Commander-Archive.digest.vol-bc
October 09, 2003 - October 27, 2003
I have fresh IO-470 overhaul on the right side. I can't throw away that
26K overhaul.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: grease your nuts |
My, what an ordeal. Sorry to hear about this bilbo. That's going like cruel
and unusual punishment letting her sit for a year. But what can one do.
Perhaps a couple of Colemills might be worth your while (unless you already
have them in there.)
Nico
----- Original Message -----
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: Commander-List: grease your nuts
>
> Well Gents,
>
> What started as an exhaust replacement program has changed. by the time
the
> exhaust on the left side of the engine was removed(12 bolts), there were 5
> broken studs and the ones that didn't break, were useless. I made the
> choice to take the cylinders down to Zypher to get the studs replaced and
> found the cylinders were junk. The exhaust ports on 2 were eroded and 2
> were cracked. I believe the 3 on the other bank(their friends) are
probably
> in the same condition. To finish off the decision making process, 2 rods
> are sloppy. Topping the engine won't fix the rods. A major overhaul is
all
> that is left.
>
> Almost as a side note. When your annual is done, you should remove, and
> reinstall your exhaust nuts with anti seize. This will keep your studs
from
> rotting away like mine did.
>
> I am parking my 500A for a while. It has successfully wiped out my bank
> account and credit line. Maybe in a year or so I can start on it again
with
> what is left.
>
> In January it will be the 3 anniversary of the day I left HWD with it. I
> never made it to 90 hours on it.
>
> The sump, fuel bladder, exhaust, engine overhaul, and now this.
>
> My grandmother used to say "It's a great life if you don't weaken", She
> never even flew in an airplane.
>
> bilbo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: grease your nuts |
Bill Bow wrote:
> What started as an exhaust replacement program has changed.
Dang Bow!!!
Sure sorry to hear the latest. That just REALLY sucks! Ah, the joys of
aircraft ownership.
Not to rub salt in the wound, but I'd sure appreciate it if you could
provide a little info for my never-ending accumulation of engine data.
What was the total time and time since major on the engine?
(I'm betting that the cylinders were overhauls and not new judging by
cracks - I'm pretty sure YOU didn't shock cool 'em. Exhaust port
errosion is often the result of improper guide geometry)
Was the engine overhauled to "new limits" or "service limits"?
(wouldn't expect to see loose rods on a 470 unless it was way past TBO
or was at service limits when overhauled)
I'm afraid your engine is another statistic in my "if it ain't done
right, it ain't gonna hold up" collection and I'm really sad to hear it.
You deserved better treatment from you bird Bill!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
I never did break don the cost of the overhaul on my IO-470s at Zypher
Engine.
Basic cost $18,900.00
Crankshaft 2,500.00 (overheated and checked)
Oil Sump 700.00 (improper oil pan installed)
Titan Cylinders 1,700 (a little cheaper than the "Black" ones)
---------------------------
$23,800.00
That price is of course , on the ground and with out any new hoses of baffle
material work done. Add $2,500.00 for most of that.
bilbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER......................................
Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs meter(mine is
less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter fire.
You don't need one unless you are going to "enhance" the time.
I think I'll have another beer.
bilbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: grease your nuts |
What was the total time and time since major on the engine?
One was 700 hours and the other 800. At this piont it doesn't matter which
one was which.
================================================================
(I'm betting that the cylinders were overhauls and not new judging by
cracks - I'm pretty sure YOU didn't shock cool 'em. Exhaust port
errosion is often the result of improper guide geometry)
Chris, I could not have done this kind of damage to these engines in the
BRIEF(90 hours) period I have owned the plane.
============================================================================
====
Was the engine overhauled to "new limits" or "service limits"?
(wouldn't expect to see loose rods on a 470 unless it was way past TBO
or was at service limits when overhauled)
I haven't looked yet but It could NOT HAVE BEEN TO NEW)
============================================================================
======
I'm afraid your engine is another statistic in my "if it ain't done
right, it ain't gonna hold up" collection and I'm really sad to hear it.
It will emerge in a year or two with two new engines , new exhaust and 5
year props.
It will not be for sale at that time.
Bilbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: buyers guide |
In a message dated 10/09/03 16:41:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
> NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER......................................
>
> Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs meter(mine is
> less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter fire.
Bilbo,
Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it wasn't your
nuts you needed to grease ...
I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
Wing Commander Gordon
In a message dated 10/09/03 16:41:51 Pacific Daylight Time, bowing74(at)earthlink.net
writes:
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER......................................
Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs meter(mine is
less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter fire.
Bilbo,
Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it wasn't your nuts
you needed to grease ...
I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: buyers guide |
Bilbo,
The reason I suggested Colemills, (didn't know you had a 25K investment on
the other side) is that I had once flown an A and was not impressed with the
performance and adding the horsepower that Colemills could put on the wings
would make it a really nice, safe ship. But, I guess, it's more ignorance
speaking than logic, because I was totally in love with my straight 500. The
same ignorance is evident when I hear people degrading a twin Comanche and
then find out they have never flown one. A Twin Comanche is a very nice
plane provided one recognizes its limitations. The same ought to be true of
the 500A.
This list has done wonders exchanging information between Commander
enthusiasts, but would it be of value setting up an exchange board, so if
someone has anything aviation related to sell, trade, barter, or give away,
one could publish it? Right now it's by email and if one misses the email,
it's quite a chore trying to find it again in the archive. One could publish
services of CFIs, examiners, insurance brokers with a prove track record
with Commanderites, and so on. Take your need for an engine or shell or
perhaps just spares, for instance. If someone in Australia or South Africa
has an engine and knows about your plight, such an exchange board may
facilitate the connection. You may find someone who would want to take the
good engine off your hands opening opportunities to invest in Colemills. Who
knows?
Just a thought.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: buyers guide
>
>
> In a message dated 10/09/03 16:41:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
> bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> > NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER......................................
> >
> > Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs
meter(mine is
> > less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter fire.
>
> Bilbo,
>
> Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it wasn't your
> nuts you needed to grease ...
>
> I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
> FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"Tahoma" LANG"0">In a message dated 10/09> /03 16:41:51
Pacific Daylight Time, bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> style"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff80"
SIZE2 FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"A> rial" LANG"0">NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER......................> ................
>
> Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs meter(mine
is>
> less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter
fire. LOCKQUOTE>
> FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"Tahoma" LANG"0">
> Bilbo,
>
> Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it wasn't
y> our nuts you needed to grease ...
>
> I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: buyers guide |
A good example of that is that I posted a long list of parts awhile back and
only those who remember it was there email me.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: buyers guide
>
> Bilbo,
> The reason I suggested Colemills, (didn't know you had a 25K investment on
> the other side) is that I had once flown an A and was not impressed with
the
> performance and adding the horsepower that Colemills could put on the
wings
> would make it a really nice, safe ship. But, I guess, it's more ignorance
> speaking than logic, because I was totally in love with my straight 500.
The
> same ignorance is evident when I hear people degrading a twin Comanche and
> then find out they have never flown one. A Twin Comanche is a very nice
> plane provided one recognizes its limitations. The same ought to be true
of
> the 500A.
>
> This list has done wonders exchanging information between Commander
> enthusiasts, but would it be of value setting up an exchange board, so if
> someone has anything aviation related to sell, trade, barter, or give
away,
> one could publish it? Right now it's by email and if one misses the email,
> it's quite a chore trying to find it again in the archive. One could
publish
> services of CFIs, examiners, insurance brokers with a prove track record
> with Commanderites, and so on. Take your need for an engine or shell or
> perhaps just spares, for instance. If someone in Australia or South Africa
> has an engine and knows about your plight, such an exchange board may
> facilitate the connection. You may find someone who would want to take the
> good engine off your hands opening opportunities to invest in Colemills.
Who
> knows?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: buyers guide
>
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/09/03 16:41:51 Pacific Daylight Time,
> > bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
> >
> > > NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER......................................
> > >
> > > Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs
> meter(mine is
> > > less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter fire.
> >
> > Bilbo,
> >
> > Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it wasn't
your
> > nuts you needed to grease ...
> >
> > I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
> >
> > Wing Commander Gordon
> >
> >
> > > FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"Tahoma" LANG"0">In a message dated 10/09> > /03
16:41:51 Pacific Daylight Time, bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
> >
> > > : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> > style"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff80" SIZE2 FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"A>
> rial" LANG"0">NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER......................> > ................
> >
> > Never buy an airplane that has a circuit breaker for the Hobbs
meter(mine
> is> >
> > less than 4 inches away). I have never heard of a Hobbs meter
> fire. > LOCKQUOTE>
> > > FAMILY"SANSSERIF" FACE"Tahoma" LANG"0">
> > Bilbo,
> >
> > Sorry to hear of your trials and tribulations. Sounds like it
wasn't
> y> > our nuts you needed to grease ...
> >
> > I love that observation about Hobbs meter fires. Good point!
> >
> > Wing Commander Gordon
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: grease your nuts |
In a message dated 10/9/2003 3:08:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
> 2 rods
> are sloppy.
What?? I have never heard of anything like that. Get a second opinion. If
indeed the rods are "sloppy" then remove them, mich the journal. I'll bet it
is still standard dimension, replace the rod bearings with new ones to
"service limits" (that is why the mfg. has service limits) and press on. There
is
absolutely no reason to overhaul an otherwise low time engine. I am serious, I
think you are getting some really bad advice here. Continentals are not know
for articulating group problems and I have never heard of anybody who could
tell if a rod is "sloppy" without disassembling it. All aircraft engines have
large clearance values. Sloppy rods, really??
On another note, I feel your pain ($$). Last month it was a grand for
new brake discs and linings. This month it is $500 for new motor mount
rubbers. And, both oil bladders are leaking, about a grand each!! These don't
exactly jump out of the box and into your airplane. I still havent finished the
modest avionics package I had planed for the airplane. But at least I ahve
flow it almost 400hrs.
I know it can be discouraging and Commander ownership really isn't for
everybody but I do wonder about some of the issues you are facing and think I
would be checking with another maintenance facility.
Good luck and I hope you at least look into the rod thing jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | grease your nuts |
I have to agree. I bought an engine with 500 hours on and after letting it
sit for several years decided to put it on the plane. We put new rod
bearings and overhauled the cylinders and it has been running for 500 hrs
now with out any problems. It may quit tomorrow but that has been several
years of flying. I have to agree with JB that you might need to look at
getting a second opinion.
Jim Addington
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: grease your nuts
In a message dated 10/9/2003 3:08:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
> 2 rods
> are sloppy.
What?? I have never heard of anything like that. Get a second opinion. If
indeed the rods are "sloppy" then remove them, mich the journal. I'll bet
it
is still standard dimension, replace the rod bearings with new ones to
"service limits" (that is why the mfg. has service limits) and press on.
There is
absolutely no reason to overhaul an otherwise low time engine. I am
serious, I
think you are getting some really bad advice here. Continentals are not
know
for articulating group problems and I have never heard of anybody who could
tell if a rod is "sloppy" without disassembling it. All aircraft engines
have
large clearance values. Sloppy rods, really??
On another note, I feel your pain ($$). Last month it was a grand
for
new brake discs and linings. This month it is $500 for new motor mount
rubbers. And, both oil bladders are leaking, about a grand each!! These
don't
exactly jump out of the box and into your airplane. I still havent finished
the
modest avionics package I had planed for the airplane. But at least I ahve
flow it almost 400hrs.
I know it can be discouraging and Commander ownership really isn't
for
everybody but I do wonder about some of the issues you are facing and think
I
would be checking with another maintenance facility.
Good luck and I hope you at least look into the rod thing jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
J.B.
Finally got my information together for the 90C inspection to my 680F(p). As
you remember mention was made at the conference in Dayton that we should send
the paper work in, to support the stand that the inspection is not justified.
Problem is, I lost my note on who to send the inspection report to. Help!
Moe
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 90C inspection |
In a message dated 10/13/2003 10:47:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
MOEMILLS(at)aol.com writes:
> Help!
>
THANKS MOE....
Send it to Twin Commander Aircraft Corp 19010 59th dr.
n.e., arlington wa 98223 att Geoffery Pence.. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: grease your nuts |
Thanks,
The term "sloppy" was my own term. There is s significant "difference" in
the for and aft play of two of the three rods on the same bank.
Once I remove the rods I will mic the crank. I am not going to overhaul it
until I know what I have. The shop has not suggested an overhaul. He
provides me the basic info and I am allowed to make the decision when there
are options. I may have gotten carried away in the "frustration of the
moment". Right now having him remove the rods and mic them, a Top
Overhaul,or a Major are all equally out of reach. They look about the same
money wise at this point.
bilbo
> 2 rods
> are sloppy.
What?? I have never heard of anything like that. Get a second opinion. If
indeed the rods are "sloppy" then remove them, mich the journal. I'll bet
it
is still standard dimension, replace the rod bearings with new ones to
"service limits" (that is why the mfg. has service limits) and press on.
There is
absolutely no reason to overhaul an otherwise low time engine. I am
serious, I
think you are getting some really bad advice here. Continentals are not
know
for articulating group problems and I have never heard of anybody who could
tell if a rod is "sloppy" without disassembling it. All aircraft engines
have
large clearance values. Sloppy rods, really??
On another note, I feel your pain ($$). Last month it was a grand
for
new brake discs and linings. This month it is $500 for new motor mount
rubbers. And, both oil bladders are leaking, about a grand each!! These
don't
exactly jump out of the box and into your airplane. I still havent finished
the
modest avionics package I had planed for the airplane. But at least I ahve
flow it almost 400hrs.
I know it can be discouraging and Commander ownership really isn't
for
everybody but I do wonder about some of the issues you are facing and think
I
would be checking with another maintenance facility.
Good luck and I hope you at least look into the rod thing jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Dominguez" <dan(at)worldflight2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welcome to commander-list-digest |
nico-
great idea. chris and I are still in the early process of adding this to the existing
aercommander web page. we will keep you posed on this development and
database creation. after speaking with fellow 500A driver Dr. Kucheck, a possible
online maintenance log available free of charge for Commander Group members
could soon be a possibility. keep a close eye for improvements coming weekly
on the existing web page. it's feedback like you're that keeps us all better
informed.
blue skies.
dan
This list has done wonders exchanging information between Commander
enthusiasts, but would it be of value setting up an exchange board, so if
someone has anything aviation related to sell, trade, barter, or give away,
one could publish it? Right now it's by email and if one misses the email,
it's quite a chore trying to find it again in the archive. One could publish
services of CFIs, examiners, insurance brokers with a prove track record
with Commanderites, and so on. Take your need for an engine or shell or
perhaps just spares, for instance. If someone in Australia or South Africa
has an engine and knows about your plight, such an exchange board may
facilitate the connection. You may find someone who would want to take the
good engine off your hands opening opportunities to invest in Colemills. Who
knows?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm coming up on my 90C pretty soon now on my 500A. What is a reasonable
expectation for labor/cost for this inspection?
Thanks,
ak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of MOEMILLS(at)aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: COMMANDER-LIST(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Commander-List: 90C inspection
>
>
>
> J.B.
>
> Finally got my information together for the 90C inspection to
> my 680F(p). As
> you remember mention was made at the conference in Dayton
> that we should send
> the paper work in, to support the stand that the inspection
> is not justified.
> Problem is, I lost my note on who to send the inspection
> report to. Help!
>
> Moe
> N680RR
>
>
> ============
> Matronics Forums.
> ============
> http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
>
> ============
> ============
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
We flat rate 90C at $1,100.00
Gary @ Commander Aero
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan
Kucheck
Subject: RE: Commander-List: 90C inspection
I'm coming up on my 90C pretty soon now on my 500A. What is a reasonable
expectation for labor/cost for this inspection?
Thanks,
ak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of MOEMILLS(at)aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:46 AM
> To: COMMANDER-LIST(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Commander-List: 90C inspection
>
>
>
> J.B.
>
> Finally got my information together for the 90C inspection to
> my 680F(p). As
> you remember mention was made at the conference in Dayton
> that we should send
> the paper work in, to support the stand that the inspection
> is not justified.
> Problem is, I lost my note on who to send the inspection
> report to. Help!
>
> Moe
> N680RR
>
>
> ============
> Matronics Forums.
