The Training Value of Ice

[Alexb2000]

Sounds like something any private pilot could benefit from. But it seems that this training should be done in a FIKI airplane.

Agreed. Sadly not many in the training fleet.

 

[Jaybird180]

See this Chief Counsel letter, especially the part about the "prudent pilot".

I'm glad the CCs letter indicates that enforcement is based upon a holistic approach and there is some leeway in determining what is/is not an infraction of the Part 91 regulations.

This thread has not reached a consensus that seems consistent with that interpretation as it would seem to me that if the CFII takes his student into conditions that have been thoroughly pored over where sufficient OUTs exists (the CCs letter mentioned this several times), that it could be considered a managed risk.

Alex, is that what you're trying to advance?

 

[Sac Arrow]

I've had one encounter of ice, and I don't know how prior training could have been beneficial.

Occurrence: Enter ice.

Training reaction: Get out of it.

Occurrence: Enter unusual attitude in solid IMC while trying to dive bomb through the icing layer.

Training reaction: Use IR unusual attitude recovery procedures to establish level flight then a manageable decent rate.

Occurrence: Find a layer in the clouds with no ice in it.

Training reaction: Ask ATC for permission to remain at current altitude even though it's wrong for the direction of travel.

That was years ago. F that. Just stay out of it. I agree with Ron Levy, why practice bleeding on the battlefield. Any prior training that would have been beneficial, would have been to recognize conditions for what they were at the destination 400 NM south where there should have been no ice to begin with.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In many threads one can find evidence that CFIIs will take students into icing conditions in a non-FIKI aircraft, which clearly is not legal with the claim that the training value far exceeds the risk.

I have also read reports of the FAA burning pilots for 'you should have known there would be ice'.

Few questions:
What is the real training value?

Well, if someone tells you "To see how the plane flies in ice" they're full of crap - The ice is gonna be different every time.

As someone who experienced inadvertent icing in my IFR training and several times since, however, I am *REALLY* glad (is that enough emphasis?) that I was with my CFII the first time it happened. It scared the crap out of me. I couldn't get a word in edgewise on the frequency for what seemed like an eternity but was likely less than 20 seconds. I wanted to squawk 7700 and change altitudes and turn around and and and...

And my II had the experience to note that the ice wasn't accumulating quickly and that we could wait the 20 seconds to report it and get a new altitude. We did that, I leveled off and looked outside and the ice was already gone.

These days, I'm much calmer when I deal with ice and I think through the scenario in a calm and clear-minded fashion so I can come up with the best solution to exit the icing conditions rather than battling through an adrenaline-induced fog of fear of the unknown.

Can an exemption or waiver be obtained?

No.

What is the requirement for staying legal with ice where there exists conflicting data (forecasts, pireps, skew-t, radiosonde, etc)?

There is no hard-and-fast answer to this one. You won't find definitive wording in the FARs as to what constitutes "known icing" and the Chief Counsel's latest interpretation has been left intentionally vague, I believe, so that as technology and training improve that the pilot community will have to improve with it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'll go a little further, just to really stir it up on a Monday morning. I would like to see CFI's teach:

Spin entry and recovery

There's some value there, but mostly if you're doing it with a CFI who does upset training for a living. You won't get much value out of spinning a 172 with a 300-hour jet-jockey-wannabe-wonder CFI.

Actual engine out, key off, to landing, no second chances.

There are not many places where this would be considered "safe". There are CFI's who do it. They say that if you push the mixture back in the engine just starts right back up. But, I have enough difficulty with hot starts when I'm sitting on the ground that I'm afraid to try it.

I'd love to go up with an instructor who has done it for real many times above one of the aforementioned SAC bases and do some testing to determine things like whether it's better to stop the prop or not and what the real glide ratio is with various settings of throttle and prop when it is spinning. But, not so much that I've sought out that instructor.

Actual in IMC spatial disorientation training even for VFR pilots

OK, if you have an IFR clearance. The best way to do this is to just have them fly in IMC with most of the instruments blocked from their view... CFII holding a manila folder at an angle in front of the panel (so that the II can still see them) should do the trick nicely.

