User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:02:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, that's not anything like what I imagined a crash caused by one engine out on a twin engined plane would look like. It appeared to be mushing along in a straight line and then abruptly pitched over and crashed. Was the departure caused by a stall and then the differential thrust caused the powered wing to go up and over? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some light twins are death traps when they lose an engine. Theoretically the King Air should be completely controllable in that situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:03:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You need not worry about asymmetric thrust with a single engine failure. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: single engine sucks more when one engine quits this has to be more than just an eng failure You need not worry about asymmetric thrust with a single engine failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:05:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...nor do you have lift any longer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You need not worry about asymmetric thrust with a single engine failure. You still have lift. Just not enough to prevent a continued descent toward Earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:05:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Highly unlikely. VMC roll, rudderboost, or autofeather failure.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if the gearbox overheated, could that seize up the prop and make feathering malfunction or fail? I'm not a PT-6 guru by any means, but the PT-6 has a history of gearbox failures in which the prop was still able to be feathered successfully. Highly unlikely. VMC roll, rudderboost, or autofeather failure. Can you explain? The loss of oil pressure causes the prop to feather automatically. The oil pressure overcomes the springs in the prop hub to remove the propeller from the feather position. There are a few times it may not, which has been a governor failure and lock up, but it still feathered after a minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:07:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need not worry about asymmetric thrust with a single engine failure. I will take asymmetric thrust over no thrust 
Having experienced both, it was much less stressful having a second engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: single engine sucks more when one engine quits this has to be more than just an eng failure Quote HistoryQuoted: single engine sucks more when one engine quits this has to be more than just an eng failure |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:07:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you explain? The loss of oil pressure causes the prop to feather automatically. The oil pressure overcomes the springs in the prop hub to remove the propeller from the feather position. There are a few times it may not, which has been a governor failure and lock up, but it still feathered after a minute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if the gearbox overheated, could that seize up the prop and make feathering malfunction or fail? I'm not a PT-6 guru by any means, but the PT-6 has a history of gearbox failures in which the prop was still able to be feathered successfully. Highly unlikely. VMC roll, rudderboost, or autofeather failure. Can you explain? The loss of oil pressure causes the prop to feather automatically. The oil pressure overcomes the springs in the prop hub to remove the propeller from the feather position. There are a few times it may not, which has been a governor failure and lock up, but it still feathered after a minute. I meant to quote phatmax, my bad. You are 100% correct, the springs will return the prop to feather when oil pressure ceases. (I used to maintain several KA's, C90s, F90s, and 200/B200). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:59:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No major airline is based at Wichita, so it is unlikely that any airline pilots would be using that facility. It costs too much to send pilots away from their base for sim time. At Wichita it's probably business and private pilots doing upgrade training on Cessna products. Much the same for Flight Safety in Wilmington, DE or Savannah, GA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hit the Safety Building (yes, ironic). flight safety - it's a flight training school Shit. which airlines use that particular Flight Safety? No major airline is based at Wichita, so it is unlikely that any airline pilots would be using that facility. It costs too much to send pilots away from their base for sim time. At Wichita it's probably business and private pilots doing upgrade training on Cessna products. Much the same for Flight Safety in Wilmington, DE or Savannah, GA. Careful, lots of misinformation here. Lots of airlines contract with FlightSafety for sim training and classroom use. This particular facility was mostly corporate airframes. Private pilots very rarely purchase type ratings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:13:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some light twins are death traps when they lose an engine. Theoretically the King Air should be completely controllable in that situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Some light twins are death traps when they lose an engine. Theoretically the King Air should be completely controllable in that situation. King Air 200 is a cream puff with an engine out. Plenty of power and rudder boost. Feather and auto feather (if installed) should have been tested on the run up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:49:08 PM EDT
[#10]
