Thanks JB and Blanco, this discussion got back on track again. Yes airmanship is where we pilots can do our best to compensate for weaknesses in aircraft design and human factors of which we know there are many. I often force myself to think through detailed engine out scenarios since that is the most dangerous risk I face, and how I am going to deal with it. That takes a lot of mental effort, and obviously the plan is never to even need it. But not planning for that terrible day is like sticking your head in the sand, and frankly in all my years of flying I have never seen a subject as routinely glossed over as engine outs. At best a student gets a few demos and maybe 3 minutes of discussion. Training should accompany linear thinking about the subject, because there is no standard scenario that any standardized program can teach.

When that engine or two engines quit, you will need to almost instantly answer all these questions.

• Do I try for an airfield? What's nearby? What's the light control frequency there, and how high is the ground? Or else try for a highway then? Which one? Or a grass field? What about a small lake?
• How far can I glide from here? How do I estimate that?
• What configuration do I need to be in to get optimum range?
• How much time should I spend talking to ATC versus other things?
• Is a restart attempt worth it now?

I guarantee you most pilots, myself included, are not ready for this scenario in real life and usually botch the crap out of it. No matter how great we think we are the truth is when the engine goes boom most pilots just fly to the crash site. It does not have to be that way, but regular mental effort is the cost of that readiness.