Declared first emergency last week

[EventHorizon]

I thought you might all find this story interesting.

Me, I'm 53 and have been flying since 1988 with about 1000 hrs. My
partner is a CFI and we've been in a Cherokee 140 partnership for about
12 years. We have a 1974 Cherokee Cruiser, which we normally keep well
maintained (!).

About a week ago my partner and I decided to fly after work. We are
still breaking in a new cylinder so we thought we'd fly local here in
Southern California. I flew left seat and we took off from Camarillo and
flew around Malibu, then I flew over to Santa Paula for a landing. We
had agreed we wanted to fly about 1.5 hrs, so as I was landing at Santa
Paula I was at about 45 minutes. After I landed I asked my partner if he
wanted to switch sides, but he said no, he'd fly from the right side.

We taxied back and he took off. At about 1500'agl he tapped me on the
shoulder (I was looking outside for traffic). He said "we have a
problem". There had been no apparent change in the flight so I thought
he might be joking. He pointed down at the throttle and he was moving it
full to idle and back, but it had no effect! We were still at full
throttle and obviously we had a broken cable or something similar.

So your mind goes rapidly over the situation. How bad is this? What are
the challenges? What are the options? We had a brief discussion and I
mentioned that although this didn't seem real bad, we had some risks and
I had read so many stories of pilots being reluctant to declare an
emergency. We were only about 5 miles from Camarillo, our home airport
which has a 5000' runway. We discussed and within about 20 seconds
agreed that I would fly the plane since I was left seat, he would handle
radio, and we would declare and emergency since we did not have throttle
control. We had decided that I would try to modulate power with the
mixture, but if necessary I could fly over the the airport and then just
kill the engine and we would glide down.

The weather was very clear and it was just about dusk. My partner called
Camarillo tower, reported our position (about 5 miles out) and indicated
we had a throttle problem and we needed to declare and emergency. The
tower immediately cleared us to land on runway 8 and cleared out one
other plane in the pattern. The runway in use was 26 but it was calm and
rwy 8 was the closer approach. I was at about 1700' and full power; I
leveled off and flew at about yellow line toward the airport. As I got
closer I started a dive to lose altitude and flew fast; I had not yet
adjusted the mixture.

I realized that I was going to be quite high - I was on a 1 mile base so
I began to pull the mixture back and the engine roughened as it slowed
down some more. Still flying fast, I descended. I realized I was still
pretty high so I overshot the centerline a bit before turning to about a
..5 mile final to lose some more altitude. I leaned the mixture more
aggressively and the engine ran really rough with some backfiring.

As we came in a bit high on final and I knew the runway was assured I
asked my partner for flaps. I leaned more aggressively and the engine
was really choking now. As we came over the threshold a bit high I told
my partner I was going to kill the engine. I didn't want to be trying to
modulate a full throttle enging with mixture once I was on the runway.

About 20 feet or so I pulled to idle cutoff and it was weird to see a
prop stopped as I flared for a nice landing. I rolled out and used
residual speed to pull off on a turnoff and coast to a stop.

Airport security showed up and the guy didn't quite know what to do. We
told him we just needed a tow into our tiedown spot. He took our names
and certificate numbers and a brief statement of what had happened.

In discussion with my partner, we felt we did almost everything
correctly. We did not panic, we did not hesitate to declare the
emergency, we quickly agreed on roles and everything went smoothly. We
never really felt scared about the situation (a power failure might have
felt different!). When the situation first presented itself I thought
about flying to over the airport and cutting power, but I felt it would
be better not to have a guaranteed engine failure. We both felt this was
the less-risky way to handle the situation. We sort of stood there
saying to ourselves "we can't believe we just had an emergency!". It was
the first one for both of us in more than 20 years of flying each.

The plane is in the shop to get its cable replaced, apparently it broke
somewhere between the throttle quadrant and the carburetor, not at
either end.

Event Horizon

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On 08 Sep 2009 05:28:07 GMT, EventHorizon > wrote in
>:

> I thought you might all find this story interesting. ...

Very interesting!

