Prop RPM during the approach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop RPM during the approach.
I am going to move this discussion from the check list thread over here where we can discuss it as a stand alone subject.
I will first state that I do not increase prop RPM during the landing approach until I pull power off for the landing, then I push the lever/ s full forward. ( Or the pilot not flying does in a two crew device. )
Unless there is a need for increased RPM due to some unusual circumstance such as turbulence or airframe icing to name two possibilities I use the above procedure.
Here is why.
Increasing RPM on approach increases piston travel thus causing unneeded wear through friction in all piston engines.
Large piston engines are subject to reverse bearing loading caused by under squaring of power due to the airflow driving the engine thus causing reversing thrust loading of the bearings and counter weights.
When conducting an approach for a landing I am going down hill which requires less power than level flight, if I change my profile from descending to climbing I then select climb RPM followed by climb power I am hard pressed to think of a situation where there would not be time to smoothly perform these actions.
If a pilot gets into a situation where said pilot has to ram on take off power to salvage an approach or go around and does not have time to select the proper RPM for the power required it shows that said pilot was way behind the airplane thus displaying a serious lack of airmanship.
Having done tens of thousands of touch and go type flying using cruise RPM on the approach to power back for the touch down before increasing prop RPM, it has worked just fine for me.
I will first state that I do not increase prop RPM during the landing approach until I pull power off for the landing, then I push the lever/ s full forward. ( Or the pilot not flying does in a two crew device. )
Unless there is a need for increased RPM due to some unusual circumstance such as turbulence or airframe icing to name two possibilities I use the above procedure.
Here is why.
Increasing RPM on approach increases piston travel thus causing unneeded wear through friction in all piston engines.
Large piston engines are subject to reverse bearing loading caused by under squaring of power due to the airflow driving the engine thus causing reversing thrust loading of the bearings and counter weights.
When conducting an approach for a landing I am going down hill which requires less power than level flight, if I change my profile from descending to climbing I then select climb RPM followed by climb power I am hard pressed to think of a situation where there would not be time to smoothly perform these actions.
If a pilot gets into a situation where said pilot has to ram on take off power to salvage an approach or go around and does not have time to select the proper RPM for the power required it shows that said pilot was way behind the airplane thus displaying a serious lack of airmanship.
Having done tens of thousands of touch and go type flying using cruise RPM on the approach to power back for the touch down before increasing prop RPM, it has worked just fine for me.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can certainly understand your views...and even add that it is less noisy for all concerned.
But...I would still put my prop forward/high rpm and just fly that way.
I've seen two situations where all the advance planning and airmanship went the heck out the window and full power was needed.
Wind shear comes to mind and violent evasive action to avoid a crash/collision. so I hope these things don't happen to you...but I would rather be ready than not.
But...I would still put my prop forward/high rpm and just fly that way.
I've seen two situations where all the advance planning and airmanship went the heck out the window and full power was needed.
Wind shear comes to mind and violent evasive action to avoid a crash/collision. so I hope these things don't happen to you...but I would rather be ready than not.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck;
Absolutely, and I would agree with your procedure which is mine as well. The subject of running up the prop at all, and WHEN and under WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES should exist when the prop is run up on final are two entirely different issues.
My procedure is exactly what you have stated as yours. You should be power BACK before running up the prop for certain. Anyone who has heard a pilot run up the prop on a T6 on downwind while at cruise power will attest to the immediate need to find a pair of good earmuffs :-))
The OTHER issue, and the important issue concerns LEAVING the prop (s) in cruise THROUGH the landing, and I am absolutely opposed to that.
DH
Absolutely, and I would agree with your procedure which is mine as well. The subject of running up the prop at all, and WHEN and under WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES should exist when the prop is run up on final are two entirely different issues.
My procedure is exactly what you have stated as yours. You should be power BACK before running up the prop for certain. Anyone who has heard a pilot run up the prop on a T6 on downwind while at cruise power will attest to the immediate need to find a pair of good earmuffs :-))
The OTHER issue, and the important issue concerns LEAVING the prop (s) in cruise THROUGH the landing, and I am absolutely opposed to that.
