Aircraft without a loss of oil pressure procedure [Archive]

SNS3Guppy

27th Nov 2010, 15:45

Some aircraft don't have a procedure for low oil quantity, because there's no indication of low oil quantity. There may be indications for oil pressure and temperature, and in the case of turboprops, torque (also actually an indication of oil pressure, directly or indirectly). Often there's no indication of oil quantity, however, which somewhat negates any inclusion of a procedure for oil loss or decreasing supply.

In the event of an oil loss, sometimes there is an increase in oil temperature (not always), and one may have an indication of loss of oil pressure (not always). If either of those two situations occur, then one addresses the signs and symptoms, rather than the root cause of the problem.

Several years ago I experienced an engine failure in a single engine airplane using a TPE-331-10 turboprop engine. The failure occurred at a difficult and less than ideal time, with no forewarning until I lost torque. The engine parameters were good; oil pressure didn't give an indication of a problem up until the power loss, and oil temperature didn't climb. I didn't have any change in EGT or other operating parameters. The engine ran like a top, but without torque. Given that the failure occurred inside a narrow canyon that was very actively on fire, and it occurred at 150' AGL, I didn't have time or inclination to look up a checklist; the obvious problem at the time was loss of torque.

I put the airplane on a mountainside. Subsequent investigation showed that very little oil remained in the engine, and the cause of loss was a failed turbine bearing seal. Discussions with Honeywell revealed that the engine has been shown to run up to a half-hour with no oil. Indeed, the engine ran just fine...but without any oil to actuate the propeller, I had no torque available, and therefore no thrust. Given that the engine ran normally, with normal response to power lever movement (EGT and RPM responded proportionately to power lever movement as expected, except little or no torque), the use of a loss-of-oil checklist would have been irrelevant. Loss of torque, perhaps, but there wasn't an oil quantity indication available, nor was there any reason to suspect oil loss given no increase in oil temperature or decrease in oil pressure indications, and no other annunciations.

The airplane I currently fly, not a turboprop, has procedures for loss of oil, low oil quantity indication, and of course, low oil pressure. I think that to suggest that what one should do would be obvious, however, overlooks the differences in design and procedure that exist between different manufacturers. In the case of this airplane, a loss of oil isn't cause for shutdown until the quantity reaches .5 gallons. In that event, the engine may be restarted for the approach and landing. In other airplanes, I wouldn't consider restarting the engine, or waiting until such a low oil quantity, before shutting down.

On some turboprop engines, such as the PT6, the oil pressure is sampled at the same location as the torque indication. On some engines, oil is pumped from the same drive as fuel, and so forth. Loss of one indication, or a poor indication from one source, doesn't necessarily indicate a loss of pressure; so long as one has the sister indication (torque, on a PT6, for example), one still has the oil pressure, even though cockpit direct indications (oil pressure, for example) seem to indicate otherwise. What works for one system or aircraft may not apply in another.

Escape Path

27th Nov 2010, 16:06

Hi Guppy.

There may be indications for oil pressure and temperature, and in the case of turboprops, torque (also actually an indication of oil pressure, directly or indirectly)

On some turboprop engines, such as the PT6, the oil pressure is sampled at the same location as the torque indication.

For my love of turboprops, my inexperienced mind is curious to know a bit more about this. I recall the torque-meter on the PT6 works on oil pressure exercised by an internal mechanism I don't remember very well at the time. So what you're saying is that losing oil pressure would cause a low torque indication? Or is there something else about this?

Thanks in advance :)

con-pilot

27th Nov 2010, 16:28

One night taking off from Aspen (KASE) we lost oil pressure in the left engine, as we were still below 100 Kts IAS we aborted. The aircraft was a Sabre 65 with the TFE 731 engines.

The engine was still running when we turned off the runway and I told the PF to shut it down. When we parked I went out and looked at the left engine and it was covered in oil* along with the left side of the aft fuselage behind the engine. I tried to move the fan and it was firmly locked.

When asked what we would have done if we had lost oil pressure after V-1 i replied that we would have done nothing and continued the takeoff. I also said that I would have not shut the engine down until we were back on the ground.

The reason for this reply was I had been told that a Sabre 65 had lost oil pressure inbound to LAX from PHNL (Hawaii) about 800 mile out over the Pacific. The crew did not shut the engine down until they landed. In fact I had met the crew of this 65 during recurrency training a year earlier.

So as far as I am concerned, if you still need the engine and it is still running after the loss of oil pressure, use it. Most likely the engine is mostly shot anyway.

However, in the case of turbo-prop engines, as with Guppy's story, I've never heard of one running and producing usable power after the loss of oil pressure. Such as I experienced in a MU-2, the engine immediately NTS (kind of like auto-feather) when the oil pressure was lost.

* When we opened the cowling, a bunch of parts fell out on to the ramp. It took six months before the engine was returned to us. Thank God for MSP Gold.

SNS3Guppy

27th Nov 2010, 16:45

On the PT6 there's a torque bar which operates off oil pressure. The torque indication is actually an oil pressure indication. Separate pickups deliver oil pressure to cockpit indications, from the torque indications, and the way in which they're interpreted in the cockpit is different, both by the pilot and by the instruments themselves, but they come from the same location in the engine and use the same oil under the same pressure.

Torque, while a measure of the torsion on the driveshaft to the propeller, is actually an indication in that engine of oil pressure which represents the torsion on the driveshaft. The oil pressure variance is supposed to be proportional to the torque, and therefore usable as an indication of torque as converted by the torque gauge (first converted to an electrical signal, then to an instrument indication).

More importantly than the actual indication, however, is the result of a loss of oil pressure to the propeller assembly. Without a means of governing the propeller (given a loss of oil quantity), one loses torque. Just as I experienced in a different type of engine, while the engine ran like a top, no torque was available from the propeller. The mechanism by which this happens, and by which the engine is driven and thus operates between the gas generator and the propeller are entirely different when considering the PT6 and the TPE-331, but the results to the pilot can be the same: no or low thrust.

The point I was making is that while the indication is certainly of interest, one can get a number of different indications. With loss of oil, the most telling may be that no matter how well the engine is running (and indicated to be running), the actual loss of power may be the most glaring indication of what must be done (or can't be done). Even in the absence of other indications of trouble (no oil quantity indication, installed or otherwise, for example), one has other more basic, obvious manifestations of the problem.

It's also why I say that what to do about low oil quantity isn't necessarily an obvious thing. What one does about it in one airplane may be entirely different than in another.

In the case of the single engine airplane oil loss and forced landing that I previously described, the failure occurred during a steep descent in a burning canyon. I didn't have any indication of the problem until I reached the bottom of the canyon and pushed the power lever up. The engine instrumentation responded normally, all save for torque. I had very low torque (about 15%, where I expected about 85% at the time, given the power setting). I jettisoned the load, and the airplane pitched up. As it did, the remaining oil flowed back to the pickup, and I got a brief increase in torque; for about three seconds I had 50% torque and actually considered being able to limp 10 miles to a nearby airfield. As soon as that oil was gone, the torque indication dropped to zero, which is certainly how it felt, as well.

Interestingly, the propeller didn't feather, and the engine continued to operate until the airplane came to rest on the hillside, and I fuel chopped the motor. Had it been a PT6, I think the propeller would have feathered. Given the direct drive of the TPE-331, the propeller rotated, but didn't feather; it didn't provide significant drag, either, but waffled in a fairly useless state far out in front of me.

What you see with oil loss may vary from engine to engine, depending on exactly what has happened, as well as the type of engine in use, and the circumstance in which the failure occurs.

grounded27

27th Nov 2010, 18:25

Noticing oil loss is most cases a big deal on a turbojet/fan, if needed run it w/o question.

If not needed can shut down and save some oil for a restart on approach if the leak is slow enough, or would advise to shut down on a loss of oil pressure to prevent further damage.

Friend of mine was on a 741 or 2 with JT9's, noticed a loss of quantity and took the above mentioned option A and landed without event or a need to divert.. later found out the technitions provided to them in I think Gambia serviced the engine with skydrol. Just lucky it was not all 4 up over the Atlantic.

SNS3Guppy

27th Nov 2010, 20:11

Noticing oil loss is most cases a big deal on a turbojet/fan, if needed run it w/o question.

It's a pretty big deal in a single engine airplane, too.

aerobat77

27th Nov 2010, 22:44

Given that the engine ran normally, with normal response to power lever movement (EGT and RPM responded proportionately to power lever movement as expected, except little or no torque)

having logged several hours on a c441 in the past- can you tell me what you expect from a tpe331 to respond proportionally in rpm when you move the power lever inflight ?

SNS3Guppy

27th Nov 2010, 22:52

If one is familiar with a particular airplane, then one generally knows how much power one should expect from the powerplant, with a given amount of travel by the power or thrust lever or throttle. That is, one if one knows that travel three quarters of the way forward to the mechanical stops normally produces takeoff thrust, one knows that given slight variances in day to day conditions, that's how far one can expect to move the levers on any given day to produce approximately that amount of thrust.

In the case of the TPE-331 failure previously described, the EGT response and engine parameters were exactly proportional to what one would expect if the engine were operating normally. Setting the power lever in that case to the position which should have corresponded to takeoff or go around power, the engine indications moved exactly as one would expect in every respect, save for torque. In that particular airplane, because all operations were very low to the ground and it was very much a heads-up operation, the most prominent engine instrument was EGT, a large gauge right smack in the middle of the panel in the single seat, single engine airplane, where it couldn't be missed. Power settings were easiest by EGT, with a follow up to torque to confirm.

When I initially moved the power up to go around in the smoky and burning canyon, the EGT corresponded exactly to what I'd have expected; it was proportional to power lever movement. All other engine parameters were in proportion; nothing stood out. No annunciations, no high temperatures, no excessive oil temps, no low oil warnings or indications; just a very obvious lack of torque. The engine responded, it sounded normal, the vibration was normal, but the airplane was clearly losing energy, and a brief heads-down look in the cockpit confirmed that while everything else looked good, torque did not.

aerobat77

28th Nov 2010, 00:35

well... you wrote much without saying anything ... on the tpe331 you look primary ( especially at low altitude) into the torque- the egt is just the limiting factor, not a setting device at low altitudes.

so again-

what you expect from a tpe331 to respond proportionally in rpm when you move the power lever forward inflight ?

what TQ , EGT an fuel flow readings ????

the tpe331-10 was exactly the engine mounted on the conquest II i have flown.

when you did not looked at the instrument in this emergency conditons- what happened? you pushed the lever forward an what?

what ac type?

parabellum

28th Nov 2010, 01:00

believe it or not, the 744 had no procedure either, There we were, getting ready to coast out over Gander, and the low oil warning came up. Surely there must be a checklist!!??
Nope, we let it get down to 4 Qts and said, "I ain't trashin a 10 million dollar engine" and we shut it down.
I thought that kinda wierd also.

I've got an old B744 QRH here and it gives a procedure for loss of engine oil pressure, (at or below the red line shut engine down), and rising oil temperature. In this copy they are at page 07.09 but that has probably changed by now?

411A

28th Nov 2010, 01:29

And then there are some engines that will 'hide' oil quantity...so much so that one might presume all the oil has disappeared (from 20 to 3 quarts indication), however upon landing, the quantity immediately once again shows normally.
RB.211-22B's are 'famous' for this, especially after long storage.

In thse cases, if oil pressure and temperature are otherwise normal...press on regardless.

STBYRUD

28th Nov 2010, 01:45

I noticed that even the CFM56-7B does this, even if the mechs topped up the engines pre-flight the indication might go down to 12 or 11 which normally means its time for a refill. Back on terra firma the oil indication is normal again...

grounded27

28th Nov 2010, 02:32

Oil "gulp" is normal, full oil quantiy by design is usually only correct 5-30 minutes after shutdown for most types. Not just with engines running at different phases of operation but can be observed during rapid throttle advancement. It only means a re-distribution of oil to where it is needed. Just about all jet engines do it to a different degree.

SNS3Guppy

28th Nov 2010, 04:22

well... you wrote much without saying anything ... on the tpe331 you look primary ( especially at low altitude) into the torque- the egt is just the limiting factor, not a setting device at low altitudes.

It would appear that you're not pleased until you hear whatever it is that you want to hear. Why don't you go ahead and tell me the words that you'd like to hear and perhaps you can get me to say them. Will that make your day?

EGT is only a limiting factor? Not on the airplane I was flying, where most of the working operation takes place between 5' and 50' above the surface, and nearly all of it in very mountainous terrain, and nearly all of that working vertically in the terrain. Limiting, yes, but the operation was temp limited, and it's a very important limit. So no, not "only" a limiting factor, but a very critical limiting factor, and one that was often reached, or risked being reached, before torque limits came into play.

As you're aware, turbopropeller airplanes can be torque-limited at low elevations, and temperature limited at higher elevations. The base elevation of the departure field was about five thousand feet. On a hot summer day, the density altitude for departure was about 8,500'. The fire I was fighting was on a mountainside at a higher density altitude, and the primary power setting instrument, as designed by modifier of the aircraft when it was converted to a turbine airplane, was the EGT. The EGT was a large instrument, set to the pilot couldn't miss it. Get the power in there, then fine tune with torque if one likes. Keeping within limits was of greater interest than setting fine power. It wasn't a conquest, and it wasn't middle-of-the-box kind of flying. One set power using the power lever to a known position while looking outside the airplane to keep away from rocks and trees, and glanced briefly at EGT to ensure one wasn't hurting anything, and occasionally at torque. Power was up and down so much throughout the flight, constantly changing, that trying to watch torque would be a futile exercise, to say nothing of it being a small instrument on a side panel which held little prominence other than confirmation that things were going according to plan. On the day in question, a glance at torque confirmed that indeed things were not.

I don't recall specific numbers for the torque or other settings, off-hand. That was several years ago, and I've operated 10 other types of aircraft in the intervening time. As I recall, I was able to pull about 85% torque when approaching the takeoff temp limits in that airplane, with the speed lever in high. The installation was temp limited in those operating conditions, not torque limited. In that installation, I believe we used a percentage or torque indication, as opposed to many airplanes which used a calibration in foot-pounds, or horsepower, psi, or other methods of indication.

If you don't like the installation, you should speak to the STC holders who modified the aircraft. I didn't design it or make the installation; I only flew it.

when you did not looked at the instrument in this emergency conditons- what happened? you pushed the lever forward an what?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or ask, but you appear to have it wrong, whatever it might be. I did look at the engine instrumentation; that's really the point. Low oil quantity didn't produce discernable changes in engine operation, and according to Garrett/Honeywell, the manufacturer, one shouldn't necessarily expect it to do so, either.

The aircraft type was a PZL M-18T-331-10.

Escape Path

28th Nov 2010, 05:07

Thank you very much for the enlightening. Didn't know about that useful tip when the :mad: hits the fan

aerobat77

28th Nov 2010, 10:14

SNS3Guppy

it is not an offend against you, but indeed some of you comments sound very strange to me - especially this:

EGT and RPM responded proportionately to power lever movement as expected, except little or no torque

doubting if you have ever operated an airframe with a tpe331 powerplant.

on the single shaft direct drive tpe331 the rpm change is exactly ZERO when you push the power lever forward . on the split shaft pt6 the prop rpm would stay the same but the Ng would indeed change.

the other point is that at least installed on the C441 the engines were always torque and not EGT limited at take off and lower altitudes.

but here we may have the difference that on a C441 the engines were rated at just 636HP each side and especially the 331-10 laughed about putting 636 horses to the gearbox.

on the mighty dromedar the engine has to push mush more horses and here indeed it may temp out earlier, i do not know this installation.

ok, you surely did not just wrote this story but it really happened to you so i am wondering what happened and why.

one guess: the 331-10 is equipped with a fuel computer which limits both TQ and EGT. you cannot overshoot the max values.

maybe one of the issue in fire fighting missions was that you flew very low in an area of very hot air from the fire below you and the fuel computer lowered power output to nearly zero to prevent an sudden EGT overshoot?

is it confirmed that an oil loss was the only reason for running the engine normally but producing no thrust ( torque) ?

SNS3Guppy

28th Nov 2010, 11:16

We had no fuel computer. The engine has a fuel controller, which is hydromechanical, but no computer. EGT overshoot was entirely a function of the user.

I realize you're doubting; your posts are dripping with doubt. I've not only used airframes with TPE-331's, but am a check airman in one of them. I flew not only M18T's with Garrets, but also with PT6's, as well as AT-802's, also with PT6's. However, I have flown several aircraft types with TPE-331's, using -10's and -11's.

but here we may have the difference that on a C441 the engines were rated at just 636HP each side and especially the 331-10 laughed about putting 636 horses to the gearbox.

We were restricted to 985 hp, I believe, given the original engine installation. Emergency output was in the order of 1100 hp.

on the single shaft direct drive tpe331 the rpm change is exactly ZERO when you push the power lever forward . on the split shaft pt6 the prop rpm would stay the same but the Ng would indeed change.

Propeller RPM should not vary, particularly in the type of flying you've probably done. Our airplanes were set up to produce high drag at idle (Honeywell allows a wide range of settings and rigging with the TPE-331, while remaining within tolerance; ag/fire airplanes are rigged differently than what you've probably flown). Idle power caused such an abrupt drag rise that one was thrown forward in one's shoulder straps in level flight. It was a very useful tool for steep downhill runs, particularly behind leadplanes or other tanker aircraft. It did produce RPM variations, as does the use of the speed lever (dropping from 100% nominal to 96% in that rigging installation).

As for your assertion that "on the split shaft pt6 the prop RPM would stay the same but he Ng would indeed change," have you any PT6 experience? Propeller RPM doesn't stay the same at all, and can vary considerably.

You're getting rather far afield when the topic is engine oil; a point you appear to have missed entirely.

You appear very concerned about my experience behind the -10 motor on a hillside years ago. You needn't be. You seem concerned that the loss of torque was caused by the loss of engine oil. You needn't be. It was, as confirmed by a team of investigators, with whom I worked, while making that determination, on site. Also confirmed by Honeywell. The point isn't to entertain the finer elements of fighting fire or Garrett operation, but to address a low oil quantity situation or loss of oil in flight. Again, in that particular case, the manufacturer stated that the engine would run for a half hour with no oil, and in that case, while there was no oil to actuate the propeller (and thus develop torque), the expected oil temperature increase or other manifestations of low oil didn't happen. That's the point. Perhaps you can start another thread regarding the TPE-331, as it concerns you so.

aerobat77

28th Nov 2010, 13:40

"We had no fuel computer. The engine has a fuel controller, which is hydromechanical, but no computer. EGT overshoot was entirely a function of the user."

you can look here

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/2c8af3bbc45fc47186256d96005eb743/$FILE/E4we.pdf

, especially notes 17 and 20 of the TCDS for the 331. the series 8 thru 10 are normally equipped with EGT limiters and and EEC. the EEC may also incorporate a computed EGT with variable redline due to ambient conditions.
but not knowing the dromader installation it maybe that here it was just a hydromechanical fuel control unit.

"Propeller RPM should not vary, particularly in the type of flying you've probably done"

well, on a single shaft propeller rpm is a direct function of turbine rpm, thats why you of course have only one rpm gauge at a tpe331 - when the prop is turning 100%, the whole engine is also turning 100%. touching the power lever has no effect in engine speed , just prop blade angle.

inflight you have 100% take off climb and land and 96% for cruise. thats all. you set it with the condition or speed lever, not with the power lever like you know.

"have you any PT6 experience? Propeller RPM doesn't stay the same at all, and can vary considerably."

yes, i am riding now a cheyenne III ( PT6A-41) leftseat, the 441 experience from the past was rightseat. ( TPE331-10 conversion, the original powerplant of the conquest is a TPE331-8)

propeller rpm stays at the pt6 the same when you touch just the power lever ( inflight) !!! you can change the prop rpm with the prop lever, and due to the fact that here you change just the prop rpm and not the speed of the core you can change it in a wide range. so you also have here a prop and core rpm gauge since on the pt6 prop rpm is not a direct function of the core speed like it is on a tpe331.

you,re are right that this is not fully the theme here- the basic question is about procedures for loss of oil pressure. it is interesting anyway, i - kepping fingers crossed- never had such a problem, neiter on the tpe331 nor on the pt6a now.

18-Wheeler

28th Nov 2010, 23:01

Quick question - I assumed that when the oil finally ran low enough and you did nothing the first thing that would get your attention would be the prop going into coarse pitch or maybe even feather? Aerodynamic forces and so on?
Anyway, I figured if it did that it'd be a very bad thing as the engine would still be making a heck of a lot of torque then suddenly be fighting against a very high load - the fuel bypass valve would try to compensate but from what I remember they can only bypass 90 lbs flow and so there's still a good chance the engine would cook itself in less than a second.

That sound right?

Brian Abraham

29th Nov 2010, 01:02

the manufacturer stated that the engine would run for a half hour with no oilFlying a single engine Huey (Lycoming T-53) had just landed when the master caution came on, check annunciator panel and "engine oil pressure" is lit, check gauge "zero PSI". Instant decision to take off and get ourselves as far away as possible. Airbourne for a few minutes when the wingman says"you got 30 feet of flame out the tail pipe". No sooner were those words received and the engine chip came on, where upon we put it down. But the all important degree of separation from the previous landing site had been made. Hole in oil cooler had dumped all the oil.

Flying a twin helo off shore had me scratching my head. Had just taken off from a rig a settled in the cruise for the next rig when the oil pressure on one engine dropped to the top of the yellow range and was fluctuating quite a bit, where normally the needle just didn't move. Additionally the oil temp had dropped 10°. No checklist for this and I'm scratching my head as to possible cause. Anyway, engine to idle, pressure remains in the bottom of the allowable range, so head for home with the engine at idle. Climb out after shut down to find a large puddle of oil on the tarmac, check engine, no oil. Split in the line from tank to engine, so along as the engine was running it sucked air in through the split, aerating the oil and causing the loss of pressure, and at the same time cooling the oil. As soon as the engine was shut down it just dumped all the oil out through the split line. Could have been interesting if a problem had developed in the "good" engine which required shutdown, and we had already shut down the one with oil pressure issues and tried to restart it. One old sage said "never shut down an engine capable of producing power".

Kengineer-130

29th Nov 2010, 03:51

I maintain and build turboprop engines for a living, I think the original post has somewhat been lost in the smoke here.

On a turbofan engine (or piston for that matter), the oil pressure would be directly responsible for the life of the engine, as it lubricates the rotating components. As such, immediate shut down would be advised if it were possible following loss of positive oil pressure, without any other clarification of the engines condition.

On a turbo prop, a loss of prop oil pressure should not result in zero torque, it should only allow the prop to travel to the low pitch stop, or fully fine. In this instance, it should still be possible to develop useful thrust for a limited period of time, such as in guppys case. Shut-down would be reccomended as soon as possible, due to the possibility of the prop assembly siezing & possibly detatching due to failure, but even with a severe leak a small amount of running "dry" would be preferable to total lack of thrust in a critical situation. Obviously it depends on the system in use, but if the engine and prop have a common oil system, then the limiting factor would be the engine (In my humble opinion), as it will take less abuse than a prop!

Generally, larger aircraft/ engines have more indications. The C-130's I work on have oil pressure for the RGB and power section, oil temperature, and oil quantity. In such circumstances, loss of say the oil quantity indication isn't a major problem, as if you have good T's & P's then the engine will be safe.

However, if the oil pressure falls or indication is lost, or the temperature is uncontrollable, the advice on the FRC's is to shut down immediatly unless the situation is critical. Helps having another 3 engines to rely on though :}

grounded27

29th Nov 2010, 05:41

One old sage said "never shut down an engine capable of producing power".

Why not unless you have 2 or 3 more, not an ETOPS fan.

dixi188

29th Nov 2010, 07:18

I used to be on the L188 Electra and had several in flight shutdowns.
There was no check list for loss of oil contents, but common sense should help.

On one occasion we were slowly losing oil contents from one engine so elected to shut it down in the cruise and re-start for approach.

On another occasion the Captain did not want to shut down until we had Reduction gearbox "Lo Oil Press" indication. This ended up with a shutdown as we turned finals. Not the best time to be doing this. Much better to shut down early and get set up for an engine out landing.

aerobat77

29th Nov 2010, 11:16

i just looked at the abnormal checklist of our cheyenne III.

it is splitted there :

when the low oil pressure warning comes on and all other parameters ( ITT, Oil Temp etc) are normal it calls for reducing power as soon as practicable and land as soon as possible and be prepared for a sudden engine failure

when oil temps and ITT is simultany rising it calls for shut down the engine immedietaly and continue with single engine procedures.

on a twin or more engine i think i would shut it down even when it seems to respond when i do not need it at the moment and i can stabilize the plane single engine.

keep on running may result in a catastrophic engine burst / prop shaft failure, engine fire etc etc some time later and then you have a more worse problem.

in a single engine plane i surely would let it run until it carries at least its own weight when there is not a possibility for an immediate landing.

SNS3Guppy

30th Nov 2010, 00:32

but not knowing the dromader installation it maybe that here it was just a hydromechanical fuel control unit.

The 331 installation in that airplane was a mid-time engine out of a Jetstream, and was hydromechanical only. It was installed and rigged specific to the operation for which the installation was conducted.

inflight you have 100% take off climb and land and 96% for cruise. thats all. you set it with the condition or speed lever, not with the power lever like you know.

