Aircraft without a loss of oil pressure procedure
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loss of oil - Effects
SNS3Guppy. It would seem to me that you use a multitude of words to make a relatively simple statement. My reference to the C130 Reduction gearbox was in response to your assertions in Post #29 where you write "that the engine oil does not lubricate the propeller, or the reduction gearbox" So that you are in no way mistaken on what I believe let me say again "The reduction gearbox and the engine are both MOST CERTAINLY lubricated by engine oil, albeit using their own individual pressure and scavenge systems but sharing a common oil reservoir from which they each draw oil and to which they each return scavenge oil. END OF STORY. Having operated C130's as a F/E with both the original Aeroproducts 3 blade unit and the Hamilton Standard 4 blade unit I understand fully that they each do not use engine oil for lubrication or control and that they each have independent oil systems contained within. No argument on that score. So please Guppy, re-read your post #29 and you will, or should, see what prompted my original response. I do not agree with you that loss of oil quantity will not result in a loss of oil pressure. Partial loss can and does often lead to increased temperature due to more rapid circulation of the available oil which can and often does be reflected in a decrease in oil pressure. I am not wanting to be argumentative but there is no way that oil pressure can be maintained if there is no oil to provide it. I am speaking of a real loss of oil, not a loss of indication of oil quantity. In summary, the Engine and Reduction Gearbox on T56 installations use either MIL-L-7808 or MIL-L-23699 from a common oil reservoir. I do not claim any knowledge of the Garrett or P&W PT6 engines, but I'll back my knowledge of the T56 any day.
Last edited by Old Fella; 4th Dec 2010 at 06:19. Reason: spelling corrections
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The reduction gearbox and the engine are both MOST CERTAINLY lubricated by engine oil, albeit using their own individual pressure and scavenge systems but sharing a common oil reservoir from which they each draw oil and to which they each return scavenge oil. END OF STORY.
I flew the C-130 too, as both pilot and FE, and was also assigned as a mechanic and inspector on the aircraft, in the field, and at the depot level in a large repair station.
Having operated C130's as a F/E with both the original Aeroproducts 3 blade unit and the Hamilton Standard 4 blade unit I understand fully that they each do not use engine oil for lubrication or control and that they each have independent oil systems contained within. No argument on that score.
Let me make it clear for you. They're independent. Further, the propeller assembly does use H5606 as I correctly stated previously, and further as provided in the TCDS for which my previous post gave citation. Do you have documentation that suggests otherwise?
Complete oil loss generally does not provide an elevated oil temperature indication. I can tell you that as a mechanic, but also as a pilot who's experienced it more than once.
I've experienced significant oil loss in radial engines as well (not uncommon), which experienced no elevated temperatures. I've experienced the previously cited complete oil loss in the turbopropeller engine, and a year ago experienced a complete loss (previously detailed here) on a small horizontally opposed recip piston engine. In none of those cases did an elevated oil temperature indication occur.
As far as your assertion regarding the impossibility of an oil pressure indication where a failure has occurred, given that you're a former flight engineer, then you'll understand the fallibility of AC powered gauges, which can and often do fail without showing a loss of indication or change, with loss of power to the gauge. I've seen sensor failures duplicate the same thing, and frankly, I've experienced total oil loss without an attendant loss of pressure indication.
By the time the oil is gone, one may have much bigger issues with which to contend than whether there is oil still in the engine. In the case of the aforementioned Garret oil loss, no torque trumped no oil. Whether oil was available for lubrication or cooling was irrelevant in light of the fact that no torque remained with no thrust with no way to remain airborne. Let the engine burn. We're landing.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when i read our hero- he drove it all. an expert and check airman in garretts without knowing what kind of engine this is ( or is it a motor?) - he knows better than PWC how the torque sensor on the PT6 works, he has best experience on the mighty C130 with T56 engines, he had several incidents at anykind of big turbofans, i guess he also has logged hours on the space shuttle.
he has to every thread a real story from experience .
well , what happend, how this experience can be...?
