jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not sure. I don't fly in the back unless I really know them or trust them. There are a list of folks I won't fly in the back with.
Not that the front would probably help..but it just feels better.
Engine Problems when to put down?
- Thread starter AdamZ
- Start date
Not that the front would probably help..but it just feels better.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
There's a list of folks I *will* fly in the back with - It's a lot shorter than the list I won't. And someone's gotta earn my trust before I'll fly in the back with them, rather than lose it.
Of course, at 6'4" I don't even FIT in the back of many airplanes too well, so I usually don't have to worry about it anyway!
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Hurtling towards certain death is not the preferred method of going for anyone I've flown to date.
Then again, maybe I need to invite some people...
sba55
En-Route
IME, people who haven't flown in "small planes" before and who feel anxious about it usually have completely overcome these feelings by the time you take off. They sense very quickly that you actually know what you're doing...
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
When Newbies see me flipping through a few pages on my knee and ask what it is, I like to say "It's the operatoring directions". I especially like it if we're already flying when they ask...
fgcason
En-Route
I don't think you had a major engine problem, you threw the engine away when you pulled that big red (supposed to be red anyway) knob. That sounds more like a major brain problem to me.
It's either that or they're smart enough to get rid of things that can give them problems before the things have a chance to cause problems. Classic case of bypass a problem before it has a chance to occur.
When they pull the red knob to cutoff, they don't play around. Cutoff means it's gone for good.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,018
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
To that point, I've known a number of people who are afraid to fly in big planes because they don't trust the pilots, but will happily jump in a plane with me because they trust me. I'd trust a several to tens of thousands of hour pilot over me personally, but if it gets them in the air and interested in aviation, I'll work with it.
ghayes
Pre-Flight
I'm a bit late to this thread and didn't read the ENTIRE thing, but I'll throw in my .2 cents anyway ;-)
I've had several situations that seemed to be an engine problem (I'm ASEL only), enough to raise the old pucker factor. Within 30 seconds or so, I was able to determine it wasn't a problem, but really starts to make one think. Following are some of those thoughts.
* Where is the nearest landing site, on or off field
* Start diagnosis of the potential problem. If it's a real problem, this step is skipped and start into best glide and other more critical things, but we're talking a possible problem in this scenario
* Where is the nearest (by time) field. Keeping in mind a field 90 degrees to the left might be closer than the field 90 degrees to the right at the same distance, but the winds will cause you to get to the other quicker
* What's the terrain to that field? I might rather go to the further airport if there are farm fields along it's route.
* Is there a different route I can/should take to the airport that provides better off-field options?
* Should I continue on my current heading or turn to that alternate airport? Depends on the situation. If I still haven't determined what the problem is, I might turn at this point.
* Where am I heading? What's the terrain like in that direction? Am I bucking a headwind? What's the weather going to be? Has the problem cleared up? If I don't like the answers to any of those questions, I turn to the alternate field.
* Lastly, do I need to (or should I) reduce power to continue my flight? If so, this would most likely precipitate a turn to the alternate airport, then reduce power to just enough power to maintain altitude.
Also keep in mind that my personal priorities to minimal effects on society are as follows:
* First priority is to do what I can to prevent injury to anyone on the ground
* Then do what I can to prevent property damage to structures on the ground
* Then do what I can to prevent injury to passengers
* Then do what I can to prevent injury to myself
* Do what I can to keep the aircraft flyable after the "landing"
As far as the multi-engine debate: My personal feelings (remember I really don't have any practical experience in AMEL), like everything else, it depends. I'd say it first depends mostly on proficiency. Secondly it depends on conditions. They both have advantages. I was once told in a single engine, you have less decisions to make in a single engine, where with a multi-engine, you've got a lot more options and maybe not enough time to make the right decision. Of course, there's a big difference between cruise and other phases of flight. I'd also keep in mind that since most single engine are not FIKI and many twins are, there's a chance the twin might be in known icing conditions.
