Downwind Checks ?

[GroundBound]

Does anyone find the downwind checklist (BUMPFFITCH …. etc) as illogical as me?
From a Human Factors standpoint, the checks are done in a non-related order, mixing airframe/engine/fuel checks in a disorganized way.

I try to do my checks in a more grouped way, which I think is more logical and easier to remember – fuel, engine, instruments, airframe, cabin - it also adapts itself to different types. Its easy to remember the categories and there’s only a few items in each category, which also makes it easy to remember.

Fuel
[Pump ON]
Tank selector BOTH / fullest
Quantity Checked
Engine
Mixture RICH
Carb Heat ON
T & Ps Green
Instruments
DI Synch
Altimeter QNH/QFE set
Suction, battery In Green
Airframe
[Prop FINE ]
Flap Set / X degrees / stage-1 …
Landing light ON
Brakes OFF
U/C DOWN / FIXED
CABIN
[Canopy/Hatch Closed / locked]
Harness ON

Any thoughts?
GB

[englishal]

A flow check would be better, say from left to right.

In our plane that would be:

Harnesses / brakes / brief
Check fuel selector (I leave it alone in the circuit, it should be ok becasue of FREDA)
Fuel pump on
Landing Lights On
DG>Compass / Alt
Airspeed check in flap operating range
Mags check BOTH
Temps and pressures, Volts (not much you can do of course if something is amiss except land!)
Carb heat
Throttle
Mixture
Gear (always down :) )
Approach Flaps

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Does it really matter which one you use, as long as you cover everything you need to, you can call it what you like?:rolleyes:

[Rod1]

I use (specific for my aircraft and done from memory)

Brakes off
Mixture
Fuel (sufficient for the go-around)
Fuel pump on
Hatches and harness OK
T’S & P’S ok for the go-around
Carb heat as required
Passenger OK

I do Prop and Flaps on X wind

Rod1

[Comanche250]

Was told something useful which I hadnt really thought about before the other day. When using the BUMPFFICHH checks, Call downwind etc and then straight away put the gear down (obviously this only applies to RG) THEN run though the checks. The reason being if you do the brakes,mixture and the gear check first there is the risk that you just go straight on to the rest of the checks without waiting for the gear to fully extend and lock, obviously if it hasnt gone down and you havent checked its going to be a bit of a surprise on final! If you lower the gear first, you do the Brakes then sort out the Mixture and by the time you come to do the Undercarriage it will be down and you can do a positive check.

Some might say you could just do a different set of checks to avoid the above problem but as Chuffer said, as long as you do them all theres no problem.

C250

[RatherBeFlying]

GUMPS is a landing checklist based on the KISS principle.

Gas -- On [fullest tank]
Undercarriage -- Down if not welded
Mixture -- Rich
Prop -- Fine [if controllable]
Seatbelts -- Check / remind passengers

I add:

Brakes -- Off

and pull Carb Heat just before reducing power turning base.

These days I start with a reminder to be strapped in to the pax / instructor and on turning downwind do a flow through according to the cockpit layout that covers all the above.

In the flow through I put my hand on each item and look at it while calling out where it should be.

In a Citabria and C-172/152, that ends up as:

Master -- On
Mags -- Both On
Mixture -- Rich
Fuel -- On [both]
Brakes -- Off

Best to say out loud even when solo.

[B2N2]

Doesn't matter what you use, as long as you accomplish everything.
Flow checks, acronyms, mnemonics, it's all there to do the same thing.
Take a pick and choose whatever you are most comfortable with.
I highly prefer flow checks since you only have top remember where to start, from there you check everything you come across.
Some airplanes (due to their archaic layout) are better suited for a mnemonic/acronym.
Example; I flew a Mooney a while ago, first flight on type, late 70'ies model.
Weird combo of old and new avionics/guages and dials.
Analog CHT/EGT/turbo temp and digital engine analyser system scattered all over the panel. Didn't even know where to start with a flowcheck.
So back to BUMPFICH/GUMPS on that one.

[Woodenwonder]

Funny thing - I do many of our Club check rides - and wondered why the aeroplane would slide towards the runway (or away from same), the height would be sliding down, and the radio call for downwind would be late.
Then I found the pilots' head was buried in the cockpit, looking for the instruments, and checking the mags and master.......
Stay with BUMPFFHH at most - and look out of the window. Or join me at Jack Brown's Seaplane Base, fly the J3 Cub and use CARS: Carb heat, Area (clear of boats), Rudder (water rudder up), S Straps.
Let's keep it simple please!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When landing you are descending, this requires reducing power.

Why would you want to move the prop control to full fine and thus increase RPM?

I thought fine pitch was for take off and climb?

What is wrong with moving the prop control to full fine as you flare for the landing? Or just prior to the flare?

[Pilotdom]

EH?, what happens if you need to go around and you havnt got the prop fully fine? Happend in a Mooney once when I was not PIC and the prop wasnt fine and it didnt climb very well at all!:ooh:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well if for some I reason have to go around I move the prop RPM from cruise RPM to climb RPM and apply climb power.

Works every time and is no different than going from level flight in cruise power to climb attitude and climb power, except I don't need to move the mixture from lean to rich as it is already in rich from the pre landing check.

What could possibly be wrong with doing it that way?

[Deano777]

Of course it's different than going from cruise power to climb power whilst in the cruise and changing altitudes, you make it sound like the go around is some convoluted event that you can sit back and have cup of tea over, also are your aeroplanes that slick that you can't get them to slow down on finals? the last thing you want to be doing in a sudden go around is faffing about with the props as well as the MAP, but, as they say, whatever floats your boat.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" the last thing you want to be doing in a sudden go around is faffing about with the props as well as the MAP, but, as they say, whatever floats your boat."

I don't mind discussing these issues with private pilots so lets take it a step further.

What is a " sudden " go around? I can't imagine a situation where a go around would be " sudden " unless you fell asleep during the appproach and when you awoke everything looked sudden.

