There were so many things that I learned from this class. I'm pretty sure I know the Seminole systems inside and out now, and I really think I have a good understanding for how they work. I also learned quite a bit about critical engines on a multi-engine aircraft. Before this class, I didn't know that losing a particular engine can have a much greater effect on the performance of the aircraft. Conveniently on the Seminole, we have counterrotating props so that neither engine is critical. Another thing I got from the class is a lot of good decision-making skills and examples of what to do and what not to do. Learning about the Aspen Arrival crash really opened my eyes to all the factors that can influence the outcome of a flight, and that sometimes even the most obvious things can be overlooked.
I honestly don't think I would really change anything about the class, except maybe the time. I'm not a fan of 8 a.m. classes, and sometimes that made it hard to concentrate because I was still pretty tired. I do understand of course that the time is not really something that can be changed. Someone has to have the early slot, and it just happened to be us.
I thought blogging was a pretty cool way to do the assignments. It made it so you could almost "personalize" your homework and it really made it more enjoyable and less like work. It also saves paper!
Finally, here's the one big thing I liked about this class... It was a multi-engine ground school, but it was also an advanced aircraft kind of class. We learned that with a bigger aircraft comes more responsibilities as PIC. Most likely we will be flying multi-engine aircraft for our career and this was a good starting point to all the different aspects of the career.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Aspen Arrival
When reading about the Aspen Arrival accident, it's so easy to find multiple ways that the accident could have been prevented. It all starts with knowing how to cope with pressure and setting your own limits as PIC of an aircraft. I have had to make many go/no-go decisions during my training and sometimes it isn't so easy.
I believe the first mistake was simply allowing the customers to override their decision just because they paid a lot of money for this trip. It was their fault for being late, and leaving 41 minutes later than the scheduled departure put them very close to the night curfew. As we saw, their flight briefing mentioned occasional IFR, which in Aspen is a cause for concern, ESPECIALLY at night. The FSS briefer also noted that the circle-to-land procedures for the only instrument approach into Aspen was no longer permitted at night. As we learned later in the article, that information was not passed along correctly to everyone involved (i.e. controller at Aspen) and the Gulfstream was cleared for that approach when it never should have been.
There were many other factors that should have been different in this situation. Why did they let someone ride in the jumpseat? I have a feeling that that was somewhat of a distraction during the approach. Why did they let the passengers override their decision to divert to the alternate? Their alternate destination had 10 miles visibility and skies clear below 12,000 at the time of the crash. Why did they not remember that the circling approach was not authorized? They were told this during the briefing and should not have accepted the approach from the controller, especially after 2 preceding aircraft had gone missed. That right there is a live PIREP. They couldn't do it, so why did this crew believe that they could? All of these were things that contributed to the accident and could have easily been avoided.
Of course, I have a feeling that it would be pretty difficult for me if I was in this situation. I worked so hard to get this job and to get where I am in my career... It would be really hard for me to make this decision that could get me in big trouble, or even fired. However, I think that I'd much rather be alive and in trouble instead of dead because of poor decision-making. I have a feeling that if the passengers knew the danger of what they were "forcing" the pilots to do, they would not have been so adamant to get to their fancy dinner.
-TB
I believe the first mistake was simply allowing the customers to override their decision just because they paid a lot of money for this trip. It was their fault for being late, and leaving 41 minutes later than the scheduled departure put them very close to the night curfew. As we saw, their flight briefing mentioned occasional IFR, which in Aspen is a cause for concern, ESPECIALLY at night. The FSS briefer also noted that the circle-to-land procedures for the only instrument approach into Aspen was no longer permitted at night. As we learned later in the article, that information was not passed along correctly to everyone involved (i.e. controller at Aspen) and the Gulfstream was cleared for that approach when it never should have been.
There were many other factors that should have been different in this situation. Why did they let someone ride in the jumpseat? I have a feeling that that was somewhat of a distraction during the approach. Why did they let the passengers override their decision to divert to the alternate? Their alternate destination had 10 miles visibility and skies clear below 12,000 at the time of the crash. Why did they not remember that the circling approach was not authorized? They were told this during the briefing and should not have accepted the approach from the controller, especially after 2 preceding aircraft had gone missed. That right there is a live PIREP. They couldn't do it, so why did this crew believe that they could? All of these were things that contributed to the accident and could have easily been avoided.
