GA8 Endo in Brisbane [Archive]

Jabawocky

26th May 2015, 07:02

And study the POH and report back with the dumbest POH entry you can find. :ok:

Yes the guys at GA know about it too (after I found it)….but nobody does anything because it is too hard to fix, but hey they and the numpty at CASA that approved it :ugh::ugh::ugh:

A quick hint for the smart ones thinking what is Jaba up to here. It is a procedure that is (a) not going to achieve the objective intended and does the exact opposite, (b) is actually harder on the engine than the way it was meant to be operated. :}

I know one lot of GA8 guys who now know the POH is wrong and I think they have amended their ops manuals. So those guys might know.

Chocky frog to the first person who finds it :ok:

pistnbroke_again

26th May 2015, 07:22

I actually really enjoyed flying the airvan. Nice and easy but prepare for a sore butt and back! As everyone here has said, 200 time is more valuable. You can literally get in an airvan and fly it no dramas

theSOD

26th May 2015, 08:19

Hey all thanks for the replies.

Tried Air Fraser and they wont do any time on type for the public. Not sure why didn't say. Is there any operators that run the airvan in Northern NSW?

As for the other comments, I have got some time on the 200's series. Was looking to add another string to my bow and get a couple hours on the airvan. From what ive heard it basically flies itself.

wishiwasupthere

26th May 2015, 08:33

Except that most operators require 5 hours on type for insurance purposes...

You'll get that as ICUS anyway.

Squawk7700

26th May 2015, 08:59

ICUS?

So you call up an operator at Lake Eyre after the last guy quit abruptly, trying to secure an Airvan job and have no time on type. Do you think they are going to give you 5 hours ICUS whilst you find your feet? No.

Edit: With no time on type your resume would likely quickly hit the bottom of the pile and someone else will have started work whilst you are still waiting for an email reply.

skkm

26th May 2015, 09:03

At least one operator does.

wishiwasupthere

26th May 2015, 09:10

ICUS? So you call up an operator at Lake Eyre after the last guy quit abruptly, trying to secure an Airvan job and have no time on type. Do you think they are going to give you 5 hours ICUS whilst you find your feet? No.

Any operator with a shred of professionalism should. Every job I've had had anywhere from about 5 to 20 hours ICUS (depending on aircraft) before being let loose.

theSOD

26th May 2015, 11:47

yeah thanks for that, however Im looking at taking the time on type back to NZ or to Africa, where you do actually need it on your licence tyvm

iPahlot

26th May 2015, 20:51

The only Airvan that I know of that is for general hire is down in the latrobe valley at the aeroclub.

Most operators won't give you time on their aircraft because for insurance and training purposes you'd have to be an employee.

Squawk7700, if that operator won't give someone ICUS when they start then I think they'd be in the vast minority.

Also a bizarre tactic for a scenic flight company. "That over there ladies and gentlemen is Lake....errrr " <scrambles for WAC> ":mad: where are we? Oh right that is lake eyre.. no wait!..."

Squawk7700

26th May 2015, 22:22

There are two 21 year old CPL's from the same flying school sausage factory, both nice guys, equivalent in skills. 1 has 10 Airvan hours and the other has none... Who will get the job flying the Airvan?

Left 270

26th May 2015, 23:41

^7700

The better suited to the company, in every case i've seen. What effort/cost in in 5-10hrs ICUS? Negligible

theSOD

27th May 2015, 02:29

I know of a well established and high reputation air carrier in the NT that doesn't pay you for your ICUS, so its no loss to them either way.

Pilots by day, professional pizza makers by night.:ok:

Left 270

27th May 2015, 03:10

"high reputation air carrier" "Doesnt pay for ICUS"

Not sure that they can be in the same sentence.

I also think the other mobs on the field might take offence to them being described as " high reputation air carrier" :ok:

wishiwasupthere

27th May 2015, 03:12

High reputation but doesn't pay for an employee's ICUS (which considering it can be done during revenue flights, is a negligible cost)? Sounds like a good place to avoid!

hestonfysh

27th May 2015, 03:59

You might be avoiding most of GA then!

Having a good reputation is all relative remember.

Squawk7700

27th May 2015, 04:30

ICUS on revenue flights isn't free considering a paying passenger may be paying $100 or more for an hours joy flight. There's $1,000 in lost revenue.

Where are all of these mythical employers that are giving jobs to job seeking pilots with zero time on type? We can add them to the newby pilots section! Sounds like a great way for newbies to get some 200 series time!

hestonfysh

27th May 2015, 04:52

ICUS on revenue flights isn't free considering a paying passenger may be paying $100 or more for an hours joy flight. There's $1,000 in lost revenue.