Real short field, with trees at the end kind of thing

Only after a lot of practice at progressively shorter fields with lower obstacles... But making the margins smaller doesn't sound like "training" to me. I do think that everyone should land on grass before their checkride so that their first time on grass isn't when their engine quit for real.

Real hot and high flying

That's kinda far away for most people in the country. Definitely valuable training though, IF your instructor knows what they're doing and has experience in that kind of situation. Again, with all the 300-hour-jet-jockey-wannabe's out there, this isn't likely to happen for most people.

Night landings with NO aircraft lights

Why?

I agree with doing some landings sans landing light (doesn't everyone do this already? I did), and covering what to do in the event of a complete electrical failure (fly to an airport where the lights are always on, practice no-flap landings, etc). But actually shutting down the electrical system or turning off ALL the lights is going to prevent you from being seen by other aircraft and has zero training value whatsoever.

Real weather flying, no more VFR perfect morning flights

When I get my CFI, I will take my students flying whenever the weather is flyable AND it will have value for them at the stage they're at in their training. Actual IMC for someone who still hasn't mastered climbs, descents and turns would be foolish, for example - It's too far beyond their abilities.

I do think that having the student come to the airport for the lesson regardless of weather can be valuable. They'll learn that just because they made the trip doesn't mean they're going to fly, and it's a good opportunity to do some ground.

Real crosswind landings to at least 20 knots

Again, this is something that needs to be worked up to. I think a private pilot should be able to handle 15 knots of crosswind without any trouble, but training to extremes isn't really necessary. I also think that if they can handle 10G15 just fine, going up in 20G30 has no value with or without the instructor, and going up in 14G18 doesn't require an instructor. Just practice. You do the same things at 25G35 that you do at 10G15, you just do more of them. (25G35 is also about as high of a crosswind as I've gotten, still didn't run out of rudder.)

There is NO substitute for the real thing. Giving pilots the real world confidence and at least some experience WOULD save lives.

Not if they're flying with the average 300-hour-wannabe-jet-jockey CFI. There would be an awful lot of deaths in training accidents. That is why spins are no longer required on the Private Pilot PTS.

Now, if you found CFIs that were experienced in each type of operation (for example, get your spin training from Rich Stowell), you probably would save lives.

If you made that a requirement, it'd save even more lives: Nobody would be flying any more.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Some requirements that should be added before a private checkride can be taken:
- A flight to the edge of the training aircraft's range(with 45 mins of fuel left!)

Not sure where the value is in that, other than flying at different weights. You fly, you fly, you fly, you fly, you land. Whooptee doo, so what?

Now, planning a flight to the edges of the range and talking through some scenarios where a diversion might be necessary and teaching people how to fuel an airplane at a self-serve pump... Hell yeah!

- Transition thorough or around class B

Again, not something I think you really have to do to figure out what you need to do when you do it for real. I would have had to fly for ~45 min just to get turned away from Chicago Approach. As far as going around, what's so hard about not flying in charted Class B airspace?

- 20-30 NM flight in marginal VFR

Agreed. 5nm or less visibility sucks. Did it once when I was a fairly new pilot and had traffic called that apparently passed 1/2 mile off my left wing and I never saw them. Now I fly IFR when the vis is 5 or less.

- 5 takeoffs & landings near gross weight

A good thing - And I'd suggest 5, solo, at a very light weight shortly thereafter to see the contrast. Learning how to adjust airspeeds would be good too.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Second, there is no longer any "definition" of trace ice. The FAA did away with that over TEN years ago.

Not so. From the AIM:

1. Trace. Ice becomes perceptible. Rate of accumulation slightly greater than sublimation. Deicing/anti-icing equipment is not utilized unless encountered for an extended period of time (over 1 hour).

2. Light. The rate of accumulation may create a problem if flight is prolonged in this environment (over 1 hour). Occasional use of deicing/anti-icing equipment removes/prevents accumulation. It does not present a problem if the deicing/anti-icing equipment is used.

3. Moderate. The rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous and use of deicing/anti-icing equipment or flight diversion is necessary.