DH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Protecthehornet I have heard the same opinions given over and over from pilots paranoid about the possibility of having to ram on full power due to an unexpected situation suddenly requiring full power.
With regard to turbulence you will note it is one of the times I will select higher RPM to help stabilize an approach, however should full power be required I am quite capable of pushing the prop lever/s forward with the throttle//s at the same time.
As to your concern for my safety I appreciate it and would like to point out that I have encountered some of the most violent turbulence one could imagine during the fifteen years I flew heavy water bombers in both N. and S. America and obviously my procedures for power handling have worked quite well as I never wrecked an airplane.
Power application to salvage a departure from controlled flight is a very risky crutch to rely on, I use energy conservation and try and stay in the safe speed regions of flight so inertia will give me time to safely use full power should I need it.
Once again may I express my opinion that planning ahead and flying the airplane with due regard for conditions negates the need to beat the hell out of my engines running them at an RPM that is not needed for the flight profile I am flying.
I am a firm believer in examining the outcome of a given method of handling power and the way I fly has worked safely for me during the past half a century of doing it for a living.
Smooth power handling will result in long engine life, compared to being a throttle jockey which can result in short engine life.
With regard to turbulence you will note it is one of the times I will select higher RPM to help stabilize an approach, however should full power be required I am quite capable of pushing the prop lever/s forward with the throttle//s at the same time.
As to your concern for my safety I appreciate it and would like to point out that I have encountered some of the most violent turbulence one could imagine during the fifteen years I flew heavy water bombers in both N. and S. America and obviously my procedures for power handling have worked quite well as I never wrecked an airplane.
Power application to salvage a departure from controlled flight is a very risky crutch to rely on, I use energy conservation and try and stay in the safe speed regions of flight so inertia will give me time to safely use full power should I need it.
Once again may I express my opinion that planning ahead and flying the airplane with due regard for conditions negates the need to beat the hell out of my engines running them at an RPM that is not needed for the flight profile I am flying.
I am a firm believer in examining the outcome of a given method of handling power and the way I fly has worked safely for me during the past half a century of doing it for a living.
Smooth power handling will result in long engine life, compared to being a throttle jockey which can result in short engine life.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
protectthehornet;
I think we're finally getting straightened out here :-))
If the issue is WHEN to bring up the prop rather than WHETHER to bring it up at all, then power back and close in on final are the way to go .
Landing with the prop in cruise in my opinion is NOT the way to go.
DH
I think we're finally getting straightened out here :-))
If the issue is WHEN to bring up the prop rather than WHETHER to bring it up at all, then power back and close in on final are the way to go .
Landing with the prop in cruise in my opinion is NOT the way to go.
DH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudley, you are correct that leaving the props in cruise during the landing is being a cretin.
If you read my posts you will note we both do it the same way, props/ s forward once power is reduced below positive thrust.
Lets use two airplanes that I have flown about ten thousand hours on collectively, the DC3 /C117 Super DC3 and the PBY.
On both airplanes I generally have the throttles fully closed before I get to one hundred feet to touch down, at that point the props are moved forward to full fine.
When I first received dual on the Pitts Special I had a difficult time leaving the prop and throttle full forward during the whole process of aerobating the thing and never did really feel at ease with running an engine like that.
I guess its hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
If you read my posts you will note we both do it the same way, props/ s forward once power is reduced below positive thrust.
Lets use two airplanes that I have flown about ten thousand hours on collectively, the DC3 /C117 Super DC3 and the PBY.
On both airplanes I generally have the throttles fully closed before I get to one hundred feet to touch down, at that point the props are moved forward to full fine.
When I first received dual on the Pitts Special I had a difficult time leaving the prop and throttle full forward during the whole process of aerobating the thing and never did really feel at ease with running an engine like that.
I guess its hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudley, you are correct that leaving the props in cruise during the landing is being a cretin.
If you read my posts you will note we both do it the same way, props/ s forward once power is reduced below positive thrust.
Lets use two airplanes that I have flown about ten thousand hours on collectively, the DC3 /C117 Super DC3 and the PBY.
On both airplanes I generally have the throttles fully closed before I get to one hundred feet to touch down, at that point the props are moved forward to full fine.
