Merged: The multi engine debate.
Yes I did the same at altitude until I was satisfied that the trainee had it together & knew left from right. I did however replicate it at 300 or 400 feet above ground level, as did you by closing the throttle & then setting zero thrust, however I did by selecting ICO then zero thrust.
Yes I agree however I didn't have the benefit of synthetic trainers back then, I do have the benefit of full motion sims nowadays which makes life somwhat easier, & turbine aircraft which actually perform.
I have instructed on the older style Baron's & the throttle in the middle concept is hard to get used to, the ones I used to instruct on were all black knobs as well
, all I can say is I hope the hapless student didn't get confused about the gear & flap lever as well.
, all I can say is I hope the hapless student didn't get confused about the gear & flap lever as well.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does that mean you use the manufactures checklist for each & every flight verbatum for the PA44? & the manufactures Wt&Bal & unfactored Performance data data for each flight? Seriously?
And I love this one from Rose_Thorns:
Good LAME' s own each engine on the wing (and some that ain't).
Mishandle a pet engine at your p p p peril, but listen quietly and learn well the true art of actually managing your LAME' s engines and you may earn a cuppa and grudging smile at smoko.
Mishandle a pet engine at your p p p peril, but listen quietly and learn well the true art of actually managing your LAME' s engines and you may earn a cuppa and grudging smile at smoko.
Q_ In the period leading up to 'your' accident, did you operate the aircraft engines according to the Aircraft Flight Manual specifications, for which the manufacturers data was approved?.
You know, all my piston engine multi training and checking (with me as the trainee) was done with the throttle retarded smoothly to idle. I've since been thrown into a full motion sim doing V1 cuts on a turbo-prop and I just don't feel like there was anything missing from the piston engine training. I didn't have any revelation of "oh my, so that's what a real engine failure is like!" In my experience the throttle closing technique was adequate. I agree that there is little if any training benefit in using the mixture control or fuel selector at low altitude. I'm not about to debate the issue from an engine handling perspective because that's a separate thing, it doesn't matter how long your engine lasts if you crash the thing doing EFATO practice.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some bed time reading.
I am only half way through it, so I have no comment at this time!
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36444/P...e_aircraft.pdf
I am only half way through it, so I have no comment at this time!
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36444/P...e_aircraft.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tongue in cheek.
Remoak_Bushy. – No slight intended, the lines were intended to be very 'tongue in cheek". 
Thing is though, since I was very young and still today, I have learnt much about the ins and outs of engine and systems management from the guys that fix them. Especially in some of the 'darker' areas related intermittent and 'quirky' snags. The knowledge has served me very well on several occasions. I honestly do believe 'good drivers' know their engines and systems strengths and weakness and how best to manage both.
The same can be said of good training pilots who, in addition knowing their aircraft well, must be able to assess and manage an unknown element, the candidate. The laudable comments related to safely managing high risk areas are all valid and of value. Most guys seem to build a safety net between the deck and their aircraft which allows for the inevitable errors which do occur during training. It's tough enough when two experienced pilots (see Air North) play about at low level. With the average bloke the safety margins must be set wider. I agree, the real object is to teach the candidate to 'get it right', not to scare the horses.
The original point of the thread was to seek wide opinion on the current enforced ruling by one field office which has removed the safety net and replaced it with a purely inane box ticking exercise.
Good technique is one thing, enforced stupidity is quite a different matter.
Tailwinds.
Thing is though, since I was very young and still today, I have learnt much about the ins and outs of engine and systems management from the guys that fix them. Especially in some of the 'darker' areas related intermittent and 'quirky' snags. The knowledge has served me very well on several occasions. I honestly do believe 'good drivers' know their engines and systems strengths and weakness and how best to manage both.
The same can be said of good training pilots who, in addition knowing their aircraft well, must be able to assess and manage an unknown element, the candidate. The laudable comments related to safely managing high risk areas are all valid and of value. Most guys seem to build a safety net between the deck and their aircraft which allows for the inevitable errors which do occur during training. It's tough enough when two experienced pilots (see Air North) play about at low level. With the average bloke the safety margins must be set wider. I agree, the real object is to teach the candidate to 'get it right', not to scare the horses.
The original point of the thread was to seek wide opinion on the current enforced ruling by one field office which has removed the safety net and replaced it with a purely inane box ticking exercise.
Good technique is one thing, enforced stupidity is quite a different matter.
Tailwinds.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rose_Thorns
Yes, you are absolutely right about margins and, maybe more to the point, the reason for the training in the first place.
What are we actually trying to do? For me, the only point of the exercise is to give the new multi driver a feel for what happens at the low and slow end of the envelope. It doesn't really matter if you do it at 1000' or even 2000' - the aircraft is going to respond in essentially the same way, you show the student the control issues and performance at a height from which recovery from mis-handling is straightforward, and make it very, very clear to him or her what they MUST do if it ever happens to them on departure. Job done, lesson (hopefully) learned.
It is perhaps worth saying that any emergency for which the demonstration and recovery is so inherently dangerous, is probably too great a risk for any pilot to have to face for real in this day and age.
On that topic, there is a very strong undercurrent in Australian aviation (and New Zealand for that matter), that you aren't a REAL pilot until you have demonstrated recovery from the worst possible scenario, and that loading up your student to the point of overstress is the only way to make the lesson stick. I have seen this first-hand in both countries, and have also seen the results of it - many Australian pilots who came to Europe in the 90's, when I was involved in airline recruitment over there, were arrogant in the extreme and firmly believed that they were better pilots than their European counterparts. We normally sorted that out in the sim in the first few hours, but the attitude still exists today amongst many Austraiian/NZ pilots. What you are seeing from this FOI is just the tip of the iceberg.
On the subject of engine handling, I frankly don't care if I never fly a piston twin again (other than for fun!). Engines that are so finicky, so fragile and so hard to operate properly - and for which opinion on their operation differs so markedly - have no business being on the wing of a transport category aircraft in the year 2010. I know that will offend all the PA31 afficionados out there, but this is '50s technology that hasn't changed in any significant way since those times. Show me any other area of transportation that still uses equipment that old! And before anyone mentions 747s, show me any airline still operating original spec 747s. I doubt there is a classic still working in Oz, if there is, it will be a freighter.
It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.
Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!
Oh, and Rose_Thorns, tongue location acknowledged and mine was in a similar spot! Nice when pilots and engineers actually communicate, isn't it?
Right, now where's my kevlar...
Yes, you are absolutely right about margins and, maybe more to the point, the reason for the training in the first place.
What are we actually trying to do? For me, the only point of the exercise is to give the new multi driver a feel for what happens at the low and slow end of the envelope. It doesn't really matter if you do it at 1000' or even 2000' - the aircraft is going to respond in essentially the same way, you show the student the control issues and performance at a height from which recovery from mis-handling is straightforward, and make it very, very clear to him or her what they MUST do if it ever happens to them on departure. Job done, lesson (hopefully) learned.
It is perhaps worth saying that any emergency for which the demonstration and recovery is so inherently dangerous, is probably too great a risk for any pilot to have to face for real in this day and age.
On that topic, there is a very strong undercurrent in Australian aviation (and New Zealand for that matter), that you aren't a REAL pilot until you have demonstrated recovery from the worst possible scenario, and that loading up your student to the point of overstress is the only way to make the lesson stick. I have seen this first-hand in both countries, and have also seen the results of it - many Australian pilots who came to Europe in the 90's, when I was involved in airline recruitment over there, were arrogant in the extreme and firmly believed that they were better pilots than their European counterparts. We normally sorted that out in the sim in the first few hours, but the attitude still exists today amongst many Austraiian/NZ pilots. What you are seeing from this FOI is just the tip of the iceberg.
On the subject of engine handling, I frankly don't care if I never fly a piston twin again (other than for fun!). Engines that are so finicky, so fragile and so hard to operate properly - and for which opinion on their operation differs so markedly - have no business being on the wing of a transport category aircraft in the year 2010. I know that will offend all the PA31 afficionados out there, but this is '50s technology that hasn't changed in any significant way since those times. Show me any other area of transportation that still uses equipment that old! And before anyone mentions 747s, show me any airline still operating original spec 747s. I doubt there is a classic still working in Oz, if there is, it will be a freighter.
It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.
Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!
Oh, and Rose_Thorns, tongue location acknowledged and mine was in a similar spot! Nice when pilots and engineers actually communicate, isn't it?
Right, now where's my kevlar...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me any other area of transportation that still uses equipment that old!