4. Severe. The rate of accumulation is such that deicing/anti-icing equipment fails to reduce or control the hazard. Immediate flight diversion is necessary.

However, these definitions are for PIREP purposes, they don't make it legal to fly into icing intentionally.

 

[James331]

There's some value there, but mostly if you're doing it with a CFI who does upset training for a living. You won't get much value out of spinning a 172 with a 300-hour jet-jockey-wannabe-wonder CFI.

I half agree, you want a CFI who knows how to spin a plane, not someone who just did it once to get the signoff.

Now the doing it in a 172, if you're going to be mostly flying a 172 then by all means do your spin training in a 172.

A 172 and a Extra 300L spin a wee bit differently, if you're going to be flying hours and hours in a 172/152/7EC whatever do your spin training in what you will be flying, this just makes sense.
Also you won't have to pay the exaggerated price for some rich hobby CFIs Pitts or extra.

You should be as qualified in THE PLANE YOU FLY as possible.

If your plane isn't certified to spin, find a plane which most closely flys like your plane.

 

[Ted]

There are CFI's who do it. They say that if you push the mixture back in the engine just starts right back up. But, I have enough difficulty with hot starts when I'm sitting on the ground that I'm afraid to try it.

The reasons hot starts are difficult on the ground will not exist at altitude with a windmilling prop.

 

[James331]

All the hot starts I've heard of have been on the ground, keep a eye on that ITT

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The reasons hot starts are difficult on the ground will not exist at altitude with a windmilling prop.

So, will you go up with me and shut down the (only) engine?

Some of us don't carry a spare, ya know.

 

[Alexb2000]

Kent-

I won't quote you to keep it short.

In summary much of your list wouldn't be effective because the CFI's are not skilled enough or don't take the time to train to a high enough level of proficiency. There is a sermon in there for sure.

I think it is important to keep in mind that a private ticket is supposed to mean the pilot can fly passengers from one end of the country to the other day or night. It seems a dis-service if they can't do that the day they are certificated.

 

[poadeleted20]

This thread has not reached a consensus that seems consistent with that interpretation as it would seem to me that if the CFII takes his student into conditions that have been thoroughly pored over where sufficient OUTs exists (the CCs letter mentioned this several times), that it could be considered a managed risk.

I don't think that's what the Chief Counsel said at all. What it says is that if you take reasonable precautions to avoid ice, they won't bust you if you stumble into it and get out quickly. They are most certainly not saying that it's OK to go flying into conditions that you expect will cause ice just to see what it's like but be excused because you thought you had an out.

 

[gismo]

If we did all of that, we couldn't stand the training accident rate that would result. Some of that is good, some of that is a "pointless risk". The wise and experienced instructor can tell the difference.

Heck, I'm neither wise nor a CFI but some of that seems to be all risk and no benefit. For instance killing the mags and removing the ignition key in the air generates less of a performance delta from a closed throttle landing than the variations due to aircraft loading and wind. One could argue that this generates realistic stress but the comforting presence of the CFI is likely to mitigate that and there are less risky ways to generate a stressful scenario to see how the pilot reacts. And in a real emergency landing situation the focus is about making it survivable, not protecting the airplane so this kind of simulated emergency is far from realistic.

I'm pretty certain the NTSB would fail to see the humorous irony if the attempt was coming up short and while trying to restart the engine the key fell under the seat.

 

[gismo]

The reasons hot starts are difficult on the ground will not exist at altitude with a windmilling prop.

Agreed. Any problems with the restart will likely be more about the cold temp of the engine.

I personally don't have a problem with pulling the mixture to ICO (at a safe altitude) to observe the small difference between a closed throttle and a truly dead (but rotating) engine and I have just as much confidence that the engine will perform normally after doing so as I do for the same engine with the throttle fully closed. The only difference will be a slightly slower response to the engine control movement.

 

[gismo]

Kent-

I won't quote you to keep it short.

In summary much of your list wouldn't be effective because the CFI's are not skilled enough or don't take the time to train to a high enough level of proficiency. There is a sermon in there for sure.

I think it is important to keep in mind that a private ticket is supposed to mean the pilot can fly passengers from one end of the country to the other day or night. It seems a dis-service if they can't do that the day they are certificated.

