Seneca College Crashes again, minor injuries.

[bezerker]

Cat, I will stay civil even though you have questioned my common sense.

You didn't respond to any of the other points, and seem to want to debate even though you earlier said follow approved procedures. I agree 100%, isn't that the end of story? But I will try to answer your question.

I have no idea what goes on at FTU's with initial training.

I am talking about what I have seen on many rides as a contract ACP, and what I have seen in the sim as a 705 training captain.

The only reason not to put the props up on final is noise (maybe maintenance costs for pistons?)

There are many reasons to have the props up early, all to do with safety.

If in doubt, why not choose safety? Most would agree that a missed approach can be high workload, why not make it easier? To keep pax happy for last minute of flight?

Trust me, they are not happy to be on a prop, no matter what the rpm.

[Colonel Sanders]

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 have a bone to pick with this. I know of a fellow who had feathered an engine, then on approach he did his "both props forward" and somehow unfeathered the engine (not easy - it must have had accumulators) and lost control. He's dead now, but he pushed both props up, which should make a lot of people happy here.

When I fly the C421, I land with the mixtures leaned and the props still at cruise. Because of the gear transmission, you NEVER want to drive the engines with the props on the GTSIO-520. Well, you guys might, but that's why that engine doesn't last very long when you fly it. I really couldn't care less what Air Canada or Jazz thinks about how you should fly a 421.

In the extremely unlikely event of a "truck drives on the runway!" the mixtures/props/throttles go forward. Not rocket science.

The only reason not to put the props up on final is noise

Wrong again, Mr Gold Bars.

[bezerker]

Excellent points CS!

1. Don't unfeather prop of failed engine on final,

2. Don't back-drive geared engines,

3.Ensure props are forward for go-around (except in case 1.).

100% agree!

[Cat Driver]

I am glad you see I am trying to come across as civil and do not take my comments as a personal affront.

I think the problem we are having is a generational thing, me I am coming at this from almost sixty years of flying and a great portion thereof was on old big piston pounders...these engines were really finicky regarding power and RPM changes so we flew them using careful power and RPM changes.

Of course there were times when we would increase RPM during the approach due to turbulence for one thing...but generally speaking we left the props in cruise RPM until the final power reduction at which time the pilot not flying pushed the prop levers full forward.

Remember we flew two crew and every take off and pre landing was briefed...therefore we would generally know if we might want climb RPM prior to the approach. If there was a need for higher RPM that was not part of the pre landing brief all that was required was to ask for climb power and the pilot not flying set it.

I was a water bomber captain for 12 years flying PBY's and seldom ever used climb RPM during the approach to a fire as I was generally going down not up....if it got so turbulent that I needed climb RPM on the approach I used it.

705 operations have been around for a very long time and as time passed the aircraft became more reliable and easier to fly.....by the end of my career I got to fly some of the more modern stuff up to wide body jets and of course I understand SOP's and CRM ...in fact I taught it.

So......bearing in mind where I am coming from could you please do me a favor?

There are many reasons to have the props up early, all to do with safety.

Please point out exactly what safety issues I did not recognize when I chose not to increase RPM going down hill for a landing?

The way I flew worked just fine for me for over half a century including over five thousand hours flying DC3's much of which was off airport flying both wheels and skis.

[bezerker]

I think we both agree that following approved procedures is the way to go. Is that correct? If it says props up, put them up, if it says leave them alone, leave them alone, if it isn't clear, do what you want.

I am trying to figure out where you are coming from too.

Are you certified as an instructor in Canada or have you ever been, or been part of a companies training department? It sounds like everything you have done is sort of dated, and not really training related. Bush stuff on aircraft that are no longer around, and procedures that may not be accepted as industry standard anymore. Pistons are not really common for large aircraft now days.

It is hard to discuss safety if we are on different pages.

Do you know which phase of flight is the the most hazardous?

Do you believe in flying a consistent profile on approach, whether normal or abnormal?

Do you believe in flying stabilized approaches and do you understand what that means?

Do you believe that more power could be better than less power?