> ============
> http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
>
> ============
> ============
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 90C inspection |
This past spring I had the following work done to my 680F(p)
AD 98-08-19 per SB 223 Dye penetrant inspection of left engine attachment
bracket, also inspected forward side of frame where T bracket is installed....$
240.00
Inspect wing station 24F 16 1 per SB 90C to comply with AD 94-04-13....$
120.00
Install wing left engine access doors as per SB 223. Removal of cuff on left
and right wing root areas. This operation required removal of upper wing tank
access panels and unlacing of bladders to inspect areas. (Just hope your
bladders don't start leaking) Removed and replaced abrasion boot on wing inboard
engines....$ 2,400.00.
The dye penetrant inspection was done by Garrett. Security Aviation, who
does my work, has a shop rate of $ 60.00 per hour.
Hope this gives you an idea as to what $$$$ to expect.
Moe
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Welcome to commander-list-digest |
It's a pleasure to participate, Dan. I just saw Moe's list of work done on
his 680FP with cost figures. If the board could also allow members to enter
their experiences, like Moe did, and the shops that performed the work with
room to comment, criticize, and perhaps upload images, it would give the
board added read-appeal and we get our vendors to pay attention. They might
just pay for advertising too, who knows.
We build high-end b2b portals for a living so if you need help, just let us
know. I will leave my invoice book at the office. :-)
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dominguez" <dan(at)worldflight2000.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Welcome to commander-list-digest
>
> nico-
> great idea. chris and I are still in the early process of adding this to
the existing aercommander web page. we will keep you posed on this
development and database creation. after speaking with fellow 500A driver
Dr. Kucheck, a possible online maintenance log available free of charge for
Commander Group members could soon be a possibility. keep a close eye for
improvements coming weekly on the existing web page. it's feedback like
you're that keeps us all better informed.
> blue skies.
> dan
>
>
> This list has done wonders exchanging information between Commander
> enthusiasts, but would it be of value setting up an exchange board, so if
> someone has anything aviation related to sell, trade, barter, or give
away,
> one could publish it? Right now it's by email and if one misses the email,
> it's quite a chore trying to find it again in the archive. One could
publish
> services of CFIs, examiners, insurance brokers with a prove track record
> with Commanderites, and so on. Take your need for an engine or shell or
> perhaps just spares, for instance. If someone in Australia or South Africa
> has an engine and knows about your plight, such an exchange board may
> facilitate the connection. You may find someone who would want to take the
> good engine off your hands opening opportunities to invest in Colemills.
Who
> knows?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 90C inspection |
In a message dated 10/13/2003 10:51:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akucheck(at)hotmail.com writes:
> I'm coming up on my 90C pretty soon now on my 500A. What is a reasonable
> expectation for labor/cost for this inspection?
>
When you have completed the inspection, PLEASE send a letter and a copy of
you findings to Geoffrey Pence at TCAC. If we can build enough data, we amy
someday be able to extend the inspection intervals jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Kucheck" <Alan.Kucheck(at)borland.com> |
Sure thing, JB. Planning on it.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com [mailto:YOURTCFG(at)aol.com]
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 90C inspection
In a message dated 10/13/2003 10:51:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akucheck(at)hotmail.com writes:
> I'm coming up on my 90C pretty soon now on my 500A. What is a reasonable
> expectation for labor/cost for this inspection?
>
When you have completed the inspection, PLEASE send a letter and a copy of
you findings to Geoffrey Pence at TCAC. If we can build enough data, we amy
someday be able to extend the inspection intervals jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 90C inspection |
In a message dated 10/14/2003 9:42:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Alan.Kucheck(at)borland.com writes:
> Sure thing, JB. Planning on it.
THANKS jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
Fellow Commander Drivers,
Does anyone have a clue as to how to convert Aero Commander Skydrol "O" ring
part numbers to recognizable part number (such as Acushnet, National, Parco,
Parker, Precision or Stillman). Also being able to convert Aero Commander part
numbers to a size would work, since we could then look them up in one of the
above mentioned manufacturers catalog.
Skydrol "O" rings are made of Ethylene Propylane. At the present when we
remove something from the plane we have to measure the old "O" ring and then
place our order for new rings, which always keeps my plane on the ground for a
few
extra days. We need to be able to purchase them in advance.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Moe
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
Good morning Moe,
NAS 1611- Standard seals for Skydrol components.
NAS 1612- Fitting O-rings for Skydrol.
Gary / Commander Aero
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
MOEMILLS(at)aol.com
Subject: Commander-List: "O" Rings
Fellow Commander Drivers,
Does anyone have a clue as to how to convert Aero Commander Skydrol "O" ring
part numbers to recognizable part number (such as Acushnet, National, Parco,
Parker, Precision or Stillman). Also being able to convert Aero Commander
part
numbers to a size would work, since we could then look them up in one of the
above mentioned manufacturers catalog.
Skydrol "O" rings are made of Ethylene Propylane. At the present when we
remove something from the plane we have to measure the old "O" ring and then
place our order for new rings, which always keeps my plane on the ground for
a few
extra days. We need to be able to purchase them in advance.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Moe
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Merritt" <avtec2(at)bellsouth.net> |
The last numbers in the part manual tell the size. Skydrol are 611 or 613
I Have a lot or Skydrol O-Rings.
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com>
Subject: Commander-List: "O" Rings
>
> Fellow Commander Drivers,
>
> Does anyone have a clue as to how to convert Aero Commander Skydrol "O"
ring
> part numbers to recognizable part number (such as Acushnet, National,
Parco,
> Parker, Precision or Stillman). Also being able to convert Aero Commander
part
> numbers to a size would work, since we could then look them up in one of
the
> above mentioned manufacturers catalog.
>
> Skydrol "O" rings are made of Ethylene Propylane. At the present when we
> remove something from the plane we have to measure the old "O" ring and
then
> place our order for new rings, which always keeps my plane on the ground
for a few
> extra days. We need to be able to purchase them in advance.
>
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Moe
> N680RR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
HI KIDS.
Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home of
the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days. Flew up
the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We don't
know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through FL
next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of the
Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport buddy. It
should really be fun.
Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
I have a friend that says every day your retired is a good day!
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> HI KIDS.
>
> Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
of
> the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
Flew up
> the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
don't
> know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
FL
> next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
the
> Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
buddy. It
> should really be fun.
> Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki(at)702com.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Been flying 411VV around the dakota's pheasant hunting. Probably 6-7 hours
this last week.
Jody
----- Original Message -----
From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> HI KIDS.
>
> Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
of
> the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
Flew up
> the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
don't
> know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
FL
> next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
the
> Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
buddy. It
> should really be fun.
> Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buddy Windham <bw_cycon(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Hey, guys I flew my 560e from grand rapids michigan to mt. pleasant, texas (2.08
a gallon) to san antonio, stinson field, to david wayne hooks in houston, to
new iberia, la to look at a 206 jet ranger to jonesboun arkansas back home.
All in 3 days....The new cnx80 gps and stec 65 autopilot worked great. HAVE FUN
GUYS.
Jody and Susan Pillatzki wrote:--> Commander-List message
posted by: "Jody and Susan Pillatzki"
Been flying 411VV around the dakota's pheasant hunting. Probably 6-7 hours
this last week.
Jody
----- Original Message -----
From:
Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> HI KIDS.
>
> Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
of
> the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
Flew up
> the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
don't
> know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
FL
> next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
the
> Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
buddy. It
> should really be fun.
> Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
>
>
Buddy Windham, President
Cycon Enterprises, Inc.
General Contractors/Construction Management/Design Build Services
0-608 Quincy Street S.W.
Grandville, Michigan 49418
616 896-6488 office
616 896-6490 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Buddy Windham wrote:
> The new cnx80 gps and stec 65 autopilot worked great.
You got a CNX80 eh Buddy? I was giving serious consideration to one of
those for my bird. Looks like quite a cool toy - how do you like it? I
finally decided to just put a GNS430 in for now since it's unlikely that
we'll get a WAAS approach into my home airport anytime soon and I have
grander plans for the future. I'm of the opinion that there will be
several very wild new products certified and on the market in the near
future now that Garmin and UPSAT have merged capabilities. I'm hoping
that the new Garmin 1000 "panel" may turn out to be pretty reasonably
priced (compared to existing options for a total panel replacement
anyway). Given the number of GA mfgrs that seem to have signed up to
offer it (such as a Cessna 182), I think it may not be much more than a
full panel of traditional instruments/radios.
Hey, does anyone around here currently have any weather uplink/downlink
stuff in their airplane? I'm definitly going to purchase _something_ to
get weather onboard in the near future, but I'm still carefully
evaluating the various technologies and options. I think I've
researched all of the potentials and have some opinions, but would
appreciate any feedback from someone who actually has used a system for
a while in the "real world".
Anybody have any firsthand experience with the WXWORX system?
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buddy Windham <bw_cycon(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Hey Chis, good to hear from you. The CNX is a sweet system not that I'm getting
use to it. It is definately a hard IRF box with Airways, sids and stars, etc.
It is more like a FMS system the bid boys have than anything to date under
100K. Coupled with the MX20 and STEC 65 this ship will do a lot more than my
little mind can grasp. As far as weather on board I'm playing around with a serial
link on my sat phone coupled to a small lap top. I now can get live internet
feeds. The problem is of course the speed in which the maps are downloaded
on my laptop. Will let you know how it goes.
Chris Schuermann
Buddy Windham wrote:
> The new cnx80 gps and stec 65 autopilot worked great.
You got a CNX80 eh Buddy? I was giving serious consideration to one of
those for my bird. Looks like quite a cool toy - how do you like it? I
finally decided to just put a GNS430 in for now since it's unlikely that
we'll get a WAAS approach into my home airport anytime soon and I have
grander plans for the future. I'm of the opinion that there will be
several very wild new products certified and on the market in the near
future now that Garmin and UPSAT have merged capabilities. I'm hoping
that the new Garmin 1000 "panel" may turn out to be pretty reasonably
priced (compared to existing options for a total panel replacement
anyway). Given the number of GA mfgrs that seem to have signed up to
offer it (such as a Cessna 182), I think it may not be much more than a
full panel of traditional instruments/radios.
Hey, does anyone around here currently have any weather uplink/downlink
stuff in their airplane? I'm definitly going to purchase _something_ to
get weather onboard in the near future, but I'm still carefully
evaluating the various technologies and options. I think I've
researched all of the potentials and have some opinions, but would
appreciate any feedback from someone who actually has used a system for
a while in the "real world".
Anybody have any firsthand experience with the WXWORX system?
Chris
Buddy Windham, President
Cycon Enterprises, Inc.
General Contractors/Construction Management/Design Build Services
0-608 Quincy Street S.W.
Grandville, Michigan 49418
616 896-6488 office
616 896-6490 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Buddy Windham wrote:
> I'm playing around with a serial link on my sat phone coupled to a small lap
top.
Thanks for the update Buddy!
Yea, there are a couple of "portable" solutions available which are
somewhat interesting, but frankly, I have enough cables to get tangled
up in already :-) (not to mention that I loath the idea of trusting a
Windows-based system to keep me alive when I need it most). Sadly,
there are a number of start-up companies which have some pretty good
concept stuff out there. Each claims to have an "aviation certified"
product available "real soon". I'm not keen on spending many thousands
of dollars on a device which requires a monthly subscription to work if
I don't have faith that they'll be around to pipe the data to me. From
that standpoint, the bendix/king system is the most attractive, but it's
also the most expensive both initially and on-going. The
Echoflight/Orbcom stuff is now available (after how many years of
promises?) and will display on my Garmin, but I'm not that impressed
with the quality of the displayed data or the dollars/update pricing model.
Guess I'll keep hunting.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buddy Windham <bw_cycon(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Purchase of the system is one thing, the cheapest monthly fee is still around $50.00
per month. I agree with you that all promise soon but when will soon come
about? Your point on the cables is so true. My MX20 will take quite a few
of the exising systems, but monthly cost when I don't fly in the winter, hard
to swallow.
Chris Schuermann
Buddy Windham wrote:
> I'm playing around with a serial link on my sat phone coupled to a small lap
top.
Thanks for the update Buddy!
Yea, there are a couple of "portable" solutions available which are
somewhat interesting, but frankly, I have enough cables to get tangled
up in already :-) (not to mention that I loath the idea of trusting a
Windows-based system to keep me alive when I need it most). Sadly,
there are a number of start-up companies which have some pretty good
concept stuff out there. Each claims to have an "aviation certified"
product available "real soon". I'm not keen on spending many thousands
of dollars on a device which requires a monthly subscription to work if
I don't have faith that they'll be around to pipe the data to me. From
that standpoint, the bendix/king system is the most attractive, but it's
also the most expensive both initially and on-going. The
Echoflight/Orbcom stuff is now available (after how many years of
promises?) and will display on my Garmin, but I'm not that impressed
with the quality of the displayed data or the dollars/update pricing model.
Guess I'll keep hunting.
chris
Buddy Windham, President
Cycon Enterprises, Inc.
General Contractors/Construction Management/Design Build Services
0-608 Quincy Street S.W.
Grandville, Michigan 49418
616 896-6488 office
616 896-6490 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
Buddy Windham wrote:
> Purchase of the system is one thing, the cheapest monthly fee is still around
$50.00 per month.
I look at it as just another re-occuring expense - like keeping the
GPS's database up to date or buying maps. It costs money to provide a
service. My main concern is will the "service provider" be around long
enough for me to get good value out of my hardware investment.
Echoflight has a plan which is probably interesting to the "light"
flyer. It's only $9.95/month, but there's an additional $1/update fee.
Garmin, UPS, and King seem to own the majority of the multi-function
display market. If a new comes on the market,
they need to support at least those three to be viable IMO. Requiring
the end user to have a PC/laptop/PDA/etc just doesn't cut it for any
serious flying.
cs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
While your in FLA area there might be a 680FL to report on.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> HI KIDS.
>
> Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
of
> the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
Flew up
> the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
don't
> know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
FL
> next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
the
> Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
buddy. It
> should really be fun.
> Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
I too would be interested in a weather connection to a pair of Garmin 430's.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
>
> Buddy Windham wrote:
> > The new cnx80 gps and stec 65 autopilot worked great.
>
> You got a CNX80 eh Buddy? I was giving serious consideration to one of
> those for my bird. Looks like quite a cool toy - how do you like it? I
> finally decided to just put a GNS430 in for now since it's unlikely that
> we'll get a WAAS approach into my home airport anytime soon and I have
> grander plans for the future. I'm of the opinion that there will be
> several very wild new products certified and on the market in the near
> future now that Garmin and UPSAT have merged capabilities. I'm hoping
> that the new Garmin 1000 "panel" may turn out to be pretty reasonably
> priced (compared to existing options for a total panel replacement
> anyway). Given the number of GA mfgrs that seem to have signed up to
> offer it (such as a Cessna 182), I think it may not be much more than a
> full panel of traditional instruments/radios.
>
> Hey, does anyone around here currently have any weather uplink/downlink
> stuff in their airplane? I'm definitly going to purchase _something_ to
> get weather onboard in the near future, but I'm still carefully
> evaluating the various technologies and options. I think I've
> researched all of the potentials and have some opinions, but would
> appreciate any feedback from someone who actually has used a system for
> a while in the "real world".
> Anybody have any firsthand experience with the WXWORX system?
>
> Chris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Retirement introduces the bizarre period in which you wonder how you ever
had time to be employed.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> I have a friend that says every day your retired is a good day!
>
> Bruce Campbell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
>
> >
> > HI KIDS.
> >
> > Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon
(home
> of
> > the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500
parked
> > there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
> Flew up
> > the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> > Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
> don't
> > know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
> FL
> > next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
> the
> > Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
> buddy. It
> > should really be fun.
> > Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Checklists anyone? |
I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist and
all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A flight
manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
folks I have flown with or spoken to.
It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free to
take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
please.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist and
> all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A flight
> manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> folks I have flown with or spoken to.
>
> It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
>
> Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free to
> take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down either.
But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain cells
are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
guess.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
> they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
> please.
> Tom F.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist and
> > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A flight
> > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> >
> > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> >
> > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free to
> > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
Great trip this weekend ..San Luis Obispo to SanDiego (Lindbergh Field...I
love that airport). Spent two days in Mexico visiting our daughter. Son
Todd flew in from Denver to meet us. Gorgeous flight home last
night...twinkling stars, lites of the LA basin. Ain't it great..!!
Randy Dettmer
N6253X/680F
----- Original Message -----
From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
> HI KIDS.
>
> Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
of
> the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
Flew up
> the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
don't
> know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
FL
> next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
the
> Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
buddy. It
> should really be fun.
> Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
In a message dated 10/20/2003 7:02:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rcdettmer(at)charter.net writes:
> Ain't it great..!!