An airplane flies an approach at a given speed and attitude, a sudden application of power will not change the inertia of the airplane in a split second and sudden application of power will result in a prop surge in RPM as the governor struggles to govern the RPM with the sudden increase of power. There is no logical reason why a pilot can not smoothly move both the prop pitch control and the power control and go from approach power to climb power as you pitch up from the approach attitude to the climbing attitude.

I don't " flaff around with the power levers, I move them smoothly to the position that is needed for the power I want.

I'm not sure what you mean by " whatever floats your boat "

I am in the advanced flight training business and that is what I teach all my students, so far none have refused to be taught that method of power changes and most of my students are very high time pilots.

So I'm willing to discuss this I have outlined my thoughts, can you outline your thoughts and convince me I am doing it wrong? :sad:

[Pilotdom]

Heres a sudden go around for you,which is a true event and happend to me. On Final at my home airfield ,approach stable and an aircraft holding at the first intersection waiting for my landing, at 100ft a drainage company 4x4 Crosses the runway unannounced from the second intersection which is right on the numbers,Full power and go-around commenced. Must have been at about 40-50ft when I saw him!

[A and C]

I think it is time for these checks to be re-named, with all the avoidance of "noise sensative areas" that flying seems to involve now I think it is unwise to tie a checklist to geographical part of the flight that might not happen.

It would seem to me that "pre landing check" would be a more realistic name for these checks as there is a danger that if a downwind leg is not flown the downwind checks won't get done.

[Deano777]

Chuck

Nobody said you were doing it wrong, hence the "whatever floats your boat" comment, so don't put words into my mouth, it is a matter of preference, and probably one that is not taught here in the UK, but as you are being pedantic how about this for sudden:-
Scenario, windy day, gusting as well, you are on finals (obviously), you are bouncing around quite considerably, you cross the fence, get down to 100ft, 80ft, 70ft, then WINDSHEER, I have just lost 15kts IAS, I am now something that resembles a brick, and earthbound we are going, apply FULL power quick, phew, just avoided striking the ground. yes that happened to me once a few years ago approaching a small GA airfield in the Midlands, now if you can enlighten me as to what is not sudden about that then I'd be gratified.

The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not :ok:

[Rod1]

I have had people taxi onto the runway when I was on short finals twice and a helicopter cross in front once, all would be classified as sudden from my perspective! On the other hand I fly the downwind leg with 65% cruse power and prop in cruse mode if I can. I fine it off on X wind and can then abandon the approach at any time I am below circuit height.

I agree very strongly that down wind checks should be kept to the minimum and lookout should be a high priority.

Rod1

[GroundBound]

Some intersting points.

My particular concern was not what its called, GUMPS BUMP or whatever, but that the standard mnemonic used appears to be a non-structured approach. Thus the flow method, advocated by some, would suggest more structure - however, as mentioned, an odd cockpit layout might frustrate that.

Sir Pratt, I take your point, and the order can be changed, with the airframe checks moved to the start of the checks - no problem.

As to using whatever system you want - well, that's OK when you are own your own. But, with instructor or exmainer who is expecting a *standard* BUMPF... or whatever, its do it his/her way, not your own way. In other words having to memorise a disorganised, but standard, sequence, for the sake of it.

GB

[Rod1]

“But, with instructor or examiner who is expecting a *standard* BUMPF”

If I am on a check ride I just sing out the checks as I do them. The instructors do not care provided the items they think are important are included, order unimportant.

Rod1

[Deano777]

When or if you move to commercial flight training (if you haven't already, exuse my ignorance) the examiner on test will expect you to "use all checks as published by the official check list", so if that includes BUMPF etc then that's what he expects you to use. ;)

[S-Works]

I have yet to fly an aircraft that I could not apply full RPM and full throttle at the same time. I am with Chuck 100% on this.

In my aircraft I fly the circuit at 18" and 2400 RPM. On final if I have to go around I smoothly advance the throttloe and the RPM at the same time.

Yesterday doing a Complex conversion on a Lance I had the pilot fly the circuit on the same numbers, on the go around which he was not expecting at 50ft I had him advance the RPM and the throttle in a smooth motion, achieve the climb and clean the aircraft. His comment was that was so much easier and a damn site better than thrashing the balls of it at max RPM.

We could perhaps argue that anyone who finds a complex type so complex that they can't do as Chuck suggest's has a little more time with an Instructor.

[Deano777]

Taking that last little bit as a bit of a dig I think this highlights that you will do what you have been trained to do, I have been taught to do it on finals after the gear is extended, whereas you do it your way, nobody is disputing whether each is right or wrong, I am saying that in my opinion that's not the time to be doing it, it doesn't mean I or anyone is incapable of doing it your way, but in my opinion (because of the way I have been taught) it's not an automatic hand movement.

[Rod1]

Deano777
Just an ordinary amateur me so this will never be a problem. But;
"use all checks as published by the official check list"
Now let me think, I built the aircraft, which has a unique layout, so I am the official expert, so I just decided that my way is the official one. How did I do? I suppose I will need to write it down some time, otherwise people with think I made it all up….;)
Bose, with an electric prop you would want to convince the computer to change to “climb mode” before you were down to 50ft. However, with a conventional set-up I agree with you that going fine too early is not good.
Rod1

[Comanche250]

Hypothetically - you are flying a Seneca II, you get on to final with cruise power set, you check the gear etc and as has been mentioned you find the need for a sudden g/a. You now have 4 levers to move forward that arent all going to be going to the same position, the prop levers will be going further forward than the throttles due to the need not to over boost the engines. Therefore you are going to have to twist your hand to control the overboost. Whilst you are doing that, because of the greater inertia of a heavier a/c you are going to be sinking even further and you could end up touching down quite heavily before you get into the full g/a climb. Imagine if you realised you needed to go around because you didnt do the checks properly and didnt put the gear down, horrible scraping sound ensues!
The point im trying to make is that every a/c is different and some require a different set of checks to others. Personally, I think that for the small difference in RPM that you are going to get when going fine makes very little difference and its one less thing to think about when doing a go around!
C250

[S-Works]

I fly a Seneca and have never experianced this scenario. Standard drill in an engine failure is all levers forward and I have never had a problem with this either.