That is not the case given the rigging of that engine, which was specifically intended to produce extremely large amounts of drag at idle to use as a speed brake during steep, downhill runs. Additionally, speed on that engine is a function of both propeller and fuel control working in concert. The TPE-331, and the T-56 are two of the most complex aircraft engines built, particular to their rigging and mechanical operation. So long as both the fuel control and propeller governor are supplied and able to perform their functions in good working order, you'll see no RPM fluctuation in the type of operations with which you're probably familiar.

Lose the oil out of the engine, and you have an entirely different motor up there.

I have been behind a TPE-331 when a failed rigging assembly and other problems combined to cause severe surging, with rapid, significant RPM and torque fluctuations; significant enough to throw me forward in my seat, and throw me back against the headrest repeatedly. The end result was a tug of war between the overspeed and underspeed governors, a problem with the speed lever, and an internal problem with the motor itself. In that event, I jettisoned the load and prepared to put the airplane in the treetops. I can assure you that the RPM varied far more than between 96 and 100%.

well, on a single shaft propeller rpm is a direct function of turbine rpm, thats why you of course have only one rpm gauge at a tpe331 - when the prop is turning 100%, the whole engine is also turning 100%. touching the power lever has no effect in engine speed , just prop blade angle.

The TPE-331 is not a "single shaft" motor. It is a geared, driven propeller, as opposed to the PT-6 which uses a free turbine, but it is decidedly NOT a "single shaft" motor. You may be thinking in terms of a piston direct-drive engine, which is not the case with the TPE-331. When you say the propeller turning at 100 percent is the same as the engine turning at 100%, hopefully you understand that while the engine is turning at nearly 42,000 RPM, the propeller is only turning at 1,500 RPM.

The engine low RPM in flight, and the top RPM on the ground in beta, is controlled by the underspeed governor, which is a fuel governor. The propeller upper speed is controlled in flight by the propeller governor, which is used to prevent the engine from overspeeding and to regulate RPM in governed operations. The rigging of both these governors, as well as the engine rigging, is given wide lattitude and still considered correct by the manufacturer. What you see in your Conquest is not necessarily what you can see and expect in a different installation. Further, much like the PT-6, various iterations of the engine can have vastly different restrictions, power settings, torque limits, temperatures, etc.

In addition to the propeller governor, also provided is a fuel topping overspeed governor, restricting fuel flow to the engine as well as the propeller governor using engine oil to control the propeller (and thus slow the engine). In the event of a torque loss, the propeller governor will initially attempt to increase propeller blade angle as an "NTS" (negative torque sensing) function in order to load the propeller and thus the engine, and restore positive torque to the engine. If this fails and the engine attempts to overspeed, the overspeed governor will take fuel from the engine. If oil is lost and the engine cannot produce torque through the engine, the engine may attempt to overspeed, and the propeller governor, no longer able to initiate NTS action, may lead the overspeed governor to pull fuel, instead.

Throughout the full range of operation, the various components of the engine “talk” to each other through feedback rods, valves, and preset limits in the engine, fuel controller, and propeller governor, as well as the underspeed and overspeed governors. The exact relationship of these components is variable according to the way in which a particular operator desires the engine to be set up. For example, one operator may establish the rigging such that at idle the engine is operating with substantial drag, whereas another may have the engine operating with residual thrust at idle; both can be within the manufacturers parameters.

The speed lever to which you refer does functions beyond those found on two-lever PT6A installations. While somewhat similar as setting high and low idle, the speed lever sets the underspeed governor, and also as propeller RPM control. The setting of the underspeed governor may not be established at the 96% with which you're familiar, and thus the Garrett can operate at a substantially lower speed, depending on the way in which the engine is rigged. It's also important to note that some garret installations use three levers, some two, and the functions of the lever are different, depending on the installation. It's also important to note that contrary to your own experience on the 331, torque limiters do not necessarily prevent temperature excursions; on many PT6's, temperature control is entirely within the purview of the pilot, and nothing exists to prevent the pilot from overtemping the engine.

yes, i am riding now a cheyenne III ( PT6A-41) leftseat, the 441 experience from the past was rightseat. ( TPE331-10 conversion, the original powerplant of the conquest is a TPE331-8)

propeller rpm stays at the pt6 the same when you touch just the power lever ( inflight) !!! you can change the prop rpm with the prop lever, and due to the fact that here you change just the prop rpm and not the speed of the core you can change it in a wide range. so you also have here a prop and core rpm gauge since on the pt6 prop rpm is not a direct function of the core speed like it is on a tpe331.

What you're referring to is a constant speed propeller. The propeller RPM on the PT6A does not remain constant, however, and varies according to the propeller RPM setting, as well as the power setting. It does not necesarily remain constant; only constant within a governed range. Once the propeller reaches it's pitch limits, it no longer maintains a preset range. RPM does, in fact, change on both the garrett and on the Pratt.

Quick question - I assumed that when the oil finally ran low enough and you did nothing the first thing that would get your attention would be the prop going into coarse pitch or maybe even feather? Aerodynamic forces and so on?

The engine did not feather with oil loss. I was unable to get any usable torque out of it, as there was no oil to regulate the propeller mechanism. There was no feathering action. It continued to rotate, producing no usable thrust.

During the steep descent, I was supposed to stay tucked behind another airplane, an Air Tractor AT-802. Given the braking effect of the propeller installation on the airplane I was flying, I should have had no difficult on the steep descent maintaining a position behind the 802. I was unable. I kept gaining on the 802, and had to pitch up and do tight, narrow S turns to keep my slot. Initially I noted the usual NTS action in the descent, but was far too occupied in the canyon with trying to see (the windscreen was covered in ash, and I was flying into an evening sun, and operating between two rocky faces while trying to keep a loose formation slot) outside, to pay a lot of attention. The inability to slow or keep from overaccelerating on the lead airplane was an important clue, but the problem didn't manifest itself until I reached the box canyon at the bottom. My target there was some structures, and I was tasked with doubling the retardant from the airplane ahead of my on those structures, before making a hard right turn and exiting a narrow burning canyon.

I found that my speed was high at the drop point, and given the narrow window for that airplane (about 15 knots; too slow and one stalls, too fast and one pitches excessively or uncontrollably on the drop), I elected to go around. I pushed the power up, and at first noted only the expected increase in EGT and feel through the airframe (vibration as power increased), with nothing amiss. It was when I began to lose energy and glanced at the torque that I knew I had a problem, though I had a mental disconnect as to what it could be. I thought perhaps I had a sheared shaft, though the lack of overspeed dictated otherwise. That I had normal engine response, but no torque, was puzzling. It wasn't until later when we attempted to drain oil for samples that the answer became clear; no oil, no torque, no torque, no thrust, no thrust, no fly.

Anyway, I figured if it did that it'd be a very bad thing as the engine would still be making a heck of a lot of torque then suddenly be fighting against a very high load - the fuel bypass valve would try to compensate but from what I remember they can only bypass 90 lbs flow and so there's still a good chance the engine would cook itself in less than a second.

If the engine were producing torque, that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. It would be a good thing. The problem is, it ran like a top, but produced no torque, because there was no oil for the propeller governor to port, to increase pitch to obtain torque.

The engine won't cook itself in a second. Again, Garrett (Honeywell) stated that the engine has been shown to run for 30 minutes with no oil. I was quite amazed at how well it functioned without oil, and at Honeywell's admission on the fact; it's a testament to one tough, well built engine (except for those pesky bearing seals).

The C-130's I work on have oil pressure for the RGB and power section, oil temperature, and oil quantity. In such circumstances, loss of say the oil quantity indication isn't a major problem, as if you have good T's & P's then the engine will be safe.

The C-130 (and L188, for that matter, even though the Electra/P-3 does use upside down engines) is a bit of a different animal, as it uses a separate, pressurized sump of H-5606 for the propeller; it doesn't use engine oil to control the propeller, or lubricate the gearbox. It's hydraulic fluid, instead. Without running over that ground again, one can visit http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-380365.html for specifics.

when oil temps and ITT is simultany rising it calls for shut down the engine immedietaly and continue with single engine procedures.

Again, this is what we really come back to with this thread; the loss of oil in the engine. Conventional wisdom says that a loss of oil will produce high oil temperatures (and perhaps low pressure indications). This may not be the case, at all.

Setting aside the Dromader incident, which has now been thoroughly beaten to death, I had an engine failure last year in a piston twin that was being flown following installation of two new engines. The flight was a test hop for the maintenance department, and during the flight, I saw the oil pressure and temperature almost simultaneously drop to nearly zero. My first inclination leaned toward an electrical failure, but that wasn't the case. The propeller was able to be feathered, and an uneventful return to land was made. On exit, I found that the nacelle and the side and back of the airplane was covered in oil. Upon removing the cowl, I found a shiny new plug, sans safety wire, laying under the engine. We had very rapidly lost the oil, and without oil, there was no pressure, and without hot oil flowing over the temperature sensor, there was nothing to sense.

One might have been forgiven for misinterpreting the lack of temperature, but only if one had been taught to expect high temperatures with oil loss, Low pressures may not be evident, either, depending on where the loss has occurred or is occurring, particularly if the oil loss isn't occurring in the pressure side of the system. One may not notice it at all until all the oil is gone, or until the scavenge/pickups/oil pump begin to cavitate. Depending on the motor, waiting that long may be too late.

As far as your cheyenne, rising oil temperatures and rising ITT is very different than low oil quantity; the chief concern there is generally the ITT, which poses a much greater immediate threat to engine components than the oil temperature or supply. What is making the ITT rise is of concern, and if it can't be maintained within limits, of course you'll want to shut it down. You're talking about the difference between an engine that's making power, and one that isn't operating properly. Not the same thing.

You're confusing your peas, and beans.

on a twin or more engine i think i would shut it down even when it seems to respond when i do not need it at the moment and i can stabilize the plane single engine.

keep on running may result in a catastrophic engine burst / prop shaft failure, engine fire etc etc some time later and then you have a more worse problem.

There's a lot of wisdom in the old counsel not to shut down a motor that's still giving something back to you. I realize that your Cheyenne may seem like the bees knees and a whole kit and caboodle of power, but it's a light twin, none the less, and you shouldn't get too enamored with the power that you've got left.

I had a discussion some years ago with the chief pilot of a charter ambulance operation regarding his King Air 90's capability on one engine. We agreed on an aerial demonstration when he insisted that the airplane would go around on one engine. The flight took place at Reno, Nevada, which at that time of year was both hot, and high. He insisted he would go around on one engine with a nurse, patient, and medical kit aboard, at gross, in the summer. He found out he was wrong, and by the time he got to that point, he was in tears, begging for the engine back, and looking up at telephone poles. He was absolutely silent on the flight home, and I didn't talk to him again, until he was fired a year later. He works for the FAA now, and is still probably handing out bad advice.

Point is, don't get too confident in what your airplane will do on the remaining engine. You might just lose that one too. Then what will you do?

Why not unless you have 2 or 3 more, not an ETOPS fan.

Of course not, and for good reason. You're flying a Cheyenne. ETOPS really isn't in the cards.

Old Fella

30th Nov 2010, 03:18

SNS3Guppy. I note in your post of 30Nov2010 at 1232 hrs you state, if I read it correctly, that neither the C130 Hercules or the P3 Orion/L188 Electra use engine oil to lubricate the reduction gearbox. I won't enter into the "upside down engine" bit, other than to say the reduction gearbox on the C130 is mounted so as to have the prop shaft above the engine air inlet duct and the P3/L188 has it mounted so that the prop shaft is below the air inlet duct. The reduction gear box on both, however, is most certainly lubricated using engine oil (MIL-L-7808) which is supplied from the same oil tank as the engine. I have not operated the P3/L188, but flew well over 4000 hrs as a C130 F/E (A-E-H models). The Oil quantity, Oil temperature, Engine Oil Pressure, Reduction Gearbox Oil Pressure and Oil Cooler Flap position were all provided with indicators as well as a "Eng Oil Low Quantity" annunciator which could be triggered by any of the four engines. As can be seen, loss of oil quantity would readily be evident in a number of ways. Usually low oil quantity would be accompanied by higher oil temperature and lower oil pressure with the liklihood of the oil cooler flap for the low oil quantity engine being further open in an endeavour to maintain the oil temperature within the normal operating range.

aerobat77

30th Nov 2010, 09:34

"The TPE-331 is not a "single shaft" motor. It is a geared, driven propeller, as opposed to the PT-6 which uses a free turbine, but it is decidedly NOT a "single shaft" motor. You may be thinking in terms of a piston direct-drive engine, which is not the case with the TPE-331. When you say the propeller turning at 100 percent is the same as the engine turning at 100%, hopefully you understand that while the engine is turning at nearly 42,000 RPM, the propeller is only turning at 1,500 RPM."

dude, respectfully , what the hell are you talking??? the tpe331 IS a single shaft propeller turbine, of course geared like every turboprop is since the rpms of the turbine shaft are not applicable for a propeller. the pt6 free power turbine is geared as well to the propeller, thats not the clue. and no - i am not thinking in terms of a piston where propeller speed is engine speed 1:1. ( there are also some geared engines)

the engine turns at 100% 41730rpm where the prop 2000rpm or with another gearing, 1591rpm.

because ( OF COURSE!!!) prop rpm is not turbine rpm in any turbine you have regarding speed the gauge in percent and not rpm. but again- 100% turbine speed at the tpe is always 100% prop speed as well, thats why you had in your dromedar just ONE speed gauge and not two like in a pt6. at the pt6a 100% prop speed is not always 100% core speed ( gas generator)

the main difference between a singleshaft and a split shaft ( free turbine) is that at the singleshaft all compressor and turbine stages are on one shaft and via the gearbox directly connected to the prop. so- when you at the tpe331 slow down the prop you slow the whole engine including the compressors. the compressors have only a narrow band for delivering high output and so you can only at the tpe331 operate inflight between 96-100 %

the t56 goes one step further and runs inflight always 100% speed.

at lets say the pt6 the power turbine is NOT mechanically connected to the compressor stages and when you here slow down the prop you will not slow the compressors. thats why you have have a wider range of changing prop rpm.

you dont believe?

Garrett TPE331 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_TPE331)

read that this thing IS A SINGLE SHAFT turbine... :confused:

the T56 is also a singleshaft, of course a much bigger one.

and maybe some other can confirm here.

the other comments of you ( NTS e.g) seem correct to me.

regarding constant prop speed at a pt6... just believe me it will stay constant ( inflight) until you touch the prop lever and set a new target prop speed. only power changes do not change prop speed, just core speed.

when you,re talking about drag in the descend- the most drag you have when the prop turns full rpms - ( and at your tpe in this case the whole engine does like said)

"As far as your cheyenne, rising oil temperatures and rising ITT is very different than low oil quantity; the chief concern there is generally the ITT, which poses a much greater immediate threat to engine components than the oil temperature or supply. "

the ITT at the pt6 without oil MAY rise through an indirect phenomena... when the core starts to size due to a lack of lubrication the fuel control unit will try to keep its speed introducing more fuel ( and so the ITT rises) . a sudden ITT rise witout power changes should be an eye opener at any turbine.

"There's a lot of wisdom in the old counsel not to shut down a motor that's still giving something back to you. I realize that your Cheyenne may seem like the bees knees and a whole kit and caboodle of power, but it's a light twin, none the less, and you shouldn't get too enamored with the power that you've got left."

you are absolutely right here, one main thing some people sometimes forget at all is that the single engine performance is based on a clean configuration. when you short before touchdown have gearand flaps dropped , and then decide for a single engine GA and forgot to retract all this you may run out of power.

in clean configuration the cheyenne III nevertheless has enough juice to perform a go around on one engine, that is not that big deal.

its a general question: run an engine without oil until it dies or shut it? on the one hand you may shut an thrust producing engine and then need the thrust later , on the other hand let it run may result is a severe explosive engine damage with all the problems to you... well, there is no checklist for.

the part from the PA42 abnormal checklist i posted here give just basic rules : let it run carefully when all other parameters and engine response is normal, (and with much luck you just have indication fault)

and shut it when other parameters are also abnormal and you may deal with an engine burst or fire when you run it until it dies.

18-Wheeler

30th Nov 2010, 12:21

All very interesting ....

But back to the question - If the engine is about to run out of oil, as I understand it now it looks like the prop would go into full-fine pitch. That's bad if you shut the engine down due to the high drag, so you'd be best to pull the Stop & Feather while you still have some control over the prop.
That sound reasonable?

I previously thought that the forces on the prop would cause it to coarsen-up as far as it could and I would have pulled the S&F without hesitation, but it's still a valid action no matter which way the prop blades go.

aerobat77

30th Nov 2010, 12:49

good question... i,m not sure if the prop in this case will go in fully fine... when it does so and just stays there since the governor cannot control blade angle anymore you may go with the turbine still developing power in a massive prop overspeed ( or on a singleshaft a whole engine overspeed) which is also not pretty. fully fine on other hand means that you should be able to produce thrust when the engine still sends power to the gearbox

due to shut and feahther... well, it may depend on engine type. the pt6 does not have any locks and should feather anyway when you shut ( like it feathers on a normal shutdown even when you leave the proplever fully forward)

the tpe as well other singleshafts do not feather on a normal shutdown (since you here spin on startup not just the core but the entire engine and a feathered prop would cause many many drag on startup) - here maybe you have to react quick and feather until you loose any control of the prop , maybe. i cannot tell you from experience, never had this.

SNS3Guppy

1st Dec 2010, 07:37

the tpe as well other singleshafts do not feather on a normal shutdown (since you here spin on startup not just the core but the entire engine and a feathered prop would cause many many drag on startup) - here maybe you have to react quick and feather until you loose any control of the prop , maybe. i cannot tell you from experience, never had this.

Of course the TPE-331 propellers will feather on shutdown. That's why you hold it in reverse during the shutdown, to put it on the start locks. If you don't, it will feather, and you'll have to get it back out of feather and behind the locks for start. You previously indicated that you've operated the TPE-331. Do you remember taking the prop off the locks after engine start by moving into the reverse range before restoring normal thrust for taxi?

But back to the question - If the engine is about to run out of oil, as I understand it now it looks like the prop would go into full-fine pitch. That's bad if you shut the engine down due to the high drag, so you'd be best to pull the Stop & Feather while you still have some control over the prop.
That sound reasonable?

That really depends on the engine. Generally, when out of oil, propellers on turbine engines will feather. On most piston airplanes, the default spring loaded position is to low pitch, on the stops. This is not always the case. Some propeller systems will move differently, and some can't be feathered without oil; as oil is used to drive the propeller to feather using an electrical feather pump (hamilton standard hydromatic, for example).

18-Wheeler

1st Dec 2010, 08:25

That really depends on the engine. Generally, when out of oil, propellers on turbine engines will feather. On most piston airplanes, the default spring loaded position is to low pitch, on the stops. This is not always the case. Some propeller systems will move differently, and some can't be feathered without oil; as oil is used to drive the propeller to feather using an electrical feather pump (hamilton standard hydromatic, for example).

Thanks - It just confirms what I said about shutting the engine down with the S&F while you still have control, as either situation is rather bad.
I'm still surprised that there was no procedure for this, it could catch you out quite badly if you weren't experienced enough to realise what was going to happen and there was no checklist to guide you.

Old Fella

1st Dec 2010, 09:28

18-Wheeler. As Guppy has said, it really depends on which type of aircraft you are operating as to whether or not the propeller will be controllable in the event of loss of engine oil quantity. The Hamilton Standard props with which I am familiar, and most others with which I have had experience relied on either engine oil, or a self contained hydraulic system, to allow control of blade angle in normal operation or feathering in the event of engine shutdown airborne. The engine oil reservoir on those which relied on engine oil to feather the prop usually had a standpipe below which no oil would be available to the engine lubrication pump but which would ensure sufficient oil was available to the electric feathering pump to complete the feathering of the prop. If oil pressure to the prop was lost for some reason such as a blown seal within the pitch changing mechanism the propeller would, due to Centrifugal Twisting Moment, move toward fine pitch as far as the "low pitch stop" would allow. This allows the prop to act as a fixed pitch prop. If oil pressure to the engine is lost due to loss of oil quantity or any other reason then, of course, the engine would need to be shut down.

aerobat77

1st Dec 2010, 11:15

"Of course the TPE-331 propellers will feather on shutdown. That's why you hold it in reverse during the shutdown, to put it on the start locks. If you don't, it will feather, and you'll have to get it back out of feather and behind the locks for start. You previously indicated that you've operated the TPE-331. Do you remember taking the prop off the locks after engine start by moving into the reverse range before restoring normal thrust for taxi?"

yes, you are right, giving a briefly reverse burst after startup was a common procedure for surely removing the start locks. but we did not shut ( in everyday business) holding in reverse , just in beta taxi range, that worked. that is valid for the 4 bladed hartzell props we had installed.

generally, at least on a 441 you had two ways in shutting : a normal shut with the stop button an an emergency shut with the condition/speed lever pulling all way back in the emer-shut/feather position. in this case the prop will/should feather.

what i think we both agree is that the tpe331 has to be shut without feathering the props on a normal day.

its a very interesting question : will the prop feather by alone without oil when the turbine still runs? i do not know, the checklist does not cover this. but when it does you will surely loose any engine thrust from the prop.
on a singleshaft like the tpe by this the whole engine will be stopped.

i think you incident on the dromader does not cover this- the prop did NOT feathered after loosing oil, it kept on running when i understand you right.

what we can say: it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to keep a tpe331 running with the prop feathered- instead of a pt6 where stopping the prop will not stop the core

411A

1st Dec 2010, 16:13

But back to the question - If the engine is about to run out of oil, as I understand it now it looks like the prop would go into full-fine pitch.
It depends on the specific engine type.
The PT6-20/27/28 types...loss of engine oil quantity, the propeller will feather.
I know, because, I've had it happen twice on BE99 aircraft.
On successive nights.:eek:

KMSS

1st Dec 2010, 16:23

Guppy, is this the NTSB report for your engine failure?

LAX07TA208 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20070723X00989&ntsbno=LAX07TA208&akey=1)

SNS3Guppy

1st Dec 2010, 17:34

what we can say: it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to keep a tpe331 running with the prop feathered- instead of a pt6 where stopping the prop will not stop the core

This is not true.

yes, you are right, giving a briefly reverse burst after startup was a common procedure for surely removing the start locks. but we did not shut ( in everyday business) holding in reverse , just in beta taxi range, that worked. that is valid for the 4 bladed hartzell props we had installed.

You do understand that beta is everything aft of the low pitch stops, right?

Alpha range is everything forward of the low pitch stops; beta range is everything operating at a pitch less than the low pitch stops. Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. Again, rather than cover this material again, visit http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/324680-beta-range.html

i think you incident on the dromader does not cover this- the prop did NOT feathered after loosing oil, it kept on running when i understand you right.

I'm not sure that you do. The propeller did not feather. The engine continued to run. The propeller assembly and the engine are two different systems. One can't necessarily speak in terms of an engine feathering, because it's the propeller that feathers. The propeller didn't feather, and the engine ran without oil. This thread is about low oil quantity in engines (and the procedures or lack thereof for such an eventuality), with considerable drift regarding propellers. I realize you're really hung up on the issue of propellers, but this is really about oil in engines.

Some engines that drive propellers use engine oil to operate the propeller, but some don't. Some, like the T-56 previously described (C-130) utilize hydraulic fluid in an entirely separate fluid system.

its a very interesting question : will the prop feather by alone without oil when the turbine still runs? i do not know, the checklist does not cover this. but when it does you will surely loose any engine thrust from the prop.

I really don't think you've been following this conversation very well, and I really don't think you understand the engines you operate very well, either.

Whether the propeller feathers or not is a drag issue. Not a thrust issue.

In the example previously given on the Garret motor, the propeller didn't feather. It also didn't provide any torque. Thrust is a function of torque; lose torque (because there's no oil to actuate the propeller mechanism), lose thrust. Torque is the indirect measure of thrust that we use (it's actually resistance to rotation, but for our purposes in the cockpit, we use it to equate thrust, and some garret installations actually read in horsepower, rather than torque or psi).

The engine continuing to run is really neither here nor there given the operation of the propeller; if the propeller doesn't feather, whether the engine is running like a top or not doesn't mean much to the pilot; the only issues really of concern are that A)one no longer has usable thrust, and B)one may have a significant drag issue, depending on the mechanism of operation of the propeller in use).

Thanks - It just confirms what I said about shutting the engine down with the S&F while you still have control, as either situation is rather bad.

Not necessarily. Shutting down to prevent the engine from shutting itself down is somewhat like fighting until has one bullet left so that one has something to use on one's self.

There are times when one is far better to use all the remaining thrust from the engine. Saving the engine isn't necessarily in the best interest of the pilot or aircraft.

