WardHolbrook

A windmilling propeller is not absorbing energy (power), it's creating drag. If it was absorbing there would be heat involved. Brakes absorb energy (convert to heat).

Guys, I don't think that there is a sudden, short-term increase in thrust when a prop goes into feather. A windmilling propeller has the same amount of drag as a flat plate of the same diameter. I think what you're experiencing is the sensation of acceleration as all of that drag from the windmilling prop is removed. For you Missile owners that might be tempted to try it in flight, I'd recommend that you check the feathering on the ground first - just to make sure it still works as advertised. I've flown more than one twin that one or both propellers wouldn't feather because something was mis-rigged. Did some of the Missile conversions retain the optional unfeathering accumulators from the original installations? If so, that would make restarting inflight a bit simpler.

The closest I ever came to dying in an airplane was a few years back. We were on descent into an airport in central Florida and solid IFR. Some non-instrument rated Bozo in a Bonanza was making a "transponder off", "autopilot climb" trying to get on top. He flashed by us within a couple of hundred feet. I let approach know what happened and they tracked him to his destination. The last I heard, he got to spend some quality one-on-one time with one of the friendly representatives of the Administrator. Any more, I don't have very much sympathy for cheaters - at best they're a menace to themselves, at worst they are a menace to anyone who happens to be with or around them. I'll rat them out every time, but that's just me.

You've got to wonder what was just so pressing back home? Sometimes you've got got to tell yourself "No".

Logbook Pro for me.

Here's the link that works... http://ssa.org/sport/wheretofly.asp Sorry

Back in the day when I was actively instructing in gliders, most guys could crank out a pvt add-on in a couple of days. It just isn't that difficult and many of the things you learn are directly transferable to any power flying you do. For me, it made the difference between having to ditch vs making an island in that 172 after the engine failed. It also got me dinner after the sim instructor failed all of the engines at 10,000' agl. He heard me talking with a couple of other glider guys and bet me I couldn't put the jet on a runway. On the way down, I asked him to select the runway and I put it on the numbers. He bought dinner that night. If any of you question your ability to actually handle an engine failure scenario, I would highly recommend a little glider time. It won't take much effort and most guys find it a lot of fun. Here's a link to find the nearest soaring site... http://www.ssa.org/sport/wheretofly.asp

Yeah, they said I had to keep doing it until I got it right.

I have no idea how many, but the number would be in the hundreds divided over all 50 States and over 30 countries. Here's a map of the US that my logbook program generated. I shows the Domestic US, Canada and Mexico city pairs that I've flown to over my career. I've got the same thing for Europe, South America and the Pacific Rim.

Amen to that. I had an engine failure in a C172 several years back and drawing upon my glider experience saved my bacon that day as well. Pulling the prop back cuts the drag significantly, but if the engine has failed you're going to want to stop the prop from windmilling as well for maximum drag reduction.

It's not the airline dispatcher, it's not the ubber restrictive Part 121 (or Part 135) rules and regulations, it's not the airline's op specs and it’s not the Boeing or Airbus equipment. Part 91 corporate pilots have none of that to support us and there are relatively few BBJs in the corporate fleet and yet, year after year, we run neck and neck with the major airlines when it comes to overall safety record. Like I said, some years they will come out on top, other years it’s the Part 91 Corporate guys who take the trophy. I still say it's the experience, the training, and the discipline – call it the professional approach - together with having adequate equipment for the task at hand. As far as equipment goes, a pilot of that caliber will know when it’s safe to fly and when he should pull the plug. We get paid the big $$$ to say no – but you won’t last very long in this career if you say no when it wasn’t necessary or didn’t when it was. It doesn’t matter whether you’re flying turbine or piston, single or multi, FIKI or whatever. You adapt. A turbo FIKI radar equipped twin properly flown by an experienced, well trained pilot can safely handle a very high percentage of what an airliner can handle – it is done every single day. The exact same thing goes for a Mooney M20; but, like I said earlier, it absolutely requires appropriate equipment, adequate training, an experienced pilot (there really is a difference between 4000 hours of experience and one hour of experience repeated 4000 times) and finally the discipline to “stay between the lines” of aircraft performance and regulations. It takes a healthy commitment and for many GA pilots, it will require a total paradigm shift. Far too many GA pilots approach the whole issue of training and currency from the perspective of what is the absolute minimum I have to do to be legal? It will always be difficult or impossible for those guys to check three out of those four boxes.

