Always go by the manufacturers manual???
Thread Starter
Always go by the manufacturers manual???
AAIB Bulletin: 12/2011 G-AXPM EW/G2011/04/21
Moderator
Generally (and if in doubt), yes.
The relevant Canadian regulation:
Aircraft Operating Limitations
602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations
(a) set out in the aircraft flight manual, where an aircraft flight manual is required by the applicable standards of airworthiness;
(b) set out in a document other than the aircraft flight manual, where use of that document is authorized pursuant to Part VII;
(c) indicated by markings or placards required pursuant to section 605.05; or
(d) prescribed by the competent authority of the state of registry of the aircraft.
The relevant Canadian regulation:
Aircraft Operating Limitations
602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations
(a) set out in the aircraft flight manual, where an aircraft flight manual is required by the applicable standards of airworthiness;
(b) set out in a document other than the aircraft flight manual, where use of that document is authorized pursuant to Part VII;
(c) indicated by markings or placards required pursuant to section 605.05; or
(d) prescribed by the competent authority of the state of registry of the aircraft.
Please post a link to the bulletin
Thanks for the link.
This is a great example of the "good idea" club run wild. Somebody, probably at Beagle Aircraft, came up with this bizarre idea and got it stuck in the POH.
There are 2 take aways IMO.
1) I think anybody with a solid understanding of engine operation and "normal" practice should have figured out POH or not, the procedure made no sense, and
therefore the pilot should take a measure of responsibility for this accident, and
2) How did the regulator approve a POH with instructions that are contrary to the direction contained in the Continental O 200 engine operations manual ?
This is a great example of the "good idea" club run wild. Somebody, probably at Beagle Aircraft, came up with this bizarre idea and got it stuck in the POH.
There are 2 take aways IMO.
1) I think anybody with a solid understanding of engine operation and "normal" practice should have figured out POH or not, the procedure made no sense, and
therefore the pilot should take a measure of responsibility for this accident, and
2) How did the regulator approve a POH with instructions that are contrary to the direction contained in the Continental O 200 engine operations manual ?
Moderator
How did the regulator approve a POH with instructions that are contrary to the direction contained in the Continental O 200 engine operations manual ?
Only the "Flight Manual" (airframe) has the authority of law as the source of information about the aircraft. I find it interesting that it is required that supplemental equipment on the aircraft have a flight manual supplement, but the engine does not require a supplement in the Flight Manual.
Interestingly the Piper Twin Comanche has a really flashy (for the time) looking "Pilot's Operating Handbook", with a photo of the plane on the front page and everything - but that's not the FAA approved Flight Manual. The FAA approved Flight Manual is a casual looking typewriter written document, which contains suprizingly little information, and none on performance. The extremely optimistic performance information presented in the POH is not FAA approved, and has no basis in being official for the operation of the aircraft.
Hence, the clear distinction between an approved Flight Manual, and other documents like POH or "Owner's Manual, which may not actually be approved. In some cases, the POH will say at the beginning that it is the FAA approved Flight Manual, in which case, you know where you stand. Of course there are still older aircraft out there, which predate the requirement to have a Flight Manual at all.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA approved that manual so they should have picked that up on approval.
Amazing that in all of this time no one has ever drawn the CAA's attention to something that was an accident waiting to happen, perhaps owners should pay more attention to their manuals.
Very lucky that this wasnt a very serious accident, probably would have been if the a/c hadnt been tied down. Sheer lunacy to turn a prop over with an open throttle and full rich mixture. Manuals may be definitive but informed common sense must be applied too.
Amazing that in all of this time no one has ever drawn the CAA's attention to something that was an accident waiting to happen, perhaps owners should pay more attention to their manuals.
Very lucky that this wasnt a very serious accident, probably would have been if the a/c hadnt been tied down. Sheer lunacy to turn a prop over with an open throttle and full rich mixture. Manuals may be definitive but informed common sense must be applied too.
This thread isn't about aircraft that do not have mixture controls, it is about an aircraft that does, and I fully agree with the poster, it is lunacy to pull the prop through on every walk around with the throttle set wide open and the mixture at full rich.
Even on those few remaining aircraft aircraft that do not have mixture controls, and I assume you are referring to that horrible piece of engineering shyte the Dripsy Major, why would you pull it through with the throttle wide open ?
Even on those few remaining aircraft aircraft that do not have mixture controls, and I assume you are referring to that horrible piece of engineering shyte the Dripsy Major, why would you pull it through with the throttle wide open ?