Do you understand human factors as it relates to designing SOP's?

If you do some research on those topics you may find at least one reason (asides from SOP's), that having the props up on final on a modern aircraft could possibly attribute to safety.

[Colonel Sanders]

Do you know which phase of flight is the the most hazardous?

Definitely moving the aircraft in and out of the hangar. Easy
to nick a wingtip on the door frame, the tail on the door itself,
and the tail on other airplanes inside.

If there's any ice, people are always falling and injuring themselves.
Very hazardous, especially to your career as a pilot if you bang
your head when you fall and get a concussion. That's 5 years in
the penalty box.

The ramp is an extremely hazardous location. People are always
hand-propping airplanes which run away and smash into other
airplanes and hangars, doing extensive damage.

The most dangerous part of the flight is when the aircraft is in
contact with the ground. This is true when you crash, as well.

[Cat Driver]

It is a slow evening for me bezerker, so I will try and answer your questions.

I am trying to figure out where you are coming from too.

Are you certified as an instructor in Canada or have you ever been,

I do not hold a current flight instructors rating in Canada, however I did early in my career I received my instructors rating in 1957 and let it lapse in 1964.

or been part of a companies training department?

Yes many times including chief pilot for a couple of 705 operations.

It sounds like everything you have done is sort of dated, and not really training related.

Everything we do in aviation is dated, the last training I was the recepient of on multi crew aircraft was in 1998 at Airbus Industries at the factory in Talouse France, I was employed by them for around two years at the time the A 320 was state of the art so to speak in large aircraft.

Bush stuff on aircraft that are no longer around, and procedures that may not be accepted as industry standard anymore. Pistons are not really common for large aircraft now days.

I have not flown in the bush since 1967.

It is hard to discuss safety if we are on different pages.

Exactly, that is why I am answering these questions so you will have a better idea where I get my ideas from.

Do you know which phase of flight is the the most hazardous?

No.

Do you believe in flying a consistent profile on approach, whether normal or abnormal?

When such a profile is approved and part of a companies operations.

Do you believe in flying stabilized approaches and do you understand what that means?

It all depends on what approach I am planning on doing, and yes I do understand what it means.

Do you believe that more power could be better than less power?

That is an easy one to answer,,...I flew for eight years in the air show business and for sure more power is always better than less when you are in the vertical up line.

For eight years I held an unrestricted airdisplay authority in Europe, I did my last airshow in Holland in October of 2005 just before I retired at age 70.

Do you understand human factors as it relates to designing SOP's?

As a matter of fact I do...I taught it.

If you do some research on those topics you may find at least one reason (asides from SOP's), that having the props up on final on a modern aircraft could possibly attribute to safety.

I have over thirty thousand accident free hours on most every kind of flying machines built including heavy lift helicopters......I'm retired now and researching things I did all my life would truly be a waste of whatever time I have left here on earth.

So now that I have answered your questions....please point out one thing that I have missed where having the props forward on a " modern " aircraft would improve safety if you plan on landing?

[sky's the limit]

It's a good visual to see the chopper touched-down on the precise location. 1000 times less area required. Nearing touchdown it is moving very slowly to arrest at landing, already very close for the final 30 seconds of approach.

The fixed wing is traveling a mile or two on final to get to its safe touchdown point in that time. A double shear in its landing process can be transitioned rapidly (like when clearing trees on final to the 2K grass strip with an old fashioned windsock meandering in the far distance), eg: where IAS rises abruptly and then falls abruptly or visa-versa on the chosen decent angle. Can't see the helicopter ever having a lift-interruption in that way. The rpms (relativewinds to the rotary wing) are always under control ... aren't they?. (I'm not a helicopter pilot)

I'll flat out say it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Expand your mind. Start thinking that winds (especially in mountains) not only flow horizontally but vertically as well. They also change minute to minute and vary greatly from location to location. In an approach like STL's things can go bad in the last 5 seconds, let alone 30 seconds, if the exact winds aren't 'felt out' ahead of time.