I expect that we'd see a significant drop in the new pilot population if PPL training was extended to the point where every pilot had experienced every possible adverse condition and had been fully qualified to deal with it at a professional level.

To me what's important is that the pilots be trained to handle what they're likely to encounter and educated well enough to be able to recognize when they need more training.

 

[Jaybird180]

Here's an AOPA safety video about flying in ice

http://youtu.be/eb2lI9uA9So

 

[txflyer]

VMC for me all the time thank you very much.

This is some scary **** being talked about in here.

Ice, blind, no power, disoriented, panic. Basically a pilot's worst nightmares. I know I'm not trained for all of it, and I don't want to be.

 

[coloradobluesky]

When I got ice, I reported it to ATC and they wanted to know what kind of ice it was (smooth clear, jagged clear, or rime(white)). They also wanted to know what the temperature was. I descended and the ice came off, so I was OK. I first noticed something different because I was losing altitude (had to trim), then I looked up and I had a layer of ice all over the leading edges of the plane, windshield etc. The ice wasn't forecast so I didn't break any rules. They put an airmet for icing for that area because of my report.

 

[Ted]

All the hot starts I've heard of have been on the ground, keep a eye on that ITT

You turbine jocks are all the same.

So, will you go up with me and shut down the (only) engine?

Some of us don't carry a spare, ya know.

At Gaston's some years back I pulled both mixtures in the Aztec in flight on Tony.

Agreed. Any problems with the restart will likely be more about the cold temp of the engine.

Yep. I'd stick to doing it at temperatures that you wouldn't worry about pre-heating. I also don't feather engines for practice on cold days.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In summary much of your list wouldn't be effective because the CFI's are not skilled enough or don't take the time to train to a high enough level of proficiency. There is a sermon in there for sure.

Agreed.

I think it is important to keep in mind that a private ticket is supposed to mean the pilot can fly passengers from one end of the country to the other day or night. It seems a dis-service if they can't do that the day they are certificated.

Legal yes, safe no... Except we'd see a huge reduction in the accident rate because nobody would be able to afford to become a pilot any more!

I think Lance has it right:

To me what's important is that the pilots be trained to handle what they're likely to encounter and educated well enough to be able to recognize when they need more training.

That's why it's called a "license to learn". It's impractical to force a new pilot to learn everything they'd need to for a coast-to-coast trip the day they get their ticket (mountain flying, likely instrument, and how to fly a plane fast enough to make it in a day!) but we can definitely try to show and tell them that there's a lot they don't know and get them to talk with an experienced instructor prior to tackling things they might not be ready for.

I'd be comfortable flying coast-to-coast today in the Mooney, but I've got over 1200 hours total time, mountain flying instruction and experience, boatloads of night and XC time, a fair amount of actual instrument time... And I never would have gotten there if I had to have an instructor along the whole time. You've gotta let the baby bird leave the nest and learn on their own. To do so safely, they simply need to know that they should only push one corner of their envelope at a time, and to seek the guidance of experienced instructors before taking on some of the bigger pushes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The reasons hot starts are difficult on the ground will not exist at altitude with a windmilling prop.

OK... My only experience with an actual engine shutdown airborne was sitting in the back of a 414 training flight, where the prop was stopped and feathered. There was quite a lot of difficulty getting that engine started again. Even though that's a different situation, it probably adds to my reluctance to do such a thing when I don't have another one to get me to the scene of the perfectly executed emergency landing.

 

[JimNtexas]

To get a multi-engine rating one should be required to perform a dead engine vmc demo at 500 feet after takeoff, holding wings level, no rudder blocking allowed, in icing conditions.

 

[Ted]

To get a multi-engine rating one should be required to perform a dead engine vmc demo at 500 feet after takeoff, holding wings level, no rudder blocking allowed, in icing conditions.

I did those while inverted in my training. You're too soft.

 

[alfadog]

Frankly, as long as it's not illegal or unsafe, I've got no problem with it.