In my case, when it was evident that I was getting no more useful torque out of the engine, and given that I had very little altitude to use, I pushed the power lever forward, in order to minimize drag with the propeller. It didn't feather, but it was the remaining option. The temperatures took off (and weren't limited, given that the engine doesn't have a limiting computer in that installation, to go back to grounded27's previous comments). I didn't shut down the engine until I came to a full stop on the mountainside. On any other motor, this wouldn't have had any impact, pushing the power lever up; on this installation it did, and was the final option available.

aerobat77

1st Dec 2010, 20:54

@sns3guppy: please show me ONE video or explanation where a singleshaft turboprop continues to run in feather.

since here you have a rigid mechnanical connection between the core engine and the prop via gearbox feathering the prop will stop the whole engine. thats why in a singleshaft the feather position is linked to a fuel stop and on a splitshaft it is not.

maybe kengineer 130 can comment the possibility to keep the t56 ( also singleshaft design) runnig when the prop is feathered... :ok:

i a splitshaft you can do it, no question.

in the meantime ... be careful with claming other people lacking in turboprop operation fundamentals when you say such nonsense ( tpe331 is not a singleshaft, running it in feather is possible...)

i truly hope that some other garrett drivers can come in to comment...

beta range... uff c,mon, let it be... its the range betwenn flight idle and ground idle but above reverse. the only range which is not governor controlled and you have a direct control of blade pitch with the power lever. reverse is like alpha range governor controlled again...

some claim it indeed the range all below flight idle, but, thats not fully true.

now i know you never operated one.

ok... back to props...

"The PT6-20/27/28 types...loss of engine oil quantity, the propeller will feather.
I know, because, I've had it happen twice on BE99 aircraft.
On successive nights.http://1.1.1.4/bmi/images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif"

seems logical to me , the pt6a has no pitch locks , but then you loose any thrust from the propeller ( you may have an enourmous torque indication due to the resistance when the core tries to drive the feathered prop)

did you shut?

SNS3Guppy

1st Dec 2010, 22:14

beta range... uff c,mon, let it be... its the range betwenn flight idle and ground idle but above reverse. the only range which is not governor controlled and you have a direct control of blade pitch with the power lever. reverse is like alpha range governor controlled again...

Okay, this explains a lot. You appeared like you might have known what you were talking about, initially, but clearly you don't. This is especially true regarding the TPE-331, but evidently you don't understand propeller systems very well, either. Thanks for clearing that up.

All ranges are governed. Do you know which governors manage which range?

Show us you know something about the motor.

seems logical to me , the pt6a has no pitch locks , but then you loose any thrust from the propeller ( you may have an enourmous torque indication due to the resistance when the core tries to drive the feathered prop)

This also backs up the fact that you really don't know your equipment very well, at all. This explains many of your previous comments and questions.

in the meantime ... be careful with claming other people lacking in turboprop operation fundamentals when you say such nonsense ( tpe331 is not a singleshaft, running it in feather is possible...)

Thanks again for once more confirming that you really don't know this material. We get it, thank you.

i a splitshaft you can do it, no question.

A PT6 is not a "split shaft." It's a free turbine. A TPE-331 is not a "single shaft" or "fixed shaft." It's a geared engine with a short drive shaft, driven by gearing, and the arrangement accounts, in part, for the cause of "shaft bow." Not that you should be expected to understand this, of course.

some claim it indeed the range all below flight idle, but, thats not fully true.

now i know you never operated one.

Thus far, you've been nearly 100% wrong with every guess you've made, ranging from operation of the engine to it's mechanical function, to your ideas and misunderstandings about propeller operation and your systems knowledge. Your comment here, then, is no surprise.

You don't understand beta. If you don't understand alpha or beta operation, then you don't know anything about the engine. Your previous comments suggested that you acted as a passenger or possibly a "copilot" in a Conquest (a single pilot aircraft, incidentally), so perhaps that explains your ignorance. If you stopped at ignorance, you'd be okay, but what you are clearly here, is a troll.

411A

2nd Dec 2010, 00:08

did you shut?
Down?
Yes, otherwise the engine is toast....eventually.

aerobat77

2nd Dec 2010, 18:03

and did they found the reason for the loss of oil on your pt6? can you say something more what exactly happened? the prop featherd with a still spooled up gas generator or did you closed the throttle before?

"but what you are clearly here, is a troll."

you are are right and i have my peace. truly, there is no need for such a discussion. life is too short.

you claim the garrett is not a singleshaft because it has a short driveshaft out of the reduction gearbox? ok... lets stop discussing turbine details, wikipedia says it is, honewell also- but you are nevertheless right.

maybe some other will comment.

in the meantime i have to do the same job in real life you do infront of microsoft flight simulator. so- enjoy YOUR short shaft when sitting infront of the computer hearing the garrett screaming out of the speaker. :ok:

Brian Abraham

3rd Dec 2010, 02:07

TPE331 TCDS

"TYPE: Single-shaft engine with two-stage centrifugal compressor, three-stage axial turbine, and singular annular combustion chamber"

411A

3rd Dec 2010, 03:52

and did they found the reason for the loss of oil on your pt6?
I'm sure they did however I can't remember now what the problem was.

V1... Ooops

3rd Dec 2010, 06:08

...On some turboprop engines, such as the PT6, the oil pressure is sampled at the same location as the torque indication.[post #5]

...Separate pickups deliver oil pressure to cockpit indications, from the torque indications... but they come from the same location in the engine...[post #8]

Both of the above statements are factually incorrect.

On the PT6A series of engines, engine oil pressure (displayed as "Oil Pressure" on the engine instruments) is measured by a sensor located on the aft part of the engine (the compressor section), and torque (displayed as "Torque" on the engine instruments) is measured by a sensor mounted on the reduction gearbox, which is at the forward end (the power section) of the engine.

The two sensors are approximately three feet apart and are entirely independent of each other - both mechanically and electrically.

The illustration below, published by Pratt & Whitney, illustrates the oil system in the 'small' PT6A engines (-6 to -34) and clearly shows the two different sensor systems, which I have highlighted in yellow.

SNS3Guppy, you are becoming awfully combative and bumptious in your posts - maybe you might want to tone it down a notch, OK? Most of us come here to gather and exchange information, not to participate in the text equivalent of a bar fight.

PT6A Engine Oil Principles
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/OilDiagram.jpg

V1... Ooops

3rd Dec 2010, 06:37

...The PT6-20/27/28 types...[in case of] loss of engine oil quantity, the propeller will feather. I know, because, I've had it happen twice on BE99 aircraft.

I can attest that what 411A has written is correct. In any case of a catastrophic loss of oil quantity (or a loss of oil pressure that interrupts the supply of oil to the propeller governor) in a small PT6A engine, the propeller will feather.

The reason for this is that propeller blade angle on the small PT6A engines is controlled by a propeller governor that uses oil under pressure to move the propeller blades out of the feather position, and the force created by that oil under pressure is opposed by springs and counterweights within/on the propeller hub that act to move the propeller towards the feather position. In any case of loss of supply of oil to the propeller governor, the propeller will feather. By way of example, autofeather systems on PT6A engines operate by dumping oil from the propeller hub.

I have only experienced one complete loss of oil quantity while operating a PT6A powered aircraft. The loss of oil quantity was almost instantaneous, and so was the feathering of the propeller. By the time I turned my head to look out the window to try and determine what had happened to the engine, the propeller had feathered.

Michael

SNS3Guppy

3rd Dec 2010, 07:07

"but what you are clearly here, is a troll."

you are are right and i have my peace. truly, there is no need for such a discussion. life is too short.

At least you admit it. Given that you've copped to being a troll (one who enters the discussion to stir up trouble, and who participates under false pretenses), there's no further need for you or discussion with you, and you're going promptly on the ignore list.

Most of us come here to gather and exchange information, not to participate in the text equivalent of a bar fight.

If you want to come here to have an adult, intelligent conversation, that's fine. Aerobat77 is not doing that. He came here with grossly inaccurate information, and has stated outright that he's here to cause trouble and is at peace with that. My comments to him (given that his participation thus far hasn't been a technical one or one or principle, but rather strictly one post after another of "I don't believe you") are point and have merit, and I offer no apology for them. Aerobat77 is on the ignore list now where he or she belongs.

This message is hidden because aerobat77 is on your ignore list.

It works perfectly.

The two sensors are approximately three feet apart and are entirely independent of each other - both mechanically and electrically.

That really depends on the motor and on the installation. that is not the case for the entire series.

Reference the previous discussion on the TPE-331 and electronic control, visit TCDS E4WE, as someone recently invoked the TCDS, for this comment:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/2c8af3bbc45fc47186256d96005eb743/$FILE/E4we.pdf
"The -10A, -10B, -10N, and -12B engines are equipped with an integrated fuel control system consisting of an engine driven hydromechanical control and an aircraft mounted EEC which is energized by the aircraft electrical system. This system may be operated in either an Automatic Mode in which both control components are active, or in a Manual Mode with the EEC de-activated."

The point of the thread, of course, is oil quantity in an engine, and operating procedures thereof. The point of introducing the TPE-331 (which I do not presently fly) was as an example of an incident I had experienced regarding an engine with no oil, and the effects thereof. I believe the original poster was more interested in turbojet or turbofan operations. I have had turbofan powerplants run very low on oil, but to date haven't had to shut one down as a result . A couple of years ago we prepared to shut down a JT9D that reached the 1 gallon oil reading, and would have shut it down if it had reached the .5 gallon limit per the checklist. We were close to the destination, and continued to use it until landing, without incident.

Many aircraft and powerplant installations do not utilize oil quantity cockpit indications. This isn't the end of the world. In the event of an oil loss, other signs and symptoms exist which must be addressed, and procedures will be found to cover these eventualities.

aerobat77

3rd Dec 2010, 07:42

TPE331 TCDS

"TYPE: Single-shaft engine with two-stage centrifugal compressor, three-stage axial turbine, and singular annular combustion chamber"

thanks brian- of course the 331 IS a singleshaft like ( nearly) everybody knows...

@V1....ooops: you,re are pretty right and i can confirm this also for the large versions of the pt6a. we had some time ago a TQ sensor fault and it clearly is located on the reduction gearbox. ( PT6A-41)

the feather of the prop with a complete oil loss seems very logical since the PT6a does not have mechanical pitch locks on the prop . the -41 definitly will feather e.g on a normal shutdown with the prop lever full forward.

the clue then is : shut down in any case... with a feathered prop you will have no use even when the engine still delivers power, and you highly risk to toast the turbine in the next minute...

one interesting point is what happens in singleshaft turbines which have mechanical pitch locks on the prop. ( but NTS may in this situation also initiate an autofeather as a result )

18-Wheeler

3rd Dec 2010, 08:20

SNS3Guppy

3rd Dec 2010, 08:41

Whilst the argument over semantics is perhaps more fun than rolling around in broken glass, the question I posed still remains - Simplistically, there is always a red light in the cockpit that tells you when the oil pressure in your engine is low. Pretty much every other red light on the annunciator panel has a checklist procedure for that red light, so why does a low oil pressure light not rate one from the different engine makers and/or aircraft makers?

The original question didn't regard oil pressure, but oil quantity. Specifically, loss of oil. Loss of oil doesn't necessarily mean a loss in pressure, nor does a decrease in quantity (loss of oil) show up as an increase in temperature. Furthermore, a loss of oil pressure isn't necessarily an emergency, as a loss of the indication doesn't necessarily mean a loss of pressure.

Which manufacturers are you aware of that don't have a procedure for loss of oil pressure?

Certainly if there is no cockpit indication available of oil quantity, then having a procedure to deal with low oil quantity (oil loss) is somewhat redundant. Dealing with the effects of loss of oil, however, where such indications are available (and generally more readily apparent), is always appropriate, and one generally has ample procedure available for this.

Again, loss of oil is not the same as loss of oil pressure.

As I've mentioned if I saw the oil pressure starting to fade I would without hesitation pull the S&F on a Garrett but I know of others that would dig around trying to find a solution in the QRH, only to dig themselves a deeper hole. There's large numbers of lesser failures that all get a mention, but not loss of oil.

In the case of the garrett, there was no loss of oil pressure. There was a loss of torque, but no cockpit indication of loss of oil pressure until there was no torque. At that point, loss of oil pressure was really meaningless and irrelevant, as bigger issues pressed.

Furthermore, upon pitching up, there was again a surge in both oil pressure and torque, until the last of the oil was gone (the bit that was pumped as a result of the pitch change). Shutting the engine down wasn't really an issue with a power loss in a burning canyon at 150'. The increase in oil pressure and torque lasted for about three seconds and it was gone again, this time with no significant torque indication, where previously I'd had about fifteen percent.

You do seem to be confusing loss of oil with loss of oil pressure, though perhaps you're suggesting that without an oil quantity indication, then one will look to a loss of pressure as indicative of being out of oil (often not the case, as a pump failure, sensor failure, or gauge failure, as well as a bypass failure in the open position, thermostat or thermovern failure open, and other types of malfunctions, can cause a loss in oil pressure, as can high temperatures).

Are you suggesting the aircraft you fly has no procedure for loss of oil pressure? In your initial post you posed a different conundrum, namely that the aircraft you flew had no procedure for loss of engine oil.

Surely procedures are in place for dealing with the effects of the loss of engine oil, are they not?

18-Wheeler

3rd Dec 2010, 10:07

Semantic argument, then ...

Surely procedures are in place for dealing with the effects of the loss of engine oil, are they not?

There was no procedure for dealing with either loss of oil quantity or pressure. Metro 3 type, Garrett TPE-331 engine.

Why?

Old Fella

3rd Dec 2010, 10:50

Guppy, You have not been reluctant to "put down" aerobat77 as being a troll. Whilst you may well have reason to feel as you do about aerobat77 I have to question some of the assertions you have made. You write "loss of oil does not necessarily mean a loss in pressure, nor does a decrease in quantity (loss of oil) show up as an increase in temperature". I accept that loss of some oil does not necessarily result in a loss of pressure, but a total loss of oil must result in a loss of oil pressure. Also, loss of oil quantity can most certainly show up as an increase in oil temperature, just as loss of coolant will result in an increase in coolant temperature in liquid cooled engines. Not everyone will understand that an important part of the work oil does is to carry heat away from the engine. With reduced quantity the oil is circulated quicker and a temperature increase will take place accompanied by a drop in indicated pressure. I also note that you choose to not respond to my comments regarding reduction gearbox lubrication on C130 and P3/Electra aircraft. None of us are infallible sir.

411A

3rd Dec 2010, 13:25

None of us are infallible sir.
Standby...for chapter and verse on just why he is infallible.:rolleyes:

aerobat77

3rd Dec 2010, 14:06

There was no procedure for dealing with either loss of oil quantity or pressure. Metro 3 type, Garrett TPE-331 engine.

i cannot say much about the metro but i will look when at home , i think i have still some documents from the C441 time, also equipped with garretts.

my current cheyenne gives procedures for low oil pressure ( i wrote it above).

but for an oil leak - i think its hard to determine a procedure you can deal with. how dou you want do deal with an oilleak inflight? just wait until pressure drops below redline and then here we go with single engine procedures...

@old fella: thanks , but beyond that i would be exited to know where i was fundamentally wrong with my statements ...

and no, something is wrong here- just let me quote some original statements from guppy for clarification :

"EGT and RPM responded proportionately to power lever movement "
the garrett responds with RPM changes due to POWER lever moments inflight?

"TPE-331 is not a "single shaft"
no?

i wrote this :
what we can say: it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to keep a tpe331 running with the prop feathered- instead of a pt6 where stopping the prop will not stop the core

that is the reply from guppy :

This is not true.
i truly always thought that the garrets incorporate a SHUT and feather (S&F) emergency position, not just feather without shutting down...

ok, nevermind... but now- he says simulatany this :

"I've not only used airframes with TPE-331's, but am a check airman in one of them"
:confused:

the conquest II was my first job and i have not sooo much time on it, but hey-to all real garrett drivers.... what do you think about this? , something smells...

after this discussion he tries to defend his reputation to death and finally calls me a troll and assests i have no idea about anything... well, ok, i respekt his estimation, thats all :cool:

V1... Ooops

3rd Dec 2010, 15:51

...That really depends on the motor and on the installation. that is not the case for the entire series. [referring to the torque sensor and oil pressure sensor being at opposite ends of the PT6A series of engines]

Sir:

I have this morning spoken to Pratt & Whitney engineering in Montréal and they confirm that every PT6A engine has two entirely different systems for sensing torque and oil pressure, and they are at opposite ends of the engine.

Note that we are speaking about engines (prime movers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_mover), not motors.

Michael

MX Trainer

3rd Dec 2010, 16:22

18 Wheeler

As the OP of this topic these comments are directed to you.

You have certainly started a lively discussion here with thread drift that is unbelievable - to the point of some members slagging each other in a rather rude way.

Next time you post you might want to be more specific as it took until page 3 for you to post the real question that you wanted.:(

Which appears to be: There was no procedure for dealing with either loss of oil quantity or pressure. Metro 3 type, Garrett TPE-331 engine.

Why?

Had you posted that question in the first page then the answer would have been a lot easier to give you.:ugh:

The short answer to your question lies in the original certification of the aircraft - in this case SFAR 41. This was a number of exemptions for this type of aircraft to be operated in commercial service without having to be built and certified to "Big" airplane standards.

Ed Swearengen was the original designer and everything about the San Antonio Sewer Pipe was done on the cheap. I would suspect that the flight manual meets the minimum standard for the type but probably not much more.

Back in the day this aircraft was built the authorities still believed in a "Common Sense" approach to flying aircraft - nowadays they not only have to make it "Fool Proof" but have to make it "Damn Fool Proof" as well. Thus newer aircraft have a lot more in the flight manuals.

So the real reason is - because that is how the flight manual was approved in the first place.

Google SFAR 41 and Wiki for the Metro 3 and read.

Regards,

Mx

SNS3Guppy

3rd Dec 2010, 18:42

I accept that loss of some oil does not necessarily result in a loss of pressure, but a total loss of oil must result in a loss of oil pressure. Also, loss of oil quantity can most certainly show up as an increase in oil temperature, just as loss of coolant will result in an increase in coolant temperature in liquid cooled engines.

Not true.

I can tell you that I've experienced both; complete oil loss, as well as complete coolant loss. Lose the coolant, all of it, from an engine block, and you generally won't see a coolant temperature rise, but a fall...because there is no coolant passing the temperature probe to indicate a rise. Likewise, I've seen oil temperature drop to zero and remain the same with oil loss. Both are possible, and both do happen. Furthermore, if one waits until one is seeing an oil temperature increase, depending on the nature of the problem, the system, probe placement and condition, etc, then it may be far too late to worry about the loss; one may have other issues with which to content.

I accept that loss of some oil does not necessarily result in a loss of pressure, but a total loss of oil must result in a loss of oil pressure.

Not necessarily the case either, for a number of possible reasons. In the case previously cited in the Garrett (and the reason for introducing it into the conversation in the first place) was to provide an example of a situation involving oil loss with no accompanying indication beyond the failure to provide torque. In that situation, I fuel chopped the motor after the aircraft came to a rest, and at that time there was no elevated oil temperature (given that there was no oil remaining). There was no evidence of oil loss of pressure loss until the torque failed to respond. Oil pressure was adequate up until that time, though there was no more oil to scavenge off the failed bearing seal.

Further, there was no core lock or seizure resulting from that loss, and the manufacturer indicated that the engine could be expected to continue running for a half hour without oil.

The indication of oil loss wasn't quantity, as it didn't exist. The indication of pressure loss wasn't the oil pressure gauge, which continued to read oil pressure. It was the loss of torque.

Guppy, You have not been reluctant to "put down" aerobat77 as being a troll.

Call a spade a spade. In this particular case, the poster not only admitted to such, but told us that he or she is at peace with the fact. No surprise there at all.

I also note that you choose to not respond to my comments regarding reduction gearbox lubrication on C130 and P3/Electra aircraft.

I addressed the gearbox lubrication in the T56 several times, though perhaps you missed it. However, since you brought it up, let's do it again.

The reduction gear box on both, however, is most certainly lubricated using engine oil (MIL-L-7808) which is supplied from the same oil tank as the engine.

The T56 powerplant, using the Hamilton Standard 54H60 propeller assembly as an integral part of the powerplant, utilizes an entirely separate pressurized sump for the propeller and gearbox. The propeller assembly is designed for, and uses H-5606 hydraulic fluid.

For the past 25 years or so, the USAF has used different fluids, under approval. H-83282 H-87257 are also in use: these fluids are newer specs for H5606. All three are hydrocarbon-based hydraulic fluid, the latter two are synthetic base. I operated A models and can tell you with absolute certainty that the sumps were separate, pressurized, and utilized H-5606.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f6eeeee3099089c3862575510050f925/%24FILE/A39CE.pdf

You'll note, specifically, per the TCDS (A39CE), the propeller oil called out. You'll note that this isn't a 30 year old revision, either, but a current TCDS, with current specifications. Therefore, while one might cite the age of the airplane and suggest that once upon a time 5606 was used, the fact is that it's still called out, and still in use, in a separate lubrication and supply system to the engine oil. The propeller is a separate assembly, mechanically and physically attached, made by a different manufacturer, using a separate, dedicated pressurized sump and separate pump and lubrication/actuation system.

Propeller Oil
(1) Hamilton Standard, propeller - MIL-H-5606B
(2) Aero Products, Propeller -Penola Aviation Instrument Oil, Government No. 1191X, Manufactured by ESSO Standard Oil Company, Type P-Q Rust Preventative No. 107, Government No. 6603X, manufactured by American Oil Company or Government No. 3106 or 3106X manufactured by Humble Oil and Refining Company, FSN 9150-473-9849

Would that be the specification to which you're referring that doesn't use 5606 for operation of the Hamilton Standard Hydromatic propeller installation on the T56 in the C-130? The one that calls for H5606? Now, given that the same specification calls out Mil-7808 for the engine oil, and given that one really shouldn't mix H5606 and Mil-7808, why do you suppose the manufacturer (and FAA) call for two different fluids for the engine and propeller, if indeed they share a common sump and lubrication system? They do not.

The Oil quantity, Oil temperature, Engine Oil Pressure, Reduction Gearbox Oil Pressure and Oil Cooler Flap position were all provided with indicators as well as a "Eng Oil Low Quantity" annunciator which could be triggered by any of the four engines.

Seeing as you mentioned it, a shutdown isn't warranted with a low oil indication in the C-130 unless it has secondary indications, such as fluctuating RPM or one can actually see the leak and verify the loss. Further, the T-56 is not typical of the other powerplants under discussion, in that an engine oil loss doesn't directly impact propeller operation, and the propeller has additional safeguards built-in for protection. Further, an engine oil loss won't cause the propeller to feather, though one can certainly expect catastrophic damage to the T56 if the oil goes.

Inappropriate engine in-flight engine shutdowns for oil propeller oil quantity indications are a known issue in the airplane, and I've seen and shut down the motors for actual hydraulic issues involving incorrect propeller overservice action, and failure to secure the lid on the pressurized sump (the ham standard assembly on the T56 uses an atmospheric, and pressurized sump...neither of which are not part of the engine lubrication system).

Guppy, is this the NTSB report for your engine failure?

No, it is not. The NTSB was not involved in my incident, classed by the investigators (OAS/OAM, not NTSB) as an "Incident With Potential". I was operating a Pratt powered Dromader (M18T-45R) on the day that incident occurred, but I was in Nevada. I flew some fires out of Burns later that season in an AT-802 (PT-6-67AG). I have, however flown the airplane in question, the one in the report you cited. It used a TPE-331-11 motor, rather than the -10 motor that failed in my incident.

None of us are infallible sir.

Very good (and entirely irrelevant), as no one here has made any such claim.

MX Trainer

3rd Dec 2010, 22:01

And this link is why you have a maintenance department to ask about these types of questions. Asking a good qualified and up to date maintenance "person" can do a lot to help understand what problems might be there for your consideration. Asking an armchair expert on a forum can get you some pretty interesting and totally wrong information in the process - not that that is such a bad thing but you really have to sort through all the chaff to get to the wheat!!! And just so everyone knows I do believe in "Free Speech" - everyone has the right to spout off whatever nonsense floats their boat. I also believe in making sure that someone I am about to take information from - that might possibly put my or someones elses' life in danger - is in fact actually in the know.

In almost 40 years in the maintenance industry I can count on one hand the number of pilots that have asked me to dump my pot of knowledge in their lap so they could understand what was really happening with the aircraft they were flying. In fact I have actually had chief and training pilots come to me and tell me to dumb it down a bit for the flight crews because they were starting to snag the airplane as a result of actually knowing that something needed to be looked at. - Oh well " I was looking for a job when I found this one!!" was the usual result of that request and my P(inCorrect) reply being less than desired by management.

Engines - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/certification/continuing-feedback-4-05-engines-1150.htm)

Continuing to run this engine with an oil pressure downward trend would have resulted in another event for us all to armchair quarterback!!!

