Merged: Airtex/Skymaster AOC suspended
I've had the mixture control on an engine jam in the ICO position on a mulit engine aeroplane.
Yet, ask the same instructors to cut the mixture of a single engine aircraft after take off at 500 feet to test the students judgement on selection of a suitable forced landing area straight ahead and the answer would be "you must be bloody joking"
When asked why the shocked response the instructor would doubtless say because the engine might not restart when the mixture is reset to Rich.
So a good lawyer would say" Well., my friend, if you are concerned that it is feasable the engine may not start being a single engine aircraft, would not the same risk apply if you cut the mixture after take off on a multi-engine aircraft (think Seminole or Duchess). And if that happens, and the prop is windmilling because the engine failed to start, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. And why is this so? Because you will NEVER climb after take off with one prop windmilling and by the time you realise things have gone wrong it might be too late to feather - since you spent all that time trying to restart the mixture cut engine"
So think about that when you risk your neck to be "realistic" and counting on the engine re-starting following a deliberate mixture cut in a twin..
To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP.
Clinton,
With all due respect, you are asking for an answer to a non-problem, there is no answer to the question of: Is the throttle mechanism in its entirety more likely to fail in the idle position than the mixture control fail in the idle/cutoff position.
One thing is for sure, you will get the power back faster by opening the throttle than you will getting the mixture out of idle cutoff.
Not reducing an engine to idle at all, and then only slowly, has serious benefits for turbo-charged engines ----- another very important reason for very slow throttle movements on the "bigger" piston engines is to preserve the balance weights in the crankshaft, jambing or worse, losing one of the balance weights will do very serious damage to the engine ----- including in once case I witnessed at YSBK, venting the crankcase in a way never intended by the manufacturers --- resulting in an engine fire. The engine was an geared turbocharged 520 or 550, what a mess, what a bill, over $100,000 including airframe repairs.
Be very very gentle with the throttle, only move the mixture to idle cutoff at idles, or if called for in a real emergency.
The issue of control and what happens if you get below Vmca is the same, regardless of the type of engines.
In all the years I have been flying, twice I have had throttle problems ---- the spring that moved the throttle open saved me both times ---- one was a cable break ( Cessna 205 ), the other was a linkage dropped off, DH 82A ----- no split pin through a nut.
At least one thing you can do in four engine aircraft, whether it is a Heron, a DC-4 or a B707, is that you can pull back a symmetric engine to regain control ---- temporally eliminate the control problem ---- if you have the height. I have only demonstrated this on a Heron and a B707.
Tootle pip!!
With all due respect, you are asking for an answer to a non-problem, there is no answer to the question of: Is the throttle mechanism in its entirety more likely to fail in the idle position than the mixture control fail in the idle/cutoff position.
One thing is for sure, you will get the power back faster by opening the throttle than you will getting the mixture out of idle cutoff.
Not reducing an engine to idle at all, and then only slowly, has serious benefits for turbo-charged engines ----- another very important reason for very slow throttle movements on the "bigger" piston engines is to preserve the balance weights in the crankshaft, jambing or worse, losing one of the balance weights will do very serious damage to the engine ----- including in once case I witnessed at YSBK, venting the crankcase in a way never intended by the manufacturers --- resulting in an engine fire. The engine was an geared turbocharged 520 or 550, what a mess, what a bill, over $100,000 including airframe repairs.
Be very very gentle with the throttle, only move the mixture to idle cutoff at idles, or if called for in a real emergency.
The issue of control and what happens if you get below Vmca is the same, regardless of the type of engines.
In all the years I have been flying, twice I have had throttle problems ---- the spring that moved the throttle open saved me both times ---- one was a cable break ( Cessna 205 ), the other was a linkage dropped off, DH 82A ----- no split pin through a nut.
At least one thing you can do in four engine aircraft, whether it is a Heron, a DC-4 or a B707, is that you can pull back a symmetric engine to regain control ---- temporally eliminate the control problem ---- if you have the height. I have only demonstrated this on a Heron and a B707.
