UND now a step closer to "an actual airline"

Seems odd... Why not just teach the students how to use a checklist based off the AFM? That'll pretty much cover you regardless of the aircraft type. Turning the pitot heat on EVERY time in an airplane not designed for that is just, well it's stupid.
 
400A said:
In almost 5000 hours of flying outside of UND, in airplanes that require pitot heat on for all "air ops" I have seen ONE pitot heat inop.

That doesn't mean that any pitot heat can't fail at any time, but if you plan on flying anything bigger than a Baron, both professionally and recreationally, then turning on the pitot heat is not such a bad idea. An ounce of a prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Click to expand...

Yep. I bet those types were designed for it too. Piston single pipers/cessnas aren't.
 
I think it's important to teach why we turn on/off pitot heat. Leaving it on all the time "because airlines do it" doesn't teach anything. I also don't see the UND fleet climbing to where temps are -30 year-round (where the airlines are).
 
wrxpilot said:
Yep. I bet those types were designed for it too. Piston single pipers/cessnas aren't.
Click to expand...


I never said they were or weren't. The only argument "against" this new policy (it isn't new, it is just recycled) is the reasoning. There is no limitation on pitot heat use in flight.

Part 25 pitot heat requirements
23.1323(i) each airspeed indication system must have pitot heat or something else to prevent icing.
Part 23 pitot heat requirements
23.1323(d) requires pitot heat or something else to prevent icing (aircraft does not have to be certified for known icing, just IFR flight)

Seems that both part 23 and part 25 airplanes have the same pitot heat requirements and indication that something is wrong or the pitot heat is off.

So, other than the reasoning is corny, what is the argument against not having the pitot heat on during all flight ops?
 
400A said:
I never said they were or weren't. The only argument "against" this new policy (it isn't new, it is just recycled) is the reasoning. There is no limitation on pitot heat use in flight.

Part 25 pitot heat requirements
23.1323(i) each airspeed indication system must have pitot heat or something else to prevent icing.
Part 23 pitot heat requirements
23.1323(d) requires pitot heat or something else to prevent icing (aircraft does not have to be certified for known icing, just IFR flight)

Seems that both part 23 and part 25 airplanes have the same pitot heat requirements and indication that something is wrong or the pitot heat is off.

So, other than the reasoning is corny, what is the argument against not having the pitot heat on during all flight ops?
Click to expand...

Well... our entire Cessna fleet doesn't meet FAA certifications...
 
What is the argument AGAINST having pitot heat on all the time?

FWIW, every USAF aircraft I've flown has had pitot heat on taking the runway, and off clearing the runway after landing.
 
gotWXdagain said:
I'll ask again: find the limitation in the P.O.H. that says you can't have the Pitot Heat on through the entire flight.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't understand the point of it, whether or not there's a limitation. Does this just make the college flight kids feel like cooler pilots or something? It's like when a buddy of mine showed me an old Cessna 152 QRH from the old Comair academy. I understand the intent, but it's just stupid and unnecessary IMO. Maybe I'm in the minority and I just don't get it, I don't know.

Personally, I found the "how and why" of when to use pitot heat an excellent teaching point for my students. The UND "method" seems to lose out on that to some extent (we have it on anyway, so what?).
 
Hacker15e said:
What is the argument AGAINST having pitot heat on all the time?

FWIW, every USAF aircraft I've flown has had pitot heat on taking the runway, and off clearing the runway after landing.
Click to expand...

So has every turbine airplane I've flown. Very understandable, considering the mission profile those airplanes were designed for and most likely experience on a given flight.
 
wrxpilot said:
I guess I just don't understand the point of it, whether or not there's a limitation. Does this just make the college flight kids feel like cooler pilots or something? It's like when a buddy of mine showed me an old Cessna 152 QRH from the old Comair academy. I understand the intent, but it's just stupid and unnecessary IMO. Maybe I'm in the minority and I just don't get it, I don't know.

Personally, I found the "how and why" of when to use pitot heat an excellent teaching point for my students. The UND "method" seems to lose out on that to some extent (we have it on anyway, so what?).
Click to expand...


I don't understand. How is turning on pitot heat "cool", it would actually be kind of hot :D

We could fill a lot of books with things we do in aviation, just because or it is that way just because it is that way. Why is an IFR departure predicated on a 40:1 slope and not a 20:1, etc and so on.

I don't like annunciators staring me in the face for no reason, that alone justifies turning on the pitot heat, to me. There are all kinds of reasons we can come up with for turning on the pitot heat, it is for the situtations we cannot predict or see coming that it should be on. Pitot heat is ANTI ICE, not DE ICE, an important distinction.

So, I ask the question again, other than the reason for the policy change being corny, what is the operational, mx control, performance aspect, etc, argument AGAINST having pitot heat on during all flight ops?
 
400A said:
So, I ask the question again, other than the reason for the policy change being corny, what is the operational, mx control, performance aspect, etc, argument AGAINST having pitot heat on during all flight ops?
Click to expand...

The only problem I would see is if somebody forgot to turn it off and left the master on for a little too long. It doesn't take much to drain batteries on most singles, so if you have a weak one and leave the heat on for a few mins, you might need a jump. Other than that, I can't think of any other reason why this would be an issue.

Regardless of it being anti-ice, I still don't understand why UND has students train this way. Again, what exactly is the point of it?
 
juxtapilot said:
Then this policy really is dumb. :) That is pretty much the only reason the policy would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Except for, you know, the part where it guarantees that the pitot heat will be on when you fly into visible moisture. But logic isn't a part of this debate.
 
AngelFuree said:
Really? Are you ready to back that up? :)
Click to expand...


Sure, when is the heat meant to be turned on, before or after encountering icing?

It is also right there in the certification regs I posted. The pitot heat is there to PREVENT malfunctions due to icing. Prevent is the definition of ANTI ICE. Removal is DE ICE. That isn't to say that ANTI ICE cannot or will not remove ice, ie carb heat.
 
gotWXdagain said:
The G1000 doesn't have the amber "Pitot Heat INOP" annunciator when the system is turned off, nor is there a light on the panel.
Click to expand...


It doesn't necessarily have to be INOP, is there any indication on the G1000 that the pitot heat is on or off? I have never flown with that avionics suite.
 
400A said:
It doesn't necessarily have to be INOP, is there any indication on the G1000 that the pitot heat is on or off? I have never flown with that avionics suite.
Click to expand...

Not that I can see being immediately visible (and just to make sure I'm not dumb, not that any other cessna driver around here I've talked to has seen).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top