My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
properly trained Skymaster pilot...

Seems like a couple people took off and forgot to start the rear motor.

-Robert


PP-DQA wrote:
> My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
> that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
> didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
> Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
> work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
> which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
> engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
> then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
> he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
> practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
> properly trained Skymaster pilot...

That's why when flying a Skymaster you should always advance the rear
engine throttle first during the takeoff roll. Then add the front
engines power...

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com


Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Seems like a couple people took off and forgot to start the rear motor.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> PP-DQA wrote:
> > My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
> > that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
> > didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
> > Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
> > work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
> > which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
> > engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
> > then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
> > he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
> > practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
> > properly trained Skymaster pilot...

"PP-DQA" > wrote >

> He also mentioned that to keep the aft
> engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
> then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
> he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
> practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
> properly trained Skymaster pilot...

Airliners shut off an engine when taxiing, then start it only when ready for
takeoff? Really?? That would shorten the life of the engine, wouldn't it,
with start cycles being part of overhaul criteria? Do they only do that for
long holds?

This one is new to me. I've never been on an airliner that did that, I
don't believe. If they did, I didn't notice it.

Any other airline pilots verify this?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
shut off an engine when taxiing, then start it only when ready for
> takeoff? Really?? That would shorten the life of the engine, wouldn't it,
> with start cycles being part of overhaul criteria? Do they only do that for
> long holds?
>
> This one is new to me. I've never been on an airliner that did that, I
> don't believe. If they did, I didn't notice it.
>
> Any other airline pilots verify this?
> --
> Jim in NC

I believe that, rather than "shut off an engine for taxiing" they
simply delay starting one
(or more, as appropriate) until takeoff is iminent. That way there is
less time in service
and no more start cycles than would otherwise occur.

David Johnson

Speculation: The training market is the 800lb gorilla in GA. Almost
every certified design is going to get a lot of business from schools
and whatnot. This includes twins too, where people are always trying
to get the coveted multi-engine ratings.

Enter the Skymaster: It's a twin, which means it has the cost of a
twin (in fuel and overhaul costs and insurance, etc). Unlike most
other twins, though, when you do your multi training and checkride in
it, you have a limitation in your logbook to inline multis, right? Eg,
you can't go and fly a 310 without another checkride.

With this in mind, I would guess that most schools, upon learning about
the restrictions, passed on them because all those aspiring airline
pilots wouldn't be interested in wasting time with inline multis.

Basically, I'm guessing that safety benefits of an inline are
overshadowed by the practical usefulness of the logged time towards an
ATP (in the eyes of the schools and students, a significant market).

</conjecture>

Thoughts?

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben Hallert wrote

> With this in mind, I would guess that most schools, upon learning about
> the restrictions, passed on them because all those aspiring airline
> pilots wouldn't be interested in wasting time with inline multis.
>
> Basically, I'm guessing that safety benefits of an inline are
> overshadowed by the practical usefulness of the logged time towards an
> ATP (in the eyes of the schools and students, a significant market).

The F-4 Phantom II pilots returning from Vietnam with a centerline thrust
rating didn't seem to have a problem finding airline jobs. :-)

Bob Moore

Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours is
very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
either ignorant or you didn't understand him.

The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at the
same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce noise. In
any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine in
positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes is
that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
alerts the pilot to an engine failure.

The Skymaster failed because is was a poor passenger
airplane that lacked creature comport, baggage areas and it
was noisy.

Starting and stopping an engine will cause more wear and
tear that just operating normally. The best practice on the
Skymaster would be to run the engines at whatever rpm was
needed to taxi and when parked, run the idle at 1000-1200
rpm so that the front prop would blow air back and the rear
engine would cool and have a steady temperature.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"PP-DQA" > wrote in
message ...
| My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he
always said
| that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained
piltos who
| didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned
the
| Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was
doing the
| work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it,
you'd know
| which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to
keep the aft
| engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running
the front,
| then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the
aft when
| he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's
common
| practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem
for a
| properly trained Skymaster pilot...
|

PP-DQA wrote:
> My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
> that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
> didn't take imemdiate actions when needed.

And he is absolutely right. But that's the problem with ALL light
twins. There is nothing inherently wrong with the airplane - except
that it doesn't meet the mission profile.