Thanks for sharing it.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 8, 1:28*am, EventHorizon > wrote:
> I thought you might all find this story interesting.
>
> Me, I'm 53 and have been flying since 1988 with about 1000 hrs. My
> partner is a CFI and we've been in a Cherokee 140 partnership for about
> 12 years. We have a 1974 Cherokee Cruiser, which we normally keep well
> maintained (!).
>
> About a week ago my partner and I decided to fly after work. We are
> still breaking in a new cylinder so we thought we'd fly local here in
> Southern California. I flew left seat and we took off from Camarillo and
> flew around Malibu, then I flew over to Santa Paula for a landing. We
> had agreed we wanted to fly about 1.5 hrs, so as I was landing at Santa
> Paula I was at about 45 minutes. After I landed I asked my partner if he
> wanted to switch sides, but he said no, he'd fly from the right side.
>
> We taxied back and he took off. At about 1500'agl he tapped me on the
> shoulder (I was looking outside for traffic). He said "we have a
> problem". There had been no apparent change in the flight so I thought
> he might be joking. He pointed down at the throttle and he was moving it
> full to idle and back, but it had no effect! We were still at full
> throttle and obviously we had a broken cable or something similar.
>
> So your mind goes rapidly over the situation. How bad is this? What are
> the challenges? What are the options? We had a brief discussion and I
> mentioned that although this didn't seem real bad, we had some risks and
> I had read so many stories of pilots being reluctant to declare an
> emergency. We were only about 5 miles from Camarillo, our home airport
> which has a 5000' runway. We discussed and within about 20 seconds
> agreed that I would fly the plane since I was left seat, he would handle
> radio, and we would declare and emergency since we did not have throttle
> control. We had decided that I would try to modulate power with the
> mixture, but if necessary I could fly over the the airport and then just
> kill the engine and we would glide down.
>
> The weather was very clear and it was just about dusk. My partner called
> Camarillo tower, reported our position (about 5 miles out) and indicated
> we had a throttle problem and we needed to declare and emergency. The
> tower immediately cleared us to land on runway 8 and cleared out one
> other plane in the pattern. The runway in use was 26 but it was calm and
> rwy 8 was the closer approach. I was at about 1700' and full power; I
> leveled off and flew at about yellow line toward the airport. As I got
> closer I started a dive to lose altitude and flew fast; I had not yet
> adjusted the mixture.
>
> I realized that I was going to be quite high - I was on a 1 mile base so
> I began to pull the mixture back and the engine roughened as it slowed
> down some more. Still flying fast, I descended. I realized I was still
> pretty high so I overshot the centerline a bit before turning to about a
> .5 mile final to lose some more altitude. I leaned the mixture more
> aggressively and the engine ran really rough with some backfiring.
>
> As we came in a bit high on final and I knew the runway was assured I
> asked my partner for flaps. I leaned more aggressively and the engine
> was really choking now. As we came over the threshold a bit high I told
> my partner I was going to kill the engine. I didn't want to be trying to
> modulate a full throttle enging with mixture once I was on the runway.
>
> About 20 feet or so I pulled to idle cutoff and it was weird to see a
> prop stopped as I flared for a nice landing. I rolled out and used
> residual speed to pull off on a turnoff and coast to a stop.
>
> Airport security showed up and the guy didn't quite know what to do. We
> told him we just needed a tow into our tiedown spot. He took our names
> and certificate numbers and a brief statement of what had happened.
>
> In discussion with my partner, we felt we did almost everything
> correctly. We did not panic, we did not hesitate to declare the
> emergency, we quickly agreed on roles and everything went smoothly. We
> never really felt scared about the situation (a power failure might have
> felt different!). When the situation first presented itself I thought
> about flying to over the airport and cutting power, but I felt it would
> be better not to have a guaranteed engine failure. We both felt this was
> the less-risky way to handle the situation. We sort of stood there
> saying to ourselves "we can't believe we just had an emergency!". It was
> the first one for both of us in more than 20 years of flying each.
>
> The plane is in the shop to get its cable replaced, apparently it broke
> somewhere between the throttle quadrant and the carburetor, not at
> either end.
>
> Event Horizon

I remember watching WW1 airplanes flying at Old Rhinbeck (sp?) airport
in NY. Those had two engine settings -- full on or off, and power was
controlled by what an electical engineer might call pulse width
modulation -- switch the mags on and off as needed. I have no idea how
that would work in today's engines, but my instinct would have been to
reach for mags, not mixture. Your way worked, I'll remember that.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
EventHorizon > wrote:

> In discussion with my partner, we felt we did almost everything
> correctly. We did not panic, we did not hesitate to declare the
> emergency, we quickly agreed on roles and everything went smoothly. We
> never really felt scared about the situation (a power failure might have
> felt different!). When the situation first presented itself I thought
> about flying to over the airport and cutting power, but I felt it would
> be better not to have a guaranteed engine failure. We both felt this was
> the less-risky way to handle the situation. We sort of stood there
> saying to ourselves "we can't believe we just had an emergency!". It was
> the first one for both of us in more than 20 years of flying each.

