Merged: The multi engine debate.
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...
The T-1050 would have been even better as a stretched 15 seater, could replace the Bandits but the concept never went into production.
As Ratsore said if this was forced on GA operators most would shut down rather than upgrade, airport operators would be able to justify further sell offs and the downward cycle would accellerate with GA relegated to country airstrips similar to Europe.
It would be interesting to see how a brand new Chieftain produced with Panther kit and Ultracooling intakes would perform.
Last edited by 43Inches; 5th Aug 2010 at 00:22.
Clinton,
Oh! for the Shadin and similar then, plus calibrated (Gamijectors) injectors, we would have saved even more money.
Re. How were failures simulated ---- very carefully!!
Seriously, gentle reduction of the throttle to above idle ---- pilot flying to identify the engine, minimum of a double check, ie: dead foot/dead engine plus instrument indications ( with a training shutdown, minimum 3000' AGL, daylight VMC only ).
In a real failure the pilot flying was expected to run the throttle/thrust lever for the failed engine up and down, and confirm no response, before completing the securing the engine.
Made Deakin's acquaintance many years ago, a very clear thinker --- and a very pleasant chap. And quite a stick and rudder man as well, with experience on some wonderful aircraft that I can only envy.
Tootle pip!!
Oh! for the Shadin and similar then, plus calibrated (Gamijectors) injectors, we would have saved even more money.
Re. How were failures simulated ---- very carefully!!
Seriously, gentle reduction of the throttle to above idle ---- pilot flying to identify the engine, minimum of a double check, ie: dead foot/dead engine plus instrument indications ( with a training shutdown, minimum 3000' AGL, daylight VMC only ).
In a real failure the pilot flying was expected to run the throttle/thrust lever for the failed engine up and down, and confirm no response, before completing the securing the engine.
Made Deakin's acquaintance many years ago, a very clear thinker --- and a very pleasant chap. And quite a stick and rudder man as well, with experience on some wonderful aircraft that I can only envy.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As a bloke who used to fly the Cheiftain always at night, 9 times out of 10 at MTOW and sometimes into crappy weather I always had the feeling I was biding time, sitting there waiting for something to happen. Thank christ I rarely had pasengers. I decided that I wasn't happy with the risks involved with this type of operation and moved on. (My best day in GA)
Along with the above: Planning and flying in known icing conditions (just climb above it!) Departing and flying an approach when conditions are known to be below landing minima at destination. Departing when cells are forecast and observed on your track (via the BOM site before hopping in the plane). Next to no engine knowledge from some of the pilots you are working with, it only takes one (how much damage has been done to the engine by the bloke before you?)
No thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To simulate or not. That is the question.
Been doing some research, with interesting results.
It seems there is a very serious effort being made to enforce 'real' in flight engine shut down and re light. It appears that despite manufacturer recommendations and advice that 'simulated' procedures provide better training and a safer environment, this has been declared unacceptable. "No excuses Joyce, just shut it down". I know what the CAO says, however:
This begs a few interesting questions, for instance the judgement of the PIC, the manufacturers recommendations, the advice of several serious advisory bodies (ATSB, NTSB etc. etc.), blatant contradiction of the AFM and the wrath of the insurance companies. Don't even mention the declaration of an emergency and, continuation of flight with OEI etc.
My two bob' s worth. Contradict the AFM, Oh sure, give me a written directive, see you in court. My arse, my command and my call.
It seems there is a very serious effort being made to enforce 'real' in flight engine shut down and re light. It appears that despite manufacturer recommendations and advice that 'simulated' procedures provide better training and a safer environment, this has been declared unacceptable. "No excuses Joyce, just shut it down". I know what the CAO says, however:
This begs a few interesting questions, for instance the judgement of the PIC, the manufacturers recommendations, the advice of several serious advisory bodies (ATSB, NTSB etc. etc.), blatant contradiction of the AFM and the wrath of the insurance companies. Don't even mention the declaration of an emergency and, continuation of flight with OEI etc.
My two bob' s worth. Contradict the AFM, Oh sure, give me a written directive, see you in court. My arse, my command and my call.