Remember the old saw about learning from the mistakes of others as you don't have enough time to learn them all yourself. One of those mistakes is taking bad advice from someone - VERIFY EVERYTHING!!! - (Except of course stuff from me because I always tell the truth):=

Regards,

Mx

Old Fella

4th Dec 2010, 03:21

SNS3Guppy. It would seem to me that you use a multitude of words to make a relatively simple statement. My reference to the C130 Reduction gearbox was in response to your assertions in Post #29 where you write "that the engine oil does not lubricate the propeller, or the reduction gearbox" So that you are in no way mistaken on what I believe let me say again "The reduction gearbox and the engine are both MOST CERTAINLY lubricated by engine oil, albeit using their own individual pressure and scavenge systems but sharing a common oil reservoir from which they each draw oil and to which they each return scavenge oil. END OF STORY. Having operated C130's as a F/E with both the original Aeroproducts 3 blade unit and the Hamilton Standard 4 blade unit I understand fully that they each do not use engine oil for lubrication or control and that they each have independent oil systems contained within. No argument on that score. So please Guppy, re-read your post #29 and you will, or should, see what prompted my original response. I do not agree with you that loss of oil quantity will not result in a loss of oil pressure. Partial loss can and does often lead to increased temperature due to more rapid circulation of the available oil which can and often does be reflected in a decrease in oil pressure. I am not wanting to be argumentative but there is no way that oil pressure can be maintained if there is no oil to provide it. I am speaking of a real loss of oil, not a loss of indication of oil quantity. In summary, the Engine and Reduction Gearbox on T56 installations use either MIL-L-7808 or MIL-L-23699 from a common oil reservoir. I do not claim any knowledge of the Garrett or P&W PT6 engines, but I'll back my knowledge of the T56 any day.

SNS3Guppy

4th Dec 2010, 07:07

"The reduction gearbox and the engine are both MOST CERTAINLY lubricated by engine oil, albeit using their own individual pressure and scavenge systems but sharing a common oil reservoir from which they each draw oil and to which they each return scavenge oil. END OF STORY.

I fully understand what you said. You're wrong.

I flew the C-130 too, as both pilot and FE, and was also assigned as a mechanic and inspector on the aircraft, in the field, and at the depot level in a large repair station.

Having operated C130's as a F/E with both the original Aeroproducts 3 blade unit and the Hamilton Standard 4 blade unit I understand fully that they each do not use engine oil for lubrication or control and that they each have independent oil systems contained within. No argument on that score.

Hang on a moment. Did you not just finish telling us that the propeller and engine use the same oil, then turn around in the next sentence and tell us that they are fully independent.

Let me make it clear for you. They're independent. Further, the propeller assembly does use H5606 as I correctly stated previously, and further as provided in the TCDS for which my previous post gave citation. Do you have documentation that suggests otherwise?

Complete oil loss generally does not provide an elevated oil temperature indication. I can tell you that as a mechanic, but also as a pilot who's experienced it more than once.

I've experienced significant oil loss in radial engines as well (not uncommon), which experienced no elevated temperatures. I've experienced the previously cited complete oil loss in the turbopropeller engine, and a year ago experienced a complete loss (previously detailed here) on a small horizontally opposed recip piston engine. In none of those cases did an elevated oil temperature indication occur.

As far as your assertion regarding the impossibility of an oil pressure indication where a failure has occurred, given that you're a former flight engineer, then you'll understand the fallibility of AC powered gauges, which can and often do fail without showing a loss of indication or change, with loss of power to the gauge. I've seen sensor failures duplicate the same thing, and frankly, I've experienced total oil loss without an attendant loss of pressure indication.

By the time the oil is gone, one may have much bigger issues with which to contend than whether there is oil still in the engine. In the case of the aforementioned Garret oil loss, no torque trumped no oil. Whether oil was available for lubrication or cooling was irrelevant in light of the fact that no torque remained with no thrust with no way to remain airborne. Let the engine burn. We're landing.

aerobat77

4th Dec 2010, 10:26

when i read our hero- he drove it all. an expert and check airman in garretts without knowing what kind of engine this is ( or is it a motor?) - he knows better than PWC how the torque sensor on the PT6 works, he has best experience on the mighty C130 with T56 engines, he had several incidents at anykind of big turbofans, i guess he also has logged hours on the space shuttle.

he has to every thread a real story from experience .

well , what happend, how this experience can be...?

maybe, on his personal short shaft, he truly experiences a more and more shaftbow in gravity direction, simulatany he struggles with low oil pressure on the pipe as well low oil quantity in his tanks and so he truly talks from experience...

regardless how hard he tries to reach some torque on his shaft- he is unable to achieve a "positive rate of climb" .

well, with such a catastropic failure he hard crashed at home , so i fully understand that he is nervous when somebody doubts his comments and reputation here.

pure informative i give here one more statement of our hero :

"Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. Again, rather than cover this material again, visit Beta Range (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/324680-beta-range.html)"

and the copy and paste of a part ( regarding the props) of the C130 TCDS he by itself gave us here :

4 Hamilton Standard hydromatic propellers,

Blade Angles
Feather 92.5° + .20°
Low-pitch stop 23.3° + .50°
(min. flt. idle)
Ground idle, beta 4.0° to 5.5°
Reverse -7.0° + 1.0°

this TCDS needs an immediate revise, shame on hamilton standard !!!

they give a separate blade angle for beta and for reverse , and this is wrong! reverse is beta, beta is reverse like guppy says !

nice weekend to all !

Old Fella

4th Dec 2010, 11:39

Guppy, I have never said that the propeller and the reduction gearbox use the same oil. What I have said and say again, the Engine (Power section) and the Reduction gearbox both use the same oil supply, i.e. Engine Oil. Please read your own post #29 and my post #30. If, as you claim, you operated the C130 as both a pilot and F/E, and acted as a mechanic and inspector at line and depot levels, you obviously did not understand the Allison T56/Reduction gearbox system as you should have. If you still believe me to be mistaken, please ask Lockheed or Allison to explain how it works. Alternativly, please "Google" AllisonT56/Reduction Gearbox lubrication systems and read the Lockheed Service News Volume 15, No 2, April-June 1988.on the subject. I think my ten years experience of C130 maintenance (2 Years) and operation as a F/E (8 years) gives me a reasonable chance of knowing how it works.

V1... Ooops

4th Dec 2010, 15:27

...beta range is everything operating at a pitch less than the low pitch stops. Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. [from post #40]

This statement is also factually incorrect.

In the PT-6 Series of engines (I have no experience with Garrett or Allison and therefore will not comment on them), beta range is defined as any time when the propeller is not being controlled by the constant speed section of the propeller governor.

If the propeller is in a on-speed condition (if the rotational speed of the propeller matches the speed that has been selected by the pilot using the propeller levers), the propeller governor is controlling oil supply to the propeller in order to maintain the selected propeller RPM.

If the propeller cannot achieve the selected RPM, then control of oil supply to the propeller passes over to the beta reverse valve (the constant speed section of the governor itself being in an underspeed condition and thus wide-open so far as oil supply is concerned), and the beta reverse valve controls oil supply to the propeller in order to maintain selected (or preset) blade angle.

In summary: During on-speed conditions, the constant speed section of the propeller governor controls oil supply towards the objective of maintaining selected propeller RPM. During underspeed conditions (an essential prerequisite for operation in beta range), the beta reverse valve controls oil supply to maintain selected blade angle.

The propeller on a PT6A engine will operate in beta range during all low speed ground maneuvering (whenever actual propeller RPM observed on the Np gauge is less than the propeller RPM that has been selected using the PROP levers), and, depending on the approach speed of the aircraft and the propeller RPM that the pilot has selected for landing, the propeller may operate in beta range during final approach and landing.

It is very simple to determine if the propeller is operating in beta range: Look and see if actual propeller RPM (the indication on the Np gauge) is less than selected propeller RPM (the setting made with the propeller levers). If so, the propeller is in beta range.

"Reverse" always implies beta, because the propellers are always underspeeding (relative to selected propeller speed) during reverse. But, "Beta" most certainly does not imply reverse. If you are sitting on the taxiway in the lineup for take-off, with the parking brake on, all your pre-takeoff checks complete, the power levers at idle, and the propeller levers set for take-off, you are in beta range - but, obviously, not in reverse.

Michael

grade-3

5th Dec 2010, 08:04

FWIW, the Metro 23 does have a loss of oil px procedure (AFM page 3-9). It says:
LEFT OR RIGHT OIL PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT ON

If low oil pressure is confirmed by the oil pressure gauge, the engine should be shut down by applying the Engine Failure During Flight checklist.

If the oil pressure gauge indicates normal pressure (70 – 120 PSI) monitor engine parameters. However, if any abnormal indications appear (i.e. uncommanded RPM fluctuations, rising oil temperatures, etc.), shut down the engine by applying the Engine Failure In-Flight checklist.
I agree that the above is missing in the M3, so is likely a certification issue as others have noted.

Interestingly, landing the TPE331-11/-12 as installed in the Metro with a low pressure (around but not below 40 psi) is a bad idea because it's quite possible that the prop pitch will end up somewhere between fine pitch and feather, and with the engine still running this can produce significant thrust on that engine, which creates 'interesting' control problems during the landing roll... :eek:

grade-3

18-Wheeler

5th Dec 2010, 08:40

Champion, G3!
At last a bit of an answer, in conjunction with the previous post which you also mention.

johns7022

5th Dec 2010, 22:09

18-Wheeler

6th Dec 2010, 03:11

Oh my god...the horror of flying a plane and something happens up there that's not in the checklist, SOPs manual, with no way to call dispatch, the chief pilot, call for back up, look over at a chief pilot, or FO to do the flying....and you can't just stop the plane, pull over and get some time to figure out...

Horrible, horrible, I tell you...everything should be spelled out...everything I tell you...every little situation should be in a full library in the back of the plane where you can look it up, all the while you push a button where it stops the plane midair....like in a Sim..that way you can look it up, and take your time to figure out this horrible horrible situation.

Really.
So what would happen if a relatively inexperienced crew did have an engine run out of oil, they lose control of the prop while they try to figure out what to do, and crash the plane? It's far from impossible and the litigation people would just love to get their hands on such a thing.
"You didn't have a checklist for that failure? The Metro 23 does and it's the same aeroplane. Also, every other red-light on the annunciator panel has a checklist procedure, why doesn't the low oil pressure one?"
I've got enough experience to deal with these things that aren't on the checklist, but no doubt there are people that aren't.

johns7022

6th Dec 2010, 03:47

Old Fella

6th Dec 2010, 04:26

johns 7022, I don't think 18 Wheeler asked his original question meaning to infer that airlines were hiring people without sufficient knowledge or experience to handle particular problems. He simply asked was anyone aware of any aircraft which did not have a procedure to follow in the event of a loss of oil quantity. There are probably many aircraft in service with no specific QRH entry. Most, if not all, pilots would be aware that a confirmed loss of oil quantity will likely result in an engine failure and possible loss of control of the propeller in some installations. I enjoy these forums, however it is very apparent that there are those who profess system "knowledge" which is not correct. That is not helpful to those reading posts in an effort to improve their own knowledge based on the experience of others. For that, and no other reason, I will question statements which I believe to be incorrect. If my belief is shown to be incorrect I have no problem in being set straight.

18-Wheeler

6th Dec 2010, 05:23

So am I to understand that the airlines are hiring people that have no idea about the consequences of a low oil pressure indication...so ergo.... despite being taught to check the oil level prior to a flight they have no clue as to why that brown sticky stuff dripping on them is in there to begin with...??

Rather obviously not.
Best just watch this thread instead of posting in it.

Most, if not all, pilots would be aware that a confirmed loss of oil quantity will likely result in an engine failure and possible loss of control of the propeller in some installations. I enjoy these forums, however it is very apparent that there are those who profess system "knowledge" which is not correct. That is not helpful to those reading posts in an effort to improve their own knowledge based on the experience of others. For that, and no other reason, I will question statements which I believe to be incorrect. If my belief is shown to be incorrect I have no problem in being set straight.

Same for me - I would have though for sure that the loss of oil to the prop hub/governor would have the prop going full-coarse, but as it turns out I was wrong. I think it'd be less of a problem but still not one that you'd want to let happen.

johns7022

6th Dec 2010, 05:26

I see, well...I took it as a 'what do we do if it's not in the checklist' type of question....

I would be curious what normal standard commonly used make and model aircraft specifically doesn't have a loss of oil pressure check list.

Old Fella

6th Dec 2010, 10:01

18 Wheeler. Depending on what type of propeller you are using the effect of loss of oil pressure to the propeller will vary, whether it is due to loss of oil or loss of pressure for any other reason. Variable pitch propellers of the counter-weight type rely on engine oil pressure to move the blades toward fine pitch and thus this type of propeller will move to a coarse blade angle in he event of loss of engine oil pressure. Centrifugal forces acting on the counter-weights cause the movement toward coarse pitch. On a hydromatic type propeller the opposite will occur. Centrifugal Twisting Moment acting on the blades will move them toward fine pitch. As for the propellers fitted to Garrett and PT-6 installations I have had no experience and cannot comment. As has been noted before, not all propellers use engine oil pressure for operation but instead have self contained oil systems which are independent of the engine oil system. johns7022. I do not know of any aircraft that would not have a procedure for loss of oil pressure, however they may not all have a specific procedure for loss of oil quantity. Despite what others may believe, an actual loss of oil quantity will almost always show up initially as an increase in oil temperature and a resultant decrease in oil pressure, indicators for which are provided in all aircraft I have operated.

SNS3Guppy

6th Dec 2010, 10:42

This statement is also factually incorrect.

In the PT-6 Series of engines (I have no experience with Garrett or Allison and therefore will not comment on them), beta range is defined as any time when the propeller is not being controlled by the constant speed section of the propeller governor.

No, the statement is factually correct, and was written specific to the discussion under way regarding the TPE-331. You need to read the thread and understand what is written before comment.

Seeing as you chose to comment, however, what you just said is exactly what I said; everything aft of the low pitch stops. That's beta. From the cockpit perspective, everything aft of the idle stop is beta. Some pilots try to differentiate between beta and reverse, but it's all beta, including reverse. There are two modes of propeller operation; alpha, and beta. Alpha is anything forward of the low pitch stops, and beta is everything aft.

Some pratt manuals refer to the alpha range as the "power range," and the entire beta range as the beta range. This is the nomenclature used by P&W.
The low pitch stops on some aircraft are variable; this isn't a P&W function, but a customer (aircraft) function using squat switches or other trigger devices that help the engine differentiate between high and low idle, or flight and ground idle. Never the less, once aft of the alpha, power or forward range (aft of the idle pitch stops), one is in beta range, and this is "factually correct" (as you like to put it) regardless of whether one is talking about a PT6A, TPE-331, or T-56.

Your understanding of beta range and beta operations are incorrect.

In summary: During on-speed conditions, the constant speed section of the propeller governor controls oil supply towards the objective of maintaining selected propeller RPM.

Only when operating in the governing range. Until that time, the propeller blades rest on the low pitch stops. You may be thinking of the beta functions of the fuel control, but you don't seem to understand the function of the beta relationship in the propeller and the engine. When the propeller is operating forward of the idle stops in ground operations, the blade angle can't be reduced further to correct an "underspeed" condition. The blades are already on the low pitch stops, and these won't be moved until the propeller is commanded into the beta range (roughly equivalent to neutral and reverse thrust, but always aft of the low pitch stops). The propeller governor doesn't actually govern, insofar as constant speed operations, until the propeller is spinning fast enough to be governed, and in this respect any propeller installation on the PT6A is no different than a constant speed propeller on a piston installation. Until the engine is operating in the governing range, RPM is a function of engine power; you'll have lower propeller RPM at idle than on takeoff, because the propeller isn't operating fast enough to be governed, yet.

Beta functions take place when the propeller is commanded into a lower pitch than the low pitch stops. This takes place when the power lever is moved aft of the idle gate or idle stops. Various airframes use various methods of providing these stops and limits, or in a few cases, multiple limits. Some pilots incorrectly correlate the turboprop sound with a beta, but anything aft of the low pitch stops is beta; specifically, any blade angle aft of the low pitch stops is beta.

You may have read cautions regarding moving the power lever into the reverse range, from the cockpit, when the engine isn't operating. The reason for this is the potential for damaging your beta control, and beta blocks.

Think of it this way: at idle with the propeller feathered, the propeller isn't being operated in beta, though it's certainly in an "underspeed" condition. "underspeed" isn't beta in the alpha, forward, or power range (alpha, forward, and power range being the same thing).

Same for me - I would have though for sure that the loss of oil to the prop hub/governor would have the prop going full-coarse, but as it turns out I was wrong.

You're right, but only for some propeller installations. Not all. Some will feather, will go coarse, some will go fine. On light single engine horizontally opposed piston installations and on many radial engines, the propeller goes to the low pitch stops, or full fine, and the propeller essentially acts as a fixed pitch prop. On some installations, the opposite is true, and on some one can cause the propeller to default to full coarse or high pitch by retarding the propeller lever all the way. Some turboprops will automatically feather, some won't, and some that should, don't. One should never count on the propeller feathering, especially if one has any amount of airspeed and engine rotation present. Some propellers must be manually feathered, and will come right back out of feather and start producing drag again if not feathered correctly or if the pump motor isn't stopped in time. Some have additional safeguards to automatically feather a motor that's not producing torque, even if the installation should feather on it's own, even if the pilot has the capability.

One must know the systems in use.

If, as you claim, you operated the C130 as both a pilot and F/E, and acted as a mechanic and inspector at line and depot levels, you obviously did not understand the Allison T56/Reduction gearbox system as you should have.

I understand it quite well, thanks.

So am I to understand that the airlines are hiring people that have no idea about the consequences of a low oil pressure indication...so ergo.... despite being taught to check the oil level prior to a flight they have no clue as to why that brown sticky stuff dripping on them is in there to begin with...??

Why would you "understand" this when no one in this thread has said any such thing, in any way, shape, or form?

What has being "taught to check the oil level prior to flight" to do with losing oil in flight?

Losing oil quantity may not be nearly so important as other effects that take place when oil is lost.

In some airplanes, oil is used to heat fuel (and conversely, to cool the oil), and other such functions. In the event of an oil loss, heating the fuel is really immaterial, as one has much bigger issues, such as loss of thrust, loss of torque, and so forth.

If one does have the capability of monitoring the oil supply, then one doesn't necessary simply shut the engine down. The airplane I fly directs us to shut it down when the oil quantity reaches .5 gallons. It also directs us to start it back up for landing, as necessary and prudent, depending on the nature of the loss, speed of the loss, etc. Until then, so long as it's producing usable thrust and we aren't seeing other problems, we keep the engine, and don't shut it down.

Some engine installations have instructions for aircrew directing them to continue running the engine with a loss of oil pressure, so long as other indications don't exist. The same may be true for oil supply. If one sees an oil loss in a turbopropeller engine, such as previously discussed, but sees torque and the effects of oil pressure in use, one may or may not shut the engine down, depending on what one sees (and the number of engines one has available, as well as the conditions under which the problem occurs.

The point is, simply learning to check the oil, and simply understanding what "the brown sticky stuff" is, doesn't imbue the user with an innate knowledge for the proper procedures in a particular airplane, or a particular powerplant. In fact, having operating experience with the powerplant in one airframe doesn't necessarily mean that one is thoroughly versed in another installation. Furthermore, simply because one understands the procedures in one airplane doesn't mean one understands the procedures in other airplanes. It's not that simple. The original poster asked a question which sparked discussion; this isn't a statement that airlines are hiring idiots; hiring was never discussed, airlines were never discussed, and nobody claimed to have no idea what oil does.

Discussions have been had about types of oil and fluids, about the application of oil in the engine, about various procedures and examples, but one is always beholden to the procedures given by both the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer, as well as propeller or accessory or appliance manufacturer, as well. Sometimes all of them. One should not only expect to have procedures available, but should be well versed in their use, specific to the aircraft one is operating at any given time.

Yes, one should refer to the checklist. It's there for a reason. One should know which procedure to use, the immediate action (or memory) items, and should understand how to fly the aircraft until the problem is stabilized and handled, whatever the case may be.

Most certainly problems may arise which are not addressed in a quick reference handbook or in the flight manual. Generally the symptoms of these problems may be individually addressed, or broken down by priority and addressed. One may have a flap problem but may not have a specific procedure for addressing the flap problem. One may be best to leave the flaps alone and land without them; one should then have available data for landing without flaps (speeds, certain cautions, etc). As complexity (and size) of aircraft increases, the number of procedures generally increase, and these procedures by necessity must be followed. One may *think* one is doing the right thing, but there may be additional considerations which are addressed by the use of the procedural checklist, and these must not be ignored. One may simply wish to shut down the engine that has no oil pressure, but may neglect to take into account that engine as the only source of hydraulic power, for example; deferring the shutdown, or configuring the airplane first, may be a big consideration. Advising the pilot body to use common sense, particularly when addressing complex systems, may be bad advice; common sense alone doesn't cut it when complexity dictates that details count.

johns7022

6th Dec 2010, 17:27

A while ago I flew for a company that flew small turboprops and I suddenly realised one day that nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil.
I've never seen or heard anything like that on any other aeroplane, has anyone else?

That's the original post...so maybe it's not me that thread drifted....if anyone wants to enlighten me on a plane that actually has OIL Quantity Indicators, I am all ears.

V1... Ooops

6th Dec 2010, 18:56

Guppy:

You are talking through your hat, and you are trying to dig yourself out of an increasingly deep hole of your own making.

V1... Ooops

6th Dec 2010, 19:01

...A while ago I flew for a company that flew small turboprops and I suddenly realised one day that nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil.

I'm going to guess this is because relatively few (if any) small turboprops provide an oil quantity indicator.

A manufacturer cannot publish an abnormal or emergency procedure for a condition that cannot be easily and accurately confirmed by the crew. If the crew cannot reliably determine what the oil quantity is in flight, then they would be hard pressed to know when it would be appropriate to carry out a procedure dealing with loss of oil quantity.

galaxy flyer

6th Dec 2010, 19:05

I have lost oil quantity on a TFE-731, JT-8D-15, JT-15D, TF-39 (twice), and a CF-34. All of them due to suction line failures. Not one of them showed any significant temp rise, all showed rapidly fluctuating and decreasing pressure first, then the pressure indications led to a shutdown without any out of limits temps. Not saying temps wouldnt have been an issue, if the engine were kept running.

The B727 and the C-5 had quantity indicators, but proved unreliable. The RR BR 700 (GLEX, anyway) has quantity indications on the EICAS after engine/APU shutdown, as well as a oil pump to fill the sumps after shutdown on the ground.

GF

18-Wheeler

6th Dec 2010, 22:07

That's the original post...so maybe it's not me that thread drifted....if anyone wants to enlighten me on a plane that actually has OIL Quantity Indicators, I am all ears.

The bright red OIL PRESSURE light is a bit of a hint.

johns7022

6th Dec 2010, 23:34

Galaxy, I would curious what model aircraft you flew, that had oil quantity indicators with the TFE731 and JT15D Engines you specified.

galaxy flyer

7th Dec 2010, 00:16

Didn't say the TFE 731 or the JT-15 had quantity gauges, did I? I said i lost quantity, as indicated by fluctuating pressure. I said the C-5 and, IIRC, the Boeing 727 had them, but that unreliability caused their removal. Please pay attention.

Old Fella

7th Dec 2010, 00:24

SNS3Guppy. You have obviously worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have. That of itself however does not make you an infallible authority on every aircraft or system ever built. You have told me that I'm wrong in a number of instances where I know I am correct. An example is where you tell me "You're wrong" is where I wrote that the Allison T56 engine and the Reduction gearbox are both lubricated using engine oil, albeit using their own pressure and scavenge systems, but sharing a common oil reservoir. I don't wish to labour the point Guppy, but one of the virtues you seem not to possess is being able to admit that you are mistaken. If you believe me to be wrong, tell me on what basis you make that assertion. You also state in one of your posts that "Torque" is only a measure of oil pressure anyway. Well, not so on the T56 which uses a Torque meter shaft which measures the amount of "twist" on the shaft which transmits engine power to the Reduction gearbox. You also state in a post on another forum to which you refer that the Hamilton Standard propeller as fitted to the C130 is not a hydromatic type. Well Sir, it is described by Hamilton Standard as being an "Electro-hydromatic" propeller which simply means that it has electronic syncronising, syncrophasing and is a constant speed, reversible propeller.

Please show me where I'm wrong Guppy, because if I am I have been mistaken for over forty years.

SNS3Guppy

7th Dec 2010, 04:44

That of itself however does not make you an infallible authority on every aircraft or system ever built.

No one here has claimed infallibility, though it's the second time you've brought it up. Why do you feel the need to invent smoke to inject into the conversation? Give it a rest, already.

You also state in one of your posts that "Torque" is only a measure of oil pressure anyway.

In the context of the discussion at the time, with reference to the engines being discussed it is a measure of oil pressure. A direct measure of oil pressure, in fact, as that is how torque on those motors is divined.

On any hydraulic controllable propeller installation, the function of the propeller being hydraulic in nature, the operation of the propeller is indeed a function of the hydraulic (oil, or hydraulic fluid in the case of the T-56 with the Hamilton Standard 54H60 hydromatic propeller), and therefore direct evidence of oil pressure. In the case of the T-56, of course, the propeller's function is based on a separate fluid supply and system, entirely independent of the engine, using an entirely separate fluid (H-5606, and subsequent replacements as already identified per type certification...documents citations given).

You need to read the posts a little more closely; you're attempting to apply the discussion in one area, to another. Try to stay with the program; it will make more sense for you.

You also state in a post on another forum to which you refer that the Hamilton Standard propeller as fitted to the C130 is not a hydromatic type.

I don't recall having said that, but if you say so.

The hamilton standard installation, as I have previously correctly stated is the 54H60 hydromatic propeller.