maybe, on his personal short shaft, he truly experiences a more and more shaftbow in gravity direction, simulatany he struggles with low oil pressure on the pipe as well low oil quantity in his tanks and so he truly talks from experience...
regardless how hard he tries to reach some torque on his shaft- he is unable to achieve a "positive rate of climb" .
well, with such a catastropic failure he hard crashed at home , so i fully understand that he is nervous when somebody doubts his comments and reputation here.
pure informative i give here one more statement of our hero :
"Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. Again, rather than cover this material again, visit Beta Range"
and the copy and paste of a part ( regarding the props) of the C130 TCDS he by itself gave us here :
4 Hamilton Standard hydromatic propellers,
Blade Angles
Feather 92.5° + .20°
Low-pitch stop 23.3° + .50°
(min. flt. idle)
Ground idle, beta 4.0° to 5.5°
Reverse -7.0° + 1.0°
this TCDS needs an immediate revise, shame on hamilton standard !!!
they give a separate blade angle for beta and for reverse , and this is wrong! reverse is beta, beta is reverse like guppy says !
nice weekend to all !
he has to every thread a real story from experience .
well , what happend, how this experience can be...?
maybe, on his personal short shaft, he truly experiences a more and more shaftbow in gravity direction, simulatany he struggles with low oil pressure on the pipe as well low oil quantity in his tanks and so he truly talks from experience...
regardless how hard he tries to reach some torque on his shaft- he is unable to achieve a "positive rate of climb" .
well, with such a catastropic failure he hard crashed at home , so i fully understand that he is nervous when somebody doubts his comments and reputation here.
pure informative i give here one more statement of our hero :
"Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. Again, rather than cover this material again, visit Beta Range"
and the copy and paste of a part ( regarding the props) of the C130 TCDS he by itself gave us here :
4 Hamilton Standard hydromatic propellers,
Blade Angles
Feather 92.5° + .20°
Low-pitch stop 23.3° + .50°
(min. flt. idle)
Ground idle, beta 4.0° to 5.5°
Reverse -7.0° + 1.0°
this TCDS needs an immediate revise, shame on hamilton standard !!!
they give a separate blade angle for beta and for reverse , and this is wrong! reverse is beta, beta is reverse like guppy says !
nice weekend to all !
Last edited by aerobat77; 4th Dec 2010 at 10:39.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy is WRONG
Guppy, I have never said that the propeller and the reduction gearbox use the same oil. What I have said and say again, the Engine (Power section) and the Reduction gearbox both use the same oil supply, i.e. Engine Oil. Please read your own post #29 and my post #30. If, as you claim, you operated the C130 as both a pilot and F/E, and acted as a mechanic and inspector at line and depot levels, you obviously did not understand the Allison T56/Reduction gearbox system as you should have. If you still believe me to be mistaken, please ask Lockheed or Allison to explain how it works. Alternativly, please "Google" AllisonT56/Reduction Gearbox lubrication systems and read the Lockheed Service News Volume 15, No 2, April-June 1988.on the subject. I think my ten years experience of C130 maintenance (2 Years) and operation as a F/E (8 years) gives me a reasonable chance of knowing how it works.
Last edited by Old Fella; 5th Dec 2010 at 02:19. Reason: Emphasis on who is correct and who is incorrect.
Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy
...beta range is everything operating at a pitch less than the low pitch stops. Reverse is beta. Beta is reverse. [from post #40]
In the PT-6 Series of engines (I have no experience with Garrett or Allison and therefore will not comment on them), beta range is defined as any time when the propeller is not being controlled by the constant speed section of the propeller governor.
If the propeller is in a on-speed condition (if the rotational speed of the propeller matches the speed that has been selected by the pilot using the propeller levers), the propeller governor is controlling oil supply to the propeller in order to maintain the selected propeller RPM.
If the propeller cannot achieve the selected RPM, then control of oil supply to the propeller passes over to the beta reverse valve (the constant speed section of the governor itself being in an underspeed condition and thus wide-open so far as oil supply is concerned), and the beta reverse valve controls oil supply to the propeller in order to maintain selected (or preset) blade angle.
