I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here ....

Agree with you there, hence the check on final for the Red's Blue's Green's check

I have no idea what a Red's Blue's Green's check is.

Once committed to a landing there is only one item that really matters to me and that is " Where am I landing and where is my gear "

I would not want to land on the runway with the gear up, and may not live to worry about it if I land on the water with the gear down.

For me the rest is routine, I can go around at cruise power if necessary, and if I need to move four levers at the same time I just think of it as flying a four engine airplane.....that makes me feel better anyhow....:E

Red = Mixture
Blue = Prop
Greens = Gear (3 'greens') or whatever applies.

"Once committed to a landing there is only one item that really matters to me and that is " Where am I landing and where is my gear " (Hopefully attached to the underside of the a/c) :p

Thats 2 things btw ;)

Thats what the RBG check is for!

C250

" Red = Mixture
Blue = Prop
Greens = Gear (3 'greens') or whatever applies "


AAhh...so all I need do if I learn that pre landing check is just use blue and green in the Turbo Goose. :E

And remember to check green down or green up, depending on where I am landing. :ok:

:ok: lets face it, no one check is going to be perfect for every purpose.

C250

There's an interesting point lurking in there too.

On our Twin Comanche (2 x Lyc IO-320), I leave the props at 2400 rpm for approach and landing. In real-world operations, this has never once been a problem -- if I need to go around I simply push both throttles fully forward and climb without waking the neighbours: there's ample power available. The times when it has caused problems have been in training situations doing touch and goes. For a take-off roll, even from a rolling start, 2400 rpm makes a real difference to the length of runway required if I forget to push the props fine :blush:.

So I wonder if the insistence on "prop fully fine" before it's really needed stems from the needs of the training environment.

That, in itself, does not prove greater wear. I'm surprised that Atkinson makes that claim (I haven't seen the seminar material so I can't say if he does or doesn't) as it isn't really in keeping with what I know of the Deakin-Braly teaching on engine management.

I can well imagine that lower RPMs at high power setting can increase the cylinder pressure to a dangerous level, but I can't believe that the wear vs pressure relationship is linear enough to mean that this would extend to lower powers in a way that dominates the effect of engine revolutions.

" So I wonder if the insistence on "prop fully fine" before it's really needed stems from the needs of the training environment "

Where else can we give credit for this proceedure?

Somehow flight training gets these teaching methods set in concrete with the missguided beliefe that teaching people to operate these machines has to be done by only teaching a proceedure that ensures that no matter how slow their thinking process is they have it set up for a brain lock.

( There is a long sentence )

That teaching method does not allow for moving into more complex equipment were different power handling proceedures are required.

My problem is I'm from the generation that only acted after thinking...

..so for propellor pitch control we were taught ....prop pitch as required....

Saves having to relearn every time we fly something different.

Chuck

Sorry for my late response, there is no doubting your vast experience, and I acknowledge that, I think we may have our wires crossed slightly too, I was not talking about pushing the props fully fine downwind, but on finals, and in the visual circuit I guess this would happen about 1½ miles out, and on an instrument approach probably about 5 miles. I wholeheartedly agree that pushing the props fine downwind is not the thing to do.
Because this is the way I have been trained I'd rather not start changing the way I do things for obvious reasons like forgetting to do it, however, I have forgotten the RBG check on the odd occasion and it didn't effect the go around at DA/MDA, I'd rather not forget to do it if I encountered another windsheer scenario 50ft above the surface :ok:

Interestingly, FADEC controlled engines don't move the pitch to fine on short final ;)

To the original post, downwind checks is a bad habit. You should have the mind set of PRE LANDING CHECKS, you may go into an air traffic controlled airfield and never fly a downwind leg. Don't mean to be pedantic :).

So it seems to me Deano that you are actually doing what is suggested without thinking about it. Arguing in agreement methinks.....

Who's arguing? I'm not, we're discussing, however I suggest you are trying to incite one, I'm not doing it as suggested, my point still remains, I don't want to be doing the props fine thing in the flare, simple as that, I am merely stating that I thought Chuck may have thought I was talking about fining them downwind which wasn't the case, and there's a big difference between the hundreds of feet at the start of finals and the flare.