[Comanche250]

Not talking about engine failure. Talking about a g/a with both engines operating. In a real se approach you wouldnt really want to be doing a g/a below ACH if possible, but thats going off track a bit!

So you put the props to fully fine and the throttles to 39" MAP at the same time on a normal twin engine g/a? At 300ft I'd be happy trying it (trying being the operateive word) but at anything like 50ft (as in the sudden g/a situation that has been suggested) I wouldnt like to try it. Again I must stress thats my pov and im just going off what Ive been taught.

Again it boils down to the fact that if you've done it at some stage there's no big deal! But my view would be why stress yourself with it at 50ft when there is more chance of things going pear shaped when you could have done it at 500ft with less risk?

C250

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Deano77:

O.K. I will attempt to explain my methods of power control and why.

Remember I was responding to comments about moving the pitch control to full fine on the downwind.

" The bottom line is, why wait until you are in the flare before applying max RPM? the increase in RPM when you put it forward at a low MAP setting has a negligible effect on your aeroplane anyway, so why not include it in your "REDS BLUES 3 GREENS" check on finals, I just can't see any issues with doing it this way, but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "

O.K. lets argue this your way.

You claim I am being pedantic when in fact I feel I am being exctly the opposite as my thoughts on how to fly come from decades of experience and learning from experience, and not from the myopic world of ab-inito training, teaching like one of Pavlovs dogs so as not to offend someone who checks everyone in the structured dummned down world of the puppy mill mentality of a lot of flight schools.

First lets use a senario where go arounds are 100% of our approaches when we are actually working the aircraft.

I was a heavy water bomber Captain for fifteen years and my method for approaching the fire for the retardent/ water drop on said fire was to leave the propellors in cruise RPM for the run in to the drop and if the ground was relatively flat for the exit from the fire....in other words the whole proceedure including the go around was done using cruise RPM unless there was an obstacle that required climb power to climb above said obstacle.

I would like to add that ocassionally the turbulence or the exit from the fire drop area was signifigant enough that I would need climb power to exit the drop zone and there was the odd time I would select climb RPM just prior to the drop....so please, please save me all the hand wringing about how turbulent the air can get approaching a runway.

Now for some more comments that are not meant to be pedantic.

Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.

When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.

Just to clear this up, if there was an extenuating circumstance where I felt I needed climb RPM, good airmanship will prevail and I would select the required RPM/ power just prior to needing same......I do not motor around the sky with the propellor driving me crazy with noise.

Oh, I almost forgot I flew as a Ag pilot for eight years and never used full RPM during all the many thousands of times I climbed from two feet above the ground to climb over trees and power lines....

" but I can see "potential" problems doing it when you are in the flare, and personally, and it is personally I think that is a ridiculous time to be applying it, whether you are in the go around or not "

We are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Fuji Abound]

Chuck

I think the first problem here is that everyone is more comfortable with what they have always done, and were trained to do. The assumption is usually if I was taught to do it that way - it must be right. So getting people to accept there is another way is tough.

Personally I can see no disadvantages in what you suggest and one or two advantages. That would suggest your technique is better.

However, there may be one danger and that is in changing what you have always done. If you were taught to advance the prop during the approach, and change to doing so only in the event of and on a go around, in moments of stress there may be a risk of reverting to your earlier training and assuming you have already advanced the prop. In short it takes a while for a new technique to become second nature - clearly not a problem if you were taught the "Chuck" way from the start.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes fuji but the reality is if someone reacted to a go around as stressful a momentary over boosting of the engine would be the least problem said pilot has.

What should be taught is the transition from the approach attitude to the climb attitude is not the equivalent of launching the space shuttle power requirement wise.....

...anyhow I've said my bit on this one....happy motoring to all of you and fly safe.

[Comanche250]

Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. You do it your way, I do it mine.

My words were "why stress yourself" NOT "the g/a is stressful" Subtle difference there but I shoud have made myself more clear, I agree the g/a is not stressful my point being why move 4 levers at the same time when you need only move 2? You do a RBG check on final everythings down, everything works and you have full power available to you when you advance the power for the g/a.

I too have said my piece on this one!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Commanche 250:

I just can't let this pass......

You say:

" Ah right so, its okay to overboost your engines but its not okay to have them running at 50rpm more than would otherwise be, set at cruise power on a 2 mile final! How silly of me not to realise. Its six of one and half a dozen of the other. "

I don't know what you are flying, but I have never seen an airplane where the RPM change from cruise RPM the full fine pitch RPM is only a change of 50 RPM with an increase of manifold pressure sufficient to produce positive thrust.

If you can't figure out how to move your prop leavers and your power levers to produce the necessary go around power before you crash your airplane I can't help you here on Pprune.

Anyhow you and I are both correct about one thing, you can fly your airplane any way you want. :E

[Fuji Abound]

Yes fuji but the reality is if someone reacted to a go around as stressful a momentary over boosting of the engine would be the least problem said pilot has.

I think we are at slight cross purposes.

I agree with your handling of the prop., I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally?

[drauk]

Chuck

Aircraft engines are subject to wear in direct porportion to the amount of heat generated and by friction caused by the number of RPM's over a given time frame.

When driving an airplane down hill I see no advantage in wearing out my engines by using unnecessary RPM when something as basic as pre planning the approach based on conditions will allow gravity to generate the velocity I require aided with a small bit of thrust from the engine/s.

By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.

Any comments?

[Comanche250]

Right Chuck I cant let this lie either lol...approach configuration, gear down, flaps 40 degrees, 90 kts, prop levers set at cruise RPM which is 2300 and a MAP of between 15-17". Long final, short final - makes no difference. If you increase the RPM levers you will only get a small increase in RPM as the MAP is low and the props are only spinning at about 1500-1600 RPM. So where does the extra wear and tear come into it if you are only getting a small rise in RPM. Yes granted if you are at cruise power which is 24" 2300 in the a/c I fly and you then increase the RPM you will get a rise of 275 RPM.

