Metalbikemayhem

From what I'm told by mechanics is that if ITT sensing starts to fail it fails hot. So, setting max itt then matching your tq is the safest option.

JohnBurke

Torque is a more direct representation of the thrust you're producing. You're gaining nothing by creating a torque imbalance and running max ITT, if you're experiencing a significant torque split when at your max ITT. If your power setting is a large enough differential split, you're looking at a maintenance issue that needs to be addressed, and enough sideslip that you're facing a significant drag penalty (both from rudder, and from the sideslip itself as greater drag will be evident.

If you're experiencing that large a split in power production or temps, then you have something going on with at least one engine, or instrumentation. You could have an inefficient compressor (needs compressor wash), low torque indication, high temp indication, or other issue going on (bleed leak, etc).

There is no valid reason to match ITT. Some like to match fuel flow. I'd match torque. That's the work you're going to be getting from the engines.

Experiment. Match the torques, stabilize, see what your performance is. Then split them with your cruise ITT establishing the torque for the individual engines, see what your performance and fuel burn is.

In a turboprop, torque will be your limiting factor at lower altitudes, temperature at higher altitudes, and you can run to the limiting values of whichever one, as needed. Matching torque will give you even power, whereas matching temp will not. For a given torque, the ITT is whatever the engine efficiency and mechanical condition will allow.

deadstick35

Before the overhaul, we had one engine that would hit the N1 limit before the ITT. Now that PWC overhauled them, both engines suck and run hot.

JohnBurke

The reasons for that could be many, but with an overhaul and a clean compressor and the engines brought back within limits, chances are that you weren't seeing true values on torque or temperature leading up to the overhaul on one or both engines. You may have been overtemping, and not known it.

The possibility of reaching a torque value on a turboprop engine, prior to reaching a temp limit, varies considerably with temperature. I've run a PT6A-67 with a five blade Hartzel on 118 degree days and achieved below 3,000 lbs of torque, and on an 85 degree day, pulled 4200 from the same engine. in the case of the sub-3000 values, the operation was temp limited, while on the days when the full 4,200 was pulled, the engine was torque limited. Same elevation, same field, just different outside air temps, and not that big a range, either.

AvgJoe

Hey guys,
New to civilian flying a want to ensure I am not mistaken -
In part 91 operations can the PIC make an airworthiness decision on an aircraft that does not have an MEL and is not in compliance with the kinds of equipment list (KOEL) published in the POH? ex. I Feel confident that I can safely mitigate flying with only one of two fuel gauges operative in my King Air using the other fuel gauge, digital fuel flow for the inop gauge engine, visual and other available onboard sensors to ensure no fuel leaks, functional quantity annunciators, and cross feed capibility.
But the KOEL requires two fuel gauges for all operations (even though other King Air variants require only one of two operative fuel gauges). I ask because downing an aircraft for a few days For repairs effects my company's bottom line and ultimately my employment and I want to be clear on what decisions I do and don't have authority to make with respect to the airworthiness of the aircraft.
My understanding of 14 CFR 91.205/213 is that the FAA and manufacturer have already made the decision for the AMP and PIC when they published the KOEL. I don't believe that a type rating gives the PIC authority to take that aircraft flying, even if the AMP released the aircraft (which I don't believe he has the authority to do either). The AMP's and PIC's personal assessment about the airworthiness of the aircraft is irrelevant when the KOEL isn't satisfied and the only decision either is making at that point is whether to violate FAA regulations.
Am I correct or does the PIC have more authority and decision making ability here than I think?

BStill

When I was USMCR a couple decades ago, I got some pilot flight hours in a Marine Corps UC-12B (King Air 200) (after I had my ATP-MEL). If the NATOPS manual had specified a 2-pilot requirement for transport operations (I don't remember if it did), would that satisfy the FAA OpSpec requirement to log SIC time?

rickair7777

Assuming you were a winged military aviator, then any mil requirement for a pilot could be logged as mil time regardless of what the civilian type equivalent might require.

If you were a civilian pilot (not mil rated) flying a military airplane then it would get complicated.

BStill

I was flying the UC-12B (KingAir 200) as a rated/winged military pilot, so I definitely logged the total time. But question is, when not at the controls, does that time in that platform also count as SIC time?

