Knowledge versus mastery

[coma24]

Had an eye-opening moment during a sim session last week when I was visiting FlyThisSim in San Luis Obispo, CA.

I'm not a rated twin pilot (ASEL w/instrument only), but I have tinkered with twin operations in the sim for a few years, done some reading, etc. I've encountered maybe 100 simulated engine-out operations in my simulated twin adventures, almost entirely self inflicted.

Those that were not self inflicted were normally at trade shows with Precision Flight Controls up at pattern altitude or higher with someone working the instructor console, making my life difficult without warning.

In either case, though, I've either known which engine just failed (because I failed it), or I've had ample time to work out which engine had failed (the critical "IDENTIFY" step of the engine out procedure in a twin).

Last week, though, I was exposed to an interesting situation during the filming of a scenario where an engine was failed during an unexpected go-around. This happened at very low altitude, so there wasn't much time to deal with it. The plane was not able to maintain altitude and I had to make a very quick call.

Here's where I discovered a serious deficiency in my skill set for flying the twin. I knew how to identify an engine, but not to a level where I could do it within 2 seconds. Given more time, I absolutely would've identified the correct engine, but in a pinch, I picked the wrong one, going by instinct based on rudder input. Sadly, it was the wrong instinct. All this time, I've been breezing through the 'identify' step because I've either known what just failed, or I've had tons of time to work it out.

I had no idea that I was actually horrible at identifying the dead engine. It's easy to brush this off and say, "who cares? You're don't hold a twin rating, if you did, you'd have the training and everything would be fine."

Here's what bothers me about this...I have a feeling I could get through a twin engine program and STILL come out of it with the same deficiency UNLESS they put me in a situation where there was a requirement to identify the dead engine with lightning speed and take appropriate action.

Imagine the training is taking place entirely in an airplane with no sim available during the process. Are they actually going to fail the engine at 200-300ft on takeoff with no warning? I'd be surprised. Not sure there are many instructors that would want to be put in that position with a random client in the left seat working the controls.

Now, I could be way off base, and perhaps all twin programs do a perfect job of teaching you to identify the engine with lightning speed. That would be great, and I'd be relieved to hear it. It was still an eye opener for me, though. It's one thing to kinda-sorta know how to handle something when it comes up....it's another to have complete mastery of a subject area where you'll know exactly what to do with minimal time spent before action is taken.

The trick, then, and my take away from this, is to identify what sorts of scenarios and failures would require this level of mastery...and then acquire that level of knowledge. Examples...engine out for a single...requires immediate action if it happens at low level, I'm good there. Alternator failure? Who cares....you've got time. Engine fire, GPS outage, com failure, Vacuum failure, glideslope failure...the list goes on. I'm going to rexamine what could go wrong and make sure that I identify cases where not knowing the right thing to do within the first few seconds could kill you, versus those where you have time to fix it before it can kill you.

It's been a while since I learned something significant with fixed wing flying...this was a good one. Chalk up another win for low cost sims.

 

[coma24]

Another thought about the training process is that you're often put in a mindset where you're going to practice failures. You're primed for it, you've briefed the procedure, you're good to go. I imagine this is what it's like for recurrent training in a Level D FFS. The V1 cut comes along, and *gasp*, you handle it like a champ.

If only the real world gave you such a great heads up. In this case, I was caught completely off guard and then had to rely on a skill set that, as it turns out, was not very well developed. I could've practiced engine outs by myself another 100 times in the sim and still had this same problem. The trick, I guess, is to be go through scenarios which have the ability to expose this weakness. That either means you need a competent sim instructor, or some decent software to manage the scenario and truly surprise you.

 

[frfly172]

You have to assume on every take off in a twin,that you could loose an engine and be ready for it. Go out with a multi instructor,in an airplane. It will give you a different perspective on twins.

 

[coma24]

Ron, that's a relief to hear. I did identify that possibility in my post, but the lesson is the same. This isn't about engine failures in twins. It's about levels of knowledge and being aware of where you are along the continuum.

I also stand by the point that even when you do this training, you're level of readiness might be higher than on a real world, non-training flight...months after any practice of those skills. Case in point, the perfect execution of V1 cuts in a FFS during recurrent training. The crews know the failure is coming before it happens, or they at least strongly suspect it.

The go-around is a busy time in any airplane, I can imagine it's possible that if you haven't recently used the skills required to handle a low-altitude engine failure, it might cause a problem.

 

[bobmrg]

Had an eye-opening moment during a sim session last week when I was visiting FlyThisSim in San Luis Obispo, CA.

I'm not a rated twin pilot (ASEL w/instrument only), but I have tinkered with twin operations in the sim for a few years, done some reading, etc. I've encountered maybe 100 simulated engine-out operations in my simulated twin adventures, almost entirely self inflicted.

Those that were not self inflicted were normally at trade shows with Precision Flight Controls up at pattern altitude or higher with someone working the instructor console, making my life difficult without warning.

In either case, though, I've either known which engine just failed (because I failed it), or I've had ample time to work out which engine had failed (the critical "IDENTIFY" step of the engine out procedure in a twin).

