Quote:
Um, I'm just repeating your words, which I'll quote for you again:Originally Posted by Cubdriver
In debate they call this ^ the straw man response where make it sound like an opponent is saying something they are not, in order to refute that rather than something they actually said.
Quote:
• 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?
In your own words, I have to consider "all these questions," "almost instantly."Originally Posted by Cubdriver
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?
So tell me Mr Human Factors, how many complex tasks can the human brain do simultaneously, and do well? Do the words "task saturation" mean anything to you? Perhaps you're able to have so many lofty thoughts while the airplane is starting to fall out of the sky, but for the rest of us mere mortals that's a prime recipe for a helmet fire.
Quote:
Have you ever had an engine failure? We imagine them as big, dramatic events, like the oil on the windshield you talked about, etc, but the reality is most are slow moving, insidious events. An engine running out of fuel does not suddenly quit in a short amount of time. It looses a little power, starts running rough, etc. There is plenty of time to switch tanks, boost pumps on, and continue. Originally Posted by Cubdriver
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.
Now, why is that a good idea? According to one FAA Advisory Circular, fuel starvation and/or mismanagement accounted for "over 51%" of engine failures in piston engine aircraft between 1994 and 1996. So, speaking specifically of the Navajo, and assuming you actually made sure there was gas in it, with one quick technique we can quickly correct the problem that causes well over half of engine failures.
Or we can think lots of thoughts simultaneously.
Back to my earlier question, have you ever had an engine failure? I've had two. One was a PA32 in Alaska that sucked in a value, and that precipitated a chain of events that ended up with that engine grinding to a halt on the rollout in JNU. You can read more about that here if you want.
The other was a KL Navajo that lost exhaust air to the turbo on the left engine, and therefore would only make about 15" MP. I shut it down, went back to Denver, and 5 minutes after wheel stop I was back in another bird heading to MCK.
Both of those were somewhat tame events. The airplane kept flying. A different decision process in the first and I would've ended up off airport somewhere. I'm REALLY glad that didn't happen.
Aside from that, I've had a few (intentional and not) tanks run dry in both the PA32 and PA31. It definitely gets your attention, but it's also not cause for a helmet fire.
Look, I'm not putting myself out there as some super awesome pilot. But I did survive years of flying piston singles in AK, and 18 months of a Navajo at KL. All that has shown me that entering freak out mode the first moment something goes unexpected is not a recipe for success.