Many people will tell you that the only use of the second engine in a
light twin, should one fail, is to take you to the scene of the
accident. For those who will not invest in proper initial and
recurrent training, they are absolutely right, as the accident
statistics indicate. For those of us who take our flying seriously,
it's not that way. I once had an engine failure while IFR over the
mountains of Arkansas. I was VMC 500 ft above the tops. The bases
were low - the mountains were obscured. There was an Airmet Sierra for
the area where I was - and it covered a fairly large area. The terrain
was mostly mountains and trees. In a reasonably fast and hevay single
engine airplane (Centurion, Bonanza, Lance, etc.) it would have been
ugly. We might have lived - or not. The plane would have been a
writeoff for sure. But in my Twin Comanche, I flew out of the area and
made a normal landing at an airport, where I flushed the crud out of
the fuel system, cleaned the fuel injectors, cleaned up the corroded
plug that caused the problem, and was good as new. No fuss, no muss,
no drama. This is the benefit of the second engine, and to my way of
thinking it is no small benefit to the pilot who routinely goes places
over water or rough terrain, at night, and in IMC. However, the pilot
must invest significant time and effort into training in order to
realize this benefit. The average private twin owner will not make the
investment, and thus will not realize the benefit.

The purpose of the Skymaster was to provide this same benefit to pilots
not willing to invest the time and effort into training. It was meant
to be easier than a conventional twin, and thus safer for the average
private twin pilot. It failed at the task completely - it is
statistically no safer than the conventional light twins. This is
because it requires no less training.

The important training for flying a light twin is not the fairly
trivial process of pressing hard on a rudder and keeping airspeed above
Vmc to keep it from rolling over. That may be what the FAA primarily
tests, but that's the easy part. The more important and demanding part
is systems management, energy management, and generally keeping your
options open and taking care of the equipment so it takes care of you.
Those things are no easier in a Skymaster than in a C-310.

Michael

Michael wrote:
> The important training for flying a light twin is not the fairly
> trivial process of pressing hard on a rudder and keeping airspeed above
> Vmc to keep it from rolling over. That may be what the FAA primarily
> tests, but that's the easy part. The more important and demanding part
> is systems management, energy management, and generally keeping your
> options open and taking care of the equipment so it takes care of you.
> Those things are no easier in a Skymaster than in a C-310.

Wouldn't that be the case in any complex single as well? I have much
more energy management to do in the Mooney than in the 310.

-Robert

Instructors don't like 337's. Reason? No respect in an airline
interview for centerline thrust time due to no VMC issues. In fact, you
are better off just leaving the time off entirely as it is frequently
the butt of jokes. Not fair? Perhaps. But that's the way it is in macho
land.

As a personal twin it is fine. Good shortfield performance. Decent
single engine performance. Turbo and pressurized options. No VMC issues
on engine out. What is not to like?

PP-DQA wrote:
> My instructor has over 100 hrs on the Skymaster, and he always said
> that the problem with the Skymaster crashes were untrained piltos who
> didn't take imemdiate actions when needed. He mentioned the
> Synchrophaser gauge, that would show you which engine was doing the
> work. IT either pointed forward or aft, so looking at it, you'd know
> which engine is not working. He also mentioned that to keep the aft
> engine cool he would run up the aft engine after running the front,
> then shut it off, taxi with front engine on, and start the aft when
> he is rady for take off before entering the runway. It's common
> practice for many airlines, so it shoudln't be a problem for a
> properly trained Skymaster pilot...

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Wouldn't that be the case in any complex single as well? I have much
> more energy management to do in the Mooney than in the 310.

It becomes significantly more demanding in the 310 with one engine
inoperative - it gets a lot harder to get the energy back. Even then,
a 310 gives you lots of options for scrubbing off energy that a Mooney
doesn't, because a Mooney and a 310 make a poor comparison - the Mooney
is optimized for efficient cruise, and a 310 isn't. A better
comparison twin for the Mooney would be a Twin Comanche, which has all
the slowing-down issues of a Mooney. A better comparison single for
the 310 would be a Centurion or Lance, which slow down readily.

Also, keeping your options open really means more in a light twin. In
the Mooney, if the engine craps out at 300 ft, pretty much your only
option is a straight-ahead landing with maybe some minimal turns. In a
light twin, if an engine craps out at 300 ft, you MAY have other
options - and you may not, depending on how you have managed the flight
up to this point.

Michael

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours is
> very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
> either ignorant or you didn't understand him.

Actually, you're displaying the ignorance here.

> The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at the
> same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce noise.