In summary: During on-speed conditions, the constant speed section of the propeller governor controls oil supply towards the objective of maintaining selected propeller RPM. During underspeed conditions (an essential prerequisite for operation in beta range), the beta reverse valve controls oil supply to maintain selected blade angle.
The propeller on a PT6A engine will operate in beta range during all low speed ground maneuvering (whenever actual propeller RPM observed on the Np gauge is less than the propeller RPM that has been selected using the PROP levers), and, depending on the approach speed of the aircraft and the propeller RPM that the pilot has selected for landing, the propeller may operate in beta range during final approach and landing.
It is very simple to determine if the propeller is operating in beta range: Look and see if actual propeller RPM (the indication on the Np gauge) is less than selected propeller RPM (the setting made with the propeller levers). If so, the propeller is in beta range.
"Reverse" always implies beta, because the propellers are always underspeeding (relative to selected propeller speed) during reverse. But, "Beta" most certainly does not imply reverse. If you are sitting on the taxiway in the lineup for take-off, with the parking brake on, all your pre-takeoff checks complete, the power levers at idle, and the propeller levers set for take-off, you are in beta range - but, obviously, not in reverse.
Michael
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M3 vs M23
FWIW, the Metro 23 does have a loss of oil px procedure (AFM page 3-9). It says:
I agree that the above is missing in the M3, so is likely a certification issue as others have noted.
Interestingly, landing the TPE331-11/-12 as installed in the Metro with a low pressure (around but not below 40 psi) is a bad idea because it's quite possible that the prop pitch will end up somewhere between fine pitch and feather, and with the engine still running this can produce significant thrust on that engine, which creates 'interesting' control problems during the landing roll...
grade-3
LEFT OR RIGHT OIL PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT ON
If low oil pressure is confirmed by the oil pressure gauge, the engine should be shut down by applying the Engine Failure During Flight checklist.
If the oil pressure gauge indicates normal pressure (70 – 120 PSI) monitor engine parameters. However, if any abnormal indications appear (i.e. uncommanded RPM fluctuations, rising oil temperatures, etc.), shut down the engine by applying the Engine Failure In-Flight checklist.
If low oil pressure is confirmed by the oil pressure gauge, the engine should be shut down by applying the Engine Failure During Flight checklist.
If the oil pressure gauge indicates normal pressure (70 – 120 PSI) monitor engine parameters. However, if any abnormal indications appear (i.e. uncommanded RPM fluctuations, rising oil temperatures, etc.), shut down the engine by applying the Engine Failure In-Flight checklist.
Interestingly, landing the TPE331-11/-12 as installed in the Metro with a low pressure (around but not below 40 psi) is a bad idea because it's quite possible that the prop pitch will end up somewhere between fine pitch and feather, and with the engine still running this can produce significant thrust on that engine, which creates 'interesting' control problems during the landing roll...
grade-3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my god...the horror of flying a plane and something happens up there that's not in the checklist, SOPs manual, with no way to call dispatch, the chief pilot, call for back up, look over at a chief pilot, or FO to do the flying....and you can't just stop the plane, pull over and get some time to figure out...
Horrible, horrible, I tell you...everything should be spelled out...everything I tell you...every little situation should be in a full library in the back of the plane where you can look it up, all the while you push a button where it stops the plane midair....like in a Sim..that way you can look it up, and take your time to figure out this horrible horrible situation.
Horrible, horrible, I tell you...everything should be spelled out...everything I tell you...every little situation should be in a full library in the back of the plane where you can look it up, all the while you push a button where it stops the plane midair....like in a Sim..that way you can look it up, and take your time to figure out this horrible horrible situation.
Thread Starter
Oh my god...the horror of flying a plane and something happens up there that's not in the checklist, SOPs manual, with no way to call dispatch, the chief pilot, call for back up, look over at a chief pilot, or FO to do the flying....and you can't just stop the plane, pull over and get some time to figure out...