You're really hung up on the T-56. Given that it's but one type of motor, and many more are out there (much of which you've already stated you have no experience operating or maintaining), that particular motor seems to be somewhat of an obsession for you. Previously another poster was desperately hung up on the TPE-331, with similar misunderstandings, too. As you will.

You have obviously worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have.

I don't know your background, but whatever it is, you're almost certainly correct. This is about oil supply and pressure, however, and not my resume, which is entirely irrelevant. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

The bright red OIL PRESSURE light is a bit of a hint.

The bright red oil pressure light is a bit of a hint as to which aircraft? How?

I'm going to guess this is because relatively few (if any) small turboprops provide an oil quantity indicator.

There we have it, folks. Finally, someone brought some good, solid guesswork to the table. Do you have any supposition to go with it?

This seems to be the trend. Someone gives an answer, but it's not good enough. Someone else gives personal experience, but nobody believes it. Someone else provides citations and documentations, but another poster argues against the written word, based on his own ancient experience, and so on. At least you offer a guess.

A manufacturer cannot publish an abnormal or emergency procedure for a condition that cannot be easily and accurately confirmed by the crew. If the crew cannot reliably determine what the oil quantity is in flight, then they would be hard pressed to know when it would be appropriate to carry out a procedure dealing with loss of oil quantity.

Perhaps you've never seen oil pumping out of the engine, or pouring out of the engine case in flight, or seen the wing covered in oil, or the nacelle covered in oil, and had a clear understanding that you just lost your oil. Accordingly, you may be forgiven for your lack of experience, though perhaps not for your arrogance. Then again, it is just a guess, isn't it?

You are talking through your hat, and you are trying to dig yourself out of an increasingly deep hole of your own making.

I don't wear a hat much, any more. There's little hair left to cover, and I enjoy the breeze. What hole, exactly, would that be?

Are you able to address the subject (intelligently)?

V1... Ooops

7th Dec 2010, 04:55

...Perhaps you've never seen oil pumping out of the engine, or pouring out of the engine case in flight, or seen the wing covered in oil, or the nacelle covered in oil...

Have you considered that not all engines are fully visible from the flight compartment, and that not all flights are conducted in daylight conditions?

...I don't wear a hat much, any more. There's little hair left to cover...

Yeah, I think most of us have figured that much out by now. Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended. All you are now is a bumptious and argumentative old man.

You would do this forum, and this industry a great service if you took up a more appropriate pastime than posting here. May I suggest you investigate forums dedicated to gardening, or grandchildren, or lawn bowling? I am sure that there are many such forums out there that would be grateful to have an "expert on everything" join their ranks.

SNS3Guppy

7th Dec 2010, 05:06

Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended.

They have?

You'd better inform my employer quickly; I have a departure in a few hours.

Given that clearly you've nothing more to contribute, you're joining a few others on the ignore list, where you belong.

Have you considered that not all engines are fully visible from the flight compartment, and that not all flights are conducted in daylight conditions

Certainly I have. Apparently you have, too. While it's not relevant, it's good that you're attempting to grow a brain. Enjoy your time off, on the ignore list.

This message is hidden because V1... Ooops is on your ignore list.

Much better.

Old Fella

7th Dec 2010, 10:54

SNS3Guppy, It is quite obvious that you are not prepared to concede that there is the remotest possibility that you may be mistaken in what you believe to be the way in which things work. I have endeavoured, reasonably I believe, to set the record straight on a couple of points in relation to the Allison T56 engine and Reduction Gearbox. My reason for doing so is because a couple of statements attributed to you on PPRuNe clearly indicate you are mistaken. Specifically, the entry which prompted my initial post on this subject was Post #29 on 30Nov2010 in which you said in relation to the T56/Reduction Gearbox/Hamilton Standard Propeller on the C130, and I quote, "it (the prop) doesn't use engine oil to control the propeller, or lubricate the gearbox". My response was that the Engine and Reduction Gearbox were both lubricated using engine oil, albeit using seperate pressure and scavenge pumps, but sharing a common reservoir. You have on a number of occasions since then accused me of being wrong and gone into chapter and verse regarding how the Hamilton Standard propeller works, despite me never questioning your version other than to refer you to a post by you to Tech Log on another thread, Overspeeding Prop, posted on 10Jul2009 where you state "The C130 uses the Hamilton Standard (now Sunstrand) prop and does not use a hydromatic prop" When I pointed out that Hamilton Standard refer to the 54H60 prop used on the C130 as an "Electro-Hydromatic" prop you again go into chapter and verse about how it works. You ask me to read the topic, not to drift off topic and accuse me of being hung up on the T56 engine. Well Guppy, you are correct about one thing, yes I am hung-up on the T56, but only to the extent that you have made incorrect statements about the engine/reduction gearbox lubrication systems and it is clear that your only defence when challenged about any subject is to be totally dismissive of another's opinion and call them "trolls" etc. You are a very self opinionated individual whom, it is apparent, is unwilling to be corrected even in the face of clearly being WRONG. You smugly tell me that you most like have much more experience on more types than me, which I freely admit to be the case. You also tell me you don't know my background. Mine is on my public profile Guppy, where is yours? :ugh::ugh:I guess I too will now be put on your ignore list.

aerobat77

7th Dec 2010, 13:55

"Yeah, I think most of us have figured that much out by now. Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended. All you are now is a bumptious and argumentative old man."

you hit the mark , i absolutely agree. i would go a step further and say that he never was a commercial pilot. with such an attitude -that you are always right , that you decisions are always perfect , you would fail any assessment and screening at a serious company. it is against any fundamentals of a multicrew cockpit, regardless if you are first officer or captain .

the top of it is believing to be right when in real clearly wrong.

further , being such a babbler - in a cockpit things happen fast and you often do not have the time for it.

finally... thinking that you are the only right and everybody elso wrong, you will not reach your retirement being a pilot...

since more and more of us join the "ignore - club", hopefully we all trolls can continue a normal conversation and exchange of experiences and our expert can continue on a self-discussion ,

where he or she belongs.

aerobat77

7th Dec 2010, 14:38

"The bright red OIL PRESSURE light is a bit of a hint."

the thread drifted a little... but: can you confirm for sule that the metroliner does not have any procedure for low oil pressure?

the oil leak, which will sooner or later result in an low oil pressure is nothing you can expect a procedure for. when you have a leak, you have a leak, you cannot do anything against it inflight i think.

you e.g will also not find a procedure for wing separation. procedures are for situations that are manageable.

in general- when an emergency situation occours , regardless what type of situation, airframe or engine, i would always follow the recommendations of the manufacturer and not some "special procedures" from self named experts at forums.

they will not pay the bill when they, believing they are right, in real terms are catastrophically wrong.

somewhere here an self named expert by ITSELF claims that the tpe331 on your metroliner will run up to half an hour without oil pressure. well- what when he is wrong , but you try it in real live and after a minute you deal with en engine burst and turbine blades flyling everywhere or an engine fire due to a sudden seizing of the core?

you are sitting in that plane, not he.

or a little lett worse... when you toast the turbine coping against the QRH but in conjunction with forum experts- you will tell your boss, not he...

SNS3Guppy

7th Dec 2010, 22:51

You smugly tell me that you most like have much more experience on more types than me, which I freely admit to be the case.

Ah. Here's your problem. You don't read your own copy.

You said I have much more experience than you, to which I freely admit to be the case. You made the statement. Not me. I simply agreed.

It was also you that introduced the issue of infallibility; something you invented, because nobody here made any such assertion, least of all me.

You're introducing items into the conversation, then addressing them as though someone else said them. You really do need to read your own material.

Mine is on my public profile Guppy, where is yours?

On the resume I provide my employers. You aren't my employer.

I guess I too will now be put on your ignore list.

Would you like to be?

...and it is clear that your only defence when challenged about any subject is to be totally dismissive of another's opinion and call them "trolls" etc.

I don't believe I cited you as such, did I? I did not. I correctly identified those who are trolls (not name calling; it's a proper identification of troublemakers in a thread on the internet). Those whom I so identified verified it themselves, and went on to say they're at peace with the fact. Their assertion, not mine. Again, you must learn to read.

As for what I've offered you, apparently citation, quotes, references, and the type certificate data sheet were insufficient for you. Perhaps you simply missed them, or chose to ignore them. Who knows? You're too busy inventing things to pay particular attention, it would seem.

Given your obsession with the T-56, do you suppose you'll have the time and attention span to return to the topic to provide a meaningful contribution to the subject of loss of oil and oil pressure, policies and procedures thereof, indications thereof, and the results? Perhaps you should start a T-56 thread, as this is clearly far more important to you than the reason this thread exists. Then again, perhaps you can start a resume for me as it's clearly a lot more important to you than it is to me (or anyone else, I imagine).

johns7022

8th Dec 2010, 01:35

You guys are all so far off I am wondering if I should bother posting...

The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure...and no one has stated an aircraft that doesn't have one..

As far as losing oil pressure, that's not a direct indication of oil quantity...could be a bad sensor, or indicator, ect...but as a general rule you don't put an indicator on a plane without telling the pilot what it means..or providing a solution if that indicator gets into the red, ect.

Which means the OP is putting all you guys on...you fell for it, and jumped into a furball, jumping back and forth pushing the thread into areas that had just about nothing to do with the original question. Classic Troll bait, with the resident experts showing just how little they know on the subject at hand. Classic.

If you disagree, send me a normal plane that doesn't not have any reference to the oil pressure indicator in the manual or checklist.

Old Fella

8th Dec 2010, 01:45

Oh Guppy, you are a difficult person with whom to share information. You are absolutely correct, I did state that you obviously have worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have. It was your response to that comment which I find smug. My reference to your seeming belief in your infallibility was prompted by your refusal to accept that comments by me, and others, are valid if they happen to be different to yours. My remark regarding my resume was prompted by a total lack of anything on your public profile to indicate what experience or qualifications you have, simple as that. No, you have not called me a troll, but you have done so to another who disagreed with your view. As for your question as to whether or not I would like to be on your ignore list, I could not care less if you choose to place me there. In all of this Guppy, you have not once agreed that my statement that the T56 engine and Reduction Gearbox are each lubricated by engine oil which is sourced from the same reservoir is correct. It is pretty simple Guppy, just an admission that I am correct, instead of your bland "You're Wrong" comment in Post #62. As I said before Guppy, this forum is, among other things, a place where people may be able to learn from the experience of others. In that context, information attributable to folk such as yourself with an apparent wealth of knowledge should be unequivocally correct. If you think my challenging you means I am obsessed with the T56 I am sorry. I would be most interested in your history flying the C130 as a pilot and as a F/E, and that as a C130 mechanic and inspector at depot level. You see Guppy, I can verify my experience but you have not. So lets have no more of your posturing. Take your own advice, particulary regarding Post #29 and Post #30, and read what has been posted. As for my thoughts regarding how a loss of oil quantity may be recognized I have covered that comprehensively, but again it was not in agreement with how you see it, so therefore I am wrong. You accuse me of inventing things to pay attention to. Guppy it was you who introduced the C130 post to which I initially responded. Lastly, I don't need to start a T56 thread, I'll just stick to contributing what I know to be valid information regarding the T56, if the subject arises.

Brian Abraham

8th Dec 2010, 01:45

The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure

We know and appreciate your lack of literacy, but the OP actually asked

nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil

I am wondering if I should bother posting

Please don't.

johns7022

8th Dec 2010, 01:57

Brian...have you figured out why helicopter manufacturers put the pilot in the left or right seat yet?

Brian Abraham

8th Dec 2010, 02:18

johns me boy, you've just outed yourself. For the audience, the aforementioned ssg went by other guises here on Pprune, namely tankdriver45, Angels 60, trickle_451, cattleflyer, and now johns7022.

A review of the following may provide illumination. You're guaranteed a laugh.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/328287-helicopter-expert-speaks.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/327959-side.html

As you may have noted johns has a thing about flex/derate in this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/431805-rejecting-takeoff-after-v1-why-does-still-happen.html

Here is a thread he started in his ssg guise.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/327326-flex-de-rated-take-offs-safe.html

johns7022

8th Dec 2010, 02:33

It's not surprising that your idea of a debate is trolling, flames and getting someone banned.

Either way...I am not impressed. Another forum poster who hides in the shadows and hurls poop from the other side of the fence...then runs away...

Brian Abraham

8th Dec 2010, 02:47

Another forum poster who hides in the shadows
Not me. Look me up any time you're in the vicinity, or phone.
3 Ivy Court
Sale
Victoria
Australia 3850
(03)51441060

Need a map?

galaxy flyer

8th Dec 2010, 02:52

Kinda think he has you there, Johns7022

Nice one!

GF

johns7022

8th Dec 2010, 03:09

Yeah I am sure it's real....I'm only a PM away Brian...sit on any side of the helo you want...just don't carry people and don't fly over a city.

grade-3

8th Dec 2010, 03:41

I know that the threads gone off on it's own little adventure, but for the record:

aerobat77:
the thread drifted a little... but: can you confirm for sule that the metroliner does not have any procedure for low oil pressure?
johns7022:
The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure...and no one has stated an aircraft that doesn't have one..
...
If you disagree, send me a normal plane that doesn't not have any reference to the oil pressure indicator in the manual or checklist. The Metro 3 (SA227AC) has no procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.
The Metro 23 (SA227DC) does have a procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.

No model of Metro that I'm aware of has a procedure for low oil quantity.

grade-3
(helluva thread for what seems a fairly straight-forward question... :ugh:)

18-Wheeler

8th Dec 2010, 03:55

The Metro 3 (SA227AC) has no procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.
The Metro 23 (SA227DC) does have a procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.

No model of Metro that I'm aware of has a procedure for low oil quantity.

grade-3
(helluva thread for what seems a fairly straight-forward question... )

Indeed.
Please upgrade yourself to Grade One!
It was a simple question, no need to get all bent & twisted about useless semantics.

SNS3Guppy

8th Dec 2010, 09:47

As for my thoughts regarding how a loss of oil quantity may be recognized I have covered that comprehensively, but again it was not in agreement with how you see it, so therefore I am wrong.

Yes, you are.

Old Fella

8th Dec 2010, 10:49

Guppy, no surprise to read your response. If you are too embarrassed to concede here you may have been wrong too, even just once, why not PM me with a concession and your C130 experience as a pilot, FE, mechanic and inspector at depot level as I requested.

aerobat77

8th Dec 2010, 10:49

The Metro 3 (SA227AC) has no procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.
The Metro 23 (SA227DC) does have a procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.

i just took the time and looked again at the AFM of the two types i currently operate in our company :

PA42-720 cheyenne III
PA34-200 seneca II

the cheyenne with the PT6A-41 has a procedure like i wrote some time ago for low oil pressure ans splits it :

- when all other parameters normal and engine response normal reduce power as practicable and land soon as possible
-when engine response and/or other parameters abnormal shut down the engine.

the interesting thing : the small seneca with its turbo charged pistons
(TCM TSIO-360) indeed also has no statement for low oil press in its abnormal checklist.

i must say i never noticed this :uhoh:

but when you read further and go to the engine limits section you have a minimum oil pressure for operating. i am pretty sure that the metro3 somewhere in its engine limits section has also a minimum oil pressure for operating.

so here you have it indirectly- when you loose oil pressure and go below the minimum operating limit you must not operate the engine and switch over to single engine procedures.

both mentioned planes have NO procedure for low oil quantity inflight, but both have a minimum allowed quantity for departing when you do your preflight checks .

hope this helps a little.

aerobat77

8th Dec 2010, 11:09

@old fella :maybe a little off topic, but one question to you- some time ago , as we waited on the ramp for passengers , a military c130 taxied to the runway and took off . (with serious sound on taxi :ok:)

it sounded for me that they taxied with 100% rpm- there seemed to be no further spool up of the turbines at initiating the take off roll. is it so? do you taxi the c130 with fully spooled up engines?

Tmbstory

8th Dec 2010, 17:23

Aerobat77:

Not sure if I can help but with the L382 version of the Hercules, if the aircraft weight permits (usually under 140000 lbs) the taxi may be conducted with all engines in low speed ground idle. May be the C130 you saw and heard was not using low speed ground idle.

Tmb

Old Fella

9th Dec 2010, 00:41

Aerobat77. As Tmbstory says, later C130's have a low speed ground idle function, predominately to help control taxi speed and save using either reverse or braking to keep the taxi speed low. Esssentially, the T56 engine operates within a very narrow RPM band, indicated in % RPM. 100% is 13820 RPM and via a 13.54 reduction ratio gearbox gives a prop RPM of 1021 at 100%. Ground operating limits are as follows: Low Speed Ground Idle 69-75.5%, Normal Ground Idle 94-102%, Max Reverse 96-106% and Normal Flight Idle 94.5-100.5%. Propeller Blade Angle at throttle positions below Flight Idle is controlled by throttle position. In the Flight Range RPM is contolled to 98-102% by the Propeller. The only limitation regarding throttle movement is to not move from Flight Idle Position to Full Throttle in less than 1 Second. Power output and RPM increase is absorbed by increasing blade angle. The propeller is fully feathering as well as fully reversible. Hope this is helpful and answers your question. Cant help with any first hand on info post "H" models.

V1... Ooops

9th Dec 2010, 07:29

Grade 3, 18 Wheeler, et al...

I am going to speculate here that aircraft certified under CAR 3 regulations (which might possibly include the Metro 3 and the PA34-200) don't have a procedure for low oil pressure because the CAR 3 cert regulations did not require such a procedure be provided, and that aircraft certified under SFAR 23, or FAR 23 at amendment 7 and later, do have such a procedure, simply because the cert regulations require it.

I have not done any research on this, so, this is pure speculation at this point, but I kind of suspect this might be the case. What got me thinking about this is the model names associated with the Merlin - the numbers '3' and '23' seem to be more than coincidental, as SFAR 23 (a rule that applied to a rather small number of 10 to 19 seaters built in the late 1960s and early 1970s) was the legislation that bridged the gap between CAR 3 cert regulations and the present-day FAR 23.

Michael

Tmbstory

9th Dec 2010, 08:11

Old Fella:

Thanks for your post #107, it was very well explained and put. My experience was only on the L382 which was used in PNG on the Moro oil project.

Regards

Tmb

Old Fella

9th Dec 2010, 09:11

Tmbstory, my pleasure and thanks for your comments. Happy flying.

aerobat77

9th Dec 2010, 09:55

old fella, tmbstory : thank you very much gentlemen for this good explanation !

so it seems that they taxied with normal ground idle and not low idle, that would explain it .

one more question regarding the throttle movement: does the T56 have torque/ temperature limiters installed so you can "firewall" the power levers on take off run ?

@ V1....oops : good point, it may be that they simply did not incorporate such a procedure because the regulations under which this planes were certified did not require it. it would make sense that it is just that simple.

18-Wheeler

9th Dec 2010, 10:13

Thanks chaps, it makes a fraction more sense now.
V1 - seems odd to leave something so important out though.

Old Fella

9th Dec 2010, 10:20

aerobat77, When moving the throttles up from Flight Idle it is not good practice to simply firewall them. Two primary reasons, one it is possible to overtemp the engine, despite it having an electronic fuel trimming function which above 64 degrees throttle angle, (known as cross-over) allows the Temperature Datum valve to "Take" fuel or "Put" fuel to control the temperature in relation to throtle position, this known as Temperature Controlling Range. Below Cross-over the TD valve is only able to "Take" fuel, this being Temperature Limiting range. In colder ambient conditions it is also easy to "Over-torque" the engine, the limiting value being 19600 "/lbs of torque. This is in fact an airframe limitation, the engine mounts being the limiting factor. There is a significant "Ram Rise" in torque as the aircraft accelerates, so setting take-off power is done without undue haste, especially when conducting a rolling take-off. Operating the C130H from McMurdo on the Ross Sea we reached the torque limit not too far above cross-over. Being essentially a constant speed engine there is no real need for rapid throttle movement as the engine does not need to "spool up" and response to throttle movement is pretty much instantaneous. A very good feature in an aircraft which is flown in a tactical role into some very ordinary airfields. I am unsure what the torque limit on post "H" models is, however it remained unchanged from the original C130A right through to the C130H.

SNS3Guppy

9th Dec 2010, 19:13

...why not PM me with a concession and your C130 experience as a pilot, FE, mechanic and inspector at depot level as I requested.

Why, are you hiring?

I think not.

I already have a job, thanks.

May be the C130 you saw and heard was not using low speed ground idle.

All our airplanes used the T56-9's, which didn't have low ground idle. It's distinctive sound when powering down from flight idle. Otherwise, the herc makes it's own very distinctive sound on the ground and in flight.

Old Fella

9th Dec 2010, 21:59

Yes Guppy and the Aeroproducts equipped C130A's with T56-11 power plants and no "Low Speed Ground Idle", in RAAF service, had a quite different sound to the Hamilton Standard equipped aircraft.

Pity about you not being willing to share your C130 experience, not that I would ever be in a position to hire you. I was just interested in a comparison on type between yourself and me. It is unusual to learn of someone with experience as a Pilot, FE, mechanic and inspector at depot level on the one type. Personally, after about ten years on various other types of aircraft as a Ground Engineer, I had 2 years on the C130 at Senior NCO level as a Ground Engineer before transferring to FE. I accumulated a total of 4760 flight hours on type, predominately on the C130A, but also time on the C130E and H models. See Guppy, it's not hard to share, especially when it can be verified.

johns7022

9th Dec 2010, 22:24

Resume comparisons aside...I think we can agree that a low oil pressure indication is a place to start...in my case, the light went on...then to the guage(low)...to the temp(green) to the nacelle...spewing all over..

I'n my case, I chose not to shut the engine down,(probably should have) but pulled the power back on the engine to idle, got it down on the ground ASAP...and shut her down on the roll out...called in the troops...fixed an O ring on a PT6 governor return line, did a flush...added some oil....did another flush at my home base...no problems..

My checklist told me to shut down the engine if the pressure was low...I wanted the engine in case I needed it down low...I was a little worried that my blades wouldn't feather too...because on that plane an unfeathered engine, will make the plane go about about 3000 FPM down...WITH a good engine on the other side....

Bottom line...if you see a low pressure indication .....will you make the right choice under the circumstances....in the real world it's certainly more then just shutting her down...there are circumstances to consider.

Old Fella

9th Dec 2010, 23:01

Johns7022. One indication, in isolation, will not always tell the complete story. That is why MEL's are in place to allow aircraft with various engine or system defects to continue to operate. So also, various indications in isolation do not always require the same action and unless certification calls for it, there may not be a Checklist to cover such indications. Commonsense and experience will often lead to a different way of handling any situation. You obviously looked at what was being told to you and took the action that you as the PIC deemed appropriate and, I suspect, was prepared to modify that decision if required and take responsibility for the outcome. That is what our employers pay us, or used to in my case, to do. There have been numerous times in my aviation career where, as a crew, decisions were taken which were either not specifically covered or where the action called for, in the circumstances, was not appropriate. Our subsequent actions were always taken in the belief that we had done the correct thing and in the knowledge that our backsides would feel the pain if we erred. Sounds as though you made the right "D".

Brian Abraham

10th Dec 2010, 03:27

I was a little worried that my blades wouldn't feather too...because on that plane an unfeathered engine

Excuse me. And for what possible reason might not the prop feather, given that it relies on oil pressure to keep it out of the feather position. Ever notice the prop position on shutdown?

Feathering of the propeller, a critical function for multiengine aircraft, is accomplished by allowing oil to drain from the propeller servo. Feather springs and counterweight forces on the propeller will force the blades into the feather position in the absence of high pressure oil. To do this, the governor makes use of either a feather lift rod or a feather plunger The feather lift rod is centered in the control shaft on top of the governor. When the control shaft is moved to the minimum RPM position, the lift rod pulls the pilot valve into a simulated overspeed condition which allows oil to drain from the propeller. Some governor models use a feather plunger instead of a lift rod. The feather plunger does not directly contact the pilot valve, rather, it diverts governor pump oil to a feather drain tube. Feather plungers react more quickly than feather lift rods and are thus used on higher pressure operation systems such as those found on PT6-67 series engines. Use of a feather plunger bypasses normal porting and allows for quicker feathering of the prop.

johns7022

10th Dec 2010, 04:03

Brian, I love you man...it's like you read the book, but you have never flown a plane...

When the boss gives you a C425 to fly...you can choose to feather the prop..and if the oil that you see coming from the front of the nacel translates into something in the governor making metal...and the prop doesn't feather..

You now get to fly single engine...Vse holds 3000 FPM....let that sink in Brian...put the Fosters down.....3000 FPM....DOWN.....

Can you dead stick a turboprop from 24000 ft into a runway, doing 3000 FPM, all the while the plane wants to flip over with all the drag from the windmilling prop? Then when you get there, if you don't get it right...you can't climb and hit short, with passengers, in the dirt at 3000 FPM...and how's your flare going to be with a windmilling prop...you'll flip the plane...

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes, in a FLYABLE plane doing 10000 FPM, and 250kts...and probably have two working engines to guarantee the landing.....

And it worked...hear that? It worked...that's right...let me repeat for the PC pilots...it worked. Downside of my choice...maybe...the oil would have run out, and a bearing cooked...but with no power on it..I doubt it...