" and there's a big difference between the hundreds of feet at the start of finals and the flare. "

Exactly, now you are getting to better understand the issue, once in the flare the importance of where your prop pitch control/s are set is so far down your worry scale that you can just leave them in cruise as you touch down and taxi in to the parking area......

.....Just don't forget to put them in full fine before you attempt to aviate the next time you get in the thing.

I can't believe I'm still in this discussion.

I haven't read the whole thread but there are engines which cannot take full throttle without being close to max rpm. The IO540-C4D5D is one; there is a kink in the MP v. rpm data and one needs to be >=2400 before max MP can be applied. So it makes sense to go to full rpm on short final, in case of a go-around.

I'm kind of bored these last few weeks waiting for spring to arrive, so lets have another look at engine handling and all those exotic things that pilots so much love to discuss.

One can safely say that all turbocharged, supercharged piston engines can be damaged by over boosting.....

...but overboosting is not something that occurs until you open the throttle/'s past barometric pressure.

...now lets examine an approach.

Generally it is stabalized by two hundred feet above ground even when flying a very close in short circuit, so once stabalized and the runway is clearly in sight the landing should generally be assured.

However should you have to over shoot you do not have to act at the speed of light.

You can smoothly change the attitude nose up from the approach attitude to the climbing attitude and at the same time move the pitch control/'s and the throttle/'s to the required power and RPM, if the pitch control/,s are not in reach with one hand all you need do is move it into the desired RPM and then increase power with the throttle/'s..

...now back to the time element.

Close your eyes here at the computer screen and visualize these actions and count the seconds that the movements can smoothly be accomplished in.
Granted if the extra task of dealing with two power controls overwhelms a pilot then of course put the prop in fine pitch before you need it.

As I have previously stated if for some reason I feel I may need climb power due to say a wild ride turbulence wise of course I will use the needed RPM where and when required.

Just off hand I would estimate that would be about 3 to 5 % of the approaches.

The recitation is not "Undercarriage Down" but "Undercarriage down AND LOCKED". Sometimes one tends to forget the nemonic sequence whilst waiting for the three greens and have to start again.

Comanche250 suggested lowering the gear first. I used to do this as it got the most important bit out of the way - you feel a little silly meeting the ground without wheels - and then progress to the other checks. Additionally, as the gear usually could be lowered at a speed higher than the flap extension limits, the drag was useful in getting the speed back to where you wanted it.

Full fine below 15'' of MAP on final, use full power for the go around, not climb power, it is just like a take off, just a little higher to start with.

Full fine below 15'' of MAP on final, use full power for the go around, not climb power, it is just like a take off, just a little higher to start with.

There are a lot of pilots who read this and may take that to mean you use full power on the go around all the time.

Would this apply to all piston engine airplanes and all go arounds?

A go around is far different than a take off as you start the take off from zero speed, whereas a go around is commensed from a safe flying speed.

I can think of a few airplanes I wouldn't use that method of going around power wise in.

Sorry to sound sanctimonious but it is worth reading the thread before commenting - Chuck has spelled out his views about when and how to set up the aircraft before the landing quite clearly - you may disagree, but in order to do so you need to read what has been said before commenting and so avoid everyone going round - in circles.

Surely that just means it makes sense to be at at least 2400 RPM on short final?

Yes. But at the power setting at short final the engine may not be developing enough power to spin even a fully-fine prop at 2400, so one has no way to set 2400 (one could if the governor lever was graduated in rpm but they aren't). The only governor setting which can be safely set (in anticipation of needing a lot of power) is max revs.

So don't set it at low power. Set it when you still have enough MP on to reach 2400 RPM. And leave it there. Then when you go to full throttle, the RPM will go to 2400 RPM. Works for me...

O.K. I now understand you guys are talking about small aircraft with relatively low HP engines that are used in the flight training schools.

Sorry for getting everyone all upset here I have been away from that sector of aviation for a lot of years and just did not clue on to what all this was about.

But the penny dropped finally and I apoligize for confusing some of you by trying to explain how we do it in bigger airplanes.

I wish to make just one more comment for some here to ponder over.

