aerobatic airplanes and most of them went well
beyond recommended TBO


Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I think
it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in the
pattern.

bertie
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I think
> it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in the
> pattern.

Yep.

As many times Jay says over and over that pattern work will wear out an
engine, I just don't think that is a given.

The biggest thing I believe that backs it up, is that the average HP output
per hour is less than what it would be at an all day long 75% cruise power
setting.

That, plus the fact that the average single engine mill is built hell for
stout, and does not make much power per C.I.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Union Thug" wrote)
> Monty, I think you are missing the point. The cronieism LD is refering
> to has to do with RAP and not his personal accomplishments .

The phrase 'little circle of' is what I went after. Jay has a pretty 'big
circle of' and I explained why. RAP is historicaly interwoven with most of
Jay's aviation experiences. RAP readers know Jay through his postings of
those adventures and experiences As for the word "cronieism," it was
(lunchroom posturing) bait, tossed out there by LD - nothing more. Heck, I'm
not even sure what it's suppose to mean, here at RAP?

> Having a condisending day are we ?

First: With Larry, I thought I'd have a little fun - ONLY because I figured
he'd appreciate the effort. We have a history of lobbing kittenballs at each
other, from time to time. (Yes, real kittens!)

Second: "Condescending?" C'mon, it's Larry! + humor ...'if only the charter
would allow'. Oh crap, could it be; that was Larry being funny and I missed
it? Nah.

Third: NAC ...ducks (in barrels), ducks (ugly) and swans. Again - EFFORT.


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Union Thug" wrote)
> The tripping point of Monty's post was that he seemed to feel that by
> boasting about your qualifications it would somehow discredit other
> posters (odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications ). You are
> pretty well endowed, aviation wise (I for one admire your passion and
> comitment to GA) , but Montie failed to explain how this makes your
> posts any more relevant than anyone elses.


Random thoughts:

I was discrediting the use (by LD) of the term "cronies" - whatever the hell
it's suppose to mean, or imply. Anything else (read into my post) has been
'heaped on' by others.

"Boasting"? I used the word "explanation".

"but Montie failed to explain [there's that word again] how this makes your
posts any more relevant than anyone elses."

That wasn't my intent, nor was it my ($8/hr) job to do so. I was simply
letting LD know that words matter; that Jay's circle of "cronies"(???) is
bigger than LD surmises - and for XYZ reasons.

"(odd that he didnt mention his own qualifications )"

Not odd. Nothing was about me. My opinions on the gist of the thread haven't
been shared.


Montblack
What I'll be doing this Saturday: Volunteering all day (12 hrs)
http://www.cornerhousemn.org/galaevent.html
Held at Golden Wings Museum

http://www.cornerhousemn.org/about.html
The Child First Doctrine ...why I said yes.

[Union Thug]

On Oct 8, 4:44 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Union Thug" wrote)
>
> Random thoughts:
>
> I was discrediting the use (by LD) of the term "cronies" - whatever the hell
> it's suppose to mean, or imply. Anything else (read into my post) has been
> 'heaped on' by others.

Actually you were perpetuating the use of the term "cronies". I am
only a part timer here but I have noticed definite cronyism by a few
members of this list. Why would you argue on someone elses behalf ?
Maybe we could make sure that our posts have some relevance to a
peticular thread.
>
>
> That wasn't my intent, nor was it my ($8/hr) job to do so. I was simply
> letting LD know that Jay's circle of "cronies"is
> bigger than LD surmises - and for XYZ reasons.

I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad
any weight to a persons post. There are many people on this list with
a large following of cronies whose posts are not any more important
than anyone elses. Cronies are kinda cool, but for the sake of
accuracy or relivance, they dont do much. As for the XYZ reasons, alot
of this stuff wouldnt really add to the crony list and I dont
understand why you brought it up. Whats more, there are many people on
this list (I dont know if LD is one of them G ) who have some pretty
impresive aviation credentials so it is probably best not to make
lists or we could be here a long time ,).
>
>
> Not odd. Nothing was about me. My opinions on the gist of the thread haven't
> been shared.

Here again Montie, I dont understand why you chose not to share your
opinions and just argue on someone elses behalf.
>
> Montblack
> What I'll be doing this Saturday: Volunteering all day (12 hrs)>

> ...why I said yes.