People over gear...when you get to fly a plane all by yourself Brian, you might have to make big boy choices like this too.

Now off with you back to the flight sim.

18-Wheeler

10th Dec 2010, 06:17

People over gear...when you get to fly a plane all by yourself Brian, you might have to make big boy choices like this too.

Indeed, and that's why I have stated many times in this thread that with the oil about to run out in the engine I would pull the S&F handle (talking Garrett here of course) so I would not put myself in the position that you put yourself in.

johns7022

10th Dec 2010, 06:23

S and F handle?...do tell....

SNS3Guppy

10th Dec 2010, 09:39

Johns7022's account sounds very much like a walter mitty-esque account of nothing.

Something in the governor making metal? Really? Do you know what's inside your governor?

When the boss gives you a C425 to fly...you can choose to feather the prop..and if the oil that you see coming from the front of the nacel translates into something in the governor making metal...and the prop doesn't feather..

That sounds very dramatic. Are you telling us that you were unable to feather the propeller on the Cessna 425 that you were allegedly flying? Bearing in mind that it's a free turbine motor, with substantially less drag than other types of turboprop installations, and that it feathers upon loss of power or oil, are you trying to tell us that you were unable to feather because the "governor was making metal?" If so, I very much doubt your story. If you're simply starting out for dramatic effect without saying anything, you're doing well, so far.

You now get to fly single engine...Vse holds 3000 FPM....let that sink in Brian...put the Fosters down.....3000 FPM....DOWN.....

Without any hesitation, we get to the meat and potatoes of clear evidence that you haven't a clue. Either you're attempting to tell us that with an engine-out, the 425 descends at the rate of 3,000 fpm per minute, or it climbs at that rate. Clearly it doesn't climb at that rate and you do seem to be suggesting that the airplane won't do better than a 3,000 fpm descent...which is how we know right off the bat that you're lying to us. Why? Because it's not true.

Even the Cessna 421, from which the 425 was developed, had better performance than that. 3,000 fpm with the loss of an engine? Have you looked at the performance tables at all, or did you simply invent that fable without any reference to actual data, at all?

Can you dead stick a turboprop from 24000 ft into a runway, doing 3000 FPM, all the while the plane wants to flip over with all the drag from the windmilling prop? Then when you get there, if you don't get it right...you can't climb and hit short, with passengers, in the dirt at 3000 FPM...and how's your flare going to be with a windmilling prop...you'll flip the plane...

Alrighty, then. You really were trying to lie to us and suggest (perhaps even with a straight face) that you can't do better than 3,000 fpm down with one engine failed and unfeathered. Gotcha. (as in, gotcha, caught you in the lie).

If you're concerned about the airplane "wanting to flip over," perhaps you never learned the basics Vmc in multi engine airplanes. At your best rate speed, you're concerned about "flipping over?"

You're planning on making a descent to the runway at this mythical 3,000 fpm?

How's your flare going to be with a windmilling propeller? No different, actually. By the time you reduce both engines to idle, then you've got no significant difference. Land a little faster, as you must.

You shouldn't be thinking about going around single engine anyway, feathered, or not...why bring it up at all? It's a stupid idea.

You seem overly concered about getting to the runway and "getting it right." You are aware, hopefully, that one is expected to get it right upon arrival at the runway every time. Even if one is idiotic enough to dive at the runway at 3,000 fpm (apparently because one doesn't know the first thing about flying the airplane, or the principles behind it).

You'll "flip the plane" with a windmilling propeller? Really? Have you ever actually flown an airplane in your life? Have you ever flown one with a windmilling propeller, to a landing? Surely you're either a wind-up (troll) or entirely devoid of any experience around airplanes (of course you are: you're SSG, the return-troll, just as you've already been called-out), without even the benefit of having flown a model twin. If you did have even the slightest modicum of experience, you'd realize how foolish your comments are, and frankly you'd know enough to be embarrassed.

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes, in a FLYABLE plane doing 10000 FPM, and 250kts...and probably have two working engines to guarantee the landing.....

Ah, it gets better. No longer 3,000 fpm, you're doing ten thousand feet per minute in the descent (I hope you managed to flare without "flipping over").

With one working engine, one descends at 3,000 fpm (an apparently unacceptable, yet amazing number, given that the airplane drifts down at a much slower rate, even with one windmilling), yet you elected to use two engines to come down at the rate of 10,000 fpm. Were your passengers pleased? Virtual passengers, no doubt, because this event didn't take place, did it? Of course not.

You need two engines to guarantee the landing? You were uncertain about it a moment ago, even worried about "flipping the plane." But with two engines you guaranteed the landing? Now here's the curiosity; you were concerned about going around if you didn't get the landing right, but you're willing to take a propeller that you can't feather into the go-around because you've "guaranteed your landing?" You don't see the lack of logic in this stupidity? You're afraid to land with one propeller windmilling, (thousands of pilots do it on a regular basis, mind you, landing with windmilling propellers--it's called idle power), yet you initiate dramatic and unnecessary descents to save yourself from catastrophy, clearly concerned about the go-around, with your intent of using the bad engine and bad propeller (the one that's making metal from the governor, remember) for the missed approach or go-around. Did you think at all before you typed this? I know you didn't think before you did it, because you didn't do it.

Setting all of that aside, if you've got a windmilling propeller, which is one being driven by the slipstream, and no way to control the propeller, do you really think increasing airspeed excessively is a smart move? Do you understand why it's not?

You've asserted, in a smart-ass sort of way thus far, several times, that one should intuitively know what to do in a low-oil or low oil-pressure situation. This was your solution: dive at 10,000 at high speed with an engine pumping out oil, without shutting the engine down, in order to be safe. This is your solution? That's your intuitive solution? That's the best that comes to you naturally? I'd really be petrified to see what you'd come up with if you had a moment to actually think. Spooky.

And it worked...hear that? It worked...that's right...let me repeat for the PC pilots...it worked. Downside of my choice...maybe...the oil would have run out, and a bearing cooked...but with no power on it..I doubt it...

No, it didn't work, because you didn't do it, and not even you (SSG, internet troll) is likely to do something so boneheaded and stupid. That aside, you tell us that you had "no power on it," but previously told us that you kept both engines running so that you had power. For your 10,000 fpm dive. To save yourself and your passengers from certain death. And from "flipping the plane."

Edit, before you seek out a publisher. You don't want to hurt her from laughing too much.

Please, expand a bit. Let's see you dig this hole a bit deeper.

Brian Abraham had you pegged correctly. Most comical of all is that you're questioning his experience. Making correct choices isn't really your thing, is it?

de facto

10th Dec 2010, 10:02

i should stop reading Johns 72 knowledge and all the answers, I am having way too much fun:E

No, it didn't work, because you didn't do it, and not even you (SSG, internet troll) is likely to do something so boneheaded and stupid.

Guppy loved that last post,I admire your dedication,please proceed:ok:

aerobat77

10th Dec 2010, 11:27

S and F handle?...do tell....

on a garrett engine absolutely yes. feathering the prop here always means also shutting the engine down. this engine is an another story than the pt6. you will find an (emergency)shut and feather handle on a garrett.

let me also one more time highlight one post of me regarding exactly this where i already said that it is impossible to run a garrett with a feathered prop and where guppy replies that this is not true.... ( posting #40)

what we can say: it is technically IMPOSSIBLE to keep a tpe331 running with the prop feathered- instead of a pt6 where stopping the prop will not stop the core

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes

john, afaik the C425 does not have any speed brakes.
what is right that on a small turboprop with engines in idle and props forward you truly will go down like a rock, yes.

in general i think it would very much clean up pprune when on registration and claiming being or was being a real driver / FE or mechanic some confirmations for this would be required. i would have no problem to scan my pilots licence with ratings i have since it is not that secret, and than we can open two logs: "tech log" and "wannabe tech log" .

18-Wheeler

10th Dec 2010, 12:21

Should I perhaps regale the story where I had a runaway warp core on the Metro 3 and had to use the Martin-Baker ejection capsule.

(Question has been answered, feel free to entertain yourselves)

aerobat77

10th Dec 2010, 12:47

yeah, go ahead ! i bet one expert will quickly jump in and provide us with technical informations on martin-baker capsules he had experienced in real live ! :8

18-Wheeler

10th Dec 2010, 13:25

Oh okay, it's just the technical description I use for when this happens ...

YouTube - Playing a tune on the Metro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4n--6-T_xg)

Close one, that was ....

aerobat77

10th Dec 2010, 14:00

i think i found the video report on the catastrophic engine failure in a canyon reported here previously.

YouTube - toy plane crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baRUFGsLvtM)

how NOT to ride an multiengine aircraft

YouTube - Toy Airplane Crash! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBDc4T9i7zs)

johns7022

10th Dec 2010, 20:41

Guppy, I tire of getting you guys up to speed..

Call up Cessna in Wichita...or go to the Cessna 425 Manual look for the Un-feathered performance numbers on this aircraft...and if your an MEI you would know that most twins have these numbers...the C425 doesn't....don't believe me...look it up...when you don't find it, make the calls, call up Flightsafety...when you have done your homework post back here and then tell about how you would fly a Conquest Unfeathered....

Now if you want to take my word for it...then you might ask that if you have a running engine, with no temp increase and some oil coming off the side...would you want to shut the engine down, cavitate the fuel pump rendering your engine inop, costing the boss some money, spending three days in the middle of nowwhere trying to get some one qualified to FLY OUT, with a pump, put it on the plane, flush the oil, and bring 12 cans out....

or maybe just do to flight idle, on two running engines, get er down, have the extra engine if you need it getting into a tight little runway.

So insults and idiocies aside...when you guys actually have someone hand you a plane to fly with peeps in the back...you can make these decisions or not.

I'm still here, I remain.

Old Fella

10th Dec 2010, 23:35

I have no trouble with the suggestion by aerobat77 that those posting on these forums, where genuine questions are asked seeking to improve one's knowledge in the hope that reliable advice will be given, it be required that before being allowed to post evidence be provided to PPRuNe to support one's claimed experience and/or licences held. Mine is an open book, not so sure about some others.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 00:04

So your an open book Old Fella? Well please do, list your resume...at least someone here will actually read a post before responding.

Old Fella

11th Dec 2010, 00:41

johns7022. Please check your PM's inbox.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 00:52

Now if you want to take my word for it...then you might ask that if you have a running engine, with no temp increase and some oil coming off the side...would you want to shut the engine down, cavitate the fuel pump rendering your engine inop, costing the boss some money, spending three days in the middle of nowwhere trying to get some one qualified to FLY OUT, with a pump, put it on the plane, flush the oil, and bring 12 cans out....

I certainly don't want to "take your word for it," given what you've written in this thread. You've described an inability to feather a propeller as handled by making a 250-knot, 10,000 fpm descent to a "tight little runway" because your'e afraid of "costing the boss some money" and having to "bring 12 cans (of oil?) out."

Shutting an engine down cavitates the fuel pump, does it? Shutting an engine down renders the engine inoperative because it's "cavitated the fuel pump?" Are you honestly suggesting that shutting down a PT6A engine in flight will ruin the motor by "cavitating the fuel pump?" Again, clear evidence that you really have no idea what you're saying.

You appear to have attempted to say that you couldn't feather the propeller. You haven't actually said this, and as you didn't shut the engine down, clearly you didn't try. You've alluded to the "propeller governor making metal," but that wasn't the case now, was it? You know it wasn't, nor were you unable to feather the propeller. Thus, with your "peeps" on board, you tell us that your solution to a problem you hadn't defined or addressed was to dive at 10,000 fpm at 250 knots for a "tight little runway." This, of course, after you've already told us that the best you were able to maintain with one propeller unfeathered was a 3,000 fpm descent.

You don't see the conundrum you've created, here?

If indeed your powerplant was producing power, then "flipping the airplane" wasn't really the issue you imagine it to be, nor was the attendant drag rise such that you seem to describe. If indeed such a drag rise occurred, you certainly didn't help it any by cruising at 250 knots to your "tight little runway," not did you improve your control by descending at 10,000 fpm (no small feat in a Conquest, mind you).

You suggest that with one engine inoperative, you were held to a minimum of a 3,000 fpm descent, suggesting that literally the airplane was falling out of the sky. Never the less, with the engine operative, you fell out of the sky at three times that rate. You're truly a complex character.

Let's briefly consider the judgment issue. We're not paid as professions for our monkey flying skills, but for our judgment. Yours, according to your own accounts, is non-existent.

You believe you have a problem which risks the life of the engine, and risks "flipping the airplane," and which prevents you from doing any better than a 3,000 fpm descent. You have "peeps" on board. You elect to fly into a "tight little runway." You do this to save the "boss some money," and best of all, to keep from having to "bring 12 cans." Good tradeoff; risk everybody's life to prevent having to "bring cans."

I see that elsewhere on this forum you've been asking for a job, and you state that you don't work and play well with others (except the boss). Evidently so, because your actions as described are both unprofessional and borderline criminal with regard to the lives of the "peeps" on board.

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/383387-seeking-work-post-your-details-here-cabin-crew-pilots-post6084111.html#post6084111
Dual Rated, 10k hours, 20+ Years Corporate, 45
Degree, First Class. Corp jets, Tprops and Helos
Prefer a single pilot Citation Job, or Trprop.
Does not play well with others except the boss.

Turn key kinda guy, go to school, easy to insure, fly anything.

Will to go anywhere warm in domestic US, prefer SE.

Will consider offshore, location will be primary factor.

Are you certain that you want to hold out a hand looking for work and on the same site post such ignorant drivel about endangering "peeps" and gross misunderstanding of systems knowledge and aircraft performance?

The Cessna 421, incidentally, was considerably lower powered than the Conquest, and yet had nowhere near the dismal rate of descent with an unfeathered engine...even a geared, propeller installation with much higher drag and much lower power on the good engine. Truly amazing that you're unable to do better than a 3,000 fpm fall from the sky with one powered back (yet manage three times to the worse with both engines operating).

It's a shame you weren't available to counsel Cessna to put a warning in the aircraft flight manual about the dire circumstance of being unable to feather a propeller (unable being in question; apparently you didn't try): "WARNING: In the event either propeller cannot be feathered in flight, anticipate a minimum descent rate of 3,000 feet per minute" or just as importantly "WARNING: performing an inflight engine shutdown will result in fuel pump cavitation and destruction of the engine, or may result in the need to bring 12 cans." Think of the lives you could save (if you weren't busy risking them, of course, by your other actions, already on record...)!

or maybe just do to flight idle, on two running engines, get er down, have the extra engine if you need it getting into a tight little runway.

With one engine unfeathered, you think the fuel pump would have cavitated (laughable concept: you're aware it's a free turbine engine, right? You're aware that in the PT6A a windmilling propeller doesn't drive the gas generator or accessory section, right? Even if the engine in question weren't a free-turbine engine, you really think that the fuel pump would be destroyed by an inflight shutdown?)

Now, this is a technical forum, the thread in question dealing specifically with loss of oil or oil pressure, and the procedures for such loss. Your professionalism should be largely irrelevant here, save for your having forcefully injected it into the conversation, as well as having mocked multiple posters for their positions or comments (let's face it, it's what you do). You've held yourself up as the gold standard for pilot judgment and for intuitive action; it was you that told us that a pilot shouldn't have every procedure given him and that he should simply know what to do.

Clearly you don't.

Therefore, addressing your folly, seeing as you've foisted it upon us, is most certainly fair game, and the beating shall continue.

Call up Cessna in Wichita...or go to the Cessna 425 Manual look for the Un-feathered performance numbers on this aircraft...and if your an MEI you would know that most twins have these numbers...the C425 doesn't....don't believe me...look it up...when you don't find it, make the calls, call up Flightsafety...when you have done your homework post back here and then tell about how you would fly a Conquest Unfeathered....

How does one fly a conquest "unfeathered?" First of all,one doesn't feather a conquest; one has the option of feathering either (or both) propellers, but that's about it.

You're familiar with a windmilling propeller, are you not? You're familiar with landing at idle power? Surely you've been trained to fly the airplane without the propeller feathered? You haven't? You've had no training?

You're suggesting that FSI taught you that the airplane can't do better than a 3,000 fpm descent with one engine windmilling and unfeathered? Really? You invoked FSI; say it for the record, then. FSI taught you this? Cop to the lie; make it official, then.

You suggested that the propeller couldn't be feathered because "the governor was making metal." We know this is a lie. You didn't try to feather it, did you? No, you didn't, and you've told us you didn't, because you were afraid of "cavitating the fuel pump." Setting aside your garishly obvious gross misunderstanding of powerplant operation and function, the fact is that you blindly took the actions you describe without making any effort to follow procedure. You had no knowledge of loss of oil, beyond a description of some oil viewed on the nacelle. Had you lost the oil, your propeller would have feathered.

In fact, you told us previously that the problem wasn't the governor "making metal," but in fact an o-ring causing some oil loss. Therefore, you had no reason for failing to follow the procedures that I KNOW Flight Safety (et al) would have taught you, had you actually been there, and that the aircraft manufacturer provides for you.

The issue was never whether the propeller would feather; you didn't have a "governor making metal," and you didn't have a propeller you couldn't feather, and you did have a propeller system that would have automatically feathered if you had lost the oil. You claim a 3,000 fpm minimum descent with an engine out, but managed 10,000 with both running. You claim you were afraid of damaging the engine by "cavitating the fuel pump" but were afraid that you were losing all your oil so you elected to fly the airplane with both engines operating anyway (afraid to hurt the airplane, so you operated believing you were running out of oil and "making metal."). If you didn't know enough to be embarrassed before, you certainly should now, but if not now, you don't know enough to open the door on the Conquest, let alone fly it, which brings us back to Brian Abrahams assertion (as well as mine, as well as other posters who see you for what you are) that you're an imposter and fraud and speaking from your backside. Nobody could claim to be a professional and be this ignorant of basic procedures and systems. Nobody. Certainly not even a ten thousand hour pilot who doesn't play well with anybody but the boss.

Guppy, I tire of getting you guys up to speed..

This is truly a shame, because much as I hesitate to admit it, I'm really looking forward to your next installment.

SinglePilotCaptain

11th Dec 2010, 00:52

How about this.....a thread limited to those could show a picture of themselves sitting left seat, up in the air, of a jet?

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 01:03

Guppy...take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

And who said the C425 doesn't have speed brakes?
If you are sitting there at FL240 seeing oil stream from the front of the nacelle...you can ASSUME your governor is ok, you can ASSUME the feathering device is working...you know...because in your sad little word...I guess all engines, governors, radios, electrical and hydraulic systems always work.

I chose not to take an abnormal, and turn it into an emergency.

It is so abundantly clear Guppy, your a legend in your own mind...you wanna hash this out..PM me with your phone number and you can educate me...seriously.

If you called up Cessna to get the unfeathered numbers on the C425...you would know what I am talking about..

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 01:13

Folks, may I offer the advice given me by another prooner. Reminds me of the aphorism, never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

411A

11th Dec 2010, 01:19

take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

Odd, this one.
Back in the mid to late nineteen sixties, I operated PT6 powered airplanes (BE99's mostly) and we did all the training in the airplane...including engine shut down/restart, multiple times.
Never had any sort of problem....the engine started up just fine.

Shock/horror:hmm:...maybe we were doing it all wrong.:rolleyes:

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 01:30

Maybe back in the 'good old days' you cavitated fuel pumps...and back in the good old days...you pulled it back to flight idle but never feathered the prop..and possibly when you did this...you were sitting there with the chief pilot on a nice day, no people on board, nothing to lose but someone else's plane.....engine, fuel pump ect..

Reminds of guys telling me they do engine shutdowns all the time...but when you ask when and where and what engines...everyone gets quiet... only an idiot takes the boss's plane up to shock cool the piston twin..and on a Tprop...you better have it together on a million dollar bird with passengers in the back...

I guess it's all fun and games when you don't have to get the plane fixed or stand there when the boss's get the bill..

Wouldn't it be nice.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 01:38

Guppy...take up a Pt6....do the emergency shut down, and when you shut off the fuel, say goodbye to the restart, say good bye to the fuel pump...this is why you don't do those in Tprops...if you flew one...you would know..

Okay, you really didn't know enough to be embarrassed before. This really confirms what we already knew. Very well, then.

Are you possibly familiar with the concept of feathering the propeller on a constant speed installation? This involves streamlining the propeller blades to reduce drag. There is a procedure established for shutting down the engine, and this procedure does not involve "cavitating the fuel pump." Furthermore, shutting off the fuel does not destroy the engine, the fuel pump, or prevent a restart.

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread, in fact. Where oil quantity loss is evident, sometimes one may be prudent to shut down the engine, prevent further oil loss, and restart later.

If you lose all your oil, your propeller will feather in the Conquest. If you knew anything at all about the airplane, you'd know that.

Apparently you've never shut a motor down in flight before. You seem to be under the misguided belief that shutting down the engine in flight precludes starting it again, and precludes re-using the engine again. In fact, you seem to believe it will destroy the engine.

If you shut down the engine, whether the propeller feathers or not, the engine stops. The propeller doesn't drive the engine in the PT6. Are you not aware of this? How exactly does the fuel pump fail, if it's not rotating?

Are you aware that every engine shutdown occurs as a result of shutting off fuel? If it can't be terminated at the fuel control, then it's terminated at the fuel shutoff; either way, the fuel pump does not suffer damage. Particularly not in the brief moment of shutdown.

Do you believe that if the propeller cannot be feathered, the slipstream will continue to drive the propeller, which will continue to drive the engine, which will cause the "cavitated" fuel pump to be destroyed? If so, then you don't understand the engine.

If you would have shut down the engine, however, the propeller would have feathered. Your complaint here regards an engine and propeller that was mechanically sound, but which was experiencing an oil leak due to what you describe as a bad o-ring. In other words, there is nothing here that would have prevented you from following the procedures that Cessna prescribes, that Flight Safety International teaches (FSI teaches only what the manufacturer provides, incidentally, and has a strict policy against creating procedures).

You have stated that for whatever reason, you believed the "propeller governor was making metal." While this is laughable, let's pretend that you really did imagine this to be the case. If you believed that metal was being circulated in the engine, what possible excuse would you have had for not shutting it down ASAP and getting the propeller feathered? Oil is lifeblood, you see. Metal being circulated by oil is cancer. You're worried about the fuel pump (incorrectly worried, mind you, because you have no idea what you're talking about), but have no concern about operating the engine while you believe it's "making metal?" This is the real world, and in the real world, we consider such thinking nonsensical, and excessively stupid.

In fact, there's an expression you may have heard: cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. You're willing to destroy the engine to save the fuel pump, or willing to spend a dollar to save a penny. How much good would that fuel pump be, if you destroyed the engine by flying it while it was "making metal?" Furthermore, if you were concerned at all about the "propeller governor making metal" (I still get a kick of out that; you're funny), why in the name of St. Francis of The Talking Burro wouldn't you have feathered the damn thing while you had the chance?

When one does training in the airplane, one shuts down and restarts the engine. One can do this, you see, including feathering the propeller, because it doesn't hurt the engine. Did someone actually tell you otherwise? A little knowledge on your part is truly a dangerous thing.

I chose not to take an abnormal, and turn it into an emergency.

No, you actually did make a potential emergency. With a failed governor, or with your misguided belief that you had a failed propeller governor "making metal" (still cracks me up), you elected to increase your airspeed: not just enough to maintain controlled flight, but to 250 knots in a 10,000 fpm descent. Do you understand why this is a really stupid idea with a failed governor and uncontrollable propeller (which you didn't have, of course, but you didn't bother to find out)?

You really never attempted to feather the engine, did you?

And who said the C425 doesn't have speed brakes?

Nobody, actually. Why did you bring it up? What has it to do with the price of tea in china?

If you are sitting there at FL240 seeing oil stream from the front of the nacelle...you can ASSUME your governor is ok, you can ASSUME the feathering device is working...you know...because in your sad little word...I guess all engines, governors, radios, electrical and hydraulic systems always work.

Well, you see, that's the beauty of it. You don't have to assume. If you'd tried to shut down the engine, you'd have known. What you did was assume that you had a problem that didn't exist.

Feathering device? What "feathering device?" You really don't understand this propeller governor concept, do you?

In my little world, I don't have to assume. If the engine is leaking oil, I have two choices. I can shut it down, or I can keep the engine running. If I suspect the engine is "making metal," I'm shutting it down. Especially if I'm at 24,000' at the time. That's a lot of driftdown time, especially with the propeller feathered.

All your banter and bluster about a propeller that couldn't be feathered is irrelevant, because this one could be feathered. You never tried. That's a little like having an engine on fire and not trying the fire bottle, because you *think* it might not work, or being in freefall with a parachute malfunction and not using your reserve because you're afraid it might fail. Idiotic. You guessed, you assumed, you imagined that your propeller governor was "making metal" and thus failed do perform the basic safety-related task of flying the airplane, which included securing the questionable engine.

Now, you've already told us at great length that you don't need checklists and procedures to tell you what to do, that a great pilot (such as yourself) should rely upon intuition and intimate systems knowledge and understanding (none of which you remotely possess). None the less, you've invoked a well known name for safety training (which puts great emphasis on procedure, checklist use, and of course, airmanship). You elected not to follow procedure, not to use the checklist, and not to follow the manufacturers recommendations and actions. Subsequently, you made wild, unfounded assumptions, and did nearly everything wrong (save for actually surviving the experience, but even the correctness of that is somewhat questionable).

