Multi-Engine runups [Archive]

5 Left & Right

19th Jan 2007, 00:33

Chadzat

To Answer your question.

1.Doing runups on the run (while taxying) is poor airmanship, plain and simple. You cannot keep an adequate lookout and do a thorough runup simaltaneously, one or the other will suffer with potentially dire consequenses. Even more so at night. Pull into the runupbay, pull the parkbrake on, and take your time.

2.Full runups are not something that should be done quickly. Runups at the hold point will just hold up other traffic. At a controlled aerodrome you could potentially embarrass yourself by finding a fouled plug then have to return to the parking area via the runway.

3.Getting them done before pax arrive may be an option for you but never ever takeoff without doing at least a Mag check prior to each and every departure.

4. Whats wrong with runups with pax on board? A seasoned GA passenger would certainly think it odd if you taxied out without doing runups.

Mate, the speed at which you complete a task is not a demonstration of competency.

Hope this helps

Cheers

5L&R

bushy

19th Jan 2007, 00:39

It is best to do runups before your pax arrive, when you do your Daily inspection.

Sqwark2000

19th Jan 2007, 01:07

I'm with you bushy,
We did preflight, engine warm and runups prior to pax arrival (finishing about 5-10mins to their eta) and then they could be seated, briefed and on their way in no time
S2K

ITCZ

19th Jan 2007, 01:30

Single or twin, piston or turbine, it doesn't matter.

1. Who put the idea into your head that in order to be a charter pilot you need to cut corners? Punch that person in the nose, they nearly gave you an attitude that put you out of a job before you started. You need to be efficient, yes. That does not mean you leave things out!:eek:

2. The idea of a daily inspection and runup is to find out if there is anything wrong with the aeroplane. It is your duty to be ready to can the flight if all is not working as it should.

Also, noisy runups have pax wondering what you are doing. When people board an aeroplane they expect to go somewhere. It is also psychologically harder for some new pilots to 'pull the pin' when a runup reveals a niggling discrepancy if there are pax on board. You could be influenced to play down your concerns about something a little out of the ordinary. It is much easier to turn around and taxi to the hangar for attention if the pax are not aboard, but comfortably waiting in the charter office.

3. If you are rostered on for the day, one of two things will happen. One, there will be a charter notified. Or, there is the possibility of a charter.
If it is the second, turn up at your nominated or self-determined sign-on time.

Whether it is a GAAP aerodrome, YAYE scenics, or a bush airstrip, do a daily inspection, run it up, and park it. Go inside and look up the weather and NOTAMS for the ports you are likely to fly to. Have a flight plan form with the captain and callsign filled in if you are IFR.

Now all you have to do is wait for a charter. Coffee, white and one. Read picture magazine or ATPL theory book depending on your mood. Hurry up and wait. Welcome to charter. Or Aeromed. Or polair. Or aero rescue :ok:

4. When you get into bigger and bigger aeroplanes in professional aviation, there are two phases. Endorsement (Type Rating) and Line Training. Endorsement/TR is all about learning how to fly the beastie. Line Training is all about flying it effectively in the operational environment. Your Baron checkout is an Endorsement.

Once you have done your Endorsement, try this game.

Turn up at the aerodrome and note the time on your watch. Go out to the aeroplane and do a thorough preflight, start, taxi out, runup, taxi back, shut down. Note the time on your watch. Write down how long it takes you to do a preflight.

Walk into your flight planning room. Get a briefing and do a flight plan for a three stage IFR flight. Work out your fuel, submit a flight plan as NOSEND and staple it all together just as though you were about to go flying. Note the time on your watch. Write down how long it takes you to do a full flightplan and submit it.

Go back out to the aeroplane. Taxi it to the bowser if thats whats at your 'drome. See how long it takes to refuel it and taxi back ready for pax. Do a practice pax brief out loud to the empty seats. Note the time on your watch.

Get the idea?

Add those times up. Add 15 minutes to allow for farkups, refueller not available, NAIPS offline, etc. That is how long you need from office door to airborne.

If a television news crew rings you up to say -- there's one thousand naked swiss backpackers picketing Ayers Rock Resort, how soon can you get us there, tell them the flight time plus your prep time plus a farkup factor.

Never attempt to short cut it until you have 500-1000hrs. You will get more efficient, but you have to be alive and still holding down a job to get that far.

Good luck!

What time is ECT?

19th Jan 2007, 01:43

Very good posts so far, especially ITCZ.

Do the pre-flight, engine warm and runups first, then if you have any defects or problems, there is time to get an engineer to fix the problem, sign off the defect or source another aircraft.

You want the most recent weather report, so wait for the top of the hour before requesting. Remember, you aren't an aeroclub pilot now. The standard answer from flight request to airborne is one hour.

Fly professionally,
ECT?

ForkTailedDrKiller

19th Jan 2007, 01:49

1.Doing runups on the run (while taxying) is poor airmanship, plain and simple.

What a load of crap!

Bet you only do it once while stationary at a place like Karumba!

Hope you keep your job after you explain the wrecked prop blades to the CP.

FTDK:cool:

J430

19th Jan 2007, 01:55

Have been to Karumba and recall it had a bitumen apron, not sure of a run up bay, but that would be OK would it not.

Interesting strip though!

J:ok:

ITCZ

19th Jan 2007, 02:00

Cheers ECT, we were all boggies once, eh? I was lucky to have some good people around me to guide me. Just passing on their advice.

Another way to put it.

PPL -> CPL is not much different from: good home cook -> chef, or diy painter -> professional painter.

A chef at a city hotel is not necessarily better at cooking than a good home cook.

A professional painter and decorator does not necessarily do a better job of painting than the homeowner. But the painter sizes up the job and says, ok, I will undercoat this room and sand the next one while that is drying, apply top coat to room 1 then undercoat 2 and 3, etc. Thats why they can paint a whole 4 bedroom house in 3 days or less, when it takes you a month!

They achieve this by knowing how long each task takes, so many minutes if things are going well, so many minutes if things are going not so well.

Thats what our mate has to learn.

Example, do your daily and runup before your plan. Because fixing an aeroplane takes longer than putting paper in the NAIPS printer. You can identify a minor problem and maybe have it being fixed by the LAME while you are attending to something else that needs doing. Might not even delay your departure.

Jet_A_Knight

19th Jan 2007, 02:07

And don't forget to do a good post-flight inspection so the next poor-simple doesn't find a defect and have to can their flight at the 'last minute'.

