32 training courses (assuming every 6 months), that works out to ~6 engine failures per course.

Seems light to me, not enough to cover inboard versus outboard, partial failure, on takeoff, in cruise, on glideslope, on runway prior to V1, in combination with other failures, IMC versus VMC, etc.

I train every 6 months as well. I need more than 6 to stay sharp, average about 15 per course. I'm an owner pilot flying a turboprop, not an airline god flying a jet.

Mike C.

How does the RAM air get past the fan?

Same way air goes past a stopped prop, flows between the blades.

Mike C.

If that fan looks like a prop it would be ineffective at best. If it looks like a fan it would block air flow when stopped.

How does the fan stop, when does It stop? It looks like it is shafted to the ACM with no switch.

I have looked at a few ACM diagrams and have never seen a shafted inline fan sharing a duct with RAM air.

Here's the rotating group diagram.

Three parts: turbine rotor that drives everything and expands the air to cool it, compressor that elevates bleed air pressure and temperature, and ram air fan, all on same shaft. This shaft can turn very fast, maybe 50,000 RPM.

The ram air fan fits within a shroud not shown here which directs external (ram) air through the heat exchangers.

The diagram also shows the oil system, which is basically a small sump with wicks transporting oil to the bearings. There is no oil pump.

I am having some pictures taken to show the actual fan. It will be obvious air can flow past it when stopped. I'll post when I get them.

Mike C.

32 training courses (assuming every 6 months), that works out to ~6 engine failures per course.

Seems light to me, not enough to cover inboard versus outboard, partial failure, on takeoff, in cruise, on glideslope, on runway prior to V1, in combination with other failures, IMC versus VMC, etc.

I train every 6 months as well. I need more than 6 to stay sharp, average about 15 per course. I'm an owner pilot flying a turboprop, not an airline god flying a jet.

Mike C.

I didn't realize airline pilots couldn't use their judgment to abort an approach early.

Mike C.

I didn't realize airline pilots couldn't use their judgment to abort an approach early.

Mike C.

Thanks, my inner nerd is curious.

As the self proclaimed BT mediator (first shift June 8th), I would suggest a compromise of 600 feet.

Let's move on to discuss the meaning of "Whew dog". Was the phrase uttered too low, too high or just right.





They can when a situation dictates; but not as a matter of routine operation. You seem to have set your engine-out approach minimums to double (800 feet) as SOP.

Something doesn't compute here. You say that you practice engine out approaches a number of times much more than most people, but you won't use an already raised engine-out minimum for your airplane. The FAA and Mitusbishi feel 400 feet is safe, but you don't?

[/quote]

______________________________________________________________________


Yes, good idea, were flogging a dead horse here.

Carefully read what I have written and you will find no place where I claim going around at 800 ft is an SOP.


I clearly have said I would continue the approach under some conditions.

You are confusing yourself and potentially others by making stuff up that hasn't been said.


If an engine quits at 800 ft, in heavy rain, with a known wrong weather observation, with the plane misconfigured for single engine flight, only 30 seconds from MDA, THEN I think it is "more safe" to go around than to press on with an uncertain approach.

I do not feel that you are irrevocably committed to taking the approach down to MDA once the engine fails, even if there is a DE on board. Nor do I feel a pilot is deficient if they choose to go around. Maybe you would criticize him for that decision, but I wouldn't.

There is a big difference between having the ability to do something and having the judgment not to.

Mike C.

Carefully read what I have written and you will find no place where I claim going around at 800 ft is an SOP.


I clearly have said I would continue the approach under some conditions.

You are confusing yourself and potentially others by making stuff up that hasn't been said.


If an engine quits at 800 ft, in heavy rain, with a known wrong weather observation, with the plane misconfigured for single engine flight, only 30 seconds from MDA, THEN I think it is "more safe" to go around than to press on with an uncertain approach.

I do not feel that you are irrevocably committed to taking the approach down to MDA once the engine fails, even if there is a DE on board. Nor do I feel a pilot is deficient if they choose to go around. Maybe you would criticize him for that decision, but I wouldn't.

There is a big difference between having the ability to do something and having the judgment not to.

Mike C.

While Paul makes sure the horse don’t get up.

Do not blindly assume that your NTS will save the day to where you can fly around thinking about steps 2 through 10 in your checklist.

Do not think you have all the time in the world to wind your watch or spend 30 seconds considering weather/alternates before confirming your power situation.

A timely and deliberate consideration of what your feet are telling you and what the ball is showing you is paramount.

When my right engine crapped out (-6 Mu2) in cruise at FL180 we could barely tell. The M4D autopilot reset the trim and we stared at the gauges wondering if it was real.
A barely discernible event except for the gauges trainwrecking.
Followed up with checklist and RTB.

Certainly different at high AOA & dirty.
On approach you would be golden.