When I first received dual on the Pitts Special I had a difficult time leaving the prop and throttle full forward during the whole process of aerobating the thing and never did really feel at ease with running an engine like that.
I guess its hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
If you read my posts you will note we both do it the same way, props/ s forward once power is reduced below positive thrust.
Lets use two airplanes that I have flown about ten thousand hours on collectively, the DC3 /C117 Super DC3 and the PBY.
On both airplanes I generally have the throttles fully closed before I get to one hundred feet to touch down, at that point the props are moved forward to full fine.
When I first received dual on the Pitts Special I had a difficult time leaving the prop and throttle full forward during the whole process of aerobating the thing and never did really feel at ease with running an engine like that.
I guess its hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Right now I'm getting ready to do a presentation on display flight safety in Belgium where I'll be dealing with the high performance prop fighter go around situation.
The go around issue is in the works for this seminar if I can squeeze it in.
D
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, there you are...reduced power as on approach and in this case, reduced prop rpm...if you do go to full fine/high rpm the first thing that happens is that you slightly increase drag until you bring up the throttle.
I used to work for a joint that had us ''stage cool' during the decent. what a difficult thing to do in real life, IFR, comply with ATC requests etc.
This was in light planes I should say.
just wondering how you might react to massive wake turbulence encounter at low rpm?
Listen, with your experience you will have no problem...but it is the young pilot with 200 hours or so that is asking for trouble
and then there is the turboprop...
I used to work for a joint that had us ''stage cool' during the decent. what a difficult thing to do in real life, IFR, comply with ATC requests etc.
This was in light planes I should say.
just wondering how you might react to massive wake turbulence encounter at low rpm?
Listen, with your experience you will have no problem...but it is the young pilot with 200 hours or so that is asking for trouble
and then there is the turboprop...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK it probably stems from the fact that most if not all CPL/IR's have been taught using staff examiner approved checklists.
I haven't seen one yet that doesn't have RPM up at the 1000' foot checks. (mind you I haven't seen many)
As for the reason why?
Gowds knows one of the RAF exCFS instructors will probably be able to tell you. I have a sneaky suspicion it will date back to WW2 aircraft.
Although I don't have a problem with what you say Chuck I suspect your (and your peers) capacity flying a VPP is far higher than most. The rpms up at 1000 above is just one more thing out of the way to allow full concentration on the last bit of the approach.
And turboprop its no great shakes if the RPM's are selected late but again you sometimes get a bit of lag on one side a bit of yawing, power changes etc. For very good reason the RPM's being up are included in the stable approach criteria. Apart from which the modern slippy TP's you will struggle getting the speed back to something sensible on a 3 deg slope.
I haven't seen one yet that doesn't have RPM up at the 1000' foot checks. (mind you I haven't seen many)
As for the reason why?
Gowds knows one of the RAF exCFS instructors will probably be able to tell you. I have a sneaky suspicion it will date back to WW2 aircraft.
Although I don't have a problem with what you say Chuck I suspect your (and your peers) capacity flying a VPP is far higher than most. The rpms up at 1000 above is just one more thing out of the way to allow full concentration on the last bit of the approach.
And turboprop its no great shakes if the RPM's are selected late but again you sometimes get a bit of lag on one side a bit of yawing, power changes etc. For very good reason the RPM's being up are included in the stable approach criteria. Apart from which the modern slippy TP's you will struggle getting the speed back to something sensible on a 3 deg slope.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Enroute to sand.
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always read checklists(proper ones that is) with a view there is a reason for every commad....and also there is a reason for its location.
Somebody somewhere messed up or missed something and hence the checklist order is to avoid these cock ups.
Full RPM is a check list command in a critical part of flight...so you should be doing it!!
you dont wait for the engine to cut out before you increase the mixture control!?!
It probably relates to windshear or engine failure situations.
that extra fraction of a second it take you to worry about the RPM lever could be difference in seeing your family at the end of the flight and not seeing them.Was it worth saving wear then?
Somebody somewhere messed up or missed something and hence the checklist order is to avoid these cock ups.