Horrible, horrible, I tell you...everything should be spelled out...everything I tell you...every little situation should be in a full library in the back of the plane where you can look it up, all the while you push a button where it stops the plane midair....like in a Sim..that way you can look it up, and take your time to figure out this horrible horrible situation.
Horrible, horrible, I tell you...everything should be spelled out...everything I tell you...every little situation should be in a full library in the back of the plane where you can look it up, all the while you push a button where it stops the plane midair....like in a Sim..that way you can look it up, and take your time to figure out this horrible horrible situation.
So what would happen if a relatively inexperienced crew did have an engine run out of oil, they lose control of the prop while they try to figure out what to do, and crash the plane? It's far from impossible and the litigation people would just love to get their hands on such a thing.
"You didn't have a checklist for that failure? The Metro 23 does and it's the same aeroplane. Also, every other red-light on the annunciator panel has a checklist procedure, why doesn't the low oil pressure one?"
I've got enough experience to deal with these things that aren't on the checklist, but no doubt there are people that aren't.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So am I to understand that the airlines are hiring people that have no idea about the consequences of a low oil pressure indication...so ergo.... despite being taught to check the oil level prior to a flight they have no clue as to why that brown sticky stuff dripping on them is in there to begin with...??
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decisions made.
johns 7022, I don't think 18 Wheeler asked his original question meaning to infer that airlines were hiring people without sufficient knowledge or experience to handle particular problems. He simply asked was anyone aware of any aircraft which did not have a procedure to follow in the event of a loss of oil quantity. There are probably many aircraft in service with no specific QRH entry. Most, if not all, pilots would be aware that a confirmed loss of oil quantity will likely result in an engine failure and possible loss of control of the propeller in some installations. I enjoy these forums, however it is very apparent that there are those who profess system "knowledge" which is not correct. That is not helpful to those reading posts in an effort to improve their own knowledge based on the experience of others. For that, and no other reason, I will question statements which I believe to be incorrect. If my belief is shown to be incorrect I have no problem in being set straight.
Thread Starter
So am I to understand that the airlines are hiring people that have no idea about the consequences of a low oil pressure indication...so ergo.... despite being taught to check the oil level prior to a flight they have no clue as to why that brown sticky stuff dripping on them is in there to begin with...??
Best just watch this thread instead of posting in it.
Most, if not all, pilots would be aware that a confirmed loss of oil quantity will likely result in an engine failure and possible loss of control of the propeller in some installations. I enjoy these forums, however it is very apparent that there are those who profess system "knowledge" which is not correct. That is not helpful to those reading posts in an effort to improve their own knowledge based on the experience of others. For that, and no other reason, I will question statements which I believe to be incorrect. If my belief is shown to be incorrect I have no problem in being set straight.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see, well...I took it as a 'what do we do if it's not in the checklist' type of question....
I would be curious what normal standard commonly used make and model aircraft specifically doesn't have a loss of oil pressure check list.
I would be curious what normal standard commonly used make and model aircraft specifically doesn't have a loss of oil pressure check list.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blade angle changes
18 Wheeler. Depending on what type of propeller you are using the effect of loss of oil pressure to the propeller will vary, whether it is due to loss of oil or loss of pressure for any other reason. Variable pitch propellers of the counter-weight type rely on engine oil pressure to move the blades toward fine pitch and thus this type of propeller will move to a coarse blade angle in he event of loss of engine oil pressure. Centrifugal forces acting on the counter-weights cause the movement toward coarse pitch. On a hydromatic type propeller the opposite will occur. Centrifugal Twisting Moment acting on the blades will move them toward fine pitch. As for the propellers fitted to Garrett and PT-6 installations I have had no experience and cannot comment. As has been noted before, not all propellers use engine oil pressure for operation but instead have self contained oil systems which are independent of the engine oil system. johns7022. I do not know of any aircraft that would not have a procedure for loss of oil pressure, however they may not all have a specific procedure for loss of oil quantity. Despite what others may believe, an actual loss of oil quantity will almost always show up initially as an increase in oil temperature and a resultant decrease in oil pressure, indicators for which are provided in all aircraft I have operated.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This statement is also factually incorrect.