Correct, that is the primary purpose. However, its range of command is
limited - generally 25-50 RPM. Many also have an indicator (the needle
the instructor is talking about) which tells you which way to make the
adjustment to bring the props within the range of command of the
synchrophaser. Since the prop governors used in piston airplanes are
proportional-only controllers (no integral component) the RPM on the
failed engine WILL drop - and it will drop by enough to take it out of
the range of command, though not enough to be obvious (or even
noticeable) on the average GA tach. In that case, the needle will
become an effective indicator not only than an engine has failed, but
which one.

> In
> any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine in
> positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes is
> that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
> alerts the pilot to an engine failure.

Only if he ingores the information provided by the synchrophaser.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours is
>> very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
>> either ignorant or you didn't understand him.
>
> Actually, you're displaying the ignorance here.
>
>> The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at the
>> same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce noise.
>
> Correct, that is the primary purpose. However, its range of command is
> limited - generally 25-50 RPM. Many also have an indicator (the needle
> the instructor is talking about) which tells you which way to make the
> adjustment to bring the props within the range of command of the
> synchrophaser. Since the prop governors used in piston airplanes are
> proportional-only controllers (no integral component) the RPM on the
> failed engine WILL drop - and it will drop by enough to take it out of
> the range of command, though not enough to be obvious (or even
> noticeable) on the average GA tach. In that case, the needle will
> become an effective indicator not only than an engine has failed, but
> which one.
>
>> In
>> any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine in
>> positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes is
>> that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
>> alerts the pilot to an engine failure.
>
> Only if he ingores the information provided by the synchrophaser.
>
> Michael
>

Hi Michael,

I've got some Skymaster time, and I'd have to go with Jim. I've used the
tach to determine the failed engine, but have never used the synchrophaser
as you describe, nor have I heard of anyone who does. If that little wheel
in there is spinning to the left(at high rpm), does that tell you it is the
front, or the rear engine? Also in the event of an engine failure, the
manual tells you to turn off the synchrophaser so that it doesn't limit,
even slightly, the rpm of the operating powerplant. It may even be on the
"before takeoff" checklist. In my case we only blew off one cylinder head on
the rear engine. There was no indication on the panel, just a "BAM" as
reported by a rear seat passenger just after rotation, and a report from the
tower of "heavy black smoke, from the rear engine". We climbed to pattern
altitude, shut down the rear engine(smoke turned white), and landed
normally.

Al

p.s. This was on a trip to Seattle with 6 pilots in the airplane. My flight
instructor was in the right seat, and I was flying. Immediately after
landing, I turned off the active at the first intersection, and as I was
braking to a complete halt, went through my "Mixture/Master/Mags" shutdown,
and turned to the right to tell the flight instructor to evacuate. He wasn't
there. He was about 75 feet away, lighting a cigarrette. He had bailed out
just after we left the active. No way you'd catch him in no crashed
airplane.

As a multiengine instructor I would never allow a student to
use ONLY the EGT, RPM, CHT or other instrument to verify the
degree and actual failure of an engine. You must close the
throttle on the engine you think is dead, all the way [over
a period of a few seconds] to be sure you have properly
identified the failed engine and that it is in fact really
dead and not just sick. If the yaw changes when you get the
MAP back to 20 inches, that means you have a sick engine and
you don't want to shut it all the way down [unless it is on
fire] at 100,200 or 300 feet. At 500 feet you probably have
circling minimums so maybe you'll prefer to secure a sick
engine, but any examiner I've ever heard of would fail a
student who used the unreliable instruments to identify,
verify and then feather an engine.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Michael" > wrote in
message
ups.com...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours
is
| > very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
| > either ignorant or you didn't understand him.
|
| Actually, you're displaying the ignorance here.
|
| > The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at
the
| > same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce noise.
|
| Correct, that is the primary purpose. However, its range
of command is
| limited - generally 25-50 RPM. Many also have an
indicator (the needle
| the instructor is talking about) which tells you which way
to make the
| adjustment to bring the props within the range of command
of the
| synchrophaser. Since the prop governors used in piston
airplanes are
| proportional-only controllers (no integral component) the
RPM on the
| failed engine WILL drop - and it will drop by enough to
take it out of
| the range of command, though not enough to be obvious (or
even
| noticeable) on the average GA tach. In that case, the
needle will
| become an effective indicator not only than an engine has
failed, but
| which one.
|
| > In
| > any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine
in
| > positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes
is
| > that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
| > alerts the pilot to an engine failure.
|
| Only if he ingores the information provided by the
synchrophaser.
|
| Michael
|