AMEN!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
All,
There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original, nice
Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could scan
each page, and send it.
It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
Cheers,
Bill BIll Hamilton.
>
>I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down either.
>But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain cells
>are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
>guess.
>Nico
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
> > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
> > please.
> > Tom F.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist and
> > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A flight
> > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > >
> > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > >
> > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free to
> > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
using a checklist.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
All,
There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original, nice
Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could scan
each page, and send it.
It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
Cheers,
Bill BIll Hamilton.
>
>I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down
either.
>But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain cells
>are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
>guess.
>Nico
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
> > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
> > please.
> > Tom F.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist
and
> > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A
flight
> > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > >
> > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > >
> > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free
to
> > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
Bill Bow wrote:
> As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> using a checklist.
Amen brother Bow!
Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
providing some amusement...
A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
fellow.....
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
Chris and all,
This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number of
smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform, smaller
aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old Bristol
"Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2 bars.
There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of the
competition.
In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined that
customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because "their
pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the truism
"familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector. No
pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
"touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
WH.
>
>
>Bill Bow wrote:
> > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> > using a checklist.
>
>Amen brother Bow!
>
>Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
>providing some amusement...
>
>A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
>had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
>for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
>the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
>possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
>newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
>scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
>my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
>When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
>ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
>explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
>uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
>and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
>wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
>regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
>fellow.....
>
>
>Chris
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I have another two cents to add.
In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better make
sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in the
order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get to the
take-off stage.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> Chris and all,
> This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
> rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number
of
> smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
>
> Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
>
> Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform, smaller
> aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
Bristol
> "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2
bars.
>
> There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of
the
> competition.
>
> In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined that
> customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because "their
> pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
>
> So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton.
>
> PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the truism
> "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector. No
> pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
>
> Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
> pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
> the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
> "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
>
> WH.
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER
stop
> > > using a checklist.
> >
> >Amen brother Bow!
> >
> >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> >providing some amusement...
> >
> >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
> >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
> >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
> >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
> >fellow.....
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jlyle <jlyle(at)thomsonaviation.com> |
After a great deal of work and help form Morris and several others, I am about
to get N11L back in the air in a few days. We had hoped to have it ready for the
recent TCFG Fly In.
However, we couldn't get it ready in time.
With the help of my son who is an A&P IA we have spent nearly a year restoring
our 520 to better than new condition. He operates the FBO in Thomson, Georgia
(HQU).
Almost everything on the aircraft has been replaced and/or rebuilt.
In addition to the mechanical side we trimed it off with new paint and a new panel
with a Garmin 430 and an Stec autopilot.
It looks like a show plane!
N11L was a new project begun last year to restore it to the best 520 in the world.
I will get some photo's as soon as we complete the detailing of the engines.
Now, I need some help/advice from experienced 520 flyers.
I have very few hours in geared engines and could use any advice/tips on flying
the 520.
maniford pressure/RPM, speeds etc.
I have copied some information from the TCFG website.
However, now I want to pick the brains of some experienced flyers with real world
experience.
Thanks,
James Lyle
N11l
Thomson, Georgia
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Commander-List Digest can be also be found in either
> of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-20.html
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-20.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> Commander-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 10/20/03: 7
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 07:02 AM - Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (Randy Dettmer, AIA)
> 2. 09:04 AM - Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (YOURTCFG(at)aol.com)
> 3. 04:34 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (W J R HAMILTON)
> 4. 05:41 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Bill Bow)
> 5. 06:53 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Chris Schuermann)
> 6. 07:29 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (W J R HAMILTON)
> 7. 08:50 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Tom Fisher)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
>
> Great trip this weekend ..San Luis Obispo to SanDiego (Lindbergh Field...I
> love that airport). Spent two days in Mexico visiting our daughter. Son
> Todd flew in from Denver to meet us. Gorgeous flight home last
> night...twinkling stars, lites of the LA basin. Ain't it great..!!
>
> Randy Dettmer
> N6253X/680F
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
>
> >
> > HI KIDS.
> >
> > Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon (home
> of
> > the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500 parked
> > there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
> Flew up
> > the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> > Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day. We
> don't
> > know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be through
> FL
> > next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president of
> the
> > Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
> buddy. It
> > should really be fun.
> > Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
>
>
> In a message dated 10/20/2003 7:02:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> rcdettmer(at)charter.net writes:
>
> > Ain't it great..!!
>
> AMEN!! jb
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> All,
> There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original, nice
> Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could scan
> each page, and send it.
> It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
> Cheers,
> Bill BIll Hamilton.
>
>
> >
> >I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down either.
> >But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain cells
> >are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
> >guess.
> >Nico
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
> > > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
> > > please.
> > > Tom F.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist and
> > > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> > > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A flight
> > > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > > >
> > > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free to
> > > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> using a checklist.
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
>
> All,
> There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original, nice
> Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could scan
> each page, and send it.
> It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
> Cheers,
> Bill BIll Hamilton.
>
>
> >
> >I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down
> either.
> >But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain cells
> >are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
> >guess.
> >Nico
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists and
> > > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check lists....
> > > please.
> > > Tom F.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist
> and
> > > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A Colemill
> > > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A
> flight
> > > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > > >
> > > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free
> to
> > > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> Bill Bow wrote:
> > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> > using a checklist.
>
> Amen brother Bow!
>
> Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> providing some amusement...
>
> A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
> newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
> my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
> and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
> fellow.....
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> Chris and all,
> This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
> rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number of
> smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
>
> Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
>
> Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform, smaller
> aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old Bristol
> "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2 bars.
>
> There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of the
> competition.
>
> In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined that
> customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because "their
> pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
>
> So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton.
>
> PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the truism
> "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector. No
> pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
>
> Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
> pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
> the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
> "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
>
> WH.
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> > > using a checklist.
> >
> >Amen brother Bow!
> >
> >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> >providing some amusement...
> >
> >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
> >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
> >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
> >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
> >fellow.....
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> I have another two cents to add.
> In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better make
> sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in the
> order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get to the
> take-off stage.
>
> Tom F.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris and all,
> > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
> > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number
> of
> > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> >
> > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> >
> > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform, smaller
> > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
> Bristol
> > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2
> bars.
> >
> > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of
> the
> > competition.
> >
> > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined that
> > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because "their
> > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> >
> > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill Hamilton.
> >
> > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the truism
> > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector. No
> > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> >
> > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
> > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
> > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
> > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> >
> > WH.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER
> stop
> > > > using a checklist.
> > >
> > >Amen brother Bow!
> > >
> > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> > >providing some amusement...
> > >
> > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
> > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
> > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
> > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
> > >fellow.....
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > COMMUNICATIONS
> > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> >
> > will remain valid for about three months.
> > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> > three months, the date will be notified.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B777atkins(at)aol.com |
Jim, I have quite a bit of time in several Commanders, including the 520.I
flew them as a corporate pilot years ago and Crunk and I partnered in a 520 for
several years. We just recently sold it.I am recently retired from United
Airlines. 20,000 Hrs. plus total time ,mostly multi.If I can help let me know.
I
am pretty intimate with the 520 mechanically and flying, including one engine
crapping out on takeoff. Sweet airplane. I envy you and hope I can help. I live
just south of the Atlanta airport.Phone no. is 706-538-0308. Thanks, Cliff
Atkins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net> |
Cliff,
We need to take a RV-8 trip to Thomson, GA!
Crunk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
I've been flying mine now for a couple of years. I have a checklist to offer
(if I can find it)....
Do you have the excellent AC520 for FS2002? It really is quite accurate and
an inexpensive way to try things.
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "jlyle" <jlyle(at)thomsonaviation.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Re: AC 520
>
> After a great deal of work and help form Morris and several others, I am
about to get N11L back in the air in a few days. We had hoped to have it
ready for the recent TCFG Fly In.
> However, we couldn't get it ready in time.
> With the help of my son who is an A&P IA we have spent nearly a year
restoring our 520 to better than new condition. He operates the FBO in
Thomson, Georgia (HQU).
> Almost everything on the aircraft has been replaced and/or rebuilt.
> In addition to the mechanical side we trimed it off with new paint and a
new panel with a Garmin 430 and an Stec autopilot.
> It looks like a show plane!
> N11L was a new project begun last year to restore it to the best 520 in
the world.
> I will get some photo's as soon as we complete the detailing of the
engines.
> Now, I need some help/advice from experienced 520 flyers.
> I have very few hours in geared engines and could use any advice/tips on
flying the 520.
> maniford pressure/RPM, speeds etc.
> I have copied some information from the TCFG website.
> However, now I want to pick the brains of some experienced flyers with
real world experience.
> Thanks,
> James Lyle
> N11l
> Thomson, Georgia
>
>
> > ==================================================
> > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ==================================================
> >
> > Today's complete Commander-List Digest can be also be found in either
> > of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> > formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
Hyperlinked
> > Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> > version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> > text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
> >
> > HTML Version:
> >
> >
http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-20.html
> >
> > Text Version:
> >
> >
http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-20.txt
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ================================================
> >
> >
> > Commander-List Digest Archive
> > ---
> > Total Messages Posted Mon 10/20/03: 7
> >
> >
> > Today's Message Index:
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 1. 07:02 AM - Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (Randy Dettmer, AIA)
> > 2. 09:04 AM - Re: ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (YOURTCFG(at)aol.com)
> > 3. 04:34 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (W J R HAMILTON)
> > 4. 05:41 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Bill Bow)
> > 5. 06:53 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Chris Schuermann)
> > 6. 07:29 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (W J R HAMILTON)
> > 7. 08:50 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Tom Fisher)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
> >
> >
> > Great trip this weekend ..San Luis Obispo to SanDiego (Lindbergh
Field...I
> > love that airport). Spent two days in Mexico visiting our daughter.
Son
> > Todd flew in from Denver to meet us. Gorgeous flight home last
> > night...twinkling stars, lites of the LA basin. Ain't it great..!!
> >
> > Randy Dettmer
> > N6253X/680F
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > Subject: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
> >
> >
> > >
> > > HI KIDS.
> > >
> > > Pretty quite. I flew triple 2 to Mccminville Oregon
(home
> > of
> > > the Spruce Goose) yesterday to take another look at a derelict 500
parked
> > > there. Had a great trip. Wonderful weather the last couple of days.
> > Flew up
> > > the gorge and around Moultnoma falls. Had my neighbors along.
> > > Sue has retired from her job (Yea!) Friday was her last day.
We
> > don't
> > > know what the future holds for us, but we trust God. We will be
through
> > FL
> > > next week briefly as we board a cruse ship for a week. The president
of
> > the
> > > Navion Society and his wife will be going as well as another airport
> > buddy. It
> > > should really be fun.
> > > Anybody else flying there Commander?? jb
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: ANYBODY OUT THERE??
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/20/2003 7:02:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > rcdettmer(at)charter.net writes:
> >
> > > Ain't it great..!!
> >
> > AMEN!! jb
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > All,
> > There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original,
nice
> > Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could
scan
> > each page, and send it.
> > It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
> > Cheers,
> > Bill BIll Hamilton.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down
either.
> > >But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain
cells
> > >are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
> > >guess.
> > >Nico
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists
and
> > > > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > > > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check
lists....
> > > > please.
> > > > Tom F.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past
checklist and
> > > > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A
Colemill
> > > > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A
flight
> > > > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from
several
> > > > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel
free to
> > > > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > COMMUNICATIONS
> > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> >
> > will remain valid for about three months.
> > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> > three months, the date will be notified.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> > using a checklist.
> >
> > bilbo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> > There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original,
nice
> > Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could
scan
> > each page, and send it.
> > It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
> > Cheers,
> > Bill BIll Hamilton.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down
> > either.
> > >But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain
cells
> > >are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
> > >guess.
> > >Nico
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists
and
> > > > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > > > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check
lists....
> > > > please.
> > > > Tom F.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past
checklist
> > and
> > > > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A
Colemill
> > > > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A
> > flight
> > > > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from
several
> > > > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel
free
> > to
> > > > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > COMMUNICATIONS
> > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> >
> > will remain valid for about three months.
> > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> > three months, the date will be notified.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Bow wrote:
> > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER
stop
> > > using a checklist.
> >
> > Amen brother Bow!
> >
> > Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> > providing some amusement...
> >
> > A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> > for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> > the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to this
> > newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed that
> > my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the time
> > and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the poor
> > fellow.....
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > Chris and all,
> > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
> > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number
of
> > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> >
> > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> >
> > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform,
smaller
> > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
Bristol
> > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2
bars.
> >
> > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of
the
> > competition.
> >
> > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined
that
> > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because
"their
> > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> >
> > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill Hamilton.
> >
> > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the
truism
> > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector.
No
> > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> >
> > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
> > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
> > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
> > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> >
> > WH.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER
stop
> > > > using a checklist.
> > >
> > >Amen brother Bow!
> > >
> > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> > >providing some amusement...
> > >
> > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to
this
> > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed
that
> > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the
time
> > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the
poor
> > >fellow.....
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > COMMUNICATIONS
> > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> >
> > will remain valid for about three months.
> > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> > three months, the date will be notified.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > I have another two cents to add.
> > In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better
make
> > sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in the
> > order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get to
the
> > take-off stage.
> >
> > Tom F.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Chris and all,
> > > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually
standard
> > > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a
number
> > of
> > > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> > > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> > >
> > > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> > >
> > > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform,
smaller
> > > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
> > Bristol
> > > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or
2
> > bars.
> > >
> > > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit
of
> > the
> > > competition.
> > >
> > > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined
that
> > > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because
"their
> > > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> > >
> > > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Bill Hamilton.
> > >
> > > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the
truism
> > > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last
sector. No
> > > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> > > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> > >
> > > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house
cadet
> > > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to
"touch"
> > > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she
did,
> > > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> > >
> > > WH.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say
NEVER
> > stop
> > > > > using a checklist.
> > > >
> > > >Amen brother Bow!
> > > >
> > > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes
of
> > > >providing some amusement...
> > > >
> > > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take
him
> > > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt
around
> > > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to
this
> > > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed
that
> > > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the
time
> > > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the
poor
> > > >fellow.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > COMMUNICATIONS
> > > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> > >
> > > will remain valid for about three months.
> > > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in
about
> > > three months, the date will be notified.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
But it's never too late to start, huh?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER stop
> using a checklist.
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
>
> All,
> There is a nice little "official" 500A checklist, I have an original, nice
> Rockwell blue cover and all, if anybody wants a copy, I guess I could scan
> each page, and send it.
> It would be a good start for anybody creating their own version.
> Cheers,
> Bill BIll Hamilton.
>
>
> >
> >I am a convert. Never used a checklist. Never wrote a clearance down
> either.
> >But I see the dangers in not doing it. Especially now that more brain
cells
> >are on pension than on duty. The little bastards flirt with calcium, I
> >guess.
> >Nico
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The longer I am in the game (35 yrs.) the MORE I rely on check lists
and
> > > they always serve a purpose, that's why they exist.
> > > Don't let familiarity with any aircraft stop the use of check
lists....
> > > please.
> > > Tom F.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alan Kucheck" <akucheck(at)hotmail.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am sure most of the veterans on this list are well past checklist
> and
> > > > all. But I'm still just starting out and for me a checklist still
> > > > serves a purpose. I have created one for N811D, my 1962 500A
Colemill
> > > > Twin Commander. I have pulled together information from the 500A
> flight
> > > > manual, the Colemill supplement to the AFM, and advice from several
> > > > folks I have flown with or spoken to.
> > > >
> > > > It is available at http://www.kucheck.net/Aircraft/Checklist.html.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback, corrections, suggestions wil be appreciated. Feel free
> to
> > > > take the doc and modify it to suit your needs.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I appreciate the value of a checklist, and as I said, I am a convert, but,
surely, there are times when you have to employ your drills, such as when
aborting a landing at a late stage or having an in-flight emergency. I used
to make very short hops between Inhaca Island and Maputo in Mozambique
several times a day in my Commander. If I had to use a checklist I would
have had to delay the approach to Maputu to get the checklist-work slotted
in. Instead I would prepare for the phases of the flight from memory (and
still forgot the fuel pump once or twice -- like the undercarraige it's only
a switch!).
Is there a point where over-reliance on a checklist would show up in one's
emergency drills?
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> I have another two cents to add.
> In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better make
> sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in the
> order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get to
the
> take-off stage.