NTSB is scheduled to hold a press conference at 9:00 PM CST tonight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:06:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, that's not anything like what I imagined a crash caused by one engine out on a twin engined plane would look like. It appeared to be mushing along in a straight line and then abruptly pitched over and crashed. Was the departure caused by a stall and then the differential thrust caused the powered wing to go up and over? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. That is a textbook case of what we call VMC rollover. The pilot let his airspeed decay until he had more drag then lift. Can't climb, so he's trading airspeed to maintain altitude. This requires increasing rudder, until finally you run out of lift, directional contol and ideas simultaneously. The only fix, might be to descend until the airspeed builds up, but in some airplanes, and some configurations, this is impossible. in a Recip, what he should have done is reduce power to the good engine lower the nose and land straight ahead. It's difficult or impossible to do in real life, however, because your every instinct is to keep flying. FWIW, a Kingair like the accident plane, has enough power to climb happily on one engine. Most recip twins cannot, but a Turboprop Kingair can fly all day on a SE effortlessly. However, the Pilot has to Be skilled. If you fail to configure it properly and control your airspeed, This is the result. I'm having a hard time wording this, but the Standards that this guy would have been held to, are relatively lower, compared to the standards at an airline. The training is virtually the same, but the Standards are less. By the book, they are similar, but in practice, they are not. The Airlines, and the Military, weed out weak pilots without mercy. That doesn't happen so much in General Aviation. Sure, there are guys that prove to be untrainable, but this is very unusual. That said, there are possibly, some very rare mechanical failures, which would lock the dead prop into a "Flat" pitch condition, making recovery impossible. There but for the Grace of God go I.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:49:21 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. That is a textbook case of what we call VMC rollover. The pilot let his airspeed decay until he had more drag then lift. Can't climb, so he's trading airspeed to maintain altitude. This requires increasing rudder, until finally you run out of lift, directional contol and ideas simultaneously. The only fix, might be to descend until the airspeed builds up, but in some airplanes, and some configurations, this is impossible. in a Recip, what he should have done is reduce power to the good engine lower the nose and land straight ahead. It's difficult or impossible to do in real life, however, because your every instinct is to keep flying. FWIW, a Kingair like the accident plane, has enough power to climb happily on one engine. Most recip twins cannot, but a Turboprop Kingair can fly all day on a SE effortlessly. However, the Pilot has to Be skilled. If you fail to configure it properly and control your airspeed, This is the result. I'm having a hard time wording this, but the Standards that this guy would have been held to, are relatively lower, compared to the standards at an airline. The training is virtually the same, but the Standards are less. By the book, they are similar, but in practice, they are not. The Airlines, and the Military, weed out weak pilots without mercy. That doesn't happen so much in General Aviation. Sure, there are guys that prove to be untrainable, but this is very unusual. That said, there are possibly, some very rare mechanical failures, which would lock the dead prop into a "Flat" pitch condition, making recovery impossible. There but for the Grace of God go I. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes. That is a textbook case of what we call VMC rollover. The pilot let his airspeed decay until he had more drag then lift. Can't climb, so he's trading airspeed to maintain altitude. This requires increasing rudder, until finally you run out of lift, directional contol and ideas simultaneously. The only fix, might be to descend until the airspeed builds up, but in some airplanes, and some configurations, this is impossible. in a Recip, what he should have done is reduce power to the good engine lower the nose and land straight ahead. It's difficult or impossible to do in real life, however, because your every instinct is to keep flying. FWIW, a Kingair like the accident plane, has enough power to climb happily on one engine. Most recip twins cannot, but a Turboprop Kingair can fly all day on a SE effortlessly. However, the Pilot has to Be skilled. If you fail to configure it properly and control your airspeed, This is the result. I'm having a hard time wording this, but the Standards that this guy would have been held to, are relatively lower, compared to the standards at an airline. The training is virtually the same, but the Standards are less. By the book, they are similar, but in practice, they are not. The Airlines, and the Military, weed out weak pilots without mercy. That doesn't happen so much in General Aviation. Sure, there are guys that prove to be untrainable, but this is very unusual. That said, there are possibly, some very rare mechanical failures, which would lock the dead prop into a "Flat" pitch condition, making recovery impossible. There but for the Grace of God go I. The training is vastly different. When I got my ATP in a Seneca 3, All I had to do was a simulated single engine ILS, with the throttle back at idle, which is a big difference than shut down. No sim time on V1 cuts, ( takeoff at the speed you must take off and lose an engine) at all. If I had continued flying the Seneca 3, my first experience flying the aircraft single engine would have been for real, and doing it as I was lifting off the ground would have been the first time I had even attempted it as far as my training went. I still say, if he had an engine over temp as reported, he should have just concentrated on flying to a safe altitude, done what ever checklist he had to do, then make a radio call and set up for the return. Instead he made a radio call half way down the runway, probably not 200 feet in the air if that. He needed to anticipate the engine failing due to the anomaly and fly the aircraft as if that engine was going to quit. Every single take off I do, every single one, I review the engine failure on take off procedures and abort /continue criteria and call outs in my head before brake release. This is a phase of flight that has no forgiveness. You can not fuck it up. It requires perfection and the proper priorities adhered to. Maybe he had some type of malfunction that was not recoverable, but he still made a radio call low to the ground half way down the runway about an engine problem. Articles say he was very experienced, but it appears he made a very basic mistake by talking on the radio with an engine malfunction at very low altitude instead of doing it one step at a time and climbing to a safe altitude using single engine procedures assuming the engine was going to quit. ETA. Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:18:10 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:30:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Pretty good discussion here .