You might want to check you arithmetic there, or explain it.... Of course there is the potential to loose revenue by having two pilots up the front, but generally I have found operators will fit in ICUS flights around fully loaded flights.

I have come across many a GA operator who run ICUS on revenue flights where they are not paying the pilot who is being "ICUSed." It seems an industry norm.

Where are all of these mythical employers that are giving jobs to job seeking pilots with zero time on type? We can add them to the newby pilots section! Sounds like a great way for newbies to get some 200 series time!

I wouldn't say they are mythical at all. My first job was with a 206/207/210 operator and I didn't have any 200 series time. I received about 15 hours ICUS I think until he (and his insurer) were satisfied.

I have worked for other companies where we have had smaller and larger Cessnas. A number of guys/girls would start on the smaller ones before moving up to the larger aircraft. They didn't have time of type.

It's hard enough getting a job, I doubt many 'Newbies' would p!ss off once they get their 10 hours or whatever.

Squawk7700

27th May 2015, 04:54

Ok, so you raised charter flight. Who is going to take on someone with no time on type when there are plenty of others out there with time on type that are of a similar background?

The OP wanted time in a specific type and everyone is trying to talk him out of it. You only have to look at the a AFAP jobs to see that operators are requesting time on type as a minimum selection criteria, so why does everyone seem to think they they are entitled to free ICUS? Your new employer will want you learning the routes and then commentary, not learning to fly their aircraft, at their expense!

wishiwasupthere

27th May 2015, 05:21

Free ICUS??? How is it free? ICUS should be considered a training cost that an employer is willing to undertake when they take on new staff.

I hope you're not an employer of pilots Squawk7700! You sound like you'd be a great person to work for!

Not blowing my own trumpet, but in 3 of the 4 GA jobs I've had (including 2 twin jobs) I had no time on type before I started. Nor did I pay for any endorsements, however I did make gentlemans agreements (and stuck by them) to providea at least a suitable return of service before looking to move on. Good operators are certainly not mythical.

Squawk7700

27th May 2015, 06:14

I am not an employer.

I just can't understand how everyone is saying in this thread that you don't need any time on type to get a job and the employer should pay you for ICUS, but yet in every other thread regarding getting jobs (particularly scoring a first job up north) everyone is saying that you need XX hours of 200 series time etc. Perhaps things in the industry have changed that much in the last 3 months since one of those threads was posted!

I will stop now so don't say the same thing over and over.

c100driver

27th May 2015, 06:53

theSOD, for the purposes of getting an airvan endo on your kiwi licence you need to have 5 hours command in your logbook. That automatically gives you the endo in New Zealand.

No such thing as an "endo" or endorsement in New Zealand.

Each different model requires a formal type rating.

Lumps

27th May 2015, 08:50

Jaba - turbocharged or NA?

The turbo one has some shocking advice, NA nothing that we haven't seen before... unless I'm missing something.

theSOD

27th May 2015, 11:00

I seem to have opened a can of worms.

I also hold a NZ CPL so I am well aware of that, thanks though.

Jabawocky

27th May 2015, 12:01

Lumps
Jaba - turbocharged or NA?

The turbo one has some shocking advice, NA nothing that we haven't seen before... unless I'm missing something.

I am glad we are over the bickering and onto something educational.

I was referring to the N/A bird. yes it is true the TC one has some poor operational stuff too, but most are N/A and the clanger is quite bizarre but nobody picks it up.

Some background, teaching a class to the worlds biggest GA fleet pilots and LAME's about 12 months ago, discussion centred around POH and some basic handling matters…….I was gobsmacked at the stupidity of the claim of what was in the POH and why it was there. After I went through it we all agreed it was dumb. So I asked George when I met him at OSH on the GA stand, he agreed.

I have had one PM and this post so far. Not many critical thinkers in the GA8 fleet it seems. And no, if you fly them I do not blame you, you were told to be parrots not thinkers, just like I was. Do not feel I am beating up on you.

So what do you reckon Lumps?:ok:

FoolCorsePich

27th May 2015, 12:44

I am glad we are over the bickering and onto something educational.

This isn't BT.

I've read the POH twice now and I can't find anything super obvious.