Than you

JohnBurke

I understand Average Joe's post is from 2016 and seven years old, but the thread has been reactivated, and I'm responding to his post because others may have similar questions. I'm sure average joe has moved on, by now; the question and the response, however, are still very relevant.

Average Joe,

You have a lot of questions. Let me start with a return question. What's an "AMP?"

Under Part 91, in lieu of a minimum equipment list, The aircraft equipment is required to be operable. If it's installed, it's got to work. More specifically, the aircraft must be in compliance with it's type certificate data sheet; any factory equipment installed must function, or must be altered in a manner acceptable to the. Administrator. More on that in a moment. The Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) is the base authorization for the airplane (its birth certificate), but it doesn't list every detail of the airplane. The airplane was manufactured under the TCDS, and the equipment required by the TCDS, the kinds of operation, installed by the manufacturer, or installed after manufacture under a supplemental type certificate (STC) or field modification, must all be operational. A pilot does not get to choose to deviate from that requirement.

if you are operating under conditions that require less equipment, you may operate with non-essential equipment for that operation in an inoperative condition, so long as the aircraft is altered in a manner acceptable to the administrator. The general guidance for that is found in 14 CFR 91.213. First and foremost is 91213(a), which specifies that no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment. The excepts are spelled out in five stipulations in 91.213(a)(1)-(5), allowing for use of a minimum equipment list. In a nutshell, to use a MEL, a MEL must be issued, and a letter of authorization must be issued for the specific aircraft (by serial number). The MEL must be applied in light of the conditions and operation, and all provisions of the MEL must be abided.

A MEL may not be used for instruments or equipment specifically required under the certification requirements of the aircraft and for safe operations in all conditions. Any equipment required to be operative by an airworthiness directive (AD) must be working. Anything required for a specific operation must be working. Day-VFR operations cannot be operated with less than the day VFR requirements for the certification rules for that particular TCDS. If the Kinds Of Equipment List (KOEL) specifies the equipment, it must be working. A item might be waiverable under a MEL, but if the KOEL requires it, then it must be working. A pilot does not supercede the KOEL or MEL, nor does a pilot certificate grant authority to wave airworthiness requirements.

14 CFR 91.205 sets minimum equipment requirements for operations under IFR or VFR (day and night), as well as operations off-shore, on night vision goggles (NVG's), above flight level 240, and category II instrument operations. These are inclusive and cited by 91.213, and the equipment specified for operations under 91.205 must be operating, use of a MEL not withstanding.

Which brings us to 91.213(d), the moment you've all been waiting for: which allows you to deactivate certain equipment and alter it in a manner acceptable to the administrator. It applies to nonturbine aircraft (and a number of other irrelevant things like gliders and powered parachutes, and only if a master minimum equipment list (MMEL) has not been developed. Your question regards operation in a King Air (you didn't specify which one), which is obviously a turbine powered airplane. 91.213(d) does not apply to you. The bottom line is that installed equipment must be working, unless you have access to a MEL. You indicated that your KOEL also requires the fuel gauge.

Part 23, a certification standard, also gives a clue as to the requirement for opreration: 14 CFR 23.205 states that, "When installed, each item of equipment must function as intended."

Without relief of a minimum equipment list, in your king air, the equipment must be working, and it must work as intended, or more specifically, as certificated. This doesn't just include the certification requirements of the TCDS and the certification regulation (eg Parts 23, 25, etc), but also includes the manufacturer data for the system and guages (and components) themselves; this isn't data to which you have access, but that gauge must also function according to the standards established in the equipment manufacturers data (remember: "as intended.") Each item of equipment installed in the airplane also has separate maintenance documents which spell out the standards, tolerances and requirements for that instrument, appliance, etc, and the equipment must also operate to that standard. You can't waive that. Most pilots aren't even aware of that.

Having briefly touched on the legality, when you're talking about making a "judgement call" for an inoperative fuel gauge, how are you going to determine the amount of fuel in that tank? If you're using the fuel gauge opposite that tank, you're guestimating what's in the tank based on fuel burn from a different tank through a different engine. When you crossfeed, you're compromising that guesswork further. How will you determine if you have a fuel leak? At the tank? in the fuel line? Through a selector valve? In the fuel control bypass or return? What about locker fuel and returns from bypass and returns to a different tank? Fuel imbalance?