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:23:44 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The training is vastly different. When I got my ATP in a Seneca 3, All I had to do was a simulated single engine ILS, with the throttle back at idle, which is a big difference than shut down. No sim time on V1 cuts, ( takeoff at the speed you must take off and lose an engine) at all. If I had continued flying the Seneca 3, my first experience flying the aircraft single engine would have been for real, and doing it as I was lifting off the ground would have been the first time I had even attempted it as far as my training went. I still say, if he had an engine over temp as reported, he should have just concentrated on flying to a safe altitude, done what ever checklist he had to do, then make a radio call and set up for the return. Instead he made a radio call half way down the runway, probably not 200 feet in the air if that. He needed to anticipate the engine failing due to the anomaly and fly the aircraft as if that engine was going to quit. Every single take off I do, every single one, I review the engine failure on take off procedures and abort /continue criteria and call outs in my head before brake release. This is a phase of flight that has no forgiveness. You can not fuck it up. It requires perfection and the proper priorities adhered to. Maybe he had some type of malfunction that was not recoverable, but he still made a radio call low to the ground half way down the runway about an engine problem. Articles say he was very experienced, but it appears he made a very basic mistake by talking on the radio with an engine malfunction at very low altitude instead of doing it one step at a time and climbing to a safe altitude using single engine procedures assuming the engine was going to quit. ETA. Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. That is a textbook case of what we call VMC rollover. The pilot let his airspeed decay until he had more drag then lift. Can't climb, so he's trading airspeed to maintain altitude. This requires increasing rudder, until finally you run out of lift, directional contol and ideas simultaneously. The only fix, might be to descend until the airspeed builds up, but in some airplanes, and some configurations, this is impossible. in a Recip, what he should have done is reduce power to the good engine lower the nose and land straight ahead. It's difficult or impossible to do in real life, however, because your every instinct is to keep flying. FWIW, a Kingair like the accident plane, has enough power to climb happily on one engine. Most recip twins cannot, but a Turboprop Kingair can fly all day on a SE effortlessly. However, the Pilot has to Be skilled. If you fail to configure it properly and control your airspeed, This is the result. I'm having a hard time wording this, but the Standards that this guy would have been held to, are relatively lower, compared to the standards at an airline. The training is virtually the same, but the Standards are less. By the book, they are similar, but in practice, they are not. The Airlines, and the Military, weed out weak pilots without mercy. That doesn't happen so much in General Aviation. Sure, there are guys that prove to be untrainable, but this is very unusual. That said, there are possibly, some very rare mechanical failures, which would lock the dead prop into a "Flat" pitch condition, making recovery impossible. There but for the Grace of God go I. The training is vastly different. When I got my ATP in a Seneca 3, All I had to do was a simulated single engine ILS, with the throttle back at idle, which is a big difference than shut down. No sim time on V1 cuts, ( takeoff at the speed you must take off and lose an engine) at all. If I had continued flying the Seneca 3, my first experience flying the aircraft single engine would have been for real, and doing it as I was lifting off the ground would have been the first time I had even attempted it as far as my training went. I still say, if he had an engine over temp as reported, he should have just concentrated on flying to a safe altitude, done what ever checklist he had to do, then make a radio call and set up for the return. Instead he made a radio call half way down the runway, probably not 200 feet in the air if that. He needed to anticipate the engine failing due to the anomaly and fly the aircraft as if that engine was going to quit. Every single take off I do, every single one, I review the engine failure on take off procedures and abort /continue criteria and call outs in my head before brake release. This is a phase of flight that has no forgiveness. You can not fuck it up. It requires perfection and the proper priorities adhered to. Maybe he had some type of malfunction that was not recoverable, but he still made a radio call low to the ground half way down the runway about an engine problem. Articles say he was very experienced, but it appears he made a very basic mistake by talking on the radio with an engine malfunction at very low altitude instead of doing it one step at a time and climbing to a safe altitude using single engine procedures assuming the engine was going to quit. ETA. Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why If your only experience with General Aviation training was one of those Two day ATP schools, then it's no wonder you are dismissive of GA training in general. Those schools are diploma mills. The training is cooperate and graduate. The standards in GA are all over the place. There is no uniformity. Some are very hard core, some are not. It depends on the School, the culture, the applicant pool, the instructors, the check airmen, the local Feds. If this guy did his Kingair Sim training at FSI, it is functionally identical to what you are familiar with at the Airline. I've done both. The difference isn't in the training. The difference inherent quality of pilots that are allowed to get through. Training at the Majors is friendly, but still exacting. They try not to wash anyone out, but will, if someone proves to be repeatedly weak. Training at the Regionals is different. It is typically a brutal weeding out process which effectively screens out those who don't have the aptitude, or can't handle pressure. Probably closer to what you experienced in the Military. Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference. If he didn't train in the full motion sim at FSI, then yeah, his training and skill level may well have been a complete joke. It would be interesting to know. This has been a subject of interest for me for 25 years, and I've gotten to experience every part of the Training/Certifying/Time Building/Hiring/Training continuum, from all sides ; Trainee, Instructor, Hiring Manager, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:44:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:16:35 PM EDT
[#17]
