Fast cruise in a Cessna 152
From CAP 393, section 1, article 150:
Summarizing: there is no need to carry the POH in the UK unless you're operating a public transport flight (at least that's my understanding). As I mentioned before, in The Netherlands you are required to carry the POH so this bit of regulation is dependent on the country you're flying over/in.
Circumstances in which documents are to be carried
1 Subject to paragraph 3:
(a) on a public transport flight, Documents A, B, C, D, E, F, H and, if the flight is
international air navigation, Documents G and I must be carried;
(b) on an aerial work flight, Documents A, B, C, E, F and, if the flight is international
air navigation, Documents G and I must be carried;
(c) on a private flight which is international air navigation, Documents A, B, C, G and
I must be carried;
(d) on a flight made in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to the
operator under article 41(3), Document J must be carried.
Description of documents
2 For the purposes of this Schedule:
(a) 'Document A' means the licence in force under the Wireless Telegraphy Act
2006(a) for the aircraft radio station installed in the aircraft;
(b) 'Document B' means in the case of a non-EASA aircraft the national certificate of
airworthiness in force for the aircraft(b);
(c) 'Document C' means the licences of the members of the flight crew of the
aircraft;
(d) 'Document D' means one copy of the load sheet, if any, required by article 100
for the flight;
(e) 'Document E' means one copy of each certificate of maintenance review
required by article 25(2), if any, in force for the aircraft;
(f) 'Document F' means the technical log, if any, in which entries are required to be
made under article 27(2);
(g) 'Document G' means the certificate of registration in force for the aircraft;
(h) 'Document H' means those parts of the operations manual, if any, required by
article 83(4)(c) to be carried on the flight;
(i) 'Document I' means a copy of the notified procedures to be followed by the pilot
in command of an intercepted aircraft, and the notified visual signals for use by
intercepting and intercepted aircraft;
(j) 'Document J' means the permission, if any, granted for the aircraft under article
41(3).
Exceptions
3 (1) If the certificate of airworthiness includes the flight manual for the aircraft and with
the permission of the CAA, an aircraft to which article 83 applies need not carry the
flight manual as part of Document B.
(2) With the permission of the CAA, an aircraft to which article 83 applies need not carry
Document J if it carries an operations manual which includes the detailed information
specified at paragraph 1(s) of Part A of Schedule 8.
Definition
4 For the purposes of this Schedule, 'international air navigation' means any flight which
includes passage over the territory of any country other than the United Kingdom, but
does not include passage over any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any other
relevant overseas territory to which there is power to extend the Civil Aviation Act
1982(a)under section 108(1) of that Act.
1 Subject to paragraph 3:
(a) on a public transport flight, Documents A, B, C, D, E, F, H and, if the flight is
international air navigation, Documents G and I must be carried;
(b) on an aerial work flight, Documents A, B, C, E, F and, if the flight is international
air navigation, Documents G and I must be carried;
(c) on a private flight which is international air navigation, Documents A, B, C, G and
I must be carried;
(d) on a flight made in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to the
operator under article 41(3), Document J must be carried.
Description of documents
2 For the purposes of this Schedule:
(a) 'Document A' means the licence in force under the Wireless Telegraphy Act
2006(a) for the aircraft radio station installed in the aircraft;
(b) 'Document B' means in the case of a non-EASA aircraft the national certificate of
airworthiness in force for the aircraft(b);
(c) 'Document C' means the licences of the members of the flight crew of the
aircraft;
(d) 'Document D' means one copy of the load sheet, if any, required by article 100
for the flight;
(e) 'Document E' means one copy of each certificate of maintenance review
required by article 25(2), if any, in force for the aircraft;
(f) 'Document F' means the technical log, if any, in which entries are required to be
made under article 27(2);
(g) 'Document G' means the certificate of registration in force for the aircraft;
(h) 'Document H' means those parts of the operations manual, if any, required by
article 83(4)(c) to be carried on the flight;
(i) 'Document I' means a copy of the notified procedures to be followed by the pilot
in command of an intercepted aircraft, and the notified visual signals for use by
intercepting and intercepted aircraft;
(j) 'Document J' means the permission, if any, granted for the aircraft under article
41(3).