I agree.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Al" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Michael" > wrote in
message
|
ups.com...
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >> Get a better and more qualified instructor. 100 hours
is
| >> very little time in a particular model, but this guy is
| >> either ignorant or you didn't understand him.
| >
| > Actually, you're displaying the ignorance here.
| >
| >> The syncrophaser is used to get both props turning at
the
| >> same speed and with the blades in phase to reduce
noise.
| >
| > Correct, that is the primary purpose. However, its
range of command is
| > limited - generally 25-50 RPM. Many also have an
indicator (the needle
| > the instructor is talking about) which tells you which
way to make the
| > adjustment to bring the props within the range of
command of the
| > synchrophaser. Since the prop governors used in piston
airplanes are
| > proportional-only controllers (no integral component)
the RPM on the
| > failed engine WILL drop - and it will drop by enough to
take it out of
| > the range of command, though not enough to be obvious
(or even
| > noticeable) on the average GA tach. In that case, the
needle will
| > become an effective indicator not only than an engine
has failed, but
| > which one.
| >
| >> In
| >> any multiengine aircraft, you identify a failed engine
in
| >> positive steps. The problem with the in-line airplanes
is
| >> that only reduced take-off performance (reduced climb)
| >> alerts the pilot to an engine failure.
| >
| > Only if he ingores the information provided by the
synchrophaser.
| >
| > Michael
| >
|
| Hi Michael,
|
| I've got some Skymaster time, and I'd have to go with
Jim. I've used the
| tach to determine the failed engine, but have never used
the synchrophaser
| as you describe, nor have I heard of anyone who does. If
that little wheel
| in there is spinning to the left(at high rpm), does that
tell you it is the
| front, or the rear engine? Also in the event of an engine
failure, the
| manual tells you to turn off the synchrophaser so that it
doesn't limit,
| even slightly, the rpm of the operating powerplant. It may
even be on the
| "before takeoff" checklist. In my case we only blew off
one cylinder head on
| the rear engine. There was no indication on the panel,
just a "BAM" as
| reported by a rear seat passenger just after rotation, and
a report from the
| tower of "heavy black smoke, from the rear engine". We
climbed to pattern
| altitude, shut down the rear engine(smoke turned white),
and landed
| normally.
|
| Al
|
| p.s. This was on a trip to Seattle with 6 pilots in the
airplane. My flight
| instructor was in the right seat, and I was flying.
Immediately after
| landing, I turned off the active at the first
intersection, and as I was
| braking to a complete halt, went through my
"Mixture/Master/Mags" shutdown,
| and turned to the right to tell the flight instructor to
evacuate. He wasn't
| there. He was about 75 feet away, lighting a cigarrette.
He had bailed out
| just after we left the active. No way you'd catch him in
no crashed
| airplane.
|
|

> noticeable) on the average GA tach. In that case, the needle will
> become an effective indicator not only than an engine has failed, but
> which one.

No, it does not.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
ATP, CFI, ETC

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> PP-DQA wrote:
No fuss, no muss,
> no drama. This is the benefit of the second engine,



What. Not to do preventative maintenance till one engine quits?

Karl
"Curator"

> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.

The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

The mountains in Arkansas are very abrupt and they take a
large number of victims because pilots THINK Arkansas is
flat.


"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
.net...
|> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains
of Arkansas.
|
| The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that
a mountain ?
| ---
| Ken Reed
| M20M, N9124X

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
.net...
>> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.
>
> The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?

Sure, why not?

I can see the mountian flying course set in that area......<G>

Ben
sitting here looking at the 14,000' Grand Teton about three miles away
and wondering what a 2800 foot mountian looks like.. Oh there's one,
naw it is just a ant hill..





Ken Reed wrote:
> > I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.
>
> The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?
> ---
> Ken Reed
> M20M, N9124X

The whole state of Colorado seems to be vertical, even if
the eastern 1/4 is just a long slope from Kansas to the
granite range. But people think about the mountains and the
need to be higher.
In flat land areas pilots fly along safely and happy at
1,000 AGL, watching for towers and nude beaches/resorts. So
when a little hill is there, they run into it.