Why you said yes ..........To what ? I looked up this link and I
noticed it is in MSP. If you live there you probably work at NWA. Can
I ask what equipment you are on ? I know about 2 dozen people from my
old airline who work there so there is a good chance could we have
some mutual friends. Email me off line if you want,
K Baum

[Jim Logajan]

Union Thug > wrote:
> I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad
> any weight to a persons post.

If it did add weight then wouldn't that increase the takeoff distance of
the post? And if cronies did add weight to a post wouldn't it be important
to keep the post balanced and within its c.g. range?

;-)

[Montblack]

("Union Thug" wrote ...stuff)

OK, I DO NOT like doing this point-by-point stuff, but I sees a need.

> Actually you were perpetuating the use of the term "cronies". I am
> only a part timer here but I have noticed definite cronyism by a few
> members of this list. Why would you argue on someone elses behalf ?
> Maybe we could make sure that our posts have some relevance to a
> peticular thread.

1. I'm not sure what cronyism is suppose to even mean, here? It appears to
be a (coded language) slam. Yes, I'm no stranger to dense.

2. I WAS NOT arguing Jay's point.

3. I was simply telling Larry that his RAP zinger, "your little circle of
cronies" didn't hold true, given the fact that Jay has a pretty big circle
of (what?) ...cronies.

4. The Jay List was an explanation of just how wide a circle Jay has.

> I think that having a large circle of cronies doesnt necessarily ad any
> weight to a persons post.

1. This is where I can appreciate your point, Jay could be Neil Armstrong,
but if he's off in left field on something ...he's off in left field, Neil
Armstrong credentials notwithstanding.

2. LD was using the "C" word (and the word "little") as a slam, and a box.

3. I was merely presenting a very specific rebuff to LD about his (create
an unchallenged box and place your opponent into it) tactic.

> There are many people on this list with a large following of cronies whose
> posts are not any more important than anyone elses.

You brought "important" to the picnic. My issue with LD was over "little
circle" and "big circle". I felt he was picking up speed, running downhill
if you will, so I was trying to help him out - slow him up a bit.

> Cronies are kinda cool, but for the sake of accuracy or relivance, they
> dont do much. As for the XYZ reasons, alot of this stuff wouldnt really
> add to the crony list and I dont understand why you brought it up.

Again, accuracy or relevance to topic was not my concern when I posted. I
didn't appreciate LD's tactic or the negative inference in his word choice.
Neither of which, btw, had anything to do with whether Jay was off in left
field or not. That's it in a nutshell.

>Whats more, there are many people on this list (I dont know if LD is one of
>them G ) who have some pretty impresive aviation credentials so it is
>probably best not to make lists or we could be here a long time ,).

That's ok, I've got time. That's why I participate in these groups, to get
to know people WITH impressive aviation credentials.

> Here again Montie, I dont understand why you chose not to share your
> opinions and just argue on someone elses behalf.

1. I'm on solid ground arguing what I posted about, less solid ground
debating engineering matters.

2. Again, I was arguing on my behalf, about process. Jay was simply
....<wait for it> ...a prop.

> Why you said yes ..........To what ?

http://www.cornerhousemn.org/galaevent.html
Yes to committing an entire Saturday to their event. I was hiding behind
abused kids, figured you wouldn't come after me there. :-)

No to working @ NWA. Yes to living in the Twin Cities (for three more weeks,
anyway).


Montblack
This is why I usually don't do point-by-point replies ...I suck at it. <g>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Not to mention one extraordinary J-3 that just went on forever. I
>> think it did over 4,000 hours without even a top end and it lived in
>> the pattern.
>
> Yep.
>
> As many times Jay says over and over that pattern work will wear out
> an engine, I just don't think that is a given.
>
> The biggest thing I believe that backs it up, is that the average HP
> output per hour is less than what it would be at an all day long 75%
> cruise power setting.
>
> That, plus the fact that the average single engine mill is built hell
> for stout, and does not make much power per C.I.

True. The thing that kept this engine going was probably the fact that it
ran most of the day almost every day. No time for the oil to settle, so
startup wear was minimised, and of course corrosion didn't get a chance to
take hold because the oil never really drained away completely.


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Union Thug" wrote:

> There is no doubt that
> repeated approaches is harder on an engine than straight and level
> cruise

Oh, fer chrissake..."no doubt?"

What evidence can you produce - in the form of documented engineering
studies - that this is so?

I am not asserting that it *isn't* so, but folks who are making such a
definite claim need to come up with something better than just saying so to be
credible.