Tootle pip!!
Kim West:
My simple observation is that if the engine is coughing and farting on application of T/O power, and I'm doing everything in accordance with the POH. then I'm aborting and going back to the hangar, not inventing my own procedure to "get around" the problem. Once at hangar, I will ask an older and wiser head why the engine is misbehaving....
Twice, it's been linkages (fuel injected). Once, carb ice. The former issues were fixed by screwdriver or replacement. The latter by technique. I'm prepared to wear "It always does that, and this is how you fix it" when immobile on the ground, such as leaning to clean a plug. As a ham fisted pig ignorant pilot, I am not flying with little "glitches" as i already have enough to do.
Clinton:
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that I would prefer the fuel to be flowing, the carb float to be floating, or the diaphragm to be diaphragming, the jets to be jetting and some pitiful form of combustion to be going on in each and every cylinder. The fire can then hopefully restored by the traverse of a butterfly valve through about Eighty degrees of rotation.
To do otherwise conjures images of an Eskimo about to demonstrate his fire lighting skills to his colleagues in mid winter by first extinguishing their fire, but call me old fashioned and pig ignorant. I don't really want to demonstrate that the mixture control is working each time I do a PFL, I just want to do the PFL.
Anyway, this is all off topic. There should be ONE way and ONE way only for an Australian FOI to require a particular procedure to be performed on a particular make and model of aircraft, or if there are Two or more ways, it must be spelt out that it is the OPERATORS choice which one gets used.
Clinton - well said - another scenario not discussed is that from a simulated engine failure, using the power lever, and having the aux boost pump on, particularly on PA 31 types, there is a very real chance that the engine will not accelerate due to the over rich mixture when power is applied.
The engine will not accelerate, and will tend to stall (ie not do anything) other than run rough, coff, farrt, etc - everything except supply power. I make mention of this from first hand experience. To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP. The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
Too much fuel can have the same effect as no fuel, ie - the engine floods, the fire goes out, no power.
Your comments??
The engine will not accelerate, and will tend to stall (ie not do anything) other than run rough, coff, farrt, etc - everything except supply power. I make mention of this from first hand experience. To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP. The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
Too much fuel can have the same effect as no fuel, ie - the engine floods, the fire goes out, no power.
Your comments??
Twice, it's been linkages (fuel injected). Once, carb ice. The former issues were fixed by screwdriver or replacement. The latter by technique. I'm prepared to wear "It always does that, and this is how you fix it" when immobile on the ground, such as leaning to clean a plug. As a ham fisted pig ignorant pilot, I am not flying with little "glitches" as i already have enough to do.
Clinton:
My only (inexpert) input to this thread relates to the sub-set of the discussion about the comparative safety of simulating an engine failure on a GA piston engine by pulling the throttle versus pulling the mixture. The ‘Old Wives Tale’ seems to be that pulling the mixture is necessarily less safe than pulling the throttle. (As an aside, my view is that the phrase ‘Old Wives Tale’ is a little sexist these days. I’d probably opt for: ‘Near-dead-white-male pig-ignorant self-proclaimed expert tale’, but the acronym’s a little clunky and I’m probably being a little unkind.)
To do otherwise conjures images of an Eskimo about to demonstrate his fire lighting skills to his colleagues in mid winter by first extinguishing their fire, but call me old fashioned and pig ignorant. I don't really want to demonstrate that the mixture control is working each time I do a PFL, I just want to do the PFL.
Anyway, this is all off topic. There should be ONE way and ONE way only for an Australian FOI to require a particular procedure to be performed on a particular make and model of aircraft, or if there are Two or more ways, it must be spelt out that it is the OPERATORS choice which one gets used.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading.
Hypothetical question:
Im coming up for my first renewal in few months.