Exceptions
3 (1) If the certificate of airworthiness includes the flight manual for the aircraft and with
the permission of the CAA, an aircraft to which article 83 applies need not carry the
flight manual as part of Document B.
(2) With the permission of the CAA, an aircraft to which article 83 applies need not carry
Document J if it carries an operations manual which includes the detailed information
specified at paragraph 1(s) of Part A of Schedule 8.
Definition
4 For the purposes of this Schedule, 'international air navigation' means any flight which
includes passage over the territory of any country other than the United Kingdom, but
does not include passage over any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any other
relevant overseas territory to which there is power to extend the Civil Aviation Act
1982(a)under section 108(1) of that Act.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J. Thanks for the reference.
The W&B tables. performance, take off and landing tables could be useful if you have to divert or land away and then decide to head off somewhere other than planned. On the other hand, refering to the book in flight might not inspire a lot of confidence in you from your passengers!
In the farce "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" there is the German Officer who flies by the book after the original pilot is incapacitated. "There is nothing a German Officer cannot do!". And Germany is one country where it is required to be carried! (Sorry - national stereotype - no offense intended!)
If the POH is available as a PDF there is an iphone app which allows you to upload PDFs to your phone. Might be more useful than the app(s) currently available called "C152 POH"
If the Netherlands is allowed to keep it's own rule maybe there's some hope for the IMC rating!
The W&B tables. performance, take off and landing tables could be useful if you have to divert or land away and then decide to head off somewhere other than planned. On the other hand, refering to the book in flight might not inspire a lot of confidence in you from your passengers!
In the farce "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" there is the German Officer who flies by the book after the original pilot is incapacitated. "There is nothing a German Officer cannot do!". And Germany is one country where it is required to be carried! (Sorry - national stereotype - no offense intended!)
If the POH is available as a PDF there is an iphone app which allows you to upload PDFs to your phone. Might be more useful than the app(s) currently available called "C152 POH"
If the Netherlands is allowed to keep it's own rule maybe there's some hope for the IMC rating!
Moderator
Summarizing: there is no need to carry the POH in the UK unless you're operating a public transport flight (at least that's my understanding).
"Equipment: The basic reqired equipment... must be installed in the aircraft for certification. This equipment must include a current Airplane Flight Manual...."
No doubt about that, it's got to be on board for the aircraft to be airworthy.
If that is not convincing enough, the TCDS requires (Note 2):
"The following informaton must be displayed in the form of compostite or individual placards. In full view of the pilot: "This airplane must be operated in compliance with the operating limitations stated in the form of placards, markings and manuals"." The pilot won't be able to operate in compliance with a manual, if it is not aboard!
There are a few very old aircraft for which a flight manual or equivilent was never issued. For all other aircraft, it is extremely likely that the approved Flight Manual must be carried aboard at all times. I suppose a copy would be acceptable, if it were a good, and accurate (properly revised) copy.
I occasionally hear whining here about planes, and the asking of questions which would be answered if the pilot read the instructions! Oh, can't find the instructions? Don't fly the plane! It's not legally airworthy! The aforementioned placard tells you so! (because you read the placard, right?)
Those of us who certify aircraft, go to immense effort to produce these documents. Owners - please provide them to the pilots! Pilots - please read them!
I've owned my plane for 23 years, and last week had to dig out the manual to answer some very fair questions, asked of me during recurrent training. Without the manual, no answer = no pass training!
"Equipment: The basic reqired equipment... must be installed in the aircraft for certification. This equipment must include a current Airplane Flight Manual...."
Moderator
Funnily enough an EASA TCDS does not include that sentence
If the 150/150 (which are no longer current production aircraft) do not have an EASA TCDS, the FAA TCDS would be applicable in EASA land, per some agreemnt I would not know where to find. Therefore all of those aircraft are certianly bound by a requirement to have a FM aboard.
