Variable pitch prop "endorsement"?
I understand that in the UK, there is specific training and an endorsement for flying variable pitch propeller planes? Would a learned person please describe to me what's in the training, who does it, and what "endorsement" is applied to the candidate's license upon completion?
I'm doing some design approval work which will involve a different powerplant and propeller operating characteristics, and would like to familiarize myself with other authority's training and licensing requirements in this regard. In Canada, there is no requirement for variable pitch/constant speed type training, read the flight manual, locate the blue knob, and go and fly. That's not to say that some training is not a good idea, it's just not a licensing requirement here.... Thanks, Pilot DAR |
The UK and EASA require 'differences training' when moving to a different twin-engine aeroplane or to a single-engine piston aeroplane fitted with a number of different systems such as: VP prop; turbo-charging; retractable gear; single-lever power control (FADEC).
Differences training requires training in the aeroplane or a suitable training device delivered by an appropriately qualified instructor. There is no official syllabus and so it's down to the instructor, or the club/school they're working for to decide what is necessary. For a VP prop I'd expect a few hours groundschool and a flight or 2. The instructor then signs-off the difference in the pilot's logbook. For single-engine piston aeroplanes, differences training is valid indefinitely, otherwise it's valid for 2 years from the last time you flew that type. |
In Australia a manual pitch propeller control (MPPC) design feature endorsement is required. The endorsement requires training and sign off by an instructor with design feature training endorsement. Usually and hour or two on the ground and an hour or so flying. It is then written into your licence. CASA have issued the following manual of standards, I would much prefer the Canadian way.
1 Unit description Manual propeller pitch control This unit describes the skills and knowledge required to control an aircraft and operate a propeller fitted with a manual propeller pitch control on the ground and in flight during normal and abnormal and emergency situations. 2 Elements and performance criteria
page131image1624570576Authorised Version F2016C00540 registered 30/05/2016 Page 205 of 664 pages Schedule 2 Part 61 Manual of Standards Competency standards page132image1623918864(i) simulated hazardous weather. 4 Underpinning knowledge of the following:
|
locate the blue knob, and go and fly. Although I had informally flown retracts, turbo and VP prop, some years ago I did a proper course on a PA28R-201T and a checkride with an examiner, so ticked all those boxes, before giving instruction on these. Generally, now, people come who just want the VP prop endorsement. I'd say max of 2 flights, the second being in the circuit including handling a go-around. is usually good enough, then logbook signoff. What ISN'T covered anywhere and is important is handling of cowl flaps... TOO |
Within the UK and EASA land differences training is very basic and covers: VP (constant speed) prop, turbo charging, retractable undercarriage and tail wheel/tricycle undercarriage as appropriate. It is not a certificate or a rating. There is not a requirement to have a signature in the logbook other than to demonstrate that you have undertaken the training. Those pilots who had the experience prior to the rule are required to do nothing further and will not have a logbook endorsement by an instructor. It will be obvious to any authority, hirer or insurer however that they have the prior knowledge and experience from noting the aircraft they had flown previously.
Usually all or any one the above requirements will have been met during the conversion or familiarization training when one or all of the above is applicable. As already said there in not a syllabus nor at any time a requirement to do more, even should the differences be more complex on a later additional type. Of course I agree there is a lot more to do in many cases but this will hopefully be part of the training onto type. Even so only if the pilot is required to do additional training by the authority, hirer or insurer or chooses to do so. An example is the TB10* which is very simple: max throttle to the top of climb with an adjustment to the prop on the way up, which will probably do later for the cruise. then fine for the landing. No further training in constant speed propellers is required by regulation however complex a later type may be. * the parking brake is applied by applying the toe brakes, pulling on a black knob on the dash board,and then letting go. This is usually more reliable than the C150 parking brake. |
Thanks for the replies, very useful information for what I'm doing.
Thorughout the design requirements, the phrase "must not require unusual pilot skill and attention" is used. But "usual" is never defined, and I think it's changed over the decades. So now, "usual" means awesome at navigating a touch screen, but perhaps ham fisted on a control. The pilots who trained me were hands and feet artists, one of whom I'm convinced could not read and write. I recall the occasional: "Hey, go easy on that!" when I moved something. On the other hand, about a year ago, I was assigned right seat PIC to a test pilot, and witnessed more than one prop RPM exceedance due to too rapid power lever movement. I protested, but eventually, simply guarded the lever itself instead. The problem was he was testing stalls (so as to confirm to himself the outcome I have witnessed in the 50 or so I have flow in it the month earlier), so power was going up and down a lot. When I was trained in the Caravan many years ago, the training pilot pointed out a little white square annunciator light on the instrument panel. She said: "If you're too quick or careless with the engine, that light will flash, and it won't stop until our maintenance guy has a look at the plane, so don't do that. I was too afraid to look careless, so I was careful, and never made the light flash. The Caravan I was "monitoring" last year had advanced trend monitoring, so I had to report to the operator that prop RPM had been exceeded, 'cause they were going to notice anyway. A quick discussion with maintenance, and no harm done, but I was still embarrassed. In any case, my upcoming project may involve different yet powerplant operating characteristics, and risk of exceedance of RPM or torque with causal use of powerplant controls. So I'm forming in my mind what will be acceptable expectations for a "usual" pilot, who has received only the minimum training. I see C 172 PPL types taxi into position, and just ram the throttle in to the panel, as I shudder in horror to think of accelerator pumps, and crankshaft torsional stress, but this seems to have been thought to be okay for them, until I suggested that easing the throttle open was so much easier on everything. Similarly ramming in the prop control on downwind, to hear the engine surge, and the RPM touch the redline. When I was trained in helicopters, it was easier, "open the throttle so as to not exceed x torque as the rotor accelerates", that, I can work with, and describe to someone else quantitatively. There have been so many types, I just jumped into, read the POH and flew, particularly in my ferrying days. I suppose that old style engine handling skills generally carried over from one type to the next, so even the POH's really did not say much about how to treat the engine gently. The first odd engine I flew, again, self check out, was the Theilert DA-42, but it seemed acutely simple. I'm trying to stay a step ahead of new technology, and how both new and old pilots will assume that those planes and powerplants should be operated, if they are not getting type training.... |
In the UK at least, differences training is also required for pressurisation.