)People don't want to ride in an old dirty taxi, or eat in a filthy dark restaurant (well... most don't), and are willing to pay for a service they see as suitable. From the sound of things in Aus the mines have certain demands for their aviation contracts, and are willing to pay for it. Maybe there'll be a similar public attitude shift towards GA flight. Rather than a blanket "flying is safe" or "flying is dangerous" view, a desire to travel with an operator who has taken steps to ensure safety (beyond the current standards).
On that topic, there is a very strong undercurrent in Australian aviation (and New Zealand for that matter), that you aren't a REAL pilot until you have demonstrated recovery from the worst possible scenario, and that loading up your student to the point of overstress is the only way to make the lesson stick.
Well put, and I agree entirely, "methods of instruction" based on turning out pilots for the Battle of Britain, and it didn't work all that well, then either.
Just completely ignore all we have come to know about better methods of both civil and military education in the last 50 years or so.
Because "we" know that "250h airline cadet schemes only produce wankers", despite the fact that it has been the dominant source of airline pilots in EU and much of Asia since the said early '60's. Based on the "Australian expert opinion" one wonders how so many airlines have got it so wrong for so many years.
---many Australian pilots who came to Europe in the 90's, when I was involved in airline recruitment over there, were arrogant in the extreme and firmly believed that they were better pilots than their European counterparts.
Merely "surviving" a few thousand hours has very little to do with suitability for an airline job (excluding those mobs flying last generation smaller airline aircraft ---- but like it is just an extension of the Aero Club/Flying School, all approved by FOIs from the same background ---- so it all seems OK to them) has resulted in the MPL being a license much derided as a way to go flying, despite the fact the Australia was the driving force for the MPL at ICAO ---- because of the clear need for a better was to train future airline pilots.
All this against a background AU accident record (safety outcomes) very inferior to the US ( as can easily be seen from the statistics, if you take your rose colored Made in Oz glasses off), the country that probably cops the most criticism from "experts" (exspert = a drip under pressure) on the AU/NZ forums, mostly from AU.
You can read it, time and again, from AU pilots with nil international experience of any consequence (flying a few times AU to Bali is not significant international experience) who "know it all".
Clinton.
The most interesting thing about all John Deakin's advice is that he is commendably trying to pass on what was "common knowledge" for all those of us who actually read the POHs and engine manufacturers handbooks back in the '50's-60's,( and usually didn't start flying in AU) rather than going along with 25/25, never lean below 5000', etc " rules of thumb.
Back in the G.O.Ds, we would routinely operate an (or two) IO-540 from takeoff to top of descent on full throttle, reducing RPM to reduce power, and once into the range to start leaning, always run lean of peak ---- with all cylinder EGTs. In short, always high boost/low RPM, the opposite of the (still) "conventional wisdom". And all before GAMI.
We always had nice low overhaul costs, after big extensions to nominal overhaul hours --- an added benefit, on top of much reduced fuel burns.
Once we got our initial airline jobs, it was all reinforced with our first go at big radials. Pelican's Perch on engine management should be required reading for all student, and examinable for CPLs/Instructors.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Aug 2010 at 09:14.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AeroZep
Lol, well you can do that if you want... 
I'm used to it - 
- but I think your facts are a litte selective. The locomotives used for main trunk pax services are DC-class, built in the Hutt Workshops in 1978 - 1981 (a complete rebuild of the previous DA locos actually - not much original apart from the chassis). The rolling stock were extensively refurbished in the '80s (including new bogies), and new carriages were ordered in 2009. The Wellington commuter service uses Romanian-sourced units, EM/ET class, that were introduced in 1982. The older DM/Ds are only used when demand is high, and will be phased out by 2011, being replaced with newer units (the new Matangi units). The point being, there won't be any old stuff on the rails in a couple of years... not something you can say about NZ's GA aircraft. And a train has a simple task... you go, then you stop. You don't even have to steer. The carriage doesn't have to do anything except stay connected to the locomotive...
Google is your friend...
I wouldn't mind so much if the PA31s all had new-technology engines with FADEC, EFIS, redundant systems, and so on... but they don't. The 50's vintage PA31s, with no significant changes, will still be flying 50 years from now if GA has it's way... until the first serious structural failure, anyway... because that is what it will take to move the smaller operators on. They all trade on being able to operate ancient equipment with a minimal capital cost, using minimally qualified and often inexperienced pilots on subsistence wages, while frequently scrimping on maintenance.