Elsewhere in the EASA 172 TCDS there are similar references to the placard requiring the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the flight manual.
I have known aircraft to be simply grounded, for lack of a flight manual (because a grubby handed student took it home) - (to another continent, in one case). The factory replacement manual (for a medium twin) was $1200.
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
EASA TCDS #IM A 051 for the 172 has a very similar sentence on page 8. I propose a pilot certainly could not cite that EASA (or FAA) TCDS statement as permitting the aircraft to be operated without the flight manual aboard.
But we're getting carried away here and drifting off topic. We don't need to dig up tons of regulations to agree that a POH is mandatory reading material and should be within reach when operating an aircraft.
We had a similar situation a few months back: one aircraft with missing POH and therefore not flyable, leading to a lot of shuffling of students and instructors across the fleet.
Moderator
the poor old dear will be slower than she was when she was first born, (made) even with a new engine.
The flight manual will provide performance information, which is based upon the actual results of flight testing a conforming example of the aircraft, generally at gross weight. If an aged example of the aircraft cannot meet the conditions of the type design, and therefore the flight manual figures, it probably needs some maintenance. I agree that some aircraft are flying with "tired" engines, and that will affect performance. Good engine maintenance is well defined, and easily obtained.
There would not be much point in defining and approving a type design, if the aircraft out there are not maintained to conform to it. When maintenance is performed, the maintenance release for the work accomplished, will generally say that the aircraft conforms to it's type design. It will therefore do what the flight manual says it will, or someone has missed something!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Molesworth, all I can say is that you have been trained by a bunch of chimps.
Go and fly somewhere that does things properly, because the stuff you've mentioned here is absolutely unacceptable.
Go and fly somewhere that does things properly, because the stuff you've mentioned here is absolutely unacceptable.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there are plenty of places around the country that do things as they should.
Gash nonsense like that has no place in any flying organisation. It might be more common than I like, but it is by no means the norm.
If you are somewhere near the north side of London, I can point you in the direction of at least 2 places within 30 minutes drive that wouldn't dream of doing silly things like this. Sticky notes on techlogs, no access to the POH... Honestly, words fail me at how unbelieveably shoddy that is.
Gash nonsense like that has no place in any flying organisation. It might be more common than I like, but it is by no means the norm.
If you are somewhere near the north side of London, I can point you in the direction of at least 2 places within 30 minutes drive that wouldn't dream of doing silly things like this. Sticky notes on techlogs, no access to the POH... Honestly, words fail me at how unbelieveably shoddy that is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will be pleased to hear that I have downloaded a 50 page version of the Cessna 152 (even this is "abridged") and will come in useful if the Cessna I am flying should have a slight problem (such as having to land without an elevator control).
Since I seldom fly any other aircraft (cost reasons mainly) it's good to know the old girl inside out.
I have also had my original question answered (more than a little thread creep!) and will consult the POH for the most cost effective way of flying (not from the clubs' point of view obviously - but then I'm still not in the league as students doing up to 10 power takeoffs an hour in the circuit - and they're the clubs bread and butter!)
Since I seldom fly any other aircraft (cost reasons mainly) it's good to know the old girl inside out.
I have also had my original question answered (more than a little thread creep!) and will consult the POH for the most cost effective way of flying (not from the clubs' point of view obviously - but then I'm still not in the league as students doing up to 10 power takeoffs an hour in the circuit - and they're the clubs bread and butter!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that POH's often have significant amendments over the years, so do be careful and the authoritative one is of course the exact one for the aircraft.
Having said that, any POH is better than no POH.
I cannot stress to you enough how important it is to have access to the correct documentation. If I was presented that scenario at a school, even as an FI with students waiting I'd walk out straight away and never darken their doors again. If they are gash with stuff like this, then what else is going on?
Edited to add:
I have taught in at least 10 different schools/clubs over the years and flown at many more. People can be reticent about allowing the "Holy Grail" out of their sight, however, you as PIC should kick up a stink until you see it.