What happens and what are my rights when I ask the ATO before the flight component "before we fly I want to confirm that you will not be simulating an engine failure below 500' AGL and all simulated engine failures will be done by setting zero thrust and not pulling the mixture" and he turns around and says something to the contrary?
My multi engine training and initial MECIR was done by ATOs from the school of thought that the risk involved in shuting down engines out weighs the benefit and im very much from the same school of though.
Hypothetical question:
Im coming up for my first renewal in few months.
What happens and what are my rights when I ask the ATO before the flight component "before we fly I want to confirm that you will not be simulating an engine failure below 500' AGL and all simulated engine failures will be done by setting zero thrust and not pulling the mixture" and he turns around and says something to the contrary?
My multi engine training and initial MECIR was done by ATOs from the school of thought that the risk involved in shuting down engines out weighs the benefit and im very much from the same school of though.
Do what I did.
"If you fail an engine on me at ANY TIME below 500ft, I WILL assume it is real and land appropriatley"
He did and I did.
There was "some" paperwork involved but he has never flown with me since, which is fine by me, in fact I would'nt even let him within a bulls roar of any aircraft of which I have command!
"If you fail an engine on me at ANY TIME below 500ft, I WILL assume it is real and land appropriatley"
He did and I did.
There was "some" paperwork involved but he has never flown with me since, which is fine by me, in fact I would'nt even let him within a bulls roar of any aircraft of which I have command!
I am aware of a number of real engine failures that occurred on application of the throttle after a simulated engine failure.
As I am, and in each case the failure of the engine to accelerate was put down to icing, the "carb" heat was not used during the descent at idle, and the engine wasn't "cleared" during the exercise. One particular PA-28 carb. engine( depending on the venturis fitted) is particularly prone to ice buildup, as are many smaller Continentals.
No piston engine is immune, regardless of carb. or injection.
Another "potential" problem with just "pushing the mixture up", if the throttle has not been closed after the mixture is "pulled" ---- all too easy to do if there is need the power in a hurry ---- can result in an engine overspeed, with all sorts of potential damage, starting with the crankshaft counterweights, if your engine has them.
As I keep on saying, don't shut the engine down at all, and keep it a bit above idle, with anti -ice heat as required.
In practice current manufacturers manuals are an interesting animal ---- I have "old" and current editions of engine manufacturers manuals, such as the Lycoming IO-540 in Comanche 260C, they are quite different. The mid-1960 or so manual had all the details for running lean of peak, not so the more "current" manual I have.
Tootle pip!!
As I am, and in each case the failure of the engine to accelerate was put down to icing, the "carb" heat was not used during the descent at idle, and the engine wasn't "cleared" during the exercise. One particular PA-28 carb. engine( depending on the venturis fitted) is particularly prone to ice buildup, as are many smaller Continentals.
No piston engine is immune, regardless of carb. or injection.
No piston engine is immune, regardless of carb. or injection.
Tell me how a fuel injected engine may suffer from induction icing - without flying in conditions conducive to strucural icing?
Hardly the sort of conditions in which one would be simulating an engine failure!
Dr
Thread's drifting....
Warning. You are increasing your TODR by utilising this kind of procedure.
#1 If you have one engine come onto the turbo before the other, you will have a much greater effort required to keep the aircraft straight, rather than holding the brakes until both turbos are boosting equally, especially when the second turbo starts delivering while you are holding rudder in that direction to counter the effects of the first kick. Big reversal required.
#2 Manuals such as for the C414 SPECIFICALLY state that unless full power is applied before brakes release, TODR does not apply until the point at which full power is reached.
Yes, loose surfaces need to be considered, but this operating principle goes back to fixed pitch singles.
Why do manuals specify a static RPM if you aren't supposed to apply full power while the aircraft is stationary?
Not contradicting GG directly, but for those who are wondering or may be endorsing soon, the circuit breaker operated (permanent) electric pumps are referred to as boost pumps while the overhead panel (switchable) electric pumps are referred to as the emergency fuel pumps. Not all Chieftains have the fuel boost pumps fitted.
The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
#1 If you have one engine come onto the turbo before the other, you will have a much greater effort required to keep the aircraft straight, rather than holding the brakes until both turbos are boosting equally, especially when the second turbo starts delivering while you are holding rudder in that direction to counter the effects of the first kick. Big reversal required.
#2 Manuals such as for the C414 SPECIFICALLY state that unless full power is applied before brakes release, TODR does not apply until the point at which full power is reached.
Yes, loose surfaces need to be considered, but this operating principle goes back to fixed pitch singles.
Why do manuals specify a static RPM if you aren't supposed to apply full power while the aircraft is stationary?
Not contradicting GG directly, but for those who are wondering or may be endorsing soon, the circuit breaker operated (permanent) electric pumps are referred to as boost pumps while the overhead panel (switchable) electric pumps are referred to as the emergency fuel pumps. Not all Chieftains have the fuel boost pumps fitted.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find the Port M operator is actually Premier Aviation - also PA31-350`s I think, and aeromedical. They are (were?) in competition with Wingaway before the MoJo accident....
A conventional court of law is not an option when appealing an administrative decision by a Govt Dept 
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio L
So - is it true that defendants do not have the right to question the veracity of the alleged facts that a govt dept might be relying on to sustain their case, or indeed, cross examine the govt employee who has provided the evidence? In this case, perhaps an FOI.
It is not rumour that an FOI considered that a particular pilot was under the influence of alcohol some months ago, and, this week, said pilot received a notice from CASA Avmed suspending that pilot's medical certificate. All on the basis of an opinion. Interestingly, at the time of the alleged observation, said pilot's cemployer had an approved DAMP mechanism in place. Question is, why then, did the FOI not seek out the DAMP supervisor of that company (no names, but pertinent) and have the procedure, as required by CASA, followed?
Hmmmm.
It is not rumour that an FOI considered that a particular pilot was under the influence of alcohol some months ago, and, this week, said pilot received a notice from CASA Avmed suspending that pilot's medical certificate. All on the basis of an opinion. Interestingly, at the time of the alleged observation, said pilot's cemployer had an approved DAMP mechanism in place. Question is, why then, did the FOI not seek out the DAMP supervisor of that company (no names, but pertinent) and have the procedure, as required by CASA, followed?
Hmmmm.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So - is it true that defendants do not have the right to question the veracity of the alleged facts that a govt dept might be relying on to sustain their case, or indeed, cross examine the govt employee who has provided the evidence? In this case, perhaps an FOI.
In a criminal court and even a civil court other than the AAT the evidence that can be presented is limited by certain rules. For example, person A cannot say that they heard something from person B and that something becomes evidence before the court. There are lots of others but they are somewhat convoluted.
The applicant certainly does have the right to contest the veracity of the allegations made by CASA but it can be very hard when all CASA needs to say is something along the lines of;
"...........we have received numerous complaints about company X which prompted us to commence our investigations. Based on those investigation of those complaints we have decided to pull company X's AOC."
What was in those complaints need never be presented to the AAT. In many cases what you are left with is merely denying that there were ever complaints made. It sounds pretty lame.
The way the AAT is structured and operates favours CASA. The company concerned should find a way to get the matter out of the AAT and into a properly regulated court. Speculation only but if there is any malfeasance on the part of the ATOs' then a private prosecution against them for exceeding their regulatory powers would put a fox in the hen house.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision is in on Friday
Read the entire 142 pages on:
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011)
Interlocutory:
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 716 (14 September 2010)
Other Fice cases:
McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] AATA 687 (6 August 2008)
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011)
Interlocutory:
Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 716 (14 September 2010)
Other Fice cases:
McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] AATA 687 (6 August 2008)
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 7th Feb 2011 at 22:53. Reason: This was interloccuatory/ Further info on Fice