Aircraft without a loss of oil pressure procedure

[johns7022]

Galaxy, I would curious what model aircraft you flew, that had oil quantity indicators with the TFE731 and JT15D Engines you specified.

[galaxy flyer]

Didn't say the TFE 731 or the JT-15 had quantity gauges, did I? I said i lost quantity, as indicated by fluctuating pressure. I said the C-5 and, IIRC, the Boeing 727 had them, but that unreliability caused their removal. Please pay attention.

[Old Fella]

Systems

SNS3Guppy. You have obviously worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have. That of itself however does not make you an infallible authority on every aircraft or system ever built. You have told me that I'm wrong in a number of instances where I know I am correct. An example is where you tell me "You're wrong" is where I wrote that the Allison T56 engine and the Reduction gearbox are both lubricated using engine oil, albeit using their own pressure and scavenge systems, but sharing a common oil reservoir. I don't wish to labour the point Guppy, but one of the virtues you seem not to possess is being able to admit that you are mistaken. If you believe me to be wrong, tell me on what basis you make that assertion. You also state in one of your posts that "Torque" is only a measure of oil pressure anyway. Well, not so on the T56 which uses a Torque meter shaft which measures the amount of "twist" on the shaft which transmits engine power to the Reduction gearbox. You also state in a post on another forum to which you refer that the Hamilton Standard propeller as fitted to the C130 is not a hydromatic type. Well Sir, it is described by Hamilton Standard as being an "Electro-hydromatic" propeller which simply means that it has electronic syncronising, syncrophasing and is a constant speed, reversible propeller.

Please show me where I'm wrong Guppy, because if I am I have been mistaken for over forty years.

[SNS3Guppy]

That of itself however does not make you an infallible authority on every aircraft or system ever built.

No one here has claimed infallibility, though it's the second time you've brought it up. Why do you feel the need to invent smoke to inject into the conversation? Give it a rest, already.

You also state in one of your posts that "Torque" is only a measure of oil pressure anyway.

In the context of the discussion at the time, with reference to the engines being discussed it is a measure of oil pressure. A direct measure of oil pressure, in fact, as that is how torque on those motors is divined.

On any hydraulic controllable propeller installation, the function of the propeller being hydraulic in nature, the operation of the propeller is indeed a function of the hydraulic (oil, or hydraulic fluid in the case of the T-56 with the Hamilton Standard 54H60 hydromatic propeller), and therefore direct evidence of oil pressure. In the case of the T-56, of course, the propeller's function is based on a separate fluid supply and system, entirely independent of the engine, using an entirely separate fluid (H-5606, and subsequent replacements as already identified per type certification...documents citations given).

You need to read the posts a little more closely; you're attempting to apply the discussion in one area, to another. Try to stay with the program; it will make more sense for you.

You also state in a post on another forum to which you refer that the Hamilton Standard propeller as fitted to the C130 is not a hydromatic type.

I don't recall having said that, but if you say so.

The hamilton standard installation, as I have previously correctly stated is the 54H60 hydromatic propeller.

You're really hung up on the T-56. Given that it's but one type of motor, and many more are out there (much of which you've already stated you have no experience operating or maintaining), that particular motor seems to be somewhat of an obsession for you. Previously another poster was desperately hung up on the TPE-331, with similar misunderstandings, too. As you will.

You have obviously worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have.

I don't know your background, but whatever it is, you're almost certainly correct. This is about oil supply and pressure, however, and not my resume, which is entirely irrelevant. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

The bright red OIL PRESSURE light is a bit of a hint.

The bright red oil pressure light is a bit of a hint as to which aircraft? How?

I'm going to guess this is because relatively few (if any) small turboprops provide an oil quantity indicator.

There we have it, folks. Finally, someone brought some good, solid guesswork to the table. Do you have any supposition to go with it?

This seems to be the trend. Someone gives an answer, but it's not good enough. Someone else gives personal experience, but nobody believes it. Someone else provides citations and documentations, but another poster argues against the written word, based on his own ancient experience, and so on. At least you offer a guess.

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.