I have always made the POH available to my students and members and they get quizzed on it regularly, with written tests that they must pass.
It sounds over the top, but it really isn't.
Having said that, any POH is better than no POH.
I cannot stress to you enough how important it is to have access to the correct documentation. If I was presented that scenario at a school, even as an FI with students waiting I'd walk out straight away and never darken their doors again. If they are gash with stuff like this, then what else is going on?
Edited to add:
I have taught in at least 10 different schools/clubs over the years and flown at many more. People can be reticent about allowing the "Holy Grail" out of their sight, however, you as PIC should kick up a stink until you see it.
I have always made the POH available to my students and members and they get quizzed on it regularly, with written tests that they must pass.
It sounds over the top, but it really isn't.
Moderator
AIM,
Not having easy access to a 152 manual, or knowledge of the atmospheric conditions in which you were flying, altitude, weight, accuracy of that particular airspeed indicator, the pitch of that particular propeller, wheel pants on or off, or minor factors like the cleanliness of the plane, I would not be able to form an opnion as to the performance of the 152 you were flying.
It's up to the pilot to be aware of the expected performance of the aircraft they are piloting, and thereafter during the flight take note of the differences between that performance, and what is really being achieved. This difference could be the result of an unexpected factor in the condition of the aircraft, or something really simple like the wind.
It is not wise to depend upon the published information to the point where variables are dismissed. Certainly, a suspected maintenance defect of any kind should be reported. If the plane is consistanly not achieving published performance values appropriate to it's configuration, that should be questioned.
Cruising at full throttle in anything other than circumstances of quasi emergency, is unwise. Though some smaller engines will tolerate it, most larger ones you might come to fly will not. Often, the small carburetted engines have rather poor mixture distribution at full power, which means some cylinders are working harder than others. In any case, the fuel consumption will be huge by comparison to "normal" cruise power settings.
As you fly, be aware of all of these variables, and how they will affect your flight...
Not having easy access to a 152 manual, or knowledge of the atmospheric conditions in which you were flying, altitude, weight, accuracy of that particular airspeed indicator, the pitch of that particular propeller, wheel pants on or off, or minor factors like the cleanliness of the plane, I would not be able to form an opnion as to the performance of the 152 you were flying.
It's up to the pilot to be aware of the expected performance of the aircraft they are piloting, and thereafter during the flight take note of the differences between that performance, and what is really being achieved. This difference could be the result of an unexpected factor in the condition of the aircraft, or something really simple like the wind.
It is not wise to depend upon the published information to the point where variables are dismissed. Certainly, a suspected maintenance defect of any kind should be reported. If the plane is consistanly not achieving published performance values appropriate to it's configuration, that should be questioned.
Cruising at full throttle in anything other than circumstances of quasi emergency, is unwise. Though some smaller engines will tolerate it, most larger ones you might come to fly will not. Often, the small carburetted engines have rather poor mixture distribution at full power, which means some cylinders are working harder than others. In any case, the fuel consumption will be huge by comparison to "normal" cruise power settings.
As you fly, be aware of all of these variables, and how they will affect your flight...
Moderator
just the fact that after 25+ yrs of use the wings will not be as smooth, the fuselage will not be at its best and as such when using the aircraft to its maximum it will not perform like it did out of the factory.
If the wings are not as smooth because of being wrinkled, the aircraft is in need of repair, and should not be flown in service. If the fuselage is not "at its best", I'd be worried. It's a semi monococque fuselage, and nearly all of its structure is on the outside. If the outside is not at its best, the plane is not as strong as it is required to be.
If someone is teaching you to expect less out of an aircraft because it is older, I suggest that you not accept this as being true. They are either poorly informed, or trying to downplay something.
The aircraft either meets its type design, or it does not. If it does not, it is probably not airworthy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do understand the difference between net and gross performance?
POH's are invariably based on a brand new machine being flown by an experienced test pilot. The chances of a 15,000hr baggy old 152 meeting those figures when flown by an average PPL are pretty minimal.