Contract Con

19th Jan 2007, 02:26

Gday,

Well done JetA

'tis just as important as the preflight in a commercial op

as is a walk around at each stop along the way, fuel caps, cowl fasteners, wing locker catches, roos hiding in the shade of the aeroplane.......

Do as ITCZ says and you will become more efficient with time

Enjoy,

Cheers,

Con:ok:

ForkTailedDrKiller

19th Jan 2007, 02:59

Have been to Karumba and recall it had a bitumen apron, not sure of a run up bay, but that would be OK would it not.
Interesting strip though!
J:ok:

J430

I think there are pills you can get for Oldtimers Disease these days.

Sorry, but there is no bitumen apron at Karumba, just a square of concrete for the RPT to park their props over and a couple of bits of conveyor belting, if there is not already an aeroplane parked over them.

FTDK:cool:

BrokenConrod

19th Jan 2007, 03:15

5 Left & Right

Let me get this correct!

You think it is not possible to safely conduct an effective run-up in a Baron while taxing ("poor airmanship"), cause it requires doing a few things at once - but having done your run-ups while stationary somewhere you are happy to launch into single-pilot IFR in a light twin, probably the most demanding multi-tasking environment in GA.

Yeah, right!

BC:8

VH-XXX

19th Jan 2007, 03:40

I'll bet 50% of you haven't ever even SEEN a full run-up on a Chieftain or similar. It takes time and is not something you'd do on the way down the runway or taxiway. Find some grass, concrete or bitumen. If you can't, write a letter to the council or aerodrome operator and tell them as a matter of safety they need a block of concrete.

X

bushy

19th Jan 2007, 03:48

Yes, we will have to stop flying in 80% of Australia.

barondriver

19th Jan 2007, 04:14

Never attempt to short cut it until you have 500-1000hrs.

Great post ITCZ:ok:
Until the last sentence.:ugh: What makes you think its OK to shortcut things once you have 500-1000hrs. You shouldn't shortcut anything no matter what your experience level is. And what makes you think 500-1000hrs is experienced anyway.

777WakeTurbz

19th Jan 2007, 05:10

Gawd, this has opened a can of worms hasnt it!!? :hmm:

1. Who put the idea into your head that in order to be a charter pilot you need to cut corners? Punch that person in the nose, they nearly gave you an attitude that put you out of a job before you started. You need to be efficient, yes. That does not mean you leave things out!:eek:

Couldnt agree more ITCZ.

But depending on the experience of the pilot i believe it better to always do stationary runups before takeoff, doing full runups on the move can take a bit of time so you dont want to be riding the brakes for that long, wearing them out quicker than necessary. :=
Theres usually always somewhere on an airfield to safely conduct runups without damaging the props, do it on the runway if there is little traffic around (unless its a nasty gravel one)

Sure you can warm up the engines and do other checks like fuel X-feeds, Autopilot etc etc before the pax get there, but there is always the odd chance that the overly rich mixture may cause fouling if you have a long taxi to the runway, therefore a Mag check should always be done before take off.

Chadzat, imho you should try and do them stationary where possible, assymetric runups on the move would be a nightmare, at the same time produces unnecessary wear and tear, if you do your long checks prior to pax arriving then you should always do another mag check before you take off (probably the best option) and adding the pitch checks doesnt take long either...

Its good airmanship, it adds negligable time to the trip, and im sure the passengers will get over it due to the fact that is for their SAFETY...

Turbz:cool:

5 Left & Right

19th Jan 2007, 05:20

Funny how an opinion can get people so revved up.

Forktailed
I have been to Karumba more times than you have had hot dinners. That's what the concrete pads are for. Of course runups on loose stones require some different techniques to preserve the props.

Broken Conrod
The human brain is a single channel processor. It is only capable of doing one thing at once. Sometimes it can do different things in very quick succession giving the illusion of doing multiple tasks at once, but its just an illusion.

Go-ahead and do runups while you taxi if you want to, but remember your Co-pilot Murphy. One day you will either miss something on the runup, or taxi into something.

Cheers

ABX

19th Jan 2007, 05:59

Great posts ITCZ, I think they show a lot of common sense.:ok:

However, I doubt this part:
But the painter sizes up the job and says, ok, I will undercoat this room and sand the next one ...

Please tell me the last time a painter sanded!

Just had the house done (repaint) 80% of painters wouldn't sand. Period. I had to ask them due to their being a couple of rough spots.

A couple wouldn't quote on the job if there was sanding involved. They said that most of the work these days is new houses that don't need sanding and they "couldn't be bothered with the old stuff.":mad:

Finally accepted a quote from a guy who said he would do it and he simply painted over most of it without sanding.:mad:

Anyways, if you see a painter sanding take a pic and post it here for the sake of history please.:E

Major thread drift.:sad:

5 Left & Right

19th Jan 2007, 06:36

Broken Conrod
There are 2 concrete pads, the one further from the terminal is frequently used for runups, leaving the parking pad free.
We are diverging somewhat however. The purpose of this forum is to give PROFESSIONAL input.
I am only giving my opinion, based on my experience. You don't have to agree, in fact you are free to disagree if that is your want.
Cheers
5L&R

ARPs

19th Jan 2007, 07:32

I have just finished working for a charter company where I was flying an Islander. It was standard practice to do the run ups first thing in the morning before any flights that may be planned.

This gave us plenty of time to warm the engines up properly and then do the run ups.

If we had pax come in off the street that required the plane asap and it had not been run up, we would make the departure time with enough time spare to do warm ups, run ups and gas up if required. This was a way to make sure we were not rushed through and had covered everything required.

ARPs.

Chadzat

19th Jan 2007, 08:52

Thanks ARP's, 777WakeTurbz, ITCZ and others with their advice and opinions. As usual PPrune throws up all sorts.

I currently do scenics and charter in singles and 'usually' do runups at the start of the day otherwise if its a very short notice scenic and I have flown the aircraft recently I will do them quickly with pax on board.

I was just wondering about twin runups not just because of having 2 of everything to check but usually because there are more systems/avionics to check as well- hence more time needed. It's hard to tell sometimes when you see a charter twin taxiing out if they do runups or not.

Heres another question- what about small-medium turboprops, conquests, metro's and the like. Is there a need for power checks above high idle in turbines? Or is the performance just monitored during the takeoff roll.