But personally, would I like a second engine as a backup? You bet. If an inline twin aircraft were more practical, that, I think, would be the best of both worlds. It would be really nice to have an inline with the option to shutdown the second engine during cruise to save on fuel, but have it for all other phases of flight. Maybe a gas powered primary with an electric second pusher as backup. Hmmmm
And don't get me started on AS/MES, I'd love to have an amphib and open up all those water landing options in case of engine out.
I've had several situations that seemed to be an engine problem (I'm ASEL only), enough to raise the old pucker factor. Within 30 seconds or so, I was able to determine it wasn't a problem, but really starts to make one think. Following are some of those thoughts.
* Where is the nearest landing site, on or off field
* Start diagnosis of the potential problem. If it's a real problem, this step is skipped and start into best glide and other more critical things, but we're talking a possible problem in this scenario
* Where is the nearest (by time) field. Keeping in mind a field 90 degrees to the left might be closer than the field 90 degrees to the right at the same distance, but the winds will cause you to get to the other quicker
* What's the terrain to that field? I might rather go to the further airport if there are farm fields along it's route.
* Is there a different route I can/should take to the airport that provides better off-field options?
* Should I continue on my current heading or turn to that alternate airport? Depends on the situation. If I still haven't determined what the problem is, I might turn at this point.
* Where am I heading? What's the terrain like in that direction? Am I bucking a headwind? What's the weather going to be? Has the problem cleared up? If I don't like the answers to any of those questions, I turn to the alternate field.
* Lastly, do I need to (or should I) reduce power to continue my flight? If so, this would most likely precipitate a turn to the alternate airport, then reduce power to just enough power to maintain altitude.
Also keep in mind that my personal priorities to minimal effects on society are as follows:
* First priority is to do what I can to prevent injury to anyone on the ground
* Then do what I can to prevent property damage to structures on the ground
* Then do what I can to prevent injury to passengers
* Then do what I can to prevent injury to myself
* Do what I can to keep the aircraft flyable after the "landing"
As far as the multi-engine debate: My personal feelings (remember I really don't have any practical experience in AMEL), like everything else, it depends. I'd say it first depends mostly on proficiency. Secondly it depends on conditions. They both have advantages. I was once told in a single engine, you have less decisions to make in a single engine, where with a multi-engine, you've got a lot more options and maybe not enough time to make the right decision. Of course, there's a big difference between cruise and other phases of flight. I'd also keep in mind that since most single engine are not FIKI and many twins are, there's a chance the twin might be in known icing conditions.
But personally, would I like a second engine as a backup? You bet. If an inline twin aircraft were more practical, that, I think, would be the best of both worlds. It would be really nice to have an inline with the option to shutdown the second engine during cruise to save on fuel, but have it for all other phases of flight. Maybe a gas powered primary with an electric second pusher as backup. Hmmmm
And don't get me started on AS/MES, I'd love to have an amphib and open up all those water landing options in case of engine out.
ghayes
Pre-Flight
To that point, I've known a number of people who are afraid to fly in big planes because they don't trust the pilots, but will happily jump in a plane with me because they trust me. I'd trust a several to tens of thousands of hour pilot over me personally, but if it gets them in the air and interested in aviation, I'll work with it.
This is an interesting point too ... I'm one of those people. The more I learn about flying, the less I like flying commercial. I've been flying in dash-8's more than once wondering the experience of the pilot before departing in fog. More than once, I've been sitting in the cattle area thinking "hmm, that didn't feel right" or "why is he doing that" etc.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,018
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Oh good, so it's not only when you've been sitting right seat with me flying that you do that.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
On one trip via commercial turboprop commuter, the crew had a problem closing the main cabin door. The "captain" came out of the cockpit, tried to get it to close properly a few times and actually appeared to succeed. But he wasn't certain that it was really closed so he had the FO close it after he went out on the stairs. When he came back in he said it didn't look right and he was going to wait for a "better" airplane. Needless to say I was more impressed with his safety conscious attitude than I was put out by the ensuing delay. I don't know what kind of stick this guy was but he certainly had the right attitude.