In the PT-6 Series of engines (I have no experience with Garrett or Allison and therefore will not comment on them), beta range is defined as any time when the propeller is not being controlled by the constant speed section of the propeller governor.
In the PT-6 Series of engines (I have no experience with Garrett or Allison and therefore will not comment on them), beta range is defined as any time when the propeller is not being controlled by the constant speed section of the propeller governor.
Seeing as you chose to comment, however, what you just said is exactly what I said; everything aft of the low pitch stops. That's beta. From the cockpit perspective, everything aft of the idle stop is beta. Some pilots try to differentiate between beta and reverse, but it's all beta, including reverse. There are two modes of propeller operation; alpha, and beta. Alpha is anything forward of the low pitch stops, and beta is everything aft.
Some pratt manuals refer to the alpha range as the "power range," and the entire beta range as the beta range. This is the nomenclature used by P&W.
The low pitch stops on some aircraft are variable; this isn't a P&W function, but a customer (aircraft) function using squat switches or other trigger devices that help the engine differentiate between high and low idle, or flight and ground idle. Never the less, once aft of the alpha, power or forward range (aft of the idle pitch stops), one is in beta range, and this is "factually correct" (as you like to put it) regardless of whether one is talking about a PT6A, TPE-331, or T-56.
Your understanding of beta range and beta operations are incorrect.
In summary: During on-speed conditions, the constant speed section of the propeller governor controls oil supply towards the objective of maintaining selected propeller RPM.
Beta functions take place when the propeller is commanded into a lower pitch than the low pitch stops. This takes place when the power lever is moved aft of the idle gate or idle stops. Various airframes use various methods of providing these stops and limits, or in a few cases, multiple limits. Some pilots incorrectly correlate the turboprop sound with a beta, but anything aft of the low pitch stops is beta; specifically, any blade angle aft of the low pitch stops is beta.
You may have read cautions regarding moving the power lever into the reverse range, from the cockpit, when the engine isn't operating. The reason for this is the potential for damaging your beta control, and beta blocks.
Think of it this way: at idle with the propeller feathered, the propeller isn't being operated in beta, though it's certainly in an "underspeed" condition. "underspeed" isn't beta in the alpha, forward, or power range (alpha, forward, and power range being the same thing).
Same for me - I would have though for sure that the loss of oil to the prop hub/governor would have the prop going full-coarse, but as it turns out I was wrong.
One must know the systems in use.
If, as you claim, you operated the C130 as both a pilot and F/E, and acted as a mechanic and inspector at line and depot levels, you obviously did not understand the Allison T56/Reduction gearbox system as you should have.
So am I to understand that the airlines are hiring people that have no idea about the consequences of a low oil pressure indication...so ergo.... despite being taught to check the oil level prior to a flight they have no clue as to why that brown sticky stuff dripping on them is in there to begin with...??
What has being "taught to check the oil level prior to flight" to do with losing oil in flight?
Losing oil quantity may not be nearly so important as other effects that take place when oil is lost.
In some airplanes, oil is used to heat fuel (and conversely, to cool the oil), and other such functions. In the event of an oil loss, heating the fuel is really immaterial, as one has much bigger issues, such as loss of thrust, loss of torque, and so forth.
If one does have the capability of monitoring the oil supply, then one doesn't necessary simply shut the engine down. The airplane I fly directs us to shut it down when the oil quantity reaches .5 gallons. It also directs us to start it back up for landing, as necessary and prudent, depending on the nature of the loss, speed of the loss, etc. Until then, so long as it's producing usable thrust and we aren't seeing other problems, we keep the engine, and don't shut it down.
Some engine installations have instructions for aircrew directing them to continue running the engine with a loss of oil pressure, so long as other indications don't exist. The same may be true for oil supply. If one sees an oil loss in a turbopropeller engine, such as previously discussed, but sees torque and the effects of oil pressure in use, one may or may not shut the engine down, depending on what one sees (and the number of engines one has available, as well as the conditions under which the problem occurs.