Perhaps you've never seen oil pumping out of the engine, or pouring out of the engine case in flight, or seen the wing covered in oil, or the nacelle covered in oil, and had a clear understanding that you just lost your oil. Accordingly, you may be forgiven for your lack of experience, though perhaps not for your arrogance. Then again, it is just a guess, isn't it?

You are talking through your hat, and you are trying to dig yourself out of an increasingly deep hole of your own making.

I don't wear a hat much, any more. There's little hair left to cover, and I enjoy the breeze. What hole, exactly, would that be?

Are you able to address the subject (intelligently)?

[V1... Ooops]

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

...Perhaps you've never seen oil pumping out of the engine, or pouring out of the engine case in flight, or seen the wing covered in oil, or the nacelle covered in oil...

Have you considered that not all engines are fully visible from the flight compartment, and that not all flights are conducted in daylight conditions?

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

...I don't wear a hat much, any more. There's little hair left to cover...

Yeah, I think most of us have figured that much out by now. Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended. All you are now is a bumptious and argumentative old man.

You would do this forum, and this industry a great service if you took up a more appropriate pastime than posting here. May I suggest you investigate forums dedicated to gardening, or grandchildren, or lawn bowling? I am sure that there are many such forums out there that would be grateful to have an "expert on everything" join their ranks.

[SNS3Guppy]

Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended.

They have?

You'd better inform my employer quickly; I have a departure in a few hours.

Given that clearly you've nothing more to contribute, you're joining a few others on the ignore list, where you belong.

Have you considered that not all engines are fully visible from the flight compartment, and that not all flights are conducted in daylight conditions

Certainly I have. Apparently you have, too. While it's not relevant, it's good that you're attempting to grow a brain. Enjoy your time off, on the ignore list.

This message is hidden because V1... Ooops is on your ignore list.

Much better.

[Old Fella]

Sharing information

SNS3Guppy, It is quite obvious that you are not prepared to concede that there is the remotest possibility that you may be mistaken in what you believe to be the way in which things work. I have endeavoured, reasonably I believe, to set the record straight on a couple of points in relation to the Allison T56 engine and Reduction Gearbox. My reason for doing so is because a couple of statements attributed to you on PPRuNe clearly indicate you are mistaken. Specifically, the entry which prompted my initial post on this subject was Post #29 on 30Nov2010 in which you said in relation to the T56/Reduction Gearbox/Hamilton Standard Propeller on the C130, and I quote, "it (the prop) doesn't use engine oil to control the propeller, or lubricate the gearbox". My response was that the Engine and Reduction Gearbox were both lubricated using engine oil, albeit using seperate pressure and scavenge pumps, but sharing a common reservoir. You have on a number of occasions since then accused me of being wrong and gone into chapter and verse regarding how the Hamilton Standard propeller works, despite me never questioning your version other than to refer you to a post by you to Tech Log on another thread, Overspeeding Prop, posted on 10Jul2009 where you state "The C130 uses the Hamilton Standard (now Sunstrand) prop and does not use a hydromatic prop" When I pointed out that Hamilton Standard refer to the 54H60 prop used on the C130 as an "Electro-Hydromatic" prop you again go into chapter and verse about how it works. You ask me to read the topic, not to drift off topic and accuse me of being hung up on the T56 engine. Well Guppy, you are correct about one thing, yes I am hung-up on the T56, but only to the extent that you have made incorrect statements about the engine/reduction gearbox lubrication systems and it is clear that your only defence when challenged about any subject is to be totally dismissive of another's opinion and call them "trolls" etc. You are a very self opinionated individual whom, it is apparent, is unwilling to be corrected even in the face of clearly being WRONG. You smugly tell me that you most like have much more experience on more types than me, which I freely admit to be the case. You also tell me you don't know my background. Mine is on my public profile Guppy, where is yours? I guess I too will now be put on your ignore list.

