GA8 Endo in Brisbane
ICUS on revenue flights isn't free considering a paying passenger may be paying $100 or more for an hours joy flight. There's $1,000 in lost revenue.
Where are all of these mythical employers that are giving jobs to job seeking pilots with zero time on type? We can add them to the newby pilots section! Sounds like a great way for newbies to get some 200 series time!
Where are all of these mythical employers that are giving jobs to job seeking pilots with zero time on type? We can add them to the newby pilots section! Sounds like a great way for newbies to get some 200 series time!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cairns, QLD
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICUS on revenue flights isn't free considering a paying passenger may be paying $100 or more for an hours joy flight. There's $1,000 in lost revenue.
I have come across many a GA operator who run ICUS on revenue flights where they are not paying the pilot who is being "ICUSed." It seems an industry norm.
Where are all of these mythical employers that are giving jobs to job seeking pilots with zero time on type? We can add them to the newby pilots section! Sounds like a great way for newbies to get some 200 series time!
I have worked for other companies where we have had smaller and larger Cessnas. A number of guys/girls would start on the smaller ones before moving up to the larger aircraft. They didn't have time of type.
It's hard enough getting a job, I doubt many 'Newbies' would p!ss off once they get their 10 hours or whatever.
Ok, so you raised charter flight. Who is going to take on someone with no time on type when there are plenty of others out there with time on type that are of a similar background?
The OP wanted time in a specific type and everyone is trying to talk him out of it. You only have to look at the a AFAP jobs to see that operators are requesting time on type as a minimum selection criteria, so why does everyone seem to think they they are entitled to free ICUS? Your new employer will want you learning the routes and then commentary, not learning to fly their aircraft, at their expense!
The OP wanted time in a specific type and everyone is trying to talk him out of it. You only have to look at the a AFAP jobs to see that operators are requesting time on type as a minimum selection criteria, so why does everyone seem to think they they are entitled to free ICUS? Your new employer will want you learning the routes and then commentary, not learning to fly their aircraft, at their expense!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Free ICUS??? How is it free? ICUS should be considered a training cost that an employer is willing to undertake when they take on new staff.
I hope you're not an employer of pilots Squawk7700! You sound like you'd be a great person to work for!
Not blowing my own trumpet, but in 3 of the 4 GA jobs I've had (including 2 twin jobs) I had no time on type before I started. Nor did I pay for any endorsements, however I did make gentlemans agreements (and stuck by them) to providea at least a suitable return of service before looking to move on. Good operators are certainly not mythical.
I hope you're not an employer of pilots Squawk7700! You sound like you'd be a great person to work for!
Not blowing my own trumpet, but in 3 of the 4 GA jobs I've had (including 2 twin jobs) I had no time on type before I started. Nor did I pay for any endorsements, however I did make gentlemans agreements (and stuck by them) to providea at least a suitable return of service before looking to move on. Good operators are certainly not mythical.
I am not an employer.
I just can't understand how everyone is saying in this thread that you don't need any time on type to get a job and the employer should pay you for ICUS, but yet in every other thread regarding getting jobs (particularly scoring a first job up north) everyone is saying that you need XX hours of 200 series time etc. Perhaps things in the industry have changed that much in the last 3 months since one of those threads was posted!
I will stop now so don't say the same thing over and over.
I just can't understand how everyone is saying in this thread that you don't need any time on type to get a job and the employer should pay you for ICUS, but yet in every other thread regarding getting jobs (particularly scoring a first job up north) everyone is saying that you need XX hours of 200 series time etc. Perhaps things in the industry have changed that much in the last 3 months since one of those threads was posted!
I will stop now so don't say the same thing over and over.
theSOD, for the purposes of getting an airvan endo on your kiwi licence you need to have 5 hours command in your logbook. That automatically gives you the endo in New Zealand.
Each different model requires a formal type rating.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lumps
I am glad we are over the bickering and onto something educational.
I was referring to the N/A bird. yes it is true the TC one has some poor operational stuff too, but most are N/A and the clanger is quite bizarre but nobody picks it up.
Some background, teaching a class to the worlds biggest GA fleet pilots and LAME's about 12 months ago, discussion centred around POH and some basic handling matters .I was gobsmacked at the stupidity of the claim of what was in the POH and why it was there. After I went through it we all agreed it was dumb. So I asked George when I met him at OSH on the GA stand, he agreed.
I have had one PM and this post so far. Not many critical thinkers in the GA8 fleet it seems. And no, if you fly them I do not blame you, you were told to be parrots not thinkers, just like I was. Do not feel I am beating up on you.
So what do you reckon Lumps?
Jaba - turbocharged or NA?
The turbo one has some shocking advice, NA nothing that we haven't seen before... unless I'm missing something.
The turbo one has some shocking advice, NA nothing that we haven't seen before... unless I'm missing something.
I was referring to the N/A bird. yes it is true the TC one has some poor operational stuff too, but most are N/A and the clanger is quite bizarre but nobody picks it up.