>
> Tom F.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris and all,
> > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually standard
> > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a number
> of
> > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> >
> > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> >
> > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform,
smaller
> > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
> Bristol
> > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or 2
> bars.
> >
> > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit of
> the
> > competition.
> >
> > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined
that
> > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because
"their
> > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> >
> > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill Hamilton.
> >
> > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the
truism
> > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last sector.
No
> > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> >
> > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house cadet
> > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to "touch"
> > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she did,
> > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> >
> > WH.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say NEVER
> stop
> > > > using a checklist.
> > >
> > >Amen brother Bow!
> > >
> > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes of
> > >providing some amusement...
> > >
> > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take him
> > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt around
> > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to
this
> > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed
that
> > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the
time
> > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the
poor
> > >fellow.....
> > >
> > >
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > COMMUNICATIONS
> > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> >
> > will remain valid for about three months.
> > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> > three months, the date will be notified.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
conducted from memory and at the first opportunity the check list should be
referenced to insure all items have been completed.
In a multipilot environment the check list is brought out sooner.
Tom F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> I appreciate the value of a checklist, and as I said, I am a convert, but,
> surely, there are times when you have to employ your drills, such as when
> aborting a landing at a late stage or having an in-flight emergency. I
used
> to make very short hops between Inhaca Island and Maputo in Mozambique
> several times a day in my Commander. If I had to use a checklist I would
> have had to delay the approach to Maputu to get the checklist-work slotted
> in. Instead I would prepare for the phases of the flight from memory (and
> still forgot the fuel pump once or twice -- like the undercarraige it's
only
> a switch!).
> Is there a point where over-reliance on a checklist would show up in one's
> emergency drills?
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > I have another two cents to add.
> > In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better
make
> > sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in the
> > order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get to
> the
> > take-off stage.
> >
> > Tom F.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Chris and all,
> > > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually
standard
> > > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a
number
> > of
> > > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly famous/infamous
> > > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> > >
> > > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> > >
> > > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform,
> smaller
> > > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
> > Bristol
> > > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1 or
2
> > bars.
> > >
> > > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit
of
> > the
> > > competition.
> > >
> > > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was determined
> that
> > > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because
> "their
> > > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> > >
> > > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Bill Hamilton.
> > >
> > > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the
> truism
> > > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last
sector.
> No
> > > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper checklist
> > > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> > >
> > > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house
cadet
> > > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to
"touch"
> > > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she
did,
> > > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> > >
> > > WH.
> > >
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say
NEVER
> > stop
> > > > > using a checklist.
> > > >
> > > >Amen brother Bow!
> > > >
> > > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes
of
> > > >providing some amusement...
> > > >
> > > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said in-law
> > > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take
him
> > > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt
around
> > > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to
> this
> > > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed
> that
> > > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room, he
> > > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the
> time
> > > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly. My
> > > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed to
> > > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the
> poor
> > > >fellow.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > COMMUNICATIONS
> > > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
> W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> > >
> > > will remain valid for about three months.
> > > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in
about
> > > three months, the date will be notified.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I beleive a checklist should be employed *especially* after an emergency. A
checklist is not a "do" list. Use you flows or memory items, but use the
checklist to ensure you got everything. Under high stress is a classic time
for an *oopsie*
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
> conducted from memory and at the first opportunity the check list should
be
> referenced to insure all items have been completed.
> In a multipilot environment the check list is brought out sooner.
>
> Tom F.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > I appreciate the value of a checklist, and as I said, I am a convert,
but,
> > surely, there are times when you have to employ your drills, such as
when
> > aborting a landing at a late stage or having an in-flight emergency. I
> used
> > to make very short hops between Inhaca Island and Maputo in Mozambique
> > several times a day in my Commander. If I had to use a checklist I would
> > have had to delay the approach to Maputu to get the checklist-work
slotted
> > in. Instead I would prepare for the phases of the flight from memory
(and
> > still forgot the fuel pump once or twice -- like the undercarraige it's
> only
> > a switch!).
> > Is there a point where over-reliance on a checklist would show up in
one's
> > emergency drills?
> > Nico
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have another two cents to add.
> > > In Canada, if you go on a Transport Canada IFR check ride you better
> make
> > > sure that your "personalized checklist" has everything on it and in
the
> > > order it is in the approved flight manual or your ride will never get
to
> > the
> > > take-off stage.
> > >
> > > Tom F.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris and all,
> > > > This reminds me of many years ago, before there were virtually
> standard
> > > > rank insignia on civil uniforms, 4 bars for Captains etc.
> > > > British United Airlines ( now long gone) was a consolidation of a
> number
> > > of
> > > > smaller carriers, largely put together by the rightly
famous/infamous
> > > > Freddy Laker, and based at Southend in UK.
> > > >
> > > > Some bright spark decided to "rationalised" rankings.
> > > >
> > > > Captains of "big" aeroplanes would carry 4 bars on their uniform,
> > smaller
> > > > aircraft Captains 3 bars, and cross channel car freighters, the old
> > > Bristol
> > > > "Frightener" only 2 bars. First Officers would in each case wear 1
or
> 2
> > > bars.
> > > >
> > > > There was an alarming drop off in traffic, to the very great benefit
> of
> > > the
> > > > competition.
> > > >
> > > > In an early example of a "public relations" survey, it was
determined
> > that
> > > > customers were reluctant to fly BUA cross channel services, because
> > "their
> > > > pilots were not as experienced" as the competition.
> > > >
> > > > So now everybody from the Seneca "Captain" up seems to wear 4 bars.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Bill Hamilton.
> > > >
> > > > PS After 40 years/25,000 or so hours, I need checklists. Beware the
> > truism
> > > > "familiarity breeds contempt. You are only as good as your last
> sector.
> > No
> > > > pilot who rigidly adheres to proper checklists and a proper
checklist
> > > > attitude will land gear up, or take off with the fuel off.
> > > >
> > > > Down here we had a most amazing accident a while ago. A hot house
> cadet
> > > > pilot graduate had an engine failure, it was quite recoverable by
> > > > switching on an electric boost pump. The pump was never turned on.
> > > > In the interviews the pilot described how she had been taught to
> "touch"
> > > > the various controls in a simulated emergency, and that is what she
> did,
> > > > "touch" them, and no more. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or
> > > > serious injuries, but what does this say about training ??
> > > >
> > > > WH.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Bill Bow wrote:
> > > > > > As someone who makes a living from this industry, I would say
> NEVER
> > > stop
> > > > > > using a checklist.
> > > > >
> > > > >Amen brother Bow!
> > > > >
> > > > >Okay, the topic does remind me of something, so I'll share in hopes
> of
> > > > >providing some amusement...
> > > > >
> > > > >A couple years ago, a relative came to town for a visit. Said
in-law
> > > > >had never been in a "little airplane" before and asked if I'd take
> him
> > > > >for a ride. Anyway, we went out for a short sight-seeing jaunt
> around
> > > > >the countryside, and as always, I tried to be as professional as
> > > > >possible and tried to give a smooth, stress-free, enjoyable ride to
> > this
> > > > >newbie. Although I tried to inject a little conversation about the
> > > > >scenery and explain some of the stuff about the airplane, I noticed
> > that
> > > > >my passenger remained mostly silent during the flight.
> > > > >When we got back to the house, his wife asked him if he enjoyed the
> > > > >ride. He just mumbled that it was "nice". After I left the room,
he
> > > > >explained further (my wife was also there) that he was pretty
> > > > >uncomfortable that I was having to read the instructions all of the
> > time
> > > > >and thought that it would be better once I'd learned how to fly.
My
> > > > >wife literally fell off her chair laughing and eventually managed
to
> > > > >regain enough composure to explain the concept of checklists to the
> > poor
> > > > >fellow.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > COMMUNICATIONS
> > > > CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> > > > The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
> > W.J.R.Hamilton,
> > > > Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
> > > >
> > > > will remain valid for about three months.
> > > > All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in
> about
> > > > three months, the date will be notified.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
> conducted from memory
How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry or write
about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable written
checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to safety.
Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not currently found
on
the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd pump after TO
or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start. These items
are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in the real
world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly airplanes that are
to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not one of
them. Just my thoughts. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been practicing
their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good to heed
their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the pros
proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles, but they
preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and blast
off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel from left
to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain within
the reality realm.
Thanks
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
>
> > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
> > conducted from memory
>
> How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry or
write
> about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable written
> checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
safety.
> Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not currently
found on
> the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd pump
after TO
> or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start. These
items
> are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in the
real
> world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly airplanes
that are
> to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not one
of
> them. Just my thoughts. jb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not much better
today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in business, but
as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes them a living, they
will take and take and take attributing their misguided approach as their right
to justice.
It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once waited
at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of course) with
a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main undercarriage. I
called the tower to let the pilot know about the situation but the pilot reported
that he knew about the tread coming off the one wheel and that it's still
OK. He took off with pieces of rubber flying in all directions. Glad I sat in
my 500 and not in that ship.
Thanks
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bow
To: css nico
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Maputo
I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under contract
to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es Salem to London
in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had been in Rodesia, from
Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my paycheck from that "job"
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: css nico
To: Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Maputo
Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or something. Someone
remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca soon after 1980.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bow
To: nico(at)cybersuperstore.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: Maputo
Nico,
I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent Christmas
1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
Bilbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
The point being?????
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been practicing
> their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good to
heed
> their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
> Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the
pros
> proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles, but
they
> preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and blast
> off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel from
left
> to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
within
> the reality realm.
> Thanks
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> >
> > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
> > > conducted from memory
> >
> > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry or
> write
> > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
written
> > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
> safety.
> > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not currently
> found on
> > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd pump
> after TO
> > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start. These
> items
> > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in the
> real
> > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly airplanes
> that are
> > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not one
> of
> > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus memorized
drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I was a
total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to which
one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists are
good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of the
flight from memory.
Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> The point being?????
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
practicing
> > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good to
> heed
> > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
> > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the
> pros
> > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles, but
> they
> > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
blast
> > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel from
> left
> > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> within
> > the reality realm.
> > Thanks
> > Nico
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > >
> > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to be
> > > > conducted from memory
> > >
> > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry or
> > write
> > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> written
> > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
> > safety.
> > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
currently
> > found on
> > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd pump
> > after TO
> > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start. These
> > items
> > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in the
> > real
> > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly airplanes
> > that are
> > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not
one
> > of
> > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I agree. I just got lost in the communication. Seems like more that a few
items and I forget. So I need a check list on everything I do anymore.
bobby
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus memorized
> drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I was
a
> total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to which
> one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists are
> good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of the
> flight from memory.
> Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> >
> >
> > The point being?????
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> practicing
> > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
to
> > heed
> > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
> > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the
> > pros
> > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
but
> > they
> > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> blast
> > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
from
> > left
> > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > within
> > > the reality realm.
> > > Thanks
> > > Nico
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to
be
> > > > > conducted from memory
> > > >
> > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
or
> > > write
> > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > written
> > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
> > > safety.
> > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> currently
> > > found on
> > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
pump
> > > after TO
> > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
These
> > > items
> > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
the
> > > real
> > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
airplanes
> > > that are
> > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not
> one
> > > of
> > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ricardo A. Otaola" <otayca(at)telcel.net.ve> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
My penny's worth of advice:
My instructor once asked me how many times I would go to the bathroom to
take a leak a day? Well, I said anything between 5-10 times a day depending
on the drinking. Then he says, That means you would do this at least 5 times
a day per thrity days that would mean about 150. Of those times ,how many
times have you forgotten to "Zip Up". ???
Think about it and read your checklist!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus memorized
> drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I was
a
> total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to which
> one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists are
> good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of the
> flight from memory.
> Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> >
> >
> > The point being?????
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> practicing
> > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
to
> > heed
> > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
> > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the
> > pros
> > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
but
> > they
> > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> blast
> > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
from
> > left
> > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > within
> > > the reality realm.
> > > Thanks
> > > Nico
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to
be
> > > > > conducted from memory
> > > >
> > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
or
> > > write
> > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > written
> > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
> > > safety.
> > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> currently
> > > found on
> > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
pump
> > > after TO
> > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
These
> > > items
> > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
the
> > > real
> > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
airplanes
> > > that are
> > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not
> one
> > > of
> > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
All,
Having operated a leased B707-338C, ex Qantas, for DETA out of Maputo, many
years ago, sounds like the only thing that has changed is that it has got
worse. At least we controlled our own maintenance. No problems with ATC,
there wasn't any. I remember doing a route qual. on a chap who hadn't
looked too closely at the charts, wanted to know where the VOR/DME
frequencies were shown. The answer, "What VOR/DME , and by the way, the NDB
is usually off, and don't ask about NOTAMs, there aren't any" elicited a
rather funny reaction. Having top look out the window in anything bigger
than a C-172 was obviously a new and unwelcome experience.
Re the ATC,you'r not going to have a mid air with yourself, and the only
other traffic in those days were the local eagles and the occasional high
flying scrub turkey, and you should see what they do to a JT3B-3D.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not
>much better today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in
>business, but as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes them
>a living, they will take and take and take attributing their misguided
>approach as their right to justice.
>It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once
>waited at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of
>course) with a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main
>undercarriage. I called the tower to let the pilot know about the
>situation but the pilot reported that he knew about the tread coming off
>the one wheel and that it's still OK. He took off with pieces of rubber
>flying in all directions. Glad I sat in my 500 and not in that ship.
>Thanks
>Nico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Bow
> To: css nico
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Maputo
>
>
> I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under
> contract to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es
> Salem to London in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had
> been in Rodesia, from Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my paycheck
> from that "job"
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: css nico
> To: Bill Bow
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Maputo
>
>
> Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or
> something. Someone remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca
> soon after 1980.
> Nico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Bow
> To: nico(at)cybersuperstore.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
> Subject: Maputo
>
>
> Nico,
>
> I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent
> Christmas 1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
>
> Bilbo
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Man, does this bring back memories. No wonder folks who have never flown
there think we are a danger to aviation. But in all fairness, folks, as Bill
said, there is no other traffic in the sky. I used to have a construction
company and I commuted to Botswana from Lanseria in my Seneca II. After
reaching TOC, I would set my alarm, the autopilot, my pillow and doze off
for the 55 minute flight and wake up promptly at TOD.
There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky. Here, especially in So CA, the
pilot and pax look like cranes as they wring their necks around to look
everywhere - and actually see stuff with wings. I remember the ATC at
Wonderboom (near Pretoria) one day clearing the cricuit because Hugh Stocks
flew in with his Lear. The only one in the county at the time, I believe.
Poor Dirk Munnik, he was just not going to have a Cherokee closer than 20
miles to that Lear on his watch.
Anyway.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> All,
> Having operated a leased B707-338C, ex Qantas, for DETA out of Maputo,
many
> years ago, sounds like the only thing that has changed is that it has got
> worse. At least we controlled our own maintenance. No problems with ATC,
> there wasn't any. I remember doing a route qual. on a chap who hadn't
> looked too closely at the charts, wanted to know where the VOR/DME
> frequencies were shown. The answer, "What VOR/DME , and by the way, the
NDB
> is usually off, and don't ask about NOTAMs, there aren't any" elicited a
> rather funny reaction. Having top look out the window in anything bigger
> than a C-172 was obviously a new and unwelcome experience.
> Re the ATC,you'r not going to have a mid air with yourself, and the only
> other traffic in those days were the local eagles and the occasional high
> flying scrub turkey, and you should see what they do to a JT3B-3D.
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton.
>
>
> >
> >Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not
> >much better today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in
> >business, but as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes
them
> >a living, they will take and take and take attributing their misguided
> >approach as their right to justice.
> >It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once
> >waited at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of
> >course) with a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main
> >undercarriage. I called the tower to let the pilot know about the
> >situation but the pilot reported that he knew about the tread coming off
> >the one wheel and that it's still OK. He took off with pieces of rubber
> >flying in all directions. Glad I sat in my 500 and not in that ship.
> >Thanks
> >Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: css nico
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under
> > contract to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es
> > Salem to London in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had
> > been in Rodesia, from Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my
paycheck
> > from that "job"
> >
> > bilbo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: css nico
> > To: Bill Bow
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or
> > something. Someone remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca
> > soon after 1980.
> > Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: nico(at)cybersuperstore.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
> > Subject: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Nico,
> >
> > I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent
> > Christmas 1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
> >
> > Bilbo
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
We had a piece of a laminated panel on the wing come off. It was about 3
feet by 8 feet. I said something about they should be able to get it from
South African Airways and was shocked at their response. I wasn't very
aware of the politics involved of the day.
