I hate engine monitors

[Fly Boomer]

41 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

The first time I flew my C for night currency a few years ago, all the panel lights went out just as I turned final during the second landing.  Mild panic set in.  I grabbed the flashlight.  Shining a flashlight all over the place was really distracting.  Then I remembered what my primary instructor told me: "You should be able to land VFR at night by sound and feel."   I turned off the flashlight and landed the plane.

:-bd 

[Greg Ellis]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Where is this setting?

If you go to the program mode by holding the step and LF buttons.  Then click next until you get to the question Carb Y N?  If you say yes the next question will say Carb = 1?  You can set that between 1 and 3.  3 gives the highest dampening effect.  I have mine set on 3 and it settled everything down.

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Greg Ellis said:

If you go to the program mode by holding the step and LF buttons.  Then click next until you get to the question Carb Y N?  If you say yes the next question will say Carb = 1?  You can set that between 1 and 3.  3 gives the highest dampening effect.  I have mine set on 3 and it settled everything down.

Wow.  Did not know that ! 

[hais]

On 12/25/2022 at 10:18 AM, DXB said:

The right to a digital engine monitor applies to well-regulated militias, not individuals 

However the electronic nature is indeed a potential issue if you use it to replace everything.. If I had to do it again, I'd keep backup analog MP and RPM gauges.

Those things measure something? I always thought they were decorative pendulums 

[Raymond J1]

Except IFR, the mandatory instruments are: The watch, an altimeter and an anemometer.
If these 3 instruments are not digital on your plane, which also does not add value to your art of flying, then there is no need to have other digital instruments.
When I use an airplane and this prerequisite is not met, the engine monitor if there is one remains off, the ear is enough.

The need to install ultra-modern monitoring on a 50-year-old aircraft that totals 2 x the engine's TBO also seems superfluous to me, it seems that the analog gauges have done their job well... IFR or VFR.

Finally... All this when the pleasure is to fly and not to be a flight engineer.

[kortopates]

12 minutes ago, Raymond J1 said:

The need to install ultra-modern monitoring on a 50-year-old aircraft that totals 2 x the engine's TBO also seems superfluous to me, it seems that the analog gauges have done their job well... IFR or VFR.

That's one way to look at it, but another is that these engine's cost big money these days and an engine monitor is smart investment. Not only in protecting the engine longevity but they also can go along ways to warning us before impending failure so we can at least get on the ground before catastrophic failure if we can't halt the impending failure. But to realize that advantage we need to invest time in learning how to use a modern engine analyzer, such as setting up useful alarms and incorporating the monitor in our scan. Technology can be really helpful in enhancing the pleasure to fly by enhancing your situational awareness of what's going on under the cowling. 

Some may poke fun at suggesting the need of an engine monitor. But I still can't believe how many pilots continue to flying never noticing some of the simplest things like declining oil pressure till the engines seizes. That's too sad to poke fun at.

[Raymond J1]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

That's one way to look at it, but another is that these engine's cost big money these days and an engine monitor is smart investment. Not only in protecting the engine longevity but they also can go along ways to warning us before impending failure so we can at least get on the ground before catastrophic failure if we can't halt the impending failure. But to realize that advantage we need to invest time in learning how to use a modern engine analyzer, such as setting up useful alarms and incorporating the monitor in our scan. Technology can be really helpful in enhancing the pleasure to fly by enhancing your situational awareness of what's going on under the cowling. 

Some may poke fun at suggesting the need of an engine monitor. But I still can't believe how many pilots continue to flying never noticing some of the simplest things like declining oil pressure till the engines seizes. That's too sad to poke fun at.

1) To constantes devises, the prices of these motors are not more expensive... In more, between 1970 and 1975 they went from TBO 1200 hours from to 2000 hours now.

2) These equipments will not extend the life of the engine, it rest always at about 2000 hours, with or without perfect monitoring. On the other hand, the application of the Lycoming SB 388, which is done without the monitor, will give more information about what will happen to you.

3) The oil pressure that drops, a simple lamp that lights up at the low threshold of the pressure switch and you have the information... You have 4 minutes left to land...  If you are at 15000 ft and this happens to you, there is nothing to manage, just stop your engine, hoping to be able to restart it at 1500 / 2000 ft msl above the landing field... This decision does not come from the monitor... Because your monitor does not know that without oil pressure you can still turn for a few minutes... A few very precious minutes.

4) The precious monitor is almost worth the price of your 4 exhaust valves, with the labor for the replacement... And you tell me that your priority is to take care of your engine. So the choice is made I think :  Remove and visit each cylinder to 400 hrs.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Raymond J1

[ilovecornfields]

14 hours ago, Raymond J1 said:

Except IFR, the mandatory instruments are: The watch, an altimeter and an anemometer.
If these 3 instruments are not digital on your plane, which also does not add value to your art of flying, then there is no need to have other digital instruments.
When I use an airplane and this prerequisite is not met, the engine monitor if there is one remains off, the ear is enough.