There are really good schools and there are schools geared towards taking your money and checking a box. I personally know pilots who choose the latter because its easy, they have very sub par skills.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:23:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If your only experience with General Aviation training was one of those Two day ATP schools, then it's no wonder you are dismissive of GA training in general. Those schools are diploma mills. The training is cooperate and graduate. The standards in GA are all over the place. There is no uniformity. Some are very hard core, some are not. It depends on the School, the culture, the applicant pool, the instructors, the check airmen, the local Feds. If this guy did his Kingair Sim training at FSI, it is functionally identical to what you are familiar with at the Airline. I've done both. The difference isn't in the training. The difference inherent quality of pilots that are allowed to get through. Training at the Majors is friendly, but still exacting. They try not to wash anyone out, but will, if someone proves to be repeatedly weak. Training at the Regionals is different. It is typically a brutal weeding out process which effectively screens out those who don't have the aptitude, or can't handle pressure. Probably closer to what you experienced in the Military. Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference. If he didn't train in the full motion sim at FSI, then yeah, his training and skill level may well have been a complete joke. It would be interesting to know. This has been a subject of interest for me for 25 years, and I've gotten to experience every part of the Training/Certifying/Time Building/Hiring/Training continuum, from all sides ; Trainee, Instructor, Hiring Manager, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. That is a textbook case of what we call VMC rollover. The pilot let his airspeed decay until he had more drag then lift. Can't climb, so he's trading airspeed to maintain altitude. This requires increasing rudder, until finally you run out of lift, directional contol and ideas simultaneously. The only fix, might be to descend until the airspeed builds up, but in some airplanes, and some configurations, this is impossible. in a Recip, what he should have done is reduce power to the good engine lower the nose and land straight ahead. It's difficult or impossible to do in real life, however, because your every instinct is to keep flying. FWIW, a Kingair like the accident plane, has enough power to climb happily on one engine. Most recip twins cannot, but a Turboprop Kingair can fly all day on a SE effortlessly. However, the Pilot has to Be skilled. If you fail to configure it properly and control your airspeed, This is the result. I'm having a hard time wording this, but the Standards that this guy would have been held to, are relatively lower, compared to the standards at an airline. The training is virtually the same, but the Standards are less. By the book, they are similar, but in practice, they are not. The Airlines, and the Military, weed out weak pilots without mercy. That doesn't happen so much in General Aviation. Sure, there are guys that prove to be untrainable, but this is very unusual. That said, there are possibly, some very rare mechanical failures, which would lock the dead prop into a "Flat" pitch condition, making recovery impossible. There but for the Grace of God go I. The training is vastly different. When I got my ATP in a Seneca 3, All I had to do was a simulated single engine ILS, with the throttle back at idle, which is a big difference than shut down. No sim time on V1 cuts, ( takeoff at the speed you must take off and lose an engine) at all. If I had continued flying the Seneca 3, my first experience flying the aircraft single engine would have been for real, and doing it as I was lifting off the ground would have been the first time I had even attempted it as far as my training went. I still say, if he had an engine over temp as reported, he should have just concentrated on flying to a safe altitude, done what ever checklist he had to do, then make a radio call and set up for the return. Instead he made a radio call half way down the runway, probably not 200 feet in the air if that. He needed to anticipate the engine failing due to the anomaly and fly the aircraft as if that engine was going to quit. Every single take off I do, every single one, I review the engine failure on take off procedures and abort /continue criteria and call outs in my head before brake release. This is a phase of flight that has no forgiveness. You can not fuck it up. It requires perfection and the proper priorities adhered to. Maybe he had some type of malfunction that was not recoverable, but he still made a radio call low to the ground half way down the runway about an engine problem. Articles say he was very experienced, but it appears he made a very basic mistake by talking on the radio with an engine malfunction at very low altitude instead of doing it one step at a time and climbing to a safe altitude using single engine procedures assuming the engine was going to quit. ETA. Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why If your only experience with General Aviation training was one of those Two day ATP schools, then it's no wonder you are dismissive of GA training in general. Those schools are diploma mills. The training is cooperate and graduate. The standards in GA are all over the place. There is no uniformity. Some are very hard core, some are not. It depends on the School, the culture, the applicant pool, the instructors, the check airmen, the local Feds. If this guy did his Kingair Sim training at FSI, it is functionally identical to what you are familiar with at the Airline. I've done both. The difference isn't in the training. The difference inherent quality of pilots that are allowed to get through. Training at the Majors is friendly, but still exacting. They try not to wash anyone out, but will, if someone proves to be repeatedly weak. Training at the Regionals is different. It is typically a brutal weeding out process which effectively screens out those who don't have the aptitude, or can't handle pressure. Probably closer to what you experienced in the Military. Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference. If he didn't train in the full motion sim at FSI, then yeah, his training and skill level may well have been a complete joke. It would be interesting to know. This has been a subject of interest for me for 25 years, and I've gotten to experience every part of the Training/Certifying/Time Building/Hiring/Training continuum, from all sides ; Trainee, Instructor, Hiring Manager, etc. Ok I will stand corrected. My only experience in GA is tooling around in a C150 and getting an ATP in a Seneca 3. Which I did in a 1.0 having never flown a twin prop, never flown a variable pitch prop and never flew the Seneca 3, I studied a bunch of stuff and I hopped in a Senaca 3 with an FAA Examiner and took the ATP checkride. Not the smartest thing I ever did, but that was back when I was bullet proof and it worked. He even told me it was the best checkride he had seen in years. All the rest of my experience is Instructing in the F15 and flying the line for a major. My question is this. You stated: " Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference." How can you not get washed out? Either you demo proficiency on the check ride or you don't. I don't get what you mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:46:55 PM EDT
[#19]
With a total of 4 hours multi in a Piper Apache I know what a light twin is. I would never consider King Air 200 a light twin.