Of course, I have a feeling that it would be pretty difficult for me if I was in this situation. I worked so hard to get this job and to get where I am in my career... It would be really hard for me to make this decision that could get me in big trouble, or even fired. However, I think that I'd much rather be alive and in trouble instead of dead because of poor decision-making. I have a feeling that if the passengers knew the danger of what they were "forcing" the pilots to do, they would not have been so adamant to get to their fancy dinner.
-TB
Thursday, October 7, 2010
PCATD
I completed the PCATD assignment with Kenny on 10/7/10.
Starting Hobbs: 1941.6
Ending Hobbs: 1942.1
Total: 0.5
Starting Hobbs: 1941.6
Ending Hobbs: 1942.1
Total: 0.5
Seminole Observation
I completed my observation flight on Tuesday, October, 5 2010 with David Atkinson and Dilpreet.
Tail number: Seminole N978WC
Starting Tach: 2912.8
Ending Tach: 2913.9
Starting Hobbs: 4078.0
Ending Hobbs: 4079.7
Total Hobbs: 1.7
This was definitely an exciting flight! It was very beneficial to me to be able to just watch and see how everything is done. Many of the operations are the same in the multi, but you just have to do them twice. It was David's first time flying with Dilpreet so we took things a little slower and more in depth. This made it even easier for me to understand how things worked and the proper procedures for operating the aircraft.
One of the first things I noticed is that there are many more things to check on the initial startup and then on the run-up before takeoff. Like I said, you have to do everything twice. You have 4 mags to check instead of only 2, and you have 2 mixtures to set also, etc. So, the run-up took a little longer than I expected. During the run-up, one of the mags dropped past its limit and so Dilpreet showed us a good fix for that. He said that this is most likely due to carbon deposits/build-up in the cylinders, which is caused from running the engine with a mixture that is too rich. He told us to lean the mixture to the hottest EGT (peak EGT) and then run the engine at a high RPM for a few seconds to burn off the deposits. It worked perfectly! I thought that was really cool and I definitely didn't know that the fix was so simple.
The next big difference I noticed was the increased pace of everything. There is more to keep up with in the airplane and less time to do it because of how fast you go. It is definitely manageable, though. One factor may have been the increased radio communication because we decided to go to Ogden since Tooele had some questionable weather. Anyway, it was pretty cool to see the performance increase with 2 engines. We were able to do a cruise climb at 105 KIAS up to our altitude for maneuvering. It was pleasing to see a climb of over 500 FPM with a groundspeed of around 120 knots.
The maneuvers that we did (stalls, slow flight, and steep turns) seemed to be generally the same as in the other planes, as well as the instrument flying that David did under the hood. It was definitely a fun flight and I'm glad I got to experience the plane and see the operating procedures before I actually fly it myself. I think that will be beneficial a couple months down the road when I get into the plane to do my training.
-TB
Tail number: Seminole N978WC
Starting Tach: 2912.8
Ending Tach: 2913.9
Starting Hobbs: 4078.0
Ending Hobbs: 4079.7
Total Hobbs: 1.7
This was definitely an exciting flight! It was very beneficial to me to be able to just watch and see how everything is done. Many of the operations are the same in the multi, but you just have to do them twice. It was David's first time flying with Dilpreet so we took things a little slower and more in depth. This made it even easier for me to understand how things worked and the proper procedures for operating the aircraft.
One of the first things I noticed is that there are many more things to check on the initial startup and then on the run-up before takeoff. Like I said, you have to do everything twice. You have 4 mags to check instead of only 2, and you have 2 mixtures to set also, etc. So, the run-up took a little longer than I expected. During the run-up, one of the mags dropped past its limit and so Dilpreet showed us a good fix for that. He said that this is most likely due to carbon deposits/build-up in the cylinders, which is caused from running the engine with a mixture that is too rich. He told us to lean the mixture to the hottest EGT (peak EGT) and then run the engine at a high RPM for a few seconds to burn off the deposits. It worked perfectly! I thought that was really cool and I definitely didn't know that the fix was so simple.