Thanks for the replies

ForkTailedDrKiller

19th Jan 2007, 09:17

Forktailed
I have been to Karumba more times than you have had hot dinners. That's what the concrete pads are for. Of course runups on loose stones require some different techniques to preserve the props.

L&R

I figure that I have had about 19,000+ hot dinners!

How many times have you been to Karumba?

FTDK:cool:

404 Titan

19th Jan 2007, 12:01

ForkTailedDrKiller

I think his comment was a little tong in cheek don’t you. I consider 5L&R a good mate and flew with him for many years. I can vouch for the fact that he has been into Karumba more times than you can count. While I will admit I did my share of run-up’s in the bush on the run, I never did it when there was a safe place to do them stationary, and this includes Karumba. Infact our SOP’s had clear guidelines for our pilots to follow when out in the bush. Run up’s on the move were only to be done when it was considered unsafe or unwise to do them stationary.

5 Left & Right

How is the Isa treating you? I always keep an ear out for you when I am heading to or from Hong Kong but never hear you.

Towering Q

19th Jan 2007, 12:55

That's probably because he is too busy doing his stationary run-ups.
Oh, stop it.

ForkTailedDrKiller

19th Jan 2007, 13:10

ForkTailedDrKiller

I think his comment was a little tong in cheek .....

and you think my reply wasn't?

FTDC:cool:

404 Titan

19th Jan 2007, 13:54

Towering Q

I don’t think the aircraft he flies now needs the same type of run up you currently do. Let’s just say though that if you have the habit of doing your run ups always on the move, the day you f**k it up is the day he will probably come and rescue you, literally.

ForkTailedDrKiller

After your first reply to 5L&R who knows. All I can say is the ForkTailedDrKiller speaks with a forked tong.:=

OpsNormal

19th Jan 2007, 21:10

...Heres another question- what about small-medium turboprops, conquests, metro's and the like. Is there a need for power checks above high idle in turbines? Or is the performance just monitored during the takeoff roll.
Thanks for the replies...
On the aircraft (PT6-41) I am flying at the moment the first flight of the day checks are more to do with the prop systems ie; The governor/s, the auto feather system, rudder boost activation and a couple of other small things. I guess you could say that power delivery is checked during the rudder boost check as you certainly have a significant amount of power on to check the system activates. You can't do them on the run either.
You should be monitoring performance on all take-offs in all aircraft, lest they try and kill you.
On other things, the last three times I've been to Karumba, a certain TBM-700 has been parked on either pad, so it is academic really when the RPT pad is also occupied. The TBM owner is rumoured to be very courteous, friendly, never taxys everywhere at night with both landing lights on and strobes running, never taxys out onto the runway in front of landing aircraft on short final without making radio calls and never generally causes havoc with his argumantative personality over the radio. Did I say that out loud again? - My bad.:}:oh:
I heard that one day recently someone (from up that way) took such exception to something that happened that a large amount of Karumba's shell grit ended-up going somewhere it shouldn't have gone..... :oh: :oh: :oh:
I'm not a huge fan of twin engine rolling run-ups, but sometimes the aerodrome you are operating out of does not provide a safe area of which to utilise to conduct a run-up. In that instance only will I (or any of the guys working with me) conduct what amounts to a rolling run-up, which may involve several trips up and back down the runway (as they are not done against brakes). That said, when you need to use 2200 or so RPM in something like a Pa31 or even 1500 RPM in a C404 then you'd better have your attention more outside than inside 'coz you wont stay too straight for long.
Piston run-ups (IMHO) should be done before the pax get there before the first flight of the day, a taxying low RPM mag check is then more than sufficient for subsequent flight.
TQ wrote: That's probably because he is too busy doing his stationary run-ups.
Oh, stop it.
:D :D :D
And then C404 wrote: .....the day you f**k it up is the day he.....
You're not big on spotting the irony or the very subtle leg pull in messages are you C404? No one was having a go at anyone.

5L+R. Did my wife and I sit opposite you (at the end of the table) at a dinner just before Christmas? If so I'll take you up on the offer you made.... :}
Regards,
OpsN. ;)

rmcdonal

19th Jan 2007, 22:14

I have been shown 2 differing ideas on this topic, I used to do run-ups before the pax arrived, then the new boss came out and very politely asked why I was cooking his Starter motors in the cowls if I was intending to use them again in the next 5 min. Then again I have jumped in an aircraft with pax only to find out in the run-up bay that it was U/S.
As for checks on the roll... I used to do them when I was in the NT, on gravel strips, in a single engine. However where I fly now has an abundance of sealed run-up bays and it is expected that all checks be done stationary and in those bays (except if no one else is around or its night in which case the hold point is ok). Have only ever done rolling run-up’s in a twin once, and that was at Mascot, and it took me 15min to get to my runway anyway.
Some bush strips offer you no choice but to rolling run-up. However if you have the option (e.g. a run-up bay) then why load your self up? I’m not sure what kind of operation requires you to save the 1min it takes to do a run-up properly. The only thing that makes a run-up take so long is if your reading of a checklist, simple solution: learn it.

1090for2

19th Jan 2007, 22:46

Ever tried to find the park brake in a floatplane :} they have a habit of moving once the engine is started. We can't even ride the brakes to slow us down while cycling the prop...... but with all that extra training :p we seem to avoid boats and river banks most of the time :ugh:

The Messiah

20th Jan 2007, 01:46

Always without pax and in any light twin you must do a snap feather check which might scare the crap out of them, but if there is just no time then tell them what you are going to do so they are ready for it.

A37575

20th Jan 2007, 01:48

Operationally, I have thrown away the checklist (see other Threads in this forum), and done most of the checks in the parking bay and the run-ups in while taxying (has also been discussed in some detail elsewhere in here..
Yerse - I agree. This works well in my Microsoft PC simulator. Saves time on account I like to fly my Microsoft just like REAL GA pwofessional pilots in Orstralia does:8 ....

Cloud Cutter

20th Jan 2007, 03:38

Chadzat

Turboprop engines don't require the same set of run-up procedures as pistons (because their operation is a lot simpler, and less prone to failure, and they are already running at a decent speed at idle). We would normally not go above low idle until applying takeoff power. As OpsNormal said, the PT6 has a set of 'periodic checks' relating to all sorts of systems. They are normally done prior to the first flight of the day, but an operator can specify an acceptable alternative checking schedule (we do them once a week).