Rest of my time is in single engine and I'm glad. Small twins when seats full scare me on takeoff. Lose a engine on take off in a single and the thinking part is real simple. You'll be landing shortly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:57:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. Don't forget that light twins under 6000 pounds gross weight are not required to demonstrate positive rate of climb on one engine for certification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:59:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget that light twins under 6000 pounds gross weight are not required to demonstrate positive rate of climb on one engine for certification. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. Don't forget that light twins under 6000 pounds gross weight are not required to demonstrate positive rate of climb on one engine for certification. Then What is the point to having 2 engines? Keeping mechanics employed? I guess at some altitude they can maintain altitude on one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:01:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then What is the point to having 2 engines? Keeping mechanics employed? I guess at some altitude they can maintain altitude on one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. Don't forget that light twins under 6000 pounds gross weight are not required to demonstrate positive rate of climb on one engine for certification. Then What is the point to having 2 engines? Keeping mechanics employed? I guess at some altitude they can maintain altitude on one? Look at the production numbers for said aircraft.... Pretty sure piper makes the seneca for the sole purpose of keeping ATPs fleet fresh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:09:53 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok I will stand corrected. My only experience in GA is tooling around in a C150 and getting an ATP in a Seneca 3. Which I did in a 1.0 having never flown a twin prop, never flown a variable pitch prop and never flew the Seneca 3, I studied a bunch of stuff and I hopped in a Senaca 3 with an FAA Examiner and took the ATP checkride. Not the smartest thing I ever did, but that was back when I was bullet proof and it worked. He even told me it was the best checkride he had seen in years. All the rest of my experience is Instructing in the F15 and flying the line for a major. My question is this. You stated: " Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference." How can you not get washed out? Either you demo proficiency on the check ride or you don't. I don't get what you mean. I think what that means is if you pay the money, they'll try to drill it into you again. The only true washout comes when the money runs out. And even if you are in a training program you can wash out from (some reputable schools and colleges), you can always try again somewhere else. So there are very big differences in student training programs. I've always done the same thing you do. Go over emergency procedures before I start my roll. And the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown solo is a Piper Warrior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:29:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then What is the point to having 2 engines? Keeping mechanics employed? I guess at some altitude they can maintain altitude on one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Let me say that yes I am being harsh. Aviation requires the harsh truth to be drilled into the heads of people that do this either for pleasure or for a living. The harsh truth helps this from happening again to someone else. There is little slack in aviation, and there should be no slack in discussing what went wrong and why Agreed. As a functional matter, most light twins will not do a V1 type maneuver, as there simply isn't the excess horsepower available to climb in any but the most permissive conditions. Even if you could climb, you cannot climb and turn. Engine failures in light twins at t/o are controlled crashes, while most turbine twins can be expected to at least moderately climb, presuming everything goes well. There's been a lot of confusion over here, over what you are talking about. Even some of our pros don't understand the difference, because they simply haven't been exposed to it. To clarify, we should use the terms Recip Twin and Turboprop Twin. a Kingair is a TurboProp. It will do a V1 cut and climb out exactly like a jet. (Because it has a turbine engine) The performance is in no way similar to a Seneca, or any other common Recip twin.). The term "Light Twin" is misleading, because it can refer to either Recips / or JetProps. As you said, there is no comparison. Two completely different birds. An engine failure on takeoff in a recip is a very bad deal. The saying is: "The good engine will take you all the way to the scene of the accident". And it's basically true. An engine failure in a Turboprop is not a big deal, provided you have skill and don't choke. It can be slightly more challenging then a V1 cut in a jet, but it's pretty much the same thing. Don't forget that light twins under 6000 pounds gross weight are not required to demonstrate positive rate of climb on one engine for certification. Then What is the point to having 2 engines? Keeping mechanics employed? I guess at some altitude they can maintain altitude on one? They're for improved climb rate to cruise altitude, and that's the only advantage. Unless they're turbocharged the engines are producing less power at higher altitudes, so the airplane is not going to fly any better than at sea level. The engine still running produces its most power at low altitude, aggravating the asymmetric thrust. There are probably POH's for the King Air on line if anyone wanted to look at the single engine performance. I think I have an Apache manual down stairs, but that airplane was certified under the old CAM rules, it might not have a chart, I don't recall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:42:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Standby, I have kung air books