Apart from disagreeing with a number of things written in there the only thing I can find coming remotely close to fitting in with the riddle is:

"best economy - enrich 0_o mixture until the EGT indicator is 25-50deg F rich of peak EGT"

PilotInPink

27th May 2015, 12:58

I'm missing it too... Even with an additional hint of which section to look in :confused:

I've been asking around the other operators in town as well, between us we're operating close to 30 Airvans. But still, we've come up with nothing.

Unless we are talking about an over-square power setting... And that's not a discussion I feel like reading again.

On the search however, we did find a typo in the Lycoming engine handbook :cool:.

gerry111

27th May 2015, 14:58

Somewhere I heard (or read) that running your engine 50 degrees F rich of peak EGT is the WORST way to run your engine. :ok:

Lumps

28th May 2015, 08:53

Jaba - I give up!

Aside from the usual Lycoming prattle below, nothing pops out. For the sake of any other dyslexic/low IQ GA8 operators out there would you be able to illuminate us?

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll25/Anatole_Mills/8cfdb1ec-bf7e-498a-b911-3852bd68d7a8_zpsv37ovaaq.png

Tankengine

28th May 2015, 09:13

Rum pouring, popcorn in microwave!:E

Jabawocky

28th May 2015, 11:58

Onya Tankie :ok:

OK the Section 4 entry is the soft target, and obviously the easy one to find. In this day and age I think we all realise that section 4 is not the same significant section as section 2. Having said that CASA certified this not the FAA so who knows what CASA consider non negotiable.

But anyway the big silly one is in section 2. It states;
NOTE
2700 RPM may only be used for take-off to a safe height as required to clear
obstacles or reach 250ft AGL. Operations at 2700 RPM are limited to a
maximum period of two minutes. For all other operations maximum power is
to be limited to MCP at 2500 RPM.

Now ask yourself the question why this was put in there? The obvious first response to the unknowing person is…..ohh its an engine limitation. :hmm:

NOPE!!!

Anyone care to guess what they were trying to achieve, but in the end achieved the exact opposite, and effectively made life harder on the engine? (albeit slightly and not seriously, but harder, less efficient etc and certainly not optimal)

By the way, despite what the POH says, this is one case where if you operate one or own one, you would ignore this and use 2700 all the way to TOC, and before any rule nazi gets going, if you are in commercial ops you would rewrite your ops manual accordingly and get CASA to sign off on it.

It is akin to Toyota having in their operation manila a statement saying apply hand brake, start car, select D and drive off. This is a genuine mistake of a good idea with unintended consequences.

To achieve the desired outcome they should have written, take-off at 2500-2600 RPM, passing 1500' or maximum two minutes apply full 2700 RPM for the climb. If runway length or obstacle clearance dictates full performance use 2700 RPM for the entire climb.

Hopefully that has given a clue to the astute folk among you. ;)

Sorry ….its a brain bender because of the way everyone has been bludgeoned into thinking the POH is beyond reproach! (Most have gross BS in them somewhere :sad: )

FoolCorsePich

28th May 2015, 12:57

Sigh, I was going to post that but I personally didn't think it was that big of a misdemeanour on their part as you were alluding to. Sure its another artificial limitation though. Should have gone with my gut feeling.

When I fly the Airvan I go full throttle on take-off where it stays for the duration on the flight. Due to operating in a noise sensitive area once clear of obstacles I actually further retard the RPM to 2400-2300 where that also stays for the duration the flight. I'm another one of those lazy ones that likes to minimize fiddling in the cockpit. Once leveled out the mixture comes a fair way back and I'm done.

PilotInPink

28th May 2015, 14:13

Not feeling so dumb now... That statement is not in the copy of the POH that I'm looking at. Must be a later amendment.

I assume that the procedure is for noise abatement.

Jabawocky

28th May 2015, 21:36

OK, two Chocky frogs! :ok:

Yeah it was for noise abatement. But Section 2 ???

To minimise noise about 2600 is all you need to reduce to, and once above 1500' the effective noise is reduced by distance so you might as well run it back to 2700.

This is kinder on the engine by means of lower peak cylinder pressure, hence CHT, and more climb power available thus quicker to TOC.

FCP, I assume you are not climbing very high.

Good work guys :ok:

PIP …… maybe they have fixed that in recent versions. The one I have is 10+ years old. The TC version does not have it either.

This is yet another reason why critical thinking of POH's is necessary. Many are far from sensible, and some are very poor.

Lumps

28th May 2015, 22:51

Yeah the later models do not have that in the POH, as they have a 'gate' that limits RPM to 2500 for take off.

