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!!!!)