Great writeup!

I agree, from your story it sounds like you did everything perfectly.
You stayed calm, used good CRM, looked at your options, and properly
executed the best one. Can't get better than that.

Thanks very much for posting. I hope that if/when I have a true
in-flight emergency I can do as well.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[george]

On Sep 8, 5:28*pm, EventHorizon > wrote:
> I thought you might all find this story interesting.
>
My hat is off to you.
You obeyed the one commandment that was pounded into my head.
1) Fly the aeroplane
2) Deal with the emergency
3) go to 1

[Brian Whatcott]

EventHorizon wrote:
> /snip/ At about 1500'agl he tapped me on the
> shoulder (I was looking outside for traffic). He said "we have a
> problem"./snip/
> About 20 feet or so I pulled to idle cutoff and it was weird to see a
> prop stopped as I flared for a nice landing. I rolled out and used
> residual speed to pull off on a turnoff and coast to a stop. /snip/
>
> The plane is in the shop to get its cable replaced, apparently it broke
> somewhere between the throttle quadrant and the carburetor, not at
> either end.
>
> Event Horizon
>

As described, this reads like a Happy Ending.

There's one element that is very troubling: the cable break in the
middle. I am supposing that the bowden has triple internal helical wires
as low friction standoffs - and that repeated motion against a wire cut
the cable.

That shouldn't happen....

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

a wrote:
/snip/
>
> I remember watching WW1 airplanes flying at Old Rhinbeck (sp?) airport
> in NY. Those had two engine settings -- full on or off, and power was
> controlled by what an electical engineer might call pulse width
> modulation -- switch the mags on and off as needed. I have no idea how
> that would work in today's engines, but my instinct would have been to
> reach for mags, not mixture. Your way worked, I'll remember that.

Those rotaries had very short, very stout crankshafts, as you might
expect - the whole engine mass was spinning on them.
But it was hard on the crank.
Now cranks are long and (comparatively) slender - and the shock load is
not what you'd want to put on the crank if you can avoid it.
That mixture control idea is a softer option, no doubt.

Brian W

[Morgans[_2_]]

"brian whatcott" > wrote
>
> There's one element that is very troubling: the cable break in the middle.
> I am supposing that the bowden has triple internal helical wires as low
> friction standoffs - and that repeated motion against a wire cut the
> cable.
>
> That shouldn't happen....

Unless the run is perfectly straight, any bend will flex the internal cable
each time it moves. Metal fatigue still happens, given enough time.
--
Jim in NC

[EventHorizon]

There have been a lot of other interesting ideas my post generated:

1 - switch to one mag
2 - carb heat
3 - pulse mags on/off (but if prop stops windmilling you'll need to
restart, not good)
4 - mixture (which is what we did)

Any engine experts have a recommendation on which approach would be best?
Or a combination?

Event Horizon

a > wrote in news:a0945182-fc81-4f28-81f3-
:

>
> I remember watching WW1 airplanes flying at Old Rhinbeck (sp?) airport
> in NY. Those had two engine settings -- full on or off, and power was
> controlled by what an electical engineer might call pulse width
> modulation -- switch the mags on and off as needed. I have no idea how
> that would work in today's engines, but my instinct would have been to
> reach for mags, not mixture. Your way worked, I'll remember that.
>

[EventHorizon]

A call from our mechanic today said that the break was near where the cable
exits the firewall into the engine compartment. The cable is apparently
sheathed the entire distance, so it was not easy to see. He said that it
looked as if a few strands had broken and had "bent back" and therefore
created more friction and binding. We never noticed it in actual use until
the break occurred.

Event Horizon

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "brian whatcott" > wrote
>>
>> There's one element that is very troubling: the cable break in the
>> middle. I am supposing that the bowden has triple internal helical
>> wires as low friction standoffs - and that repeated motion against a
>> wire cut the cable.
>>
>> That shouldn't happen....
>
> Unless the run is perfectly straight, any bend will flex the internal
> cable
> each time it moves. Metal fatigue still happens, given enough time.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Sep 8, 10:42*pm, EventHorizon > wrote:
> There have been a lot of other interesting ideas my post generated:
>
> 1 - switch to one mag
> 2 - carb heat
> 3 - pulse mags on/off (but if prop stops windmilling you'll need to
> restart, not good)
> 4 - mixture (which is what we did)
>
> Any engine experts have a recommendation on which approach would be best?
> Or a combination?
>
> Event Horizon
>
> a > wrote in news:a0945182-fc81-4f28-81f3-
> :
>
>
>
> > I remember watching WW1 airplanes flying at Old Rhinbeck (sp?) airport
> > in NY. Those had two engine settings -- full on or off, and power was
> > controlled by what an electical engineer might call pulse width
> > modulation -- switch the mags on and off as needed. I have no idea how
> > that would work in today's engines, but my instinct would have been to
> > reach for mags, not mixture. Your way worked, I'll remember that.

Not bein' a pilot (I just jump out of them), doesn't lean cause an EGT
rise? Isn't there some risk of overheating a valve or somesuch if you
take it too lean?

[Brian Whatcott]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "brian whatcott" > wrote
>>
>> There's one element that is very troubling: the cable break in the
>> middle. I am supposing that the bowden has triple internal helical
>> wires as low friction standoffs - and that repeated motion against a
>> wire cut the cable.
>>
>> That shouldn't happen....
>
> Unless the run is perfectly straight, any bend will flex the internal
> cable each time it moves. Metal fatigue still happens, given enough time.

If a plane is flown twice a week for thirty years, there could be
30 X 52 X 2 X 5 cycles on the throttle - and that's a highball estimate.
16000 cycles should not fatigue a wire, should it?

Brian W

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 9, 7:35*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > "brian whatcott" > wrote
>
> >> There's one element that is very troubling: the cable break in the
> >> middle. I am supposing that the bowden has triple internal helical
> >> wires as low friction standoffs - and that repeated motion against a
> >> wire cut the cable.
>
> >> That shouldn't happen....
>
> > Unless the run is perfectly straight, any bend will flex the internal
> > cable each time it moves. *Metal fatigue still happens, given enough time.
>
> If a plane is flown twice a week for thirty years, there could be
> 30 X 52 X 2 X 5 cycles on the throttle - and that's a highball estimate.
> 16000 cycles should not fatigue a wire, should it?
>
> Brian W

The cable failure I had was to carb heat on an old Mooney Ranger, and
the failure was right at the carb. Finding a serious rubbing point
within the cable run itself seems unlikely, but that is what happened
to the OP.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> If a plane is flown twice a week for thirty years, there could be
> 30 X 52 X 2 X 5 cycles on the throttle - and that's a highball estimate.
> 16000 cycles should not fatigue a wire, should it?

We replaced our prop adjustment cable in the Pathfinder this year. It was
probably the original cable from 1974. It was getting stiffer and stiffer
over time.

Upon removal it was obvious that a few strands of the sheathing had broken,
and were scraping on the cable every time we moved the blue lever. How
this happened is a mystery, but after 25 years we figured it didn't owe us
anything. (Although it is a real SOB to change...)

The OP did a great job getting the plane down safely.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Clear]

In article >,
Richard > wrote:
>
>Not bein' a pilot (I just jump out of them), doesn't lean cause an EGT
>rise? Isn't there some risk of overheating a valve or somesuch if you
>take it too lean?

You are describing 'not lean enough' aka rich of peak temps, or at
peak temps. Lean the mixture some more and things get cooler.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Richard schreef:
>
> Not bein' a pilot (I just jump out of them), doesn't lean cause an EGT
> rise? Isn't there some risk of overheating a valve or somesuch if you
> take it too lean?

Leaning does cause a rise in EGT - up to a certain point, which is the
point we want because it means optimal combustion, thus minimum fuel
burn for the HP. Leaning any further will make the engine very
inefficient, even to the point where it stops.

On a sidenote, many engines (especially the US-type aircooled boxers)
rely on a bit of excess fuel for valve lubrication so we get recommended
to keep them on the rich side of the EGT peak.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Sep 9, 11:20*am, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> Richard schreef:
>
>
>
> > Not bein' a pilot (I just jump out of them), doesn't lean cause an EGT
> > rise? *Isn't there some risk of overheating a valve or somesuch if you
> > take it too lean?
>
> Leaning does cause a rise in EGT - up to a certain point, which is the
> point we want because it means optimal combustion, thus minimum fuel
> burn for the HP. Leaning any further will make the engine very
> inefficient, even to the point where it stops.
>
> On a sidenote, many engines (especially the US-type aircooled boxers)
> rely on a bit of excess fuel for valve lubrication so we get recommended
> to keep them on the rich side of the EGT peak.