The next big difference I noticed was the increased pace of everything. There is more to keep up with in the airplane and less time to do it because of how fast you go. It is definitely manageable, though. One factor may have been the increased radio communication because we decided to go to Ogden since Tooele had some questionable weather. Anyway, it was pretty cool to see the performance increase with 2 engines. We were able to do a cruise climb at 105 KIAS up to our altitude for maneuvering. It was pleasing to see a climb of over 500 FPM with a groundspeed of around 120 knots.
The maneuvers that we did (stalls, slow flight, and steep turns) seemed to be generally the same as in the other planes, as well as the instrument flying that David did under the hood. It was definitely a fun flight and I'm glad I got to experience the plane and see the operating procedures before I actually fly it myself. I think that will be beneficial a couple months down the road when I get into the plane to do my training.
-TB
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Salt Lake 2 Departure
Let's get straight to it...
The question is: Can we do the Salt Lake 2 Departure (SLC2.TCH) in the Seminole? How about with only 1 engine operating?
Let's take a look at the charts:
When looking at the departure procedures, we see that we need to calculate performance for field elevation, 7800 MSL (Rwy 35), and 8300 (Rwy 17), so we need to see the temperatures for these altitudes...
Field: 18
7800: 14
8300: 13
We then have to check the Seminole performance charts for max gross weight to ensure that we can successfully complete this departure:
-At field elevation, we see that we can climb at 900 fpm.
-At 7800 MSL, we can climb at 650 fpm.
-At 8300 MSL, we can climb at 550 fpm.
With these conditions and both engines operating, we can do the Salt Lake 2 departure from RWY 17/35.
***A key thing to check is the one-engine inoperative climb rate, which in this case is 0 fpm. TAKE NOTE that this is at field elevation, so as we got higher it would be even less. We can see that in the event of an engine failure, we would not be able to climb at all, and would have to take an alternate plan of action - which would most likely be to land as soon as practicable.
-TB
The question is: Can we do the Salt Lake 2 Departure (SLC2.TCH) in the Seminole? How about with only 1 engine operating?
Let's take a look at the charts:
When looking at the departure procedures, we see that we need to calculate performance for field elevation, 7800 MSL (Rwy 35), and 8300 (Rwy 17), so we need to see the temperatures for these altitudes...
Field: 18
7800: 14
8300: 13
We then have to check the Seminole performance charts for max gross weight to ensure that we can successfully complete this departure:
-At field elevation, we see that we can climb at 900 fpm.
-At 7800 MSL, we can climb at 650 fpm.
-At 8300 MSL, we can climb at 550 fpm.
With these conditions and both engines operating, we can do the Salt Lake 2 departure from RWY 17/35.
***A key thing to check is the one-engine inoperative climb rate, which in this case is 0 fpm. TAKE NOTE that this is at field elevation, so as we got higher it would be even less. We can see that in the event of an engine failure, we would not be able to climb at all, and would have to take an alternate plan of action - which would most likely be to land as soon as practicable.
-TB
Single Pilot IFR
"Single-pilot IFR can be as safe as you choose to make it."
This is a quote from the first page, in big, purple, easy to see letters. I think they do that for a reason. It really is true - SPIFR is as safe as you, the pilot, decide it will be. You have to know your skills and your limits, and you have to be able to manage the workload that you create for yourself.
Some key items of SPIFR are thorough planning, organization, and attention to detail. When you are flying by yourself (or as the only pilot), these things are crucial to a successful flight. You will be responsible for safely flying the plane, which is the biggest and most important task, while also navigating yourself to your destination. Plus, you never know what you could encounter on your trip. So the main thing is to be prepared!
I know that right now I would not do a SPIFR flight. I haven't used my instrument knowledge in a long time (not to mention, I'm not even current) and I don't feel confident enough in myself to take on such a task. This is not to say that I never would, but as the article mentions, I would need lots of practice and planning for a successful flight.
I think what I took away most from this article was a quote at the end: "Don't let your confidence exceed your ability". That is such a good piece of advice, and is one that many people should rethink. All too often, the "Macho" hazardous attitude shows up and leads pilots to believe that they are able to do things that they don't have the ability to do. Anyone can be susceptible to it, but you have to know about and be aware of the attitude so you can fight it.
Someday it would be fun, I'm sure, to do a SPIFR flight! I'll have to brush up on my skills and make sure I am prepared for the task at hand.