Full RPM is a check list command in a critical part of flight...so you should be doing it!!
you dont wait for the engine to cut out before you increase the mixture control!?!
It probably relates to windshear or engine failure situations.
that extra fraction of a second it take you to worry about the RPM lever could be difference in seeing your family at the end of the flight and not seeing them.Was it worth saving wear then?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
You picked up on a general statement I made on the other debate and have given it a life of it's own thanks to you making an assumption.
The POH is the decider in all cases.
Some manuals require a specific (high / fine pitch) RPM to be set before / during the approach. Typical figures being 2500 or 2600 sometimes 2700.
It is impossible to set this RPM unless the prop is operating in the governed range.
Others don't. and it is up to the pilot to place the prop against the fine pitch stops at the appropriate time.
Most GA aircraft specify the power setting for climb as being Full increase RPM and full throttle. Note this is what the manufacturer has certified.
Therefore, in the absence of a specific RPM, the prop can be set to a fine setting after the MP has been reduced (typically to slow for gear and flap extension).
The average Student / PPL should not have to fiddle with controls on short final and should have one hand on the throttle and one on the stick for the final approach after the landing configuration has been established. The landing configuration being position of Gear, Flaps, Props and anything else that has a specific setting for landing.
You picked up on a general statement I made on the other debate and have given it a life of it's own thanks to you making an assumption.
The POH is the decider in all cases.
Some manuals require a specific (high / fine pitch) RPM to be set before / during the approach. Typical figures being 2500 or 2600 sometimes 2700.
It is impossible to set this RPM unless the prop is operating in the governed range.
Others don't. and it is up to the pilot to place the prop against the fine pitch stops at the appropriate time.
Most GA aircraft specify the power setting for climb as being Full increase RPM and full throttle. Note this is what the manufacturer has certified.
Therefore, in the absence of a specific RPM, the prop can be set to a fine setting after the MP has been reduced (typically to slow for gear and flap extension).
The average Student / PPL should not have to fiddle with controls on short final and should have one hand on the throttle and one on the stick for the final approach after the landing configuration has been established. The landing configuration being position of Gear, Flaps, Props and anything else that has a specific setting for landing.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, I totally agree with you. PUF check was the one I was taught (which amounts to the same thing ; I'm sure there're others):
Pitch - Full fine
Undercarriage - Down
Flaps - as required
Pitch - Full fine
Undercarriage - Down
Flaps - as required
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew this was going to be a subject that would result in most opinions being different from what I do for the simple reason that when people are taught a certain action to take during flight such as putting the props in full fine in the circuit and in most cases at a thousand feet that is what they believe is necessary.
However there are at least two of us here who do not teach nor do this and between the two of us we have been flying for over a hundred years so that should be at least worth considering.
Having asked every pilot I have done training with why they shove the prop lever/s forward so far from the actual landing I get basically the same answers which is that is the way it is taught, therefore it has to be the correct action to perform.
Maybe I am in the wrong forum here and should exit this discussion because the advice I am giving may be dangerous.
So lets dissect this one point at a time.
First lets make this perfectly clear that this engine handling discussion is about piston engine driven aircraft only.....and most of the airplanes that have propellers that are capable of pitch change that are used in flight training are basic light aircraft.
So I would like someone to answer a few questions I have concerning several opinions that have been put forward in this thread before the whole discussion gets all mangled into a state where no one can follow it.
I will first choose a comment by Mad Jock as my starting point in an attempt to find out if I have this all wrong and my method of power selection is wrong and possibly unsafe.
He said that the check lists he has seen asks for props up at 1000 feet above the landing area.
That would probably be down wind in a normal circuit.
Irishpilot1990 has the opinion that props should be moved to the full fine position as per the check list because you are in a critical part of flight and failure to have the prop/s in full fine may result in death should you need to increase power to arrest your rare of descent or go around and fractions of a second are critical.
O.K. lets examine the fractions of a second issue first.
When training pilots on heavy water bombers I had a demonstration that I used to show them that there is time to examine an emergency before taking any action that may be the incorrect action.
The demonstration was conducted to simulate an engine failure after lift off from the water and after VYSE plus five knots was attained which would generally be about two hundred feet above the surface.....a water surface.