If the select RPM and Power as needed, when needed, works in large aircraft the same must hold true for small aircraft that are far, far less complex to operate. If I had operated big radials in the same manner as seems to be so popular in the basic training twins I would have ruined so many engines I would be unemployable.

One of the most unwanted forces in a large radial piston engine is reverse thrust on the internal moving parts....real exotic things start to happen when you fail to smoothly control the RPM power combinations.....

Anyhow enough of my ideas , whatever works for you should be just fine in general aviation basic aircraft.

I kept out of the debate on the prop level position on approach, as I haven't yet flown with a variable pitch prop. However, I will be soon, and the pre-landing (sic) checklist indicates prop - fine. Don't ask me to justify/explain it - its just there!

My original point was that I thought the usual mnemonic checks were unstructured, presumably derived from many moons ago, before we had more understanding of the human factors issues.

I was therefore wondering why such methods are still used. This also touches on the points raised by Chuck concerning training methods, i.e. we've always trained it this way, so let's keep doing it.

with thanks
GB

Be a bit careful about that though ;)

I know of a chap practicing forced landings in an arrow. Everything was going swimmingly well on the glide approach until short final when he went through the checklist like a robot - prop to fine. The plane then dropped out of the sky due to the big airbrake on the front, with no time to save it and it landed so heavily that it put two big dents in the top of the wings from the wheels (and needed a lot of repair work!):eek:

Think I'll stick to fixed props for the time being:ok:

Having only a little time on VP aircraft I have never been sure when is the correct time to go into fine pitch. Reading this thread I am learning that it can be left quite late, i.e. short final.

I wonder, then, if any instructors from the various commercial flying schools at EGHH would mind getting their students to adopt this practice.

The only aircraft noise I find at all intrusive is that of a Duchess (or similar) going round the procedure turn onto the ILS, just over my house, with the props in fine making an awful noise, especially if they are out of sync.

All other aircraft noise I like or can ignore.

:)

Now I cant believe the instructors would allow that!

Suprise, Suprise I'm back!!!!!!

I just must add to this .....

The only aircraft noise I find at all intrusive is that of a Duchess (or similar) going round the procedure turn onto the ILS, just over my house, with the props in fine making an awful noise, especially if they are out of sync.

Some moons ago I owned a flight school.

My flight instructors were taugh to select props foward entering the procedure turn during instrument training.

I gave them a written directive this would not be tolerated in my twin engine airplane.

They told me that was the way it was taught and that was what they were going to do.

I gave them written notice of dismissal for cause.

They went to Transport Canada who had the temerity to call me and demand I stay out of how flight training was taught and I could not fire these instructors for the way they were teaching...I said I am not fireing them for the way they are teaching because they will not be teaching people to abuse my airplane, but I'll make you a deal.

You as the regulator give me a written guarantee that you will pay for any cost involved if these idiots who are using a method of engine handling that can shorten the life of my engines mandated by you and I will allow it.

Even though the IQ of most of the drones in TC flight training is in the low two digit range I was certain that enough of them would pool their IQ and rise to a number that would guarantee my engines would be operated the way I dictated to my employees.

I was correct, TC backed down and the instructors did it my way and produced a far better product not to mention my airplane was happy not being abused.

Any pilot that thinks that there could never be a cause for a sudden go around should not be teaching any form of flying instruction. The time to put the props to fine is on the approach at a point at which is dictated by sensible practice based on experience.

There is no such thing as DOWNWIND checks, unless you want to land wheels up from a base leg or final join.

Commanche, always use the landing gear to slow the aircraft down, very few people forget to slow down to land but many forget that landing without wheels can make you terminally unpopular.

Noise Consideration!
 

By the way putting the props to fine downwind apart from being pointless causes an increase in noise which annoys local residents(as pointed out by several of them one night when we had a helmethead in the circuit)

Good point there rondon. Vle 129kts Vfe 107kts, I always wondered why I put the gear down first then the flaps. I always thought it was to let the tyres cool down :ugh:

On a slightly more serious note rondon..."putting the props to fine downwind apart from being pointless causes an increase in noise which annoys local residents" I agree :ok:

Just another minor point, are people here generally flying without gear up warning horns?