Handwaving, flat assertions and anecdotes are not convincing.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Shirl]

Union Thug > wrote:
> The gist ought to be maintaining proficency with minimal wear and tear
> on your plane. Lycoming recomends no more than 100 degrees per minute
> temp decline in CHT. Those of you who fly with an engine analizer will
> find that this not difficult to acomplish and still get the benefit of
> practice. Take a look at glider tow operations. These guys do low
> speed high power climbs and then dive back to the pattern to do it
> again 4 to 5 times an hour all day long and most of them regularly
> make it to recomended TBO (The careful ones). Ask them how it is done
> sometime.

The two tow planes where I learned to fly gliders had their fair share
of engine problems. But I still don't buy Jay's statement that "Repeated
application of full-power-to-idle throttle management (as done in
go-arounds, touch & goes, and engine out practice) will wear your engine
(and prop governor, fuel pump, throttle linkage, etc.) out faster than
NOT applying full power to idle." There are no studies/stats to support
that assumption. An engine that never does touch-n-goes, go-arounds or
engine-out practice can break down just as fast as or faster than one
that does. No guarantees either way.

Isn't taking off applying full power to idle? and isn't landing and
shutting down going from full power to idle? That's wear and tear. But
you have to fly it to keep it running well, and you can't fly it without
some wear and tear. You can't stay proficient if you don't practice some
airwork that involves occasional full-power-to-idle throttle management
(or maybe I should say some of us can't), either.

[Shirl]

Jay:
> > > Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
> > > are (thankfully) quite small.
Shirl:
> > Yeah, I used to say that, too!

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> They still are, even thought you've experienced one.

Yes, that's true.
What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
happen to *someone*.

[Thomas Borchert]

Shirl,

> What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
> real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
> practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
> happen to *someone*.
>

Excellent point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
> real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
> practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
> happen to *someone*.

If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more dangerous
than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried out in a real
aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Shirl writes:
>
>> What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
>> real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for
>> never practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean
>> that they happen to *someone*.
>
> If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more
> dangerous than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried
> out in a real aircraft.
>


Yeah, right, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > What I meant was that no one should take comfort that "the odds of a
> > real engine out are quite small" or use that as justification for never
> > practicing the engine-out drill, because even small odds mean that they
> > happen to *someone*.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If the odds were small enough, practicing the drill might be more dangerous
> than not practicing the drill, at least if it were carried out in a real
> aircraft.

The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
it is "when". Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
flying, with only 700 hours on the engine. No guarantees, no matter how
anyone thinks they're doing all the "right" things with regard to engine
care and use. And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
that is now spin "awareness" training.

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
> dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
> not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
> it is "when".

That would depend on the aircraft.

Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without having to
deal with an engine failure on an actual flight. Simulators are invaluable in
this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
dangerous and expensive).

Piston-driven aircraft are much less reliable and so engine failures are much
more likely to occur. But still, practicing them in the real aircraft is
dangerous and potentially expensive. If they aren't handled correctly, you
(potentially) write off the aircraft, and perhaps the pilots as well.

Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine, and
simply setting it to idle or something. Unfortunately this isn't the same as
an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem. A simulator would be
ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are hard
to find.

> Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
> flying, with only 700 hours on the engine.

What type of aircraft?

> And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
> than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
> that is now spin "awareness" training.

Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an engine off
completely?

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine,
and
> simply setting it to idle or something.

"or something"?

> Unfortunately this isn't the same as
> an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
> exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.

How is it different?

> A simulator would be
> ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are
hard
> to find.

Why does this require a full-motion sim?

BDS

[Shirl]

Shirl:
> > The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
> > dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
> > not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
> > it is "when".

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> That would depend on the aircraft. Airline pilots, for
> example, can go for their entire careers without having to
> deal with an engine failure on an actual flight.

We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice engine-out
emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The degree of danger
in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft vs. in an airliner
is not the same.

> Simulators are invaluable in
> this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
> become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
> dangerous and expensive).

What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in a
simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real airplane in
flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real in-flight emergency.
In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.

> Piston-driven aircraft are much less reliable and so engine failures are much
> more likely to occur. But still, practicing them in the real aircraft is
> dangerous and potentially expensive.

Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
dangerous that no one should ever practice it.

> If they aren't handled correctly, you
> (potentially) write off the aircraft, and perhaps the pilots as well.

Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice various
things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations re pilot
currency and periodic review exist.