That's why we use safety factors. 5% is a whole load less than what the CAA mandate adding on when calculating take off or landing distances.
Here's the relevant safety sense leaflet.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL07.pdf
POH's are invariably based on a brand new machine being flown by an experienced test pilot. The chances of a 15,000hr baggy old 152 meeting those figures when flown by an average PPL are pretty minimal.
That's why we use safety factors. 5% is a whole load less than what the CAA mandate adding on when calculating take off or landing distances.
Here's the relevant safety sense leaflet.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL07.pdf
Moderator
it will deteriorate with time and in terms of wings/fuselage airflow will be affected
Other than that, anything which has happened to the aircraft which would affect the airflow in any detectable way, renders the aircraft unairworthy, and in need of repair.
Cessna does provide provisions for patching small damage in certain areas, but any large damage requires the replacement of the affected part(s). There is a very clear description in the maintenance manual of what to do with damage, and if followed properly, the aircraft will not be at all aerodynamically defective.
Therefore, an aircraft maintained in accordance with the maintenance manual will continue to meet the terms specified in it's Type Certificate Data Sheet - indefinately. Anything else would completely undermine the basis of defining and approving a design, and the definition of "airworthy" would have no meaning.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has taken a slightly depressing turn. Full marks to Pilot DAR for trying to keep a little intelligence going!
I suppose some of it is the near complete ignorance most UK PPLs have of the POH and aircraft maintenance in general. No wonder so many of them are easy meat for the so called engineering organisations!
If you conduct a flight test for a CAA CofA aircraft the MAXIMUM loss of performance you are allowed in the climb test is 40 ft/min. Any more and the aircraft will not get a CofA. These things should be known by all PPLs - after all this is what we all depend upon to reach the performance figures upon which we all rely. There are similar tolerances for stall speed etc. Overall any rewal deterioration in performance - which would be obvious to PPLs - prohibit the issue of a CofA.
Incidents like the recent Sandown accident where aircraft performance deterioration were probably a factor have lead the CAA to restate their position on performance testing, which has been eased off significantly by EASA. So the situation for EASA CofA aircraft is that without performance testing for every CofA they may deteriorate to the point that people have speculated about in this thread.
I suppose some of it is the near complete ignorance most UK PPLs have of the POH and aircraft maintenance in general. No wonder so many of them are easy meat for the so called engineering organisations!
If you conduct a flight test for a CAA CofA aircraft the MAXIMUM loss of performance you are allowed in the climb test is 40 ft/min. Any more and the aircraft will not get a CofA. These things should be known by all PPLs - after all this is what we all depend upon to reach the performance figures upon which we all rely. There are similar tolerances for stall speed etc. Overall any rewal deterioration in performance - which would be obvious to PPLs - prohibit the issue of a CofA.
Incidents like the recent Sandown accident where aircraft performance deterioration were probably a factor have lead the CAA to restate their position on performance testing, which has been eased off significantly by EASA. So the situation for EASA CofA aircraft is that without performance testing for every CofA they may deteriorate to the point that people have speculated about in this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a massive difference between aircraft of the same type most of the time. Even ones that rolled off the production line one after another, let alone after umpteen thousand heavy landings and variable maintenance. Mind you my experience of brand new aircraft is limited to things made in France, so I'd believe anything really!
It's a sad fact of life that performance figures in POH's are often not achieveable. I have flown many aircraft where I cannot believe they have got through their air tests, but back from the engineering shop they come with nice new bits of paper.
How many PPL's even know about checking performance on takeoff? Let alone knowing what is or isn't acceptable in flight? Given the fact that so many seem to have no idea what the POH even looks like, then I almost despair.
It's a sad fact of life that performance figures in POH's are often not achieveable. I have flown many aircraft where I cannot believe they have got through their air tests, but back from the engineering shop they come with nice new bits of paper.
How many PPL's even know about checking performance on takeoff? Let alone knowing what is or isn't acceptable in flight? Given the fact that so many seem to have no idea what the POH even looks like, then I almost despair.