Some background, teaching a class to the worlds biggest GA fleet pilots and LAME's about 12 months ago, discussion centred around POH and some basic handling matters .I was gobsmacked at the stupidity of the claim of what was in the POH and why it was there. After I went through it we all agreed it was dumb. So I asked George when I met him at OSH on the GA stand, he agreed.
I have had one PM and this post so far. Not many critical thinkers in the GA8 fleet it seems. And no, if you fly them I do not blame you, you were told to be parrots not thinkers, just like I was. Do not feel I am beating up on you.
So what do you reckon Lumps?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Overhead but you didn't notice
Age: 21
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad we are over the bickering and onto something educational.
I've read the POH twice now and I can't find anything super obvious.
Apart from disagreeing with a number of things written in there the only thing I can find coming remotely close to fitting in with the riddle is:
"best economy - enrich 0_o mixture until the EGT indicator is 25-50deg F rich of peak EGT"
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bots
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm missing it too... Even with an additional hint of which section to look in 
I've been asking around the other operators in town as well, between us we're operating close to 30 Airvans. But still, we've come up with nothing.
Unless we are talking about an over-square power setting... And that's not a discussion I feel like reading again.
On the search however, we did find a typo in the Lycoming engine handbook
.
I've been asking around the other operators in town as well, between us we're operating close to 30 Airvans. But still, we've come up with nothing.
Unless we are talking about an over-square power setting... And that's not a discussion I feel like reading again.
On the search however, we did find a typo in the Lycoming engine handbook
.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba - I give up!
Aside from the usual Lycoming prattle below, nothing pops out. For the sake of any other dyslexic/low IQ GA8 operators out there would you be able to illuminate us?
Aside from the usual Lycoming prattle below, nothing pops out. For the sake of any other dyslexic/low IQ GA8 operators out there would you be able to illuminate us?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Onya Tankie
OK the Section 4 entry is the soft target, and obviously the easy one to find. In this day and age I think we all realise that section 4 is not the same significant section as section 2. Having said that CASA certified this not the FAA so who knows what CASA consider non negotiable.
But anyway the big silly one is in section 2. It states;
NOTE
2700 RPM may only be used for take-off to a safe height as required to clear
obstacles or reach 250ft AGL. Operations at 2700 RPM are limited to a
maximum period of two minutes. For all other operations maximum power is
to be limited to MCP at 2500 RPM.
Now ask yourself the question why this was put in there? The obvious first response to the unknowing person is ..ohh its an engine limitation.
NOPE!!!
Anyone care to guess what they were trying to achieve, but in the end achieved the exact opposite, and effectively made life harder on the engine? (albeit slightly and not seriously, but harder, less efficient etc and certainly not optimal)
By the way, despite what the POH says, this is one case where if you operate one or own one, you would ignore this and use 2700 all the way to TOC, and before any rule nazi gets going, if you are in commercial ops you would rewrite your ops manual accordingly and get CASA to sign off on it.
It is akin to Toyota having in their operation manila a statement saying apply hand brake, start car, select D and drive off. This is a genuine mistake of a good idea with unintended consequences.
To achieve the desired outcome they should have written, take-off at 2500-2600 RPM, passing 1500' or maximum two minutes apply full 2700 RPM for the climb. If runway length or obstacle clearance dictates full performance use 2700 RPM for the entire climb.
Hopefully that has given a clue to the astute folk among you.
Sorry .its a brain bender because of the way everyone has been bludgeoned into thinking the POH is beyond reproach! (Most have gross BS in them somewhere
)
OK the Section 4 entry is the soft target, and obviously the easy one to find. In this day and age I think we all realise that section 4 is not the same significant section as section 2. Having said that CASA certified this not the FAA so who knows what CASA consider non negotiable.
But anyway the big silly one is in section 2. It states;
NOTE
2700 RPM may only be used for take-off to a safe height as required to clear
obstacles or reach 250ft AGL. Operations at 2700 RPM are limited to a
maximum period of two minutes. For all other operations maximum power is
to be limited to MCP at 2500 RPM.
Now ask yourself the question why this was put in there? The obvious first response to the unknowing person is ..ohh its an engine limitation.
NOPE!!!
Anyone care to guess what they were trying to achieve, but in the end achieved the exact opposite, and effectively made life harder on the engine? (albeit slightly and not seriously, but harder, less efficient etc and certainly not optimal)
By the way, despite what the POH says, this is one case where if you operate one or own one, you would ignore this and use 2700 all the way to TOC, and before any rule nazi gets going, if you are in commercial ops you would rewrite your ops manual accordingly and get CASA to sign off on it.
It is akin to Toyota having in their operation manila a statement saying apply hand brake, start car, select D and drive off. This is a genuine mistake of a good idea with unintended consequences.
To achieve the desired outcome they should have written, take-off at 2500-2600 RPM, passing 1500' or maximum two minutes apply full 2700 RPM for the climb. If runway length or obstacle clearance dictates full performance use 2700 RPM for the entire climb.