Rose, just to clarify are you talking about a shut down during low level operations such as EFATO practice or at altitude in a designated training area.
If it is being pushed to shut down and feather in the circuit I think that is dangerous in any aircraft be it a piston twin or transport turbo-prop.
If it is conducted at altitude in a designated training area above suitable terrain in ideal conditions, there is nothing wrong. The manufacturers only warn against shut downs at low altitude. There is less risk than conducting a practiced forced landing in a single, aerobatics or advanced stalling sequences.
If it is being pushed to shut down and feather in the circuit I think that is dangerous in any aircraft be it a piston twin or transport turbo-prop.
If it is conducted at altitude in a designated training area above suitable terrain in ideal conditions, there is nothing wrong. The manufacturers only warn against shut downs at low altitude. There is less risk than conducting a practiced forced landing in a single, aerobatics or advanced stalling sequences.
Moderator
this has been declared unacceptable ..
There is a very simple pilot management technique to address this problem for SP IFR renewals.
For each renewal, and the initial issue (the latter with whatever CASA was known as that week), part of my brief was "touch anything below (whatever height I chose to nominate depending on the terrain pertaining) and we WILL land (whatever manoeuvring I elected - generally) straight ahead".
No-one ever called my bluff, whether CASA FOI or Industry AP examiner.
Airline heavy renewals were a different matter due to the significant weight margin and basic aircraft capability - mind you that didn't preclude excitement on every occasion (I can recall an Electra going off the side at Avalon and into the grass before it was pulled off the ground with a young JT's eyes more than somewhat wide open).
I am a convinced "do the dangerous stuff in the simulator" chap .. so that the worst outcome is for the ego.
My arse, my command and my call.
That appears to be a reasonable and justifiable view on life, death, and the universe ..
There is a very simple pilot management technique to address this problem for SP IFR renewals.
For each renewal, and the initial issue (the latter with whatever CASA was known as that week), part of my brief was "touch anything below (whatever height I chose to nominate depending on the terrain pertaining) and we WILL land (whatever manoeuvring I elected - generally) straight ahead".
No-one ever called my bluff, whether CASA FOI or Industry AP examiner.
Airline heavy renewals were a different matter due to the significant weight margin and basic aircraft capability - mind you that didn't preclude excitement on every occasion (I can recall an Electra going off the side at Avalon and into the grass before it was pulled off the ground with a young JT's eyes more than somewhat wide open).
I am a convinced "do the dangerous stuff in the simulator" chap .. so that the worst outcome is for the ego.
My arse, my command and my call.
That appears to be a reasonable and justifiable view on life, death, and the universe ..
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contradict the AFM, Oh sure, give me a written directive, see you in court. My arse, my command and my call.
...apart from this eminently sensible one...
part of my brief was "touch anything below (whatever height I chose to nominate depending on the terrain pertaining) and we WILL land (whatever manoeuvring I elected - generally) straight ahead".
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...of depreciation and failures
My two bobs worth...
GA would have newer a/c if we had similar to US (up to 25% depreciation PA). I think when Clinton was in office he allowed 50% depreciation first year for small business with a jet or turboprop.
The last time I looked in investing in an a/c in Oz the accountant quoted about 3% which is cr*p! Stupid when I can write down my car or laptop at up to 30% PA!!!
Many moons ago I got endorsed in a Pressurised Turbocharged Cessna 337. Due to the fact that they do not climb at all if the rear engine fails, we only pulled back the power once on the rear engine at almost cct height. However we failed front engine at 300ft with full load and ISA +20 which was scarey enough!
I have been sim flying for quite some time and when I explained the 337's inability to fly on the front donk, I loaded it up in the sim for a friend of mine that flies t/props. We set random failures of the rear engine, ISA+20 and MTOW: I think we went into the trees or houses 6 times before he admitted failure.
In these days of simulators, it seems reasonable that we can remove a significant amount of risk to the simulator environment, then practice in the actual aircraft at safe altitude with reduced risk.
Shock cooling, CHT, etc? Ever wonder why Rolls Royce, Allison and Mercedes used liquid cooled engines in WW2, because they do not suffer from these issues as badly as air cooled engines.
