Latest From Aviation Typists

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby flyboy2548m » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:29 pm

This is potentially pretty big. Les Stature did two things:

1. Actually wrote a good article;

2. Retired early, probably because CNN is paying him more than AA.

I presume he will now be replaced by Sam Weigel who is way cooler.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

elaw
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby elaw » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:33 pm

I presume he will now be replaced by Sam Weigel who is way younger and will work for lower pay.
Fixed. :mrgreen:
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby 3WE » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:04 pm

I presume he will now be replaced by Sam Weigel who is way cooler.
Although instead of trudging through the United States in a MD-8X (cranking cables and belching smoke and making noise), is now doing that same Lester over-seas crap where you sit on autopilot for 8 hours and fret over international bureaucratic procedural stuff...Doesn't give you as much interesting material to write about.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby 3WE » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:34 pm

I noted an interesting comment in the editorial.

It was to 'basically' do away with the traditional multi-engine rating.

The argument is that it's expensive and difficult for pilots AND flight schools to get/offer multi engine ratings in piston twins, that the piston twin rating had little benefit to airline pilots, and that airlines should provide the final, needed "multi-engine-turbine training".

All valid points; however, I was thinking that ideally you had a few years and hours flying multi engine aircraft and are competent with all the V-1/V-2, and engine securing-shutdown and single engine operating procedures, before an AIRLINE offers you a job.

AND, if you are going to progress through cargo twin turboprop or Cape Airways or Beech Baron corporate, or Beech King or check hauling- it kind of calls for a 'traditional' twin rating.

(Footnote- the article doesn't say "truly" do away with twin piston- but to establish a special twin-piston rating that only a few special people take...most professional pilots would skip the 'traditional multi-engine" rating in the traditional curriculum/traditional timing).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:10 am

I noted an interesting comment in the editorial.

It was to 'basically' do away with the traditional multi-engine rating.

The argument is that it's expensive and difficult for pilots AND flight schools to get/offer multi engine ratings in piston twins, that the piston twin rating had little benefit to airline pilots, and that airlines should provide the final, needed "multi-engine-turbine training".

All valid points; however, I was thinking that ideally you had a few years and hours flying multi engine aircraft and are competent with all the V-1/V-2, and engine securing-shutdown and single engine operating procedures, before an AIRLINE offers you a job.

AND, if you are going to progress through cargo twin turboprop or Cape Airways or Beech Baron corporate, or Beech King or check hauling- it kind of calls for a 'traditional' twin rating.

(Footnote- the article doesn't say "truly" do away with twin piston- but to establish a special twin-piston rating that only a few special people take...most professional pilots would skip the 'traditional multi-engine" rating in the traditional curriculum/traditional timing).
It was indeed an interesting editorial. Pope did nothing more than point out what many have been saying for a while, and that is that "we" are teaching people the wrong things, and not only with respect to multi-engine flying, but in general. Your truly belongs to the generation of pilots for whom the advanced multiengine trainer was the CRJ-200. That is to say, I came to that airplane with just under 150 hours of multi time, all of it in the Seminole. Needless to say, very little of what was learned in the Seminole translated to the CRJ. One can then make the argument, as Pope does, that light twin time is of little benefit.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby ocelot » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:41 am

Counterpoint (not entirely serious): more light aircraft should have two engines.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby 3WE » Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:35 pm

Counterpoint (not entirely serious): more light aircraft should have two engines.
But the late Richard Collins suggested that engine failure fatality rates tend to be higher with such aircraft.

It was interesting to hear Flyboy state how he was a very precise example of what the editorial described. 150 hours of twin piston time that was not super applicable to the CRJ which was where hour 151 (roughly) occurred.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:30 pm

It was interesting to hear Flyboy state how he was a very precise example of what the editorial described. 150 hours of twin piston time that was not super applicable to the CRJ which was where hour 151 (roughly) occurred.
Indeed the whole paradigm is different. On a transport-category twin, an engine failure is not even an emergency (it's an abnormal procedure). Not quite the same as the light stuff.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby Gabriel » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:44 am

It was interesting to hear Flyboy state how he was a very precise example of what the editorial described. 150 hours of twin piston time that was not super applicable to the CRJ which was where hour 151 (roughly) occurred.
Indeed the whole paradigm is different. On a transport-category twin, an engine failure is not even an emergency (it's an abnormal procedure). Not quite the same as the light stuff.
Well, you are REQUIRED by 14 CFR to land at the nearest (in time) suitable airport (unless you can justify that that was not the safest move) and AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong) company procedures typically require their pilots to declare emergency with ATC.