So final is only going to last about 2-3 mins with the props fully fine which is a tiny fraction of the total time spent at a lower RPM so where is the problem? Anyway, we are right, I shall continue to fly my a/c as I always have because I have never had ANY problems doing it that way!

Nuff said :ok:

C250

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally? "

You have a valid point about changing proceedures, but would it be out of the question to change the method of teaching the students that it is not necessary to move the prop pitch to full fine on the approach to teaching them to select the desired RPM when needed? Why would a pilot need full fine and full power to go around, wouldn't climb power and climb RPM be sufficient to conduct a go around?

" By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.

Any comments? "

drauk, I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.

I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.

Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.

Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.

So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise. :ok:

[drauk]

Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.

So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.

Okay. I don't see it that way - for me it's an interesting discussion and it's something worth discussing. You're a very very experienced aviator and that's why I was interested to hear your viewpoint, which as I say, is in contrast to another experienced aviator.

I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.

I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.


I am definitely no expert on this. However, as I understand it, your assumption is an over simplification which might seem sensible at first glance, but is actually wrong. Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure.


Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.


I am talking about typical small piston engines as found in the typical private GA aircraft in the UK, which after all, is what most of the people on this forum actually fly.

[Miserlou]

Sorry, can't be bothered to quote and paste, gets too personal.

Comanche,
You don't even get an RPM rise if the speed is below a certain value.

And Chuck,
I have flown an aircraft where it was not possible to move prop and power lever at the same time, an aircraft one could call local to Chuck. Apart from the fact that I almost never used anything more than idle at any time during the descent and approach, reverse wouldn't be available for the descent if the prop wasn't fully fine.

The missed approach obstacle clearance is different form the take-off but still both assume the engine out condition for multi. Fot training always full power for initiating a missed approach; one may however choose how long one wishes to maintain that setting (perhaps even before reaching it (Thinks: covered myself nicely there!)).

I wonder if anyone has actually gone as far as calculating the difference in power between take-off and climb for a typical VP single. I used to use Climb power for take-off for environmental reasons.

Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check.

As a matter of little or possibly no interest we would often use fully fine on the ATR-72 if it was gusty for a better response even though the aircraft had an automatic prop setting.

And I'd recommend to go with the flow any day because it works on all aircraft where the Bumpff thing will have you wasting time darting here and there looking for things which in some cases aren't even there.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" I am definitely no expert on this. However, as I understand it, your assumption is an over simplification which might seem sensible at first glance, but is actually wrong. Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure. "

Fair comment, I will grant you this discussion is about small engines.

Conversely all certified aircraft have guidelines as to power settings and RPM for given power settings.

There are basically three power settings with limits on RPM.

Full power for take off.

Climb power.

Cruise power.

This whole discussion started with checks on the down wind.

My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship.

I then stated that I select full fine on the power reduction to land ( closing the throttle/s. )

I have also added the comments that should I for some reason have the need for go around power I will set go around RPM and climb power as I pitch up from the decending attitude to the climb attitude and there is sufficient time to do this without endangering the safety of the flight.

I also am of the opinion that a go around or the need to stop a uncommanded rate of descent does not constitute a stressful situation for me as I fly the approach and landing profiles with due care and attention to conditions.

When the propellor governor is set to full fine and the throttle/s are opened to produce enough power to compensate for a uncommanded loss of height/airspeed they will generally surge in RPM past climb RPM, I am of the opinion that this much RPM change is not needed under most every flight situation that you will encounter.......

.......or to put it another way, I do not recall ever having to use that much sudden power application in around thirty thousand hours of flying...and in some very critical situations I might add...

So I hope that better explains where I was coming from. :ok:

[QSK?]

EH?, what happens if you need to go around and you havn't got the prop fully fine? Happend in a Mooney once when I was not PIC and the prop wasnt fine and it didnt climb very well at all! I can't imagine how this can happen as the go-around drill (for a piston) that was drummed into me during my training was "Pitch up, power up, gear up, flap up etc". It sounds like maybe the PIC got flustered at the time and didn't go through the drill in the correct order(?)

Sorry, just a late edit. I was also taught that it was not always necessary to have the props fully fine on a go around. Just sufficiently high to allow the required application of MAP without overboosting the engines and still maintaining a reasonably high positive Roc. So, when on a go around off on an ILS approach (normally conducted at 18"MAP 2400RPM 120KIAS), I just advance the power levers to 24" which gets me started on the go around and after I have cleaned up I may elect to go to 25"/2500 RPM to complete the climb if required. Works well for me and presents very little hassle.

[Comanche250]

Miserlou, that was the point I was trying to make. In the a/c I fly, that figure is 1500 RPM and over that figure you will only get a small rise in RPM at a low MAP. And further to going fine on final its not really going to make a difference to engine wear.

"Whilst I feel that landing time is a time for landing not farting around with anything else, I reckon props should be the last item on the BEFORE landing checklist, not the downwind check."

Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check. As has been mentioned what happens if you dont conform to a standard circuit pattern and forget gear mixure etc, just as easy to do a pre-landing check which encompasses what are possibly the 3 most important things before landing imo.

Chuck, "My comments started with saying that setting the props to full fine on the down wind portion of the circuit was not in my opinion good airmanship."

Something else we agree on :p, which is why I do it on final, before landing.

C250

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here ....

Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check

I have no idea what a Red's Blue's Green's check is.

Once committed to a landing there is only one item that really matters to me and that is " Where am I landing and where is my gear "

I would not want to land on the runway with the gear up, and may not live to worry about it if I land on the water with the gear down.

For me the rest is routine, I can go around at cruise power if necessary, and if I need to move four levers at the same time I just think of it as flying a four engine airplane.....that makes me feel better anyhow....:E

[Comanche250]

Red = Mixture
Blue = Prop
Greens = Gear (3 'greens') or whatever applies.

