dutchroll

In all the many fully developed spins I did in a Chipmunk (Gypsy Major engine - about as basic carby engine as you get these days), I never once had the engine stop. Heck I've even sat there demonstrating during the spin how the incorrect application of spin recovery technique doesn't do anything in that aircraft! Even a Tiger Moth engine which stops during manoeuvring will normally restart on application of positive G. If it doesn't, apply more positive G. But how are you going to make that point by switching the mags off on final approach? And how would that student's reaction to his engine stopping during a spin have changed by having the mags switched off on final approach on a check flight? You see......this is the problem. People don't relate the specific training scenario to any benefits in real life situations. They just do it out of some misplaced belief that if the student handles it, everything is good. If he doesn't, everything is bad. Is it really, though?

.......yeah but we're not talking about a glider (or a motor glider - which is just a self launching glider). How many recreational aircraft have the same glide ratio as a glider? How many have speedbrakes to rapidly dump lift in a deliberate overshoot situation without making fancy manoeuvres low to the ground? If you want to talk about training scenarios you have to compare apples with apples!

I strongly disagree with RAAus's position on it. But RAAus don't do my checks or training. so I guess it doesn't matter. I think people are way overestimating the training value of it.

The instructor shut both magnetos off on final approach to simulate engine failure. If anyone can find a reference to any well established or recognised training principle from any reputable fixed wing flight training organisation in the world which recommends this as a standard procedure and a valuable learning experience, please post it here. I certainly don't mind, and expect, simulated engine failures on a check flight. But if the instructor ever actually switches my one and only engine off, the next landing will be a full stop. Just my 2 cents worth (and I've had 4 friends die in accidents as a result of "realistic training for engine out scenarios" - three of them simultaneously).

I very much doubt that switching both mags off in the real aeroplane to simulate engine failure would be considered "best practice" for training or checking. The student knows it was the instructor. Maybe they'll panick, maybe they won't. Who is to guarantee what the student's reaction will be if it happens for real? What if it doesn't start again when the mags are switched back on for some reason? And therefore what is the additional training/checking value versus retarding the power to idle but keeping the cylinders firing and burning the fuel which is being pumped into them either way? Zero added value for some degree of extra risk I'd say.

On ACARS I assume you mean? I'm not totally familiar with the whole gamut of messages which pop up on the computer screen at the Maintenance Watch desk, but I'm pretty sure that any major system failures and also a whole bunch of minor ones will be sent basically straight away, so long as the ACARS is still operating and has a comms link at the time. AF447 sent a lot of ACARS fault/failure messages before it crashed in the Atlantic. That was all they had to go on before they recovered the CVR and FDR much later. I recall a story some years back on the 747-400 when one of our crews enroute across the Pacific got a satcom call from Maintenance saying "hey guys we've been watching your #2 engine oil quantity which seems to be getting some strange indications. Can you keep a close eye on it?" This is a parameter which is displayed on the secondary screen, but that screen is not usually selected in the cruise, and won't pop up until it goes out of limits. The system had sent this data to home base before the crew knew about it.

There are smoke detection systems in the cargo holds, toilets and avionics bay. There are fire suppression systems in the engines and cargo holds. Inside the cabin, the "fire suppression systems" are the numerous hand-held BCF fire extinguishers around the place. Usually they're located in the vicinity of the doors on both sides, and in the cockpit. If the cabin in pressurised to say 5000ft, then there's the same amount of oxygen to burn in a fire as if you were skiing at Thredbo or Perisher. Plenty. The ACARS (Aeronautical Radio Inc. Communication Addressing and Reporting System) - the VHF/Satcom data system which communicates back and forth to home base and various other places - on many of these aircraft will immediately send automated maintenance messages back to the operating company's engineering people when the system detects certain malfunctions.

I know you weren't. I just googled "MS804 conspiracy" and there's a whole swag of them already. Heaps of people saying it can't be a coincidence and must mean something. Which is intriguing, as the tendency for humans to seek out patterns and links is well established, even if it sometimes spears right off the rails.

It's pretty funny the online conspiracy theorists saying "these numbers can't be a coincidence". Like the two people who matched last week's Powerball numbers "can't be a coincidence".

Just before I started my military flying training I was at Point Cook when a CT4 ditched into Port Phillip Bay after takeoff. The instructor had simulated an EFATO. The military CT4 had a normal and emergency boost pump. The emergency position required a "lift and throw" action as I recall. The student flicked it to emergency (which he wasn't supposed to do unless it was a real engine failure) and the idling engine got a gutful of fuel and stopped. The instructor couldn't get it started again and ditched shortly afterwards. The RAAF crash boat rescued them (although the student almost drowned as for some reason his parachute deployed in the water). That at least was the last I heard of the investigation, though I never read the full report. I don't recall anything much of my CT4 systems training. I think I dumped all of those memories after being made to run the length of the airfield with a life vest and parachute on because I forgot my before takeoff checks once. Luckily the instructor said I could fly the plane well, or I really would've been in trouble.