Thank you both for the information.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"jan olieslagers" > wrote in message
...
> Richard schreef:
>>
>> Not bein' a pilot (I just jump out of them), doesn't lean cause an EGT
>> rise? Isn't there some risk of overheating a valve or somesuch if you
>> take it too lean?
>
> Leaning does cause a rise in EGT - up to a certain point, which is the
> point we want because it means optimal combustion, thus minimum fuel burn
> for the HP. Leaning any further will make the engine very inefficient,
> even to the point where it stops.
>
> On a sidenote, many engines (especially the US-type aircooled boxers) rely
> on a bit of excess fuel for valve lubrication so we get recommended to
> keep them on the rich side of the EGT peak.

With the correct type of injectors (on injector equipped engines) they can
be leaned far past where lean valve lubrication is a problem. Without the
correct induction system, many engines will run too rough to allow leaning
into safe areas of lean operation.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> We replaced our prop adjustment cable in the Pathfinder this year. It was
> probably the original cable from 1974. It was getting stiffer and stiffer
> over time.
>
> Upon removal it was obvious that a few strands of the sheathing had
> broken, and were scraping on the cable every time we moved the blue lever.
> How this happened is a mystery, but after 25 years we figured it didn't
> owe us anything. (Although it is a real SOB to change...)

Yep. Some things will not last forever, and cables are one of them. Once
they get enough age and use and age on them, switch them out, as part of a
good preventative maintenance program. After all, what good is keeping fuel
in the tank, airspeed under the wings, and a good running engine and
airframe, if you can't control the damn thing! <g> That is one important
piece of twisted up steel, going from your hand to the engine and prop.

> The OP did a great job getting the plane down safely.

No argument from me on that point!
--
Jim in NC

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
an "emergency". My understanding is that you declare an emergency
when you need assistance or clearance RIGHT NOW. In this case, you
weren't in any imminent danger; notifying the tower of the situation
so that they know you'd be unable to go around or taxi off the active
runway once you killed the engine should be sufficient. The AIM
differentiates between "emergency" and "urgency".

Actually, the same thing happened to me about 25 years ago. A cotter
pin fell out of the throttle linkage on my Taylorcraft. The throttle
stuck in a position where I couldn't _quite_ maintain altitude.
Fortunately, the descent angle I could maintain got me to the nearest
airport, and I controlled the glide by blipping the ignition (no
mixture control on those old A-65's).

Even had I been so inclined, can't declare an emergency in a no radio
airplane.

After pushing the airplane off the runway, I found the clevis pin
inside the cowling. A scrap of wire sufficed to replace the missing
cotter pin and get me back home.

-Dana
--
Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.

[EventHorizon]

Thanks Jay!

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:QUOpm.43737$la3.10515@attbi_s22:

>> If a plane is flown twice a week for thirty years, there could be
>> 30 X 52 X 2 X 5 cycles on the throttle - and that's a highball
>> estimate. 16000 cycles should not fatigue a wire, should it?
>
> We replaced our prop adjustment cable in the Pathfinder this year. It
> was probably the original cable from 1974. It was getting stiffer and
> stiffer over time.
>
> Upon removal it was obvious that a few strands of the sheathing had
> broken, and were scraping on the cable every time we moved the blue
> lever. How this happened is a mystery, but after 25 years we figured
> it didn't owe us anything. (Although it is a real SOB to change...)
>
> The OP did a great job getting the plane down safely.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Some things will not last forever, and cables are one of them. Once they
> get enough age and use and age on them, switch them out, as part of a good
> preventative maintenance program.

I always wonder how to implement something like this, and with which items.

Control cables, for example, are obviously critical -- yet I don't recall
ever hearing about them being changed on condition, let alone preemptively,
even on our 61 year old Ercoupe. Sure, they're inspected every year, and
occasionally adjusted, but apparently they never wear out? Yet surely they
must, someday.

Just another one of those things you think about when you're flying an
antique aircraft. Right up there with "golly, that wing is only held on
with two bolts", and "gee, I wonder how many bouts of turbulence a
six-decade-old wing spar can withstand?"

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[EventHorizon]

We thought about a PAN PAN, but we *did not have throttle control*.

I didn't hesitate very long to call it an emergency. I had read a lot of
stories about pilots who told ATC - "we have a little problem" or "we
need some help" and things later deteriorated or ATC did not realize the
gravity of the situation. I figured nobody was going to yell at us with
a failure of a serious engine control. We were going to either be
landing dead stick or seriously compromising the way the engine was
going to run to land the plane. As it turned out, the tower cleared us
immediately to land on the runway opposite to prevailing pattern
traffic, and that shortenened our flight by 2-3 minutes and allowed us
to avoid passing over houses and a hill on the downwind, shopping center
on base and final of the other pattern direction.

I sort of figured "let them yell at me on the ground that I used too
severe a call for the situation" if they wanted to...