As for runups while taxiing, apart from the obvious safety and airmanship issues that have been mentioned, it's a very bad idea to make excessive use of brakes prior to takeoff. At best you'll get a reduction in braking performance (brake fade), at worst a wheel-well fire. Granted, these are not that much of an issue in a light piston twin, but if carried on to a bigger aircraft, can be a recipe for disaster (remember the caravel that tried to clear the fog with a high power taxi against brakes?). I guess the point about stationary runups over gravel is a valid one, and you make do with what you've got. It's not ideal though.

As a few have said. Do the runups (in whatever time it takes you to do them properly) after the daily preflight, before the first flight. ITCZ's point about pax on board making it harder to pull the pin is probably the most useful piece of advise in this thread. The comment about waiting till 500-1000 hrs before cutting corners is less helpful, that is in fact the time you must be MOST careful not to get complacent as you're confidence level increases. It's often said that 1000 hour pilots are the most dangerous.

Chimbu chuckles

20th Jan 2007, 04:15

WTF is a 'snap feather check'?....never heard of it nor ever treated the props in such a manner in many thousands of multi piston flying!

pakeha-boy

20th Jan 2007, 04:26

CC...yeah mate,..that too got a raise of the eyebrows......never heard of it,and certainly never done it...

....I think he forgot to mention that after 20 of these ,...the prop snaps,....and pulls the engine completely out of the cowling....to where you do a single engine taxi back to the gate.....and explain to the boss how these "snap feather checks".....dont work......

..... now ya know why we have mechanics.....PB

BrokenConrod

20th Jan 2007, 04:42

WTF is a 'snap feather check'?....never heard of it nor ever treated the props in such a manner in many thousands of multi piston flying!

CC - I think it has something to do with breaking the tail-feather of a black cockatoo that you have stuck in your "Top Gun" cap. My understaanding is that if it "snaps" cleanly, it means that you can reasonably expect to get laid at your next destination!

Hence the reason that I always carry out this check before every flight, regardless of whether or not there are pax on board.

I have done this some 1262 times now - and each time, to date, it has only bent in half - hence my lack of success with the ladies of the north.

It also explains the appearance of a new "disease" among the black-tailed cockatoos - Stumpy-tail Syndrome.

I believe it also holds true for the tail feather from a Bird of Paradise, and I am surprised that a man of your experience in PNG was not aware of this!

BC:8

Pinky the pilot

20th Jan 2007, 04:46

I am PA31 endorsed, with a grand total of about 10 hr on type, but I have peddled a C402 around northern Oz for more than a few hours. As far as I can recall there is not a lot of difference between them

It's been fifteen or so years since I last flew a 402 and about two and a half years since I was last in a Chieftain but if I remember correctly you checked the 402s magnetos at 1500rpm whilst the Chieftains were done at 2300rpm.:hmm:

ABX

20th Jan 2007, 05:07

Broken Conrod, you cracked me up.:}

A good laugh, thanks.:ok:

You are persistence personified man.

Jet_A_Knight

20th Jan 2007, 05:37

Also, don't forget to be extra careful at NIGHT during the runups - whether you believe 'on the run' or 'stationary' is the most prudent.

The lack of peripheral visual cues at night when you are checking the integrity of the systems might have you taxiing at a ridiculous speed inadvertently, or worse, moving off your stationary position - GPU in tow :{

Hugh Jarse

20th Jan 2007, 05:48

Jet A. See what happens if you leave 1 prop "on the locks":}

You travel in ever decreasing circles until you vanish up your own arsssssss:8

Catch up soon;)

Jet_A_Knight

20th Jan 2007, 05:53

Yeah Jarsie, ive heard of something similar...except they weren't lucky enough to continue rotating up their own @rse, it was more like off the runway on to the grass somewhere:{ :{ :{

PS I am in no way inferring that has happened to yours truly; but there but for the grace of God go I........TTYS

Chimbu chuckles

20th Jan 2007, 06:14

Pinky raises an interesting point.

Why the difference?

Because some clever fella at Cessna or Piper just thought it was a 'reasonable' number....it is really that simple.

There is absolutely no real difference between the engine in a Chieftain and a C402...the numbers are arbitrary.

Doing a mag check at say 2300 rpm actually shows you nothing much that you wouldn't learn at 1500 rpm...or idle for that matter. In the big radial engines the mag checks are done at 'field barometric' which is 29.5 inches MP at MSL ISA. At that power setting you do actually learn something, for instance if RPM at that MP was not a certain value the engine was not producing it's proper power.

That is full power in a modern piston engine and no one is suggesting you should do full power mag checks on the ground I hope...whether in the runup bay or not.

In a typical piston twin if you run the engines up to approximately 1500 RPM, carry out a quick mag check and then gently cycle the props through to feather (ONCE is enough 99% of the time) and back out before the RPMs drop below 1000 rpm you have tested the ignition/prop systems as well as you would sitting in the runup bay with the engines roaring at 2300 rpm...except you haven't heated them up excessively before asking them to produce max power on takeoff...and you haven't risked damaging the props...and you haven't risked flinging stones at whatever/whoever is behind you.

There is nothing magical about the number 1500 either except the prop may not feather cleanly at much lower rpm...if you push them up and they settle at 1550,1600 or 1700 who cares?

Every minute running on the ground your engine is heating up...after a long taxi and a typical 'run up' as taught by most 'instructors' your engine will quite likely be approaching temps in the range of 370-400F which while it may be 60-90F below the published redline is still approaching the temp where long term damage starts to be inflicted.

If you want to really test your ignition system do it in cruise...select to left or right and leave it there for a goodly time and listen to your engine. If it runs smoothly with only a slight drop in power the system is fine...a live mag check at idle before you select cut off on the mixtures and you have done as much as you need to do. This check carried out in cruise LOP with an all cylinder monitor is even better.

In the days when I flew piston twins for a living we NEVER went out to the aircraft before the pax arrived and went through all the rigamarole espoused here...a daily inspection is a walk around not 'get in a flog the engines sitting still'...a efficient engine prop check carried out parked or while taxiing depending on circumstances and you were off....if something was not working you weren't...but lets face it people the chances of a regularly flown aeroplane's prop not cycling into feather and out cleanly is rare indeed...as is a 'live mag' that wasn't picked up on the previous flight and 'just broke' while the aeroplane was sitting undisturbed:ugh:

The Messiah

20th Jan 2007, 06:33

Snap feather is just a term a few old engineers used to use to emphasise not leaving the pitch lever in feather long enough to drop below 1000RPM hence just snap it in and then straight out of feather. I don't care how many thousands of hours you have in piston twins, why does everyone feel it necessary to put their resumes in their posts?