Hopefully that has given a clue to the astute folk among you.
Sorry .its a brain bender because of the way everyone has been bludgeoned into thinking the POH is beyond reproach! (Most have gross BS in them somewhere
)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Overhead but you didn't notice
Age: 21
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh, I was going to post that but I personally didn't think it was that big of a misdemeanour on their part as you were alluding to. Sure its another artificial limitation though. Should have gone with my gut feeling.
When I fly the Airvan I go full throttle on take-off where it stays for the duration on the flight. Due to operating in a noise sensitive area once clear of obstacles I actually further retard the RPM to 2400-2300 where that also stays for the duration the flight. I'm another one of those lazy ones that likes to minimize fiddling in the cockpit. Once leveled out the mixture comes a fair way back and I'm done.
When I fly the Airvan I go full throttle on take-off where it stays for the duration on the flight. Due to operating in a noise sensitive area once clear of obstacles I actually further retard the RPM to 2400-2300 where that also stays for the duration the flight. I'm another one of those lazy ones that likes to minimize fiddling in the cockpit. Once leveled out the mixture comes a fair way back and I'm done.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK, two Chocky frogs!
Yeah it was for noise abatement. But Section 2 ???
To minimise noise about 2600 is all you need to reduce to, and once above 1500' the effective noise is reduced by distance so you might as well run it back to 2700.
This is kinder on the engine by means of lower peak cylinder pressure, hence CHT, and more climb power available thus quicker to TOC.
FCP, I assume you are not climbing very high.
Good work guys
PIP maybe they have fixed that in recent versions. The one I have is 10+ years old. The TC version does not have it either.
This is yet another reason why critical thinking of POH's is necessary. Many are far from sensible, and some are very poor.
Yeah it was for noise abatement. But Section 2 ???
To minimise noise about 2600 is all you need to reduce to, and once above 1500' the effective noise is reduced by distance so you might as well run it back to 2700.
This is kinder on the engine by means of lower peak cylinder pressure, hence CHT, and more climb power available thus quicker to TOC.
FCP, I assume you are not climbing very high.
Good work guys
PIP maybe they have fixed that in recent versions. The one I have is 10+ years old. The TC version does not have it either.
This is yet another reason why critical thinking of POH's is necessary. Many are far from sensible, and some are very poor.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah the later models do not have that in the POH, as they have a 'gate' that limits RPM to 2500 for take off.
Going through the gate is labelled EMERGENCY. Snort. 2700rpm in an IO-540-K, hardly an emergency.
Jaba - I recall that the difference in peak pressure's etc didn't shift a huge amount from 27to2500 RPM? The effect is there and noticeable, but all in all not a big one, when looking at actual ICP/CHT numbers? Over a year since I did the APS course so some things are starting to fade...
I will give full credit to Lycoming and GA for this though, at 2500rpm and 29" the thing is flowing 100 litres per hour (275hp). And that is how it comes out of the factory.
As compared to the 89 lph advocated by the A36 AFM (IO550) for same power setting:
Another thing for any other GA8 drivers, seeing as this thread has slowly, and thankfully, morphed into something else - if you only have the factory analogue tacho get a TrueTac or similar and verify it is telling the truth. We installed a JPI and found that it was under reading by over 100rpm. This is on a new aircraft! Also, the error is non-linear - as in at lowish RPM there is negligible error, but grows with increasing RPM. It needs to be checked in flight! (preferably)
It meant we were getting 2600+ on take off. Perfect! Only problem here is if you go through the gate and leave it there you may be running it at over 2800rpm, and you may want to check Lycoming SB.369I
Going through the gate is labelled EMERGENCY. Snort. 2700rpm in an IO-540-K, hardly an emergency.
Jaba - I recall that the difference in peak pressure's etc didn't shift a huge amount from 27to2500 RPM? The effect is there and noticeable, but all in all not a big one, when looking at actual ICP/CHT numbers? Over a year since I did the APS course so some things are starting to fade...
I will give full credit to Lycoming and GA for this though, at 2500rpm and 29" the thing is flowing 100 litres per hour (275hp). And that is how it comes out of the factory.
As compared to the 89 lph advocated by the A36 AFM (IO550) for same power setting:
Another thing for any other GA8 drivers, seeing as this thread has slowly, and thankfully, morphed into something else - if you only have the factory analogue tacho get a TrueTac or similar and verify it is telling the truth. We installed a JPI and found that it was under reading by over 100rpm. This is on a new aircraft! Also, the error is non-linear - as in at lowish RPM there is negligible error, but grows with increasing RPM. It needs to be checked in flight! (preferably)
It meant we were getting 2600+ on take off. Perfect! Only problem here is if you go through the gate and leave it there you may be running it at over 2800rpm, and you may want to check Lycoming SB.369I
Last edited by Lumps; 28th May 2015 at 23:27. Reason: clarifications on last bit