The need to install ultra-modern monitoring on a 50-year-old aircraft that totals 2 x the engine's TBO also seems superfluous to me, it seems that the analog gauges have done their job well... IFR or VFR.

Finally... All this when the pleasure is to fly and not to be a flight engineer.

Some find pleasure in knowing the engine is running optimally and they’re getting the most efficient use of the engine without causing any harm. Some like the fact that if something doesn’t sound or feel right  they have additional information that can inform their decision making.

I’m sure I can set ballpark power settings with my eyes closed and fly without engine gauges. That doesn’t mean it’s the smartest, safest or most efficient way to do it.

[hais]

15 hours ago, Raymond J1 said:

1) To constantes devises, the prices of these motors are not more expensive... In more, between 1970 and 1975 they went from TBO 1200 hours from to 2000 hours now.

2) These equipments will not extend the life of the engine, it rest always at about 2000 hours, with or without perfect monitoring. On the other hand, the application of the Lycoming SB 388, which is done without the monitor, will give more information about what will happen to you.

3) The oil pressure that drops, a simple lamp that lights up at the low threshold of the pressure switch and you have the information... You have 4 minutes left to land...  If you are at 15000 ft and this happens to you, there is nothing to manage, just stop your engine, hoping to be able to restart it at 1500 / 2000 ft msl above the landing field... This decision does not come from the monitor... Because your monitor does not know that without oil pressure you can still turn for a few minutes... A few very precious minutes.

4) The precious monitor is almost worth the price of your 4 exhaust valves, with the labor for the replacement... And you tell me that your priority is to take care of your engine. So the choice is made I think :  Remove and visit each cylinder to 400 hrs.

I would argue that a simple lamp is a monitor, albeit a primitive one. With that argument them the question becomes: have we reached a point of diminishing returns with ever improving monitors? 

I think we haven't - if you start factoring in the value of early problem detection like what the folks over at Savvy do. 

[exM20K]

18 hours ago, kortopates said:

That's one way to look at it, but another is that these engine's cost big money these days and an engine monitor is smart investment. Not only in protecting the engine longevity but they also can go along ways to warning us before impending failure so we can at least get on the ground before catastrophic failure if we can't halt the impending failure. But to realize that advantage we need to invest time in learning how to use a modern engine analyzer, such as setting up useful alarms and incorporating the monitor in our scan. Technology can be really helpful in enhancing the pleasure to fly by enhancing your situational awareness of what's going on under the cowling. 

Some may poke fun at suggesting the need of an engine monitor. But I still can't believe how many pilots continue to flying never noticing some of the simplest things like declining oil pressure till the engines seizes. That's too sad to poke fun at.

Amen. Within the last six months, I was able to identify a failing fuel pump by comparing the data traces on comparable flights in the past.  Data visualization works great for me, and I’m grateful to Savvy for offering their visualization tools and expert advice.

I don’t get hung up on absolute levels on the engine monitor.  Sometimes, oil pressure wants to sit at 57 PSI, and sometimes it wants to be at 60, or 55, or whatever.  Ditto oil and cylinder head temps.  Sometimes one jug or the oil will tick up or down 25or 5 degrees respectively with no change in OAT.  If nothing else corroborates such a move, no big deal. We are monitoring non-precision devices with precision gauges. A data logging engine monitor enables me to put a flight’s engine data into the context of a lot of other flights.  Excursions well outside the normal range and especially if corroborated by other data are, to me, what matter.

Can we do oil analysis next :-)

 

[Fly Boomer]

19 hours ago, Raymond J1 said:

2) These equipments will not extend the life of the engine, it rest always at about 2000 hours, with or without perfect monitoring

To this, I reply "au contraire".  Some exceed TBO not by hundreds, but by thousands.  In part by knowing how to "listen" to the monitor, and detect small problems before they turn into large problems -- small problems often are not accompanied by a lamp on the panel.

[Raymond J1]

We can more than TBO several times, without monitoring, this up to the life limit. For example, on IO 360 A1A, where it seems that the "wide deck" crankcase can hardly withstand more than 4000 hours without cracking, we can keep our nitrided cylinders for almost 3500 hours by changing the bore to + 10 (0.010") and by changing the mobile crew. This was already possible before the monitoring and analysis of saavy, it is just the normal possibility offered by the design of Lycoming or Continental engines.

The monitoring records the data (the effects), then you analyze these data and conclude after that one of your valves is no longer sealed (assume the causes)...
The control of the leakage rate at 100 hrs tells you the same thing, without analysis, just an observation of the cause with various effects.
And between two leak rate measurements (100 hrs), it's rare to miss out.