ForkTailedDrKiller

20th Jan 2007, 07:26

.... I don't care how many thousands of hours you have in piston twins, why does everyone feel it necessary to put their resumes in their posts?

Maybe it is an attempt to give some credibility to what they are saying!

When you read some of the crap written in here at times its hard to believe the authors have done anymore than a TIF.

FTDC:cool:

bushy

20th Jan 2007, 07:50

Chimbu is quite correct, as always.
Engines and propellors are subjected to all sorts of abuse during runups on the ground. It's often more showmanship than airmanship. Most air cooled engine have "pressure cooling", and on the ground the pressure is not there, so the cooling system is not working well. If we read the makers manuals we find the advice that a few minutes is usually adequate. The longer we run it on the ground, the more likely we are to have fouled plugs.
When temps are very low (that's around zero in most of Australia) the best way to warm it up is to run it for long enought to heat the exhaust system, which will the warm the oil and the rest of the nengine after it is shut down.
(starter motors have limits too)
Mostly a thorough DI and short runup before first flight followed by simple checks during the days flying, done on the move if you are on a gravel surface in a piston engined aircraft, is an appropriate way to operate.
We have to adjust to the environment we operate in.

POH's and flight manuals are important sources of information, and those silly old buggers who have been flying them since Adam was a cowboy often have useful information too.

morning mungrel

20th Jan 2007, 09:19

Hey CC, next time I take off in the Chieftain and only get 29.5 inches of MAP, I'll remember that that is supposed to be normal, shall I? At 2300, if you do your run up, you'll get something like 29 inches of MAP. Same as "the big radial" If you only get 29.5 max, then you aren't going anywhere fast......:eek:

Chimbu chuckles

20th Jan 2007, 10:08

I think you entirely missed my point:ugh:

morning mungrel

20th Jan 2007, 10:21

CC, not really mate. You said that was full power in a modern piston engine. It isn't. I know you generalised, but hey, there are differences. What's the difference in the type of info i'd get from the Chieftain at 29/2300 versus the "big Radial" at 29/2300 or whatever? From a pilot's perspective I mean, not an engineers? If you want to know if the L/TIO 540 in the plane is producing the power it should, then wouldn't you set your 2300 see what MAP you get and fuel flow? Just like the big ones you talked of? If you don't see it, you ain't getting it I would have thought.

maralinga

20th Jan 2007, 12:58

Conducting runups with pax on might be fine in some of oz's cooler climates, but in the middle of the wet season in a piston twin? :}

Well, you won't have to worry about repeat business!

Best to do them before the pax turn up, in addition to the points already raised. :ok:

Chimbu chuckles

20th Jan 2007, 13:57

Do you have any info about what rpm you should see for 29in in the Chieftain?

Not flown one but many hours in 402s and there was never a figure given for the TSIO520. I don't remember ever hearing it suggested there was one for the TSIO540 in Aerostars, not was it ever mentioned for the GTSIO engines in the the 404 or Queenairs...all of which I used to fly and train on.

It might very well be that 29/2300 is a perfectly reasonable relationship but I don't have any solid factual information to base that on...do you?

Yes I made a generalisation with the full power comment...my mistake...but if that is all you were able to take from the entire post then you obviously have little left to learn...and as such it was not aimed at you but to pilots who might just like to maintain an open mind about possibly better ways to treat the machinery their lives and income depend on.

I have not instructed in nor even flown piston twins in over 12 years...but I still fly and own a piston single and am constantly learning.

The bottom line is you're learning NOTHING sitting at 2300 rpm in your Chieftain fiddling with the magnetos and pondering a small drop in rpm between left, right and both that you wouldn't learn at 1500 rpm. As long as you get some drop and the engine doesn't stop that is as much as you'll gleen at 2300 rpm, 1500 rpm or anywhere in between when all you have to look at is a tacho.

Between a regulator who lacks any interest in GA and marginally profitable charter operations not interested in spending money most piston twins in Australia used on commercial operations lack the one piece of technology that would allow, with a modicum of training, truly diagnostic engine checking...a modern digital all cylinder engine monitor...and what is really funny? They cost about as much as 3 engine cylinders:ugh:

Then you could sit back at cruise power in flight and check the performance of your individual spark plugs, injectors and valves...if you know what you're looking at.

Recently in the US a chap enroute in his Bonanza got enough warning from his engine monitor to divert and land normally when one of his cylinders developed a crack so bad the head was about to depart the engine. At the other end of the spectrum we see the Spencer Gulf crash and loss of life. Long accepted Chieftain 'SOPs' and piston 'Lore' were at least partly responsible for that crash...not the young bloke flying it but the 'senior' and 'experienced' pilots who taught him to operate the engines in a manner that gauranteed long term damage that surfaced when, after a probably pre existing fault, the crankshaft, stopped one engine, he asked more of other one to get him home. That is what happens when you abuse high powered engines over an extended period through ignorance.

Pinky the pilot

20th Jan 2007, 21:02

A couple of eloquently argued posts from Chuckles & Bushy.:ok:
I have my copy of the Chieftain Pilot's Information Manual open in front of me and on page 6-3 in the warm-up and ground check section it states,
Feathering is checked with the throttles set at 1500rpm. No more than 500rpm drop should be allowed in this check.
It goes on to say,
The magnetos are checked with the propellors in low pitch and the throttles set at 2300rpm. The drop should not exceed 175rpm, and the difference in drop between both magnetos should not exceed 50rpm.
Like others here I have often wondered at the difference between the Chieftain (Lycoming) and the 402 (Continental) regarding the mag checks but in general, questioning LAMES, Chief Pilots etc mostly only drew the response along the lines of "Do as the manual says; The manufacturer knows what they are talking about" etc etc.
Anyone have any info as to what Lycoming and Continental themselves actually recommend?

Mungrel; Can't remember for sure but in last Chieftain I flew, mag check at 2300rpm gave MP about 31''. I may be wrong.