If you'll notice in STL's photo there were no wind socks, no wunderground weather stations, and no 'experts' such as yourself give last second wind corrections nor giving advice about how to deal with that tripple wind shear inverse on shore flow pattern.

It is up to the pilot to figure out the winds and deal with them.

pdw,


Like Old Man said, it seems your understanding of these concepts is cursory at best. That is not meant in a derogatory fashion, it is simply a comment based on what you have written here and your arguments. It should be mentioned that there is not one of us who is born with this knowledge, it is taught to us, or learned through experiences, some of which may very well be of the puckering variety.

It should be noted that before I was a helicopter pilot, I was a mountain off-strip airplane pilot in the Yukon, BC, and parts of Alaska. We worked out of mining or outfitters "strips" which in some cases left zero margin for error due to topographical and wind conditions. The true off-strip work, landing places which may have never seen an airplane before, was another order of magnitude more difficult. Most pilots who have not experienced these places can hardly imagine what is required to work in them safely. There are many fine pilots plying this trade everyday in the mountainous parts of our country, and doing a superb job of it. I never bent anything or had an accident - although there were several close calls, brought on almost entirely by me breaking my own set of rules for working in these scenarios, or lacking the knowledge to fully understand what was happening.

With regard to your statement that you "can't see the helicopter ever having a lift interruption in that way," you are very, very, wrong. Helicopters are also affected by shears, and changes in wind speed and direction are critical to the performance of a helicopter. It should also be noted that helicopters are susceptible to aerodynamic conditions that airplanes are imune to. Conditions that are both more rapid in onset, and severe in consequence, particularly in close proximity to terrain.

I posted the photo in the last post for a reason, to show what is probably the most difficult terrain feature you can find yourself in as a pilot: The east facing, high altitude cirque. These places present so many challenges to the pilot that they are almost too numerous to mention. They are extremely serious, and the traps they lay are very, very, easy to fall into. How do we do it? How are thousands of hours every year flown safely in such places?

It is through an intimate knowledge of the physical environment, its illusions and how it affects wind in both vertical and horizontal components, the performance of our machines, density altitude, and a detailed understanding of how to make our aircraft show us what these variables are presenting us at the time we choose to be there. The only time it is any harder is in winter when low-visibility and an almost entirely white environment increase the difficulty dramatically. Heli-skiing, which probably presents the single most committed type of flying there is on offer in either fixed or rotary wing, often finds the pilot negotiating this obstacle and drawing on every shred of knowledge we possess to do it safely. Paramount to this is being able to fly the aircraft in a manner that allows us to read it. What it tells us is quite simply, the answer to this three dimensional problem we are presented with.

The point of all this is, simply, that you are talking about something which you are obviously not experienced in. There are a few very experienced, talented, and knowledgable pilots on this site, I would submit that you try to learn something from them. They are not wasting their time arguing for fun, they are trying in a very flawed medium to pass on some of this hard earned knowledge. I'd be grateful were I you.

stl

photo (1)-3.jpg (340.64 KiB) Viewed 4388 times

[bezerker]

So to confirm, you are not an instructor, nor have you been for about 50, years.

You have not flown commercially in Canada for many, many years.

You have no instructor experience (or any experience for that matter) in a turbo prop aircraft.

The only instructor experience you have is on outdated 705 equipment.


It is understandable that you are unable to come up with anything safety related with the above experience. On paper, you really don't have much to add to any flight instruction topics.

There is no question that you are an experienced pilot (and a very good one by your description).

Perhaps if you had more experience in training you would understand why simplifying is an important concept.

Doc, I do agree with you 100%. I couldn't give a flying fu€k what you or anyone else does with the props.

I just like people to be able to have nice, open discussions on this forum without the personal attacks/nasty remarks when it comes to safety topics. Why chase people off?

There is always more than one way to do something, so why rip someone a new one when they suggest something different from how you do it? I am bored and felt like debating tonight.

STL, nice pic.

[mcrit]

As of this year, the military seems to have a raging hardon for Seneca grads.