"Once committed to a landing there is only one item that really matters to me and that is " Where am I landing and where is my gear " (Hopefully attached to the underside of the a/c) :p

Thats 2 things btw ;)

Thats what the RBG check is for!

C250

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" Red = Mixture
Blue = Prop
Greens = Gear (3 'greens') or whatever applies "


AAhh...so all I need do if I learn that pre landing check is just use blue and green in the Turbo Goose. :E

And remember to check green down or green up, depending on where I am landing. :ok:

[Comanche250]

:ok: lets face it, no one check is going to be perfect for every purpose.

C250

[bookworm]

...I feel I am being exctly the opposite as my thoughts on how to fly come from decades of experience and learning from experience, and not from the myopic world of ab-inito training,...

There's an interesting point lurking in there too.

On our Twin Comanche (2 x Lyc IO-320), I leave the props at 2400 rpm for approach and landing. In real-world operations, this has never once been a problem -- if I need to go around I simply push both throttles fully forward and climb without waking the neighbours: there's ample power available. The times when it has caused problems have been in training situations doing touch and goes. For a take-off roll, even from a rolling start, 2400 rpm makes a real difference to the length of runway required if I forget to push the props fine :blush:.

So I wonder if the insistence on "prop fully fine" before it's really needed stems from the needs of the training environment.

[bookworm]

Atkinson claims to have measured data which proves this. Apparently it is to do with higher RPMs resulting in lower internal cylinder pressure.

That, in itself, does not prove greater wear. I'm surprised that Atkinson makes that claim (I haven't seen the seminar material so I can't say if he does or doesn't) as it isn't really in keeping with what I know of the Deakin-Braly teaching on engine management.

I can well imagine that lower RPMs at high power setting can increase the cylinder pressure to a dangerous level, but I can't believe that the wear vs pressure relationship is linear enough to mean that this would extend to lower powers in a way that dominates the effect of engine revolutions.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" So I wonder if the insistence on "prop fully fine" before it's really needed stems from the needs of the training environment "

Where else can we give credit for this proceedure?

Somehow flight training gets these teaching methods set in concrete with the missguided beliefe that teaching people to operate these machines has to be done by only teaching a proceedure that ensures that no matter how slow their thinking process is they have it set up for a brain lock.

( There is a long sentence )

That teaching method does not allow for moving into more complex equipment were different power handling proceedures are required.

My problem is I'm from the generation that only acted after thinking...

..so for propellor pitch control we were taught ....prop pitch as required....

Saves having to relearn every time we fly something different.

[Deano777]

Chuck

Sorry for my late response, there is no doubting your vast experience, and I acknowledge that, I think we may have our wires crossed slightly too, I was not talking about pushing the props fully fine downwind, but on finals, and in the visual circuit I guess this would happen about 1½ miles out, and on an instrument approach probably about 5 miles. I wholeheartedly agree that pushing the props fine downwind is not the thing to do.
Because this is the way I have been trained I'd rather not start changing the way I do things for obvious reasons like forgetting to do it, however, I have forgotten the RBG check on the odd occasion and it didn't effect the go around at DA/MDA, I'd rather not forget to do it if I encountered another windsheer scenario 50ft above the surface :ok:

[englishal]

Interestingly, FADEC controlled engines don't move the pitch to fine on short final ;)

[CAT3C AUTOLAND]

To the original post, downwind checks is a bad habit. You should have the mind set of PRE LANDING CHECKS, you may go into an air traffic controlled airfield and never fly a downwind leg. Don't mean to be pedantic :).

[S-Works]

So it seems to me Deano that you are actually doing what is suggested without thinking about it. Arguing in agreement methinks.....

[Deano777]

Who's arguing? I'm not, we're discussing, however I suggest you are trying to incite one, I'm not doing it as suggested, my point still remains, I don't want to be doing the props fine thing in the flare, simple as that, I am merely stating that I thought Chuck may have thought I was talking about fining them downwind which wasn't the case, and there's a big difference between the hundreds of feet at the start of finals and the flare.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" and there's a big difference between the hundreds of feet at the start of finals and the flare. "

Exactly, now you are getting to better understand the issue, once in the flare the importance of where your prop pitch control/s are set is so far down your worry scale that you can just leave them in cruise as you touch down and taxi in to the parking area......

.....Just don't forget to put them in full fine before you attempt to aviate the next time you get in the thing.

I can't believe I'm still in this discussion.

[IO540]

I haven't read the whole thread but there are engines which cannot take full throttle without being close to max rpm. The IO540-C4D5D is one; there is a kink in the MP v. rpm data and one needs to be >=2400 before max MP can be applied. So it makes sense to go to full rpm on short final, in case of a go-around.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm kind of bored these last few weeks waiting for spring to arrive, so lets have another look at engine handling and all those exotic things that pilots so much love to discuss.

One can safely say that all turbocharged, supercharged piston engines can be damaged by over boosting.....

...but overboosting is not something that occurs until you open the throttle/'s past barometric pressure.

...now lets examine an approach.

Generally it is stabalized by two hundred feet above ground even when flying a very close in short circuit, so once stabalized and the runway is clearly in sight the landing should generally be assured.

However should you have to over shoot you do not have to act at the speed of light.

You can smoothly change the attitude nose up from the approach attitude to the climbing attitude and at the same time move the pitch control/'s and the throttle/'s to the required power and RPM, if the pitch control/,s are not in reach with one hand all you need do is move it into the desired RPM and then increase power with the throttle/'s..

...now back to the time element.

Close your eyes here at the computer screen and visualize these actions and count the seconds that the movements can smoothly be accomplished in.
Granted if the extra task of dealing with two power controls overwhelms a pilot then of course put the prop in fine pitch before you need it.

As I have previously stated if for some reason I feel I may need climb power due to say a wild ride turbulence wise of course I will use the needed RPM where and when required.

Just off hand I would estimate that would be about 3 to 5 % of the approaches.