OpsNormal

20th Jan 2007, 23:30

They are probably trying to avoid/check for this: From sacskyranch.com (http://www.sacskyranch.com/CarbonArcTracing.htm)

http://www.sacskyranch.com/failedmaginside.jpg

Severe example of Carbon Arc Tracking damage to magneto.
When the pilot did the magneto check on run-up, what did this magneto do?
Answer: Magneto exhibited normal rpm drop during the engine magneto check prior to takeoff.
However, magneto misfired with a resultant loss of engine power at full power.
As power increases the voltage required to jump the spark plug gap increases. In this example the spark plug would fire at lower engine power settings but at higher power settings the voltage arc'd within the magneto causing the destruction you see on the left.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess why Pa31 mags are pressurised and why they should be checked at the higher RPM now?

Pinky, which report number is that POH you've got? 2046?

Different POH's (report numbers) for the Pa31 will outline differing procedures for what amount to similar aircraft. It is preferable (from a CP's point of view) that aircrew stick with what is in the manual for many reasons, not the least of which are insurance, owner and contractual (hire) requirements.

Of interest: www.ramaircraft.com/Aircraft-Parts/Magnetos/Magnetos.htm (http://www.ramaircraft.com/Aircraft-Parts/Magnetos/Magnetos.htm)

2200RPM or above for the mag check? Possibly because Piper/Lycoming knows something about one way a prop or its governor might fail giving 2100rpm max and around 30-32"Hg. Better to be finding that out without the pax on board me thinks.

Much like the reasoning behind letting turbo brgs cool down so they wont coke up, but then again what would I know... Of further interest to those who claimed I was wrong before (check point six): Save-A-Turbo (http://www.ramaircraft.com/Maintenance-Tips/Save-A-Turbo.htm)

Have a lovely day.;) ;)

morno

21st Jan 2007, 00:10

2200RPM or above for the mag check? Possibly because Piper/Lycoming knows something about one way a prop or its governor might fail giving 2100rpm max and around 30-32"Hg. Better to be finding that out without the pax on board me thinks.

That sounds familiar Ops, :ok:. Last Thursday, when a particular Chieftain engine failed to increase the engine RPM past 2,100Rpm.

Whilst I do agree with most of what you say Chuckles, I tend to agree more with what Lycoming and Piper say about conducting mag checks at 2,300Rpm. I've found more problems at that Rpm in the Chieftain, than I have at 1,700Rpm. Sounds silly I know, but that's purely from my own experience.

And besides, since my Chief is having some input into the thread, best I be good and not suggest things outside his ops manual, :}.

morno

Chimbu chuckles

21st Jan 2007, 02:45

That sounds reasonable:ok:

But it's checking the prop governor rather than the ignition system.

As shown by opsnormal even a magneto problem didn't show up during a runup presumably carried out at 2300 rpm(?). I wonder if an engine monitor would have shown it..probably not if it was functioning normally at the lower rpm...it would have as the maggy self destructed.:uhoh:

pakeha-boy

21st Jan 2007, 03:27

CC ..pinky makes a good point....how far should one go in checking "reasonable parameters" with ones aircraft.....I use my AC manual all the time,listen to my mates(with the same A/C)..talk to the LAME,s...and like a womem ..try to fly her like she likes to be flown.....thats certainly something no one teaches you....

....like most,I will adhere to the normal operating procedures that the manufacturer recommends,and the operaters manual is just that....outside of that, ..its the RENO AIR-RACES!!!....

I would speculate CC that you are very well endowed and proficient with A/C engines .....that by your postings is very evident,and personally have taken some of your recommendations......in saying that ,would you not agree that the manufacturers specs are for reason and are there for "persons" of less capability than yours ...for reasons of liability etc etc.....

...if one is to take the advice given here,there are no disclaimers....for those of us who own A/C ......there is always something to know and learn,.......

I believe all of us will agree.."Good operating practices" are in the eye of the beholder.....if there is a starting point,it lies with the operaters manual and the pilots that fly these animals....PB

Mainframe

21st Jan 2007, 03:40

Chuck,
firstly, let me state that I have the highest regard for your usually very informative,
thought provoking, and practical discussions, both on Pprune and via PM's.

However, I do need to set the record straight with a few other bits of information (possibly facts?).

With regard to the Whyalla VH-MZK PA31 accident,
the investigation and report was bound to be flawed due to the unprecedent level of political and media interest.

Laurie Brereton, minister for signs, a former CASA director, and many others all wanted to be involved and all had something to say.

a very good analysis of the ATSB report was made by John Deakin, "Pelican's Perch",
he is of similar vintage and experience to yourself, and like you,
is very much into LoP ops with a properly instrumented aircraft.

However, he correctly labelled the ATSB report as "Junk Science".
http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/57.jsp

The particular operator usually managed 30% extensions to TBO by their operating methods,
a rather contradictory expectation, if how they operated was detrimental to engine life.

In hindsight, and with the passage of time,
it is now known that the failure was due to a known manufacturing defect in a batch of Lycoming crankshafts. Continental IO-520s also went through a similar fault phase prior to Lycoming.

(you do acknowledge that fact, and perhaps the post crankshaft failure ops could have been better.)

At the other end of the spectrum we see the Spencer Gulf crash and loss of life.
Long accepted Chieftain 'SOPs' and piston 'Lore' were at least partly responsible for that crash...
not the young bloke flying it but the 'senior' and 'experienced' pilots who taught him to operate the engines
in a manner that gauranteed long term damage that surfaced when, after a probably pre existing fault,
the crankshaft, stopped one engine, he asked more of other one to get him home.
That is what happens when you abuse high powered engines over an extended period through ignorance.

The ATSB report emotively described the POH method of leaning as "Aggressive Leaning".

I have had a broken crankshaft in a BE58, (Continental IO-520), it's no fun, but you can get home or to a suitable alternate.

I have operated both C402's and PA31's and yes, the Piper POH does require higher mag test rpm than Cessna / Continental.

Always go by the book, even though ATSB may sometimes deem it aggressive.

Chuck, thanks for the excellent articles you contribute, please continue, and I'm sorry to query you on this one.

prospector

21st Jan 2007, 06:52

Mainframe,
Perhaps your comparing John Deakin with CC is flattering for one and a bit of a come down for the other, John Deakin has reportedly some 33,000 hours, including 33 years with Japan Air Lines, for the most part as an 747 skipper. His breadth of experience covers a much wider spectrum of internal combustion engines than anyone of such tender years as CC could possibly have amassed, even in the wilds of PNG.
John Deakins assertion that allowing operators to continue using the steam age instrumentation for high power piston engines used in public transport is bordering on criminal negligence should certainly have gained a lot more credence than it has been given. But it costs so it wont.