-TB
This is a quote from the first page, in big, purple, easy to see letters. I think they do that for a reason. It really is true - SPIFR is as safe as you, the pilot, decide it will be. You have to know your skills and your limits, and you have to be able to manage the workload that you create for yourself.
Some key items of SPIFR are thorough planning, organization, and attention to detail. When you are flying by yourself (or as the only pilot), these things are crucial to a successful flight. You will be responsible for safely flying the plane, which is the biggest and most important task, while also navigating yourself to your destination. Plus, you never know what you could encounter on your trip. So the main thing is to be prepared!
I know that right now I would not do a SPIFR flight. I haven't used my instrument knowledge in a long time (not to mention, I'm not even current) and I don't feel confident enough in myself to take on such a task. This is not to say that I never would, but as the article mentions, I would need lots of practice and planning for a successful flight.
I think what I took away most from this article was a quote at the end: "Don't let your confidence exceed your ability". That is such a good piece of advice, and is one that many people should rethink. All too often, the "Macho" hazardous attitude shows up and leads pilots to believe that they are able to do things that they don't have the ability to do. Anyone can be susceptible to it, but you have to know about and be aware of the attitude so you can fight it.
Someday it would be fun, I'm sure, to do a SPIFR flight! I'll have to brush up on my skills and make sure I am prepared for the task at hand.
-TB
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
In-Flight Electrical Fires
Let me start off by saying that I hope I NEVER have to experience this. Who wouldn't, right??
In-flight electrical fires are definitely rare, but if one were to occur, you want to be prepared and have the knowledge of what to do to keep yourself safe. The KEY point that the article stresses is that your first priority should be getting the plane on the ground safely. Obviously, you don't want to stay in the air and try to get things to work. Fix the situation so that you can get on the ground as quickly as possible with minimal damage to the aircraft. That is what the checklists and emergency procedures help us to do.
The Seminole checklist for an electrical fire is as follows:
Battery Master.....OFF
Alternator Switches.....OFF
All Electrical Switches.....OFF
Radio Master Switch.....OFF
Vents.....Closed (to avoid drafts)
Cabin Heat.....OFF
It then says to reset circuit breakers, only if critical, and only one essential device at a time. (Our Seminole checklist has a list of all the circuit breakers and which ones can or cannot be reset.) The reason for this is is that resetting circuit breakers can re-create the situation that caused the problem in the first place, potentially causing the fire to reignite.
This article relates to our procedure in the Seminole because both resources give us a lot of the same information and procedures for handling such an emergency. I really think it's good to see these procedures over and over and have them reiterated for us, because these key rules for dealing with an in-flight emergency, such as an electrical fire, are so critical for a safe outcome. I feel like I have an even better idea of what to do if the situation ever presents itself. If there's one main thing to take away from this article, it's to STAY CALM, FOLLOW PROCEDURES, and GET THE PLANE ON THE GROUND as soon as practical.
-TB
P.S. A "short circuit" means that electricity is flowing along a different path than the one intended. Electricity may be arcing between a damaged or exposed wire & a different circuit, or directly to a ground source. When this happens, huge amounts of current are pulled through the wire, which could damage it and/or start a fire.
In-flight electrical fires are definitely rare, but if one were to occur, you want to be prepared and have the knowledge of what to do to keep yourself safe. The KEY point that the article stresses is that your first priority should be getting the plane on the ground safely. Obviously, you don't want to stay in the air and try to get things to work. Fix the situation so that you can get on the ground as quickly as possible with minimal damage to the aircraft. That is what the checklists and emergency procedures help us to do.
The Seminole checklist for an electrical fire is as follows:
Battery Master.....OFF
Alternator Switches.....OFF
All Electrical Switches.....OFF
Radio Master Switch.....OFF
Vents.....Closed (to avoid drafts)
Cabin Heat.....OFF
It then says to reset circuit breakers, only if critical, and only one essential device at a time. (Our Seminole checklist has a list of all the circuit breakers and which ones can or cannot be reset.) The reason for this is is that resetting circuit breakers can re-create the situation that caused the problem in the first place, potentially causing the fire to reignite.