If the airplane is operated contrary to the regulation, it is operated in an unairworthy condition, and for the duration it is operated in that condition, the airworthiness certificate is invalidated. This has serious legal implications.

Your pilot certificate does not have authority to alter the airworthiness requirements, but you are responsible under 14 CFR 91.7 to fly an airworthy aircraft ("no person my operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition). As the pilot in command, you are responsible for determining whethe rthe aricraft is in condition for safe flight, and you are required to discontinue the flight. when an unairworthy condition (inoperative fuel gauge), or mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. You have multiple regulatory mandates, here, the violation of any of them is a violation of the regulation and can lead to suspension or revocation of your pilot certificate, as well as civil penalties (fines).

Airworthy, as established by the regulation and also numerous FAA Chief Legal Counsel regulatory interpretations, is a two-prong definition meaning that (a) the aircraft must be in a condition for safe flight, and (b) must beet the condition of it's certification, as amended, acceptably altered, or in certain cases, waivered. In your case, that fuel gauge has got to work.

How do you know that you don't have a short in the fuel system which could lead to a fire, explosion or cascading failure affecting other wiring, components, etc? When you say you think the airplane can be operated using the opposite fuel gauge and the fuel flow, what determination are you using to find that the fuel system and wiring is in a safe condition?

A pilot certificate or best guess at "mitigation" does not relief the operator and PIC of the responsibility for airworthiness. Neither does the "company's bottom line." You won't find the company bottom line anywhere in the regulation.

When you say "AMP" are you referring to the mechanic? Do you mean A&P, or Airframe and Powerplant rated aircraft mechanic?

Something I've found that most pilots don't understand about maintenance and maintenance signoffs is that a mechanic does NOT have the authority to return an aircraft to service. When a mechanic signs off a repair (name, certificate number, date, description of repair), his signature constitutes an approval for the only work described, for return to service. What that signature does NOT do, is return that appliance, powerplant, equipment, or aircraft to service. The pilot does that, when the pilot flies it. To be clear: a mechanic approves an item for return to service, but the pilot returns it to service: it's a two-part handshake in which you also absorb the legal responsibility for that return to service. Some pilots think it's on the mechanic who signed it off. Not so. The person who really returns it to service is you...the same who is legally required to ensure it's airworthy, and legally required to determine that it's airworthy. NOT the mechanic. Think about that. There's a lot wrapped up in that simple fact. A pilot can't take an unairworthy aircraft aloft (eg, airplane with inoperative fuel indication, where it's required), and say "the mechanic said it's okay). The mechanic doesn't have that authority. When you get in the airplane, it's all on you. The owner/operator is legally responsible to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition, but when it comes to operation, it's on the shoulders of the pilot.

JohnBurke

If the NATOPS specified two pilots, or if the operation within the military specified two pilots, and if you were acting as a rated, assigned officer in a military capacity in that aircraft in that operation, then yes, you could log it.

Operations Specifications do not apply; you were not operating under operations specifications, and theres's not "OpSpec" equivalent. Operations Specifications are the provisions and conditions that the FAA applies to a Part 91 subpart K (fractional), Part 121 (airline) or part 135 (charter) operation. OpSpecs are not issued to the military, by the FAA and are, therefore, irrelevant. Your ATP is also irrelevant, as in this case, your ability to log that time depended on your military status.

You used the term "not at the controls," which is ambiguous. Were you saying you sat in a pilot seat but didn't touch the controls? Sat elsewhere in the airplane without access to the flight controls? Were assigned as a pilot, in a pilot seat, but not pilot flying?

If you're asking about a situation in which you were not a military aviator, but sat in the seat and didn't touch the controls, could you log that time as SIC because you held an FAA pilot certificate at the ATP level, then no...nothing about that operation would qualify you to log SIC (and I suspect claiming to be pilot in command of a military aircraft when not qualified as a military aviator, would be unwise). Remember that if your question regards whether holding ATP certification would play a part in the ability to log civilian time...the ATP allows you certain privileges if you weren't PIC, such as giving instruction in air transport operations...but that's not what you were doing, and is also irrelevant