I can still remember Christmas dinner at the hotel. I opened the menu.
There was fish on one side of the menu and pork on the other. I didn't want
something looking back at me(the fish) so I ordered the pork. "Oh I'm sorry
sir we are out of the pork" the waiter said. That only left the fish. I'm
still confused why he gave us the menu. We had no choice.
Jambo Bwana,
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not
much better today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in
business, but as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes them a
living, they will take and take and take attributing their misguided
approach as their right to justice.
> It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once
waited at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of
course) with a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main
undercarriage. I called the tower to let the pilot know about the situation
but the pilot reported that he knew about the tread coming off the one wheel
and that it's still OK. He took off with pieces of rubber flying in all
directions. Glad I sat in my 500 and not in that ship.
> Thanks
> Nico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Bow
> To: css nico
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Maputo
>
>
> I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under
contract to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es Salem
to London in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had been in
Rodesia, from Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my paycheck from that
"job"
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: css nico
> To: Bill Bow
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Maputo
>
>
> Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or
something. Someone remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca soon
after 1980.
> Nico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Bow
> To: nico(at)cybersuperstore.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
> Subject: Maputo
>
>
> Nico,
>
> I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent
Christmas 1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
>
> Bilbo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and then
there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other, but
a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items when
the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably wait
until later.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus memorized
> drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I was
a
> total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to which
> one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists are
> good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of the
> flight from memory.
> Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> Nico
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> >
> >
> > The point being?????
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> practicing
> > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
to
> > heed
> > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the story.
> > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if the
> > pros
> > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
but
> > they
> > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> blast
> > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
from
> > left
> > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > within
> > > the reality realm.
> > > Thanks
> > > Nico
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have to
be
> > > > > conducted from memory
> > > >
> > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
or
> > > write
> > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > written
> > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential to
> > > safety.
> > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> currently
> > > found on
> > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
pump
> > > after TO
> > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
These
> > > items
> > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
the
> > > real
> > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
airplanes
> > > that are
> > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is not
> one
> > > of
> > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew & Bridget Watson <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca> |
> Jambo Bwana,
For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King"). "Jambo
Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
:-)
God bless,
Andrew.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
Jambo is hello and goodbye. At least that was my understanding of Swahili.
I didn't mean for this to go on the list I thought it was going straight to
Nico, sorry
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Another Commander Lost |
Fellow Commander Drivers,
Sadley, it appears that another 680FL (N680WS) was lost on October 8, 2003 in
Harrison, AR with two serious injuries.
NTSB Identification # FTW04A006.
Regards.
Moe
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi
Anyone from Transafrik ?
If the site will take attachments, here's some photos to reminisce.
Thanks for stirring a couple of good memories
Marcio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nobody Else in the Sky |
In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes:
> There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky.
The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of) Tonga
-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago.
I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller
answered back, "No known traffic."
Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again and
again the chap said, "No known traffic."
The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I should
have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR traffic.
No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give position
reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted.
Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever gotten
...
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Sorry, my fault. But the list enjoyed it anyway, no?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> Jambo is hello and goodbye. At least that was my understanding of
Swahili.
>
> I didn't mean for this to go on the list I thought it was going straight
to
> Nico, sorry
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
>
> >
> > > Jambo Bwana,
> >
> > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct
closing
> > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
> "Jambo
> > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > God bless,
> > Andrew.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
The first time we had dinner at the hotel on Inhaca after about 10 years of
communist rule there, the chef prepared for us quite an extraordinary meal
on open fires outside in the hotel parking lot. The kitchen had been out of
commission for years due to no-maintenance. The variations of fish that were
on the menu was astonishing. Fish-head soup, fish fillet, fish and kelp,
fish and fish, fish tail desert, crab and crab, open crab, surprize crab,
and a lot more that I don't care to remember. But once you get used to the
fish it was OK. Glad we couldn't stay longer than the weekend otherwise I
would have preferred to swim away rather than fly away. Murdered a steak as
soon as we landed back in beef country.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> We had a piece of a laminated panel on the wing come off. It was about 3
> feet by 8 feet. I said something about they should be able to get it from
> South African Airways and was shocked at their response. I wasn't very
> aware of the politics involved of the day.
>
> I can still remember Christmas dinner at the hotel. I opened the menu.
> There was fish on one side of the menu and pork on the other. I didn't
want
> something looking back at me(the fish) so I ordered the pork. "Oh I'm
sorry
> sir we are out of the pork" the waiter said. That only left the fish.
I'm
> still confused why he gave us the menu. We had no choice.
>
> Jambo Bwana,
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> To: "Bill Bow"
> Subject: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
>
> >
> > Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not
> much better today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in
> business, but as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes them
a
> living, they will take and take and take attributing their misguided
> approach as their right to justice.
> > It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once
> waited at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of
> course) with a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main
> undercarriage. I called the tower to let the pilot know about the
situation
> but the pilot reported that he knew about the tread coming off the one
wheel
> and that it's still OK. He took off with pieces of rubber flying in all
> directions. Glad I sat in my 500 and not in that ship.
> > Thanks
> > Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: css nico
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under
> contract to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es
Salem
> to London in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had been in
> Rodesia, from Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my paycheck from
that
> "job"
> >
> > bilbo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: css nico
> > To: Bill Bow
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or
> something. Someone remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca soon
> after 1980.
> > Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: nico(at)cybersuperstore.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
> > Subject: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Nico,
> >
> > I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent
> Christmas 1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
> >
> > Bilbo
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
How's your book coming along?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
I don't feel so bad that I have flown (single PIC) for so long without a
check list. Although I remain a convert I will execute my first-order flight
control with drills followed up by a checklist. Does that sound fair?
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
> I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
> three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and then
> there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
> away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other,
but
> a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items when
> the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably wait
> until later.
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus
memorized
> > drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I
was
> a
> > total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to
which
> > one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists
are
> > good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of
the
> > flight from memory.
> > Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> > Nico
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Sather" <sather(at)charter.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The point being?????
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> > practicing
> > > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
> to
> > > heed
> > > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the
story.
> > > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if
the
> > > pros
> > > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
> but
> > > they
> > > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> > blast
> > > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
> from
> > > left
> > > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > > within
> > > > the reality realm.
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Nico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <YOURTCFG(at)aol.com>
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have
to
> be
> > > > > > conducted from memory
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
> or
> > > > write
> > > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > > written
> > > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential
to
> > > > safety.
> > > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> > currently
> > > > found on
> > > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
> pump
> > > > after TO
> > > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
> These
> > > > items
> > > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
> the
> > > > real
> > > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
> airplanes
> > > > that are
> > > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is
not
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew & Bridget Watson <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca> |
Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a gentle
tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased you
in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of
everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did.
Regards,
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Bruce Campbell wrote:
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
I was kinda curious about that also Bruce. To my knowlege, the only
approved autopilots for the 520 are the Brittian and Lear models. Lear
was still in business as of a few years ago - don't know if they still
are though.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
All,
The great thing about uncontrolled airspace ( now ICAO G) is that it is
just that, uncontrolled.
In Wing Commander Gordon's case, the reporting was for SAR, although with
no search and rescue nearer than an RAAF Orion from Edinborough, South
Australia or the RNZAF, I've often pondered whether the SAR watch was no
more than a false sense of security.
For those who have grown up thinking that it's Marconi that keeps aircraft
in the air, and not Bernoulli, or who believe in the acoustic theory of
lift, ie when your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane stops flying, aviating
around the parts of the world ( large parts of it) where nobody want to
know can be a profoundly uncomfortable experience. Personally, I love it.
One one of my last trips to SA ( Melbourne to J'Burg) we were down at about
60S, several hundred miles south of Herd Island,with a beautiful view of
the pack ice, when the F/O ( as it was his sector,) asked me to get "A
clearance to climb", when I enquired as to where that might come from, a
local whale, maybe, he had a very funny look on his face. As I had to
gently explain to him, this was not B-RNAV in western Europe like last
week, or even E off KLAX , like several weeks before, in this case we were
"nowhere'sville", we were even south of the Mauritius FIR boundary, so
there was nobody the slightest bit interested if he climbed, dived, or even
flew around in ever decreasing circles until he flew up himself.
If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the
hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement".
What one should understand is that the "con" in "control", is the same as
the "con" as in "conman", a trol is an 'orrible mythical beast, now
starring in the Lord of the Rings.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
>nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes:
>
> > There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky.
>
>The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of) Tonga
>-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago.
>
>I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller
>answered back, "No known traffic."
>
>Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again and
>again the chap said, "No known traffic."
>
>The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I should
>have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR traffic.
> No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give position
>reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted.
>
>Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever gotten
>...
>
>Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
In a message dated 10/23/03 18:56:35 Pacific Daylight Time,
wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:
> If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the
> hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement".
>
I can't resist -- let's hear it, Mate!
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100 mph" with
no other reference to approach speed.
I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
from minimum single engine control speed.
What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
similar)?
Thanks!
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
Gang,
On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Bill B. wrote:
> I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
> three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and
> then
> there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
> away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other,
> but
> a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items
> when
> the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably
> wait
> until later.
>
> bilbo
I've been following this thread and just wanted to add my two cents now
that my point has been made by someone more qualified than I. I may be
a relative newbie (700TT, 150ME), but I have made it a habit to consult
the pros when it comes to piloting technique. Flying my CJ I have had
the opportunity to fraternize with a bunch of high time military guys
and retired airline pilots. I don't need to elaborate other than to say
what Bilbo is saying here is echoed by EVERY career pilot I've come in
contact with. It would serve all of us well to follow the techniques of
the military and airlines that have learned the hard way what the best
procedures are....
Now back to studying for my SE/ME Comm checkrides....
B
Barry Hancock
Director of Operations
Red Stars, Inc.
949.300.5510
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
In a message dated 10/23/2003 7:49:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
In a message dated 10/23/2003 7:49:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
>
I use 80KTS for all short bodied Commanders. That seems a bit slow at first,
and 100KTS will work OK, but at 80, there is little chance of "letting the
propellers push the engine" Faster speeds will make it difficult to place the
airplane where you want it and you will float a considerable distance.
I am of the belief that there is no such thing as a single engine go
around. You may need to show someone you can do it for a checkride, but after
that, forget it. If the gear is down, land, period. We just last week lost a
Cessna 340 in Scapoose, OR, about 20 miles from here on a SE go-around.
VMCed in. Another airplane pulled in front of him and....... The pilot could
easily have sidestepped to the taxiway or even the area between the runway, but
tried to go around on one.
So being a bit below VYSE on landing is not much of a worry to me, If
one swarms, I will be landing, period. Just my thoughts. jb
PS That way you don't ever need to use the "single engine go- around
checklist" :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Kelly,
What I am about to say may help a little, can't provide a reference, so
please be cautious about what I say, but there is a serious disconnect when
it comes to light twins certified to the old CARs or FARs ( ex. for the
commuter amendment) . In general terms, the so called FAA standard requires
maintaining the "blue line" speed until some ill defined "commit point" on
late final, where you now have to get the speed back to a proper 1.3 Vs,
then try and get some power back up so that you are not gliding ( and
rapidly decelerating) across the fence.
Or, put another way, trying to "simulate" the performance of a FAR 25
aircraft compromises 100% of approaches, to cater for the less than
1:200;000 chance of an engine failure at low power settings on approach,
followed by a missed approach. The engine handling required is particularly
bad for supercharged or turbo normalised/supercharged engines, that goes
double if they are geared.
Lunacy, as far as risk management is concerned, and I want my pilots flying
stable approaches, everywhere, every time.
Is it sensible to hazard every approach, for the very unlikely event of a
simultaneous missed approach, and an engine failure on the missed approach.
I don't think so.
What is so silly about this is that it is accepted that in critical
approaches in many FAR25 aircraft, you have a defined commit point, beyond
which you are committed to land. That can be many miles out. The risks of a
missed approach far exceed the risk of continuing the approach. Consider
where you think that should be in a light twin.
For example, B747-400, two engine approach, once the gear is down, it's go
down. A missed approach is not considered a possibility, and the operation
is arranged on that basis. The operation of a light twin should not be
compromised by predicating all approach planning on a simultaneous missed
approach and engine failure. A missed approach, from an approach with an
already failed engine should not even be considered.
Of course, in the safety of the sim, we practice seeing just what we can
do, trading height for speed as we retract the gear, and try and
re-configure so that we can climb away on two ( out of four). I know what I
CAN do with the old 500A, what I would (do) do is far more conservative.
Where does this get you. In my opinion, at some point in the ILS, or on
base/final you should nominate a commit point, any failure beyond that you
will be landing straight ahead. Remember --- landing straight ahead, no
late go arounds. The FAA ( and everybody else's) accident statistics are
compelling, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured after an
engine failure in a small twin, than in a single ---- but this is not a
reason to fly an unstable approach every time. It is a reason to treat a
light twin as a single at a sensible point in the circuit and approach,
after which you are committed to land.
On my 500A, that's about 1000', because that's when I start bringing the
gently speed back to 1.3 Vs, plus a couple of knots if there are gusts, so
that I am on speed, in the slot, checklist complete at 500'. Your right,
back to around 70 kt or so would make any missed approaches very high risk
affairs. The answer is, you don't, you land ---- hopefully on the runway,
but on the taxiway or the grass if some turkey is blocking the runway.
That's always going to be better than going in after flicking below Vmca,
and leaving a big burnt patch as you only legacy
There are far more aircraft damaged from approaching at excessive speed or
otherwise mishandled approaches, than have ever been damaged as a result of
engine failures in a light twin in normal operations. Far to many people
have been killed in "simulated" failure in a twin that was never designed
to have a certified engine out capability.
Even if this doesn't help your check ride, it is something to think about.
Every thing we do with an aircraft, from the day the designer put pen to
paper, is a risk management exercise.
At least with all the Aero Commander twins, you have wonderful low speed
handling characteristics, as opposed to the character building
characteristics of some aircraft I could name. We also have proper
hydraulic system, pump on each engine, so at least the likelihood of the
gear/flaps coming up during a missed approach with an engine problem is
reasonably high.
I won't wish you luck for the ride, luck should not, and very rarely plays
any part in these matters.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
.
>
>I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
>approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
>speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
>I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
>manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
>mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
>I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
>Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
>when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
>I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
>approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
>landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
>farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
>from minimum single engine control speed.
>
>What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
>life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
>paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
>me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
>myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
>similar)?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kelly Piper
>Director Of Operations
>AirMatrix
>kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
>360-435-7343
>425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
I believe the approach speed should not be less than 5 kt less than Vmc, at
least until landing is assured.
That said, in the 520 the best "over the fence" speed seems to be 80-90 mph.
any more and the plane floats.
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
> I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
> approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
> speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
> I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
> manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
> approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
> landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
> farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
> from minimum single engine control speed.
>
> What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
> life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
> paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
> me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kelly Piper
> Director Of Operations
> AirMatrix
> kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
> 360-435-7343
> 425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Va on the 520 is about 200 mph. Not likely to exceed that, even in a dive.
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
> I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
> approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
> speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
> I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
> manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
> approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
> landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
> farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
> from minimum single engine control speed.
>
> What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
> life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
> paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
> me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kelly Piper
> Director Of Operations
> AirMatrix
> kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
> 360-435-7343
> 425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
Nothing offends me. NOTHING.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a gentle
> tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased you
> in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of
> everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
>
> >
> > > Jambo Bwana,
> >
> > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct
closing
> > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
> "Jambo
> > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > God bless,
> > Andrew.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Wouldn't Autopilot Central(OKC) be the place? Or have they been gone for
years?
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> Bruce Campbell wrote:
> > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
>
>
> I was kinda curious about that also Bruce. To my knowlege, the only
> approved autopilots for the 520 are the Brittian and Lear models. Lear
> was still in business as of a few years ago - don't know if they still
> are though.
>
> Chris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
I'm just older.
I know it works and it doesn't matter how many or few are in the cockpit.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower(at)cox.net>
Subject: Commander-List: Checklists
>
> Gang,
>
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Bill B. wrote:
>
> > I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
> > three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and
> > then
> > there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
> > away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other,
> > but
> > a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items
> > when
> > the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably
> > wait
> > until later.