No. The military has a plethora of CEOTP pilots who are coming to the end of their terms of service and have not had a chance to finish their degrees. The Seneca program allows these pilots to recieve academic credit for training, (both flying and officer development), the RCAF has already given them. It is in fact a quick and painless way to fulfill some admin requirements to keep these pilots' careers on track. In other words, the RCAF has a thing for Seneca's paper. Seneca's grads, (like any other flight college's grads) dont save the RCAF any really time or money in training.

As for the props up before landing issue: fly the airplane that you are in, not the one you might fly 5 years from now, and not the one someone else flew 50 years ago.

[Slats]

I have always trained pilots to do things the way I want them to fly when I am finished with them.....

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

..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.

[Slats]

We worked out of mining or outfitters "strips" which in some cases left zero margin for error due to topographical and wind conditions. The true off-strip work, landing places which may have never seen an airplane before, was another order of magnitude more difficult. Most pilots who have not experienced these places can hardly imagine what is required to work in them safely. There are many fine pilots plying this trade everyday in the mountainous parts of our country, and doing a superb job of it.

What? No love for the arctic/barrenland offstrip guys?

[Cat Driver]

You have not flown commercially in Canada for many, many years.

.

Oh dear God....

No I have not flown commercially in Canada for many years.

However I have commercially flown in around forty different countries since I quit flying in Canada.

You have no instructor experience (or any experience for that matter) in a turbo prop aircraft.

Where do you get that idea?

I was flying and teaching on turbine aircraft probably before you were born.

Turbine airplanes are almost idiot proof what exactly are you trying to prove?

When I retired I held instructors authority in Australia, South Africa and under JAR in Europe.

My business was advanced flight instruction and I was one of the best paid in the world.

I really am getting tired of this stupid discussion so lets just call it quits....

[sky's the limit]

Yes Slats, plenty of love for them too.

But it just isn't the same I'm afraid. 2D v 3D, whole different ball game.

[rapid602]

Very interesting comments ... Cat / Doc / Trey / Colonel , and any that I missed, ... thanks for sharing your knowledge. I am sure lots of folks in here enoy reading your shared experience.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Very interesting comments ... Cat / Doc / Trey / Colonel , and any that I missed, ... thanks for sharing your knowledge. I am sure lots of folks in here enoy reading your shared experience.

Thanks, I post here for entertainment mostly.

Even when the conversation gets real weird like this one I find it entertaining to keep trying to see how far some of these people will go to prove their point.

The one thing that sets me apart from most here is it is really easy to check up on my background because I use my real name......I don't need to hide behind a made up one..

Teaching flying is the highest level one can aspire to as a pilot, that was one of the reasons flight training was one of my favorite jobs in aviation.

[bezerker]

It's too bad things never worked out as an instructor here in Canada for you Cat. Not everyone is cut out for it.

From the way you tell it, it sounds like you may have had some great advice to give, back in the day.

Anyways, glad to hear that you post just for entertainment on these forums. It is definitely funny stuff.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It's too bad things never worked out as an instructor here in Canada for you Cat. Not everyone is cut out for it.

Not everyone is cut out for it?

Well for sure I did not wish to work for peanuts strangled by a disfunctional system that was reluctant to keep up with the advancement of aviation.

I moved from instruction to agricultural flying ( Both fixed wing and helicopters ) then to coroprate flying then to bush flying then to airline flying then to fire bombing I owned and operater a Ftu with both fixed wing and helicopter training..then I went back to fly heli logging helicopters then I owned a sea plane charter business then I flew a turobo prop airplane for a corporation then I went to africa then then I started flying in the airshow business as well as flying for
French TF1 then for the Band of Brothers TV series then I flew for Merimax in the movie industry and the airshow circuit in Europe....and during that time I trained on the Airbus ....but my main sourse of income was advanced flight training.

The last season I worked I flew several different airplanes in the airshow business ...super Decathalon...Pitts S2B...Dc3...PBY. And in my spare time I got to fly the Boeing 767...in fack the very last flight I did as a working employed pilot was in the 67 from Amsterdam to Turkey and return.