It's like ER doctors and motorcycles. When you see all the broken wrecked crap, your opinion goes for the worst case scenario. I'm a genetic mechanic. I prefer a twin for a "lets go, anytime, anywhere" aircraft. I know I'll make the next runway in a twin, and in light twins, that's what it's about. I also know how little is required to make an engine run and hold together. I used to pull a lot of parts out of the junkyard to keep vehicles going even if it's limping along, and I'm adept at fixing things "on the side of the road". However, in a SE airplane, I prefer being Day VFR, or at least if it's IFR having ceilings at least 3000' AGL so I have a half a chance of sticking it somewhere I like. The crappier the plane, the better the conditions have to be, and the greater the need &/or pay has to be. There have been a few planes that have been crappy enough that I walk away from them. When I started doing maint ferry work I was warned "You know the reason you're getting paid to fly this plane to the shop is because the owner is afraid to right?"
John Collins
En-Route
It is my experience that many light twins are not maintained as well as singles. I think this is due to the "I've got two" mentality and also by the higher costs of operating a twin. This is not a general rule as there are many examples of meticulously maintained light twins and poorly maintained singles, but in my experience, there seem to be more poorly maintained twins than there ought to be.
John Collins
En-Route
Gary,
I don't disagree with your altruistic considerations, but if you concentrate on getting the airplane down so that you will survive, you will have the best chance of achieving your priorities for all involved. Saving the airplane for future fly-ability should only be incidental in a forced landing situation, remember the saying that when the engine quites, the insurance company owns the airplane.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
There has to be a few twins getting poor maintenance (and it probably extends beyond the engines) due to the owner's "no need to worry, I've got two" mentality but IME these are no more common than owners of singles who neglect maintenance for a variety of reasons.
John Collins
En-Route
I agree, but often the first indication of a problem for a hydraulically controlled prop is the uncommanded increase in RPM. At that point, a sudden catastrophic engine failure is highly likely. The Bonanza POH has an interesting note on this situation: "If loss of oil pressure was the cause of over-speed, the engine will seize after a short period of operation."
I have talked to two who have had this happen in a Bonanza and they both reported that when the engine seizes, oil covered the windshield and the cabin filled with smoke from the oil on the hot engine such that they could not read the instruments. They were able to vent the smoke by opening the side window.
As a result, I have changed what I would do if it happened to me. As soon as I recognized the prop over-speed and retarded the throttle, I plan to immediately pull the red firewall shutoff so that the smoke won't enter the cabin. Even if I was wrong in my analysis, pulling the firewall cutoff out would not harm anything.
One last point, if the engine seizes and the prop stops completely, the glide ratio goes up significantly. The Bonanza lists a glide ratio of about 10.5 to 1 in the POH, but with the prop stopped it is probably better than 13 to 1. My good friend had this happen to him when he was 5000 feet above the nearest airport. When he declared an emergency, ATC reported the airport as 13 NM distant, and he made it to the runway without any additional damage.
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
For Tony, the "big red knob" is the tow release; he flies a glider (among other things). Of course, pulling that knob does, for him as well, get rid of a thing that can cause him problems.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
For Tony, the "big red knob" is the tow release; he flies a glider (among other things). Of course, pulling that knob does, for him as well, get rid of a thing that can cause him problems.
sooo true
TMetzinger
Final Approach
I'm glad you've thought about this in advance, but I STRONGLY suggest that you place the lives of the people in the plane ahead of the property on the ground. Don't be shy about killing some cows or smashing up a barn or taking out a fence if it will improve your odds of survival.
Flyparrothead
Pre-Flight
It really depends on where you are at, and where you are going. A few years ago I was flying a PA28-180, acting as a safety pilot and we started to get a rough engine. He looked at me and I was like you are the PIC, but if I were you I would grab that checklist and go through it. I hit the nearest button on the GPS, found we were close to an airport (Jacksonville I believe) and said I would probably land there if I were you. As we were descending on final, the engine really started to backfire and run rougher. Long story short, we landed and found we had very fouled spark plugs. Had we not diverted, we would have ended up putting down in a field somewhere in eastern NC.