[aerobat77]

"Yeah, I think most of us have figured that much out by now. Your days as an aviation professional have long since ended. All you are now is a bumptious and argumentative old man."

you hit the mark , i absolutely agree. i would go a step further and say that he never was a commercial pilot. with such an attitude -that you are always right , that you decisions are always perfect , you would fail any assessment and screening at a serious company. it is against any fundamentals of a multicrew cockpit, regardless if you are first officer or captain .

the top of it is believing to be right when in real clearly wrong.

further , being such a babbler - in a cockpit things happen fast and you often do not have the time for it.

finally... thinking that you are the only right and everybody elso wrong, you will not reach your retirement being a pilot...

since more and more of us join the "ignore - club", hopefully we all trolls can continue a normal conversation and exchange of experiences and our expert can continue on a self-discussion ,

where he or she belongs.

[aerobat77]

"The bright red OIL PRESSURE light is a bit of a hint."

the thread drifted a little... but: can you confirm for sule that the metroliner does not have any procedure for low oil pressure?

the oil leak, which will sooner or later result in an low oil pressure is nothing you can expect a procedure for. when you have a leak, you have a leak, you cannot do anything against it inflight i think.

you e.g will also not find a procedure for wing separation. procedures are for situations that are manageable.

in general- when an emergency situation occours , regardless what type of situation, airframe or engine, i would always follow the recommendations of the manufacturer and not some "special procedures" from self named experts at forums.

they will not pay the bill when they, believing they are right, in real terms are catastrophically wrong.

somewhere here an self named expert by ITSELF claims that the tpe331 on your metroliner will run up to half an hour without oil pressure. well- what when he is wrong , but you try it in real live and after a minute you deal with en engine burst and turbine blades flyling everywhere or an engine fire due to a sudden seizing of the core?

you are sitting in that plane, not he.

or a little lett worse... when you toast the turbine coping against the QRH but in conjunction with forum experts- you will tell your boss, not he...

[SNS3Guppy]

You smugly tell me that you most like have much more experience on more types than me, which I freely admit to be the case.

Ah. Here's your problem. You don't read your own copy.

You said I have much more experience than you, to which I freely admit to be the case. You made the statement. Not me. I simply agreed.

It was also you that introduced the issue of infallibility; something you invented, because nobody here made any such assertion, least of all me.

You're introducing items into the conversation, then addressing them as though someone else said them. You really do need to read your own material.

Mine is on my public profile Guppy, where is yours?

On the resume I provide my employers. You aren't my employer.

I guess I too will now be put on your ignore list.

Would you like to be?

...and it is clear that your only defence when challenged about any subject is to be totally dismissive of another's opinion and call them "trolls" etc.

I don't believe I cited you as such, did I? I did not. I correctly identified those who are trolls (not name calling; it's a proper identification of troublemakers in a thread on the internet). Those whom I so identified verified it themselves, and went on to say they're at peace with the fact. Their assertion, not mine. Again, you must learn to read.

As for what I've offered you, apparently citation, quotes, references, and the type certificate data sheet were insufficient for you. Perhaps you simply missed them, or chose to ignore them. Who knows? You're too busy inventing things to pay particular attention, it would seem.

Given your obsession with the T-56, do you suppose you'll have the time and attention span to return to the topic to provide a meaningful contribution to the subject of loss of oil and oil pressure, policies and procedures thereof, indications thereof, and the results? Perhaps you should start a T-56 thread, as this is clearly far more important to you than the reason this thread exists. Then again, perhaps you can start a resume for me as it's clearly a lot more important to you than it is to me (or anyone else, I imagine).

[johns7022]

You guys are all so far off I am wondering if I should bother posting...

The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure...and no one has stated an aircraft that doesn't have one..

As far as losing oil pressure, that's not a direct indication of oil quantity...could be a bad sensor, or indicator, ect...but as a general rule you don't put an indicator on a plane without telling the pilot what it means..or providing a solution if that indicator gets into the red, ect.

Which means the OP is putting all you guys on...you fell for it, and jumped into a furball, jumping back and forth pushing the thread into areas that had just about nothing to do with the original question. Classic Troll bait, with the resident experts showing just how little they know on the subject at hand. Classic.

If you disagree, send me a normal plane that doesn't not have any reference to the oil pressure indicator in the manual or checklist.

