The "E" word

Hang 4

Hang 4

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
2,537
Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
I was in the pattern with a couple other planes yesterday. The one behind me was an instructor/student training flight. As I was about to turn base, they announced they were doing a "Simulated emergency engine out". I wasn't sure I heard the word "simulated", so I asked them to confirm it was not an actual emergency. It was not a big deal either way, had it been an actual emergency, I could have easily stayed out of their way.

The reason for the post is using the word "Emergency", when it isn't one. I've always said - "short approach, simulated engine out" or just short approach. My impression was that using the "E" word was kind of a no no unless it was an actual emergency.

Thoughts?
 
I heard someone on frequency declare "engine out". Before I could get too worried he said "simulated engine out". I like that more better.
 
Heard something similar here on the SYR approach frequency last week... pilot announced his intention to do an "engine out landing." ATC immediately queried him as to whether he wished to declare an emergency or if it was simulated. The sheepish "uh, SIMULATED engine out.... sorry about that" reply let us all breathe a bit easier.
 
Lachlan said:
What is the displacement of a simulated engine? Can it burn mogas or 100LL only? TBO? Overhaul costs on average? Are they fuel injected or carbureted?
Click to expand...
Doesn't much matter if you're simulating it not running.
 
Maybe the new phrase should be “virtual engine out”. Dang millennials are ruining everything.....;)
 
I'm of the belief no one should say "engine out" in any context except for a genuine engine out situation. Power-off landing works just fine and communicates what's going on. Practicing over a safe area with recovery above safe AGL, "power-off maneuvers over XYZ area" says it all as well. Often students are nervous about performing this maneuver and shout the "engine out" part of the communication.

"Power-off landing" or "power-off maneuvers over XYZ area" clearly communicates a student is practicing engine out work without creating alarm.
 
Last edited:
If I do a power out 180, I just call my position in the pattern and call the segments with the last being 'short final'.
 
I don't need to simulate emergencies. I've had enough real ones.
 
Hang 4 said:
I was in the pattern with a couple other planes yesterday. The one behind me was an instructor/student training flight. As I was about to turn base, they announced they were doing a "Simulated emergency engine out". I wasn't sure I heard the word "simulated", so I asked them to confirm it was not an actual emergency. It was not a big deal either way, had it been an actual emergency, I could have easily stayed out of their way.

The reason for the post is using the word "Emergency", when it isn't one. I've always said - "short approach, simulated engine out" or just short approach. My impression was that using the "E" word was kind of a no no unless it was an actual emergency.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Roll the simulated trucks! Simulate rolling the real trucks!

I never say I'm simulating anything on the radio. I just fly the plane. If other traffic makes my power-off 180 landing or my practice instrument approach or something else not work out, I ... just fly the plane. I'm not a fan of "simulated emergency" or anything of the sort as a radio call. That information is not relevant to other aircraft unless you are going to continue simulating your emergency in ways that violate the right-of-way rules, which don't have exceptions for simulated emergencies.
 
This is a pet peeve of mine.

The whole point is to communicate. A secondary goal is to not make your audience think too hard, as they have their own operation to manage. The third bonus goal is to find a way to do both with the least airtime.

Saying "short approach" is perfect. I don't need to know what you're pretending to do, only that you're turning base sooner that I'd otherwise expect. "turning early base" is also reasonable if a bit longer, I've heard that.

"simulated engine out" doesn't really communicate anything to me, and forces me to think about what your plane is going to do as a result of your simulation. I have to deduce "short approach" on my own. It's like you've given me homework. In the traffic pattern. If you do this, I hate you, very briefly. :D

OP, I share your disappointment with that CFI's radio call.
 
Hang 4 said:
My impression was that using the "E" word was kind of a no no unless it was an actual emergency.
Click to expand...

Agreed ... kind of like yelling "free margarita's" or "free anything" at a fly-in:confused:

schmookeeg said:
This is a pet peeve of mine.

Saying "short approach" is perfect. I don't need to know what you're pretending to do, only that you're turning base sooner that I'd otherwise expect. "turning early base" is also reasonable if a bit longer, I've heard that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what your call out is, the foreign student at the hold short line is going to pull out directly in front of you on short final anyway:mad::mad: ... happened to me TWICE 3 weeks ago after announcing short approach power off 180 turning base to final (my passenger is a Texas A&M junior preparing to start flight school and wanted to see one)
 
George Mohr said:
I think I disagree with this. A simulated engine out is characterized by a very non-standard pattern entry (if one at all), and a steep descent into pattern altitude. It gets my attention and makes me give the aircraft in question a wide berth.
Click to expand...

Yes but that pattern looks very different between a C172 and a Bonanza, and (with OP's radio call) you've left me to ponder which one you are -- something I normally don't "mentally register" with a radio call. I'm usually only curious where you are and where you're headed, so there is cognitive spend for me to sort out what your engine-out looks like, and then I get to plug you back into my mental image of the traffic pattern.