|
Out of interest DAR what is the aircraft type and engine project you're working on? Unless it's secret squirrel stuff of course.
|
Originally Posted by MrAverage
(Post 11166772)
In the UK at least, differences training is also required for pressurisation.
|
Yes. And that introduces a grey area with regard to items like the G5.
|
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
(Post 11166746)
Similarly ramming in the prop control on downwind, to hear the engine surge, and the RPM touch the redline.
|
Managed "correctly" there will be no rpm increase when the prop is set fine before landing. For the powerplant change project I'm working (sorry Megan, 'can't say yet), I'm anticipating powerplant operating characteristics which may differ from the original type. As CS prop training is handled pretty casually here in Canada (for better or worse), I wanted to become familiar with other more defined powerplant training expectations. My objective will be to assure that the powerplant operating characteristics of the modified plane are within what an "average" pilot can handle. At some point, "sensitive" powerplant operation goes outside the "must not require unusual pilot skill and attention" criteria, but that's not really defined well. And, I expect that when that standard was written, basic pilot skill was different than today. I think from easy (Theilert DA-42), to difficult to the point it's not really trained at all (the standby power lever on the Caravan), knowing that I want to approve on the easy side of that band of skill demands. I remember how I was trained over the decades, for better and for worse, and try to take only the best of that going forward. I apply that to the findings of design compliance I make too. However, I also need to allow for variation in basic pilot skill and knowledge, as newer pilots have not been trained as I was - what I think is basic knowledge may now be more advanced, and specific training appropriate. |
In USA there is, to the best of my knowledge, no requirement for any training or endorsement for a CS prop. Pilots used to get that training working for a Commercial rating when a "complex" airplane was required.
My first CS prop experience was in a Arrow during commercial training but later I flew the C-182 that required a "high performance" endorsement. I require no endorsements to fly my tailwheel CS prop airplane. Anyone not "grandfathered" would only need a tailwheel endorsement. |
Anyone not "grandfathered" would only need a tailwheel endorsement. |
1 Attachment(s)
This may be of interest to all `wobbly prop` operators,more specifically those with `big round engines`...
|
DAR,and gr-grandfathers too....
|
Wow Sycamore, there's a lot of old time wisdom there! I've got some reading to do..... Thank you!
|
I go back to my first car, a Morris Minor Traveler. No need to prime but the choke setting was critical. It was important to know your car because the setting would vary to that days conditions. Eventually I would get it right 90% of the time. It had no starter so the hand crank had to be used always. That too had its best unique technique which you would quickly need to learn or suffer from it.
My modern turbo diesel always starts first time and requires no engine management whatever the weather or atmospheric conditions. Whilst pilot engine management is required to prevent; fuel flooding, carburettor fires, over leaning damage, rich cuts, propeller over-speed, shock cooling and over boosting, we will continue as now. The automation technology exists but comes with a high price tag and weight and drag penalties, much too high for small aeroplanes. The car world is producing smaller engines with increasing power and are much cheaper to buy Are aircraft engine manufacturers going to invest vast sums in improving its polluting suck, squeeze, squash and blow engine technology and at half the price. With electric engine development temptingly on the horizon, and when all the above can be resolved, I doubt it? |
Originally Posted by Fl1ingfrog
(Post 11167522)
I go back to my first car, a Morris Minor Traveler. No need to prime but the choke setting was critical. It was important to know your car because the setting would vary to that days conditions. Eventually I would get it right 90% of the time. It had no starter so the hand crank had to be used always. That too had its best unique technique which you would quickly need to learn or suffer from it.
FWIW we're very similar to UK/AU here in NZ, wobbly prop, retract, etc all require training and sign-off. Not sure now if it's actually mandated by the CAA but as each type requires a rating, and you want your students + a/c to survive, it comes with the territory. |
Cars vs. Aeroplanes. Starting my petrol Audi Q5 is easy; just press the key,
Starting a DA-20 Katana C1 with a Continental IO-240 much more difficult involving a prime pump as well as the normal fuel pump and amongst all the usual moving of the throttle and mixture control. Not easy.. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.