Flight in to known icing without an equipped aircraft is illegal and unsafe.
Flight into IMC without operating IFR is illegal and unsafe.
Flight without POSITION lights is stupid and illegal. Now flight without a landing light or runway lights would be a different story (In fact I had neither to turn on doing my private night work).

You left out flying the plane at the gross weight. This is important if you train in a 172 or another four place where the instructor+student doesn't put you at the maximum. The first thing that pilot is going to do after he gets his ticket is load up three buddies and find out how different it flies.

Teaching students to be cavalier about busting the regulations and safe flight isn't teaching them to be better pilots!

Agree for the most part. I see no upside to practice landing in the dark (i.e. no runway or landing lights). That is like trying out some heavy icing. The original post just said without aircraft lights by which I assume landing or taxi lights and that should definitely be on the PPL agenda. I also think the student and CFI should load the 4-place trainer up to gross with sandbags on a hot day and see how that works but not go over gross.

 

[gismo]

To get a multi-engine rating one should be required to perform a dead engine vmc demo at 500 feet after takeoff, holding wings level, no rudder blocking allowed, in icing conditions.

Absolutely. And for PPL-ASEL throw in a takeoff with the gust locks in place as well as a completed emergency landing in a swamp or forest.

 

[Ted]

OK... My only experience with an actual engine shutdown airborne was sitting in the back of a 414 training flight, where the prop was stopped and feathered. There was quite a lot of difficulty getting that engine started again. Even though that's a different situation, it probably adds to my reluctance to do such a thing when I don't have another one to get me to the scene of the perfectly executed emergency landing.

So, trying to get some educational value back into this thread...

A 414 with a feathered engine is a lot different than a piston single. First off, let's think about why you have to feather the prop on a twin. Why? Because the engine isn't stopping on its own, it's windmilling. As I'm sure you remember from your multi engine training, twin engine planes have "pressure to decrease pitch" props, meaning that when you feather it, all oil pressure dumps out of the prop hub and the springs/counterweights allow the prop to go into the feathered position. This doesn't happen at shutdown because of centrifugal stops that will keep the prop in a fine position (still several degrees coarser than min or finest pitch).

So when you're starting the piston plane in the air with a feathered prop, the starter is trying to turn the engine and then also move a giant paddle through the air (just like a paddle in water). The bigger issue is that once the engine restarts, it will be at a very low RPM until oil pressure builds up and the prop comes out of fine, and that can be a difficult situation to run in. Incidentally, this is basically the same reason why TPE-331 turboprops have stops that hold the props in flat pitch when off vs. PT-6s. The TPE-331 has a single shaft that connects the compressor, turbine, and gearbox, so the starter is moving the entire engine and propeller during start. The PT-6 has two turbine sections, one to power the compressor, and one that independently powers the prop and is not connected to the starter physically. So the starter on a PT-6 has a much easier life.

Now let's compare this to your Mooney in the air. Some Mooneys have pressure to decrease pitch props like a twin, but I'm only aware of it on the Missile STC conversions. Even then, the coarse stop on those isn't anywhere near feather, it's just designed to extend gliding range by reducing the power required to windmill the engine. Even one of those I wouldn't expect to stop in flight unless you seized the engine. But most Mooneys and other piston singles either have a flat pitch prop or a pressure to increase pitch prop, in other words it will naturally revert to fine pitch. What this means is that, like in the twin, you have to work pretty hard to make the prop stop spinning. It will want to windmill. This is a realistic failure scenario unless you seize the engine.

With hot starts, the real issue is that you have such a low RPM to try to get air/fuel working in. When hot that becomes more difficult since the fuel gets hot and may be boiling in the lines, so you have vapor to contend with. Even still, Continentals are pretty easy to hot start - on the 310 I get them started first try almost every time, and that included when the starting vibrator failed on my way to Mexico in March. With a windmilling prop, you don't have that issue. Just push the mixture in and fuel will go in, it goes back to normal.

Now sure, somewhere over the runway if you did this exercise the prop would probably stop spinning, but it certainly shouldn't in the air. And if you practiced it at an appropriate 10,000 ft runway, aimed for about 1/3 of the way down it (which is how I'd suggest practicing it), it's inconsequential.