I carefully briefed them that I would be failing the right engine at two hundred feet and at VYSE plus five knots and would be giving a voice warning " failing the right engine now " their only action at that point of time was to count to ten before doing anything period.
At the end of the ten count we would go through the engine failure on climb out procedures as laid out in the check list.
The object of this lesson was for the pilot being trained to note the airspeed decay during the ten count...that was " ALL " the trainee was to concentrate on.
Every time we did this demonstration the airspeed decay was " TWO KNOTS " after the ten count was finished which gave us a three knot safety margin above VYSE during the demonstration to that point in the climb.
My reason for offering the above demonstration was so we could better examine just how " critical " the beginning of an approach to a landing is time wise with regard to power changes.
I was training Captain in a water bombing company that operated nine PBY water bombers for twelve years and used that demonstration of inertia with each and every pilot being trained in said company...never was there any time where the speed decayed down to VYSE at the end of the ten count and never was there a problem in maintaining controlled flight and going through the engine failure on climb actions.
By the way I had a engine fail just at lift off with a full load of water one day and it was the critical engine, we had no problem maintaining control and feathering the engine and flew 75 miles back to our base on the other engine. Minus the load of water of course.
Any comments regarding how critical the begenning of an approach to a landing really is taking into consideration the above statements of fact?
However there are at least two of us here who do not teach nor do this and between the two of us we have been flying for over a hundred years so that should be at least worth considering.
Having asked every pilot I have done training with why they shove the prop lever/s forward so far from the actual landing I get basically the same answers which is that is the way it is taught, therefore it has to be the correct action to perform.
Maybe I am in the wrong forum here and should exit this discussion because the advice I am giving may be dangerous.
So lets dissect this one point at a time.
First lets make this perfectly clear that this engine handling discussion is about piston engine driven aircraft only.....and most of the airplanes that have propellers that are capable of pitch change that are used in flight training are basic light aircraft.
So I would like someone to answer a few questions I have concerning several opinions that have been put forward in this thread before the whole discussion gets all mangled into a state where no one can follow it.
I will first choose a comment by Mad Jock as my starting point in an attempt to find out if I have this all wrong and my method of power selection is wrong and possibly unsafe.
He said that the check lists he has seen asks for props up at 1000 feet above the landing area.
That would probably be down wind in a normal circuit.
Irishpilot1990 has the opinion that props should be moved to the full fine position as per the check list because you are in a critical part of flight and failure to have the prop/s in full fine may result in death should you need to increase power to arrest your rare of descent or go around and fractions of a second are critical.
O.K. lets examine the fractions of a second issue first.
When training pilots on heavy water bombers I had a demonstration that I used to show them that there is time to examine an emergency before taking any action that may be the incorrect action.
The demonstration was conducted to simulate an engine failure after lift off from the water and after VYSE plus five knots was attained which would generally be about two hundred feet above the surface.....a water surface.
I carefully briefed them that I would be failing the right engine at two hundred feet and at VYSE plus five knots and would be giving a voice warning " failing the right engine now " their only action at that point of time was to count to ten before doing anything period.
At the end of the ten count we would go through the engine failure on climb out procedures as laid out in the check list.
The object of this lesson was for the pilot being trained to note the airspeed decay during the ten count...that was " ALL " the trainee was to concentrate on.
Every time we did this demonstration the airspeed decay was " TWO KNOTS " after the ten count was finished which gave us a three knot safety margin above VYSE during the demonstration to that point in the climb.
My reason for offering the above demonstration was so we could better examine just how " critical " the beginning of an approach to a landing is time wise with regard to power changes.
I was training Captain in a water bombing company that operated nine PBY water bombers for twelve years and used that demonstration of inertia with each and every pilot being trained in said company...never was there any time where the speed decayed down to VYSE at the end of the ten count and never was there a problem in maintaining controlled flight and going through the engine failure on climb actions.
By the way I had a engine fail just at lift off with a full load of water one day and it was the critical engine, we had no problem maintaining control and feathering the engine and flew 75 miles back to our base on the other engine. Minus the load of water of course.
