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)?