Event Horizon

Dana M. Hague > wrote in
:

> Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
> an "emergency". My understanding is that you declare an emergency
> when you need assistance or clearance RIGHT NOW. In this case, you
> weren't in any imminent danger; notifying the tower of the situation
> so that they know you'd be unable to go around or taxi off the active
> runway once you killed the engine should be sufficient. The AIM
> differentiates between "emergency" and "urgency".
>
> Actually, the same thing happened to me about 25 years ago. A cotter
> pin fell out of the throttle linkage on my Taylorcraft. The throttle
> stuck in a position where I couldn't _quite_ maintain altitude.
> Fortunately, the descent angle I could maintain got me to the nearest
> airport, and I controlled the glide by blipping the ignition (no
> mixture control on those old A-65's).
>
> Even had I been so inclined, can't declare an emergency in a no radio
> airplane.
>
> After pushing the airplane off the runway, I found the clevis pin
> inside the cowling. A scrap of wire sufficed to replace the missing
> cotter pin and get me back home.
>
> -Dana
> --
> Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.

[Mike Ash]

In article <pQ_pm.36760$5n1.23712@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Some things will not last forever, and cables are one of them. Once they
> > get enough age and use and age on them, switch them out, as part of a good
> > preventative maintenance program.
>
> I always wonder how to implement something like this, and with which items.
>
> Control cables, for example, are obviously critical -- yet I don't recall
> ever hearing about them being changed on condition, let alone preemptively,
> even on our 61 year old Ercoupe. Sure, they're inspected every year, and
> occasionally adjusted, but apparently they never wear out? Yet surely they
> must, someday.
>
> Just another one of those things you think about when you're flying an
> antique aircraft. Right up there with "golly, that wing is only held on
> with two bolts", and "gee, I wonder how many bouts of turbulence a
> six-decade-old wing spar can withstand?"
>
> :-)

How about, "Those wings are only held on with two pins *which I just
installed myself an hour ago*."

Or, "Gee, those pins that hold the body to the wings are smaller than my
thumb, and there's only two on each side."

Flying an aircraft you assemble yourself each time you fly it is much
like flying an antique aircraft in that respect. (Flying an antique you
assemble each time you fly is even better yet.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[John Clear]

In article >,
EventHorizon > wrote:
>
>I sort of figured "let them yell at me on the ground that I used too
>severe a call for the situation" if they wanted to...

This is exactly the right philosphy. I'd much rather have to deal
with a 6ft stack of FAA paper work then be 6ft under.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Scott Braddock]

Jay Honeck wrote:
/snip/
> Control cables, for example, are obviously critical -- yet I don't
> recall ever hearing about them being changed on condition, let alone
> preemptively, even on our 61 year old Ercoupe. Sure, they're inspected
> every year, and occasionally adjusted, but apparently they never wear
> out? Yet surely they must, someday.
/snip/

Jay,

Control cables are absolutely changed out on condition. They will tend
to fray where they pass over pulleys, especially if the cable tension is
a bit loose (it will tend to "bounce" against the pulley), or the pulley
doesn't turn as freely as it should. During maintenance checks, a
mechanic will run their fingers over all cables at these locations, and
any broken strands will be felt, as they tend to stick out. Not super
common on light GA aircraft, but not at all unheard of. Corrosion can
also be a problem. Advisory Circular 43.13 has an entire section
devoted to cable inspection and condition.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Brian Whatcott]

Dana M. Hague wrote:
> Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
> an "emergency". ...
> -Dana

It turns out that pilots are reluctant to declare an emergency.
They need every encouragement to declare early.
It's like stopping your car to ask for directions apparently....

Brian W

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2009-09-10, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Just another one of those things you think about when you're flying an
> antique aircraft. Right up there with "golly, that wing is only held on
> with two bolts", and "gee, I wonder how many bouts of turbulence a
> six-decade-old wing spar can withstand?"

Or... "Good grief, the wing is only held together by 64 year old glue!"

The joys of worrying about wood wings :-)

[BeechSundowner]

On Sep 9, 8:44*pm, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
> Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
> an "emergency". *My understanding is that you declare an emergency
> when you need assistance or clearance RIGHT NOW. *In this case, you
> weren't in any imminent danger;

Judgement call on the pilots part as you already know, but if you
can't control the engine, if that isn't an emergency, I don't know
what is. For all intent and purposes, he had a runaway plane until he
worked the problem!

He most certainly needed a clearance to land RIGHT NOW.