Any comments regarding how critical the begenning of an approach to a landing really is taking into consideration the above statements of fact?
Similarly to Chuck et al, I usually leave the prop in cruise RPM during the approach. At some point in the later part of the approach power will be low enough for the CSU to have the props on the fine pitch stops. Once that happens I advance the RPM levers to max. RPM. It's easy enough to tell - throttle movement has a direct effect on RPM.
Exceptions to the general procedure include icing (high RPM to fling off the ice), turbulence/shear sufficient to make me anticipate needing large power changes to manage the profile, or asymmetric leaving me with little excess power.
Exceptions to the general procedure include icing (high RPM to fling off the ice), turbulence/shear sufficient to make me anticipate needing large power changes to manage the profile, or asymmetric leaving me with little excess power.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alister there is no problem removing your hand from the throttle/s when you close them and moving the prop/s lever/s to full fine as they are always close to each other in all airplanes.
Conversely if one is so focused on one task such as handling the flight controls during the final phase of the approach and landing that they are unable to perform any other task how do you recognize some other situation that may be unfolding?
Conversely if one is so focused on one task such as handling the flight controls during the final phase of the approach and landing that they are unable to perform any other task how do you recognize some other situation that may be unfolding?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting idea's stated here. In my brief experience I am intrigued by the idea of not setting yourself up for the worst case scenario, which for me would me having to execute a single engine go around in poor weather conditions. In my opinion, that is a best practice point and the best example to set to anyone your flying with, surely thats showing that you are ahead of the aircraft no?
Based on the scenario of a piston aircraft, normally aspirated or with a blower at either end of the stream. Surely anyone would want minimum workload, maximum power available when in the critical stage of an approach i.e. commital to land.
Now what has been discussed about engine wear especially with everyone trying to save pennies wherever possible I would tend to agree with you. However, as also stated wear has no price when it comes to safety!
One item for consideration which hasn't been broached is the type of aircraft everyone is flying, as we all know a lot of light twins for all intents and purposes may as well have 1.5 engines. Chuck writes about heavy water bomber experience, ok I take your point but remember the other people who are also reading this thread who do not have your depth of experience excuse the pun! I would interested to hear what peoples SOP is on the subject?
I'm a firm believer in reds blues three greens on final, I too want to go home to the lady and/or have a beer after I finish for the day!
(note: unless of course you have a fadec and only one stick to play with!)
Based on the scenario of a piston aircraft, normally aspirated or with a blower at either end of the stream. Surely anyone would want minimum workload, maximum power available when in the critical stage of an approach i.e. commital to land.
Now what has been discussed about engine wear especially with everyone trying to save pennies wherever possible I would tend to agree with you. However, as also stated wear has no price when it comes to safety!
One item for consideration which hasn't been broached is the type of aircraft everyone is flying, as we all know a lot of light twins for all intents and purposes may as well have 1.5 engines. Chuck writes about heavy water bomber experience, ok I take your point but remember the other people who are also reading this thread who do not have your depth of experience excuse the pun! I would interested to hear what peoples SOP is on the subject?
I'm a firm believer in reds blues three greens on final, I too want to go home to the lady and/or have a beer after I finish for the day!
(note: unless of course you have a fadec and only one stick to play with!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alister what I am trying to explain is when changing from the approach attitude to the climbing attitude is the sequence of actions is pitch up, power up.
I have never seen a situation on an approach for a landing where one second lapse in action would be critical and result in an accident. ( This of course requires the pilots thought process to be ahead of the airplane on final, not back on base leg. )
If a pilot is overwhelmed by having to add one simple hand movement such as moving the prop pitch lever/s forward before or while moving the power lever/s forward then I would be very concerned about said pilots suitability to be in control of that aircraft.
Maybe my expectations are to high?
I have never seen a situation on an approach for a landing where one second lapse in action would be critical and result in an accident. ( This of course requires the pilots thought process to be ahead of the airplane on final, not back on base leg. )
If a pilot is overwhelmed by having to add one simple hand movement such as moving the prop pitch lever/s forward before or while moving the power lever/s forward then I would be very concerned about said pilots suitability to be in control of that aircraft.
Maybe my expectations are to high?