Looks like I missed a few thousand hours on Mr Deakins total, apologies, what an incredible record.

Chimbu chuckles

21st Jan 2007, 07:26

No need to appologise at all...I am not infallible...I think we are in complete agreement on Whyalla:ok:

My memory of reading Deakins article on Whyalla (Junk Science) was that leaning on climb probably contributed to a hole in a piston on the 'good' engine and when asked for all it could give after the crankshaft let go in the other engine that hole got real big real quick...leading to the outcome that night...not the young pilots fault, he was as much a victim as his passengers.

That is what I mean about PA31 'Lore'. Leaning on climb in similar engines has been espoused by many who should know better over the years..the fella who owned the PA60-700p I used to fly insisted on it so when he was on board I did and when he wasn't I climbed full rich and then leaned no leaner than 100 ROP in cruise..he insisted on 50F ROP and sometimes peak EGT for better economy:ugh: ...and that was early 90s long before I ever heard of LOP or engine monitors.

The simple act of fitting an engine monitor to an engine replaces lore with fact, or it should. I have shown massively experienced lifetime GA pilots what is really going on inside my IO550 in flight and they shook their heads in amazement and then go off and ignored the insight completely.

Clearly there is a 'good' reason, apparently, to use higher power for run ups in a PA31...but would not the same end be achieved by doing the run ups in a more mechanically sympathetic way and then checking you're getting full rated power on takeoff?

I postulate this not to encourage pilots to ignore their CP but to suggest perhaps the CPs have a think and way up one set of circumstances against another.

On the one hand high powered run ups (often longwinded due innexperienced pilots checking everything twice while reading a checklist) are clearly damaging to an engine, any engine, and on the other we have a justification for those high power settings to detect a possible prop fault.

Are we not belting the engine everytime we do this to detect a possible failure mode that is very rare and would be picked up anyway in the first 30m of takeoff run?

It's one of a CP's jobs to think about these things...blindly following a POH is just plan silly when you realise these things were written 35 years ago.

My POH for EZU was written in 1969 and expressly forbids LOP operation.

At CASA's insistance a few years ago I ordered a new one and the ammendment service that fullfilled CASA's requirements.

Guess what?

The ONLY difference between the new POH and the original is the cover...Ratheon just said "what ammendment service?"

It's has never been ammended.

LOP operation is a no brainer in terms of being 'good' all the way around yet if I just accept as gospel everything in the POH I wouldn't be doing it. The boss of CASA airworthiness said to me years ago "all engines should be operated this way" after they had been to the US and witnessed GAMi's TSIO540 on the test stand after Deakin stuck it up ATSB over Whyalla. They went to the US at the invitation of George Braily after ringing him and whinging long and loud about Deakin and left the US with a completely different opinion.

I just want people to think and ask "why?"

Edit: Yup comparing me to Deakin is just dumb... we seem to be similar personality types based on our conversations in the past and emails and certainly share a love of old aeroplanes and piston engines. We share a bushflying early career...but he has 38000 hrs and is a truly clever fella..he's also 20 years older than me...he and I email each other from time to time...I am certainly flattered by the comparison but I don't think it is justified.

His variety of aviation experience is breathtaking.

Centaurus

21st Jan 2007, 22:18

If you want to really test your ignition system do it in cruise...select to left or right and leave it there for a goodly
Of course if you do that, just pray that one of the mags is not already inoperative because when you turn the other mag off there is going to be a very nasty and possibly damaging BIG BANG when you hurriedly switch back to both mags on...:sad:

Centaurus

21st Jan 2007, 22:33

but if there is just no time then tell them what you are going to do so they are ready for it.

Ladies and gentlemen..this is your captain speaking from the flight deck of your Super Constellation. I will shortly conduct a run up of each of the four power plants. There will be a fair amount of noise and shaking and even a few minor explosions if one of the 48 spark plugs breaks down. When I check the automatic feathering cycle on each propeller there will be a sharp increase in perceived noise level that you may misconstrue as heavy handed engine handling. But never mind, sit back and relax and enjoy your flight.
............................................................ ..................................

Jesus wept! Are you seriously going to brief your 8 pax in a Navajo you are going to conduct a bloody run up?:*

tlf

21st Jan 2007, 23:27

Jesus wept! Are you seriously going to brief your 8 pax in a Navajo you are going to conduct a bloody run up?:*

Well we did have someone here a while back who was ready to go through his engine failure procedures with the passengers.

It really does make you wonder however, in my years of commercial operations I never found it necessary to conduct runups with passengers boarded. There was always time to do it before departure.

Someone earlier in the thread spoke of getting the exhaust hot and letting it warm the oil in the engine, won't work in a Navajo/Chieftain or a Shrike coz the exhaust is on top of the engine not the bottom.

Sigh, so much mis-information getting around these days.

Chimbu chuckles

22nd Jan 2007, 00:46

Centaurus that should have been picked up at the end of the previous flight..and I usually still do a quick mag check at idle while taxiing out in my Bo before a flight. You can do the in flight ignition system check on empty sectors...it doesn't need to be done every sector or every day for that matter...you can do a normal on ground mag check every day and the inflight one once a week.

A little common sense is all that is required. Done in flight while watching the engine monitor will show up problems long before they become obvious on a ground run up....then when you finish flying for the day you can report to the engineers that, for instance, the upper plug, #2 cylinder on the RH engine is not working terribly well...either fouled or fecked...and he spends 5 minutes changing it....instead of the usual pilot report that takes 1/2 a day to track down.

:ok:

morning mungrel

22nd Jan 2007, 00:58

Chuck, I have the utmost respect for the vast majority of your postings, and I was not trying to have a dip at you. But there are sometimes good reasons for the manufacturer deciding to do things their way, as espoused by several others here. My point was just that. You can find problems that aren't uncovered by other methods. The MAP figure for the Cheiftain comes from Lycomings little publication on each of their engines, I am not sure if they are available anymore, and have proven useful to me in the past to explain and indeed identify some failings in engine running and setup. As for not getting anything from your post, or not having much else to learn, perish the thought!

