How much of the "workings" should we know

trafficinsight said:
The mixture knob, full rich. Then if the engine smooths out land at your leisure, tell a mechanic you believe have a plugged injector, probably the number 1 cylinder since that's where the EGT probe is, go grab some lunch and come back to continue the flight.

OR...

Declare an emergency, land at that uncontrolled virtually abandoned field below you because "the engine is coming apart." Call the flight school and tell them that you refuse to fly the airplane due to their shoddy maintenance. Rent a car and drive home cursing the entire way.

actually... now that I think about it, I'd prefer the second option since it means I'll get more flight time going out to rescue the airplane on your dime!

Knowing a little bit about systems, in this case, saves you money ;).
Click to expand...
Dude common sense plays into this a bit as well. shaking engine aint going to make me land in a field. Now if it is like hurling pieces of it in every direction then I am going to try to miss the cows...but short of that. I did mention mixture, and if that solved the problem great...I may or may not continue the flight. Knowing the cause in this scenario really does nothing more than shorten the length of the conversation with the mechanic. Roger was able to figure it out as an A&P with the description you gave which would probably be pretty close to the one I would give a mechanic...so i'm pretty sure another A&P can figure it out as well.

Again i still think it's trivial from a strictly opperational standpoint. If my actions the problem great. i recognized a problem existed and i used resources to solve problem. There is nothing I am going to be able to do to an injector in the air to save the day.
 
poser765 said:
Dude common sense plays into this a bit as well. shaking engine aint going to make me land in a field. Now if it is like hurling pieces of it in every direction then I am going to try to miss the cows...but short of that. I did mention mixture, and if that solved the problem great...I may or may not continue the flight. Knowing the cause in this scenario really does nothing more than shorten the length of the conversation with the mechanic. Roger was able to figure it out as an A&P with the description you gave which would probably be pretty close to the one I would give a mechanic...so i'm pretty sure another A&P can figure it out as well.

Again i still think it's trivial from a strictly opperational standpoint. If my actions solve the problem great. i recognized a problem existed and i used resources to solve problem. There is nothing I am going to be able to do to an injector in the air to save the day.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't get that far into troubleshooting since it's all witchcraft anyway. You'd push the mixture forward, land somewhere, and tell the mechanic "It has a bad mag. Can you have it fixed in an hour?" ;)

Okay so that's a little exaggerated... ;)

Where do you suppose the happy medium is?
 
lol probably right about where i sit. As I said WAy back in this thread i tend to take the extreme argument. Being able to operate the systems and know there limits and how they interact with other systems is the bare minimum. more than that and you get into theory. theory I'll leave up to the individual to decide the importance of.

Another retro example already mentioned.

You know how the prop governor works and how to opperate it safely.
I think it is powered by squirels and can opperate it safely.

Who is the better pilot? You because you know how it works? With that knowledge what can you do to the prop in the cockpit that I can't (shy of laughing at me trying to figure out how to feed the little critters in the prop hub)?

Being a good A&P doesn't make you a better airman...it makes you a better mechanic. i know broad sweeping statement...mainly for effect.
 
poser765 said:
Another retro example already mentioned.

You know how the prop governor works and how to opperate it safely.
I think it is powered by squirels and can opperate it safely.

Who is the better pilot? You because you know how it works? With that knowledge what can you do to the prop in the cockpit that I can't (shy of laughing at me trying to figure out how to feed the little critters in the prop hub)?
Click to expand...
If you know how it really works, and the prop starts acting up, the first thing you think is "how's my oil pressure/level" and start looking for an airport.

If you think it's squirrels, you monkey with the prop control, and the engine runs dry and seizes when you're not at all ready.

My point is that knowing how things work can let you see the real problem behind a symptom.
 
I tend to think that you should have more than just a basic understanding of systems and how operation effects each system. For starters, I'd strongly recommend a few of the following:

Being able to diagram the fuel system, electrical systems, and hydraulic systems (if so equipped) are a must in my opinion. If you know how these systems work, you should be able to troubleshoot most problems you'll face. It doesn't need to be perfect, but you should be able to at least see the basics.

Being able to describe the minutiae that are critical to the safe operation of your aircraft, and little idiosyncracies that make single engine piston A different from single engine piston B. For example (if I can reach back and remember the caravan a little), why an alternator failure in the caravan may mean that the airplane could be losing oil quick, or what happens in the 206 if you forget to lock the back door, and why that doesn't matter in the 207.

Information that might save your ass in the field, e.g. tire pressures, or brake make and model, whether you can jump the car from a truck battery or not, etc.