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:43:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think what that means is if you pay the money, they'll try to drill it into you again. The only true washout comes when the money runs out. And even if you are in a training program you can wash out from (some reputable schools and colleges), you can always try again somewhere else. So there are very big differences in student training programs. I've always done the same thing you do. Go over emergency procedures before I start my roll. And the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown solo is a Piper Warrior. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok I will stand corrected. My only experience in GA is tooling around in a C150 and getting an ATP in a Seneca 3. Which I did in a 1.0 having never flown a twin prop, never flown a variable pitch prop and never flew the Seneca 3, I studied a bunch of stuff and I hopped in a Senaca 3 with an FAA Examiner and took the ATP checkride. Not the smartest thing I ever did, but that was back when I was bullet proof and it worked. He even told me it was the best checkride he had seen in years. All the rest of my experience is Instructing in the F15 and flying the line for a major. My question is this. You stated: " Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference." How can you not get washed out? Either you demo proficiency on the check ride or you don't. I don't get what you mean. I think what that means is if you pay the money, they'll try to drill it into you again. The only true washout comes when the money runs out. And even if you are in a training program you can wash out from (some reputable schools and colleges), you can always try again somewhere else. So there are very big differences in student training programs. I've always done the same thing you do. Go over emergency procedures before I start my roll. And the most advanced aircraft I've ever flown solo is a Piper Warrior. I did not ever think of that. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:50:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Standby, I have kung air books I had faulty memory of the best rate of climb on one engine in a Seneca I, it's not less than zero at sea level, but 100 fps or so is thin comfort. The Apache handbook for the 160 hp version claims just over 100 fps at 2000 feet altitude in standard conditions and 3200 pounds weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:51:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Using todays temp 10c at max gross the single engine service ceiling is 16,800 (-42 engines inoperative feathered). Subtract 1500 if ice vanes are extended.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:01:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Local news is saying plane was in for work thats why the plane was in Wichita and it was on it first flight since work was done and he was taking the plane up for testing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:08:48 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok I will stand corrected. My only experience in GA is tooling around in a C150 and getting an ATP in a Seneca 3. Which I did in a 1.0 having never flown a twin prop, never flown a variable pitch prop and never flew the Seneca 3, I studied a bunch of stuff and I hopped in a Senaca 3 with an FAA Examiner and took the ATP checkride. Not the smartest thing I ever did, but that was back when I was bullet proof and it worked. He even told me it was the best checkride he had seen in years. All the rest of my experience is Instructing in the F15 and flying the line for a major. My question is this. You stated: " Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference." How can you not get washed out? Either you demo proficiency on the check ride or you don't. I don't get what you mean. It was a slight exageration. People do fail to pass, but those are people that are truly bad, unsafe at any speed. But it's nothing like the Regionals, or Military, where it's a sink or swim mentality. The ones that fail either have serious physical handicaps, or they are just that bottom 5% that suck. Basically, They will continue to retrain you, as long as your money holds out. The ones with truly bad attitudes and bad judgement become legendary within the training center. Most major airlines have a "Train to proficiency" culture at this point. Picture that, but without the benefit of the pre screening which the Airline gained in hiring from the Military and Regional airline ranks. I've noticed that there is a sort of bell curve with pro pilots. There's a top ten percent, who get everything easy, then there's another say, 40% who can be damned good if they are truly dedicated and work hard at it. Then there's 40% who are sorta weak, but can get through a career safely. Then there is that bottom 10% who should be in a different line of work. They simply don't have the aptitude, but they are resourceful, and find ways to slip through the cracks. The guys that get into the piloting career later in life, are often in that bottom group. I'm not saying this guy was, because I don't know him, but many high profile accidents have been that exact profile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:19:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Interdasting.
I'm reading a SKA200 manual and reading up on the propeller feathering system. It is really very simple in the way it works. Counter weights, oil pressure and springs with servos controlling the oil pressure valves. There is Auto Feather arm/dis-arm switch and also a prop synch system with an arm/dis-arm switch. But here is the part that confuses me somewhat. Now this is straight from the manual (ironically enough the manual is from Flight Safety International.  ) "If an engine flames out in flight or if the pilot selects the condition lever to CUTOFF, the propeller will not feather because of the wind- milling effect and governor action. Feathering in flight should be manually selected by using the propeller control lever."