The question has a never-ending stream of answers, many of which might be equally valid. I've heard it said many times that up to and including the initial power reduction after takeoff is the most common time for engine failures in the initial phase of flight, though I don't know how much hard data there is to back this up. I guess if this is correct, then you are taking adequate risk mitigation precautions by keeping the boost pump on until this point, ie, until shortly after your power reduction, which would coincide with the after takeoff checks in many cases (and this is often where the boost pump is turned off). My boost pump is on for takeoff and landing when fuel flow and pressure demand is very high, and very critical (for landing, this would be the go-round case). It is rated for continuous operation so it could be left on all the time, however it is a backup pump (and used for priming) and considered unnecessary for other flight phases, to be reserved for emergency use.

I'm assuming at this level of BAK that you don't want to factor in fly-by-wire attitude stabilisation which many modern jets with leading edge lift devices have?

You know what? Surprisingly it doesn't and you can move the throttle forward at a good rate as long as you are smooth and don't slam it. You need left rudder on takeoff, but this engine and prop produce an enormous amount of thrust with consequent airflow over the tail and being typically Pitts, the rudder is very effective. So there is no coarse or severe application of rudder required. Just a moderate pressure on the left foot is all you need. However you need to do it promptly. This was my mistake on my first ever flight under instruction in it. I didn't apply the rudder promptly. Although not much was needed, we were almost on the side of the runway before I got the rudder in. Fortunately we were also airborne by then.

Must've just missed me. I got there a bit after that. I was gone before their lunch break.

Depends by how much I guess Nev. The Russians added 40 HP by making the same supercharger work much harder. They did that decades ago and never changed the overhaul times as far as I know. BPE decided not to make the supercharger work harder (from its original 360 HP settings) but they did increase the compression. Time will tell, but most M14Ps around the world these days are lucky to fly 50 hours a year. They haven't set an overhaul time for it yet. Besides that, nice day for a flight back to home base. Engine performance "nominal". Pilot wiser.

Sorry I missed your post. This is a Russian Vedeneyev M14P 9 cylinder supercharged radial. It has been modified by a US aero engine overhaul company called Barrett Precision Engines. Those mods include new pistons and rings to increase compression and power, and reduce oil consumption. Also they replaced the Russian carburettor which works well, but is increasingly difficult to get parts for, with an Airflow Performance fuel injection system. The other main item they replaced was the Russian magnetos (and massive but not so reliable spark plugs), with an electronic ignition system and auto plugs. Again, the old mags are hard to get replacement parts for. With the upheaval and disintegration of the former USSR, production of the engine ceased and a lot of original tooling was destroyed or lost. So new spares can be hard to come by, with most found from "old stock" sitting in the dusty dark corners of old hangars etc. The design harks back quite some decades, and it is renowned as a very solidly built "pilot tolerant" radial engine with a very impressive power to weight ratio. Curtiss Pitts designed this aircraft around this particular engine. The "stock" Russian M14p is 360 HP. They also produced a 400 HP version (M14PF) by gearing up the supercharger. The Barrett mods take a stock 360 HP engine and turn it into a 430+ HP engine (without changing the supercharger) through the increased compression, fuel injection, and ignition systems. Engineers believe the basic design to be quite capable of taking 450+ HP and they've run it at these powers on their test stand with no issues. However MT Propellers in Germany refuse to warranty their 2.6 metre props for that much power.

JPI EDM 740. This picture (not of mine) gives a deceptively large impression of its size. It's quite compact, which I needed due to lack of panel real estate and limitations of what was available at the time. With 9 cylinders displayed it can be a bit of information overload. A double-edged sword in some respects. The company is a total pain to deal with in my experience, but the equipment is good quality. There are better compact engine monitors out there now. Attached also is the data stream for EGT and RPM (on SavvyAnalysis you can select any monitored parameters for display and comparison when you upload the data) showing the taxy across to refuelling. EGT #5 is quite erratic, presumably the early signs of fouling, until it drops off at the 6 minute mark. That erratic movement would not be noticed with the resolution of the display, and I have to say I also never noticed it drop right off as I was too busy watching outside. I don't believe so. This aircraft is equipped with a very good electric oil scavenge system which pumps residual oil back to the tank after shutdown. The engine also has modified pistons and rings and leaks/drips far less oil than, say, a Yak or similar. We have consulted with our resident M14P engine expert over in the USA and we think the fouled plug problem has been a ground handling technique issue on our part. He has advised that we need to "aggressively lean" the engine on the ground to lower the chances of this occurring. We were not routinely doing that.