[Old Fella]

Inventing Smoke

Oh Guppy, you are a difficult person with whom to share information. You are absolutely correct, I did state that you obviously have worked on and flown numerous types of aircraft, many more than I have. It was your response to that comment which I find smug. My reference to your seeming belief in your infallibility was prompted by your refusal to accept that comments by me, and others, are valid if they happen to be different to yours. My remark regarding my resume was prompted by a total lack of anything on your public profile to indicate what experience or qualifications you have, simple as that. No, you have not called me a troll, but you have done so to another who disagreed with your view. As for your question as to whether or not I would like to be on your ignore list, I could not care less if you choose to place me there. In all of this Guppy, you have not once agreed that my statement that the T56 engine and Reduction Gearbox are each lubricated by engine oil which is sourced from the same reservoir is correct. It is pretty simple Guppy, just an admission that I am correct, instead of your bland "You're Wrong" comment in Post #62. As I said before Guppy, this forum is, among other things, a place where people may be able to learn from the experience of others. In that context, information attributable to folk such as yourself with an apparent wealth of knowledge should be unequivocally correct. If you think my challenging you means I am obsessed with the T56 I am sorry. I would be most interested in your history flying the C130 as a pilot and as a F/E, and that as a C130 mechanic and inspector at depot level. You see Guppy, I can verify my experience but you have not. So lets have no more of your posturing. Take your own advice, particulary regarding Post #29 and Post #30, and read what has been posted. As for my thoughts regarding how a loss of oil quantity may be recognized I have covered that comprehensively, but again it was not in agreement with how you see it, so therefore I am wrong. You accuse me of inventing things to pay attention to. Guppy it was you who introduced the C130 post to which I initially responded. Lastly, I don't need to start a T56 thread, I'll just stick to contributing what I know to be valid information regarding the T56, if the subject arises.

[Brian Abraham]

The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure

We know and appreciate your lack of literacy, but the OP actually asked

nowhere in the QRH was there a procedure for dealing with loss of engine oil

I am wondering if I should bother posting

Please don't.

[johns7022]

Brian...have you figured out why helicopter manufacturers put the pilot in the left or right seat yet?

[Brian Abraham]

johns me boy, you've just outed yourself. For the audience, the aforementioned ssg went by other guises here on Pprune, namely tankdriver45, Angels 60, trickle_451, cattleflyer, and now johns7022.

A review of the following may provide illumination. You're guaranteed a laugh.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/328...rt-speaks.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/327959-side.html

As you may have noted johns has a thing about flex/derate in this thread.

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ll-happen.html

Here is a thread he started in his ssg guise.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/32732...offs-safe.html

[johns7022]

It's not surprising that your idea of a debate is trolling, flames and getting someone banned.

Either way...I am not impressed. Another forum poster who hides in the shadows and hurls poop from the other side of the fence...then runs away...

[Brian Abraham]

Another forum poster who hides in the shadows

Not me. Look me up any time you're in the vicinity, or phone.
3 Ivy Court
Sale
Victoria
Australia 3850
[phone]

Need a map?

[galaxy flyer]

Kinda think he has you there, Johns7022

Nice one!

GF

[johns7022]

Yeah I am sure it's real....I'm only a PM away Brian...sit on any side of the helo you want...just don't carry people and don't fly over a city.

[grade-3]

Clarification

I know that the threads gone off on it's own little adventure, but for the record:

aerobat77:
the thread drifted a little... but: can you confirm for sule that the metroliner does not have any procedure for low oil pressure?

johns7022:
The OP wants a loss of Oil pressure procedure...and no one has stated an aircraft that doesn't have one..
...
If you disagree, send me a normal plane that doesn't not have any reference to the oil pressure indicator in the manual or checklist.

The Metro 3 (SA227AC) has no procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.
The Metro 23 (SA227DC) does have a procedure in the AFM for a low oil pressure.

No model of Metro that I'm aware of has a procedure for low oil quantity.

grade-3
(helluva thread for what seems a fairly straight-forward question... )