Interestingly, I have heard from quite a few (5+) GA pilots since these threads started (ie since the Mojave accident), and they all tell me that they are frequently scared sh*tless operating PA31s and similar aircraft, particularly at night, in crappy weather, and with heavy loads. Most of them privately say that they know that if it all turns to custard with a heavy load, there will be some form of crash and they aren't confident about surviving it, particularly if it involves water. But what choice do they have? If they ever want to fly a jet, they have to do the hard yards, in Oz and NZ at least.
And this is 2010... where's my jetpack...
If you get on a long distance train in New Zealand the carriage you ride in is WWII era technology. A wooden frame with a sheet metal skin... worrying stuff. The Wellington commuter service has a couple of mid 50s multiple units still running, and the older freight locomotives are rebuild 1950s General Motors units... (sorry, just joining the stick it to ol' Remoke band wagon
I'm used to it - - but I think your facts are a litte selective. The locomotives used for main trunk pax services are DC-class, built in the Hutt Workshops in 1978 - 1981 (a complete rebuild of the previous DA locos actually - not much original apart from the chassis). The rolling stock were extensively refurbished in the '80s (including new bogies), and new carriages were ordered in 2009. The Wellington commuter service uses Romanian-sourced units, EM/ET class, that were introduced in 1982. The older DM/Ds are only used when demand is high, and will be phased out by 2011, being replaced with newer units (the new Matangi units). The point being, there won't be any old stuff on the rails in a couple of years... not something you can say about NZ's GA aircraft. And a train has a simple task... you go, then you stop. You don't even have to steer. The carriage doesn't have to do anything except stay connected to the locomotive...Google is your friend...
I wouldn't mind so much if the PA31s all had new-technology engines with FADEC, EFIS, redundant systems, and so on... but they don't. The 50's vintage PA31s, with no significant changes, will still be flying 50 years from now if GA has it's way... until the first serious structural failure, anyway... because that is what it will take to move the smaller operators on. They all trade on being able to operate ancient equipment with a minimal capital cost, using minimally qualified and often inexperienced pilots on subsistence wages, while frequently scrimping on maintenance.
Interestingly, I have heard from quite a few (5+) GA pilots since these threads started (ie since the Mojave accident), and they all tell me that they are frequently scared sh*tless operating PA31s and similar aircraft, particularly at night, in crappy weather, and with heavy loads. Most of them privately say that they know that if it all turns to custard with a heavy load, there will be some form of crash and they aren't confident about surviving it, particularly if it involves water. But what choice do they have? If they ever want to fly a jet, they have to do the hard yards, in Oz and NZ at least.
And this is 2010... where's my jetpack...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm... well done Remoak. Its true that there are plenty of new locomotives and rolling stock on the rails, but the 50s English Electric units are used every day. Its not the same as an aircraft, but the wooden rolling stock however (the wood is hidden) is in my opinion a real danger. People just don't know that under that nice blue steel is a bit of pine.
I agree with you about old aircraft. Although I love flying old heaps of
myself, at night with passengers on board is different. The point was that a public need to figure out the safety issues before anything happens. Money talks, and if you're making money and haven't had an accident for a while, why change? Having never flown one I only know about the PA-31s average performance from reading on here, so how would Joe and Jane Smith?
I agree with you about old aircraft. Although I love flying old heaps of
myself, at night with passengers on board is different. The point was that a public need to figure out the safety issues before anything happens. Money talks, and if you're making money and haven't had an accident for a while, why change? Having never flown one I only know about the PA-31s average performance from reading on here, so how would Joe and Jane Smith?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AeroZeppelin
Absolutely agree about wooden-framed carriages, can't be much cop in an accident - if the impact didn't get you, the splinters might...
You are also right about punters not understanding the risk. I simply would not climb into a PA31 on a dark and snotty night at anywhere near max gross - just not interested in going there. Anything goes wrong and it's almost certainly goodnight nurse. The problem is that the wimp-ass CAA will never say anything, the operators naturally won't, so what's the alternative? No operator will be seriously looked at until there are dead bodies, unless there is a very long list of infringements, and even then the operating philosophy of the CAA precludes them from doing much about it.
Personally I think the whole situation is scandalous, and completely contrary to the safety philosophy that modern aviation should be based on (and which most decent airlines do base their operations on).
How come we have one rule for airlines and another for GA? Again - this is 2010, not 1965...
Absolutely agree about wooden-framed carriages, can't be much cop in an accident - if the impact didn't get you, the splinters might...
