S-Works

What happened to Peters 170 test thread then?

The contents making him uncomfortable?

Genghis the Engineer

Looks like it.

I hate it when that happens - a lot of people put time into creating a readable thread, then the OP deletes it all because they don't like the way it's gone.

G

S-Works

Seems a tad petulant? Unless something was added after my last post there were no personal attacks? It was all very civilised discussion for a change!!

He is never going to reach the dizzying heights of his IO540 persona posts if he keeps deleting stuff.....

Cusco

What happened? Did he fail his 170A or summink?

dublinpilot

It's also possible that someone named the school, and the mods pulled it. Won't know until either Peter or the mods tell us.

Cusco

Yeah, like that's gonna happen anytime soon..............

S-Works

Yeah, he failed he 170A. Apparantly even sky gods are fallible......

Pulling his leg aside it was actually quite an interesting discussion. Both around examine standards of which I have a vested interest and the expectations of candidates on training and tests, especially for people coming from an experienced background like Peter.

Duckeggblue

Shame it's gone.
Would have liked to read it through again.
Was there a "right answer"?
I remember the old CAA flight tests saying that the aeroplane should face cross wind for engine run up unless the wind strength made parking X wind hazardous ( in which case run up should be into wind).
Can't say anyone ever explained why.
It was just one of those things......

24Carrot

I think the gist of it was they were trying to do a static power test.

For a given RPM, into wind, the blade angle of attack would be lower, so the blade drag would be lower, and the engine would appear to have more excess power. Conversely for a tailwind. Crosswind, you could hope to eliminate the effect.

If I was taught correctly, then the pre-take-off power check is different, you want to predict what revs you can get during take-off, which is ideally into wind.

I am not an expert on this, so I am happy to be enlightened.

Big Pistons Forever

All of the Cessna singles have a allowable static RPM range (eg C172M is 2300 to 2420 RPM). I teach this as a required check on every takeoff. The RPM is to be checked to ensure that it is within the range as soon as full throttle is applied as this is the only way to ensure an aircraft engine with a fixed pitch prop is developing full power. I also include a check of the oil pressure and temperature.
I call this the "good engine" check and expect it to be verbalized by all my students.

Since there is normally no requirement to go to full throttle on the runup, variations in RPM caused by wind loading (ie upwind vs downwind) are automatically adjusted because a fixed value for the runup is always set and so you simply use what ever throttle amount is need to get to that value (usually 1700 RPM).

Big Pistons Forever

There is a Military aphorism that states "Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted". I believe this can also be applied to flight test, especially the more advanced ones. Pumping previous victims..errr I mean candidates for what the examiner seems to place special emphasis on can be helpful.

peterh337

If you want to check that an engine+prop combination is delivering the correct power, there is only one wind and that is no wind.

Tailwind or headwind will lead to a change of prop blade AoA.

You also need ISA conditions (Q1013 and +15C), although there are easy corrections for that, which one has to do on a dyno test anyway (usually). For example I check for a takeoff fuel flow of 23.0 +/- 0.2 USG/hr, but this varies with the QNH.

I deleted the original thread myself because the usual suspects were, as usual, smelling an opportunity to take the micky and settle some hypothetical old scores, and if possible cause me hassle, and diverted the thread accordingly. I have nothing to hide.

BackPacker

The other issue I found interesting was the question to what extent candidates are required to follow SOPs, above and beyond what's in the POH and the test standards. And if so, which SOPs apply.

I don't know if Peter did the training and test in his own plane, but if so, I would assume that either his own SOP or the SOP of the FTO would apply. (Or a combination of both - I doubt that the FTO would have a TB20 in their fleet, so their SOP would not cover that type.)

peterh337

Yes. Otherwise, why do it in the UK at all. May as well go to Spain... 1 week and it's done, and no NBD holds in the flight test

I investigated this, for other pilots too, here. 15000 words, if you can stand it

This is the IR conversion I am talking about - not the ab initio JAA IR. I already have an IR, since 2006.

Currency on type is just about everything in flying. If you cannot get training in your own plane, why bother to go for anything but the easiest route.

That was mostly undefined. But it's moot as I am not going back there.

Big Pistons Forever

Yes and that is why the POH provides a range of static values with a 100 + RPM spread between the highest and lowest permissible RPM. An engine developing full power will fall in that range under any conditions likely to be encountered

My next question is not meant to be confrontational or judgmental it is a simple query because I am curious and don't really understand EU regulation as it applies to the operation of small private aircraft

If you are flying your aircraft under an "N" reg with a FAA IR, why do you have to do a JAA IR conversion ?

S-Works

Then why start a thread? Nobidy hijacked the thread you were just paranoid they might........

Now far be it from me to pull your leg and wonder why an IFR skygod like you could not pass something as simple as a 170A.....

peterh337

The short answer is here.

The detailed answer, and other stuff, is here.

In very simple terms, it applies only to people based in the EU.

It is a purely politically motivated stunt.

BRL

FWIW I have been out since 0430 this morning working and have been home about an hour now. Just got around to reading this which is why I have not said why it was closed. Remember this is run voluntary and in our own time, I do not appreciate stupid little comments like yours quoted above.

Big Pistons Forever

What a crock of bureaucratic Shyte. It sure makes me glad I fly my own airplanes in North America. It is a wonder there are any private pilots left in EU land

PompeyPaul

All of this easa stuff does seem a bit loony tunes. The driving strategy seems to be to push people away from doing any extra training post qualification. I am sure it's not but with the cheaper FAA ir at risk and no clear direction as to the future of imc it feels like training is under attack.

Which, you would've thought, is the opposite of what we'd want.

That said, with the euro zone about to crumble, who knows how long Angela will fund follys like this for!?!?