Last week, though, I was exposed to an interesting situation during the filming of a scenario where an engine was failed during an unexpected go-around. This happened at very low altitude, so there wasn't much time to deal with it. The plane was not able to maintain altitude and I had to make a very quick call.

Here's where I discovered a serious deficiency in my skill set for flying the twin. I knew how to identify an engine, but not to a level where I could do it within 2 seconds. Given more time, I absolutely would've identified the correct engine, but in a pinch, I picked the wrong one, going by instinct based on rudder input. Sadly, it was the wrong instinct. All this time, I've been breezing through the 'identify' step because I've either known what just failed, or I've had tons of time to work it out.

I had no idea that I was actually horrible at identifying the dead engine. It's easy to brush this off and say, "who cares? You're don't hold a twin rating, if you did, you'd have the training and everything would be fine."

Here's what bothers me about this...I have a feeling I could get through a twin engine program and STILL come out of it with the same deficiency UNLESS they put me in a situation where there was a requirement to identify the dead engine with lightning speed and take appropriate action.

Imagine the training is taking place entirely in an airplane with no sim available during the process. Are they actually going to fail the engine at 200-300ft on takeoff with no warning? I'd be surprised. Not sure there are many instructors that would want to be put in that position with a random client in the left seat working the controls.

Now, I could be way off base, and perhaps all twin programs do a perfect job of teaching you to identify the engine with lightning speed. That would be great, and I'd be relieved to hear it. It was still an eye opener for me, though. It's one thing to kinda-sorta know how to handle something when it comes up....it's another to have complete mastery of a subject area where you'll know exactly what to do with minimal time spent before action is taken.

The trick, then, and my take away from this, is to identify what sorts of scenarios and failures would require this level of mastery...and then acquire that level of knowledge. Examples...engine out for a single...requires immediate action if it happens at low level, I'm good there. Alternator failure? Who cares....you've got time. Engine fire, GPS outage, com failure, Vacuum failure, glideslope failure...the list goes on. I'm going to rexamine what could go wrong and make sure that I identify cases where not knowing the right thing to do within the first few seconds could kill you, versus those where you have time to fix it before it can kill you.

It's been a while since I learned something significant with fixed wing flying...this was a good one. Chalk up another win for low cost sims.

First, forget about "lightning speed." In THE COMPLETE MULTIENGINE PILOT, i tell my readers "Don't just do something, sit there." In aviation, almost everything you do in a hurry would be improved by waiting a second or two or three. It you think that one second is a short time, I would like to stick my finger in your eye and hold it there for one second.

Your initial reaction should be to apply pressure to the hard rudder pedal....that will be the one on the good engine side. Do that before trying to level the wings with aileron because that it self-defeating...downward deflection of the aileron on the failed-engine side just makes things worse. It is the yaw that causes the roll, and it is the rudder that stops the yaw.

Insofar as killing an engine in training or on a checkride is concerned, no sane MEI is going to kill an engine immediately after liftoff. Even the examiner must wait until you are 400 feet or more above the surface..this is what the PTS says about examiner responsibility:

"On multiengine practical tests, where the failure of the most critical
engine after liftoff is required, the examiner must give consideration
to local atmospheric conditions, terrain, and type of aircraft used.
However, the failure of an engine shall not be simulated until
attaining at least VSSE/VXSE/VYSE and at an altitude not lower than
400 feet AGL. [how many seconds is that at ??? feet per minute?]

During simulated engine failures on multiengine practical tests, the
examiner shall set zero thrust after the applicant has simulated
feathering the propeller. The examiner shall require the applicant to
demonstrate at least one landing with a simulated-feathered
propeller with the engine set to zero thrust. The feathering of one
propeller shall be demonstrated in flight, unless the manufacturer
prohibits the intentional feathering of the propellers during flight."

If your instructor insists on instant reaction, try another instructor. Engines do not fail instantaneously.

I have had five engine problems (just one failure, and that was at 14,000 feet) and haven't crashed yet.

Bob Gardner

 

[coma24]

Bob. Interesting perspective, thanks. I did apply the rudder instantly. I also got the sense that the energy state was diminishing rapidly after I got it stablized, which brought on the intense urge to fix the problem as quickly as possible.

Remember, this was unplanned on a go-around at low altitude (I'll have to watch the video when it comes out to see how low it was and how quickly this actually happened).

Your point is well taken about taking your time....unless the situation truly doesn't allow for it. I agree those cases are rare, but there is a very brief window in the normal flight regime where quick action is required.

 

[ja_user]

I am reading Bob's book now, and highly recommend it.

 

[bobmrg]

Ron, that's a relief to hear. I did identify that possibility in my post, but the lesson is the same. This isn't about engine failures in twins. It's about levels of knowledge and being aware of where you are along the continuum.

I also stand by the point that even when you do this training, you're level of readiness might be higher than on a real world, non-training flight...months after any practice of those skills. Case in point, the perfect execution of V1 cuts in a FFS during recurrent training. The crews know the failure is coming before it happens, or they at least strongly suspect it.