This article relates to our procedure in the Seminole because both resources give us a lot of the same information and procedures for handling such an emergency. I really think it's good to see these procedures over and over and have them reiterated for us, because these key rules for dealing with an in-flight emergency, such as an electrical fire, are so critical for a safe outcome. I feel like I have an even better idea of what to do if the situation ever presents itself. If there's one main thing to take away from this article, it's to STAY CALM, FOLLOW PROCEDURES, and GET THE PLANE ON THE GROUND as soon as practical.
-TB
P.S. A "short circuit" means that electricity is flowing along a different path than the one intended. Electricity may be arcing between a damaged or exposed wire & a different circuit, or directly to a ground source. When this happens, huge amounts of current are pulled through the wire, which could damage it and/or start a fire.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Wet Sump Oil System (and Dry...)
In engine oiling systems, there are two main types - wet sump and dry sump. Most every production engine in the world uses a wet-sump system because they are low-cost and light-weight. Not to mention, they are very simple. There is an oil pan at the bottom of the engine where the oil is collected. The oil pump circulates oil out of the pan, through the engine, and back into the oil pan again. This system is much cheaper than a dry sump system, mainly because it has less parts. The oil pan in the wet-sump system is where the oil is stored and recirculated, whereas in the dry-sump system there is an external tank for storing oil and an additional external pump.
Pretty much all of the cars and trucks we see on the road have a wet-sump oil system. The main place to see a dry-sump system would be at a racetrack. The way the system functions for pumping oil through the system is much more efficient (in certain ways). They have better "slosh control" (a.k.a. better containment/control of the oil within the pan) and a larger oil capacity, plus the engine can be mounted lower to the chassis because of the smaller pan near the bottom. Of course with efficiency comes cost, which is mainly why they are only on racecars. Their main concern is power, and the wet-sump system tends to rob horsepower. One exception is dragsters, which use the wet-sump system, because they have room for a large oil pan and extra performance-enhancing pumps. The system is much easier to work with in-between runs, and cooling of the system isn't critical since the engine only runs a couple minutes at a time.
It's funny that this system is in every car we see on the road, yet I had no idea that's what it was. I figured "wet-sump" was some sort of special aviation term... guess not!
-TB
Sunday, August 29, 2010
First post!
Well, I've never really done a blog before, besides something like Xanga (anyone remember that??), so this should be pretty interesting. I figure this should be a good place to get some thoughts out, although I'm not going to share my deepest, darkest secrets (who wants to hear about those anyway... right?). Obviously I'm doing this because it's required, but maybe I'll get into it and keep up with it after I'm done with the assignment side of it... who knows!
Anyway, to the topic at hand: What do I want to get out of the class? First and foremost... I want my multi. Duh. That goes without saying. But going beyond that, I really would like to gain an even better understanding of the aircraft I'll be flying for my career. As we get into multi-engine aircraft, we obviously bring in more parts and more systems and therefore have lots more to pay attention to. Not to mention, all this extra stuff happens extra fast. More engines=faster. Good! And hard...maybe at first. I'm sure it'll take a little time to get used to the new "flows" and working at a faster pace. But, like I said, that will only better prepare me for my future of flying fast multi-engine jets. Ah yes, jets. That'll be the day.
I do think I will enjoy the class though, and I'm definitely looking forward to what I'll gain from it! It's hard to believe I'm already in the Multi class. Just 2 years ago I was starting my private and thought I'd never get to the multi training. Pretty exciting! I'm still working on commercial but I hope to finish ASAP so I can get started flying the Seminole!
Until next time,
TB
Anyway, to the topic at hand: What do I want to get out of the class? First and foremost... I want my multi. Duh. That goes without saying. But going beyond that, I really would like to gain an even better understanding of the aircraft I'll be flying for my career. As we get into multi-engine aircraft, we obviously bring in more parts and more systems and therefore have lots more to pay attention to. Not to mention, all this extra stuff happens extra fast. More engines=faster. Good! And hard...maybe at first. I'm sure it'll take a little time to get used to the new "flows" and working at a faster pace. But, like I said, that will only better prepare me for my future of flying fast multi-engine jets. Ah yes, jets. That'll be the day.
I do think I will enjoy the class though, and I'm definitely looking forward to what I'll gain from it! It's hard to believe I'm already in the Multi class. Just 2 years ago I was starting my private and thought I'd never get to the multi training. Pretty exciting! I'm still working on commercial but I hope to finish ASAP so I can get started flying the Seminole!
Until next time,
TB
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)