Keep digging; the beating shall go on.

--Oh, boy, that didn't take long. Let's continue, then...

Maybe back in the 'good old days' you cavitated fuel pumps...and back in the good old days...you pulled it back to flight idle but never feathered the prop..and possibly when you did this...you were sitting there with the chief pilot on a nice day, no people on board, nothing to lose but someone else's plane.....engine, fuel pump ect..

Shutting down doesn't "cavitate fuel pumps."

When training in the airplane, of course one feathers the prop. Don't be an idiot. Of course one fuel chops the engine. That's why it's called a shutdown. Inflight shutdowns and restarts are not harmful to the engine, of done properly. That you don't know this is a clear indictment of your lack of understanding of the most basic principles of operation and procedure. In other words, when it comes to the issue of your fraud, what you're doing here is giving it your stamp of approval.

Reminds of guys telling me they do engine shutdowns all the time...but when you ask when and where and what engines...everyone gets quiet... only an idiot takes the boss's plane up to shock cool the piston twin..and on a Tprop...you better have it together on a million dollar bird with passengers in the back...

I can give you a long list of airplanes I've flown in which I've shut down engines in flight, ranging from J-3 cubs to Boeing 747's. I've shut down PT6's, TPE-331's, T-56's, TFE-731's, JT9D's, JT-12's R-2600's, R-3350's, R-985's, TSIO-360's, 0-320's, A-65's, and a long, long list of others ranging from horizontally opposed reciprocating engines to radial piston to turboprop to turbojet and turbofan engines. A few in abnormal or emergency situations, some during maintenance test flying, many during training, and so forth. Get quiet about it? The only thing that gets quiet is the engine. I've done it with the FAA on board, with check airman on board, with a plethora of students on board, and yes, with passengers on board as well as cargo. Go figure.

You'd better have it together with a million dollar airplane, as well as a two hundred million dollar airplane, as well as a fifteen thousand dollar airplane. You'd better have it together in any airplane. Any helicopter. Any airship. You're expected to have it together no matter what you fly, including a balloon. You don't.

Shock cooling? You're sure you want to go there?

I guess it's all fun and games when you don't have to get the plane fixed or stand there when the boss's get the bill..

Not really...but then a professional doesn't do that. One is expected to be able to do these things without having to get the airplane fixed, because one can do them without hurting the airplane, because these are routine procedures one should know intimately and be able to perform without hesitation. It appears that you can't. Maybe you don't play with the boss so well after all, or perhaps you just play too much. Who knows. You certainly don't play aviator well now do you?

Wouldn't it be nice.

Wouldn't it?

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 01:53

Guppy..when you cut off the fuel from a windmilling turbine engine...what will the mechanical fuel pump do when it doesn't have fuel to lubricate it?

No long answers...no dissertations on how stupid I am...what does a mechanical fuel pump do when you starve it off fuel.

Care to answer that? Now if, you have ever been IN CHARGE of an aircraft meaning you are RESPONSIBLE for it....you might think twice about taking it up...on the boss's nickel and shutting down engines for fun...just a thought...

Or maybe you have already been canned from a few jobs?

As far as why a tprop feathers...are you so stupid as to think that the anti torque system on the Conquest is there, because you happen to think that when the engine shuts off of a freewheeling turbine....that the prop goes right into feather..?

Well Pratt and Cessna don't think so.....

How nice...now we can call up Cessna and tell them that they can take off all the anti torque systems because Guppy said they don't need them.....

And did you think that the reason for the anti torque system being there had a little more to do with just the pilot reaching over and feathering the prop, but maybe, you know...just maybe...Pratt and Whitney....you know the engine guys...had little faith in the ability of the pilot to feather a failed engine in time before that big ol three bladed McCauley or 4 blade Hartzell created so much drag that Vmc would be reached in in no time, and just to keep the plane flying, you needed to go down, to the tune of 3000 FPM...holding enough power on the good side, but enough speed forward to counteract so much asymetrical yaw and roll that the plane was almost un--flyable..

No of-course not...because Guppy knows more then Cessna and Pratt and Whitney....

Thanks Guppy...for setting all of us straight....

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 01:57

So I chose to drop like a rock, flight idle, speed brakes, in a FLYABLE plane doing 10000 FPM, and 250ktsGot a lady here who flew the 425 for the RFDS falling about the floor laughing at this tripe. The 425 doesn't have speed brakes and nor will it do 250 knots.

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 02:17

Keep trying pal, let us know what the Vmo of a 425 is. You're still way out of the ball park. And let us know what the significance is of 21,800 feet when talking about the 425. My bet is you don't have an answer.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 02:28

Brian the C425 will do 245kts all day long...did you know the Conquest II with -10s will do 305 or better?

Gosh what about 'Vmo' on that aircraft?

Tell you what Brian...you grab your 'Conquest Pilot' you got right there, tell 'her' to grab her manual, and I will ask, a specific question on a specific page...and see if she can look it up? ok?

Old Fella

11th Dec 2010, 02:36

I have no experience of the engine/prop installations mentioned here and am somewhat reluctant to make a comment, except to say that any aeroplane on which I have operated and which was fitted with a featherable propeller has always been able to be shut-down and, if required, able to be restarted regardless of whether it was a "Precautionary" shutdown or an "Emergency" shutdown without detriment to any component.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 02:40

It's too early in the morning to laugh like that, but thanks. You're still funny. Very well, let's get on with it.

Guppy..when you cut off the fuel from a windmilling turbine engine...what will the mechanical fuel pump do when it doesn't have fuel to lubricate it?

No long answers...no dissertations on how stupid I am...what does a mechanical fuel pump do when you starve it off fuel.

No dissertations are required: you prove that fact quite conclusively all by yourself.

Do you know what happens when you feather the propeller on a PT6A installation? Do you really believe that the engine keeps rotating, or causes damage? When the engine is shut down, it's shut down. When the engine does windmill, however, when the gas generator still turns, if it's still turning (do you know anything at all about the PT6A?), the propeller isn't connected to the gas generator. If one has feathered the propeller, one hasn't starved the fuel pump of fuel.

If one shuts down the engine in flight, one hasn't starved the fuel pump of fuel. You do understand, of course, that an inflight shutdown, particularly one using the aircraft manufacturer checklist, doesn't involve starving the pump of fuel, right? Do you understand that shutting the engine down using the fuel control has no effect on the fuel pump, because it's downstream of the fuel pump? You really don't know anything about the engine, or the procedures for operating it, do you?

No need to call you an idiot, mate. You do that to yourself over and over with your comments. Your own commentary is self-indictment. This is why I pointed out that you don't appear to know enough to be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you, and if that were all, you'd be little more than a fish in a barrel. The problem we face here is that you claim to be a professional, and are therefore not just innocently ignorant and laughably uninformed. You're dangerous.

At least you would be, if one would push one's self to the edge of reason and believe for a moment that you're who you claim.

Care to answer that? Now if, you have ever been IN CHARGE of an aircraft meaning you are RESPONSIBLE for it....you might think twice about taking it up...on the boss's nickel and shutting down engines for fun...just a thought...

I don't shut down engines for fun. I shoot for fun. I hike for fun. I skydive for fun. I even fly for fun. But I don't shut down engines for fun.

I shut down engines for training. I shut down engines using aircraft and engine manufacturer procedures. I shut down engines from necessity. I shut down engines to test, to teach, to demonstrate, to show, to prove, to save, and to prevent. But never for fun. I just don't see the fun in it.

I never shut them down on my nickle, however. Someone is always paying me. I fly when someone pays me to fly, and when I shut down an engine, it's because I'm paid to do it. When I do it, I do it using a checklist, a procedure, and a plan. I do it knowing that I am not harming the engine, or endangering the flight, the aircraft, others in the aircraft or those on the ground. I do it because it's safe, it's sometimes necessary, it's appropriate, and it's approved by the engine manufacturer.

Shutting down the PT6A in flight is approved by the engine manufacturer, incidentally. Just as it is by the airframe manufacturer. And the propeller manufacturer (that's why it's a full feathering propeller, you see).

As far as why a tprop feathers...are you so stupid as to think that the anti torque system on the Conquest is there, because you happen to think that when the engine shuts off of a freewheeling turbine....that the prop goes right into feather..?

The "antitorque," you say. Okay.

You may be thinking of the Garrett motor, which does incorporate a negative torque sensing system (NTS). NTS moves the propeller blade angle toward high pitch to load the propeller from the engine, when negative torque is sensed; it helps keep the engine driving the propeller, instead of the other way around.

This isn't necessary on the PT6A; it's a free turbine, after all, and the propeller can't drive the gas generator. The propeller is controlled instead by the governor, which works the blade angle as required to maintain a constant RPM when in the governing range.

On the Conquest, as with all turboprops, the concept of torque is a good thing; we want torque.

Now, you ask if I'm stupid enough to believe that the propeller feathers when the engine shuts down. No, I'm not stupid, and yes, the propeller feathers when the engine shuts down; that's part of the shutdown and feathering procedure for all PT6A installations, including on the Conquest. You ensure it feathers by feathering the propeller, you see. You didn't do that, in the scenario you describe. In fact, you didn't try.

For all your rambling about the propeller governor "making metal" and being unable to be feathered, you never tried to feather the propeller or shut it down (perhaps because of your gross misunderstanding of the construction, operating principles, and function of the equipment you *claim* to have flown).

I find it incredibly ironic that you'd hold out your hand on this site (not once, but twice, of late), begging for a job, yet turn around and openly profess such unprofessionalism, poor judgment, and lack of understanding and training.

You may be thinking of autofeather features, and you may be thinking of the actions of the propeller governor when the propeller attempts to overspeed; the actions are similar; propellerblade angle is increased to load the propeller, reduce RPM. The rationale is slightly different as is the process, but the result is a higher blade angle (moving toward feather).

Lose oil pressure, of course, as in shutting down the engine, and the propeller will feather.

And did you think that the reason for the anti torque system being there had a little more to do with just the pilot reaching over and feathering the prop, but maybe, you know...just maybe...Pratt and Whitney....you know the engine guys...had little faith in the ability of the pilot to feather a failed engine in time before that big ol three bladed McCauley or 4 blade Hartzell created so much drag that Vmc would be reached in in no time, and just to keep the plane flying, you needed to go down, to the tune of 3000 FPM...holding enough power on the good side, but enough speed forward to counteract so much asymetrical yaw and roll that the plane was almost un--flyable..

Autofeathering systems are not new, and no, the airplane will not fall out of the sky at 3,000 fpm because the propeller didn't feather, nor will it "flip" on you if you keep flying the airplane. Especially from 24,000'.

This is really irrelevant, however, as you never had a propeller that failed to feather. You had a pilot (allegedly YOU) that failed to feather the propeller. There was no 3,000 fpm descent. Instead there was a 10,000 fpm descent that you initiated, according to your own text. You failed to follow procedure, failed to secure the engine, failed to feather the propeller, and still managed to make a mountain out of a molehill with triple the rate of descent you assumed might take place if the problem you assumed existed (which it did not). Go figure.

In most cases where autofeather systems are provided, one shouldn't count on them, and even where one should let the autofeather system act first, procedures are established to follow up by manually feathering the propeller. All of which is far afield from the subject of loss of oil pressure or quantity. Never the less, you failed to use procedures that were available to you, guessed at the problem, imagined causes that weren't there (as well as the effects), and then acted entirely inappropriately for all of the above (even if the problem had existed as you dreamed it up to be).

Another problem here is that reading your previous posts, you're a missionary of single-pilot operations. You don't belong in a crew cockpit, let alone a single pilot cockpit. You don't appear to be able to correctly decide your way out of a wet paper bag, let alone be trusted with flying an airplane (be it a "million dollar" airplane or a paper one).

Autofeathering systems aren't P&W items, incidentally, but customer served accessories, generally installed as an issue of certification.

The pilot must always be capable of feathering the propeller.

There are some installations of autofeather systems in which the pilot shouldn't "verify" with the power lever before feathering, because such action defeats the autofeather function. The pilot should still manually feather the propeller, however; something which you failed to do.

Thanks Guppy...for setting all of us straight....

Actually, most here were quite straight to begin with. It's you that's a little crooked.

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 02:43

Brian the C425 will do 245kts all day longBull****e. You are the one out to impress us with your credentals and knowledge but continually refuse to answer questions put to you. Don't know what the Vmo is? I can provide the answer if you've forgotten, and sorry Evonne doesn't carry manuals around for aircraft she flew in the long distant past.

Brain..your a liar
You might want to get yourself lawyered up. Papers may be served, and don't for one minute think that you are annonymous on here.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 02:51

Gosh what about 'Vmo' on that aircraft?

What about it, Johnnyboy? Don't you know what it is?

What do you think the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet says that it is? That's the certification standard for the airplane, you see: the legal pedigree and the document which allows it to exist. Are you familiar with a TCDS?

From the FAA, http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/73eb196d79951940862576e4006bca71/$FILE/A7ce.pdf

VMO (Max Operating) 230 knots 265 m.p.h. (IAS) Sea level to 21,800 ft.

MMO Above 21,800 ft. .52 mach

Vmo, 230 knots.

You were doing 250 knots in the descent (a 10,000 fpm descent, as I recall, with one engine that you believed was "making metal" in the propeller governor. You remember the engine? The one you didn't shut down for fear of damaging the fuel pump, when you believed it was making metal--which would have destroyed the entire engine, incidentally). That engine. So there you were, in an airplane with a published Vmo of 230 knots, while you were doing 250.

Then again, you just told us the airplane does 245 knots "all day long." 15 knots faster than Vmo. Interesting.

Read the TCDS. The link above is provided for you. Get back to us when you've figured out a way to backpeddle a little more.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 02:55

Guppy your a master at writing a whole bunch, but saying little.

What is are un feathered numbers for a Conquest 1?
Does a windmilling turbine engine turn the mechanical Pump?
Is it a good thing to starve a mechanical fuel pump ran off of a windmilling turbine?
Do you have any idea what the anti-torque system is on the C425?

In any event...Guppy...in the real world you can't hit 'stop' at Fl240...put on an O2 mask, open the clamshell, climb onto the wing and find out where the oil was coming from...and as it turned out..the leak being near the governor...you know that thing the controls the angle of the prop...could have been a problem in the governor..

And you know...governors get overhauled...did you know that...it's a regular maintenance item...because if you don't ...they break...and the prop doesn't do what it's supposed to do...you know...like feather...

So maybe the next time you see oil coming from the front of a turbine nacelle...you can wonder...'should I mess with a governor that might be broken or not? hmmm..

Let me think about that.....

- Brain...oh gosh, yeah...the lost manuals...been such a long time...yeah sure....

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 02:59

Guppy your a master at writing a whole bunch, but saying little.Thats because your level of comprehension is so low. Time to sign back up for kindergarten and get a grounding in English.
the lost manuals
Reread what I posted, if your capable, more proof of your need to get back to kindergarten.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 03:16

My Conquest I did 245kts in Straight and Level at FL240.

I only did 250kt...because I was either a/s limited or I was below 10k.

Do you even read what you write. You've made a big deal of the Vmo, and having been shown to be a liar, you claim to regularly exceed Vmo (in cruise as well as in the descent). Worse, in the paragraph here we read that your airplane would do 245 knots, but you would only do 250...5 knots above what your airplane would do, but still 15 knots over Vmo.

You have two problems right now. Three, really. One is that hand you've got out, begging for a job. Might as well put it away. The second is that you just admitted to exceeding the limitations for the airplane, which is a violation by itself, but also invalidates the airworthiness certificate (turn it over sometime, and read). Also an FAA violation. The third is that you just admitted to it publically, on the record, The fourth, already a given, is that you've outed yourself fully and completely as being entirely without any knowledge of the airplane you claim to have been flying. Good gravy, man: you could have at least looked it up online before you perpetuated this lie!

In any event...Guppy...in the real world you can't hit 'stop' at Fl240...put on an O2 mask, open the clamshell, climb onto the wing and find out where the oil was coming from...and as it turned out..the leak being near the governor...you know that thing the controls the angle of the prop...could have been a problem in the governor.

You have no need. That's why there's a checklist. But then you're the man who advocates, admits to, and brags about exceeding airplane limitations, and doesn't know them when asked. We've conclusively proven you to be a liar and a fraud, and we can stop the entire conversation at this point because we need go no further. You've been exposed.

It's time to do what you usually do. Dry up, go away, and come back under another name to try again. You're never hard to spot, and won't be any more difficult next time. This time, your cover is blown.

And you know...governors get overhauled...did you know that...it's a regular maintenance item...because if you don't ...they break...and the prop doesn't do what it's supposed to do...you know...like feather...

Actually, I do know maintenance. Very well, actually, being a mechanic of many years, as well as a former inspector, and twice a director of maintenance...including for an operation flying PT6A's. As I said before, you really make very poor choices when plying your lies, don't you?

So maybe the next time you see oil coming from the front of a turbine nacelle...you can wonder...'should I mess with a governor that might be broken or not? hmmm..

Next time? You are making the wild, ridiculous assumption that I might do something based on any of the lies and half-baked stupidity you've introduced here. Hopefully nobody would be idiotic enough to follow your bad counsel; let's face it, you've said nothing right here, yet.

I'll allow this: I've shut down engines many times due to enormous quantities of oil over the engine nose case, nacelle, and wing. Most all of them in radial engines, and the majority of them due to failures of the stephead base plate cracking. In each case, I feathered the propeller manually, shut down the engine, completed the inflight engine failure shutdown checklist, and proceded normally. On a few occasions, the propeller wouldn't feather (hamilton standard hydromatic propellers need oil under pressure to feather, using a feather pump). What I didn't do is fall out of the sky at 3,000 fpm. Then again, like everyone here (except you), I'm actually a pilot, and I perform within the limitations and capabilities of the airplane.

Let me think about that.....

Don't strain yourself.

- Brain...oh gosh, yeah...the lost manuals...been such a long time...yeah sure....

The manuals aren't necessary, you see, as you've already been provided a link and citation directly to the FAA TCDS. It's the TCDS which has finally, and conclusively, shown you to be a liar, and with that settled, there's no further need for you.

This message is hidden because johns7022 is on your ignore list.

Bye.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 03:26

Whoa....ok...I see...you guys are saying a Conquest I is limited to below 245kts...?????

Well let's see it folks......show me the C425 limiting speeds...I am all ears....I have the book right here.

Guppy...I read your rants...and honestly wonder...why you would think oil coming from the front of a nacel could be anything BUT from the governor area....

Freewheeling turbine right? All the hot stuff is in back...in a PT6..so what's up front...the governor...

Or did YOUR PT6 have an oil supply to the nose of the prop for something else?

Please explain.

galaxy flyer

11th Dec 2010, 03:33

The TCDS pretty well answered the question about limit speeds on the Conquest. Move on, answer questions presented to you, do your homework

GF

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 03:51

Sorry Galaxy...put up or shut up...if you can't put the numbers up...your on the ignore list..tired of dealing with you...I got the book right hre.....let's see if you got the stones to back up what your saying...Brain sure doesn't.

Are you really as thick as you make out? The TCDS has already been given to you, and that is the document that specifies the limiting speeds, engine limits and more.

Your level of ignorance is staggering.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 04:06

I guess I have to spell the diff between IAS and TAS...for the experts here..

If I say a Citation does 450 kts...you think that's indicated...oh..yeah..that's because you all fly recips...ok I get it..

Sorry I need to get my head down there about 40,000 ft.. My bad.

Brian Abraham

11th Dec 2010, 04:16

You're still digging that hole I see. Ignorant as to when, and in what context, IAS and TAS are used.

18-Wheeler

11th Dec 2010, 04:54

I had the prop also get out of control on the Metro once, and again I was able to take a video of it before it suffered an event horizon malfunction.

YouTube - Freaky Metroliner prop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv9stDfjGYE)

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 05:38

And I have no idea what your talking about Brian, if we ever were to have this discussion in person, I am sure it would last about as long as it took to pull out the manual, show you the error of your ways...and send you back to the C152 that you were flying....

aerobat77

11th Dec 2010, 11:06

I can give you a long list of airplanes I've flown in which I've shut down engines in flight, ranging from J-3 cubs to Boeing 747's. I've shut down PT6's, TPE-331's, T-56's, TFE-731's, JT9D's, JT-12's R-2600's, R-3350's, R-985's, TSIO-360's, 0-320's, A-65's

surely... between all the GA turboprops ( tpe331, pt6) and GA jets ( tfe731) you were checker on the mighty connie or similar planes with the big wright radial ( r3350) , simultany scored hours on military aircraft ( T56) , and straight and level jumped in left seat on a 747... in all that planes you had to deal with inflight shutdowns...

can you tell us how to feather the prop on the space shuttle ?

this here goes absolutely teletubbies gentlemen.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 16:49

Thanks Aerobat77.....I smelled it too..

I've been doing this long enough, especially as an MEII to tell you that LAST thing you do is take up Jets and Tprops, and do shutdowns......flight idle simulates a feathered prop or a dead engine just fine.

To prove this point Guppy has only to provide the name of ONE training provider, that takes up real Jets and Turboprops to perform shutdowns, taking the chance with million dollar gear to fly around on one engine, cavitating the mechanical fuel pump for training purposes.

And even if we can find a provider that has no regard for the owner's plane...I wanna meet the CFII that's got the balls to do it...these aren't Apaches, nor is it a Sim.

I mean if everyone is on me for doing V1 cuts in real jets, on real runways....who's up there flying around jets and turboprops and shutting down engines?

aerobat77

11th Dec 2010, 18:30

at least over european sky it is forbidden by JAR-FCL to inentionally shut an engine for training purposes.

beyond this, john- i would respectfully disregard with some of your comments too.

e.g pump cavitation is not that dramatic issue on the pt6- when you shut it keep on boosting by the electrical pump until core speed drops below 10% and all is fine.

the whole "speed battle" about the C425- well, one was talking about the barberpole in indicated values, you were talking about cruise performance in TAS, this was sorted out i think.

ok... its saturday evening now in germany, i have off today, my girlfriend is calling to come down to her... i feel the fuel pressure rising- to prevent any cavitating, i think i need to drain the pipe now... :E

keep cool gents , see you later !

con-pilot

11th Dec 2010, 18:34

I have been following this thread with mostly a casual interest, until I read this.

I've been doing this long enough, especially as an MEII to tell you that LAST thing you do is take up Jets and Tprops, and do shutdowns......flight idle simulates a feathered prop or a dead engine just fine.

To prove this point Guppy has only to provide the name of ONE training provider, that takes up real Jets and Turboprops to perform shutdowns, taking the chance with million dollar gear to fly around on one engine, cavitating the mechanical fuel pump for training purposes.

I will readily admit that I have not flown a turbo-prop in quite some time. However, when I attended MU-2 training at Flight Safety International we did, as part of the in-flight training program shut down an engine in flight. This was done to demonstrate the NTS, Negative Toque Sensing, system on the engine. Please note I said engine, not aircraft. All TPE-331 engines have this system no matter the airframe they are installed on.

The NTS demonstration was performed around 15,000. The CRS switch is moved to the stop position shutting the fuel off to the engine. Almost instantly the propeller would go to a near feathering position, about 90% (or somewhere near that figure) of full feather. Then the pilot would complete the total feather procedure by feathering the prop.

Therefore, even though I am not Guppy, I have provided the answer you requested. Yes running engines on actual aircraft were intentionally shut down by shutting off the fuel to the engine and the school was Flight Safety International.

You have heard of Flight Safety International, have you not?

Oh, the turbo-props I have flown are; MU-2 J-K-L-M and Kingair 90s-200s.

One more point. You are aware of course that you can start a PT-6 and prevent the prop from moving, either by using an installed prop brake or tyeing the prop down where it cannot move.

SNS3Guppy

11th Dec 2010, 18:49

I can't read the posts of the posters that con-pilot quoted, as I've blocked them (put them on my ignore list). However, I didn't provide the names of any training providers that performed inflight shutdowns. I did address one training organization invoked by one of the blocked posters, however (FSI), as has con-pilot, and when they did live inflight training, they did do shutdowns.

Every operator with whom I've flown, and every training department with which I've flown (there have been many), including private, corporate, government, training organizations, etc, that has provided inflight training, has performed engine shutdowns. Every single one.

I recently performed a test flight in the airplane I'm currently flying (a fairly large turbofan multi-engine airplane), in which each engine was shut down, one at a time, in flight, and restarted. Upon returning to the ramp, the final shutdown was performed using the fire handles as a function of the test flight, which was a maintenance test operation. Test of the fire handles to shut down the airplane, stop the hydraulic flow, and interrupt pneumatic flow and electrical power, was a necessary requirement as part of the test hop, and is regularly done. It does not harm the engine, did not harm the engine, and was part of the act of returning the aircraft to service following maintenance.

As previously stated, I've performed inflight engine shutdowns in conjuntion with training in nearly every type of engine I have operated or worked on...every single one an acceptable and approved operation, including required shutdowns during FAA checkrides. It's something I've required as a check airman, and that's been required of me to require, by the FAA, when conducting a checkride.