Watching the waypoints crawl down the PFD and changing xponder codes across Europe at 410 is about as boring as it can get for me.

[Slats]

Yes Slats, plenty of love for them too.

But it just isn't the same I'm afraid. 2D v 3D, whole different ball game.

Well STL, while a discussion on the similarities and differences between the two and the challenges presented is probably closer to the original topic, I'd hate to steer us away from this riveting debate about the correct time to advance prop levers. Suffice to say, both groups of pilots are operating closer to the edge of the envelope than most.
Also, stop posting those beautiful pics...they make me REALLY miss flying in the mountains.

[pdw]

It gets very educational reading the posts (after trying to make a point). I concluded that there were times when the winds can trick you bad ... even if you're a good pilot, and you actually begin to believe 'it was just at the wrong place at the wrong time'.

Horizontal Windshear is defined as a change of horizontal wind direction and/or speed with horizontal distance, so only suggested excluding helicopters in this context seeing that little 'horizontal distance' is being crossed once already hovering just inches above a touchdown point. I can see the precision involved in mountain flying; no question winds get extreme and unpredictable at different times in so many locations in mountains. Is there also the risk of the rotary wing stalling at any time ? (Actually had never thought of that possiblility)

Anyway ... July 24/2012 at 17:50 Local time CNP8 wind is ~ 5kts NNE/NE, 8NM East of Greenbank at Nestleton Station (Wunderground WX-history 16:56-17:56pm). 1700 at CYKZ winds are NW 16ktsG27kts /Q1010.5 ... then flying out 30mi east-northeast to ~ Q1008 with similar winds showing up there.

It looks like performance diminishing winds are greater there at that time. Any nosedown-input for regaining airspeed while entering the quartering tail wind seems only to fortify the 'tailwind increasing' / "loss-of-headwind" effect when GS/Airspeed is forced even lower with the negative AOA of the pitch-down action. When that happens even the two seconds of reaction-time to lever full-throttle can prove the power up to be a 'late' effort ... and just as the grass of the RWY surface below comes up fast.

A shallower approach angle and the greater power capability of larger AC (re the prop discussion) is in a different league than experiencing the steeper 'first time' off-airport/short-field practice in the C-172... I'm sure. But regardless, approaching in headwind conditions and encountering horizontal windshear resulting in a change of wind component to tailwind is not just risking late and fast touchdown that overshoots a runway. The aircraft can as easily nose in from the same decreased performance (the surprise lack-of-airspeed discovery) that forces a speedy recovery-pitch-down where the nose aims directly at the ground at low level with power-on and suddenly so little room for that safe round-out with enough airspeed to prevent the 'hard landing'. This (happening so quickly) .... right after (maybe even) positioning very accurately for that steeper/slower short field approach in anticipation of light wind at the surface.

[Colonel Sanders]

Yes, the subtle windshear and lack of a controller to
give last-minute wind checks contributed to this
unfortunate incident where an airplane momentarily
banked excessively on short final:



For more information about this unforunate windshear
incident:

[Sulako]

I have toasted a whole pile of posts on this thread. I have also given umm...lengthy...vacations to whose who would attempt to undermine the forums.

[cncpc]

Yes, the subtle windshear and lack of a controller to
give last-minute wind checks contributed to this
unfortunate incident where an airplane momentarily
banked excessively on short final:



For more information about this unforunate windshear
incident:

Saw him at Quesnel Air Show a few years ago. He's good. He's daaammmn good.

[pdw]

Noticed the potential for error there:

a controller to
give last-minute wind checks

I recall those were component checks to help train students in getting accustomed to identifying with varying crosswind components more accurately. In the preceding post my use of "winds" (in retrospect) was in error, considering the context of the discussion, where using components would have been the wiser choice imo when attempting that "point" in pilot language. The "2kt" discussion in the Sundre thread is an example of accuracy calculating a minor component difference for slower flight (i.e. imo not so much your typical 'crosswind training').

[justwork]

Reading this thread makes me miss ., what site is he on now?