> >
> > bilbo
>
> I've been following this thread and just wanted to add my two cents now
> that my point has been made by someone more qualified than I. I may be
> a relative newbie (700TT, 150ME), but I have made it a habit to consult
> the pros when it comes to piloting technique. Flying my CJ I have had
> the opportunity to fraternize with a bunch of high time military guys
> and retired airline pilots. I don't need to elaborate other than to say
> what Bilbo is saying here is echoed by EVERY career pilot I've come in
> contact with. It would serve all of us well to follow the techniques of
> the military and airlines that have learned the hard way what the best
> procedures are....
>
> Now back to studying for my SE/ME Comm checkrides....
>
> B
> Barry Hancock
> Director of Operations
> Red Stars, Inc.
> 949.300.5510
> www.allredstar.com
> "Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Stubbs" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com> |
I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval
for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> To:
> Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
>
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
>
> Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero> |
Phil,
The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
me a call.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval
for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> To:
> Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
>
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
>
> Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Campbell" <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in
terms of the FAA.
Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the
paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't
interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result.
Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of
development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers,
and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're
out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified
Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit.
I love how the FAA protects us all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> Phil,
> The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
> Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
> STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
> several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
> me a call.
>
> Regards,
> Tylor Hall
> Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> 970-731-2127
>
>
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
>
> I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time
approval
> for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
> Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
> Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> > To:
> > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
>
> >
> > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
> >
> > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
> >
> > Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
> >
> > Bruce Campbell
> > AC52 N4186B
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Baltrusaitis" <ben(at)gmpexpress.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into redoing it
qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
Would having an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger
carrying capabilities?
Thanks!
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Campbell
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in
terms of the FAA.
Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the
paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't
interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result.
Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of
development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers,
and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're
out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified
Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit.
I love how the FAA protects us all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
To:
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> Phil,
> The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
> Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
> STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
> several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
> me a call.
>
> Regards,
> Tylor Hall
> Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> 970-731-2127
>
>
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
>
> I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time
approval
> for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
> Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
> Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> > To:
> > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
>
> >
> > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
> >
> > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
> >
> > Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
> >
> > Bruce Campbell
> > AC52 N4186B
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Thanks for the good advice from everyone. Being a sort of 'grass roots'
Commander driver, every tidbit of wisdom on these great aircraft is not
only appreciated, but digested and considered in detail. The Commander
list has been one of those rare commodities in life that actually has
true value - thanks to all the contributors.
That said, I will look at slowing it down a bit (I am very comfortable
with the 560's slow flight characteristics) and see how the approaches
work out. I have not really seen much in the way of float with the
aircraft - at 1/4 mile final and a gradual throttle reduction to a
crossing speed of 80 - 85 mph, the plane will land on the mark every
time. I push the props up on short final (re the geared engines) so
pushing the engines with the props is not an issue.
I fully agree with the commit point to land. I believe as Bill does,
that attempting to reconfigure, gain Vyse, and attempt a go-around
single engine from low altitude is far more dangerous than committing to
a landing even if it is a sidestep to grass or taxiway. We have all
read the NTSB aftermath reports of lost crew and aircraft when
attempting it.
Thanks again for the help!
Kelly Piper
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R
HAMILTON
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
Kelly,
What I am about to say may help a little, can't provide a reference, so
please be cautious about what I say, but there is a serious disconnect
when
it comes to light twins certified to the old CARs or FARs ( ex. for the
commuter amendment) . In general terms, the so called FAA standard
requires
maintaining the "blue line" speed until some ill defined "commit point"
on
late final, where you now have to get the speed back to a proper 1.3 Vs,
then try and get some power back up so that you are not gliding ( and
rapidly decelerating) across the fence.
Or, put another way, trying to "simulate" the performance of a FAR 25
aircraft compromises 100% of approaches, to cater for the less than
1:200;000 chance of an engine failure at low power settings on approach,
followed by a missed approach. The engine handling required is
particularly
bad for supercharged or turbo normalised/supercharged engines, that goes
double if they are geared.
Lunacy, as far as risk management is concerned, and I want my pilots
flying
stable approaches, everywhere, every time.
Is it sensible to hazard every approach, for the very unlikely event of
a
simultaneous missed approach, and an engine failure on the missed
approach.
I don't think so.
What is so silly about this is that it is accepted that in critical
approaches in many FAR25 aircraft, you have a defined commit point,
beyond
which you are committed to land. That can be many miles out. The risks
of a
missed approach far exceed the risk of continuing the approach. Consider
where you think that should be in a light twin.
For example, B747-400, two engine approach, once the gear is down, it's
go
down. A missed approach is not considered a possibility, and the
operation
is arranged on that basis. The operation of a light twin should not be
compromised by predicating all approach planning on a simultaneous
missed
approach and engine failure. A missed approach, from an approach with an
already failed engine should not even be considered.
Of course, in the safety of the sim, we practice seeing just what we can
do, trading height for speed as we retract the gear, and try and
re-configure so that we can climb away on two ( out of four). I know
what I
CAN do with the old 500A, what I would (do) do is far more conservative.
Where does this get you. In my opinion, at some point in the ILS, or on
base/final you should nominate a commit point, any failure beyond that
you
will be landing straight ahead. Remember --- landing straight ahead, no
late go arounds. The FAA ( and everybody else's) accident statistics are
compelling, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured after
an
engine failure in a small twin, than in a single ---- but this is not a
reason to fly an unstable approach every time. It is a reason to treat a
light twin as a single at a sensible point in the circuit and approach,
after which you are committed to land.
On my 500A, that's about 1000', because that's when I start bringing the
gently speed back to 1.3 Vs, plus a couple of knots if there are gusts,
so
that I am on speed, in the slot, checklist complete at 500'. Your right,
back to around 70 kt or so would make any missed approaches very high
risk
affairs. The answer is, you don't, you land ---- hopefully on the
runway,
but on the taxiway or the grass if some turkey is blocking the runway.
That's always going to be better than going in after flicking below
Vmca,
and leaving a big burnt patch as you only legacy
There are far more aircraft damaged from approaching at excessive speed
or
otherwise mishandled approaches, than have ever been damaged as a result
of
engine failures in a light twin in normal operations. Far to many people
have been killed in "simulated" failure in a twin that was never
designed
to have a certified engine out capability.
Even if this doesn't help your check ride, it is something to think
about.
Every thing we do with an aircraft, from the day the designer put pen to
paper, is a risk management exercise.
At least with all the Aero Commander twins, you have wonderful low speed
handling characteristics, as opposed to the character building
characteristics of some aircraft I could name. We also have proper
hydraulic system, pump on each engine, so at least the likelihood of the
gear/flaps coming up during a missed approach with an engine problem is
reasonably high.
I won't wish you luck for the ride, luck should not, and very rarely
plays
any part in these matters.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
.
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
>I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
>approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
>speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
>I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
>manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed
100
>mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
>I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
>Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable
with)
>when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
>I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
>approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
>landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
>farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
>from minimum single engine control speed.
>
>What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
>life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
>paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
>me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating
it
>myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
>similar)?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kelly Piper
>Director Of Operations
>AirMatrix
>kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
>360-435-7343
>425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies,
W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Ben Baltrusaitis wrote:
> If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into
> redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
Nope - good try though :-) Repair is repair (even though there are some
birds around that probably took more effort to repair than they did to
build)
Would having
> an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger
> carrying capabilities?
There are a series of "experimental" catagories for production aircraft.
These are what the mfgrs/modifiers use when they're working towards
certification or testing out modifications. (ie: an engine upgrade,
etc). Once a certified aircraft is changed to "experimental", there are
_extreme_ restrictions placed upon it's operation. Depending on what
was done, it may be difficult to ever return it to approved status.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
There's no better time than right now!
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: <CloudCraft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky
>
> In a message dated 10/23/03 18:56:35 Pacific Daylight Time,
> wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:
>
> > If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about
the
> > hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control
Agreement".
> >
>
> I can't resist -- let's hear it, Mate!
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
There is such a wealth of good stories of real events that would make
excellent reading material. Would it interest anyone if we make a flight
journal site available in which we can upload our stories? This email is
just the kind of stuff that I, for instance, would read over and over again.
Imagine if this technology was available and we could read first-hand
accounts of flights and events aviation related when Eddie Martin,
Doolittle, the Wrights, Bob Hoover and others were working their numbers?
Let me know.
Thanks
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "W J R HAMILTON" <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Nobody Else in the Sky
>
> All,
> The great thing about uncontrolled airspace ( now ICAO G) is that it is
> just that, uncontrolled.
>
> In Wing Commander Gordon's case, the reporting was for SAR, although with
> no search and rescue nearer than an RAAF Orion from Edinborough, South
> Australia or the RNZAF, I've often pondered whether the SAR watch was no
> more than a false sense of security.
>
> For those who have grown up thinking that it's Marconi that keeps aircraft
> in the air, and not Bernoulli, or who believe in the acoustic theory of
> lift, ie when your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane stops flying,
aviating
> around the parts of the world ( large parts of it) where nobody want to
> know can be a profoundly uncomfortable experience. Personally, I love it.
>
> One one of my last trips to SA ( Melbourne to J'Burg) we were down at
about
> 60S, several hundred miles south of Herd Island,with a beautiful view of
> the pack ice, when the F/O ( as it was his sector,) asked me to get "A
> clearance to climb", when I enquired as to where that might come from, a
> local whale, maybe, he had a very funny look on his face. As I had to
> gently explain to him, this was not B-RNAV in western Europe like last
> week, or even E off KLAX , like several weeks before, in this case we were
> "nowhere'sville", we were even south of the Mauritius FIR boundary, so
> there was nobody the slightest bit interested if he climbed, dived, or
even
> flew around in ever decreasing circles until he flew up himself.
>
> If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the
> hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control
Agreement".
> What one should understand is that the "con" in "control", is the same as
> the "con" as in "conman", a trol is an 'orrible mythical beast, now
> starring in the Lord of the Rings.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton.
>
>
> >
> >In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
> >nico(at)cybersuperstore.com writes:
> >
> > > There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky.
> >
> >The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of)
Tonga
> >-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago.
> >
> >I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller
> >answered back, "No known traffic."
> >
> >Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again
and
> >again the chap said, "No known traffic."
> >
> >The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I
should
> >have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR
traffic.
> > No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give
position
> >reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted.
> >
> >Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever
gotten
> >...
> >
> >Wing Commander Gordon
> >
> >
>
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
> CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
> The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
> Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
>
> will remain valid for about three months.
> All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
> three months, the date will be notified.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
I don't have that much experience either, perhaps 1,000 hours in a 500 and
680FP, but what I found is that there are examiners who would pay more
attention to book-figures than practical figures. The book-figures would
satisfy a written (or oral) but the practical should satisfy life and limb.
What I have done, and that went for the other machines that I flew, is to
spend a bit of time in the general flying area conducting approach and
aborted landing speed tests at altitude, imagining the runway altitude at,
say 5,000'. I would configure the plane for landing and at 5,100 I would
reduce power on one engine to beta power and try to climb away to 5,500'
with the other, alternating engines on successive attempts. That gave me a
good representation of how accurate the POH was and what I could expect in
such an event.
Hope this helps.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
> I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
> approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
> speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
> I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
> manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
> approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
> landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
> farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
> from minimum single engine control speed.
>
> What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
> life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
> paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
> me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kelly Piper
> Director Of Operations
> AirMatrix
> kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
> 360-435-7343
> 425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "css nico" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Don't pick on Andrew for being overstressed about offending people. South
Africans were (before ANC) not politically correct or offended, but in the
US environment where offence is a daily diet for victocrats, one cannot be
too careful.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
> Nothing offends me. NOTHING.
>
> bilbo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
>
> >
> > Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a
gentle
> > tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased
you
> > in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of
> > everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrew.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget(at)shaw.ca>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Jambo Bwana,
> > >
> > > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct
> closing
> > > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
> > "Jambo
> > > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > > Andrew.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. |
I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International
Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more than just
a familiar sight.
Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their eyes.
Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today.
Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably sunny
day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial operations.
At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of Runway
27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002 from JFK
New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and ATC. The
first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG. So, in
alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as the
runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure, but I
expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen for
the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat grandstand
erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute.
It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly emphasised
by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the
captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have to
admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a lump to
my throat.
I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right alongside
27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work with
have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she
took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you could hear
car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks.
No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will when we
see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final
resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not.
I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in their
hearts, miss it in future.
As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger".
A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown so
relatively few.
Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me forever.
All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and Toulouse. So
alike, so boring.
But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David Green
from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three
captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander ever
built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in the UK.
So, he's switching from one great plane to another.
Very Best Regards,
Barry C.
UK CommanderLand rep.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net> |
I hope this gets to the right place. My 500A was used for the STC about
1988. I have not had any problems with it that was not my fault. My A model,
I would think, would be about the same as the 520. I have the STEC-65 with
flight director and all options except the yaw damper which we did not think
was necessary.
Jim Addington
N444BD
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tylor
Hall
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
Phil,
The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
me a call.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval
for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> To:
> Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
>
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
>
> Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
In a message dated 10/24/2003 10:23:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> Kelly Piper
>
So even Mr. Piper flies a Commander!! Viva Commander!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. |
In a message dated 10/24/2003 1:16:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes:
> Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today.
It is truly the end of an era. sad indeed. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
In a message dated 10/24/2003 9:54:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ben(at)gmpexpress.net writes:
> If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into
> redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
>
No, well, maybe. First, you only need to do 51%. Production airplanes can
become "homebuilt" (I just landed my Grumman Sea Cat a few minuets ago, it is
flying as a homebuilt) The trouble is, nobody is willing to do the real 51%
required. The FAA has a checklist just for this situation, to determine when a
homebuilt was built using "salvage parts from type certificated aircraft." It
would be very difficult to do a Commander, but I plan to do one, a 680FP. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Bijou" <tom(at)bhmassociates.com> |
I have recent experience in the STC process for autopilots in commanders. I
have been working with Meggitt/S-Tec for over a year to put the new 2100
autopilot in a commander 1000 and the FAA process is so overwhelming that I
think it is a mistake to try to go for a new approval unless you are willing
to bear the cost and stress of losing control of your aircraft for an
unknown period of time.
After 13 months of work and flight test, plus a few more in planning this is
about to get done. I might even undertake the process again in another
aircraft type, but the difference is I do this for a living and it makes
good hard economic sense in $1.0 - $2.0 million aircraft that have an
outdated autopilot as their major shortcoming. The good old days of doing
this under a field approval, or S-tec signing off the change under their
"DAS" authority are gone.
I think the paper work and flight tests to approve the autopilot are
probably about the same as Commander experienced when they certified the
whole aircraft type when they first built it!
Tom Bijou
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Addington
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
I hope this gets to the right place. My 500A was used for the STC about
1988. I have not had any problems with it that was not my fault. My A model,
I would think, would be about the same as the 520. I have the STEC-65 with
flight director and all options except the yaw damper which we did not think
was necessary.
Jim Addington
N444BD
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tylor
Hall
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
Phil,
The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
me a call.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time approval
for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> To:
> Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
>
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
>
> Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
>
> Bruce Campbell
> AC52 N4186B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. |
I can still remember the first time I heard them coasting in, "New York
Center, Speedbird Concord FL540" I don't think he even used a flight number
back then. There was no reason to mistake which flight he was.
One very humid morning, when I was flying Electras into JFK, I was standing
among the approach lights for 13L. I heard this loud noise and turned to
see the Concord "coming around the bend" on the Canarsie approach. There was
that figure flying out of the mist, moisture boiling up over the wings as is
tightened the turn to final and its needle nose pointing down like it was
looking at me. It came over my head at about 200 feet and made the hair
stand up on my arms. I will never forget it.
It is indeed a sad day in aviation.
On the bright side I now have the honor to fly the fastest transport in the
air today.(it's from Seattle)
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for
Concorde.
<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
>
> I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International
> Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more
than just
> a familiar sight.
>
> Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their
eyes.
>
> Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today.
>
> Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably
sunny
> day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial
operations.
>
> At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of
Runway
> 27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002
from JFK
> New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and
ATC. The
> first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG.
So, in
> alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as
the
> runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure,
but I
> expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen
for
> the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat
grandstand
> erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute.
>
> It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly
emphasised
> by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the
> captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have
to
> admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a
lump to
> my throat.
>
> I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right
alongside
> 27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work
with
> have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she
> took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you
could hear
> car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks.
>
> No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will
when we
> see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final
> resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not.
>
> I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in
their
> hearts, miss it in future.
>
> As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger".