The point is, simply learning to check the oil, and simply understanding what "the brown sticky stuff" is, doesn't imbue the user with an innate knowledge for the proper procedures in a particular airplane, or a particular powerplant. In fact, having operating experience with the powerplant in one airframe doesn't necessarily mean that one is thoroughly versed in another installation. Furthermore, simply because one understands the procedures in one airplane doesn't mean one understands the procedures in other airplanes. It's not that simple. The original poster asked a question which sparked discussion; this isn't a statement that airlines are hiring idiots; hiring was never discussed, airlines were never discussed, and nobody claimed to have no idea what oil does.
Discussions have been had about types of oil and fluids, about the application of oil in the engine, about various procedures and examples, but one is always beholden to the procedures given by both the engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer, as well as propeller or accessory or appliance manufacturer, as well. Sometimes all of them. One should not only expect to have procedures available, but should be well versed in their use, specific to the aircraft one is operating at any given time.
Yes, one should refer to the checklist. It's there for a reason. One should know which procedure to use, the immediate action (or memory) items, and should understand how to fly the aircraft until the problem is stabilized and handled, whatever the case may be.
Most certainly problems may arise which are not addressed in a quick reference handbook or in the flight manual. Generally the symptoms of these problems may be individually addressed, or broken down by priority and addressed. One may have a flap problem but may not have a specific procedure for addressing the flap problem. One may be best to leave the flaps alone and land without them; one should then have available data for landing without flaps (speeds, certain cautions, etc). As complexity (and size) of aircraft increases, the number of procedures generally increase, and these procedures by necessity must be followed. One may *think* one is doing the right thing, but there may be additional considerations which are addressed by the use of the procedural checklist, and these must not be ignored. One may simply wish to shut down the engine that has no oil pressure, but may neglect to take into account that engine as the only source of hydraulic power, for example; deferring the shutdown, or configuring the airplane first, may be a big consideration. Advising the pilot body to use common sense, particularly when addressing complex systems, may be bad advice; common sense alone doesn't cut it when complexity dictates that details count.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A while ago I flew for a company that flew small turboprops and I suddenly realised one day that nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil.
I've never seen or heard anything like that on any other aeroplane, has anyone else?
That's the original post...so maybe it's not me that thread drifted....if anyone wants to enlighten me on a plane that actually has OIL Quantity Indicators, I am all ears.
I've never seen or heard anything like that on any other aeroplane, has anyone else?
That's the original post...so maybe it's not me that thread drifted....if anyone wants to enlighten me on a plane that actually has OIL Quantity Indicators, I am all ears.
Originally Posted by johns7022
...A while ago I flew for a company that flew small turboprops and I suddenly realised one day that nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil.
A manufacturer cannot publish an abnormal or emergency procedure for a condition that cannot be easily and accurately confirmed by the crew. If the crew cannot reliably determine what the oil quantity is in flight, then they would be hard pressed to know when it would be appropriate to carry out a procedure dealing with loss of oil quantity.
I have lost oil quantity on a TFE-731, JT-8D-15, JT-15D, TF-39 (twice), and a CF-34. All of them due to suction line failures. Not one of them showed any significant temp rise, all showed rapidly fluctuating and decreasing pressure first, then the pressure indications led to a shutdown without any out of limits temps. Not saying temps wouldnt have been an issue, if the engine were kept running.
The B727 and the C-5 had quantity indicators, but proved unreliable. The RR BR 700 (GLEX, anyway) has quantity indications on the EICAS after engine/APU shutdown, as well as a oil pump to fill the sumps after shutdown on the ground.
GF
The B727 and the C-5 had quantity indicators, but proved unreliable. The RR BR 700 (GLEX, anyway) has quantity indications on the EICAS after engine/APU shutdown, as well as a oil pump to fill the sumps after shutdown on the ground.
GF
Thread Starter
That's the original post...so maybe it's not me that thread drifted....if anyone wants to enlighten me on a plane that actually has OIL Quantity Indicators, I am all ears.