Unsettling first flight - CFI cut engine twice in flight

[JimNtexas]

Shutting off the fuel to a powered airplane at 400 agl is the act of a lunatic, and I stand by my statement. Do glider instructors cut the tow rope at 75' and try to turn back? I think not.

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

[bryancobb]

Shutting off the fuel to a powered airplane at 400 agl is the act of a lunatic, and I stand by my statement. Do glider instructors cut the tow rope at 75' and try to turn back? I think not.

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

HOW DID IT GET DECREASED FROM 600-700, LIKE I POSTED, DOWN TO 400'?
400' AGL WOULD BE A LOT DIFFERENT SCENARIO AN I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT AROUND!!!!!!!

[JimNtexas]

HOW DID IT GET DECREASED FROM 600-700, LIKE I POSTED, DOWN TO 400'?
400' AGL WOULD BE A LOT DIFFERENT SCENARIO AN I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT AROUND!!!!!!!

You're right, although other posters threw around a 400' number, your post said 600. I apologize, and will make the appropriate revision in mine as follows:

Shutting off the fuel to a powered airplane at 600 agl is the act of a lunatic, and I stand by my statement. Do glider instructors cut the tow rope at 100' and try to turn back? I think not.

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

Why? Please tell me exactly what regulations were violated and how you know they were violated.

[JimNtexas]

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

Why? Please tell me exactly what regulations were violated and how you know they were violated.

Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

An engine failure after takeoff is one of the most serious emergencies it's possible to have in a single engine airplane.

YOU DELIBERATELY CREATED THIS EMERGENCY!!!!!

Your action is a poster-child for what this reg is trying to prevent.

Even if the crew had not cut the fuel off this action would be very borderline. When they cut the fuel off they created the real emergency.

I can't think of anything much more stupid to do.

Here is a clue that may save your life: DO THIS KIND THING IN A SIMULATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[3Dreaming]

Any pilot who would self-create such a serious emergency should be grounded permanently.

Why? Please tell me exactly what regulations were violated and how you know they were violated.

I something goes wrong then 91.13 would be one that they could get you with. Maybe even if nothing goes wrong, because it becomes a personal judgement call.
For training I think it is a good idea to train for these types of things, but I think there has to be a better way of doing it than shutting the fuel off. It takes to long to get fuel back there if you need to restart the engine.
I remember when I was younger there was a guy that shut down and feathered an engine on his twin to do a landing. Another airplane pulled out in front of him on short final and he had to go around on 1. If that had been the guy with the shut off fuel it could have been ugly. Tom

[KSCessnaDriver]

Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

An engine failure after takeoff is one of the most serious emergencies it's possible to have in a single engine airplane.

YOU DELIBERATELY CREATED THIS EMERGENCY!!!!!

Your action is a poster-child for what this reg is trying to prevent.

Even if the crew had not cut the fuel off this action would be very borderline. When they cut the fuel off they created the real emergency.

I can't think of anything much more stupid to do.

Here is a clue that may save your life: DO THIS KIND THING IN A SIMULATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You still haven't proven that what he did was careless or reckless. It could have easily been done in a location that the engine not restarting would still have allowed for a landing in a place that doesn't endanger persons or property.

To imply that shutting the engine down is automatically a careless or reckless action is just as irresponsible as what the OP described as happening.

[JimNtexas]

You still haven't proven that what he did was careless or reckless. It could have easily been done in a location that the engine not restarting would still have allowed for a landing in a place that doesn't endanger persons or property.

I don't have 'prove' anything, I'm just pointing out the insanity of what this CFI did, based on the information provided. Cutting the fuel at 600, even if the student was briefed it was going to happen, let alone if it was a surprise, is insane.

And what I'm seeing in reply are textbook examples of hazardous attitudes #2, #3 and #5.

[KSCessnaDriver]

I don't have 'prove' anything, I'm just pointing out the insanity of what this CFI did, based on the information provided. Cutting the fuel at 600, even if the student was briefed it was going to happen, let alone if it was a surprise, is insane.

And what I'm seeing in reply are textbook examples of hazardous attitudes #2, #3 and #5.

Fine, feel however you want. All I'm saying, is the situation that occurred does occasionally have it's place in flight training. Agree or disagree, I don't care, but don't pretend that because you don't like how it was done that someone should lose a pilot certificate over it.

Go ahead and stir something up with the FAA sometime. More often than not, it ends up biting one in the behind as well.

[JimNtexas]

If I saw this happen first hand I'd for sure ask the pilots to give me one good reason why the decided to put everyone at or near the airport at risk with their stunt.

If I didn't get a reason better than what I'm hearing here I'd talk to the flight school owner (if one was involved) and/or the aircraft owner if he or she wasn't in the plane. If everyone involved in the insanity seems to be in denial then I'd call the FSDO and tell them what I saw.

I don't want my airport closed because some idiot thinks he's invulnerable.

Here on the interweb nobody knows you're a dog, so I'm going to assume that an enemy of the users posting this nonsense have hijacked the accounts of real pilots.

[JimNtexas]

This instructor wasn't totally insane because he probably didn't actually kill his engine trying to practice a turnback, and he probably didn't start the self-created emergency until at least 900 feet.

But he was insane enough to kill himself and his student.

CAUSE: The flight instructor's improper decision to turn back to the airport at an insufficient altitude after takeoff and his failure to maintain adequate airspeed, during a simulated engine failure.

(emphasis added)

[drseti]

If everyone involved in the insanity seems to be in denial then I'd call the FSDO and tell them what I saw.

Yes, as a fellow pilot, if you see something going on that you personally believe is unsafe, it's a good idea to try to talk (respectfully, of course) to the people involved. Most everybody in aviation is accepting of constructive criticism, if it's presented in a non-confrontational manner. If the folks are not receptive to a positive conversation, then there is, IMHO, a better approach than to play cop and call FSDO. That would be to talk to the airport's local FAA Safety Team Lead Representative, who could then talk informally to the persons involved. Since FAASTeam reps are volunteers, and not FAA employees or enforcement folks, their input is generally seen as less threatening, and a more positive outcome is likely to result.

[bryancobb]

Hey Guys...
A little more info.
No flight school involved
The CFII was a retired 25,000hr Delta Captain
He was the sole owner of the 152II we were in
We were taking off on RWY 01 at KVPC
Off the north end of RWY 01, is a 500AC +/- Sod Farm

[JimNtexas]

The CFI in the fatal accident above had the following qualifications according to the NTSB:

The flight instructor held an airline transport pilot certificate, and was a certified instrument
flight instructor for single and multi engine land. According to the latest flight instructor
history form provided by the BPPP, the pilot had 7,300 hours of total flight experience, of which,
500 to 800 hours were in a similar make and model airplane. He also reported 3,000 hours of
instruction time. The flight instructor's most recent FAA second class medical certificate was
issued on April 12, 2002.

Not what you'd call a noob.

[KSCessnaDriver]

JimNtexas, you will get little to no traction with your argument when you resort to personal attacks of other users.

Perhaps if you had your credentials to call this maneuver flat out illegal in your opinion, people would listen a little more. But when you go on the personal attack against me, I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you.


And now I remember while I don't frequent this board. Lack of moderation, lack of respect between users and generally people who are off their rocker thinking they make the FAA rules.