SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
All kidding aside, thanks for that explanation. I was actually able to follow it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All kidding aside, thanks for that explanation. I was actually able to follow it.In multi engine training, it's a lesson where the instructor slows the airplane (on one engine) gradually until, at VMC, there is no longer enough rudder authority to overcome the yaw induced by asymmetric thrust. At that point the rudder is all the way to the floor, and the plane starts to roll opposite the rudder into the dead engine. This has to be accomplished gradually and with finesse, as an abrupt entry can result in an asymmetric stall and a spin entry, which can be difficult to recover from if allowed to wind up.
This is pretty stressful on the student, as he/she is a hostage, along for the ride, with no control. I found my students more stressed out about VMC after the demo than before, a factor likely to contribute to panic in a "for real" situation.
Consequently, we would do more repetitions, first with the student "following through" on the controls, then with the student flying and me coaching. Recovery can entail some rather abrupt attitude changes, especially in the case of a clumsy entry, as it would in a real life situation, so it's best if a student doesn't see it for the first time "for real".
"Power back, stuff that nose DOWN, no blue in your windshield! Stop the rotation! Now gently ease out of your dive."
Ready to try it?
It's not just for breakfast anymore!Alcohol is a great face sanitizer! 140 proof minimum, per CDC.
A screwdriver is a mighty handy thing to have on hand. Ya just never know!It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Nice, firm words to guide the student through the situation."Power back, stuff that nose DOWN, no blue in your windshield! Stop the rotation! Now gently ease out of your dive."
Ready to try it?
Jim,Mechanical issues aside...which are unacceptable, and an entirely different can of worms...here is some insight of how we did things. Every year we did an annual ground school in Florida, usually the second week of January, right before the start of the Florida Tour. The classroom portion was two full days, starting on Wednesday, and the third day was spent at New Smyrna Beach at American Aero going over the airplanes and getting current. The currency varied, pilots that were starting with us in Florida showed up early in the week when we were completing post annual test flights. Many of the pilots that started with us in Florida, had essentially just come off the tour the previous November. Each PIC, or myself would sit with each pilot in the cockpits and go through procedures and checklist items, essentially a re-familiarization program. WWII bombers had the same basic checklist so it was mostly learning the systems and emergency procedures. We had a solid core group of guys at the time I was there so it wasn't teaching people from scratch.
The two day classroom consisted of Aircraft Systems, CRM, and recurrent radial engine operations. We had a group of around 50 pilots, with around 5-10 type rated PICs. For many years we had a US Air Force CRM specialist, and long time tour volunteer giving us our CRM lecture. He unfortunately passed away in 2013, after that we would have a different guest CRM specialist each year that was generally a tour volunteer pilot, and always from the airline industry.
Each year, we, as PICs had to take an annual PPE ride (Pilot Proficiency Exam), which is essentially the same as an initial checkride. This included:
1. Use of the Checklist
a. Prestart Checklist
b. Starting checklist
c. After Start checklist
d. Run up Checklist
e. Pre Take off checklist
f. After takeoff checklist
g. Cruise checklist
h. Emergency Procedures (Fire, Engine out, control failure, feathering and unfeathering) there is more but too much for this brief description.
i. Pre landing checklist
j. after landing checklist
k. Shutdown checklist
2. Briefings
a. Preflight plan of action (exiting the ramp, entering the ramp, winds, weather, where we are going fly for the ride
b. Walk around
c. Fuel status, Oil Status
d. Passenger Briefings, either by us or the Flight Engineer
3. Flying
a. Taxi and run-up
b. take off (usually a minimum of 3 circuits total for the flight)
c. air work (steep turns, stalls to the incipient, you don't stall a WWII bomber unless you are at 10,000ft or higher. And they all exhibit a noticeable buffet as you approach a stall)
d. engine out procedures, identify, verify, confirm (crew), feather (agreement on the right feather button), Shutdown checklist
e. Engine failure on take off...as soon as the wheels leave the ground engine 1 is failed to zero thrust and of course the checklist in due time and communicate with the tower
f. crosswind turn, engine 2 is failed to zero thrust, again the checklist.
g. brief the landing and condition of the airplane, flaps, no flaps, gear down when the runway is assured, which is a judgement call by the PIC
h. no flap landings
i. instrument approaches, generally with an engine "failed" to zero thrust, which was up to the examiner.
