Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Flight Schools and Training
Register FAQ Advertising Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

Join the Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-30-2010, 12:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Grumble's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,314
Default

AOPA had a pretty good article about the DA40/42 a few months ago.

I guess there was an instance of a complete loss of power of one in Europe when power cycled to the FADEC for something like several thousandths of a second, but it was enough for both motors to fail and kill the occupants. Don't remember which motors they were. Supposedly the newer ones are better, but I agree that the Baron is a better plane. I loved my 20 or so hours in a Colemill BE-55.
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Old 04-30-2010, 04:35 PM   #12 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: EV CR7 FO
Posts: 1,374
Default Have not flown the DA42

But I did sit in one a couple of times (cockpit familiarity) and I have some g1000 time (over 100 hours). I have instructed in a Seneca, Aztec, C310, Navajo, and Baron, and got my Multi in a Duchess. I have also flown a Twin Comanche, King Air 100 and 200, and a Twin Otter. Far and away, the best for training was the Duchess, and my favorite from a pilots perspective is the Baron 58.
AtlCSIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
Default A good example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumble View Post

I guess there was an instance of a complete loss of power of one in Europe when power cycled to the FADEC for something like several thousandths of a second, but it was enough for both motors to fail and kill the occupants. Don't remember which motors they were.
...of how airplanes get a poor reputation. In this case based on half-remembered anecdotes.

Those pilots took off after starting the engines on external power (specifically forbidden by the POH.) When they retracted the gear, the transient on the bus caused both engines' ECUs to reboot, shutting both down

This resulted in an AD that added batteries that are diode-ORd to the ECUs. If the main bus sags, the ECU batteries keep the engines running for 30 minutes.

Those were Thielert engines, but that's not germain to the story...it was an electrical problem due to violating the airplane's operating procedures.
Bashibazouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:32 PM   #14 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
Default The dreaded blue knob

Quote:
Originally Posted by the King View Post
I've not flown a DA-42, but in terms of multi-engine training, I hope that's not the first time students are seeing a prop lever.
I'll admit that I've never flown a twin with the blue knob...but is it that hard? Is feathering a prop by pulling a lever that much harder than feathering an engine by toggling a switch?

When I transitioned from fixed-pitch prop airplanes to constant-speed prop airplanes, it took me about half an hour to get the hang of it.
Bashibazouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Grumble's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,314
Default

Wow someones feelings got hurt.

And yes, constant speed props on multis can be that hard for some people. Start flying turbo props (especially direct drives) and find out what happens if you don't understand the effects of prop control. Go get your MEI and teach your students the things that effect Vmc. Then come back and tell me "it's not that hard"

Re your post two up, so you're telling me if I have a total electrical failure, then I have AT MOST 30 minutes of flying time left? F-that.
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:55 PM   #16 (permalink)
Super Moderator
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 12,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashibazouk View Post
I'll admit that I've never flown a twin with the blue knob...but is it that hard? Is feathering a prop by pulling a lever that much harder than feathering an engine by toggling a switch?

When I transitioned from fixed-pitch prop airplanes to constant-speed prop airplanes, it took me about half an hour to get the hang of it.
It is different....and difference (read change) will always be 'hard'. Old habits die hard. After training in a certain way for decades, it will be awhile before a different path is accepted.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 06:01 PM   #17 (permalink)
Super Moderator
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 12,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashibazouk View Post
...of how airplanes get a poor reputation. In this case based on half-remembered anecdotes.
Well if you are looking for hard facts, the internet forums are probably a pretty good to shy away from I'd say.

Quote:
Those pilots took off after starting the engines on external power (specifically forbidden by the POH.) When they retracted the gear, the transient on the bus caused both engines' ECUs to reboot, shutting both down
Hate to hear about such examples and it seems that you know some details. WHY would pilots WANT to start on external power if not required. Heck...I look for ways to be able to NOT use externals sources (air or power)!

Quote:
This resulted in an AD that added batteries that are diode-ORd to the ECUs. If the main bus sags, the ECU batteries keep the engines running for 30 minutes.
Well...if the above it true, it is hard to 100% safeguard against stupidity, but this sounds like a good step towards that goal.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 06:15 PM   #18 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
Default It's about fertilizer, not feelings

[quote=Grumble;804467]Wow someones feelings got hurt.

And yes, constant speed props on multis can be that hard for some people. Start flying turbo props (especially direct drives) and find out what happens if you don't understand the effects of prop control. Go get your MEI and teach your students the things that effect Vmc. Then come back and tell me "it's not that hard"

Re your post two up, so you're telling me if I have a total electrical failure, then I have AT MOST 30 minutes of flying time left? F-that.[/quote

If you lose both generators in a DA42, you have about 30 minutes of life in the main battery after shedding load, and sometime after that, the ECU batteries will start to discharge. You then have 30 minutes in the ECU batteries, and then, yes, it all get quiet. However, since it's hard to tell which battery is carrying the engine load, the manual says "30 minutes to total engine failure," so that's what I was trained to.

Mind you, that's after the 2nd generator fails. Typical load with lights, a/p, pitot heat, etc. is 35 A, and each generator is rated for 60 A. So you can complete a flight in IMC with a generator failure. The manual says "land at the next suitable airport" in that case.

Please note the difference in tone between my post (trying to educate you) and yours (trying to mock me for not knowing something you apparently know.)
Bashibazouk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 06:15 PM   #19 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Grumble's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
Well...if the above it true, it is hard to 100% safeguard against stupidity, but this sounds like a good step towards that goal.

USMCFLYR
Yeah, until you're over water/mountainous terrain and that 30 minute clock starts (30 minutes being best case I assume)!!!!! Or at night, in the weather, etc.
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 06:20 PM   #20 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
Default You're right

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
Well if you are looking for hard facts, the internet forums are probably a pretty good to shy away from I'd say.
True! I should know better after being on forums for 25 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
Hate to hear about such examples and it seems that you know some details. WHY would pilots WANT to start on external power if not required. Heck...I look for ways to be able to NOT use externals sources (air or power)!


Well...if the above it true, it is hard to 100% safeguard against stupidity, but this sounds like a good step towards that goal.

USMCFLYR
That AD was part of DA42 ground school, probably as a warning to "don't do this, dummy!" Now that all new DA42s have the ECU battery as standard equipment, the new manual says something like "if you use external power, don't fly IMC or night."

It is indeed a very electric airplane, and has to be flown accordingly.
Bashibazouk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is multi time really THAT valuable? block30 Flight Schools and Training 25 06-08-2009 05:06 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:04 AM.


vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.