You are also right about punters not understanding the risk. I simply would not climb into a PA31 on a dark and snotty night at anywhere near max gross - just not interested in going there. Anything goes wrong and it's almost certainly goodnight nurse. The problem is that the wimp-ass CAA will never say anything, the operators naturally won't, so what's the alternative? No operator will be seriously looked at until there are dead bodies, unless there is a very long list of infringements, and even then the operating philosophy of the CAA precludes them from doing much about it.
Personally I think the whole situation is scandalous, and completely contrary to the safety philosophy that modern aviation should be based on (and which most decent airlines do base their operations on).
How come we have one rule for airlines and another for GA? Again - this is 2010, not 1965...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gloves off, oh goody.
Who mentioned the PA 31 prang.
A 30 y.o. PA 31 at MGW, no radar, no de ice, no auto pilot and pilots ordered to 'go and have a look' at night in forecast icing and crap weather.
Engine instruments which only vaguely reflect what's occurring under the bonnet, radios which 'tested OK' before flight. Pilot grounds an aircraft and is told to go home (no pay today), next pilot launches. All true, but beyond the regulator (watchdog) capability to manage.
The 'Authority' knows these operating conditions exist, they know that they have continued for many years. Culture of fear, you bet. You tell them, they will prosecute you. (sod the mortgage).
Been fairly reliably informed that at the end of yet another 16 hour tour of duty, 10 sector shift with only 2 sectors provided at pre flight briefing (no kidding) pilots have been 'persuaded' to change aircraft.
Bloke I chatted to said that the CP had been flying the thing the day before, (7 hours of passenger operations) and had not entered one single solitary snag on the MR. The bloke concerned found no less than 8 major items (including a missing mass balance), grounded the aircraft then signed off for the day.
The aircraft took off the next morning at 0700 LMT, all fixed. Recommended reading:-
"The Appointment in Samarra" (as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933]). P.S. The speaker is Death
Perhaps, fate is the hunter. But not without a fight mate. Lets make it a fair one.
A 30 y.o. PA 31 at MGW, no radar, no de ice, no auto pilot and pilots ordered to 'go and have a look' at night in forecast icing and crap weather.
Engine instruments which only vaguely reflect what's occurring under the bonnet, radios which 'tested OK' before flight. Pilot grounds an aircraft and is told to go home (no pay today), next pilot launches. All true, but beyond the regulator (watchdog) capability to manage.
The 'Authority' knows these operating conditions exist, they know that they have continued for many years. Culture of fear, you bet. You tell them, they will prosecute you. (sod the mortgage).
Been fairly reliably informed that at the end of yet another 16 hour tour of duty, 10 sector shift with only 2 sectors provided at pre flight briefing (no kidding) pilots have been 'persuaded' to change aircraft.
Bloke I chatted to said that the CP had been flying the thing the day before, (7 hours of passenger operations) and had not entered one single solitary snag on the MR. The bloke concerned found no less than 8 major items (including a missing mass balance), grounded the aircraft then signed off for the day.
The aircraft took off the next morning at 0700 LMT, all fixed. Recommended reading:-
"The Appointment in Samarra" (as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933]). P.S. The speaker is Death
Perhaps, fate is the hunter. But not without a fight mate. Lets make it a fair one.
I like John Deakin's articles. But they should really be taken as thought starters and not gospel. There is a bit of the bible salesman about him, and most of what he preaches is what the engine manufacturers recommend, but he just juggles it around and adds coloured graphs. We've fallen out of the habit of getting and reading the engine operators manual. You can buy them from Essco for not a lot of money. The guys that wrote the engine operators manuals were actually smart and they have probably still had more instrumented engine running time than anyone else.
There is no point trying to operate an engine to John Deakins preaching without good instrumentation (EI or JPI thermocouple based instruments). If you're using the original bimetallic strip gauges, then stick to what the engine book says. This applies doubly if no one has gone to the effort of calibrating the existing instruments. The original instruments can be quite inaccurate, non-linear and have hysteresis errors to boot. And if someone has installed the wrong CHT probe (common), then all bets are off.
In my opinion, the danger of shutting down an engine is shock cooling of the cylinders. Shutting the mixture slowly won't significantly mitigate against this. Going to idle (or a zero thrust setting) helps because it keeps some heat in the engine. Some POH's (B95?) actually publish zero thrust settings for this.