Chimbu chuckles

22nd Jan 2007, 01:07

I am not sure if they are available anymore

What a shame if that is the case...wouldn't surprise me though...thought perished:ok:

morning mungrel

22nd Jan 2007, 01:19

Dunno if you've seen them, the little pink covered ones, they are more for the engineering side, giving fuel flows, MAP, RPM, power charts, weights etc. Pity if you can't get them now, but they were never available for general use as far as I know. Some older engineering companies would probably still have them. I have ones for the L/TIO 540 and the GSIO 540 as well. (Queenair) :\

Rabbit 1

22nd Jan 2007, 05:10

Flew PA31-350 in Tas ages ago. Always did run-up etc before even the freight was loaded. Ventured into the tropics on to Britten-Norman and followed the manual. Dead-cut mag prior to shutdown was the only time engine checks were done with pax aboard. Operators vary but I recall on my PPL test at EN that the bloke testing me insisted on run-ups on the run, ride the brakes and get going.
That was over a decade ago.

Mr.Buzzy

22nd Jan 2007, 07:56

Ladies and gentlemen..this is your captain speaking from the flight deck of your Super Constellation. I will shortly conduct a run up of each of the four power plants. There will be a fair amount of noise and shaking and even a few minor explosions if one of the 48 spark plugs breaks down. When I check the automatic feathering cycle on each propeller there will be a sharp increase in perceived noise level that you may misconstrue as heavy handed engine handling. But never mind, sit back and relax and enjoy your flight.
.................................................. ............................................

Jesus wept! Are you seriously going to brief your 8 pax in a Navajo you are going to conduct a bloody run up?

Amen! BTW I owe an aweful lot to you Centaurus! :ok:

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz

gaunty

22nd Jan 2007, 08:43

Centaurus me old:ok:

We'll never see the like of them again.:{

Each of the Starliners have four piston powered Curtiss-Wright, turbo-compound engines, designated as R3350-98TC18EA-2. They were some of the most powerful and advanced engines ever built. Each radial engine has two circles of cylinders, one in front of the other, similar to two large wheels with the cylinders radiating from the center like spokes, making a total of 18 cylinders per engine. Each cylinder has its own ignition coil and two spark plugs. The Flight Engineer, with an ignition analyzer, keeps track of the 18 coils and 36 spark plugs on all four engines. Using 115/145 octane fuel, the engines can produce 3,400 horsepower each. They have two-stage super-chargers, direct fuel injection, manual spark advance, an auto-feather system for the propellers and three power recovery turbines on each engine, which in effect make the engines hybrids; part piston powered and part turbine powered.

The longest passenger flight was a few minutes short of 24 hrs.

Eh Eh I bet they wish they had one of Chuckles electronic whizbang analysers:uhoh:

Chimbu chuckles

22nd Jan 2007, 09:56

They had flesh and blood whizbang analysers:ok:

Now if I could just get my EDM 700 to do the pre flight when its raining....:( :}

Centaurus

23rd Jan 2007, 01:22

The RAAF used 115/145 octane fuel in their Convair 440 Metropolitans. The high lead fuel gave greater allowable manifold pressure on take off. The downside was the plugs leaded up quickly soon after the run-up was complete. That, coupled with annoying break downs in the ignition harness at high MP often caused rough engine operation during the take off run. The rough running cleared up during the climb out - usually..

Until the RAAF Brass was convinced to obtain up-dated ignition harnesses from the US, we were plagued with occasional back firing and erratic engine operation during take off. Because the rough running always smoothed out after take off we got complacent and just kept on with these take offs. A new CO was posted in and I had the job of checking him out on the CV 440.

In those days Sydney runway 16 was the short one - around 5500 ft I recall, and of course ending at Botany Bay. The CO was in the left seat picking up ICUS hours (you had to have 150 hours on type before flying VIP's). I was QFI in the RH seat.

Nearing V1 one engine backfired loudly with oscillations of MP and RPM. The Old Man shouted "**** - shall we abort?" Mindful of the fall off into Botany Bay, and hoping it was the usual half-expected rough running I said "Christ! No Sir - keep on going!" As expected, the engine smoothed out OK.

Now back at Canberra, the US Embassy had their own aircraft - a USAF Convair 340 it was. The pilot was a highly experienced Major who had flown with the Presidential Flight in Washington. He and I were good friends and he passed a lot of knowledge my way on Convair operations. One hint being that during the run up (a lengthy process for the Convair) a good way to clear fouled plugs was to operate the primer switch with the engine at high power and in theory this would clean the plugs. The Convair had a primer switch for each engine and a prime-all-engine switch for squirting raw fuel into the manifold (or somewhere whatever).The Convair was known to suffer double engine failures in severe icing and the prime-all-engine switch delivered enough fuel to keep the engines going while the ice problem was sorted.

So at Essendon one day the pilot was running up one engine in the parking bay at the top end of runway 17 and asked the copilot to give the engine a squirt of primer for 10 seconds while the engine was at high power. The copilot said no problem Skipper and hit the prime-all-engines switch instead of the individual engine primer switch.

Now if you squirt raw 115/145 octane fuel into the high power engine that is no problem. But if a copilot stuff up occurs and it squirts into an idling engine there is a huge flame as the exhaust manifold catches fire and flames six feet high gush out of the open cowl flaps on top of the engine. It is quite spectacular really, as well as bloody scary especially at night.

Fortunately in this case the fire went out when the captain shouted crossly at the copilot who was persuaded to release the prime-all-engine switch under threats of a courts martial. Reports were filed by Essendon Tower and the Firies and the captain had no choice but to file his own report. The RAAF Brass got to hear about it and we finally got our new ignition harnesses and lived happily ever after. I forgot to say we had three such engine fires before the penny dropped it was a dangerous technique of cleaning spark plugs.:8

realitybites

6th Feb 2007, 04:02

I have worked for a number of companies flying various light twins.
Most companies have there own procedures set out on how they want run ups done, and in some cases this is in the SOP's and in the company ops manuals. You would do well to check that first and or talk to the CP to see how he/her wants it done.

Many charter companies and piston RPT companes do it differently, ive worked for places that want it done pre pax, with pax onboard in the run up bay and also on the run.

There are considerations with every technique such as loose stones, noise, if aircraft are following you on the taxi ways, if there is up or down slope on ur taxiways, or if the aircraft has had recent maintinance you might want to park in the bay empty and give it a good run up.

The last place i worked we did them on the run and this was made easy because we had to taxi up hill to the runways so we didnt have to ride the breaks. But of cause if someone is behind u, they might not be happy if ur throwing stones back all over them.

The most important thing is you follow the company ops manuals or SOP's or get advice from the CP. It is a requirement that all checklists are followed correctly for all stages of flight, and these checklists will appear in the ops manual..... so as long as u get them done lifes easy.