Perhaps if the first people to get to Arkansas had known
about the Rocky Mountains, they would have called the
Arkansas mountains BFHills, but when you die, does it matter
what you call the rock you ran into?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
|I can see the mountian flying course set in that
area......<G>
|
| Ben
| sitting here looking at the 14,000' Grand Teton about
three miles away
| and wondering what a 2800 foot mountian looks like.. Oh
there's one,
| naw it is just a ant hill..
|
|
|
|
|
| Ken Reed wrote:
| > > I once had an engine failure while IFR over the
mountains of Arkansas.
| >
| > The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call
that a mountain ?
| > ---
| > Ken Reed
| > M20M, N9124X
|

I respect those cumulogranite clouds alot........... Remember, it's not
the crash that kills ya, it is the sudden stop..<G>


Jim Macklin wrote:
> The whole state of Colorado seems to be vertical, even if
> the eastern 1/4 is just a long slope from Kansas to the
> granite range. But people think about the mountains and the
> need to be higher.
> In flat land areas pilots fly along safely and happy at
> 1,000 AGL, watching for towers and nude beaches/resorts. So
> when a little hill is there, they run into it.
>
> Perhaps if the first people to get to Arkansas had known
> about the Rocky Mountains, they would have called the
> Arkansas mountains BFHills, but when you die, does it matter
> what you call the rock you ran into?
>
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> |I can see the mountian flying course set in that
> area......<G>
> |
> | Ben
> | sitting here looking at the 14,000' Grand Teton about
> three miles away
> | and wondering what a 2800 foot mountian looks like.. Oh
> there's one,
> | naw it is just a ant hill..
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | Ken Reed wrote:
> | > > I once had an engine failure while IFR over the
> mountains of Arkansas.
> | >
> | > The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call
> that a mountain ?
> | > ---
> | > Ken Reed
> | > M20M, N9124X
> |

On 2006-06-02, Ken Reed > wrote:
>> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.
>
> The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?

If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.
North Barrule in the Isle of Man is only about 1700 feet from base to
top. I'm sure the pilot of the Cessna 337 that ploughed into the side of
it after making a navigational error in IMC would have called it a
mountain had he survived the experience. It has very sheer faces and
kills every bit as effectively as Mt. McKinley if you fly a plane into
the side of it. It also generates mountain wave, rotor, ridge lift and
severe sink.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-06-01, Doug > wrote:
> Instructors don't like 337's. Reason? No respect in an airline
> interview for centerline thrust time due to no VMC issues.

That's interesting. Say you have 1000 hours of multi time outside of the
flight training environment (i.e. real going places flying) - and have
never had an engine failure. Why does it matter whether the plane was
centreline thrust or not?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

>>>I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.

>>The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?

> If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.

According to ?
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

Ken Reed wrote:

>>>> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.
>
>
>>> The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?
>
>
>> If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.
>
>
> According to ?

whom

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Reed wrote:
>
>>>>> I once had an engine failure while IFR over the mountains of Arkansas.
>>
>>
>>>> The highest point in Arkansas is 2753 feet, you call that a mountain ?
>>
>>
>>> If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.
>>
>>
>> According to ?
>
> whom

....coulda been a what...

On 2006-06-07, Ken Reed > wrote:
>> If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.
>
> According to ?

Poking around the Internet, there appears to be many definitions for a
mountain - 1000 feet is what they told us at school (probably because we
lived within sight of the Malvern Hills, which are a little over 1000
feet and defined locally as 'mountains'), and probably due to the old
Ordnance Survey definition (more on that later).

Wikipedia says that "In the United States, a mountain is 1,000 feet
(304.4 metres) or more in height from bottom to summit. A hill is 500
(152.4 metres) to 999 (304 metres) feet. A discernible hill that is less
than 500 feet high is a knoll" (with the caveat 'citation needed').
However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
defined.

In the UK, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs defines
mountain as all land over 600 m. This is a close metric equivalent
of 2,000 ft (which is 609.6 metres). The British Ordnance Survey (the
people who do all the surveying and mapping in the UK) used to define a
mountain as being 1000 feet or more, but no longer appear to have an
official definition of what makes a mountain.

So, in summary - if you're in the US, anything over 1000 feet bottom to
top is a mountain, in the UK - if you're following the old OS
definition, also 1000 feet. But you need 2000 feet if you're following
DEFRA's definition.

Online dictionaries are rather vague - "A natural elevation of the
earth's surface having considerable mass, generally steep sides, and a
height greater than that of a hill."