Odds may be small, but if a REAL engine out isn't handled correctly,
there's even more of a chance of writing off the aircraft and the
pilot/passenger(s). That's why the drill is taught to private pilot
students, why it is included in checkrides, why (some) CFIs include it
in BFRs, and why (some) pilots practice it on occasion to maintain some
level of skill/proficiency.

> Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine, and
> simply setting it to idle or something. Unfortunately this isn't the same as
> an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
> exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.

Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice is
as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting down
the engine in flight ... close enough to provide experience and develop
skills that can and HAVE helped in actual emergencies.

> A simulator would be ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators
> for these small aircraft are hard to find.

No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING the
plane, making decisions, etc.? No. To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator; it
must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!

> > Just happened to a guy at our airport after 30 years of
> > flying, with only 700 hours on the engine.
>
> What type of aircraft?

Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small, too,
but thankfully, he was well prepared.

That said, it's up to each individual whether or not they do them
between BFRs. I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
differently). IMO, many more factors exist when an engine doesn't make
it to TBO than *occasional* engine-out practices, go-arounds or
touch-n-gos. And even some engines with the best possible care and use
don't make it to TBO. But that's JMO.

> > And If that were the case (practicing being more dangerous
> > than not), it would be removed from the curriculum, ala spin training
> > that is now spin "awareness" training.
>
> Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an engine off
> completely?

Of course not. Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite the
same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle) in a
small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel and
experience than a simulator.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 10 Oct, 20:13, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Shirl writes:
> > The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
> > dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who have
> > not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll have one,
> > it is "when".
>
> That would depend on the aircraft.
>
> Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without having to
> deal with an engine failure on an actual flight. Simulators are invaluable in
> this case because they allow pilots to practice engine failures until they
> become second nature, without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very
> dangerous and expensive).
>

Wrong again asshole.


I've had catastrophic failures in two nearly new JT8s, shut down three
others, shingled yet another and had to cage two turboprops and I'm
far from done yet.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 10 Oct, 20:36, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Sometimes practice mitigates this risk by not actually failing an engine,
> and
> > simply setting it to idle or something.
>
> "or something"?
>
> > Unfortunately this isn't the same as
> > an actual engine failure, so the practice it provides doesn't correspond
> > exactly to the real thing, which can also be a problem.
>
> How is it different?
>
>
>
> > A simulator would be
> > ideal, but apparently full-motion simulators for these small aircraft are
> hard
> > to find.
>
> Why does this require a full-motion sim?
>

It doesn't, but even if it did he wouldn't know why.

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Piston-driven aircraft are much less reliable and so engine failures are much
> more likely to occur. But still, practicing them in the real aircraft is
> dangerous and potentially expensive. If they aren't handled correctly, you
> (potentially) write off the aircraft, and perhaps the pilots as well.

Do you have the slimmest of clues here?

Have you ever read how to conduct engine-out
training in a real GA aircraft, let alone
experience it?

Engine-out training is typically done by pulling
the throttle to idle, not shutting down the
engine.

In the pattern, the drill is conducted all the
way down to a dead-stick landing, at least by
my instructor.

In the country, the plane is flown down to about
50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
evaluation of landing site selection and approach
speed and altitude.

Engine-out training is one of the most interesting
and satisfying flight training drills there is.
I've never felt that it's particularly dangerous.
But then, I fly and you don't.

> Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an engine off
> completely?

I thought you knew all about it? Why in the
hell do you vent your silly-assed opinions
then ask the most basic question after you've
made a fool of yourself?

There's not much difference in drag between
a prop in front of an idling engine and a
stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On 10 Oct, 20:13, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Shirl writes:
>>> The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
>>> dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who
>>> have not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if"
>>> you'll have one, it is "when".
>> That would depend on the aircraft.
>>
>> Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers
>> without having to deal with an engine failure on an actual flight.
>> Simulators are invaluable in this case because they allow pilots
>> to practice engine failures until they become second nature,
>> without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very dangerous
>> and expensive).
>>
>
> Wrong again asshole.
>
>
> I've had catastrophic failures in two nearly new JT8s, shut down
> three others, shingled yet another and had to cage two turboprops
^
What does that mean?