[Gipsy Queen]

The recitation is not "Undercarriage Down" but "Undercarriage down AND LOCKED". Sometimes one tends to forget the nemonic sequence whilst waiting for the three greens and have to start again.

Comanche250 suggested lowering the gear first. I used to do this as it got the most important bit out of the way - you feel a little silly meeting the ground without wheels - and then progress to the other checks. Additionally, as the gear usually could be lowered at a speed higher than the flap extension limits, the drag was useful in getting the speed back to where you wanted it.

[fu 24 950]

Full fine below 15'' of MAP on final, use full power for the go around, not climb power, it is just like a take off, just a little higher to start with.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Full fine below 15'' of MAP on final, use full power for the go around, not climb power, it is just like a take off, just a little higher to start with.

There are a lot of pilots who read this and may take that to mean you use full power on the go around all the time.

Would this apply to all piston engine airplanes and all go arounds?

A go around is far different than a take off as you start the take off from zero speed, whereas a go around is commensed from a safe flying speed.

I can think of a few airplanes I wouldn't use that method of going around power wise in.

[Fuji Abound]

Sorry to sound sanctimonious but it is worth reading the thread before commenting - Chuck has spelled out his views about when and how to set up the aircraft before the landing quite clearly - you may disagree, but in order to do so you need to read what has been said before commenting and so avoid everyone going round - in circles.

[bookworm]

and one needs to be >=2400 before max MP can be applied. So it makes sense to go to full rpm on short final, in case of a go-around.

Surely that just means it makes sense to be at at least 2400 RPM on short final?

[IO540]

Yes. But at the power setting at short final the engine may not be developing enough power to spin even a fully-fine prop at 2400, so one has no way to set 2400 (one could if the governor lever was graduated in rpm but they aren't). The only governor setting which can be safely set (in anticipation of needing a lot of power) is max revs.

[bookworm]

But at the power setting at short final the engine may not be developing enough power to spin even a fully-fine prop at 2400, so one has no way to set 2400 (one could if the governor lever was graduated in rpm but they aren't).

So don't set it at low power. Set it when you still have enough MP on to reach 2400 RPM. And leave it there. Then when you go to full throttle, the RPM will go to 2400 RPM. Works for me...

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K. I now understand you guys are talking about small aircraft with relatively low HP engines that are used in the flight training schools.

Sorry for getting everyone all upset here I have been away from that sector of aviation for a lot of years and just did not clue on to what all this was about.

But the penny dropped finally and I apoligize for confusing some of you by trying to explain how we do it in bigger airplanes.

I wish to make just one more comment for some here to ponder over.

If the select RPM and Power as needed, when needed, works in large aircraft the same must hold true for small aircraft that are far, far less complex to operate. If I had operated big radials in the same manner as seems to be so popular in the basic training twins I would have ruined so many engines I would be unemployable.

One of the most unwanted forces in a large radial piston engine is reverse thrust on the internal moving parts....real exotic things start to happen when you fail to smoothly control the RPM power combinations.....

Anyhow enough of my ideas , whatever works for you should be just fine in general aviation basic aircraft.

[GroundBound]

I kept out of the debate on the prop level position on approach, as I haven't yet flown with a variable pitch prop. However, I will be soon, and the pre-landing (sic) checklist indicates prop - fine. Don't ask me to justify/explain it - its just there!

My original point was that I thought the usual mnemonic checks were unstructured, presumably derived from many moons ago, before we had more understanding of the human factors issues.

I was therefore wondering why such methods are still used. This also touches on the points raised by Chuck concerning training methods, i.e. we've always trained it this way, so let's keep doing it.

with thanks
GB

[englishal]

However, I will be soon, and the pre-landing (sic) checklist indicates prop - fine. Don't ask me to justify/explain it - its just there!
Be a bit careful about that though ;)

I know of a chap practicing forced landings in an arrow. Everything was going swimmingly well on the glide approach until short final when he went through the checklist like a robot - prop to fine. The plane then dropped out of the sky due to the big airbrake on the front, with no time to save it and it landed so heavily that it put two big dents in the top of the wings from the wheels (and needed a lot of repair work!):eek:

[Captain Smithy]

Think I'll stick to fixed props for the time being:ok:

[pulse1]

Having only a little time on VP aircraft I have never been sure when is the correct time to go into fine pitch. Reading this thread I am learning that it can be left quite late, i.e. short final.

I wonder, then, if any instructors from the various commercial flying schools at EGHH would mind getting their students to adopt this practice.

The only aircraft noise I find at all intrusive is that of a Duchess (or similar) going round the procedure turn onto the ILS, just over my house, with the props in fine making an awful noise, especially if they are out of sync.

All other aircraft noise I like or can ignore.

[Fuji Abound]

The only aircraft noise I find at all intrusive is that of a Duchess .. .. .. with the props in fine making an awful noise, especially if they are out of sync.

:)

Now I cant believe the instructors would allow that!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Suprise, Suprise I'm back!!!!!!

I just must add to this .....

The only aircraft noise I find at all intrusive is that of a Duchess (or similar) going round the procedure turn onto the ILS, just over my house, with the props in fine making an awful noise, especially if they are out of sync.

Some moons ago I owned a flight school.

My flight instructors were taugh to select props foward entering the procedure turn during instrument training.

I gave them a written directive this would not be tolerated in my twin engine airplane.

They told me that was the way it was taught and that was what they were going to do.

I gave them written notice of dismissal for cause.

They went to Transport Canada who had the temerity to call me and demand I stay out of how flight training was taught and I could not fire these instructors for the way they were teaching...I said I am not fireing them for the way they are teaching because they will not be teaching people to abuse my airplane, but I'll make you a deal.

You as the regulator give me a written guarantee that you will pay for any cost involved if these idiots who are using a method of engine handling that can shorten the life of my engines mandated by you and I will allow it.

Even though the IQ of most of the drones in TC flight training is in the low two digit range I was certain that enough of them would pool their IQ and rise to a number that would guarantee my engines would be operated the way I dictated to my employees.