That said, while I don't have personal experience, I agree with the sentiment. And data supports that too. It is very infrequent that pilots of twin commercial airplanes (and especially jets) lose control of their plane after a single engine failure, as the twin piston counterparts tend to do more often. If you go to AvHerald, in-flight engine fail / shout down is reported at a rate of a few per week and I don't remember a case of loss of control unless compounded by something else (like shutting down the good engine), which is extremely rare too.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:05 pm

Well, you are REQUIRED by 14 CFR to land at the nearest (in time) suitable airport (unless you can justify that that was not the safest move) and AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong) company procedures typically require their pilots to declare emergency with ATC.
Thank you for that clarification, Gabriel. You remain, as ever, a blessing whose value is nigh impossible to estimate.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby ocelot » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:26 am

ok, I'll bite: why are twin piston a/c more prone to loss of control on engine failure? Unbalanced torque?

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby Gabriel » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:28 am

ok, I'll bite: why are twin piston a/c more prone to loss of control on engine failure? Unbalanced torque?
Nope. The reasons are:

- Excess power available with one engine inop. To give you an idea, part 25 (i.e. air transport category) planes are required to have enough power to complete a take-off, climb etc with an engine failure at V1, which is with the plane still on the ground and before achieving rotation speed. If altitude, temperature or other factors limit this ability, you just are not allowed to fly. You need to leave fuel or payload behind or just cancel the flight. Part 23 planes (i.e. general aviation) do not have this requirement. There is a "blue line" in the airspeed indicator that marks the airspeed for "best climb", but such best climb doesn't need to be positive (en it would end up being the airspeed for "least descent"). Trying to extract performance that is just not there can lead to lose too much airspeed and either reach the point where the rudder just doesn't have enough authority to counteract the asymmetric thrust or just stall under high asymmetric thrust, both of them are very bad and almost always unrecoverable.
- Training: ATPs go through training every 6 months and engine failures is always part of what they practice. General aviation pilots typically do not so.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Latest From Aviation Typists

Postby 3WE » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:34 pm

ok, I'll bite: why are twin piston a/c more prone to loss of control on engine failure? Unbalanced torque?
Nope. The reasons are:

- Excess power available with one engine inop. To give you an idea, part 25 (i.e. air transport category) planes are required to have enough power to complete a take-off, climb etc with an engine failure at V1, which is with the plane still on the ground and before achieving rotation speed. If altitude, temperature or other factors limit this ability, you just are not allowed to fly. You need to leave fuel or payload behind or just cancel the flight. Part 23 planes (i.e. general aviation) do not have this requirement. There is a "blue line" in the airspeed indicator that marks the airspeed for "best climb", but such best climb doesn't need to be positive (en it would end up being the airspeed for "least descent"). Trying to extract performance that is just not there can lead to lose too much airspeed and either reach the point where the rudder just doesn't have enough authority to counteract the asymmetric thrust or just stall under high asymmetric thrust, both of them are very bad and almost always unrecoverable.
- Training: ATPs go through training every 6 months and engine failures is always part of what they practice. General aviation pilots typically do not so.
Concur- There's no single rule of fiziks, but less robust design + less robust training = bad stats vs. flyboy saying "it's not an emergency".

Add to that stuff like auto rudder trim systems (and other stuff I don't know about) and the tendency for two pilots vs. one, simpler turbine controls vs throttle mixture prop carb heat cowl flaps and a significant number of tail-engine planes where the yaw effect is lessened...

...ban all piston twins...then again, for the proverbial night IMC over the mountains, the thought of a second powerplant seems like a good idea and Cape Airways seems to do a pretty good job...

/agronomy.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests