Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:09:40 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3111822@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.98.42.21; envelope-from=billhogarty@hughes.net
From: billhogarty <billhogarty@hughes.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Engine out practise
References: <list-3103063@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3103063@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


For Jeff L:

Your forced landing practice with the engine shut down,  even tho you 
are over a runway,  really worries me, especially since the
L-IV/P has a long history of hot start problems.

I'm not questioning the legality of the procedure (I would check with 
your local FSDO just to be on the safe side).  My concern is with the 
added risk factor.  What do you gain to justify the added risk?   When 
your engine will not restart, do you intend to declare an emergency?  Do 
you expect all other pilots to give you priority?  I guarantee that if 
you practice this procedure enough, you will face this problem.

I fly the  SFO pattern at 1000 RPM and 120 kts but with the speed brakes 
extended.  I don't pull the prop because with an actual engine failure, 
I don't expect to have oil pressure.  My planned touchdown is at 1/3 the 
length of the runway so if the engine quits when I advance the throttle, 
the landing is routine.  This works for me.  Just a suggestion....

Anyway, please don't take my concern as criticism as its not intended as 
such.  In my experience, flying in the vicinity of any airport is one of 
the most dangerous situations you can be in.  Why increase the risk?

With all the latest insurance concerns, adding unnecessary risk to 
routine flying just isn't prudent.

Regards, Bill Hogarty