The typical engine-cuts I see are downwind abeam, and that's what I pictured in this scenario. A cessna's pattern may not look any different than normal. A bonanza is going to turn and dive for the numbers promptly. :D

(as someone who does a lot of bonanza type-checkouts for cessna pilots moving up, that first power pull is hilarious and eye-opening, and occasionally, upholstery-modifying)
 
George Mohr said:
I think I disagree with this. A simulated engine out is characterized by a very non-standard pattern entry (if one at all), and a steep descent into pattern altitude. It gets my attention and makes me give the aircraft in question a wide berth.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, the plane was already in the pattern. He was going to chop the throttle abeam the numbers I believe. Your scenario is a whole nother kettle of fish.
 
Yeah i see. All my 'simulated engine outs' were usually initiated well above the field at some random point. A better exercise, I think.
 
Agree that’s way more realistic, not sure I’d do at an airport with 3 already in the pattern. If my engine quits abeam the numbers, I’m all set. My CFI did that almost every flight :)
 
danhagan said:
Doesn't matter what your call out is, the foreign student at the hold short line is going to pull out directly in front of you on short final anyway:mad::mad: ... happened to me TWICE 3 weeks ago after announcing short approach power off 180 turning base to final (my passenger is a Texas A&M junior preparing to start flight school and wanted to see one)
Click to expand...
Could be worse. Last Saturday, I had *three* airplanes pull out in front of me while I was on final. The first, I was "Okay, I'm still out a bit," the second was, "Huh, that's cutting it awful close," and the third was pretty darn tight.

Of course, I had mike failure, so they couldn't see me.

Yesterday, I had only *one* plane try to pull out in front of me when I was on short final. That's what having a working radio buys you, only one instead of three. Someone ELSE warned him there was a plane on short final.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I recently had a radio issue (bad setup on my side!). I announced my departure, then cleared the approach visually. At that point I saw a plane on short final. I'm sure I scared that guy, but happy to say I didn't pull out onto the runway. After he landed I got a radio check until I was able to receive.

Moral of the story: LOOK (and also set up your damn radio right!).
 
Had a radio failure early on in the pattern. Started using the microphone with some success. Finally handed it to Mrs. Steingar, and focused on my landing. Back then it was CRM. Nowadays CRM just stands for Can't Remember Much.
 
schmookeeg said:
Yes but that pattern looks very different between a C172 and a Bonanza, and (with OP's radio call) you've left me to ponder which one you are -- something I normally don't "mentally register" with a radio call.
Click to expand...
Good point. If I know its a 172 doing a simulated engine out, I'll extend/alter my pattern as necessary to allow them to do the work they're trying to do. If its a Bonanza doing a simulated engine out, I might as well just keep on truckin' and land as normal because they ain't never gonna make it anywhere near the runway with the patterns they usually fly. :devil:
 
This is another example of a person who does not fully understand communication and says things that apply exclusively to their own personal thinking process... Not understanding the audience when making one-way (broadcast) attempts at communication (the purpose for the radio) will most likely result in misunderstanding that attempt by the listener.

The best way to frame a communication is to consider the audience and work backwards from there. You are telling the person sitting next to you that they are experiencing a simulated emergency and they should perform the necessary actions. Everyone outside of the cockpit only needs to know what you plan to do and you should use standard terminology to explain your actions. If your downwind to final turns will be shorter than usual, then simply translate your student's actions into a radio call that corresponds to whatever normal procedure applies.

During evaluations, such as Instrument Proficiency Evaluations, sometimes an instructor needs to do the "Inside-Outside" thing, where the emergency situation can be accomplished inside the cockpit while the outside world only sees a slightly modified maneuver or a funny looking holding pattern on the RADAR scope... This is a skill that many instructors simply cannot perform without confusing themselves. I have used a notepad with a big vertical line drawn right through the whole page to keep track of what I just told ATC we were doing versus what I told the victim, uh, examinee what to do. It takes a little effort to stay sharp on it and it helps to thoroughly know your area and controllers...

Some controllers will perk up and get annoyed when you start using the "E" work carelessly on the radio. I can't blame them!
 
TopDollar said:
More importantly, do gliders do "simulated engine on" landings?
Click to expand...

Think gliders do a simulated go around.

What if you are doing a simulated engine out in simulator?
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed flying in a transportable flight simulator (giant aluminum box the size of four shipping containers) and repositioning to the exact real-life location of the simulator.

Then I'd ask the guy next to me if he could hear us hovering above... :eek:
 
As I understand it, as long as you throw in “ATITAPA” “with you” and “Last call” after your simulated emergency call you can say whatever you want.
 
I hate going to the practice area on a busy day. There's like 10 planes in the pattern and skydiving ops going on. So I usually scream "I'm on FIRE!!!!!" over CTAF.
 
Everything in this thread, even the bad stuff that communicates a message poorly...

... is more useful than the ass hats meowing on Guard. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top