> and I'm far from done yet.
>
>
> Bertie
>

[Jim Stewart]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> On 10 Oct, 20:13, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Shirl writes:
>>>> The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
>>>> dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who
>>>> have not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll
>>>> have one, it is "when".
>>> That would depend on the aircraft.
>>>
>>> Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without
>>> having to deal with an engine failure on an actual flight.
>>> Simulators are invaluable in this case because they allow pilots
>>> to practice engine failures until they become second nature,
>>> without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very dangerous
>>> and expensive).
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again asshole.
>>
>>
>> I've had catastrophic failures in two nearly new JT8s, shut down three
>> others, shingled yet another and had to cage two turboprops
> ^
> What does that mean?

Sorry, tried to get clever. What
does shingled mean?



>
>
>> and I'm far from done yet.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> "or something"?

I presume there are multiple ways to simulate engine failure, depending on how
much realism one is prepared to sacrifice.

> How is it different?

The engine hasn't actually failed, and in particular an idling engine is very
different from a stopped engine.

> Why does this require a full-motion sim?

It doesn't, but many people here believe that anything that isn't moving isn't
realistic.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Jim Stewart > writes:

> > Does the curriculum specify engine-out training by shutting an
> > engine off completely?

> [...] There's not much difference in drag between a prop in front
> of an idling engine and a stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

Different story for a light twin. In Canada, getting the multiengine
rating requires a sign-off on having experienced at least one actual
in-flight engine shutdown (and one hopes, its restart). I haven't
done it on my own bird yet, but on the flight school's Aztec it was
surreal.

- FChE

[Mxsmanic]

Shirl writes:

> We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice engine-out
> emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The degree of danger
> in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft vs. in an airliner
> is not the same.

What is the difference in danger level?

> What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in a
> simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real airplane in
> flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real in-flight emergency.

Not true. The great value of simulation is that it can create reflexes and
familiarity that are extremely useful for handling real-world emergencies.
Pilots practice emergencies so frequently in the simulator that they
automatically do all the right things when such emergencies occur in real life
.... and that's the whole idea behind the simulator practice.

Those who cannot suspend disbelief for a simulation often have other problems
that may interfere with being a safe pilot. Those who say "it's just a
simulation" and dismiss every sim exercise in consequence also tend to be the
ones who dismiss procedures, checklists, and regulations because they don't
see immediate, life-threatening danger in doing so. Incidentally, this
correlates with low intelligence, although that's not the only cause
(testosterone can do it, too).

> In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
> thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.

Again, not true. Accurate simulations are much more like the real thing, in
addition to being safer.

> Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
> practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
> dangerous that no one should ever practice it.

Maybe, although the curriculum used to include spin practice, too, until it
became clear that it was more dangerous than it was worth.

> Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
> expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice various
> things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations re pilot
> currency and periodic review exist.

And they practice a lot of this in simulators.

> Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
> that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice is
> as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting down
> the engine in flight ...

A good on-the-ground simulator can provide a more realistic experience than
any safe real-world attempt to simulate the situation.

> No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
> skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
> them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING the
> plane, making decisions, etc.? No.

YES, it is. That's why simulators are used. They are safer, more convenient,
and more faithful to the real thing (because simulating in a real aircraft to
the same degree of realism is much too dangerous).

> To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
> the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator; it
> must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!

Regulations don't always keep up with the real world.

> Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
> safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small, too,
> but thankfully, he was well prepared.

If it took 30 years, the odds were indeed small.

> I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
> in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
> maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
> periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
> differently).

But if you mess up on the drill, you might be killed.

> Of course not.

Why "of course"? When an engine is out, it stops running completely, and
that's very different from an engine that is idling. For an accurate
simulation, you need to shut the engine down completely. If this isn't done,
the simulation is flawed, and potentially dangerous in that it doesn't teach
the right things.

This is where a simulator on the ground helps. In that simulator, you really
can simulate a total engine failure, safely and accurately.

> Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
> personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
> engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite the
> same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle) in a
> small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel and
> experience than a simulator.

Not true ... the simulator is superior. However, I don't think there are many
top-level simulators for small aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Have you ever read how to conduct engine-out
> training in a real GA aircraft, let alone
> experience it?

I've discussed it with pilots, and I know of the problems and false sense of
security that improper simulation in a real aircraft can provide. Simulation
on the ground is more accurate.

> Engine-out training is typically done by pulling
> the throttle to idle, not shutting down the
> engine.

When real engines fail, they don't just throttle back to idle, they stop.

It's a bit like practicing "landings" without ever actually touching down.

> In the country, the plane is flown down to about
> 50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
> and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
> evaluation of landing site selection and approach
> speed and altitude.

