Some instructors see no problem at all with cutting the mixture to simulate engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft after take off. The fact that the failed engine may not re-start instantly doesn't faze them one bit. And if it doesn't start instantly when the mixture is re-set to Rich, the the situation becomes worse than critical because now the prop is windmilling and the speed drops back real fast and the aircraft descends. Do this trick at 200 feet after lift off and an accident looms. The Camden Duchess fatal is a case in point. And by the way the student in that accident did not die three months later. He was very much alive several years later because I talked to him.

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..:ok:

Presumably you have contacted the aircraft manufacturer to advise him of your precautions and also filed a report with ATSB so they too can advise all operators. And of course written up the defect in the maintenance release:ok:

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!!

Folks,
Sorry about the digital dysfunction and the double post.
Too late at night/early in the morning.
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.

Interesting reading.

Hypothetical question:

Im coming up for my first renewal in few months. :eek:

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!

Clinton,

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!!

Now this is an interesting twist!

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 :8

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.

So the rumour is that Wingaway is still operating under another AOC based on the north Coast.
WTF???!!!:confused:

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....:ouch:

they are cross hiring from another port mac business which isn't premier. whats legal is legal.

Further rumour has it that CASA have now suspended Airtex's maintenance operation approvals. Lucky they got the YMRE PA31 back home in time.! :=

Rummor incorrect.

AAT/CASA vs Mein Herr
 

Anybody got any info on how Airte went at the AAT shindig yesterday?
Might have been better in a conventional court of law.

A conventional court of law is not an option when appealing an administrative decision by a Govt Dept :ugh: :yuk:

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.

Out of interest...any further news on the AAt hearing?

Not so. Firstly, in the AAT hearing CASA are the respondents (civil court name for defendants) and the company is the applicant (civil name for plaintiff). Now the problem for the applicant is that there are no rules of evidence in the AAT.

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.

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)

Um..........................no. :=

The link you posted was to the AAT's decision on an interlocutory matter. Avtex made an application that the Chairman of the AAT hearing disqualify himself from hearing the appeal because he had refused their application for a stay of suspension of their AOC.

However, the basic facts on which CASA acted are in the decision and in particular, 3 specific crashes: the Metro off Sydney, the wheels-up of the PA31 out of Marree and the Canley Vale crash.

The final decision will make interesting reading. However, I am tipping that CASA will get up on this. This is based on nothing more than the final decision (pending any appeals) has been a long time coming after the hearing.

If the decision was going to be in favour of Avtex then normally you would get a much quicker decision with published reasons coming later. The AAT is aware of the commercial consequences of its decisions so if the AOC was to be restored they would make it sooner than later.

Try this one
 

Dat da one. :}

ref para 96 to 101, the 26 pilots that were given PA-31 endorsements, technically, were they ever endorsed??If CASA decided to cancel their endorsements, would the 1000 plus hours some of these blokes have logged and their ATPL be void??? I know of a couple of these blokes(from the 26) and they have moved onto bigger and better things using their PA-31 time. This could throw a spanner in the works if their endorsement was not legal.

Kudos to CASA. I'll bet Avtex wished they didn't appeal to the tribunal.

tiger19 - my reading was that CASA just sought to ensure they got remedial training to validate the endorsement, it doesn't seem to imply they wanted to revoke the endorsements. It would seem a bit heavy handed to make 1000 hours of experience disappear because the initial training was done improperly when all that was required was some additional training.

Also, on reading that proceedings document I concur with Sunfish. If nothing else the way the CEO was trying to slight of hand responsibilities and switch between legal entities as a defence was appalling, and the complete lack of action on the issues identified just underscores the culture he was applying.

What a damning indication of the state of aviation in this country.
I love what was said about the fatigue systems.
No better example of the inmates running the asylum. Does anyone really think CASA will take any notice, or just wait for the next spate of accidents.

Oz Biggles CASA did take notice! CASA are damned if they do and Damned if they dont. Did you even read the report fool?

There are people in CASA far smarter than you and I who have done far bigger things in aviation than you can ever dream of.

The Director is no fool! He has good people working for the core value of SAFE SKIES FOR ALL.

Not necessarily - it was the only way I reduced power on piston singles (PA 28 and C150) over three years instructing.

Twaddle - I'm firmly with Clinton on this one.

The fire goes out in every cylinder for three quarters of the time, even when the engine is running at full throttle. :rolleyes:

IMHO people are "afraid" of the mixture in the same way they are "afraid" of turning the master switch off in flight - because they don't understand the system.

Is anybody now wondering why the Avtex/Skymaster AOC's were pulled?

Are we going to get anymore of those flowery, latin type posts defending them?

Will the former AOC holders be 'allowed' to create a new entity with new company directors at 'arms length' from the previous directors?

And best of all will State Governments continue to award tenders for medical transport to the lowest tenderer? Have a look at what happened in Victoria and tell me that Governments (politicians and public servants) aren't complicit in what happened at Canley Vale.

It's all on record now and will be proven by a good QC or two. Pity it takes smoking holes (multiple) in the ground to prove these things :yuk:

It's now very clear as to what happens when you put garbage into parliament. It starts there.

Well said JR :D. There should be some very serious questioning going on in NSW Health about this.

Dirty
I agree there are people out there much smarter than me and who have done more, on that we agree.
I'm more on the side of do, not don't do.
Would you say CASA have covered themselves in glory in regard to this case? The Lockhart river case? and a few more that I can bring up? This wasn't an overnight activity, this went on for ages. It took TWO fatal crashes for the AOC to be pulled.
Do you think letting companies run their own fatigue systems works?
I feel sorry for the companies that have to compete playing by the rules while others bend/break/crash the rules.

Was the name of the airline who's name was painted on the side of the Metro, who's tickets bore the same name, and were issued by the same company, relieved of it's AOC because of LHR?

Gee Frank.....its always been a David and Goliath act with CASA. You will need a mighty big rock or they know you'll run outta stones eventually.

A very wise old aviator once told me, a young crusader "you'll never beat the system". Took a long time to realise. :)

Just a point of clarification please.

Is it AIRtex or AVtex? The formal AAT ruling refers to a company called Avtex yet many posters are referring to the company as Airtex.

Same thing is happening on other PPrune threads.

I thought it was Airtex but was referring to what the hearing called them..........

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd trading as Airtex Aviation

who will 'marry' DS in Long Bay? :yuk:

The report points to some serious stuff...

Airtex website still fully operational ?

AOC's and "borrowing"
 

Civil Aviation Order 82.0

3 Conditions relating to “borrowed” certificates
3.1 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate is suspended or cancelled (“the other person”) under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person was authorised to operate under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation covered by the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, that the other person intended to conduct under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled.
3.2 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate has been varied (“the other person”), under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person:
(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to operate under the other person’s certificate; but
(ii) is no longer authorised to operate under the certificate as varied; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation that the other person:
(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to conduct under the other person’s certificate; but
(ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation that the other person:
(i) intended to conduct under the other person’s certificate as it had effect immediately before the variation; but (ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied.

3.3 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose application for a certificate is still pending (“the other person”) under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person proposed to be employed or engaged by the other person in connection with any operation proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, proposed to be covered by the certificate sought.