There are 2 significant things between now and the good old days. 1. We are using different fuels (ie 100LL instead of 80/87 or 100/130) and 2) we fly aeroplanes less and thus the time between overhaul is a lot longer. And engines cost more to rebuild, so we cry more if an engine doesn't make TBO. Aeroplanes like Seminoles / Travelairs were probably also more readily available and the good old Lyc 0-360 will take a lot more abuse.
A question that has not been asked is why do we practice engine failures? The reason is partly to understand how the aircraft performs and partly learn the procedures through repetition. The former must be done in the aircraft but the latter can be done pretty effectively in the SIM. I'd probably argue that going into the drill smoothly and automatically is the most important thing. Once you've done that you just deal with whatever performance you have left.
In the good old days, guys who flew came up through building billy carts, fixing bikes then buying & fixing old cars. These days, young pilots are more likely to have grown up with computer games, flight simulators and drive cars that are serviced with computers not screwdrivers & feeler gauges. When something goes wrong there is no substitute for a deep understanding of the systems. The POH & engine operators manual should be your friends. Tragically, I go further and get the certification documents, airfoil data and service manuals. The additional background information they put in the service manuals is surprising.
There is no point trying to operate an engine to John Deakins preaching without good instrumentation (EI or JPI thermocouple based instruments). If you're using the original bimetallic strip gauges, then stick to what the engine book says. This applies doubly if no one has gone to the effort of calibrating the existing instruments. The original instruments can be quite inaccurate, non-linear and have hysteresis errors to boot. And if someone has installed the wrong CHT probe (common), then all bets are off.
In my opinion, the danger of shutting down an engine is shock cooling of the cylinders. Shutting the mixture slowly won't significantly mitigate against this. Going to idle (or a zero thrust setting) helps because it keeps some heat in the engine. Some POH's (B95?) actually publish zero thrust settings for this.
There are 2 significant things between now and the good old days. 1. We are using different fuels (ie 100LL instead of 80/87 or 100/130) and 2) we fly aeroplanes less and thus the time between overhaul is a lot longer. And engines cost more to rebuild, so we cry more if an engine doesn't make TBO. Aeroplanes like Seminoles / Travelairs were probably also more readily available and the good old Lyc 0-360 will take a lot more abuse.
A question that has not been asked is why do we practice engine failures? The reason is partly to understand how the aircraft performs and partly learn the procedures through repetition. The former must be done in the aircraft but the latter can be done pretty effectively in the SIM. I'd probably argue that going into the drill smoothly and automatically is the most important thing. Once you've done that you just deal with whatever performance you have left.
In the good old days, guys who flew came up through building billy carts, fixing bikes then buying & fixing old cars. These days, young pilots are more likely to have grown up with computer games, flight simulators and drive cars that are serviced with computers not screwdrivers & feeler gauges. When something goes wrong there is no substitute for a deep understanding of the systems. The POH & engine operators manual should be your friends. Tragically, I go further and get the certification documents, airfoil data and service manuals. The additional background information they put in the service manuals is surprising.
Clinton
Have you read the engine operators manuals referred to by Deakins? Have you read the Lycoming & Continental bulletins that he criticises? Do you have a professional background of engine calibration?
Deakins says good things. Its just that they are much closer to the manufacturers recommendations than he represents.
Have you read the engine operators manuals referred to by Deakins? Have you read the Lycoming & Continental bulletins that he criticises? Do you have a professional background of engine calibration?
Deakins says good things. Its just that they are much closer to the manufacturers recommendations than he represents.
Aeroplanes like Seminoles / Travelairs were probably also more readily available and the good old Lyc 0-360 will take a lot more abuse.
The last few PA44 I've flown were under 3 years old with less than 200 hours total time. They also come with unfeathering accumulators which are quite useful in practicing full feather and restarts.
As far as the O-360 being a good engine well thats another argument, they are good at making camshaft shavings.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, there must be something wrong with me...
I don't have a feverish desire to work for an airline... I like tooling around in Aerostars and Chieftains.
Obviously I should have my medical revoked on grounds of some sort of mental imbalence!
That aside,
If that were to happen, GA would be a memory over night.