So a large part of the experience is missing. In real life, the landing
doesn't end at 50 feet above the ground. And it doesn't matter much how well
you handle it to that point if you mess it up thereafter.

This is why simulators are useful. In the simulator, you can fly all the way
to landing, and learn and pratice things that may prevent you from being
killed if it ever happens in real life. But that's too dangerous in a real
airplane.

> Engine-out training is one of the most interesting
> and satisfying flight training drills there is.

I think that's a matter of opinion.

> I've never felt that it's particularly dangerous.
> But then, I fly and you don't.

How many engine-out emergencies have you experienced?

> I thought you knew all about it?

About the curriculum for private pilots? No, I haven't examined it in depth.

> There's not much difference in drag between
> a prop in front of an idling engine and a
> stopped engine, at least not on my plane.

That's not what other pilots have told me. But perhaps your plane is
different.

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:

>> In the country, the plane is flown down to about
>> 50-100 feet off the deck, depending on terrain
>> and obstructions, followed by a climb-out and
>> evaluation of landing site selection and approach
>> speed and altitude.
>
> So a large part of the experience is missing. In real life, the landing
> doesn't end at 50 feet above the ground. And it doesn't matter much how well
> you handle it to that point if you mess it up thereafter.

You don't have a fsking clue.

Of course you're not going to land your
airplane with a perfectly good engine
in some farmer's field unless you have
a real good reason.

But if it were real, you would do a
soft field landing in his field. Something
that you *have* trained and practiced
doing.

Why the fsk do we have to keep going over
this with you. I assume that you have a
little bit of brains. I know you're not
totally ignorant.

If you want to intelligently discuss training
and procedures, get the manuals and study
them.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Of course you're not going to land your
> airplane with a perfectly good engine
> in some farmer's field unless you have
> a real good reason.

So the simulation is seriously defective.

On a computerized ground simulator, you _will_ land your airplane in a
farmer's field.

> But if it were real, you would do a
> soft field landing in his field. Something
> that you *have* trained and practiced
> doing.

With the engine shut off?

> Why the fsk do we have to keep going over
> this with you. I assume that you have a
> little bit of brains. I know you're not
> totally ignorant.

I'm just demonstrating different viewpoints. Many pilots here clearly have
limited experience and even more limited perspective. A little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.

> If you want to intelligently discuss training
> and procedures, get the manuals and study
> them.

I do.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 10 Oct, 22:54, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> On 10 Oct, 20:13, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>> Shirl writes:
> >>>> The odds are NOT small enough that practicing the drill is more
> >>>> dangerous than not practicing it -- there are, no doubt, many who
> >>>> have not experienced it, but it is said that is isn't "if" you'll
> >>>> have one, it is "when".
> >>> That would depend on the aircraft.
>
> >>> Airline pilots, for example, can go for their entire careers without
> >>> having to deal with an engine failure on an actual flight.
> >>> Simulators are invaluable in this case because they allow pilots
> >>> to practice engine failures until they become second nature,
> >>> without risking an actual aircraft (which would be very dangerous
> >>> and expensive).
>
> >> Wrong again asshole.
>
> >> I've had catastrophic failures in two nearly new JT8s, shut down three
> >> others, shingled yet another and had to cage two turboprops
> > ^
> > What does that mean?
>
> Sorry, tried to get clever. What
> does shingled mean?
>

Sorry. It's slang. The blades on the fans of most fanjets have a set
of shrouds, or snubbers about half span of the fan. They lightly touch
each other, and in fact, when the engines are windmilling in the wind
on the gound, you can hear them clatter against each other. If you
chuck a bird or something in there, you can knock a blade so hard that
it's shroud rises over top of the adjacent shroud and causes a domino
effect throughout the entire fan causing each one to rise up on the
next and twisting the fan blades in their slots. In my indcident, it
happened during the flare when we took a very large bird into the
engine. We knew we'd hit him and had a look at the engine but didn't
immediatly notice any damage. At the same time something didn't look
right and a bit of running back and forth between the two eventualy
revealed the damage. We had to get engineering in form base and they
used the PW approved method of getting them back by prying the first
shingled blade with a lead pipe! I kid thee not. The fan was limited
to 20 hours of operation after that and needed replacing as soon as we
got home.


I've seen a pic or tow of shingling on the net, I think, but most of
the pics I've seen the engines had suffered bad blade damage as well.
It wasn't the case with our incident.
google it though. you will probably find a pic somewhere.

Bertie