So If I am reading that correctly, Even with the auto feather system armed, The prop on the affected engine still may not feather automatically? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:44:56 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interdasting. I'm reading a SKA200 manual and reading up on the propeller feathering system. It is really very simple in the way it works. Counter weights, oil pressure and springs with servos controlling the oil pressure valves. There is Auto Feather arm/dis-arm switch and also a prop synch system with an arm/dis-arm switch. But here is the part that confuses me somewhat. Now this is straight from the manual (ironically enough the manual is from Flight Safety International. ) "If an engine flames out in flight or if the pilot selects the condition lever to CUTOFF, the propeller will not feather because of the wind- milling effect and governor action. Feathering in flight should be manually selected by using the propeller control lever."
So If I am reading that correctly, Even with the auto feather system armed, The prop on the affected engine still may not feather automatically? No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:47:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a slight exageration. People do fail to pass, but those are people that are truly bad, unsafe at any speed. But it's nothing like the Regionals, or Military, where it's a sink or swim mentality. The ones that fail either have serious physical handicaps, or they are just that bottom 5% that suck. Basically, They will continue to retrain you, as long as your money holds out. The ones with truly bad attitudes and bad judgement become legendary within the training center. Most major airlines have a "Train to proficiency" culture at this point. Picture that, but without the benefit of the pre screening which the Airline gained in hiring from the Military and Regional airline ranks. I've noticed that there is a sort of bell curve with pro pilots. There's a top ten percent, who get everything easy, then there's another say, 40% who can be damned good if they are truly dedicated and work hard at it. Then there's 40% who are sorta weak, but can get through a career safely. Then there is that bottom 10% who should be in a different line of work. They simply don't have the aptitude, but they are resourceful, and find ways to slip through the cracks. The guys that get into the piloting career later in life, are often in that bottom group. I'm not saying this guy was, because I don't know him, but many high profile accidents have been that exact profile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok I will stand corrected. My only experience in GA is tooling around in a C150 and getting an ATP in a Seneca 3. Which I did in a 1.0 having never flown a twin prop, never flown a variable pitch prop and never flew the Seneca 3, I studied a bunch of stuff and I hopped in a Senaca 3 with an FAA Examiner and took the ATP checkride. Not the smartest thing I ever did, but that was back when I was bullet proof and it worked. He even told me it was the best checkride he had seen in years. All the rest of my experience is Instructing in the F15 and flying the line for a major. My question is this. You stated: " Training at FSI has the same professionalism and proceedures as the Airlines, but without the prospect of being washed out. As you can well imagine, that makes all the difference." How can you not get washed out? Either you demo proficiency on the check ride or you don't. I don't get what you mean. It was a slight exageration. People do fail to pass, but those are people that are truly bad, unsafe at any speed. But it's nothing like the Regionals, or Military, where it's a sink or swim mentality. The ones that fail either have serious physical handicaps, or they are just that bottom 5% that suck. Basically, They will continue to retrain you, as long as your money holds out. The ones with truly bad attitudes and bad judgement become legendary within the training center. Most major airlines have a "Train to proficiency" culture at this point. Picture that, but without the benefit of the pre screening which the Airline gained in hiring from the Military and Regional airline ranks. I've noticed that there is a sort of bell curve with pro pilots. There's a top ten percent, who get everything easy, then there's another say, 40% who can be damned good if they are truly dedicated and work hard at it. Then there's 40% who are sorta weak, but can get through a career safely. Then there is that bottom 10% who should be in a different line of work. They simply don't have the aptitude, but they are resourceful, and find ways to slip through the cracks. The guys that get into the piloting career later in life, are often in that bottom group. I'm not saying this guy was, because I don't know him, but many high profile accidents have been that exact profile. I work for a major. The "train to proficiency" thing is nothing more than a way to save money. It is not a 12 ride training program with extra sims if you need them, like one would think. They take a 12 ride simulator training plan and reduce it to 8, claiming they train to proficiency and those 4 sims are available if somebody needs them. The FAA buys off on it. All it means is that you are expected to be proficient by the 8th sim instead of the 12th sim. Then in a few years it drops to 6 sims. It is just a way to reduce training costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 12:58:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Here is how not to do it I guess. 
VMC roll. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:06:22 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I work for a major. The "train to proficiency" thing is nothing more than a way to save money. It is not a 12 ride training program with extra sims if you need them, like one would think. They take a 12 ride simulator training plan and reduce it to 8, claiming they train to proficiency and those 4 sims are available if somebody needs them. The FAA buys off on it. All it means is that you are expected to be proficient by the 8th sim instead of the 12th sim. Then in a few years it drops to 6 sims. It is just a way to reduce training costs. Intradesting way to put it. Both of my Training experiences at the Majors was much less stressful then at the Regionals, but that is mostly due to a friendlier culture, and more experience on my part. Perhaps my analogy was bad. It might be better to say, FSI is train to proficiency, the way it is advertised, -in actuality, just as long as your Checks clear. And FSI is the most reputable of the bunch. There are many others that are cheaper, but the training value is questionable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:09:26 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Correct. Very good, you've passed that part of the oral, now lets move on to Limitations. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:28:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. Very good, you've passed that part of the oral, now lets move on to Limitations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Correct. Very good, you've passed that part of the oral, now lets move on to Limitations. Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern. 
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:35:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern.
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:40:27 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern.
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane.  </a>" />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 8:42:56 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane. http://<a href=http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/goodnbuzzd/PilatusPC-12.jpg</a>" /> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern.
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane. http://<a href=http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/goodnbuzzd/PilatusPC-12.jpg</a>" /> No, he would have to contend with ZERO thrust and crash straight ahead. (Assuming the engine quit). Assymetric thrust is a pretty much a non event in the King Air series, even a v1 cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 9:16:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane. http://<a href=http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/goodnbuzzd/PilatusPC-12.jpg</a>" /> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern.
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane. http://<a href=http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/goodnbuzzd/PilatusPC-12.jpg</a>" /> My lottery plane, thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 10:18:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, he would have to contend with ZERO thrust and crash straight ahead. (Assuming the engine quit). Assymetric thrust is a pretty much a non event in the King Air series, even a v1 cut. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thee! I are not stoopid. I kan lern.
I have quite a bit of experience with small single engine aircraft. But near to nothing with Twins. Pilatus? This guy would still be alive if he was flying a PC12. One would hope so. With a PC-12 he wouldn't have to contend with that nasty little issue called asymmetric thrust.
Neat plane. http://<a href=http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/goodnbuzzd/PilatusPC-12.jpg</a>" /> No, he would have to contend with ZERO thrust and crash straight ahead. (Assuming the engine quit). Assymetric thrust is a pretty much a non event in the King Air series, even a v1 cut. I was trying to be sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 10:38:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Here is how not to do it I guess.
VMC roll.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNUQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Here is how not to do it I guess.
VMC roll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNUWhat is the story on that. Did he lose the engine as he rolled out or was it shut down a while ago? Because if he was coming in on one engine, rolling out on a 1/4 mile final is a fucked up way to do a single engine approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 10:40:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the story on that. Did he lose the engine as he rolled out or was it shut down a while ago? Because if he was coming in on one engine, rolling out on a 1/4 mile final os a fucked up way to do a single engine approach. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, with it armed, it Will feather immediately and correctly. it's easy to control and you have about a 700fpm climb rate or better. If it's not armed, it will tend to go toward fx, then maybe cycle in and out a little until you fx it manually. Either way, it's easy to control, if your basic airmanship is sound. Some people do have a hard time with it though. Ok With A little more reading I think I understand how it works. Switch/sensors in each engine monitor the tourque produced, It one engine drops below 400 ft lb output the auto feather annunciator light on the operating engine will go out, when the power output drops below 200 ft lb the dump solenoid opens on the oil pressure dump valve on the dead engine allowing the springs to override the flyweights and feathering the prop. Here is how not to do it I guess.
VMC roll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIzEtHzbNUWhat is the story on that. Did he lose the engine as he rolled out or was it shut down a while ago? Because if he was coming in on one engine, rolling out on a 1/4 mile final os a fucked up way to do a single engine approach. Looks more like a cross controlled stall to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 11:41:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote History[
I was trying to be sarcastic.
My bad. Sometimes the Pilatus fans get a little wonky about how awesome it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:32:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My bad. Sometimes the Pilatus fans get a little wonky about how awesome it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[
I was trying to be sarcastic.
My bad. Sometimes the Pilatus fans get a little wonky about how awesome it is. My favorite plane. It's amazing, but it still only has one engine
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:34:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Did the pilot depart runway 1R and crash before reaching the departure end or did he leave the airport property and crashed while trying to land?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 2:15:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did the pilot depart runway 1R and crash before reaching the departure end or did he leave the airport property and crashed while trying to land? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 5:42:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, departed 1R, left engine failure and turned westerly, impacted FlightSafety Cessna (roughly midfield or slightly past). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did the pilot depart runway 1R and crash before reaching the departure end or did he leave the airport property and crashed while trying to land? Do we know if he intiated a turn or did he dump and turn left as he lost control? Turning mid field at maybe 100 feet would make no sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2014 9:56:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do we know if he intiated a turn or did he dump and turn left as he lost control? Turning mid field at maybe 100 feet would make no sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did the pilot depart runway 1R and crash before reaching the departure end or did he leave the airport property and crashed while trying to land? Do we know if he intiated a turn or did he dump and turn left as he lost control? Turning mid field at maybe 100 feet would make no sense. Kind of baffling, One would like to think that he couldn't fuck something up that badly. I would like to think considering he was so experienced that it would have to have been something catastrophic wrong with the aircraft. I guess we won't know until the investigation is complete. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
