Southern airlines, vortex?
The following 2 users liked this post by 172heavy:
I had a signature that said I could fly a PA31 (after 1.5 hour training, with one engine failure at altitude) but wasn’t completely convinced.
So signed up to Vortex ICUS program to gain experience on a PA31 about 15 year ago.
Learned a lot - Chieftains, at night, IMC (down to minimas) full payload, minimum fuel….that sorts the men from the boys.
Went from someone who had a signature to fly PA31s to someone who could actually fly PA31s.
The lessons learned remain with me now.
So signed up to Vortex ICUS program to gain experience on a PA31 about 15 year ago.
Learned a lot - Chieftains, at night, IMC (down to minimas) full payload, minimum fuel….that sorts the men from the boys.
Went from someone who had a signature to fly PA31s to someone who could actually fly PA31s.
The lessons learned remain with me now.
The following 2 users liked this post by outnabout:
There's an ABC article that tells you everything you need to know, it's in the top few search results.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...yment/10593284
Learned a lot - Chieftains, at night, IMC (down to minimas) full payload, minimum fuel….that sorts the men from the boys.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Mar 2024 at 10:18.
The following users liked this post:
Or is the turnover ongoing - which suggests poor working conditions, dodgy maintenance, non compliance etc? If so, avoid, avoid, avoid.
The old ABC clip posted elsewhere here was dated 2018. At the time they had come to the attention of the AFAP for alleged underpayment, and to the authorities for pilot fatigue. Times change…hopefully.
The following 2 users liked this post by evilducky:
43 inches, in my experience, neither CASA nor insurance companies agree with the opinion that a Chieftain is pretty simple and easy to fly.
A heavy PA31 on a warm day has some interesting handling characteristics. Add in another factor - an engine hiccup, a short strip - and it is not a job for a beginner.
A heavy PA31 on a warm day has some interesting handling characteristics. Add in another factor - an engine hiccup, a short strip - and it is not a job for a beginner.
A heavy (insert any type here) on a warm day has some interesting handling characteristics. Add in another factor - an engine hiccup, a short strip - and it is not a job for a beginner.
A heavy PA31 on a warm day has some interesting handling characteristics. Add in another factor - an engine hiccup, a short strip - and it is not a job for a beginner.
The Cheiftain is a very stable and easy to fly IFR platform, these days kitted out in many cases with better cockpit set ups than a lot of regional airliners. The PA-31 is simple, keep the speed up, don't get into the drag bucket, make sure your maintenance is kept up to spec. Read and follow the POH and you will be fine. Back when I flew them the insurance companies were not so phased and PPLs flew them around, a few bad endorsements and stupid hull losses, like the NNN event and so on and the insurers got touchy with all larger light aircraft. In the US PA31s are as much flown by private pilots as charter operators. Another way Oztranaughts make things out harder than they need to be and over complicate what is very simple. Learn to fly first properly and aircraft like the PA31 are a no brainer. No amount of ICUS will fix bad piloting and maintenance, which is how most of the accidents occur in these aircraft.
BTW I have flown these things in Charter and RPT many times at full load and flown more than a few minima circling approaches in actual conditions.
If you are going to have trouble with a PA31 you will have trouble with anything larger than a Cherokee,e specially big single pistons. And that said, I'm not saying you can jump straight from a Warrior to a PA31 and be comfortable, but from other light twins its pretty simple to step into. I did PA-44, PA-34 (I), and then into the Navajo, while I was nervous about the size I found it very easy to fly and stable so that IFR was very simple. Back then we did mixture cuts at 100ft on take-off and I've done actual feathered engine upper airwork in it, it was docile and performed fine to touchdown where we restarted. Also a Navajo glides better than a Lance with both engines feathered, but I won't go further into that. In any case I found the PA31 a pleasurable experience. There are however a whole book of myths and wives tales on how to operate it, some will lead you astray.
Last edited by 43Inches; 2nd Mar 2024 at 22:37.
The following 3 users liked this post by 43Inches:
Nothing wrong with an old or new aeroplane in any conditions as long as it is airworthy.
Just about all accidents are caused by the nut behind the bolt, with the nut being the pilot.
The days of good flight training have long gone in Australia.
Does anyone simulate engine failures in piston twins these days by quickly retarding a mixture lever to idle cut off just after V1, with no notice and the gear still down or being retracted? Common practice back in my day as a junior pilot, then to have to fly it around the circuit area and land single engine - simulated.
Just about all accidents are caused by the nut behind the bolt, with the nut being the pilot.
The days of good flight training have long gone in Australia.
Does anyone simulate engine failures in piston twins these days by quickly retarding a mixture lever to idle cut off just after V1, with no notice and the gear still down or being retracted? Common practice back in my day as a junior pilot, then to have to fly it around the circuit area and land single engine - simulated.
43 Inches, the training scenarios you describe no longer exist - limited by those who let their ambitions override their capabilities, and the subsequent caution by insurance companies.
PA31s have not changed in 50 years…..but training standards have. The result is that - in my opinion - a PA31 is now not an aircraft for a low time pilot.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you flew a PA31 in commercial ops?
PA31s have not changed in 50 years…..but training standards have. The result is that - in my opinion - a PA31 is now not an aircraft for a low time pilot.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you flew a PA31 in commercial ops?
