Commercial Pilots who don't know about piston engines
Whyalla was a tragically sad set of holes in the Swiss cheese. The latent manufacturing defect in the crankshafts may not have caused a failure, if the leaning procedure for the climb had kept the mixture sufficiently rich of peak.
A pilot with knowledge of what the curves mean would never have adopted the leaning procedure for the high power climb as was the practice at Whyalla, irrespective of what some idiot regulatory or manufacturer's document might have allowed or mandated.
A knowledge and understanding of what the curves mean, and of what the data show, gives you a chance that you might actually comprehend that if you are going to operate rich of peak, you have to set the mixture sufficiently far rich of peak, otherwise you're giving the engine (including that potentially defective crankshaft) the hardest beating you can give it.
It used to be called "airmanship".
A pilot with knowledge of what the curves mean would never have adopted the leaning procedure for the high power climb as was the practice at Whyalla, irrespective of what some idiot regulatory or manufacturer's document might have allowed or mandated.
A knowledge and understanding of what the curves mean, and of what the data show, gives you a chance that you might actually comprehend that if you are going to operate rich of peak, you have to set the mixture sufficiently far rich of peak, otherwise you're giving the engine (including that potentially defective crankshaft) the hardest beating you can give it.
It used to be called "airmanship".
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that private owners who know the ins and outs of their own engine would benefit a lot from an APS education but commercial pilots in and out of different machines on a daily basis would be hanging themselves out to dry by not heeding the OEM procedures, without knowing they were operating "Conforming Engines".
a relatively small percentage of the course focuses on EGT and LOP ops, the rest is how you can interpret that data you can get from those indicators, and understand the causes, and reasons behind those readings, and how to understand just what is happening with that engine. sure, do your runups and mag checks at low power before a flight, but what can you learn from that? sure, you can determine a dead Mag, but thats about it, after the course, you will learn just how much more info you can find out, and why doing a mag check at top of descent will reveal a lot more than just "A dead mag" you will know how to identify a failing plug, which cylinder its in, and upper or lower plug, so it can be changed before it fails..
a good analogy would by your ab initio training, the LOP ops will be the straight and level component only, but the whole course is similar to your complete PPL training, its not just LOP, its all about engine management and understanding what the engine is telling you..
how many pilots have been to different schools to learn different skills? or have just been to the one school only?
i went to another school to do Aerobatics, Advanced aircraft control and formation, i learned a lot of stuff, and had to UN-learn a lot of incorrect stuff, same with the engine course, i thought, operating an engine with no mixture, i knew all there was about it, and again, i had to unlearn a lot of obviously false info, and relearn from hard data, and also learnt a lot more about engines in general..
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trent
With appropriate knowledge and engine monitors any pilot be they private owners or commercial operators can tell if they have a conforming engine. There area few commercial operators, some who watch these threads in silence who have fleets of piston aircraft that ensure they are all operating conforming engines all the time.
It is not hard to do. Problem is you need pilots AND LAME's who care enough to use science and not OWT's to achieve it.
The definition of a conforming engine is simply one that is as it should be. The details of this myself and others have done to death already.
UL and AuBob are on the money.
Commercial Pilots...
While not knocking APS at all because the people who run it are good and decent knowledgable people, I can't help but wonder that all the APS learning is predicated on a "Conforming Engine".
Where can a Commercial pilot, operating possibly many different engines concurrently, find a data plate (or whatever) that says the engine is a "Conforming Engine"?
Seems to me that private owners who know the ins and outs of their own engine would benefit a lot from an APS education but commercial pilots in and out of different machines on a daily basis would be hanging themselves out to dry by not heeding the OEM procedures, without knowing they were operating "Conforming Engines".
While not knocking APS at all because the people who run it are good and decent knowledgable people, I can't help but wonder that all the APS learning is predicated on a "Conforming Engine".
Where can a Commercial pilot, operating possibly many different engines concurrently, find a data plate (or whatever) that says the engine is a "Conforming Engine"?
Seems to me that private owners who know the ins and outs of their own engine would benefit a lot from an APS education but commercial pilots in and out of different machines on a daily basis would be hanging themselves out to dry by not heeding the OEM procedures, without knowing they were operating "Conforming Engines".
It is not hard to do. Problem is you need pilots AND LAME's who care enough to use science and not OWT's to achieve it.
The definition of a conforming engine is simply one that is as it should be. The details of this myself and others have done to death already.
UL and AuBob are on the money.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial Pilots...
While not knocking APS at all because the people who run it are good and decent knowledgable people, I can't help but wonder that all the APS learning is predicated on a "Conforming Engine".
Where can a Commercial pilot, operating possibly many different engines concurrently, find a data plate (or whatever) that says the engine is a "Conforming Engine"?
While not knocking APS at all because the people who run it are good and decent knowledgable people, I can't help but wonder that all the APS learning is predicated on a "Conforming Engine".
Where can a Commercial pilot, operating possibly many different engines concurrently, find a data plate (or whatever) that says the engine is a "Conforming Engine"?
Umm, I think you're reading just a little bit too much into the word there.
It simply means an engine which conforms to the type certificate, as amended by STC. That is to say; is within overhaul limits, had been maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions, and hasn't been modified outside the manufacturer's Specs.
IOW, in the US at least, any engine in commercial service would be a "conforming engine" unless it had undocumented modifications.
For example, a Ly-Con competition engine would not be a "conforming" engine, as they make modifications like installing high compression pistons not covered by the type certificate of subsequent STC. But then, you won't find a Ly-COn non-conforming competition engine ine an aircraft in commercial service, because it's not permitted by regulation.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noone seems to be denying that that maybe the case, but the rediculing and (almost) religious persecution of persons who don't wish to do 'the course' as ignorant and lacking in understanding of the 'science' and further lambasting new and old CPLs as morons is religious fervour gone mad!
I am by no means anti-LOP. I've been reading Deakin's Articles since he first appeared on AVweb, long before the creation of APS. I have also flown DC-6s 6000-ish hours ... All lean of peak (in cruise, anyway) I also ingorperate elements of such into my own personal flying. So, I'm definitely not one to argue against LOP. But I do agree that it is pretty discouraging to see that the LOP fanatics here somehow seem irresistibly compelled to be insulting and denigrating to those who disagree with them, or have not yet been convinced.
As a side note, having seen Mr Deakin in action on the old Avweb forums, I know that he makes a point of being calm, rational and pleasant even in the face of provocation and would be very much against the approach seen here of insulting those who disagree with you. Kind of ironic, really.
I remember coming to Aus and being told that I HAD to set 23"2400 rpm in the cruise under ALL density altitude conditions because "that is the way we do it here in Australia" and if the MAP number exceeded the RPM number divided by 100, the engine would be "overstressed". So we sat in the aircraft and I asked the instructor why, with 29" and 0 RPM the engine wasn't in smithereens...silence. I asked for the power setting tables and got a blank expression. Full throttle height? 
Having flown turbocharged pistons before coming to Aus I was astounded...then all was revealed when I asked for the POH for a new type and was handed one of those black A5 "Aircraft Flight Manuals" I understood why the OWTs were so prevalent in this country. CASA had completely re-invented the wheel, information simply wasn't available and even though POHs are back some of those OWTs are STILL around.
Having flown turbocharged pistons before coming to Aus I was astounded...then all was revealed when I asked for the POH for a new type and was handed one of those black A5 "Aircraft Flight Manuals" I understood why the OWTs were so prevalent in this country. CASA had completely re-invented the wheel, information simply wasn't available and even though POHs are back some of those OWTs are STILL around.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, the Engine manual for my airplane (C180 with O-470R) recommends setting the lowes RPM at which the engine will run smoothly, which is alway much less than 100XMAP in Inches hg.
Who are the "LOP fanatics" you are referring to, A squared?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, since you ask, you specifically, seem to be one who is unable to resist sneering at others who don't share your views. You're not the only one by any means.
You are mistaking my general obnoxiousness for being an "LOP fanatic".
I am not an LOP fanatic.