Going through the gate is labelled EMERGENCY. Snort. 2700rpm in an IO-540-K, hardly an emergency.

Jaba - I recall that the difference in peak pressure's etc didn't shift a huge amount from 27to2500 RPM? The effect is there and noticeable, but all in all not a big one, when looking at actual ICP/CHT numbers? Over a year since I did the APS course so some things are starting to fade...

I will give full credit to Lycoming and GA for this though, at 2500rpm and 29" the thing is flowing 100 litres per hour (275hp). And that is how it comes out of the factory.:D

As compared to the 89 lph advocated by the A36 AFM (IO550) for same power setting:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll25/Anatole_Mills/dbabc3ee-2fde-41c9-a685-dead6cc2ee6c_zpsuiylovii.png

Another thing for any other GA8 drivers, seeing as this thread has slowly, and thankfully, morphed into something else - if you only have the factory analogue tacho get a TrueTac or similar and verify it is telling the truth. We installed a JPI and found that it was under reading by over 100rpm. This is on a new aircraft! Also, the error is non-linear - as in at lowish RPM there is negligible error, but grows with increasing RPM. It needs to be checked in flight! (preferably)

It meant we were getting 2600+ on take off. Perfect! Only problem here is if you go through the gate and leave it there you may be running it at over 2800rpm, and you may want to check Lycoming SB.369I

Squawk7700

28th May 2015, 23:18

For those that think that the Airvan is a piece of cake to fly etc etc, how do you get fuel from the left tank into the right? (without looking at the POH)

xxilim

28th May 2015, 23:35

I recall several months ago when I had a chance to look through the GA10.

The test pilot stated the FAA certified GA8 doesn't have this "emergency" restriction, and found it rather ridiculous that the same machine can operate balls to the wall with no restrictions alongside our own CASA certified machines.

Lumps

29th May 2015, 01:26

For those that think that the Airvan is a piece of cake to fly etc etc, how do you get fuel from the left tank into the right? (without looking at the POH)

With jerry cans?

I thought there were one way valves in the fuel system, and parking on a slope doesn't flow left to right or vice versa. Pretty sure you can't, stand to be corrected though.

You can get the engine to use left or right tanks by rolling the aircraft in the direction that means one of the fuel floats goes up, closes the fuel off for the side you don't want to use while simultaneously dropping the other fuel float and opening that valve. Which way do you roll? All GA drivers would know I'd say...

Jabawocky

29th May 2015, 03:55

Lumps

:ok: On all accounts

I just now realised who you are (I think) and in that case you have done well in remembering things…… did you remember offering some low level low speed training one day?

:ok:

Squawk7700

29th May 2015, 04:43

You are correct.... and my question was somewhat poorly worded.

I saw the under seat fuel assemblies being assembled in a home garage in Stratford and was advised that the feeds are opposite, so left wing down will feed from the left wing ;)

PilotInPink

29th May 2015, 08:10

I checked another two manuals this morning (serials 023 from 2002 and 202 from just last year) and still came up with nothing.

But then, we don't have the emergency power gate.

I don't suppose it could be a CASA imposed limitation that somehow is not in the manuals of aircraft operated outside of Australia? Though that seems like a lot of effort.

27/09

29th May 2015, 08:42

I remember doing a demo flight with GA's David Wheatland a few years back now. If I recall that aircraft had the "Gate" on the prop lever. I was told the "Gate" was, as Jaba says, for noise abatement.

I couldn't help thinking that if it were my aircraft that "Gate" would be removed, I didn't see any point in restricting the aircrafts performance.

To be fair though as silly as the idea of the gate sounds, it's probably the only way to meet noise level requirements for certification in some jurisdictions. They only worry about the peak noise, not how long it goes for.

I think PAC had to go to a four bladed prop for noise requirements for the 750 XL sold in some parts of Europe. These weren't certification requirements but airfield requirements where there were cumulative daily decibel limits. e.g. you could have 1 take off at 100 decibels or 5 take offs at 20 decibels.

FoolCorsePich

29th May 2015, 09:00

AFAIK the gate was for put in place to meet Eurotrash requirements in particular. By saying anything above 2500RPM is for abnormal situations only, they met the noise targets. Obviously the difference in take-off performance wasn't big enough for them to worry about and it was easier to just make it standard across all Airvans. It's sometimes a drag when some of the more observant pax notice you position the lever in the emergency position and you feel the need to go through the rigmarole of explaining that its basically just a sticker. Sometimes you get the vibe that theyre thinking to themselves 'righto this pilot knows too much for his own good'.