I'm not saying you should try doing it, per se, I'm just trying to provide some education on why pulling the mixture to ICO in flight isn't going to result in the same conditions as a hot start.

 

[poadeleted20]

To get a multi-engine rating one should be required to perform a dead engine vmc demo at 500 feet after takeoff, holding wings level, no rudder blocking allowed, in icing conditions.

Except for the icing, that's about what used to be required on the ME practical test, although it was 400 AGL, not 500. The number of people killed doing that convinced the FAA of the foolishness of that idea, and now we have very different Tasks with much greater mandatory safety margins to show your competence at handling engine failures in ME airplanes. If you're going to screw it up, I'd rather find out at 3500 AGL than 500 AGL. The extra 3000 feet of airspace isn't going to change how well you handle it, only what happens to me as the instructor (or whoever is the examiner) if you don't get it right.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So, trying to get some educational value back into this thread...

Don't you know that's against the rules these days?

<snip lots of stuff about feathered props>

With hot starts, the real issue is that you have such a low RPM to try to get air/fuel working in. When hot that becomes more difficult since the fuel gets hot and may be boiling in the lines, so you have vapor to contend with.

To be sure I'm understanding this correctly: At low RPM (IE, hot start on the ground, or even worse, starting from feathered in the air) we're running into problems that we wouldn't run into at high RPM because at high RPM the fuel pump is running faster, helping to push fuel into the lines, keeping them cool and free of vapor? In addition, we're pumping lots of air through the cylinders, keeping things moving and keeping the mixture from becoming overly rich?

Makes sense, if I'm getting it right.

Even still, Continentals are pretty easy to hot start - on the 310 I get them started first try almost every time, and that included when the starting vibrator failed on my way to Mexico in March.

I get it started almost every time now - Full throttle, mixture ICO, low boost for a minute or high boost for 20 seconds to pump cool fuel through the system, pump off, throttle to idle and then three twists in (would result in about 1000 RPM if the engine was running), then crank and twist the throttle in until it fires off.

What's your hot start procedure? Is there any way I can improve upon what I'm doing? Thanks!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm in favor of teaching students how to save themselves from situations they will likely face vs. teaching the bare legal minimum and hoping for the best. It has nothing to do with legalisms or indifference.

There was some interesting research done at the University of Wisconsin a couple of years ago that I participated in, based on the theory that we don't train pilots to deal with weather the right way.

There was a scenario presented that involved a lot of pressure on oneself to fly a particular flight. They gave you actual weather data - A full briefing from a real day was available, and you could choose one of two destinations that would accomplish your mission. You were allowed to make your own go/no-go decision, but you were pressured towards a go. Then, you got in a sim and flew the flight you planned (VFR).

Three groups were tested: Student pilots, non-instrument-rated Private pilots, and instrument-rated pilots. About 30 of each went through the scenario, IIRC.

I chose my destination and went, but ended up diverting about halfway there based on some criteria that I determined prior to takeoff for continuing safe flight. The majority of other instrument-rated pilots landed safely as well, though I don't think any were able to make it to the destination VFR.

As for the non-IR Private pilots? They all killed themselves. Every. Last. One.

Point? We tell people to set personal minimums and avoid weather that's anywhere close to not being VFR, but we never take them up in marginal weather, we never show them what it's like and how bad it really is, we never teach them how to make the proper decisions prior to a marginal flight to keep themselves safe, and we never put them in a situation where they have to do an actual diversion. Result? Pilots get into the real world and are pressured to fly in marginal weather, and the crashes that result are still one of the "big three" killers in aviation.

So, there is some validity to the idea of teaching those "situations they will likely face".

 

[B350ATP]

In many threads one can find evidence that CFIIs will take students into icing conditions in a non-FIKI aircraft, which clearly is not legal with the claim that the training value far exceeds the risk.

I have also read reports of the FAA burning pilots for 'you should have known there would be ice'.

Few questions:
What is the real training value? Can an exemption or waiver be obtained?

What is the requirement for staying legal with ice where there exists conflicting data (forecasts, pireps, skew-t, radiosonde, etc)?