I am, in essence, merely pointing out that pilots who don't know how to run piston engines as efficiently and safely as practicable, and don't want to find out how to, fail airmanship 101.
I am not an LOP fanatic.
I am, in essence, merely pointing out that pilots who don't know how to run piston engines as efficiently and safely as practicable, and don't want to find out how to, fail airmanship 101.
I "advocate" running piston engines as efficiently and safely as practicable. (After all, that is the definition of airmanship, is it not? Safe and efficient operation of aircraft etc...)
Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently ROP.
Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently LOP.
Sometimes that means running the engine at peak EGT.
It always means understanding why.
Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently ROP.
Sometimes that means running the engine sufficiently LOP.
Sometimes that means running the engine at peak EGT.
It always means understanding why.
A Squared, when I got here in the early 90s, aircraft had a little A5 booklet thingy that had replaced the POH, it had some take off and landing charts (different to the manufacturer's, eg those boxy things for Cessnas instead of the manufacturer's tables, which AFAIK are STILL in the PPL exam!) and told you where the green arcs were on the T's and P's gauges. The rest of the pages were usually missing. If you were lucky it had the weight schedule and some strange Australian version of the loading charts. It had none of the standard layout of a POH and no useful information on the aircraft systems or normal operating procedures but (I was told) had superceded the POH.
I'm sure there is someone here who was around when they were introduced and can tell us what the reason, apart from the Australian necessity to reinvent perfectly good wheels, was for these things?
I'm sure there is someone here who was around when they were introduced and can tell us what the reason, apart from the Australian necessity to reinvent perfectly good wheels, was for these things?
'A Squared',
'Lead Balloon' is a rather private PPRuNe character. But I sometimes think that he may indeed be the guy that I've been safely going flying with on GA adventures for the last 30 years.
I'm also convinced by the APS science regarding LOP operations..
Like 'Lead Balloon', I reckon that if you really understand how your aeroplane, engine and systems really work then you have a safer operation.
'Lead Balloon' is a rather private PPRuNe character. But I sometimes think that he may indeed be the guy that I've been safely going flying with on GA adventures for the last 30 years.
I'm also convinced by the APS science regarding LOP operations..
Like 'Lead Balloon', I reckon that if you really understand how your aeroplane, engine and systems really work then you have a safer operation.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Jaba
I think you and yours offer a really good learning experience, for the suitably equipped engine owner.
....With appropriate knowledge and engine monitors any pilot be they private owners or commercial operators can tell if they have a conforming engine....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trent
Thank you , but let me expand a little further. For the suitably equipped engine owner, I read that as someone wh themselves is suitably equipped, not with knowledge but rather understanding.
With that understanding it makes it possible to work with a non instrumented piston engine, like my CASA friend and his cardinal. That was eye opening for him. Like the RV6 mentioned before, it means you are having to do mental representation a bit, but it sure beats a cook book.
Speaking of cookbooks. I have been talking to a Cessna TTX pilot of late. The POH is far better detailed than many early POH's but my critical assessment is they tried to make a recipe book of it and have left some dangerously vague info in there.
As is typical, the optional LOP operation is described by pages and pages of tabulated LOP fuel flows. Seriously even I glazed over and refused to study them. The simplest and safest side of the EGT curves has been over complicated by this mess that will most likely have pilots head down in a book for hours instead of flying the damned plane.
On the other hand for recommended cruise it says this;
CRUISE
1. THROTTLE Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
2. PROPELLER Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
3. MIXTURE Control - LEAN AS REQUIRED
NOTE
Set T.I.T. indicator to 1625°F for Best Power or refer to
Section 5, Performance, Lean-of-Peak Cruise Performance
charts for chosen altitude.
4. Elevator and Aileron Trim Controls - ADJUST
5. RUDDER HOLD Switch - ENGAGE (as desired)
6. OXY QTY Pressure - MONITOR QUANTITY (if in use)
7. OXY OUTLET Pressure - MONITOR PRESSURE (if in use)
This is where the pilots are picking up a simple set and forget, at 80-85% power, and what do you know, this will be roughly 75-125dF ROP.