I can see you saying when I had a cylinder exhaust valve bite the dust
in flight 3500 feet AGL 6 years ago that it wasn't an emergency
because I wasn't in imminent danger and I still had 3 cylinders
providing power?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
EventHorizon > wrote:

> We thought about a PAN PAN, but we *did not have throttle control*.
>
> I didn't hesitate very long to call it an emergency. I had read a lot of
> stories about pilots who told ATC - "we have a little problem" or "we
> need some help" and things later deteriorated or ATC did not realize the
> gravity of the situation. I figured nobody was going to yell at us with
> a failure of a serious engine control. We were going to either be
> landing dead stick or seriously compromising the way the engine was
> going to run to land the plane. As it turned out, the tower cleared us
> immediately to land on the runway opposite to prevailing pattern
> traffic, and that shortenened our flight by 2-3 minutes and allowed us
> to avoid passing over houses and a hill on the downwind, shopping center
> on base and final of the other pattern direction.
>
> I sort of figured "let them yell at me on the ground that I used too
> severe a call for the situation" if they wanted to...
>
>
> Event Horizon

In the vernacular: "You done GOOD!"

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Mickybadia]

> Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.

Sorry to be useless, but LOL :)

[Flaps_50!]

On Sep 8, 5:28*pm, EventHorizon > wrote:
> I thought you might all find this story interesting.
>
> Me, I'm 53 and have been flying since 1988 with about 1000 hrs. My
> partner is a CFI and we've been in a Cherokee 140 partnership for about
> 12 years. We have a 1974 Cherokee Cruiser, which we normally keep well
> maintained (!).
>
> About a week ago my partner and I decided to fly after work. We are
> still breaking in a new cylinder so we thought we'd fly local here in
> Southern California. I flew left seat and we took off from Camarillo and
> flew around Malibu, then I flew over to Santa Paula for a landing. We
> had agreed we wanted to fly about 1.5 hrs, so as I was landing at Santa
> Paula I was at about 45 minutes. After I landed I asked my partner if he
> wanted to switch sides, but he said no, he'd fly from the right side.
>
> We taxied back and he took off. At about 1500'agl he tapped me on the
> shoulder (I was looking outside for traffic). He said "we have a
> problem". There had been no apparent change in the flight so I thought
> he might be joking. He pointed down at the throttle and he was moving it
> full to idle and back, but it had no effect! We were still at full
> throttle and obviously we had a broken cable or something similar.
>
> So your mind goes rapidly over the situation. How bad is this? What are
> the challenges? What are the options? We had a brief discussion and I
> mentioned that although this didn't seem real bad, we had some risks and
> I had read so many stories of pilots being reluctant to declare an
> emergency. We were only about 5 miles from Camarillo, our home airport
> which has a 5000' runway. We discussed and within about 20 seconds
> agreed that I would fly the plane since I was left seat, he would handle
> radio, and we would declare and emergency since we did not have throttle
> control. We had decided that I would try to modulate power with the
> mixture, but if necessary I could fly over the the airport and then just
> kill the engine and we would glide down.
>
> The weather was very clear and it was just about dusk. My partner called
> Camarillo tower, reported our position (about 5 miles out) and indicated
> we had a throttle problem and we needed to declare and emergency. The
> tower immediately cleared us to land on runway 8 and cleared out one
> other plane in the pattern. The runway in use was 26 but it was calm and
> rwy 8 was the closer approach. I was at about 1700' and full power; I
> leveled off and flew at about yellow line toward the airport. As I got
> closer I started a dive to lose altitude and flew fast; I had not yet
> adjusted the mixture.
>
> I realized that I was going to be quite high - I was on a 1 mile base so
> I began to pull the mixture back and the engine roughened as it slowed
> down some more. Still flying fast, I descended. I realized I was still
> pretty high so I overshot the centerline a bit before turning to about a
> .5 mile final to lose some more altitude. I leaned the mixture more
> aggressively and the engine ran really rough with some backfiring.
>
> As we came in a bit high on final and I knew the runway was assured I
> asked my partner for flaps. I leaned more aggressively and the engine
> was really choking now. As we came over the threshold a bit high I told
> my partner I was going to kill the engine. I didn't want to be trying to
> modulate a full throttle enging with mixture once I was on the runway.
>
> About 20 feet or so I pulled to idle cutoff and it was weird to see a
> prop stopped as I flared for a nice landing. I rolled out and used
> residual speed to pull off on a turnoff and coast to a stop.
>
> Airport security showed up and the guy didn't quite know what to do. We
> told him we just needed a tow into our tiedown spot. He took our names
> and certificate numbers and a brief statement of what had happened.
>
> In discussion with my partner, we felt we did almost everything
> correctly. We did not panic, we did not hesitate to declare the
> emergency, we quickly agreed on roles and everything went smoothly. We
> never really felt scared about the situation (a power failure might have
> felt different!). When the situation first presented itself I thought
> about flying to over the airport and cutting power, but I felt it would
> be better not to have a guaranteed engine failure. We both felt this was
> the less-risky way to handle the situation. We sort of stood there
> saying to ourselves "we can't believe we just had an emergency!". It was
> the first one for both of us in more than 20 years of flying each.
>
> The plane is in the shop to get its cable replaced, apparently it broke
> somewhere between the throttle quadrant and the carburetor, not at
> either end.
>
> Event Horizon