In this day and age it is sad that we are still flying around air cooled engines with their designs back in the thirties. A very close associate has an old 1925 4.5 litre 4 cylinder Bentley that has twin magnetos, twin plugs, manual advance retard, liquid cooled and SU carburettors so automatic mixture control... The mags have been rebuilt several times but the engine is still running at 350,000 miles without a spanner. He and I took it round Le Mans last year at over 100mph. A Lycoming would have had 5-6 rebuilds in that time!
GA aviation has been left behind - how many air cooled engine cars can you buy now... I think the last one was VW beetle back in 70's.
GA would have newer a/c if we had similar to US (up to 25% depreciation PA). I think when Clinton was in office he allowed 50% depreciation first year for small business with a jet or turboprop.
The last time I looked in investing in an a/c in Oz the accountant quoted about 3% which is cr*p! Stupid when I can write down my car or laptop at up to 30% PA!!!
Many moons ago I got endorsed in a Pressurised Turbocharged Cessna 337. Due to the fact that they do not climb at all if the rear engine fails, we only pulled back the power once on the rear engine at almost cct height. However we failed front engine at 300ft with full load and ISA +20 which was scarey enough!
I have been sim flying for quite some time and when I explained the 337's inability to fly on the front donk, I loaded it up in the sim for a friend of mine that flies t/props. We set random failures of the rear engine, ISA+20 and MTOW: I think we went into the trees or houses 6 times before he admitted failure.
In these days of simulators, it seems reasonable that we can remove a significant amount of risk to the simulator environment, then practice in the actual aircraft at safe altitude with reduced risk.
Shock cooling, CHT, etc? Ever wonder why Rolls Royce, Allison and Mercedes used liquid cooled engines in WW2, because they do not suffer from these issues as badly as air cooled engines.
In this day and age it is sad that we are still flying around air cooled engines with their designs back in the thirties. A very close associate has an old 1925 4.5 litre 4 cylinder Bentley that has twin magnetos, twin plugs, manual advance retard, liquid cooled and SU carburettors so automatic mixture control... The mags have been rebuilt several times but the engine is still running at 350,000 miles without a spanner. He and I took it round Le Mans last year at over 100mph. A Lycoming would have had 5-6 rebuilds in that time!
GA aviation has been left behind - how many air cooled engine cars can you buy now... I think the last one was VW beetle back in 70's.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best info available.
Only getting this second hand, but it all started with the first post (or the last, as pleases.
Had a 'chat' with a couple of the folks involved. It seems that at some unnamed GAAP aerodrome, despite two training sessions, conducted 'sensibly' a third training session was required due to "lack of evidence" related to 'proper' low slow (EFATO) asymmetric training techniques.
The 'sim' part is for real, that actually occurred.
It seems to me, that all FAR 23 aircraft need a safety net' before EFATO is contemplated. But, when CASA is happy with some half arsed box ticking frolic, instead of a balanced reasonable approach based against manufacturer recommendations, then it's time to hang up the ATO badge.
To my headless mate, I agree but CASA, it appears do not. Long live the Elite AT11.
Gear Down. Off the Christmas card list, due to pure envy. What a way to spend a day. Wow!.
Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).
Had a 'chat' with a couple of the folks involved. It seems that at some unnamed GAAP aerodrome, despite two training sessions, conducted 'sensibly' a third training session was required due to "lack of evidence" related to 'proper' low slow (EFATO) asymmetric training techniques.
The 'sim' part is for real, that actually occurred.
It seems to me, that all FAR 23 aircraft need a safety net' before EFATO is contemplated. But, when CASA is happy with some half arsed box ticking frolic, instead of a balanced reasonable approach based against manufacturer recommendations, then it's time to hang up the ATO badge.
To my headless mate, I agree but CASA, it appears do not. Long live the Elite AT11.
Gear Down. Off the Christmas card list, due to pure envy. What a way to spend a day. Wow!.
Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).
Last edited by Rose_Thorns; 6th Aug 2010 at 07:18. Reason: Typos (again).