If this occurred as outlined it is completely illegal and the training value is it teaches the student that some regs are "ok" to be violated (the one in particular being icing related directives) and the student will see that "we got away with it already" so we can do it again.

CFI is unprofessional or at the minimum inexperienced.

 

[Ted]

Don't you know that's against the rules these days?

I'm a risk taker, I guess.

To be sure I'm understanding this correctly: At low RPM (IE, hot start on the ground, or even worse, starting from feathered in the air) we're running into problems that we wouldn't run into at high RPM because at high RPM the fuel pump is running faster, helping to push fuel into the lines, keeping them cool and free of vapor? In addition, we're pumping lots of air through the cylinders, keeping things moving and keeping the mixture from becoming overly rich?

Makes sense, if I'm getting it right.

That's more or less accurate. Basically, all the flows are high enough that it's not so sensitive as it is for a low RPM starting condition.

Starters are usually about 40-80 RPM, with 80 being for a really good starter, good battery and wires, etc. Big difference between that and 1,000 RPM.

I get it started almost every time now - Full throttle, mixture ICO, low boost for a minute or high boost for 20 seconds to pump cool fuel through the system, pump off, throttle to idle and then three twists in (would result in about 1000 RPM if the engine was running), then crank and twist the throttle in until it fires off.

What's your hot start procedure? Is there any way I can improve upon what I'm doing? Thanks!

I've heard of that working well on Continentals but never done it. Mine is everything full forward, prime same as cold, and then pull throttle back slowly while cranking. Starts by about 1/3 throttle.

 

[jesse]

I've heard of that working well on Continentals but never done it. Mine is everything full forward, prime same as cold, and then pull throttle back slowly while cranking. Starts by about 1/3 throttle.

Call me crazy but what seems to "work" seems to vary by engine and airframe installation. Basically the small differences between how things are all plumbed up between airframes seems to influence what works and what doesn't. At least that's my experience.

 

[Jaybird180]

A writeup about the FAA view of this and the "new" legal interpretation

http://blog.globalair.com/post/Flight-Into-Known-Icing-Conditions-An-Update.aspx

 

[jsstevens]

[snip]
I've heard of that working well on Continentals but never done it. Mine is everything full forward, prime same as cold, and then pull throttle back slowly while cranking. Starts by about 1/3 throttle.

I was taught (on a C-172R and a PA-28R-180) to run the boost pump for a specific amount of time wit the mixture rich. Then close the mixture, open the throttle and crank. When the engine catches, close the throttle (down to idle) and push in the mixture. The ice being to take it to a known state (i.e. flooded) and then correct it (open throttle, mixture cut off) until it runs.

Seemed to work both hot & cold OK. But I don't have a ton of experience. Maybe 15-20 starts total.

John

 

[Alexb2000]

There was some interesting research done at the University of Wisconsin a couple of years ago that I participated in, based on the theory that we don't train pilots to deal with weather the right way.

There was a scenario presented that involved a lot of pressure on oneself to fly a particular flight. They gave you actual weather data - A full briefing from a real day was available, and you could choose one of two destinations that would accomplish your mission. You were allowed to make your own go/no-go decision, but you were pressured towards a go. Then, you got in a sim and flew the flight you planned (VFR).

Three groups were tested: Student pilots, non-instrument-rated Private pilots, and instrument-rated pilots. About 30 of each went through the scenario, IIRC.

I chose my destination and went, but ended up diverting about halfway there based on some criteria that I determined prior to takeoff for continuing safe flight. The majority of other instrument-rated pilots landed safely as well, though I don't think any were able to make it to the destination VFR.

As for the non-IR Private pilots? They all killed themselves. Every. Last. One.

Point? We tell people to set personal minimums and avoid weather that's anywhere close to not being VFR, but we never take them up in marginal weather, we never show them what it's like and how bad it really is, we never teach them how to make the proper decisions prior to a marginal flight to keep themselves safe, and we never put them in a situation where they have to do an actual diversion. Result? Pilots get into the real world and are pressured to fly in marginal weather, and the crashes that result are still one of the "big three" killers in aviation.

So, there is some validity to the idea of teaching those "situations they will likely face".