Actually, I have Part 135 in a Mooney. As for relative safety, I think you've got it all wrong. Safety comes from from your mindset and approach to flying as much as anything. The safety record for professionally flown Part 91 corporate jets historically ranks right up there with the best Part 121 Flag Carriers. Some years the airlines seem to do a little better, other years the corporate guys take the prize. To me, this shows that it's not all of those Part 121 rules and regulations that provide the safety benefit, it's the professional approach. What is "a professional approach" to flying? Do you have to be a professional to have a professional approach to flying? Of course not. Does taking a professional approach in any way take away from the pleasure and enjoyment of flying? Not in the least, me and all the pros I've ever flown with still grin ear-to-ear when we're committing aviation. As far as "big iron" pilots dying in GA accidents, it happens but there are always those guys guys who think that a big fat logbook filled with transport category jet time somehow shields them from the effects of complacency or carelessness. Not true. I think the key to all of this is discipline - the ability to tell yourself and others "NO". We've all got different skill and experience levels. We all fly aircraft with different capabilities. What we all need is the ability to say NO to ourselves when we're looking at scenarios that our outside of our skill or experience level and/or the capabilities of the airplane we're flying. For some of us, in general aviation, it's going to take a total paradigm shift. I believe that it starts at the very beginning when we ask the question - What's the bare minimum I have to do to earn my license? After that, the question frequently becomes - What's the bare minimum I have to do to keep current? Because many folks equate currency and proficiency, seldom do you ever hear anyone ask the question - What do I have to do remain proficient? I understand the financial pressures that most of us are under, but whatever the cause, the lack of training and proficiency becomes very apparent when peruse our accident histories. Throw in a bit of "lack of discipline" (the ability to tell yourself "NO") and bingo - another busted up airplane or worse. Fly safely my friends.

Correct on all counts. When I'm in my work airplane and the guy in the right seat gets going on the after landing checklist while we're still on our landing roll out, I respectfully threaten him with broken fingers if he touches the flaps or airbrakes until we've cleared the runway or slowed down to taxi speed. It's no different in "little" airplanes. Granted, there are some scenarios where you'd want to raise the flaps on the landing rollout. But seriously, do you need to practice that? And another question - How much is this is "using one bad technique to compensate for another?" I love all of those "undocumented", "extracurricular" techniques that some pilots are all too quick to adopt. They justify their special techniques on "We seemed to...", "I felt that...", "I suspect..." hmmm, I guess that these are now the new flight test parameters. I learned a long time ago that this "feeling" stuff doesn't mean much when it comes to aircraft performance. The last time I looked, "Takeoff" involved more than just getting airborne and mushing along in ground effect. The takeoff distance charts in light planes get you to 50' AGL and climbing. Without the appropriate testing, all you're doing is assuming that you're doing better... and as the OP found out, there's always the issues of screwing around with some very significant configuration changes at that phase of the takeoff or landing. As always, you guys are the PIC and you can do what you want.

Thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry that you have to go through this experience. You are correct in your analysis. Changing configurations on the runway isn't something to be done lightly - especially in a retract. It's one thing if you're operating out of a marginal runway, but seriously, how many of us do that? Things like resetting flaps should be left until you're clear of the active.

For me, it totally depends upon that I'm flying. In the work airplanes (Falcon 900Bs) as long as we can see enough to find the end of the runway we're good to go. However, it the weather is below landing minimums, we're going to want to have a takeoff alternate nearby. That's normally not too much of a problem where we typically fly. In the Falcons, ennroute weather isn't much of a consideration either, we pretty much have the same limitations and considerations as any other transport category airplane. Approaches and landings aren't anything special either, as long as we have landing minimums we're good to go. Also, since we're operating under Part 91, I have no problems with shooting the approach and taking a look to see what's really there" when the weather is reported at near minimums. I'm comfortable with those minimums as well for any ME turbine-powered airplane. When we go to recurrent training, we usually try to work in at least one 0/0 landing hand-flown to touchdown. It's good practice - you never know when you might run into the "perfect storm" scenario. (Pardon the pun) I'm a lot more conservative when it comes to single-engine aircraft (turbine or piston). No LIFR or night X/C in single engine aircraft for me. I want to have a VFR ceiling underneath me for the entire route. If the airplane is FIKI certified I'd have no problem using the equipment. For piston twins, my comfort level falls somewhere in between. I'd want higher departure minimums - at least good enough to be able to come back to the airport and be able to get back in. When it comes to alternates, anytime we're flying to an airport with only one runway we plan on an alternate regardless of the weather. Over the years, there have been two or three instances where the sole runway was close down due to snow removal operations, disabled aircraft, etc. It's not really limiting, but it is something to consider.