The go-around is a busy time in any airplane, I can imagine it's possible that if you haven't recently used the skills required to handle a low-altitude engine failure, it might cause a problem.

Just tagging on to Ron's post: I use the term "constructive paranoia." As you roll into takeoff position, tell yourself "I am going to lose an engine before liftoff" and be on a hair trigger for the first sign of trouble; after successful rotation, "I'm going to lose an engine before I get to 100 feet...I'm going to pull both throttles and land straight ahead." Through 100 feet, "Made it this far, but I'm sure to lose an engine before I get to 500 feet." By that time the airplane will have been cleaned up, you will be pulling climb power, and will think "Dodged a bullet,,,but next time, for sure, I'm going to lose an engine."

Works for me.

Insofar as go-arounds are concerned, the late, great Les Berven, who wrote the FAA staff study that led to the teaching of zero-sideslip (and who helped me with my multiengine book) said that if he lost an engine in in anything smaller than a KingAir and was lower than 500 feet, he would land on the grass, on a taxiway, in a parking lot...anything but a go-around.


Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

Bob. Interesting perspective, thanks. I did apply the rudder instantly. I also got the sense that the energy state was diminishing rapidly after I got it stablized, which brought on the intense urge to fix the problem as quickly as possible.

Remember, this was unplanned on a go-around at low altitude (I'll have to watch the video when it comes out to see how low it was and how quickly this actually happened).

Your point is well taken about taking your time....unless the situation truly doesn't allow for it. I agree those cases are rare, but there is a very brief window in the normal flight regime where quick action is required.

I guess that I've been amazingly fortunate in never having encountered such a situation in over twenty years of non-airline commercial flying....can't even imagine one.

Bob

 

[coma24]

Bob, huge fan of the constructive paranoia...I fly my Lancair with that mindset a lot of the time, even in cruise, so all that remains is to execute the plan.

I was just surprised that there was a task which I thought I could do...because each time I'd practiced it (at altitude, or with an awareness that the failure was about to happen, because I was going to introduce the failure), I did just fine. When the failure occurred in the wild at a critical phase...I did the wrong thing.

It's caused me to wonder what other skills I've been drawing upon in training scenarios that might actually buckle in a real world case.

Btw, in this case, after feathering the wrong engine (ie, botching the 'verify' step under duress) I did land more or less straight ahead in the sim and maintained control to the ground.

I fully realize that a fully trained twin pilot would probably not botch the verify step as I did, but the concept that certain skills might not be as solid as I thought was an interesting one.

I don't fly twins at all real world, nor do I have any formal multi training, so this particular skill doesn't have to be bolstered right away. My point is that I'm going to reevaluate certain assumptions about my skills regarding procedures that are valid for my airplane (ASEL). It was an unsettling feeling. I landed in the sim and was thinking, "that's weird, I've never messed that up the other 100 times I've engine outs in the twin."

Your point is taken about the statistical unlikelihood about having this failure at the time that it occurred, so it might be an overreaction, it was just an unsettling feeling.

 

[bobmrg]

Bob, huge fan of the constructive paranoia...I fly my Lancair with that mindset a lot of the time, even in cruise, so all that remains is to execute the plan.

I was just surprised that there was a task which I thought I could do...because each time I'd practiced it (at altitude, or with an awareness that the failure was about to happen, because I was going to introduce the failure), I did just fine. When the failure occurred in the wild at a critical phase...I did the wrong thing.

It's caused me to wonder what other skills I've been drawing upon in training scenarios that might actually buckle in a real world case.

Btw, in this case, after feathering the wrong engine (ie, botching the 'verify' step under duress) I did land more or less straight ahead in the sim and maintained control to the ground.

I fully realize that a fully trained twin pilot would probably not botch the verify step as I did, but the concept that certain skills might not be as solid as I thought was an interesting one.

I don't fly twins at all real world, nor do I have any formal multi training, so this particular skill doesn't have to be bolstered right away. My point is that I'm going to reevaluate certain assumptions about my skills regarding procedures that are valid for my airplane (ASEL). It was an unsettling feeling. I landed in the sim and was thinking, "that's weird, I've never messed that up the other 100 times I've engine outs in the twin."

Your point is taken about the statistical unlikelihood about having this failure at the time that it occurred, so it might be an overreaction, it was just an unsettling feeling.

Sims that cost less than six figures can be misleading when it comes to control feedback. Try it in an airplane with an MEI in the right seat and I believe that you will realize what I am getting at.

Bob

 

[Hank S]

Sims that cost less than six figures can be misleading when it comes to control feedback. Try it in an airplane with an MEI in the right seat and I believe that you will realize what I am getting at.

Bob

Bob, his point wasn't so much about control harmony in the sim as it was that he messed up something (in the sim) that he had done correctly many times (in the sim), due to the unexpected nature of the failure. Based on that unhappy occurrence, he is reevaluating some of his procedures in his plane (that he flies for real).

This is something that I think we should all do periodically. I think I will reprint my checklists and take the unlaminated ones on my next several flights so that I can mark things to change. And spend some time thinking about different contingencies, how to handle them, and whether & how to add them to the checklists.