I was correct, TC backed down and the instructors did it my way and produced a far better product not to mention my airplane was happy not being abused.

[rondon9897]

Any pilot that thinks that there could never be a cause for a sudden go around should not be teaching any form of flying instruction. The time to put the props to fine is on the approach at a point at which is dictated by sensible practice based on experience.

There is no such thing as DOWNWIND checks, unless you want to land wheels up from a base leg or final join.

Commanche, always use the landing gear to slow the aircraft down, very few people forget to slow down to land but many forget that landing without wheels can make you terminally unpopular.

[rondon9897]

By the way putting the props to fine downwind apart from being pointless causes an increase in noise which annoys local residents(as pointed out by several of them one night when we had a helmethead in the circuit)

[Comanche250]

Good point there rondon. Vle 129kts Vfe 107kts, I always wondered why I put the gear down first then the flaps. I always thought it was to let the tyres cool down :ugh:

On a slightly more serious note rondon..."putting the props to fine downwind apart from being pointless causes an increase in noise which annoys local residents" I agree :ok:

Just another minor point, are people here generally flying without gear up warning horns?

C250

[rondon9897]

Gear warning horns;

Using my theory (which i still teach) of applying two needs to aid memory those who rely on a gear warning horn will one day find. out the old adage never trust one man, one instrument, one gauge or one engine is still true today.

Did you hear the one about the Chief Pilot of Dan Air who landed the Comet wheels up at Newcastle, he was relying on the gear warning horn. His first comment after landing when the fire officer was looking through the cockpit DV window was, dont they have ******* tall firemen in Newcastle.

Remember slow down = gear down and you will always arrive at the same runway eye height you left with!

ASK CAPTAIN JON

[Comanche250]

Did I mention anything about relying on a gear warning horn?

Thats like relying on GPS, or as you say, one instrument or one engine.

But if its there you use it, and if its not there or not working CHECK IT, surely this is obvious? Maybe not.

C250

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Any pilot that thinks that there could never be a cause for a sudden go around should not be teaching any form of flying instruction. The time to put the props to fine is on the approach at a point at which is dictated by sensible practice based on experience.

Now I'm truly concerned about my being unfit to teach.

From reading my comments on how I teach rondon do you feel I should not be teaching any form of flying instruction?

[conflict alert]

I read this thread with interest. Chuck...your last comment..you owned a flight school and then sacked the people you hired??? Hmmm coz they didn't do it your way. Did you not interview them in the first place and establish their practises??

How many times have you travelled on a large twin and heard the props change on final (condition levers). Don't think they leave it in the cruise mode all the way thru descent and onto the ground.

englishal

your comment about the arrow..I own a T tail arrow. I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders. Putting the prop to full fine will only put 2 dents (as you put it) in the wings due to a heavy landing. I suggest to you that this would only happen when the aircraft is at a speed not sufficient to reduce the rate of descent (or flare) thereby indicating that the pilot was either trying to stretch out the glide profile to the point that the aircraft fell out of the sky or they just failed to flare althogether from a nose down dive! There is bugger all difference between fixed prop and CSU when it comes to engine failure....they all act like a break..and unless you have a feather function or want to pull the aircraft up into a vertical climb to stall the prop and stop rotation fully then it all comes down to the pilot. (I'm talking smaller aircraft).

Checks.........Bah humbug....left to right top to bottom and behind, everything gets covered. At the end of the day - fuel and the controls are the 2 things which seem to f..k people over every day. Each aircraft is different and the systems are different. As long as you go left to right top to bottom you should cover everything. Downwind checks consist of FUEL. In order to slow the plane down..I need to get everything hanging out. Only thing I'm religious on is the GP on final (gear pitch) and its just habbit.

Sorry, but I'm a firm believer in having the pitch fine...just one less lever to piss around with in the event of an overshoot. Having said that..it doesn't really matter in the Turbo Arrow I have..but still, it's a good practice as far as I'm concerned.

[stillin1]

Just for a laugh, I'll get back to the questions Groundbound asked;)
Yep, I do think that the standard "1 set of checks catches all" is illogical, in that it does not cater for the differences between ac. What it does do however is provide a basis for checks that, with thought and systems knowledge, can be used as a sound foundation for a very large number of types when appropriately modified :ok:
When the ac gets more complex the standard BUMPFFITCH …. etc become increasingly useless / pointless.
A specifically "type" designed set of checks based upon a logical flow around the cockpit or based upon grouping the checks into systems will be more functional (I preferred the "my friend fred has hairy balls mimonic, which got a chipmunk on the ground). And still use HASELL etc
IMHO, (having flown a lot of ac from the Chippy to HRH's fast jets) it is a case of horses for courses.
1. Read and understand the handbook for the ac and its systems.
2. Modify those checks to cater for the toys in that specific ac to achieve your aim = getting the ac set up safely & correctly for a specific phase / phases of flight.
3. Then do the checks every time:ok:
4. When presented with something new = STOP and have a little think:confused:

[Dave Unwin]

Conflict Alert said that

"I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders."


How does that work? I've flown over 40 different types of glider, but am not 'Type Rated' in any of them.
PS I'm with Chuck

[Fuji Abound]

Dave

Could be hes on a SA license, or

1. SEP

2. 37 different multis

3. 1 helicopter

4. 1 glider

:)

[Dave Unwin]

Hi Fuji, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't get a 'Type Rating' in a glider (unless it weighs over 5,700kg of course!!!!)

[GroundBound]

Stillin1

thanks for that - it was essentially the purpose of my post. I don't have the vast experience of others on this forum, but finding myself flying one or two different types (essentially the same, but with slightly different "toys", mostly in the fuel area), I did review what the checks were trying to achieve - i.e. *think* about it, what was different and why!

On the basis of that, I tried to develop my own check system that would encompass the essential elements in an ordered way (i.e. Fuel, Engine, Airframe, Instruments), rather than (what I consider to be disorganised) BUMp... If its organised, then it can logically be adapted to (any?) type.