>
> A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown
so
> relatively few.
>
> Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me
forever.
>
> All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and
Toulouse. So
> alike, so boring.
>
> But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David
Green
> from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three
> captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander
ever
> built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in
the UK.
>
> So, he's switching from one great plane to another.
>
> Very Best Regards,
>
> Barry C.
> UK CommanderLand rep.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Baltrusaitis" <ben(at)gmpexpress.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
JB,
I like your thinking!
This could really be fun!
Does anyone want to play the game that if we rebuilt, say a 680E (I'm partial to
it) or any other Aero Commander like JB's 680FP(????), what would you do to
meet the 51% rule?
Would you redesign anything inside the cockpit?
What can be improved upon using space age materials like carbon fiber or Kevlar
or some type of composite?
What engines?
What could be done to lighten the whole aircraft?
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
In a message dated 10/24/2003 9:54:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ben(at)gmpexpress.net writes:
> If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into
> redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
>
No, well, maybe. First, you only need to do 51%. Production airplanes can
become "homebuilt" (I just landed my Grumman Sea Cat a few minuets ago, it is
flying as a homebuilt) The trouble is, nobody is willing to do the real 51%
required. The FAA has a checklist just for this situation, to determine when
a
homebuilt was built using "salvage parts from type certificated aircraft." It
would be very difficult to do a Commander, but I plan to do one, a 680FP. jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. |
Actually, I think I was rather unkind to the Seattle & Toulouse products.
They have got me safely and cheaply over "the pond" to see my great friends in
the USA once or twice a year.
I cannot ask for more than that.
For years, I've been thinking "I really must book one of those Concorde
round-the-Bay-of-Biscay-trips".
Too late sonny boy, they're history.
Barry C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for
Concorde.
|
| I can still remember the first time I heard them coasting in, "New York
| Center, Speedbird Concord FL540" I don't think he even used a flight number
| back then. There was no reason to mistake which flight he was.
|
| One very humid morning, when I was flying Electras into JFK, I was standing
| among the approach lights for 13L. I heard this loud noise and turned to
| see the Concord "coming around the bend" on the Canarsie approach. There was
| that figure flying out of the mist, moisture boiling up over the wings as is
| tightened the turn to final and its needle nose pointing down like it was
| looking at me. It came over my head at about 200 feet and made the hair
| stand up on my arms. I will never forget it.
|
| It is indeed a sad day in aviation.
|
| On the bright side I now have the honor to fly the fastest transport in the
| air today.(it's from Seattle)
|
| bilbo
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| To:
| Subject: Commander-List: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for
| Concorde.
|
|
| <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| >
| > I have been fortunate enough to work at the World's busiest International
| > Airport for over 10 years, and during that time Concorde has been more
| than just
| > a familiar sight.
| >
| > Today that all ended. For more than a few people, with tears in their
| eyes.
| >
| > Never have I witnessed such scenes as I saw today.
| >
| > Literally thousands upon thousands of people were present, on a reasonably
| sunny
| > day but with bitingly cold winds, to see the end of its commercial
| operations.
| >
| > At 16:01, the first of three Concordes gracefully kissed the tarmac of
| Runway
| > 27R, followed by a second two minutes later and a third, Speedbird 002
| from JFK
| > New York, at 16:05. Everything was planned to perfection by both BA and
| ATC. The
| > first was registered G-BOAE, the second G-BOAF and the last was G-BOAG.
| So, in
| > alphabetical order they were vectored to 27R, which was actually in use as
| the
| > runway for aircraft taking off. Quite a queque developed for departure,
| but I
| > expect nobody minded, as they had the closest view! That runway was chosen
| for
| > the benefit of people who had bought tickets to sit in a 1,000-seat
| grandstand
| > erected earlier this week for the occaision. Most of them stood in salute.
| >
| > It was always going to be an emotional moment, but it was poignantly
| emphasised
| > by the last words the Heathrow tower controller issued to the
| > captain......."Speedbird 002, for the last time, cleared to land." I have
| to
| > admit, although I knew it was the final landing, those words brought a
| lump to
| > my throat.
| >
| > I work in an office on the second floor of a building situated right
| alongside
| > 27R and we have a great view of Heathrow's activities. Colleagues I work
| with
| > have seen Concorde on a daily basis for year after year. But, whenever she
| > took-off, heads would turn to watch, the windows would rattle and you
| could hear
| > car alarms being set off all along the adjacent car parks.
| >
| > No more will we see this truly amazing, graceful aircraft. Well, we will
| when we
| > see them depart, one by one over the next few months, to go to their final
| > resting places. Some museums will be lucky, many others will not.
| >
| > I bet that even those who have long-campaigned against the noise will, in
| their
| > hearts, miss it in future.
| >
| > As someone said a day or two ago, "On Friday, the World gets bigger".
| >
| > A fond farewell Concorde. You will be remembered by so many, having flown
| so
| > relatively few.
| >
| > Over time, memories seem to fade. I feel sure today will be with me
| forever.
| >
| > All we are left with are the cattle-carriers built in Seattle and
| Toulouse. So
| > alike, so boring.
| >
| > But, every cloud has a silver lining. I heard this afternoon, when David
| Green
| > from Mann Aviation came to see the Concordes land, that one of the three
| > captains of today's flights is going to be flying the last Turbo Commander
| ever
| > built, serial 96208, which will soon become VP-BCT and be based here in
| the UK.
| >
| > So, he's switching from one great plane to another.
| >
| > Very Best Regards,
| >
| > Barry C.
| > UK CommanderLand rep.
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Going.....going.....gone - a homecoming for Concorde. |
In a message dated 10/24/03 14:58:44 Pacific Daylight Time,
barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes:
> Actually, I think I was rather unkind to the Seattle &Toulouse products.
In light of the Concord, no, you weren't. We're talking Chevy and Renault
vs. Lamborghini here.
I'm impressed that the Brits had some ceremony attached to the last flights.
Grandstands for 1000? I don't think we've given many of our "last flights"
such respect here in the Colonies.
Thanks for the report, Sir Barry.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
JB
When are you going to give me the list of parts that are for sale on your
derelict 680FP?
Moe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MOEMILLS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Dear Tylor,
As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p) I
would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
Moe Mills
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero> |
Moe,
I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We
talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all short
body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take the
same installation kit as the Long Bodies.
We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and do
flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the testing.
How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since it is
not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft.
They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after.
I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to get
parts for.
They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface
coming out soon.
Regards,
Tylor Hall
Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
970-731-2127
Dear Tylor,
As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p) I
would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
Moe Mills
N680RR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Folks,
Or you get an Experimental Test and Development Certificate for the
aircraft, go do all the flight test, then you have the data for a DER, and
a field approval.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>
>STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in
>terms of the FAA.
>
>Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the
>paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't
>interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result.
>
>Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of
>development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers,
>and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're
>out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified
>Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit.
>
>I love how the FAA protects us all.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> >
> > Phil,
> > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
> > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
> > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
> > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
> > me a call.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tylor Hall
> > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> > 970-731-2127
> >
> >
> > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time
>approval
> > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
> > Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
> > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> > > To:
> > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
> > >
> > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
> > >
> > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
> > >
> > > Bruce Campbell
> > > AC52 N4186B
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Ben,
Try it on the FAA, in Australia the answer under our Part 21 is yes. And
our Part 21 is almost the same as FAR 21.
Right now I am providing regulatory assistance to a rebuilder of a
Wirraway, an Australian built version of a T-6 predecessor. It will be
more than 51% constructed by the owner. It was little more than a heap of
tubing. The original aircraft qualified for a normal C of A, but all the
rules on parts and materials make it impossible to get a normal cat. C of A.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into
>redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
>Would having an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict
>passenger carrying capabilities?
>Thanks!
>Ben
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Campbell
> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
>
>
> STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in
> terms of the FAA.
>
> Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the
> paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't
> interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result.
>
> Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a
> set of
> development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers,
> and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're
> out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified
> Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit.
>
> I love how the FAA protects us all.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tylor Hall" <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
>
> >
> > Phil,
> > The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
> > Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
> > STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I
> have
> > several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on
> staff. Give
> > me a call.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tylor Hall
> > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> > 970-731-2127
> >
> >
> > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time
> approval
> > for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
> > Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
> > Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Bruce Campbell <baruch(at)intelligentflight.com>
> > > To:
> > > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> > > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
> > >
> > > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
> > >
> > > Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
> > >
> > > Bruce Campbell
> > > AC52 N4186B
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Chris,
With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's
more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all
that often.
If an Experimental Amateur Built Certificate was issued, it is unlikely
that the Annex operating limitations would really inhibit the aircraft in
normal private operations.
I don't believe the law precludes such an exercise, as long as all the
requirement to prove that 51% of the airframe has been constructed by the
owner have been met.
It would be well worthwhile talking to EAA, they will be a fount of
knowledge on what is really happening out there.
Believe me, there are some really interesting aircraft committing aviation.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>
>Ben Baltrusaitis wrote:
> > If one bought a derelict Commander, would the amount of work put into
> > redoing it qualify as homebuilt with 55% amateur built?
>
>
>Nope - good try though :-) Repair is repair (even though there are some
>birds around that probably took more effort to repair than they did to
>build)
>
> Would having
> > an Aero Commander come under the homebuilt rules restrict passenger
> > carrying capabilities?
>
>There are a series of "experimental" catagories for production aircraft.
> These are what the mfgrs/modifiers use when they're working towards
>certification or testing out modifications. (ie: an engine upgrade,
>etc). Once a certified aircraft is changed to "experimental", there are
>_extreme_ restrictions placed upon it's operation. Depending on what
>was done, it may be difficult to ever return it to approved status.
>
>Chris
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
W J R HAMILTON wrote:
> Chris,
> With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's
> more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all
> that often.
Bill,
as with all dealings with the FAA, it's probably more WHO you're dealing
with rather than what you're trying to do. I actually went down the
convert-certified-bird-to-experimental path quite a ways with several
FAA guys here in Oklahoma. The fundamental answer that I came away with
was that you could buy a wreck that wasn't even recognizable as an
airplane and rebuild and replace every single piece and that it would
still be a "repair" project back to a certifed airplane. They
differentiated this (as opposed to "homebuilt") by the fact that it was
a pre-existing, certified design that the "builder" had no input into.
If changes were being made, they told me that it would have to be
converted to "experimental R&D" during the modification and testing
phase (requiring per-flight waivers) and then could only either go to
"experimental exhibition" (still very limited use), or all the changes
could be certified as STCs and field approvals to get the CofA back.
There's obviously some ill-defined line to be found somewhere though.
For example, I think the Breezy (open, tube-frame homebuilt) uses Piper
Pacer wings if memory serves. If you started with a Commander airframe,
I'm not sure how much "new" you'd have to put in before it would qualify
as a homebuilt. Certainly an interesting topic for research though!
cheers,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | YOURTCFG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
In a message dated 10/24/2003 5:53:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au writes:
>
> It would be well worthwhile talking to EAA, they will be a fount of
> knowledge on what is really happening out there.
> Believe me, there are some really interesting aircraft committing aviation.
>
I am a relative expert here. I have built an experimental airplane, from
salvage parts, and fly it often. It is a Grumman Ag Cat, that is now a three
place, open cockpit biplane, on floats. The finished product is an Ag Cat (save
the front cockpit and floats) It can be done and I have no onerous
restrictions. The operating limmitations are negotiable with each FAA region.
It is not easy. I plan to do a 680FP (I already have the donor
airframe) It will probably have LS-1 Chevey engines (visit www.v8seabee.com) And
lots of trick stuff that would never be "approved" Like moving the presser
bulkhead back to the baggage compartment, freonr air, hot water cabin heat,
increased presser differential maybe even a sidestick??
All of this and all of the latest in "noncertified" avionics and
autopilots. The trouble is, to make it a homebuilt, it will require tons of work
that most folks simply wont do.
There are other experimental categories, like airshow, exhibition,
racing, market research but all carry some restrictions that most of us could not
live with, like, "necessary crew members" or "no flight beyond 50 KM from the
departure airport"
Anyway, I still plan to di this project. The reason I have yet to
start is that the local port authority has refused my hangar lease *
&%#$@$X4&*
$
Stinking government!! jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Chris,
Agreed, absolutely.
In my experience, "conventional wisdom" dictates an answer to a problem
that often has no legal head of power, but who can take on city hall. The
answer to that is anybody, if you can afford it, and the potential rewards
are worth the investment.
So that lets us out here.
A case in point, the provisions for the Limited Cat. in FAR 21 stand, but
to my knowledge, since the formation of the FAA there has not been one
aircraft granted a Limited Cat. C of A. Another is the "interpretation" of
the "limiting" stall speed for a FAR23 single engine aircraft, except that
the 62 Kt is not a limit at all, even though most people will tell you it is.
However, the FAA is a model of consistency compared with our lot here in
Australia, where the CASA ( Campaign Against Safe Aviation) motto seems to
be "We're not happy until you're unhappy" or alternatively " What can we do
to stop you flying today".
Cheers all,
Bill Hamilton.
>
>
>W J R HAMILTON wrote:
> > Chris,
> > With all due respect, I am not certain it is all so cut and dried, it's
> > more that I don't think the possibilities have been really explored all
> > that often.
>
>Bill,
>as with all dealings with the FAA, it's probably more WHO you're dealing
>with rather than what you're trying to do. I actually went down the
>convert-certified-bird-to-experimental path quite a ways with several
>FAA guys here in Oklahoma. The fundamental answer that I came away with
>was that you could buy a wreck that wasn't even recognizable as an
>airplane and rebuild and replace every single piece and that it would
>still be a "repair" project back to a certifed airplane. They
>differentiated this (as opposed to "homebuilt") by the fact that it was
>a pre-existing, certified design that the "builder" had no input into.
>If changes were being made, they told me that it would have to be
>converted to "experimental R&D" during the modification and testing
>phase (requiring per-flight waivers) and then could only either go to
>"experimental exhibition" (still very limited use), or all the changes
>could be certified as STCs and field approvals to get the CofA back.
>There's obviously some ill-defined line to be found somewhere though.
>For example, I think the Breezy (open, tube-frame homebuilt) uses Piper
>Pacer wings if memory serves. If you started with a Commander airframe,
>I'm not sure how much "new" you'd have to put in before it would qualify
>as a homebuilt. Certainly an interesting topic for research though!
>
>cheers,
>Chris
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
In a message dated 10/23/03 19:49:20 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
You've already received some superb guidance on approach speeds and One
Engine Inoperative ideas from Mr. Hamilton of Oz, the Unoffendable Bilbo and
others. I'll toss more junk in your lap, if I may.
To answer you question, your Va is 160 MPH or 139 knots. To compute it, find
the formula under FAR 23.335. It's really ugly, but I hate math.
I'm not sure what you'll have to know Va for on a FAR 135 checkride, other
than playing trivial pursuit with the examiner.
The practical application of Va is during your airwork, as a maximum speed to
enter steep turns, or, lacking Gust Penetration Speed (Vb) established by the
manufacturer, Va is a good second choice for flying in severe turbulence.
I'd bet 50% power is just fine for entering your steep turns, which is the
only checkride maneuver that subjects the airplane to increased G loads.
As far as Vref, use 1.3 Vso, as suggested. I like that speed at no later
than 50 feet over the threshold, meaning landing is assured and yes you're deep
into your _____ AGL commitment-to-land zone.
I prefer flying a Commander "too fast" on an IFR approach because I like #1)
crisper controls and #2) easy approach arithmetic. By that I mean either 2
nautical miles per minute, or, 1.5 nautical miles per minute. This means 120
or 90 Knots.
120 Knots is way too fast for low IFR; you'll have trouble slowing to land if
you break out at minimums. 100 knots is close to 90 for the 1.5 nm per
minute mental gymnastics and Jeppesen publishes time to MAP and descent rates at
100 knots and 100 knots is pretty close to Vyse, isn't it?
The Commanders are odd in that they're such excellent IFR platforms, but land
too slowly to fly approaches at their optimum Vref speed.
(In contrast, the 400 series Cessnas are no-brainers because you don't dare
do anything below 120 knots ...)
OK. Now you have to suffer through my Geared Engine Jihad.
Why do you bring your props up prior to landing on your geared engine?
Leave them at cruise value all the way down to landing.
Look at your power graphs for MAP and RPM combinations. You can initiate a
go-around or missed approach by adding manifold pressure to about 65% power
values before having to increase RPMs on your engine, if I'm not mistaken. I
advocate "loading the gearbox" with throttle first, then bringing up RPMs.