I don't think they are refusing to move with the times, but there simply isn't the money out there to do it. You can't get blood from a stone. Sure, I wouldn't mind tooling around in a brand new B200, but the income stream doesn't exist. I am curious to see what aircraft that people that complain think we should replace the fleet with? The only aircraft that have been made in the last ten years that are of a similar size/capabilites are still using the same engines that are in service now on older airframes and are still certified to the same standards. We live in a world where finance is a consideration to nearly everything and that is something that will never change. Not trying to be argumentative, just saying it how I see it.
It's actually quite a sad state of affairs, and one that is unlikely to change, except for maybe the worse! Polititians will never do anything about it, as it is not a high profile issue and doesn't affect a large percentage of the population. No votes and therefore no incentive to change it. CASA won't do anything, they are answerable only unto them selves and like any all powerful dictatorship, they are 'never wrong'. Pilots will never 'band together under one banner' to effect change. Just look at this forum. Intelligent professional pilots can't come to one concencuss about engine handling/training/whatever on something SO IMPORTANT that the blood we would like to be getting from some stone somewhere is coming from our own ranks.
I started this reply with something about M/E things, but now I can't remember what the hell I was going to say! Time for my nap I think.
I will edit and add it if I remember!
I don't have a feverish desire to work for an airline... I like tooling around in Aerostars and Chieftains.
Obviously I should have my medical revoked on grounds of some sort of mental imbalence!
That aside,
It's about time the lower end of GA got over their refusal to move with the times. Operations that are so marginal that they can only survive by using antiquated equipment need to be culled.
Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!
Sorry, I know many won't like that, but FFS this is 2010... let's move on!
I don't think they are refusing to move with the times, but there simply isn't the money out there to do it. You can't get blood from a stone. Sure, I wouldn't mind tooling around in a brand new B200, but the income stream doesn't exist. I am curious to see what aircraft that people that complain think we should replace the fleet with? The only aircraft that have been made in the last ten years that are of a similar size/capabilites are still using the same engines that are in service now on older airframes and are still certified to the same standards. We live in a world where finance is a consideration to nearly everything and that is something that will never change. Not trying to be argumentative, just saying it how I see it.
It's actually quite a sad state of affairs, and one that is unlikely to change, except for maybe the worse! Polititians will never do anything about it, as it is not a high profile issue and doesn't affect a large percentage of the population. No votes and therefore no incentive to change it. CASA won't do anything, they are answerable only unto them selves and like any all powerful dictatorship, they are 'never wrong'. Pilots will never 'band together under one banner' to effect change. Just look at this forum. Intelligent professional pilots can't come to one concencuss about engine handling/training/whatever on something SO IMPORTANT that the blood we would like to be getting from some stone somewhere is coming from our own ranks.
I started this reply with something about M/E things, but now I can't remember what the hell I was going to say! Time for my nap I think.
I will edit and add it if I remember!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I quite agree that the real world is as you describe it.
But let's imagine, just for a moment, that CASA was to decide that most piston twins are too marginal at heavy weights to be safe.
One way out would be to mandate a lower MAUW to ensure some performance reserve. GA operators would naturally scream their heads off about that one.
Otherwise, I would replace every PA31 with a PA42-1000, every C404 with a C406, every C421 with a C425 or C441, and all the other common twins could be converted to turbine power using the plethora of conversions already out there. And then there are all the Thielert conversions. Sure, some production lines would have to open again, but think of all the new jobs...
Consign all those old flat sixes to the skip where they belong (ooooh, heresy I hear you cry...)
GA operators could, if they worked together, start charging realistic rates that reflect the true cost of operating modern equipment. But of course that will never happen... any change would have to be imposed.
The whole thing is a sad commentary on an industry that is supposed to place safety at the top of the priority list...
But let's imagine, just for a moment, that CASA was to decide that most piston twins are too marginal at heavy weights to be safe.
One way out would be to mandate a lower MAUW to ensure some performance reserve. GA operators would naturally scream their heads off about that one.
Otherwise, I would replace every PA31 with a PA42-1000, every C404 with a C406, every C421 with a C425 or C441, and all the other common twins could be converted to turbine power using the plethora of conversions already out there. And then there are all the Thielert conversions. Sure, some production lines would have to open again, but think of all the new jobs...
Consign all those old flat sixes to the skip where they belong (ooooh, heresy I hear you cry...)
GA operators could, if they worked together, start charging realistic rates that reflect the true cost of operating modern equipment. But of course that will never happen... any change would have to be imposed.
The whole thing is a sad commentary on an industry that is supposed to place safety at the top of the priority list...