I've made my living in the cockpit since 1975 so I my working airplane, there's not very much that will stop us from getting to where we need to be, However, in order to do that, you've got to be a "by the book" kind of guy, otherwise - sooner or later - you're going to get bit. The one thing I've learned over the years is that there is absolutely no advantage to putting off or skimping on maintenance, fudging minimums, or turning a blind eye to things like weight and balance or other stuff like that. If you do stupid stuff in airplanes you might be able to get a way with it - maybe even for quite a while, but soon or later you will get bit.

Corporate pilot - Falcon 900B

There is snow and then there is snow. It would be a function of the water content of the snow. The better question would be how much weight would it take to drop the tail. You can figure that out by hooking a baggage scale to the tie-down.

In 47 years I've had: Piston: 3 total failures - Mooney, Cessna 411, Cessna 172. The C411 was on the first revenue flight of a 0-SFREMAN engine. 1 partial failure in a Cessna 207 and 1 partial failure in a Cessna 421C, also on a 0-SFREMAN engine. Turboprop: 3 partial failures - 2 in PT-6s which didn't require a shutdown, but required a return to the airport with the power on the affected enginepulled way back. 1 in a TPE-331 had a internal propeller hub failure which caused the propeller to go into full reverse pitch. Happened on rollout. Would have been catastrophic inflight. Not a Garrett issue. It was the first flight on a Hartzell overhauled prop in an MU-2 Marquise. Turbojet: 2 precautionary shutdowns in TFE-731s and 1 turbine wheel failure in a TFE-731. These were all new or well-maintained engines in well-maintained aircraft. The precautionary shutdowns were due to maintenance center screw ups and not an engine issue. The turbine wheel failure was on a brand new wheel shortly after a CORE inspection. There was also a precautionary shutdown on a brand-new Boeing 737 that I was jump seating on. Bottom line is that if you've never had a failure then you're due for one and it could likely happen at any time. If you've had one or more failures then you're due for another one and it could likely happen at any time. Plan and conduct your flights and recurrent training accordingly.

I hear the voices in my head all the time. Make it stop!

XM Weather and Stormscopes are two distinct tools with two distinct uses. I've been flying behind Stormscopes and weather radar for over 25 years and over 10,000 hours. Stormscopes work best strategically to determine which areas best be avoided and Radar works best tactically, because of its better resolution, to determine exactly how to avoid the area. The radar returns that you get via XM Weather shows you water in the atmosphere. The assumption is made that where there's water, there's turbulence. That's not always the case. The spherics detectors (Stormscopes) simply indicate distance and range of electrical discharges caused by atmospheric motion. The assumption is that where there is adequate motion to cause electrical discharges there is turbulence. That's pretty much always true. The big problem with Stormscopes is that it lacks the level of resolution that wx radar has. In 25 years of flying behind 3 different types of spherics detectors, I've yet to have been lead astray with them. However, as I said, I use them strategically, not tactically. XM Weather Radar is good, but the problem lies with the refresh rate. There are times when things are popping that it's just not fast enough. Also, once you leave the borders of the continental 48 states, it goes away entirely. So, like I said, there's a place for both types of equipment if you've got the room and the budget. If I was in a single and could only have one type, it would probably be XM Weather. If I was in a twin and could only have one type, it would probably be wx radar. However, my preference would be airborne weather radar, XM Weather and a Stormscope. Three different tools, three different uses. As always, the above is my personal opinions and YMMV.

Very good info stuff Jose. How hard has it been to get the FAA to approve the installation of the Icom 706 and antenna? I'm assuming it was done with a 337?

Get two books - Weather Flying by Buck and Instrument Flying by Taylor. Read them cover to cover a couple of times.

I like this thread. It shows that not all serious power losses are caused by catastrophic engine failures. An engine can be perfectly good and mechanically sound, but for various and sundry reasons not be able to produced its rated power. The end result is the same however. Over the years, I've had about a dozen power failures in everything from a Cessna 172 to a Gulfstream Bizjet. Out of those, only three - a Mooney M20C, Cessna 411 and a Lear 35 - involved the classic catastrophic failure scenario. The other nine had various causes from a magneto switch failure to a broken oil line to a bleed air leak. Regardless of the reason, loss of power is a loss of power.

I'd be happy to talk to you. Ward Holbrook, ATP, CFI, CFII, CFI-ME, CFI-Glider wardholbrook@gmail.com