Those are what I consider important. When I was flying the 1900, in groundschool, we had to memorize some things that had no real bearing on actual operation of the aircraft (e.g. to what pressure are the oxygen bottles compressed too, etc.) and I don't expect to learn that sort of thing unless they want to.


poser765 said:
lol probably right about where i sit. As I said WAy back in this thread i tend to take the extreme argument. Being able to operate the systems and know there limits and how they interact with other systems is the bare minimum. more than that and you get into theory. theory I'll leave up to the individual to decide the importance of.

Another retro example already mentioned.

You know how the prop governor works and how to opperate it safely.
I think it is powered by squirels and can opperate it safely.

Who is the better pilot? You because you know how it works? With that knowledge what can you do to the prop in the cockpit that I can't (shy of laughing at me trying to figure out how to feed the little critters in the prop hub)?

Being a good A&P doesn't make you a better airman...it makes you a better mechanic. i know broad sweeping statement...mainly for effect.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. The two go hand in hand.
 
I'm fighting a losing battle...I know i am but I've got nothing else to do...so "Into the breach men!"

Good point sir, but my example was VERY much to the extreme. i would be inclined to say that oil pressure is a general concept of prop operation...one that be easily seen by looking at a gage in the cockpit while changing RPM. I would say that the prop Governor uses more and less oil pressure to change the blade angles. When oil pressure is lost in the hub, the blades will go to high/low pitch. That to me is a very basic description of the system that allows the pilot to correlate that to other systems of the aircraft.

You push the prop control lever in causing......speeder spring.......flyweights to........pilot valve allows........I would consider superfluous information. The more you know great. One should always better themselves. but not required knowledge.

I like to think I am fairly middle ground compared to the extreme parts of the discussion. I teach systems thoroughly but i am no mechanic. in fact FAR from it. LIGHTYEARS in fact. i contend though that as a PILOT I am just as competant as the next guy at my experience level on either side of the argument.
 
poser765 said:
I'm fighting a losing battle...I know i am but I've got nothing else to do...so "Into the breach men!"

Good point sir, but my example was VERY much to the extreme. i would be inclined to say that oil pressure is a general concept of prop operation...one that be easily seen by looking at a gage in the cockpit while changing RPM. I would say that the prop Governor uses more and less oil pressure to change the blade angles. When oil pressure is lost in the hub, the blades will go to high/low pitch. That to me is a very basic description of the system that allows the pilot to correlate that to other systems of the aircraft.

You push the prop control lever in causing......speeder spring.......flyweights to........pilot valve allows........I would consider superfluous information. The more you know great. One should always better themselves. but not required knowledge.

I like to think I am fairly middle ground compared to the extreme parts of the discussion. I teach systems thoroughly but i am no mechanic. in fact FAR from it. LIGHTYEARS in fact. i contend though that as a PILOT I am just as competant as the next guy at my experience level on either side of the argument.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there's two arguments going on here. One saying "know the systems principles and operations", the other saying "know the mechanics and how to build it". You can do either and still be a safe pilot. "Principles and operations" includes what it is, how it works normally, how it can malfunction, and that also includes (for example on a fuel system) being able to explain or diagram what goes where and how. That's stuff that will help you in the cockpit when things don't go as planned. "Mechanics and how to build" gets into the deep nitty gritty of a system.....which is fine, but not required for the pilot, IMO. Examples of this that I've seen (when I say DEEP nitty gritty) are check pilots asking "which nuts are required to be safety wired in XX system?"; "Draw the inside workings of a magneto"; what is the capacity of the hyd resevoir?", etc.

1. Nuts to be safety wired? Do I work on the system or can I otherwise see it to check it?

2. Inside workings of the magneto (how to build one, essentially). Don't care. It works or it doesn't. I want to know how it can malfunction, and what I can do from the cockpit about it.

3. Can I check the hyd resevoir? If not, then don't really care. Can I find the info in the POH if I need to? Then I'll look there if I need to know.

The difference between operational knowledge and the mechanics of physically building the component. Knowing more is fine, but knowing the operational knowledge as I described it above, doesn't at all make one an unsafe pilot in any way.

Again, using the F-117 as an example, I just happened to know how to refuel on on the ground and operate the single-point panel correctly, how to properly recover one after a mission, what is required to be able to motor open the bomb bay doors on the ground from the ourside of the aircraft (so if I divert to a strange field, I can access my gear bag stowed in there), how to take a SOAP sample, etc. I just personally learned these things on my own for my own edification. Knowing it didn't make me any better or worse of a pilot than the others that didn't know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top