As I will soon be doing some training on a slightly more advanced type, I was a little surprised to find the old BUMpfff.... rearing its head again, and which I obviously will have to re-learn.

GB

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I read this thread with interest. Chuck...your last comment..you owned a flight school and then sacked the people you hired??? Hmmm coz they didn't do it your way. Did you not interview them in the first place and establish their practises??

Conflict Alert, I see you have problems with comprehension.
So let me spell it out so you can understand.

They were my employees and I owned the airplane, I felt that I had the right to protect my investment from instructors who seemed to be more like religious fundamentalists than flight instructors, unable to accept anything other than what they were taught and believed in.

They were not terminated, I gave then a notice of dismissal if they were not prepared to operate my airplane as I wished.

It is my opinion that putting the props in high RPM doing holds at a beacon is just plain stupid and I do not keep stupid pilots on my pay roll.

[conflict alert]

CHUCK
My reference to high RPM (pitch fine) is on final. I couldn't agree with you more regarding holding patterns, in fact I fly reduced power when holding. I can assure you that I have no problem with comprehension at all, I was merely making the point that I was suprised you would employ a bunch of people without first checking their practises. The aircraft is your biggest and most important asset in a flying business and I wouldn't just let any Joe fly it without first going for a strop with them.

DAVE

Type Ratings - in NZ you must be type rated on an aircraft before flying solo or pax. We used to have a Group Rating system which was disestablished some years ago e.g. fixed gear /CSU. You could then technically fly any aircraft that was fixed gear with CSU provided you did 3 takeoffs and landings. This was changed and you are now required to get a Type Rating on each type of aircraft.

My Gliding Logbook has a section in the front where you are required to show which Gliders you are rated to fly and these entries must be signed by an Instructor.

My Helicopter / Fixed Wing Logbook have pages at the back dedicated to 'TYPE RATING' which again is signed off by an Instructor for each aircraft type you have rated in.

Quote
TYPE RATING CERTIFICATE
"This is to certify that (name) has successfullly demonstrated to the instructor whose signature appears below, technical knowledge of the aircraft and ability to perform competently all normal, ab normal and emergency manoeuvres appropriate to the aircraft type in accordance with the requirements of Civil Aviation Rule Part 61 Sub-Part B.

Unquote

FUJI your unfounded sarcasm is noted. Different countries - different rules

[Fuji Abound]

FUJI your unfounded sarcasm is noted. Different countries - different rules

I would have preferred tongue in cheek however I did guess correctly your background was other than European.

Tongue in cheek IMHO an argument should stack up on its own merits and not because the proponent is coming from having a million hours to his credit or 500 types because on a forum like this you are likely to find the person before has two million hours .. .. .. :)

Still an interesting debate .. .. ..

[Dave Unwin]

Fair enough Conflict. I think my problem is that I've flown a few different types here and there, and just can't get my head round why any small, simple flying machine needs a 'Type Rating'. To me, if its got a 'Type Rating' its big (heavier than 5,700kg) and complicated. What on Earth does the procedure for being granted a 'Type Rating' for something as simple as a K-8 glider actually entail? Many many years ago, the K-8 was the first single-seat sailplane I ever flew. If I'm reading the NZ rules right, I'd have needed to be 'Type Rated' in the -8 before going solo - but its a single-seater. In NZ, are you really granted a 'Type Rating' to fly something, before you've ever flown it?
I'm not trying to be funny - am genuinely curious.

[conflict alert]

DAVE - I know, quite bizzare isn't it, but the anwser is yes. Its a bit of an anomoly with the single seaters.....but it still has to be signed off BUT after you have conducted a flight (sorry, might have put you crook with my previous comment. I wasn't thinking about singles when I wrote that). For example the PW5 and LS4 involved a briefing and sitting in the machine - followed by an observed flight from the ground, and having satisfied the instructor, I was signed off as type rated. Same for the Pawnee - involved the instructor sitting on the wing and going thru things - watching me conduct 3 takeoff and landings and then signed me off as type rated.

FUJI - I get your point, while I agree that a discussion ( or as you say - argument) should stack up on its own merits, I also believe that when stating something, at times, its prudent to back it up. I could easily have said don't worry about checklists-waste of time, having only flown 1 aircraft. However on this debate, I thought it prudent to state that I had flown a wide range of aircraft (Quote "I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders") to provide substance or credence to my comments regarding the checklists. And no...I don't have a million hours.;) Cheers

[Dave Unwin]

I understand now Conflict, although I still find the whole idea of being 'Type Rated' in a PW-5, or even a Pawnee, as very odd. I have around 2,500hrs in Pawnees, but do not hold a 'Type Rating' for the PA-25.
It sounds like you have even more rules in NZ than we do! :confused:

[englishal]

your comment about the arrow..I own a T tail arrow. I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders. Putting the prop to full fine will only put 2 dents (as you put it) in the wings due to a heavy landing. I suggest to you that this would only happen when the aircraft is at a speed not sufficient to reduce the rate of descent (or flare) thereby indicating that the pilot was either trying to stretch out the glide profile to the point that the aircraft fell out of the sky or they just failed to flare althogether from a nose down dive! There is bugger all difference between fixed prop and CSU when it comes to engine failure....they all act like a break..and unless you have a feather function or want to pull the aircraft up into a vertical climb to stall the prop and stop rotation fully then it all comes down to the pilot. (I'm talking smaller aircraft).

I don't have any type ratings ;) But have flown most PA28's, including Arrow II and Arrow IV. The incident I refer to was in an Arrow II.......Anyway, my comment was to illustrate the dangers of being a robot and not thinking what you are doing but just doing them because the checklist says so.

In an Arrow there is a vast difference between RoD with the prop pulled back or pushed forward.......Granted if the engine has indeed failed the prop will probably be fully fine anyway, but in my example said chap just went through the checks, and was probablly going to *just* make it ok, but introducing the fully fine prop pushed them over the edge and they did indeed landed heavy and badly damaged the plane.