Chuck
Re your comment with what your expectations are (and these are my purely personal opinions and cannot not be justified at a purely factual level)
Highly appropriate for an experienced pilot flying a complex and relatively demanding power plant(s) in a larger aircraft
Quite unrealistic IMO for a new PPL who have just started flying their first aircraft with a variable pitch prop. My experience has been no matter how many times you tell them and do the practice exercises they will intially tend to revert to their experience to date which is flying simple fixed pitch props and when under pressure just mash the throttle in ( for the last miniute go around scenario). As they get more experience and practice, then they can dispense with setting the props to climb RPM (2500 PRM for most small aircraft and what I can see seems to the SOP for flying schools) as part of the prelanding check and bring the props levers up on very short final after the airspeed is low enough to put the props on the fine pitch stops.
Re your comment with what your expectations are (and these are my purely personal opinions and cannot not be justified at a purely factual level)
Highly appropriate for an experienced pilot flying a complex and relatively demanding power plant(s) in a larger aircraft
Quite unrealistic IMO for a new PPL who have just started flying their first aircraft with a variable pitch prop. My experience has been no matter how many times you tell them and do the practice exercises they will intially tend to revert to their experience to date which is flying simple fixed pitch props and when under pressure just mash the throttle in ( for the last miniute go around scenario). As they get more experience and practice, then they can dispense with setting the props to climb RPM (2500 PRM for most small aircraft and what I can see seems to the SOP for flying schools) as part of the prelanding check and bring the props levers up on very short final after the airspeed is low enough to put the props on the fine pitch stops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are getting somewhere in this discussion as everyone expresses their opinions and their methods of conducting an approach......
...so lets fine tune it a bit more by taking the two ends of this spectrum and looking at the plusses and minuses for each end.
At the top end we have pilots who were taught to select full fine at a thousand feet. At the bottom end we have pilots who select full fine short final after power has been reduced to zero thrust or less.
The biggest concern seems to be having to do an instant rejection of the approach and go around, some here seem to believe that the prop pitch must be in full fine to accomplish a rejected approach and go around.
Why?
If the airspeed and aircraft attitude are in the required values and rate of descent for the conditions for the airplane being flown why would one need to ram on full power?
I used the PBY as an example because it's performance envelope is very low in fact much lower than any light single or twin airplane that I know of.
Therefore if the method I use for RPM and power selection works in a low performance airplane like the PBY it is only logical that light singles and twins will respond as well or better using the same procedures.
I am puzzled by the pre landing check that requires the props to be full fine before the landing gear is lowered.
If you are going to forget to perform an item on the pre landing check would it not be more important to have the gear down than the prop/s full fine?
Mind you if you touch down with the gear up that pretty well takes care of worrying about where the prop/s are for the go around.
...so lets fine tune it a bit more by taking the two ends of this spectrum and looking at the plusses and minuses for each end.
At the top end we have pilots who were taught to select full fine at a thousand feet. At the bottom end we have pilots who select full fine short final after power has been reduced to zero thrust or less.
The biggest concern seems to be having to do an instant rejection of the approach and go around, some here seem to believe that the prop pitch must be in full fine to accomplish a rejected approach and go around.
Why?
If the airspeed and aircraft attitude are in the required values and rate of descent for the conditions for the airplane being flown why would one need to ram on full power?
I used the PBY as an example because it's performance envelope is very low in fact much lower than any light single or twin airplane that I know of.
Therefore if the method I use for RPM and power selection works in a low performance airplane like the PBY it is only logical that light singles and twins will respond as well or better using the same procedures.
I am puzzled by the pre landing check that requires the props to be full fine before the landing gear is lowered.
If you are going to forget to perform an item on the pre landing check would it not be more important to have the gear down than the prop/s full fine?
Mind you if you touch down with the gear up that pretty well takes care of worrying about where the prop/s are for the go around.
Chuck props fine on touchdown was our SOP at Northern Wings on the DC-3, C-46, PBY and Lockheed 10. I know of one company though, that used to advance the props on the DC-3 to climb RPM at the glide on an ILS front course. I seem to recall they used 20 inches of MP with that to maintain 105 kt.