In any case, if it's steep sided and you run a plane into the side of
it, you're going to be just as dead whether the definition of mountain
is 1000 feet or 2000 feet over the prevailing terrain, or not officially
defined at all. Even small mountains, such as Snaefell in the Isle of
Man (just over 2,000 feet) generate the usual mountain effects -
downdrafts, rotor, mountain wave, local weather variations etc. so not
respecting the smaller mountains is foolish.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

>>>If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.

>>According to ?

> However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
> a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
> defined.

My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
link.net...
> My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
> those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

Anyone, in the west or otherwise, who discounts a 2700' protrustion from
level ground as "not even a good sized hill" is foolish (and arrogant).

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ken Reed" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
>>those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.
>
>
> Anyone, in the west or otherwise, who discounts a 2700' protrustion from
> level ground as "not even a good sized hill" is foolish (and arrogant).

True, but they also claim that their 7,000 feet high mountains are
14,000 feet high. To me a mountain starts at this base elevation, not
at sea level. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> True, but they also claim that their 7,000 feet high mountains are 14,000
> feet high. To me a mountain starts at this base elevation, not at sea
> level. :-)

Yup...that's one of the reasons their arrogance is unfounded. When the
first 6000-7000' of elevation gain is a broad plain hundreds of miles long,
it doesn't make much sense to claim the full elevation above sea level as
the height of your mountain. Note, of course, that this doesn't apply to
density altitude effects, and of course some of the western mountains do
rise faster than that, such as the Sierras, Cascades, and Siskiyous.

I say this as a west-coast resident myself with mountains that have 10,000'
peaks less than 30-40 miles from sea-level terrain (Cascades and Olympics).
If there were any justification for the arrogance, surely I would be
warranted to join in.

But there's just no reason to question the seriousness of a 2700' elevation
change as irrelevant. Even around here, we have plenty of "mountains" in
the 2000-3000' range, they even have the word "mountain" in their names
(Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, Tiger Mountain), and they can be serious
impediments to navigation to the pilot who's not paying attention.
Turbulence, local visibility effects, and when the wind's high enough you
can even get lenticulars and wave/rotors.

The pilot who laughs at the idea of calling a 2700' elevation peak a
"mountain" is likely to regret that cavalier attitude eventually.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> The pilot who laughs at the idea of calling a 2700' elevation peak a
> "mountain" is likely to regret that cavalier attitude eventually.

Yes, I think flying into a mountain of any height is pretty much equally
deadly.

MAtt

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:57 GMT, Ken Reed > wrote:

>>>>If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's a mountain.
>
>>>According to ?
>
>> However, the USGS says there is no official definition as to what makes
>> a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems to be locally
>> defined.
>
>My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
>those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

And from Michigan we'd be saying we didn't know Arkansas had mountains
that high. Those prarie states are not flat! They are long rolling
hills. Michigan is flat in most places and most of that is swamp.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>---
>Ken Reed
>M20M, N9124X

Michigan was bulldozed by a few billion tons of ice as were
all the central states down to about the Ohio River.



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:57 GMT, Ken Reed
> wrote:
|
| >>>>If it's over 1,000 feet from the base to the top, it's
a mountain.
| >
| >>>According to ?
| >
| >> However, the USGS says there is no official definition
as to what makes
| >> a mountain a mountain and not merely a hill - it seems
to be locally
| >> defined.
| >
| >My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a
mountain but
| >those of us in the west think that's not even a good
sized hill.
|
| And from Michigan we'd be saying we didn't know Arkansas
had mountains
| that high. Those prarie states are not flat! They are
long rolling
| hills. Michigan is flat in most places and most of that is
swamp.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
|
|
| >---
| >Ken Reed
| >M20M, N9124X

On 2006-06-07, Ken Reed > wrote:
> My point exactly. Someone in Arkansas may call 2700 ft a mountain but
> those of us in the west think that's not even a good sized hill.

Call it what you want - but it's irrelevant - it hurts just as much if
you have to make a forced landing in rugged terrain that's only 2700ft
high as it does making a forced landing in the Rockies. A 2700 ft high
mountain still causes mountain wave to reach into the flight levels
(Scottish soaring clubs get into the 30,000s off mountains that size).
It still causes rotor. It still causes localized weather. It still must
be treated with great respect, as the crew of a US B17 found out when
they made a navigational error and ploughed into the side of the Isle of
Man in IMC, thinking they were over open water. Of course, the crew
probably didn't have time to think "what's that crashing noise?" because
they were killed instantly when they piled into the sheer side of North
Barrule, a mere pimple of only 1700 feet.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de