There's 86 hours on the Hobbs and I'm 99% sure they're the original plugs (I don't recall any advice that they were ever changed during servicing). So that includes quite a few engine runs going all the way back to manufacture and ground testing. We were going to change them at the annual a few weeks ago because they're cheap as chips but the new batch we bought had some suspect markings on the ceramic parts and the originals were actually in pretty good condition, so we left them in. Interestingly going back through engine download data I found that the cylinder actually dropped off line when it was previously run - which was a startup and short taxi from the hangar to the refuelling station. It dropped off 6 minutes after engine start, as I was waiting a few minutes with the engine running at just over 1000 RPM queued behind another aircraft which was refuelling. I didn't even notice it. Immediately after the refuel I went straight to the runup bay for my departure. Lots of good stuff to think about.

Update today: On both plugs, #5 cylinder. Not a lot of sparking going on there. Cleaning away the liquid oil revealed a burnt "bridge" of oil.

Sorry, writing on forums often doesn't convey "tone" very well, but honestly there was no criticism taken Nev. You made a valid point and I immediately thought: "Ok I thought I checked takeoff power, but did I misread it?" The answer is no I didn't misread it. That's one less thing I need to self-assess. My main self-assessment is going down this path: 1) Be much more tuned into the deeper meaning of EGT and CHT indications, especially the EGT. 2) With a modern engine monitor I am spoiled for information. They're not just for cruise leaning like the marketing blurbs tend to suggest. It can give me excellent engine health information during engine runup which I must pay more attention to. 3) If it sounds right, but doesn't look right, assume it isn't right, even if everything else is within normal limits! 4) Catching the train home isn't so bad.

As far as vibration etc goes, this plane rocks and rolls a lot on the ground with its 2.6m diameter propeller and sprung aluminium gear legs. I have once or twice noticed quite a significant difference with a couple of fouled plugs on different cylinders which cleared by the time the runup was completed, however it's entirely possible that I'm still not accustomed to detecting subtle differences in that area as I haven't flown anywhere near the number of hours on it that I've wanted to. Downloaded engine data from the flight shows takeoff RPM at 3000, and manifold pressure at 37.4 inches. Exactly as per a normal takeoff, which is a relief to me personally, because although my takeoff roll is very short (about 5 seconds) I do quickly glance at the RPM and MAP when the throttle is fully forward. There are no distinct peaks or troughs in the RPM and MAP data showing the afterfiring events. Possibly this might be to do with the sample rate of the engine data recording. It just shows when I reduced the power. The M14P is an amazing engine. The Russians built it like the proverbial brick s***house, as many M14P pilots will attest to. Personally I reckon they designed it to run on vodka and be lubricated by whale fat. Avgas and Aeroshell are Dom Perignon and caviar to it. But the downloaded data is very clear: full power was achieved throughout the very brief takeoff roll.

Takeoff power was fine. It sat right on the redline at full power, which is where it normally is.

I do actually have a whole bunch of info tucked away in a manual about EGT/CHT diagnosis. Might be reading that properly soon, although in this case I know what was indicated and what it meant, but mysteriously talked myself out of believing it. I certainly believed it a couple of minutes later, I can tell you!

Yep, #5 and 6 sit either side of the six o'clock position. #1 cylinder is right at the top, at the 12 o'clock position. Historically on the rare occasion I've had a single plug fouled (never had both before) it has usually been #6, but it's very noticeable of course on the ignition check. When they're both out, the ignition check is fine!

Lol. Yeah they were a bit saucepan-eyed when I taxied in! Of course as we know, it wasn't their fault. Plug fouling is always a possibility after ground runs, and particularly so on the lower cylinders of a radial. The buck stops with me as PIC and I should've taken the #5 cylinder instrumentation warning signs more seriously (as I will from now until I fold up and pack away the logbook for the last time) instead of just going with a gut feel that it sounded normal. As an aside, in the process of adjusting the air system relief valve and air charging system (which was why I was there) they noticed a very loose fuel primer line fitting at the solenoid valve in front of the firewall. They showed me this elbow fitting just flopping around! This hasn't been touched since engine installation at manufacture, so it most likely vibrated that way. God only knows how it hadn't sprayed or leaked fuel everywhere. Glad they picked that one up!