The one side of the curve on a turbocharged engine which can stress the engine (not destroy it instantly) and the best they can do is write that. Yet the safest side of the curve gets 13 pages of tables. I will concede that the ROP tables are the same, but that is where performance and range needs more complicated data. The problem is they tabulate BEST POWER mixture from 90+% downwards. Think RED BOX.
I need a BEX and a good lie down
All engines deserve an EMS And then there is a chance somebody can use the data for useful purposes.
I think you and yours offer a really good learning experience, for the suitably equipped engine owner.
, but let me expand a little further. For the suitably equipped engine owner, I read that as someone wh themselves is suitably equipped, not with knowledge but rather understanding.With that understanding it makes it possible to work with a non instrumented piston engine, like my CASA friend and his cardinal. That was eye opening for him. Like the RV6 mentioned before, it means you are having to do mental representation a bit, but it sure beats a cook book.
Speaking of cookbooks. I have been talking to a Cessna TTX pilot of late. The POH is far better detailed than many early POH's but my critical assessment is they tried to make a recipe book of it and have left some dangerously vague info in there.
As is typical, the optional LOP operation is described by pages and pages of tabulated LOP fuel flows. Seriously even I glazed over and refused to study them. The simplest and safest side of the EGT curves has been over complicated by this mess that will most likely have pilots head down in a book for hours instead of flying the damned plane.
On the other hand for recommended cruise it says this;
CRUISE
1. THROTTLE Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
2. PROPELLER Control - ADJUST (no more than 85% power
recommended)
3. MIXTURE Control - LEAN AS REQUIRED
NOTE
Set T.I.T. indicator to 1625°F for Best Power or refer to
Section 5, Performance, Lean-of-Peak Cruise Performance
charts for chosen altitude.
4. Elevator and Aileron Trim Controls - ADJUST
5. RUDDER HOLD Switch - ENGAGE (as desired)
6. OXY QTY Pressure - MONITOR QUANTITY (if in use)
7. OXY OUTLET Pressure - MONITOR PRESSURE (if in use)
This is where the pilots are picking up a simple set and forget, at 80-85% power, and what do you know, this will be roughly 75-125dF ROP.
The one side of the curve on a turbocharged engine which can stress the engine (not destroy it instantly) and the best they can do is write that. Yet the safest side of the curve gets 13 pages of tables. I will concede that the ROP tables are the same, but that is where performance and range needs more complicated data. The problem is they tabulate BEST POWER mixture from 90+% downwards. Think RED BOX.
I need a BEX and a good lie down
All engines deserve an EMS
And then there is a chance somebody can use the data for useful purposes.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, a manufacturer's POH pretty much has to be a bit of a cookbook. That's reality. Mind you, I'm not anti-LOP/advanced engine management in any way. However, the guy writing the POH cannot assume that the reader is knowledgeable about internal combustion theory, nor can they include a large tutorial. If your POH contains all the necessary background material to understand the techniques from the AP seminars, there's going to be a whole bunch of pilots who aren't going to read it, or are going to read it and arn't going to understand it. Like it or not, a manufacturer really has to aim for the lowest common denominator with a POH, with something along the lines of: "if you follow these steps and observe these limits, you will achieve an acceptable result". perhaps the examples you cite could have been executed better, but I don't think you're ever going to get away from a cookbook format.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A2
I understand what you mean, and yes they could have done a lot better. I could have done it in probably 2 pages (not 26), achieved a better result and been simpler to extract the range data etc. That would mean greater safety outcomes.
If I had nothing to do and was bored I would have a go at it for giggles.
By the way, and I expect you know this but APS is all about critical thinking and application of science and data. The rest is what people think its about.
Cheers!
I understand what you mean, and yes they could have done a lot better. I could have done it in probably 2 pages (not 26), achieved a better result and been simpler to extract the range data etc. That would mean greater safety outcomes.
If I had nothing to do and was bored I would have a go at it for giggles.
By the way, and I expect you know this but APS is all about critical thinking and application of science and data. The rest is what people think its about.
Cheers!