C250

Gear warning horns;

Using my theory (which i still teach) of applying two needs to aid memory those who rely on a gear warning horn will one day find. out the old adage never trust one man, one instrument, one gauge or one engine is still true today.

Did you hear the one about the Chief Pilot of Dan Air who landed the Comet wheels up at Newcastle, he was relying on the gear warning horn. His first comment after landing when the fire officer was looking through the cockpit DV window was, dont they have ******* tall firemen in Newcastle.

Remember slow down = gear down and you will always arrive at the same runway eye height you left with!

ASK CAPTAIN JON

Did I mention anything about relying on a gear warning horn?

Thats like relying on GPS, or as you say, one instrument or one engine.

But if its there you use it, and if its not there or not working CHECK IT, surely this is obvious? Maybe not.

C250

Any pilot that thinks that there could never be a cause for a sudden go around should not be teaching any form of flying instruction. The time to put the props to fine is on the approach at a point at which is dictated by sensible practice based on experience.

Now I'm truly concerned about my being unfit to teach.

From reading my comments on how I teach rondon do you feel I should not be teaching any form of flying instruction?

I read this thread with interest. Chuck...your last comment..you owned a flight school and then sacked the people you hired??? Hmmm coz they didn't do it your way. Did you not interview them in the first place and establish their practises??

How many times have you travelled on a large twin and heard the props change on final (condition levers). Don't think they leave it in the cruise mode all the way thru descent and onto the ground.

englishal

your comment about the arrow..I own a T tail arrow. I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders. Putting the prop to full fine will only put 2 dents (as you put it) in the wings due to a heavy landing. I suggest to you that this would only happen when the aircraft is at a speed not sufficient to reduce the rate of descent (or flare) thereby indicating that the pilot was either trying to stretch out the glide profile to the point that the aircraft fell out of the sky or they just failed to flare althogether from a nose down dive! There is bugger all difference between fixed prop and CSU when it comes to engine failure....they all act like a break..and unless you have a feather function or want to pull the aircraft up into a vertical climb to stall the prop and stop rotation fully then it all comes down to the pilot. (I'm talking smaller aircraft).

Checks.........Bah humbug....left to right top to bottom and behind, everything gets covered. At the end of the day - fuel and the controls are the 2 things which seem to f..k people over every day. Each aircraft is different and the systems are different. As long as you go left to right top to bottom you should cover everything. Downwind checks consist of FUEL. In order to slow the plane down..I need to get everything hanging out. Only thing I'm religious on is the GP on final (gear pitch) and its just habbit.

Sorry, but I'm a firm believer in having the pitch fine...just one less lever to piss around with in the event of an overshoot. Having said that..it doesn't really matter in the Turbo Arrow I have..but still, it's a good practice as far as I'm concerned.

Just for a laugh, I'll get back to the questions Groundbound asked;)
Yep, I do think that the standard "1 set of checks catches all" is illogical, in that it does not cater for the differences between ac. What it does do however is provide a basis for checks that, with thought and systems knowledge, can be used as a sound foundation for a very large number of types when appropriately modified :ok:
When the ac gets more complex the standard BUMPFFITCH …. etc become increasingly useless / pointless.
A specifically "type" designed set of checks based upon a logical flow around the cockpit or based upon grouping the checks into systems will be more functional (I preferred the "my friend fred has hairy balls mimonic, which got a chipmunk on the ground). And still use HASELL etc
IMHO, (having flown a lot of ac from the Chippy to HRH's fast jets) it is a case of horses for courses.
1. Read and understand the handbook for the ac and its systems.
2. Modify those checks to cater for the toys in that specific ac to achieve your aim = getting the ac set up safely & correctly for a specific phase / phases of flight.
3. Then do the checks every time:ok:
4. When presented with something new = STOP and have a little think:confused:

Conflict Alert said that

"I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders."


How does that work? I've flown over 40 different types of glider, but am not 'Type Rated' in any of them.
PS I'm with Chuck

Dave

Could be hes on a SA license, or

1. SEP

2. 37 different multis

3. 1 helicopter

4. 1 glider

:)

Hi Fuji, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't get a 'Type Rating' in a glider (unless it weighs over 5,700kg of course!!!!)