4. Post flight debrief
This is the cliff notes version of what we did during my time. It was up to us, as PICs to pass this along to our SICs, and essentially train them to the level of a type rating. After I left there was a lot of new people brought on board and I have very little insight as to what was going on from that regard. The check airman that I had, from the Orlando FSDO, unfortunately was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, but was replaced with one of the best pilots in the industry. From that standpoint there was no compromising. Our point of contact at the Orlando FSDO, Larry Enlowe, sadly lost his life in a Curtiss Jenny. This was after I left in 2016. Larry was a great guy, and the FAA DID NOT replace him with a new Collings Point of Contact. Any maintenance, engine changes, fires, flat tires, parts issues were required to be reported to the FSDO point of contact, which is really hard to do when you don't have an assigned individual. To the other issues cited in the FAA and NTSB reports, there is a lot of missing information based on the questions asked. Both the NTSB and the FAA has very few people that are familiar WWII aircraft operations. In my opinion, if the ride programs continue to exist, the FAA will be much much more active in the oversight, and rightfully so. While the FAA isn't, or jokingly isn't referred to as your friend, they do serve as an indifferent 2nd set of eyes. The more that everyone is educated on these aircraft, the longer they can fly, and fly safely. thanks for letting me vent.
Jim
I was told the other day that the FAA did have a warbird expert competent to assess the maintenance and operations of those aircraft but he retired a few years back and was never replaced.
He'd be a difficult man to replace. People with his experience and expertise don't grow on trees.Are you referring to the Collings Foundation point of contact at the FAA? If so, he was killed in the crash of a Curtis Jenny and not replaced.
Kathryn's Report: Curtiss JN4D Jenny, N1662, registered to and operated by the pilot: Fatal accident occurred November 17, 2016 near Peach State Airport (GA2), Williamson, Pike County, Georgia
He'd be a difficult man to replace. People with his experience and expertise don't grow on trees.
Here's a couple of gentlemen with a different take on 909's crash. Scott Perdue and Juan Browne, I suspect, have more warbird and old airplane experience between them than anyone on the NTSB, or even today's FAA.
Scott points out that the NTSB's evaluation of the pre-takeoff engine checks that the investigators referenced were taken from the B17 Tech Order, which roughly outlines procedures, instead of the B17 Crew Training Manual, which describes them in detail. This was first flight of the day, but first flight checks were not done, nor apparently, any checks at all.
Then they take a look at the photos of the cylinder dislodged from #3 engine, and point out that the failure pattern indicates an outward tension failure, as in excess BMEP, rather than a shear failure from the cylinder being knocked off the engine on impact, as NTSB alleges. Sparkplug and cylinder head evidence point to detonation and intermittent sparkplug firing, indicating #3 was the sick engine, not #4. The wrong engine was feathered, probably due to the captain's assumption of failure due to #4's starting difficulties. If the proper runup procedures had been followed #3 would have likely not passed its mag checks and the flight wouldn't have happened.
Check out the video.
He'd be a difficult man to replace. People with his experience and expertise don't grow on trees.
It was portrayed more like Mac TOLD the FE, (not an actual, certified Flight Engineer) that he was shutting down the engine, then immediately did it, while the so-called FE was preoccupied with passenger concerns. More like "talked AT", then "talked WITH".The F/E and Mac talked about shutting down engine #4 before Mac feathered it.
It was portrayed more like Mac TOLD the FE, (not an actual, certified Flight Engineer) that he was shutting down the engine, then immediately did it, while the so-called FE was preoccupied with passenger concerns. More like "talked AT", then "talked WITH".
Well, I wasn't there, and I've only flown in it once, so I don't know for sure, but from what I have seen from NTSB and the commentary of people more educated on war birds than I, it appears that #3 was detonating and running on barely functional mags, so likely not contributing much useful thrust, making 909 "half an airplane". Of course we all know that's really only about "40% of an airplane" in real world performance.The bigger question is why didn't 1-2-3 get them around the pattern,
Well, I wasn't there, and I've only flown in it once, so I don't know for sure, but from what I have seen from NTSB and the commentary of people more educated on war birds than I, it appears that #3 was detonating and running on barely functional mags, so likely not contributing much useful thrust, making 909 "half an airplane". Of course we all know that's really only about "40% of an airplane" in real world performance.
The question that bugs me is, why leave the power up on #s 1&2 after they were on the ground? Certainly another takeoff wasn't in the cards, why not just stop?