The pilot who is afraid to shut down an engine in flight, particularly an engine he thinks is "making metal," for fear of hurting the fuel pump, is very poorly trained, and an idiot. Particularly in light of the fact that the manufacturer approves the shutdown, it's a routine procedure, it won't hurt the engine, and it's the appropriate action for the problem the poster believed had occurred.

con-pilot

11th Dec 2010, 19:38

But you know it's really moot...if you haven't been responsible for a plane, to fly it and maintain it...be there on a Saturday, trying to find some tires for a Monday flight...your not going to get where I am coming from....

I have most certainly have been such a position of knowing just where you are comming from. I at one time was the Flight Department Manager/Chief Pilot of a company that owned and operated a Sabre 40, Westwind II, Bell 222 helicopter and a DC-3. Later with the same company I had the same position and we owned and operated a Falcon 50EX, Falcon 900EX and a Sabre 65.

So please do not assume to consider me not knowledgeable on this subject.

One more point, I never had to worry about finding tires for an aircraft on a Saturday for a flight on Monday. I always assured that we had a complete set of spare tires for all aircraft plus many other spare parts for all the aircraft. All real professional Chief Pilots/Flight Department managers do so.

Oh, by the way, I am one of those 21,000 hour pilots and I can take anything you can dish out. Try me.

johns7022

11th Dec 2010, 19:56

I agree on having spare tires in the hanger....but sometimes on a contract flight you show up to a jet that has a bald spot and it's the mad rush to get the plane airworthy ASAP....I can't control what the other idiot does...but I am often called in to clean it up...It's a living.

I don't need to try you out Con...either what you say here makes sense or it doesn't..Resumes on the net are unverifiable...so save the 'been there done that'...

con-pilot

11th Dec 2010, 20:02

Well actually I mostly say; been there, didn't do that.

But, be that as it may.....................

Old Fella

11th Dec 2010, 22:27

I know of no multi-engined aeroplane in service on which an in-flight engine shutdown is prohibited. I also believe that there is no barrier to shutting down an engine as a precautionary measure and re-starting it at a later stage of the flight. Obviously, an engine which was shutdown in the event of an emergency, such as engine fire, uncontrollable propeller, etc would not be restarted unless some far greater emergency existed. My reciprocating multi-engine experience is limited to C47/DC-3 (P&W R1830) and Bristol Freighter (Bristol Hercules Sleeve Valve) aircraft. Multi-engine jets include Canberra bomber (RR Avon turbojet) and Meteor fighters (RR Derwent turbojet), turbo-prop multi-engine C130's (T56), Multi-engine TurboFan B707 (JT3D-3B) L1011 & B747 (Both RR RB211's). None of the above engines could not be shut down and restarted. In fact the T56 equipped P3 Orion often loiters on station on 3 engines, the engine being restarted when required. I think what is implied regarding "cavitation of fuel pumps" is that where an engine has been shutdown with the fuel supply shut off, and is unable to be feathered for whatever reason, may lead to secondary damage. The situation obviously would/could have far more implications than simply damaging an engine driven fuel pump. All the name calling too and fro is not enhancing the debate nor the standing of the combatants. :confused::confused::confused: BTW, practice engine failure by shutting down the engine was/is discouraged due to the number of times such practice led to loss of aircraft and life, the events being far too numerous to list.

aerobat77

12th Dec 2010, 00:12

i think we have to differ between a training and precautionary shutdown.

and i think we basicly can agree that a shutdown and restart of an healthy engine inflight is technically possible, on pistons, turboprops, big turbofans.

a precautionary shutdown is of course always pilots decision and there is not much to discuss.
a training shutdown, and here i can speak just for my experiece as well european rules, is not allowed. i am not sure how it is regulated e.g in the USA.

the insurance simply will not cover such a thing.

in europe you need a typerating even on smaller multiturbine planes , and here you do not have many simulators for that this so you often perform the rating on type. on the conquest II we have put one engine just in idle since fully feathering a garrett means also to shut it . the NTS system can be checked on ground and we never tested it inflight

on the cheyenne III we feathered the prop but kept the engine running ( the two shaft free turbine design makes it possible)

on the BAE146 in my airline time all such things were performed in a simulator in manchester and on the real plane we never put an engine even in idle for training purposes. the line checks cover normal procedures as well theoretical knowledge- for the rest go into a simulator.

you may find people who shut "illegally" at small turboprops for training purposes- or maybe in other regions there other rules and behaviours, so maybe some statements above are correct. the military may also have other rules.

but- in nowadays forget any story written above that on a line check anybody shuts intentionally an engine at a big airliner by e.g pulling the fire handle , that are laughful stories. i bet you will not find one video at youtube where lets say in a real 777 or 747 the checker pulls the fire handle on a line check. it would be his last.
i am wondering that anybody who really earns his money with aviation believes that "check airman" stories written above instead of laughing about it. again- try in nowadays at united airlines to shut inflight intentionally a turbine of a widebody airliner for training ... show me that captain or line checker...

on the BAE146 we from time to time put on ground and the engine off the fire handle to its first detent to check the bleed air valve trips and the fuel supply also. pulling the second detent of course would mean to fire the bottle... thats not pretty.

when it comes to "hurt" a turbine by an inflight shut... well, in my opinion its nor dramatic neither healthy. on a singleshaft turbine design ( tpe331, T56) all turning things inside the engine stand still when the prop does and all is fine. in a multishaft turboprop or a turbofan you have a windmilling . here you may be restricted to a windmilling without proper lubrication.
on pistons you also have to consider the shock cooling of the cylinderheads.

cheers !

galaxy flyer

12th Dec 2010, 00:40

As you continue to prove.................

GF

V1... Ooops

12th Dec 2010, 09:12

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Guppy/Guppy.jpg

Here's Guppy's resume, compiled word for word from the thousands of posts he has made here on Pprune in the past. An ellipsis in a quote means that additional text in a sentence or a paragraph has not been reproduced below.

I was an airport kid. I bicycled 15 miles to the airport every night after school let out as a kid...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/426752-lot-pilots-leaving-forums-2.html#post5923350))

...I grew up washing and waxing airplanes...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/362473-hand-washing-cold-any-ideas.html#post4726308))

...I began flying as a teenager... (here (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/356596-how-many-flying-hours-do-you-have.html#post4630309))

...I started and ran an aerial advertising business. I only did banner towing...(here (http://www.pprune.org/questions/364126-just-what-aerial-advertising-can-you-explain.html#post4754820))

...I used to fly a large four engine bomber...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/362473-hand-washing-cold-any-ideas.html#post4726308))

I used to fly B-24's.(here (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/429290-possibly-naive-technical-question.html#post5970750))

Several of the aircraft I used to fly employed piston APU's...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/382577-why-all-apus-turbines.html#post5083376))

I have had a couple of chances to go fly an airship...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/422296-bose-x-obsolete.html#post5834641))

...I do fly the Air Tractor AT-802, a single engine tailwheel airplane...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/357606-question-about-propeller-torque-during-takeoffs.html#post4642303))

...I just got furloughed off the 747... I don't anticipate finding a job in a 747 again soon, if ever...(here (http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/357616-anyone-hiring.html#post4643283))

...I am an engineer... I am also a pilot. I also happen to have had a number of years professional experience as a firefighter...(here (http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/389243-nitrogen-fuel-tanks.html#post5204435))

...the last ailerons I rigged were on a 182...(here (http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/389870-aileron-rigging.html#post5210337))

...I've been wearing helmets professionally in the cockpit for many years now...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/366101-helmets.html#post4803695))

...Presently I am current on seven different types... a mix of single engine and multi engine piston, turboprop, and turbojet equipment...(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/359390-can-you-current-too-many-types-aeroplane.html#post4672037))

I'm presently current on 9 different aircraft, but with over 80 different aircraft over the past X number of years.(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/376004-cessna-210-a.html#post4988904))

I've operated a number of Cessna 206's, 207's, 210's, 310's, 414's, 421's; Piper Navajos, Senecas, etc...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/428382-turbo-owners-whose-engines-made-tbo.html#post5951829))

I used to do tours of the Grand Canyon in Cessna 207's.(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/383335-soft-landings.html#post5115191))

...I hold five different FAA certificates...Over the course of my career I've served frequently as a mechanic, and inspector. I'm doing that very thing now...(here (http://www.pprune.org/questions/360240-why-arent-you-commercial-pilot.html#post4685791))

...I operate globally and in every climate and location save for Antarctica...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/397610-fuel-icing-avgas.html#post5362203))

I'm very big on safety glasses. I keep a respirator in my toolbox, and even if I'm just wiping a part down with MEK, I put it on. I never used gloves in the past in the solvent tank, but over the years I've found that I've become a lot more sensitive to chemicals, with exposure...now I do when I've got gloves...though I still often use simple solvents and fuels without them. I don't often get up on scaffolding or tall stands any more, and the most I use is a ladder.(here (http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/394006-do-we-take-our-personal-saftey-granted.html#post5283624))

I operate regularly in Afghanistan; not merely overflights, but takeoffs and landings...(here (http://www.pprune.org/questions/422243-civil-overflights-afghanistan-risk.html#post5848266))

On the PB4Y conversions, we could easily lean by exhaust color at night...(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/413782-leaning-off.html#post5671991))

...I've been flying for some time now, with a fairly wide variety of experience as a background. Among that experience is atmospheric research intentionally penetrating thunderstorms and convective weather. I've spent a lot of time at low altitudes in mountainous terrain in severe turbulence, too...(here (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/364453-how-close-i-becoming-death-statistic.html#post4760475))

There are no mach tuck issues with the Avanti... I flew the airplane for a thousand hours and trained others in the airplane.(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/388244-mach-tuck-concern-unjustified-help-me-understand-ill-pass.html#post5178652))

...I've worked with the CL215's and 415's... I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire...(here (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/366699-neptune-firebomber.html#post4810161))

...The last SEAT (single engine air tanker) I flew was an AT-802. I'm carded in the 802 and 502, and have been flying ag since I was eighteen. I did seven years in Dromaders, too...(here (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/366699-neptune-firebomber-2.html#post4814236))

...I flew Pawnees all day long...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/368624-any-tuggies-out-there.html#post4855413))

Having been the director of maintenance for a King Air operation using both the 90 and 200 series airplanes, as well as an instructor and line pilot in the same, as well as having operated the PT6 in fractional, agricultural, firefighting, and other operations...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/386403-pt6-operations.html#post5147415))

Several weeks ago I was providing some instruction in a Cessna 421 B...(here (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/372471-cessna-421-a.html#post4904086))

Flight into Bagdhad isn't much different than flying into any other place right now...I've been in the vicinity before when traffic had to hold because mortar or rocket attacks had damaged the runway, or incoming fire was being taken at the airfield. (here (http://www.pprune.org/questions/426653-flying-into-baghdad.html#post5919994))

I'm a practicing A&P/Inspector too, incidentally...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/372483-do-airconditioning-packs-produce-oxygen.html#post4909366))

In any given week, I may fly in ten or fifteen different countries, often several in a day...(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/409503-dme-ils.html#post5609311))

I was once flying my boss in a Cessna 150...(here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/390716-crash-after-loss-conciousness-2.html#post5230214))

Over the course of my career to date, I've experienced engine failures, fires, control failures, hydraulic failures, pneumatic failures, a recent explosive depressurization, and a host of other events, including forced landings, in a variety of aircraft ranging from single engine piston airplanes to turbojet multi engine heavy aircraft.(here (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/374788-emergency-decision-making-finite-time.html#post4946295))

One airplane I fly, in one type of operation, cleans up at five feet AGL...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/418283-flap-retraction-altitude.html#post5761424))

I'm a low time pilot? I guess that's...very possibly true... I've got experience on over 70 different types of aircraft at this point as a pilot and a lot more as a mechanic...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/390870-preflight-checks-piston-engines.html#post5229382))

I operated on the A model C-130...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/374803-engine-startup-order-propliners-dc3-dc4-etc.html#post4946743)) I flew the C-130 too, as both pilot and FE, and was also assigned as a mechanic and inspector on the aircraft...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/435116-aircraft-without-loss-oil-pressure-procedure-2.html#post6101307))

Having flown large supercharged piston engines professionally, and having worked on the same for a number of years as a mechanic and inspector, as well as having overhauled, installed, rebuilt, and maintained both the propellers and governor assemblies for those engines...(here (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/418292-windmilling-propellers-2.html#post5776718))

If my by engineer, you mean certified mechanic, then yes: I hold US certification as a mechanic, with airframe and powerplant ratings. If by engineer you mean flight engineer, I also hold a flight engineer certificate. I hold ATP pilot certification...(here (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/425399-greedy-captains-who-wont-let-you-fly-2.html#post5918633))

I fly the freighter version.(In a post titled "Boeing 747-400 mean flightdeck noise level" (http://www.pprune.org/medical-health/431230-boeing-747-400-mean-flightdeck-noise-level.html#post6007713))

Of course I don't use carb heat as part of a routine, normal cruise descent....(here (http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/427687-use-carb-heat-3.html#post6115289))

res ipsa loquitur...

18-Wheeler

12th Dec 2010, 12:11

I can't wait to think up more technical questions, they are certainly enlightening.

aerobat77

12th Dec 2010, 12:24

a superb work V1, it truly speaks for itself...

SNS3Guppy

12th Dec 2010, 13:11

BTW, practice engine failure by shutting down the engine was/is discouraged due to the number of times such practice led to loss of aircraft and life, the events being far too numerous to list.

The only multi engine training situation I can recall which was actively discouraged, following an increase in training incidents and fatalities, was the old practice of stall training and demonstrations with one engine inoperative.

Shutting down and restarting engines in multi-engine airplanes is still a regular requirement of any inflight training program with which I'm familiar, from primary training to the issuance of type ratings.

aerobat77

12th Dec 2010, 13:57

oh dear... i must say i just truly laughed. this old poor man. he is rush with the ignore list thinking that he penalizes somebody with it, but the only thing he reaches is that he cannot anymore read the posts from ignored users.

and i bet- when he would be able to read his own quoted statements in post 173 he would answer something different than the usual babbling from his "check airman" experience he gives in post 176...

:ooh:

V1... Ooops

12th Dec 2010, 15:51

...Shutting down and restarting engines in multi-engine airplanes is still a regular requirement of any inflight training program with which I'm familiar, from primary training to the issuance of type ratings.

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Guppy/OffTopicExit.gif

johns7022

12th Dec 2010, 18:34

I just want to send out some congratulations to Guppy.....NASA was running into problems, and they went to him for answers...he's now running the space program...and will be the commander on the next shuttle launch. No one else measured up.

You know...if you want to do something right...you gotta do it yourself.

:D

galaxy flyer

12th Dec 2010, 19:13

Quite a career, Mr. Guppy; any kills in aerial combat? I have done six type ratings in my civil career, NOT one required an engine shutdown in the plane. Same with 3 military planes. Please cite an ATP PTS section requiring an in-flight engine shutdown and start. Also, cite a normal checklist procedure that directs an engine shutdown.

V1...Oops, your research talents display a patience, perseverance and dedication that can be either admired or leave one stunned senseless.

GF

con-pilot

12th Dec 2010, 19:37

All I've got to say at this point about this thread is, shut it down.

(Yeah, pun intended.)

aerobat77

12th Dec 2010, 20:57

this old poor man today lost almost all he has in hin sunset years- an anonymous as well on fairy tales built internet forum reputation.

for what guppy? being an aviation fan is not a shame, just be yourself.

why do you call real pilots trolls having by yourself nothing more than theoretical internet knowledge about this stuff ? to now end up as a laughing stock?

con-pilot

12th Dec 2010, 20:59

If nothing else, the above two posts proves that is is time for this thread to go away. :rolleyes:

"real pilots"? Give me a break.

18-Wheeler

12th Dec 2010, 21:25

Is anyone real in this thread?
I'm beginning to think I can't trust my own memories and logbook now! :)

aerobat77

12th Dec 2010, 21:37

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3319/img004kopie.th.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/img004kopie.jpg/)

"real pilots"? Give me a break.

just shut up an take your break
mr. con-pilot....

con-pilot

12th Dec 2010, 22:05

just shut up an take your break
mr. con-pilot....

Born it 1977 huh. Okay, that explains a lot.

Old Fella

12th Dec 2010, 23:55

Thanks V1 for your efforts. I don't know whether or not Guppy has had all the experience claimed. If he has I am surprised he has time to go 'chapter and verse' on this forum. He either has an encylopedic memory for details or he is a "whip" at researching material with which to answer, or refute the answers of others, on the forum. His inputs are interesting to say the least, if a little too ready to put down other contributors. Between his flying and time spent responding to this forum he must have little time for anything else. Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year.

V1... Ooops

13th Dec 2010, 00:57

...All I've got to say at this point about this thread is, shut it down...

Yeah, I kind of think it has run its course... I can't remember seeing much about losing oil pressure in the last few pages...:ooh:

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Guppy/Thread-Dumb.jpg

johns7022

13th Dec 2010, 02:22

Well I think you guys are being too hard on Guppy..

I would elaborate, but I gotta go..I am told the satellite link here in the submarine needs to be used to call the Space Shuttle...we are part of a special operation to hunt down aliens...so back at you guys later....

;)

john_tullamarine

13th Dec 2010, 02:58

I'm been very patient but johns7022 has become just a bit too inflammatory, circumlocutory, and impertinent over the past couple of days ....

I had locked this thread as it appeared to be running off the rails a bit. Several posters have expressed a desire to continue. I have removed a few bits and pieces which were over the top and unlocked it for further discussion.

While we don't go along with overt nastiness, that doesn't necessarily preclude a bit of cut and thrust along the lines of being able to handle a bit of heat or leave the kitchen.

The thread has a number of very experienced folk following the storyline and, at times, has got itself into some heated discussion. Hopefully we have kept it acceptably nice if not quite as polite as one might hope for.

SNS3Guppy

14th Dec 2010, 09:13

I’ve asked John Tullamarine for an opportunity to include a response to a post made previously in this thread, although the thread is presently closed for comment. One poster in particular claimed to have formulated my resume based on a number of posts that he or she sampled, and apparently intended that as a form of character assassination.

For the record, every statement he quoted me as making, regarding my experience, background, and qualifications, is true. There are no exaggerations, and nothing said there is inaccurate or untrue.

Yes, I grew up working at an airport, bicycling to the airport, and unlike many others, spent two years getting a private pilot certificate in high school because I worked it off one hour at a time. Yes, I began flying as a teenager, and yes, my first commercial flying job was immediately after high school, as an aerial applicator (crop duster). Yes, I flew a number of different Ag aircraft, including Pawnees, AgTrucks, Air Tractors, Dromaders, etc. Yes, I wear helmets when flying Ag aircraft.

Yes, I had a couple of chances to fly an airship, and no I didn’t do it for a living.

Yes, I flew B-24’s; a variant thereof called the PB4Y-2. It was a naval airplane, converted for air tanker work, performing firefighting duties. I fought fire on the ground doing structure and wild land (firefighter-EMT); I flew air attack, and flew single engine air tankers and multi engine large air tankers for a number of years. Yes, the 4Y, and several others, used piston auxiliary power units (Ranger engines with direct driven generators). Yes, it could be leaned by the color of the exhaust flames from the short stacks and collectors.

Yes, I started and ran an aerial advertising business, towing banners.

Yes, I flew the Piaggio Avanti (for about a thousand hours). Yes, I flew the Cessna 421B, and yes I had an rapid depressurization last year when the windshield failed. Yes, I flew the C-130A. It was a great airplane (when the wing stayed on). Yes, I’ve flown approximately 80 different aircraft during my career. I hope to fly a lot more, even if it’s just to sample one, before I’m done. That was always the goal, and I’m far, far from satisfied. Presently I fly the B747; it’s a position I chose not because it furthered a career track, and not because of the type of travel and flying involved, but because I had a desire to learn more about the airplane. In the course of flying it, I’ve had an opportunity to work alongside a very diverse group of aviators who have brought a wealth of backgrounds and experience to the table, from which to sample and learn.

As an aside, my first opportunity to fly the B747 came at the hands of a very generous poster on this web site. At the time, I felt it to be the highlight of a lifetime, and had no idea I would have an opportunity to go on to fly it in the course of employment. That particular individual was gracious enough to invite me into his home, offer friendship and support, and though he seldom posts here anymore, is a consummate professional in every way who always contributed here in his thoughts and comments.

I’m an aircraft mechanic, an ATP, a flight engineer, a flight instructor, and a ground instructor. I have five different FAA certificates. Frankly, I wish the FAA would put everything on one piece of plastic but they don’t. So yes, I have rigged ailerons, and worked as a mechanic and inspector privately, for the government, and for a number of different types of operations ranging from Part 135 charter to fractional to government service, contracting, etc. I have worked as a mechanic in repair stations, on the line, and privately. It’s kept my family fed when times have been lean, and it’s been my lifeline when furloughed. I’ve been a Director of Maintenance twice (and that’s enough). I enjoy turning wrenches, but I’d rather fly. I’ve been turning wrenches longer than I’ve been flying, having worked my way into flying as a kid assisting with inspections and performing maintenance as a mechanic’s assistant. I’ve been doing it ever since. I have six roll-away toolboxes full of tools, collected over my career thus far, one tool at a time, and I know with a near absolute certainty that as unstable as this industry is, I’ll quite likely have to put them to work again (and again).

Yes, I have experience performing sheet metal, fabric, wood, welding, tubing, hydraulic, composite, electrical, plexiglass, pneumatic, and numerous other repairs and maintenance. I’ve timed magnetos, overhauled propellers, changed cylinders on large radial engines, and worked on turboprops and turbojet aircraft. I was fortunate enough for a time to be employed in a repair station that performed nearly every category of maintenance, to be assigned in the course of that employment to every type of maintenance work that we did, in fixed wing, and helicopters. It was an intense, excellent learning experience for which I’m grateful, and from which I drew in later employment.

Yes, I have flown in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing very different things. I will not discuss either at length. Presently I do fly in to several locations in Afghanistan on a regular basis, and I will not discuss that in detail, either. I was in Kabul today.

At the time various posts were made regarding currency on certain airplanes or numbers of airplanes, they were correct. At the moment I am currently flying one airplane. I do hold a check airman letter in another type of airplane, and do maintain qualification for carding and employment purpose in other airplanes, though I’m not flying them at the moment. Throughout my career, I have performed a lot of seasonal, temporary, concurrent, part time, or contract flying. This has necessitated staying current in several airplanes, over the years, and as a general rule, I do. As of this writing, I am currently employed in one. I have been furloughed, laid-off, been out of work due to department closures, downsizing, and any other euphemism one can find for the ups and downs of this industry, and have taken leave of absence otherwise, to work where I could, when I could, doing whatever I could.

Yes, I did atmospheric research, cloud seeding, and related flying. I flew a Learjet 35A while performing that work, especially modified with under-wing equipment and racks of test accessories and pyrotechnics. I flew with others who were truly dedicated to that line of work and who belonged in that industry. I did not. I found the work educational and interesting.

Yes, presently in any given week I am in a number of different countries. Ten or more in a week is very common. My employment is in the Boeing 747, and we travel very long distances to a lot of different destinations. The nature of our work means a lot of variety in the flying we do, as a rule, as well as a lot of unpredictability, which does keep the job interesting. I was furloughed, and am employed again in the 747. During my furlough, I spent most of my time living in a tent in Iraq, I worked for two different employers, and flew 7 different aircraft in the course of employment, while maintaining legal currency in 9 (including the one from which I had just been furloughed, if it matters).

Yes, my experience is very verifiable, and fully vetted. I hold a security clearance which required a substantial background check, far more extensive than the ones I receive from my employers, and it’s done on a recurring basis every few years. No, I won’t provide the details thereof outside of employment, save for specific relevance to a topic under discussion. This post shouldn’t be necessary, except for wasted efforts of one particular poster in this thread.

To one poster who asked: no, I do not have kills in aerial combat, and no, I’ve never at any time claimed such to be the case (and no, it' not relevant to the thread, either). To the same poster, I’ll reiterate that any operation where I’ve had or done any in-flight training involving multi engine airplanes has always required in-flight shutdowns and restarts. Always. I can’t think of any exceptions. When one undergoes simulator training, this isn’t always conducted (sometimes it is), but during any training in the actual airplane, I’ve always shut down engines, and it’s always been required of me. The same poster asked where in the ATP practical test standards an engine shutdown is required; while it may not be a PTS requirement, single engine approaches are part of the program (and as such, it’s a regular part of nearly any multi-engine simulator training and type rating program, too).

No, the poster who supplied the links to the various threads did not come up with my resume, nor will he. He is not my employer. Furthermore, my experience, past, and qualifications are cited only at such times, and only in such detail, as is appropriate to the nature of the thread. It’s not my intention to list a resume here, and I haven’t. It is my intention to respond to the pathetic effort of the poster who attempted to attack my character, but who wholly failed. If any of the statements I made were inaccurate, then assuredly he’d have a “gotcha,” and it would be an embarrassment. As I take great pains to strive for correctness when I post, and as every single statement that he quoted is true, he’s achieved nothing in his effort.

By all means, go back and revisit the threads, if one has the time. None of that addressed the topic of this thread, and it’s the failure to address the topic of this thread that ultimately ended in its closure. That’s a shame.