Glad it worked out so well.

Cheers

[Aluckyguess[_4_]]

"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 8:44 pm, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
> Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
> an "emergency". My understanding is that you declare an emergency
> when you need assistance or clearance RIGHT NOW. In this case, you
> weren't in any imminent danger;

Judgement call on the pilots part as you already know, but if you
can't control the engine, if that isn't an emergency, I don't know
what is. For all intent and purposes, he had a runaway plane until he
worked the problem!

No, you still had at least 2 ways to control the engine.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Oct 25, 8:32 am, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> "BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 9, 8:44 pm, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you handled the situation well, but it doesn't sound like
> > an "emergency". My understanding is that you declare an emergency
> > when you need assistance or clearance RIGHT NOW. In this case, you
> > weren't in any imminent danger;
>
> Judgement call on the pilots part as you already know, but if you
> can't control the engine, if that isn't an emergency, I don't know
> what is. For all intent and purposes, he had a runaway plane until he
> worked the problem!
>
> No, you still had at least 2 ways to control the engine.

Sounds like OP had a good battery, something I would check then I
would've dialed the emergency frequency, tell tower my situation and
put myself into position for a 'dead-stick', mags-off.
It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
Ken

[Brian Whatcott]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> Ken

It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach

Brian W

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> > should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> > That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> > Ken
>
> It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
> until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach
> Brian W

Never heard of that, but I can understand it.
Ken

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> > > should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> > > That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> > > Ken
> >
> > It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
> > until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach
> > Brian W
>
> Never heard of that, but I can understand it.
> Ken

I was taught to pull the power on downwind, even with the desired
touchdown point.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Oct 28, 12:46*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> > > > should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> > > > That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
> > > until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach
> > > Brian W
>
> > Never heard of that, but I can understand it.
> > Ken
>
> I was taught to pull the power on downwind, even with the desired
> touchdown point.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

This was pretty standard procedure during the period when I learned to
fly. As an instructor I "altered" the way I approached this a bit by
stressing proper stepped down power reduction on letdowns prior to
entering downwind so that by the time the power was reduced on final,
the engine temps and pressures were under control.
There's always been a "discussion" about the advantages and
disadvantages of doing power off approaches as practice for forced
landings.
What I did was to treat forced landing practice as forced landing
practice and otherwise stressed proper engine management as suggested
by the engine manufacturer.
Dudley Henriques

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 28, 12:46*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> > > > should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> > > > That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
> > > until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach
> > > Brian W
>
> > Never heard of that, but I can understand it.
> > Ken
>
> I was taught to pull the power on downwind, even with the desired
> touchdown point.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

In my Mooney with its IO 360, we consider it a good approach if the
throttle does not have to be advanced from downwind until turning off
of the active (and using the brakes to slow down on the runway is
considered bad form). At most airports I use good planning would be a
touchdown maybe a 1000 feet past the numbers to make the first turnoff
comfortably, so my thinking is if the engine chooses to fail I do have
some altitude in the bank.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Oct 28, 9:46 am, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 5:23 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > It's a good case to practice some 'dead stick' landings. AFAIK you
> > > > should be able to kill the bird anyway in the circuit and dead stick.
> > > > That's how I was trained on a cessna-152.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > It used to be training SOP to pull the throttle to idle onto base
> > > until the cold shock issue forced a gentler kinder approach
> > > Brian W
>
> > Never heard of that, but I can understand it.
> > Ken
>
> I was taught to pull the power on downwind, even with the desired
> touchdown point.

Yeah, I had no prob with dead stick, but I respect what Brian wrote,
as I flew a lot in cold weather. Shutting off the heat flow to the air
cooled fins, while the core (cylinder temp) is hot and the exterior
cools rapidly may induce a thermal gradient stress due to uneven
contraction of the metal as it cools from the outside in.
Ken