Monitoring is good for those who no longer want to do a leak rate check at 100 hours because they steal a lot and penalize the operation by too much downtime. The flip side of the coin is that the problem will be seen too late, because the monitor sees the effects and not the causes.

It is for this reason that effective monitoring is the one that controls the effects in order to control the causes.
For example, on machine tools, we control the vibratory and the balancing is dynamically changed to limit the effects of unbalance (bearing wear, precision during machining).
Another example in an engine, the mixture is controlled according to the analysis of the burnt gases, the intake pressure and the speed to obtain the best air-gasoline ratio... Which is not done on our lycoming since we trust an EGT or TIT probe which is located very far from the valves of a limited engine on this point (air-cooled)...

As "exM20K" wrote, modern monitors record data from old and not very accurate probes. The greatest value of a modern monitor would be to manage the combustion on the basis of a lambda probe control, for example, not to repeat the work of an analog gauge 40 times cheaper.

I am not against monitoring, on the contrary, I am for 100% monitoring, which eases the task of the driver.

On the other hand, I am against spending huge amounts of money on a digital display with flawless performance on an engine built with 1935 technology that cannot be controlled other than by a human hand.
Especially if in addition we believe that with this monitoring we can dispense with the maintenance required for the engine.

However, I do not see on airplanes equipped with an EDM or others a new controlled advance ignition system, a controlled injection with variable flow rate (therefore constant pressure), an intake pressure regulation system.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Raymond J1

[Will.iam]

The engine monitor also trains you to operate the engine in a safe zone more quickly or put another way tells you when you are not operating the engine well as you see the effects quickly going the wrong way. It’s like the economy gauge in a prius it shows you that pushing the gas pedal to the floor bring the economy down. If you want great gas mileage you are going to have to stop pushing the pedal to the floor. when i started flying LOP i didn’t know what settings would give good results. With the feedback of the monitor it showed me 9.5 gph at 25” and 2500rpm worked well. I know could fly without the monitor as i know that setting works but if i want to try a different setting the monitor gives me feedback to know if I’m in a safe operating zone that is not damaging my engine. The original engine panel instrumentation was not setup for LOP flying as there wasn’t a gauge for each cylinder. Nor would i want to spend my time staring at 6 gauges. The electronic one will flash to get my attention and show me the parameter that is out of limit freeing me to look outside and other flying duties. 

[cliffy]

God save us!   How did we ever survive in flight before we had TV screens!!!!!!

Some knew every item on this panel pretty well  "-)

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

God save us!   How did we ever survive in flight before we had TV screens!!!!!!

Funny how, as the number of engines and systems increased, the gauges got smaller.

[ArtVandelay]

Back then they had 2 pilots and an engineer to monitor systems as I recall.

[Jim Peace]

My engine was flawless until I got a monitor. 

[cbarry]

One can only imagine the analysis paralysis that could set in if we had an manual timing advance/retard control lever to go along with our panel mounted gizmos!

[cliffy]

Maybe like a Ford Model T?  :-)

 

[Will.iam]

On 1/2/2023 at 8:16 AM, cbarry said:

One can only imagine the analysis paralysis that could set in if we had an manual timing advance/retard control lever to go along with our panel mounted gizmos!

Well mixture effects timing as does rpm to a lesser extent. 

[Will.iam]

3 hours ago, cliffy said:

Maybe like a Ford Model T?  :-)

 

Holy cats i never knew. What a nightmare. Wonder how many engines were trashed due to mismanagement?

[hais]

5 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Holy cats i never knew. What a nightmare. Wonder how many engines were trashed due to mismanagement?

Two years from now when we are all flying FADECs, someone is going to wonder similarly

[Will.iam]

5 hours ago, hais said:

Two years from now when we are all flying FADECs, someone is going to wonder similarly

Haha 2 years. Maybe in 20. Glaciers move faster than the faa. Approval process. CPDLC 2018 was the deadline. Here 2023 and still only a few ATC and a handful of domestic aircraft are just now getting the equipment installed. Might see full compliance by 2030?

[PT20J]

On 1/3/2023 at 7:54 PM, Will.iam said:

Haha 2 years. Maybe in 20. Glaciers move faster than the faa. Approval process. CPDLC 2018 was the deadline. Here 2023 and still only a few ATC and a handful of domestic aircraft are just now getting the equipment installed. Might see full compliance by 2030?

I can't wait...

"Turn right heading 280."

"LOW ALTITUDE ALERT!"

"Sorry, typo. Turn left heading 180."

[Will.iam]

4 hours ago, PT20J said:

I can't wait...

"Turn right heading 280."

"LOW ALTITUDE ALERT!"

"Sorry, typo. Turn left heading 180."

I haven’t had a direction issued yet only altitude changes and frequency changes so far. I’m sure for time critical instructions they would still use the radio for faster acknowledgement.