Does anyone simulate engine failures in piston twins these days by quickly retarding a mixture lever to idle cut off just after V1, with no notice and the gear still down or being retracted? Common practice back in my day as a junior pilot, then to have to fly it around the circuit area and land single engine - simulated.
I’m hard pressed to think of a piston twin that has a real V1. Training outside the design capabilities of the type (this GA trope) is at best like the old Dusty Springfield song “wishin’ and hopin’. At worst it is training for an accident waiting to happen.
The DC3 and Cessna 404, when flown under the old Reg 203, are exceptions with measured OEI performance.
In the mid 80s the Chief Pilot decided to tabulise the take off and landing data across a diverse GA fleet. As the junior pilot on the C404, coming from the 310 and 402 I had to do the TOLD cards based on both the manufacturers and the DCA graphs. It turned out that the 404 was severely temperature limited under “Transport Category” for our operations.
Funnily enough, 20 years later (different 404 operator/operation and those Reg 203 DCA tables are hard to find) but the C&T gurus were training a “standard brief” regardless of weight or temp involving a fictitious V1, engine failure, gear, flap feather, fictitious V2, 1500ft, sector LSA then go home to mum and the kids.
Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin'
indeed.
Does any one still train that way? I hope not.
The days of good flight training are ahead of us - with full motion simulators, training and practicing realistic scenarios to a logical conclusion.
Last edited by pithblot; 3rd Mar 2024 at 09:57. Reason: Typo. R206 DCA…‘twas Reg203
The following 3 users liked this post by pithblot:
Nobody trains that way anymore, there was good and bad about the methods, I definitely never used a V1 in any light twin. We had TOSS and Blue Line that was about it, throw in some mental reminders about where we could safely land back on the remaining runway, and where we had to have alternative plans. I threw in that part about the training with actual failures as at least it proved the aircraft could fly on one engine fairly well given the right conditions.
Comparing the good/bad old days with today is not really possible. 20 years ago you had to know how to do NDB/VOR/DGAs all with circling at the end, that was where the real danger was. These days you can avoid circling altogether with GPS, RNP SI Approaches and moving terrain displays make CFIT less likely and all sorts of engine monitoring devices for your entertainment.
Fluffing up the very rare occurrence of an engine failure on take-off was almost non existent, so that's why many pilots departed with slim to no single engine performance in those types. Well known accidents, MZK (PIC 2000 TT with 1100 on type) double engine failure in cruise, WGI (PIC had 700 TT and 46 Twin, 3 on type) and NDU (Two Crew, PIC with almost 2000 hrs and Co with 1000 hours) were both accidents during night circling, NNN was a case of a pilot that didn't even follow the basics of flight planning, let alone how to handle a single engine approach/go-round. Many others in the 80s with all different ways of crashing, including taking off out of Cairns in IMC and flying straight into the hills, or trying to land in a WA storm squall and hitting mine equipment during multiple go rounds (20,000+ hour pilot on that one). If anything the classic hot weather light twin EFATO accident was ANV a 404 Titan flown by a pilot with 17,000 odd hours. There is a case of a lowish time pilot having an engine failure on take-off and crashing a PA-31-350 out of Portland, but the BASI report had the weight of the aircraft at least 3400kg and possibly a lot more, with CoG beyond the rear of the envelope, no real guessing why it didn't climb.
Comparing the good/bad old days with today is not really possible. 20 years ago you had to know how to do NDB/VOR/DGAs all with circling at the end, that was where the real danger was. These days you can avoid circling altogether with GPS, RNP SI Approaches and moving terrain displays make CFIT less likely and all sorts of engine monitoring devices for your entertainment.
Fluffing up the very rare occurrence of an engine failure on take-off was almost non existent, so that's why many pilots departed with slim to no single engine performance in those types. Well known accidents, MZK (PIC 2000 TT with 1100 on type) double engine failure in cruise, WGI (PIC had 700 TT and 46 Twin, 3 on type) and NDU (Two Crew, PIC with almost 2000 hrs and Co with 1000 hours) were both accidents during night circling, NNN was a case of a pilot that didn't even follow the basics of flight planning, let alone how to handle a single engine approach/go-round. Many others in the 80s with all different ways of crashing, including taking off out of Cairns in IMC and flying straight into the hills, or trying to land in a WA storm squall and hitting mine equipment during multiple go rounds (20,000+ hour pilot on that one). If anything the classic hot weather light twin EFATO accident was ANV a 404 Titan flown by a pilot with 17,000 odd hours. There is a case of a lowish time pilot having an engine failure on take-off and crashing a PA-31-350 out of Portland, but the BASI report had the weight of the aircraft at least 3400kg and possibly a lot more, with CoG beyond the rear of the envelope, no real guessing why it didn't climb.
The following users liked this post:
The late Gordon Smith was known for saying there are three times a pilot is at their most dangerous:
100 hours, when they think they know it all.
1000 hours, when they believe they know it all.
10000 hours, when they know they know it all.
I have also noted the number of times in recent years when a pilot with “thousands of hours” stacks it in a “newly purchased” aircraft.
100 hours, when they think they know it all.
1000 hours, when they believe they know it all.
10000 hours, when they know they know it all.
I have also noted the number of times in recent years when a pilot with “thousands of hours” stacks it in a “newly purchased” aircraft.
The following users liked this post: