Seneca College Crashes again, minor injuries.

[Doc]

Yes the reason I do not increase RPM during the approach is to lessen wear on the engines and there is no increased noise from increased RPM.

Same here. Props up in the flare (flair?). Why increase the drag/noise/wear and tear? But then, I never went to Seneca College. So, what would I know? But then, I can keep it right side up IMC at night and I can land in more than a 5kt cross wind.

[LousyFisherman]

<sarcasm>
Personally I think pdw is great. He has demonstrated how GREAT a pilot I am. With under 200 hours I fly into remote strips, with trees, wind shear on final, windsock wrapped around the pole, those dreaded variable winds, no FSS, no weather forecast, and I have yet to damage an airplane.

I must be fscking awesome!!!!!!!!

I don't know why I read comments from people like the Colonel or Cat Driver when it's obvious I can fly the pants off them.

I always said a good landing is one everyone walks away from and a great landing is one where the plane flies again. I just didn't realize how GREAT all my landings are.
</sarcasm>

Of course in the real the world the most important thing is that I never get on a plane where pdw is PIC

STL, I'm not sure I want to get into a chopper with you either. I've got a feeling I could leave a big brown mess behind, on the seat
I wish I had your skill. I would have loved to watch that landing, from the ground

My $0.01 cents worth (inflation doncha know)

LF

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yes the reason I do not increase RPM during the approach is to lessen wear on the engines and there is no increased noise from increased RPM.

Same here. Props up in the flare (flair?). Why increase the drag/noise/wear and tear? But then, I never went to Seneca College. So, what would I know? But then, I can keep it right side up IMC at night and I can land in more than a 5kt cross wind.

A bit off topic but I think a bit of perspective is required on the question of props. Props at cruise and then smoothly rolled up to full fine just as you start the flare (and yes it is spelled flare ),.....I would expect nothing less from someone of your experience. But what about a student who has never flown anything bigger then a C 172 and is now on their first flight in a ME aircraft ? Personally I won't expect a veteran performance right out of the box. To make things easier at the initial stages of training I get the student to set climb RPM and full rich as part of the prelanding check. This gives the student one less thing to worry about and still allows the plane to fly away by just pushing up the throttles if it all goes pear shaped.

In any case we are talking nuances of technique here in which there are more then one legitimate view point on the "right" way to do something. The ability to NOT crash a C 172 when there is a bit of a wind is pretty cut and dried in my book.........

[Cat Driver]

To make things easier at the initial stages of training I get the student to set climb RPM and full rich as part of the prelanding check. This gives the student one less thing to worry about and still allows the plane to fly away by just pushing up the throttles if it all goes pear shaped.

No wonder you and I see things so differently.

I have always trained pilots to do things the way I want them to fly when I am finished with them.....if they for some reason want to perform a missed approach and they are so far behind the airplane that they can't remember to increase prop RPM before setting climb power they need more training.

Mind you your method does get you more teaching time as you have to teach them twice.

[jpilot77]

pdw if you can't land a 172 at an airport without constant wind advisories you have no business flying planes. How do all these planes land out in the bush on lakes, rivers, sand bars, glaciers etc... Without wind advisories?

[bezerker]

As usual Cat, very classy.

Regrettably using your method students will be have to be taught twice also, that is if they ever fly a commercial turboprop.

[Doc]

As usual Cat, very classy.

Regrettably using your method students will be have to be taught twice also, that is if they ever fly a commercial turboprop.

I'll bite. What would be so different flying a "commercial turboprop"?

[bezerker]

You don't know? I thought you flew one.

[Doc]

You don't know? I thought you flew one.

Are we still talking "when to put the props forward"?

[bezerker]

Yes, as an operator of a commercialy operated aircraft, what does your AFM/SOP say about props before landing?

Do you have the option of not following the manufactures recommendations at your company?

[Cat Driver]

AAAHHhhhh my, my, my these discussions go round and round and from one extreem to the other.....so just for you bezerker I will elaborate on my comments about props forward during the landing approach/

I was referring to piston engine airplanes......if a particular aircraft operating handbook has props to xxx at xxx during the approach that would of course be the way to do it.

So what airplanes do you fly that the manufacturer requires the props to be moved to climb / take off flight idle or any other setting on final approach and where exactly are you demanded to do this?

Specific type training is exactly that " specific type training "

[bezerker]

I appreciate you clearing things up and hopefully it is not just for me Cat.

I honestly have not flown a prop aircraft that did not specifically state in the AFM that props were to be at max for landing. In each case it was clearly stated in the SOP's when this was to happen.

That is the reason I chose to comment on this topic.

Which aircraft have you flown that don't require props up for landing (not including ones that students of this era are unlikely to fly commercially)?

[126.7_STFU]

I no longer have any faith in flight training or this industry.

From this day forward, I am going to set my props based on the magic # I pull out of a paper bag. 1 = high , 2 = low. If for some reason one of the numbers is missing, I will jockey the prop until touch down to play the odds.

Have a nice day.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks for the nice civil response bezerker, I will try and answer in the same tone....

I appreciate you clearing things up and hopefully it is not just for me Cat.

These discussions should be for everyone so everyone can read and decide what they think about each opinion.

I honestly have not flown a prop aircraft that did not specifically state in the AFM that props were to be at max for landing.

Yes they should be at max for landing.......saves the next crew pushing them forward when they fly it next.

I put them full forward when I close the throttles for the landing, that way there is no annoying prop noise being produced for no real reason, normally one should be able to maintain a smooth steady descent to the landing area using a power reduction that you know will give you the desired descent profile aided by gear and flaps as required when required.

In each case it was clearly stated in the SOP's when this was to happen.

I won't go there because SOP's vary from company to company and type to type and sometimes depending on the phase of the moon when the SOP was thought up.

That is the reason I chose to comment on this topic.

Which aircraft have you flown that don't require props up for landing (not including ones that students of this era are unlikely to fly commercially)?

All the constant speed prop equipped airplanes I ever flew required the props to be full forward for landing......but......if the airplane is descending to land gravity provides most of the energy to keep the airplane on the desired flight path...if you need so much power to get back " UP " to your desired flight path you need to go to climb power you have probably fallen asleep for a short period of time.

Like I have said I normally leave the props in cruise setting until I close the throttles to land....then they go full forward.

Sometimes I would use flight idle in the turbo commander to really make the fu.ker go down....but I never fell asleep long enough to have to use climb power to get back " UP " to my desired approach path.

Oh.......I almost forgot most of my last thirty or so years of flying was multi crew......the prop lever selection forward at throttles closed for touch down was done by the PNF.

We also used PMA for all IMC to limits landings.

[Doc]

Yes, as an operator of a commercialy operated aircraft, what does your AFM/SOP say about props before landing?

Do you have the option of not following the manufactures recommendations at your company?

It would be referred to as a BRIEFED DEVIATION FROM SOP!
I'll take the props up on final power reduction for landing. If you don't like it, you can FU8KEN walk home. Are there any questions????

Besides, my passengers don't like the noise.

[bezerker]

I understand now why you asked the question Doc, as for you there is no difference between flying commercially or privately. You just do what you want.

Pretty nice and easy philosophy to follow.

Fu8k the AFM/SOP's and fu8k anyone who disagrees with me.

[Doc]

I understand now why you asked the question Doc, as for you there is no difference between flying commercially or privately. You just do what you want.

Pretty nice and easy philosophy to follow.

Fu8k the AFM/SOP's and fu8k anyone who disagrees with me.

And what' exactly is wrong with what I do?
You don't agree with it? You never deviate from an SOP? Sorry mate, I've got quite a bunch of time and experience to back me up. I'll deviate from SOP's as I bloody well see fit.

[Cat Driver]

Where has common sense gone Doc?

Try as I may I can not see any danger involved in a stable proper profile descent to a landing using only the power necessary to maintain the desired descent rate.......is the airplane going to self destruct unless you increase the prop RPM and create a high noise level for you , your passengers and the public below you?

Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and they lose situational awareness to the point that they need climb power to get back up to a safe altitude because they got so low on the approach there was no other choice......would you want to be their passenger??? ...or ...live below the approach path to that airport?

Or be their employer?

[Big Pistons Forever]

To make things easier at the initial stages of training I get the student to set climb RPM and full rich as part of the prelanding check. This gives the student one less thing to worry about and still allows the plane to fly away by just pushing up the throttles if it all goes pear shaped.

No wonder you and I see things so differently.

.

Ain't that the truth. Anyway I will not be posting anything further on avcanada so the forum is all yours.

[Doc]

I appreciate you clearing things up and hopefully it is not just for me Cat.

I honestly have not flown a prop aircraft that did not specifically state in the AFM that props were to be at max for landing. In each case it was clearly stated in the SOP's when this was to happen.

That is the reason I chose to comment on this topic.

Which aircraft have you flown that don't require props up for landing (not including ones that students of this era are unlikely to fly commercially)?

Just to put your restless heart at rest, I always land with the props up. Where I put them up.....well, that's MY call, now isn't it? Nothing makes me want to puke more than blind adherence to an SOP, just because it's there. Seems, common sense goes right out the window.

[Doc]

To make things easier at the initial stages of training I get the student to set climb RPM and full rich as part of the prelanding check. This gives the student one less thing to worry about and still allows the plane to fly away by just pushing up the throttles if it all goes pear shaped.

No wonder you and I see things so differently.

.

Ain't that the truth. Anyway I will not be posting anything further on avcanada so the forum is all yours.

BPF Grow up!

[Doc]

Back on track people

Seneca has had way too many accidents/incidents and Transport Canada needs to get off their asses and look into it. C'MON TC....that's why you get the big bucks.....and pensions. Earn it.

[bezerker]

Cat, we know that the props don't need to be up for landing. When the props are at the low pitch limit during low speeds/power settings, it doesn't really matter where the prop RPM is set, the blades aren't moving anywhere.

I have a few issues with not following approved procedures when flying paying customers around.

1. Published AFM procedures. The procedures are there for good reasons, even if they are hard to discern. For FAR 25 certified aircraft they must be able climb at specified gradients during different phases of flight. To my knowledge, movement of prop levers is not allowed for calculation of landing and landing climb performance charts unless specifically stated.

2. Putting props up when $hit hits then fan seems to be forgotten about on a regular basis during training, so I would expect the same in real life.

3. Flying consistent stabilized approaches, whether IFR/VFR. Adjusting props at MDA/DH adds to an already high workload at closest point above ground.

For the above reasons (and others), all turboprop SOP's I have seen have the props at max at some point on final, not in the flare (with exceptions like the Q400 that increases prop rpm automatically for a go-around).

Hopefully people will realize there are valid arguments for both cases (except 126.7STFU).

Doc, do what ever makes you happy. Why don't you get your company to change the SOP's to your procedure?

It is difficult to get a good discussion going about the original topic if we keep chasing off other posters with snarky comments.

[Doc]

Doc, do what ever makes you happy. Why don't you get your company to change the SOP's to your procedure?

It is difficult to get a good discussion going about the original topic if we keep chasing off other posters with snarky comments.

You fly your airplane. I'll fly mine. 'nuff said.

[Cat Driver]

2. Putting props up when $hit hits then fan seems to be forgotten about on a regular basis during training, so I would expect the same in real life.

I am trying to understand this issue......

..first off there is or should be a vast difference between how a pilot operates during initial training as in in a FTU situation and how a pilot operates in the commercial world of flying.

There are several different types of approach to a landing but in every different approach to a landing the airplane will require less power than when flying level.

Variable pitch propellers serve the same function as a transmission in a car or truck....they allow the engine to produce more power when needed by increasing RPM.

Once again if a situation arises where you need way more power than descent power such as in a missed approach why can't you increase RPM with the increase in throttle settings???

Are the prop control levers in another section of the airplane you fly and thus difficult to get to?

Is a missed approach now known as " the shit hitting the fan " that just suddenly over powers the thinking process of flight crews?