Exaclty. This license to learn stuff is a cop out IMO. No they can't know everything (obviously), but why not try and save them from the big killers. Maybe a well planned sim exercise would be enough and wouldn't add much cost to a PPL.

 

[Jaybird180]

There was some interesting research done at the University of Wisconsin a couple of years ago that I participated in, based on the theory that we don't train pilots to deal with weather the right way.

There was a scenario presented that involved a lot of pressure on oneself to fly a particular flight. They gave you actual weather data - A full briefing from a real day was available, and you could choose one of two destinations that would accomplish your mission. You were allowed to make your own go/no-go decision, but you were pressured towards a go. Then, you got in a sim and flew the flight you planned (VFR).

Three groups were tested: Student pilots, non-instrument-rated Private pilots, and instrument-rated pilots. About 30 of each went through the scenario, IIRC.

I chose my destination and went, but ended up diverting about halfway there based on some criteria that I determined prior to takeoff for continuing safe flight. The majority of other instrument-rated pilots landed safely as well, though I don't think any were able to make it to the destination VFR.

As for the non-IR Private pilots? They all killed themselves. Every. Last. One.

Point? We tell people to set personal minimums and avoid weather that's anywhere close to not being VFR, but we never take them up in marginal weather, we never show them what it's like and how bad it really is, we never teach them how to make the proper decisions prior to a marginal flight to keep themselves safe, and we never put them in a situation where they have to do an actual diversion. Result? Pilots get into the real world and are pressured to fly in marginal weather, and the crashes that result are still one of the "big three" killers in aviation.

So, there is some validity to the idea of teaching those "situations they will likely face".

When I attended Scott D's Beyond the Wx Brief 2-day seminar we reviewed several Wx related NTSB reports and the associated Wx reports that would have been available to the pilot. What I learned is that sometimes an "FAA Standard Weather Briefing" is insufficient" and that all-around weather knowledge by most pilots is insufficient and they came to grief for it.

These were all IR pilots with decent TT who did nothing careless or reckless (except maybe 1 or 2 of them).

 

[Ted]

Call me crazy but what seems to "work" seems to vary by engine and airframe installation. Basically the small differences between how things are all plumbed up between airframes seems to influence what works and what doesn't. At least that's my experience.

There is definitely some truth to that. Mechanical components on these also wear and have different calibrations.

That said, there are a couple of hot start techniques I find work 90+% of the time with good effectiveness. In the past 1,000 hours, I haven't found an injected airplane I've gotten into that I couldn't start, usually on the first try.

I was taught (on a C-172R and a PA-28R-180) to run the boost pump for a specific amount of time wit the mixture rich. Then close the mixture, open the throttle and crank. When the engine catches, close the throttle (down to idle) and push in the mixture. The ice being to take it to a known state (i.e. flooded) and then correct it (open throttle, mixture cut off) until it runs.

Seemed to work both hot & cold OK. But I don't have a ton of experience. Maybe 15-20 starts total.

John

For Lycomings, that's a good way to do it. Lycomings also have significantly different fuel systems than Continentals, but I use that technique on the 310 when it's flooded.

 

[Ted]

When I attended Scott D's Beyond the Wx Brief 2-day seminar we reviewed several Wx related NTSB reports and the associated Wx reports that would have been available to the pilot. What I learned is that sometimes an "FAA Standard Weather Briefing" is insufficient" and that all-around weather knowledge by most pilots is insufficient and they came to grief for it.

These were all IR pilots with decent TT who did nothing careless or reckless (except maybe 1 or 2 of them).

And sometimes, you're just unlucky. Also, how do you define "decent" TT?

 

[Jaybird180]

And sometimes, you're just unlucky. Also, how do you define "decent" TT?

I don't recall exactly the times, but the driver of why that was supplied during the discussion was to reduce someone dismissing the scenario by saying 'he was an inexperienced pilot'.

The objective was to get everyone to consider their flight planning tool bags and not depend upon a briefer to provide all the necessary information to keep your flight safe.

Scott explained the limitations of the different aspects of each weather product and the sometimes political decisions (think airlines) of why products and Airmets/ Sigments are fashioned the way they are.