This is much preferred to gear box lash from low the MAP / high RPM
combination you're setting up by increasing RPM prior to touch down, which, by
the way,
has no practical use if you think about it.
It sounds 10 times more complicated than it is but with some practice, you'll
find you can arrest sink rate and miss an approach / or recover a stall with:
Throttle to a 65% value
add climb RPM (3000 max continuous),
add more throttle for 75 to 85% power,
raise flap handle; at around half flaps you'll see
positive rate: gear up!
and by this time your flaps are 1/4 where you can leave them to establish
climb or let them continue retracting to zero if you're happy with climb
performance.
There's the "what if you're struck by a meteor" school of risk management,
but if you don't have the time to push throttle / push props / push throttle,
you don't have time to go around.
And contrary to the average mind set, an IFR missed is NOT an emergency --
it's a well engineered maneuver with plenty of time for proper geared-engine
power management.
If you can make the climb gradient for departing that airport, you can
usually make the missed quite easily since you're starting out above the runway
by
several hundred feet. Took me years to figure that out. (Exceptions will be
certain high altitude airports and airports in fjiords, etc.)
Enjoy your check ride. You'll do great!
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Wing Commander,
I have to add my two cents here also.
You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However, over
the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
check ride.
I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
managing the gear and flaps!
Crunk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Stubbs" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com> |
I would be willing to share in the costs if we could get a group together
for the 560F, 680F etc.
> [Original Message]
> From: Tylor Hall <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
> To:
> Date: 10/24/2003 8:07:01 PM
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
> Moe,
> I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We
> talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all short
> body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take the
> same installation kit as the Long Bodies.
> We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and do
> flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the testing.
> How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since it
is
> not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft.
> They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after.
> I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to get
> parts for.
> They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface
> coming out soon.
> Regards,
> Tylor Hall
> Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> 970-731-2127
>
>
> Dear Tylor,
>
> As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p)
I
> would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
>
> Moe Mills
> N680RR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
My M4 worked a lot better after Commander Gordon sent me his instruction
sheet.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: <MOEMILLS(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> Dear Tylor,
>
> As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my 680F(p)
I
> would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
>
> Moe Mills
> N680RR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
My 1.5 cents.
It is also a maneuver that is sometimes only done at check ride time. Two
hundred feet in a Commander going 90 knots equates to a nice fly by to me.
However, I have seen some that should have been declared an emergency and
had the equipment called out.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
>
> Wing Commander,
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
> Crunk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Merritt" <avtec2(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
I Have a Great 560F and a very low tine 680F(P)
Harry
321 267-3141
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Stubbs" <br549phil(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> I would be willing to share in the costs if we could get a group together
> for the 560F, 680F etc.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tylor Hall <tylor(at)winddancer.aero>
> > To:
> > Date: 10/24/2003 8:07:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
> >
> > Moe,
> > I talked to Century today. Their 2000 system is STC on 680FL/FLP. We
> > talked about putting it on a 680F/FP and doing the paperwork on all
short
> > body Twin Commanders 500A,B,U,S,560F, and 680F as well. It would take
the
> > same installation kit as the Long Bodies.
> > We would have to install it and let them add their instrumentation and
do
> > flight testing. The A/C would have to be in experimental for the
testing.
> > How long it would take to get the STC is unknown, but reasonable since
it
> is
> > not a new autopilot. It is on other like aircraft.
> > They will be at AOPA next week and will get back to me the week after.
> > I have several other customers that have M4's that are getting hard to
get
> > parts for.
> > They also said that they had a new GPSS box with the 429 bus interface
> > coming out soon.
> > Regards,
> > Tylor Hall
> > Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> > 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> > 970-731-2127
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Tylor,
> >
> > As bad as I hate to "throw in the towel" on the untrusty M4 in my
680F(p)
> I
> > would be a prospect for a good autopilot.
> >
> > Moe Mills
> > N680RR
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Addington" <jtaddington(at)charter.net> |
I have not seen any one talk about the main thing in go around, and engine
outs is practice, practice, practice.
Jim Adding ton
N444BD
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
In a message dated 10/25/03 04:25:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
crunk12(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However, over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
>
I'm rich! I'm rich! I've already made 3 and a half cents this morning!
This Internet business thing is really working out ...
I don't know when/why the IFR missed and the Go-Around became synonymous with
Emergency, but it has, hasn't it? Probably because our instructors gave it
a sense of urgency during training that was a bit overstated for the
situation.
Bilbo and Crunk are spot - on: Either the missed or Go-Around are smooth
transitions to climbing and as a wise man said recently, "Practice, practice,
practice."
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Speaking of single-engine work -- I know it has been addressed in the
distant past here, but I can't find it in the archives so I'll ask
another annoying question. Obviously the geared engines should be cared
for in a tender loving manner (I do my best!) but at times, like a
check-ride, proficiency needs to be demonstrated in the single engine
regime. What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
shut-down feather and re-start?
I've heard quite a range of answers but the depth of knowledge among the
good folks of the Commander list is just plumb deep and preferable to
typical hangar talk and opinions. We spent WAY too much on our recent
engine overhauls to assume anything when it comes to caring for them, so
any additional input is always well received.
Thanks again to all.
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
In a message dated 10/23/03 19:49:20 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
You've already received some superb guidance on approach speeds and One
Engine Inoperative ideas from Mr. Hamilton of Oz, the Unoffendable Bilbo
and
others. I'll toss more junk in your lap, if I may.
To answer you question, your Va is 160 MPH or 139 knots. To compute it,
find
the formula under FAR 23.335. It's really ugly, but I hate math.
I'm not sure what you'll have to know Va for on a FAR 135 checkride,
other
than playing trivial pursuit with the examiner.
The practical application of Va is during your airwork, as a maximum
speed to
enter steep turns, or, lacking Gust Penetration Speed (Vb) established
by the
manufacturer, Va is a good second choice for flying in severe
turbulence.
I'd bet 50% power is just fine for entering your steep turns, which is
the
only checkride maneuver that subjects the airplane to increased G loads.
As far as Vref, use 1.3 Vso, as suggested. I like that speed at no
later
than 50 feet over the threshold, meaning landing is assured and yes
you're deep
into your _____ AGL commitment-to-land zone.
I prefer flying a Commander "too fast" on an IFR approach because I like
#1)
crisper controls and #2) easy approach arithmetic. By that I mean
either 2
nautical miles per minute, or, 1.5 nautical miles per minute. This
means 120
or 90 Knots.
120 Knots is way too fast for low IFR; you'll have trouble slowing to
land if
you break out at minimums. 100 knots is close to 90 for the 1.5 nm per
minute mental gymnastics and Jeppesen publishes time to MAP and descent
rates at
100 knots and 100 knots is pretty close to Vyse, isn't it?
The Commanders are odd in that they're such excellent IFR platforms, but
land
too slowly to fly approaches at their optimum Vref speed.
(In contrast, the 400 series Cessnas are no-brainers because you don't
dare
do anything below 120 knots ...)
OK. Now you have to suffer through my Geared Engine Jihad.
Why do you bring your props up prior to landing on your geared engine?
Leave them at cruise value all the way down to landing.
Look at your power graphs for MAP and RPM combinations. You can
initiate a
go-around or missed approach by adding manifold pressure to about 65%
power
values before having to increase RPMs on your engine, if I'm not
mistaken. I
advocate "loading the gearbox" with throttle first, then bringing up
RPMs.
This is much preferred to gear box lash from low the MAP / high RPM
combination you're setting up by increasing RPM prior to touch down,
which, by the way,
has no practical use if you think about it.
It sounds 10 times more complicated than it is but with some practice,
you'll
find you can arrest sink rate and miss an approach / or recover a stall
with:
Throttle to a 65% value
add climb RPM (3000 max continuous),
add more throttle for 75 to 85% power,
raise flap handle; at around half flaps you'll see
positive rate: gear up!
and by this time your flaps are 1/4 where you can leave them to
establish
climb or let them continue retracting to zero if you're happy with climb
performance.
There's the "what if you're struck by a meteor" school of risk
management,
but if you don't have the time to push throttle / push props / push
throttle,
you don't have time to go around.
And contrary to the average mind set, an IFR missed is NOT an emergency
--
it's a well engineered maneuver with plenty of time for proper
geared-engine
power management.
If you can make the climb gradient for departing that airport, you can
usually make the missed quite easily since you're starting out above the
runway by
several hundred feet. Took me years to figure that out. (Exceptions
will be
certain high altitude airports and airports in fjiords, etc.)
Enjoy your check ride. You'll do great!
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Let's see - 3.5 cents to Wing Commander Gordon, a few pennies to Bilbo,
Bill Hamilton, two more to Crunk, Nico gets at least a penny and a half,
Bruce 1.5, and jb another 1.5 - Wait, I take that back the jab about Mr.
Piper and Commanders cost him a penny, and Jim's 2 cents.
That adds up to about 13 (rounded) cents so far.... I better quit asking
questions or I'll be broke!
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
In a message dated 10/25/03 04:25:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
crunk12(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude
on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
>
I'm rich! I'm rich! I've already made 3 and a half cents this morning!
This Internet business thing is really working out ...
I don't know when/why the IFR missed and the Go-Around became synonymous
with e
Emergency, but it has, hasn't it? Probably because our instructors
gave it
a sense of urgency during training that was a bit overstated for the
situation.
Bilbo and Crunk are spot - on: Either the missed or Go-Around are
smooth
transitions to climbing and as a wise man said recently, "Practice,
practice,
practice."
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
In a message dated 10/25/03 11:05:07 Pacific Daylight Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
> with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
> shut-down feather and re-start?
>
Kelly,
Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM. You'll
have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end of the
day.
You're demonstrating technique on your checkride and I.M.O you shouldn't be
making a blood sacrifice to the FAA.
As soon as you can, find a Commander owner with a direct drive model and work
out what ever kind of deal you have to, to feather the left engine and fly
around to get the true sense of handling and climb gradient.
In the past, I think I've gotten one geared engine to restart comfortably.
The rest, I gave the client a chance to go through the steps, but I just
couldn't stand the grinding and grinding to get it started in the air. Maybe
they
would have all started eventually, but it just drives me berserk to watch all
that shaking and straining out there on the wing.
I always used this as an opportunity to land with an engine feathered because
the deceleration with an engine feathered is so much different than with two
turning that I think it's important to experience. Believe it or don't, the
plane doesn't slow down as fast with one feathered, contrary to what your
intuition would have you think.
Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents worth
of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in real
life?
I figure if it gets to the point of actually needing featering a piston
engine (you've done all you can do to keep it running: fuel selector, boost pumps,
mixture, mags), there's probably no reason to ever restart it. Is there?
By the way, aside from the IGSO-540 boys, anyone have unfeathering
accumulators or electric (pre) oil pumps? I believe N400CH, a Mr. RPM FLP, has
pre-oilers, but not sure if anyone else does. Those would be a big help in
unfeathering, I'd think.
It's all about building enough oil pressure to unfeather the prop and that's
a lot to ask of a starter motor fighting with 80 to 100+ knots of cold wind.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
In a message dated 10/25/03 12:29:02 Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes:
> Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM. You'll
> have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end of
> the
> day.
Just one more comment: I can't recall the "bottom of the green" on your MAP
for the GSO-480, but with the props pulled back, you can probably go as low as
15 or even 13 inches MAP.
I don't want to give the impression that geared engines are made of glass.
Quite the contrary. I think they're stout, rugged power plants. They sound
really bitchin', too!
They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a rare
commodities.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
Thanks Gordon. I fully agree with your analysis on shut-down. I've
never done it and short of having to in an emergency I agree with the
cold/80mph wind resisting the starter would be just more than I could
bear.
In practice, I have been at 13 MAP and bottom of the green with RPM for
zero thrust. When I checked out in the Commander a couple of years ago
that was the wisdom of the guy that I flew with. I have since poked
around and found some variance (mostly with the RPM setting) and knew
that asking here would be of benefit.
I have discussed it with the examiner (no Commander experience) and he
is agreeable with the 13" map and min RPM. Shutdown will not be
necessary - I briefed him on the phone that I would not allow shutdown
or jockeying the props (I always make adjustments to the props very
slowly - RPM up or down). I think that the FAA is cognizant of aircraft
particulars and it didn't seem to be an issue.
Anybody else have further info on the topic?
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
In a message dated 10/25/03 12:29:02 Pacific Daylight Time,
CloudCraft(at)aol.com writes:
> Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM.
You'll
> have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end
of
> the
> day.
Just one more comment: I can't recall the "bottom of the green" on your
MAP
for the GSO-480, but with the props pulled back, you can probably go as
low as
15 or even 13 inches MAP.
I don't want to give the impression that geared engines are made of
glass.
Quite the contrary. I think they're stout, rugged power plants. They
sound
really bitchin', too!
They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a rare
commodities.
Wing Commander Gordon
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schuermann <cschuerm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents worth
> of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in real
> life?
During my ownership of the 520 (GO-435's), I shut both engines down
several times on purpose (not at the same time of course). I always
pre-cooled prior to shutdown. Never had a re-start problem although
they did require a bit of cranking before coming out of feather.
Although I knew it was hard on the engines, I just felt it was prudent
for me to have a good "feel" for the airplane with one really shut down.
Although it's hard on those geared starters, it's probably easier on
the engine to shut it down rather than clatter the gearbox at idle....
I'm glad I did bother to practice single-engine work and do a couple of
true single-engine landings because I did loose an engine during takeoff
once. The right engine just stopped cold at about 200ft agl. Glad it
was the right one because the gear were just coming up. Feathered it
and climbed out easily for a return to a non-eventful landing.
Chris Schuermann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki(at)702com.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
Last monday had to shut one down in flight for real. Did some
troubleshooting figured out what it was and as per the afm it came out of
feather on the ground in about 6-8 seconds. That is on a 520 with GO 435's.
Absolutely no problem's
Jody Pillatzki
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
>
>
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents
worth
> > of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in
real
> > life?
>
> During my ownership of the 520 (GO-435's), I shut both engines down
> several times on purpose (not at the same time of course). I always
> pre-cooled prior to shutdown. Never had a re-start problem although
> they did require a bit of cranking before coming out of feather.
> Although I knew it was hard on the engines, I just felt it was prudent
> for me to have a good "feel" for the airplane with one really shut down.
> Although it's hard on those geared starters, it's probably easier on
> the engine to shut it down rather than clatter the gearbox at idle....
> I'm glad I did bother to practice single-engine work and do a couple of
> true single-engine landings because I did loose an engine during takeoff
> once. The right engine just stopped cold at about 200ft agl. Glad it
> was the right one because the gear were just coming up. Feathered it
> and climbed out easily for a return to a non-eventful landing.
>
> Chris Schuermann
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki(at)702com.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
Crunk
I agree as well. Lost the right engine on 411VV last week while climbing
out. Was in a 140mph cruise climb. Looked things over to see what was up
decided I couldn't fix it and feathered the prop. 145mph indicated at 5000
feet holding her own at full mp and 3000 rpm. What a sweetheart single
engine. and 51 years old.
Jody
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Crunkleton" <crunk12(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
>
> Wing Commander,
> I have to add my two cents here also.
> You're right on when you say a go-around is NOT an emergency! However,
over
> the years I've watched many a pro develope and display that attitude on a
> check ride.
> I prefer to think of it as a very smooth transition to a climb while
> managing the gear and flaps!
> Crunk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buddy Windham <bw_cycon(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
Hey guys, a little late jumping in but my experience with stec ain't so good.
I wanted to remove my 50 series and upgrade to a 60-2 in my 560e. The main reason
was the footprint in the panel. I worked with stec for over 1 year trying
to get them off top dead center and get this stc done. I heard every excuse
known to mankind, but mostly the FAA. This one probablly correct. I had to place
a firm order to get them to do anything. My probem with them is I never,
ever heard the same story twice!!!!!! Promised to return my phone calls were
numerious, and you guessed it they never did. I finally go so frustrated that
I ended up putting a 65 series in my 560e. This system requires 2 seperate
panel cuts to handle. I am happy with the final result, however ended up spending
thousands more than I originally wanted to with the 60-2 system.. Another
good point was they ended up giving me full credit for what I paid 5 years ago
for the 0 series.
Bruce Campbell wrote:
STEC has STCs for the 560A, no less. But as miss is as good as a mile in
terms of the FAA.
Further, STEC can perform a single flight test, apparently, and put in the
paperwork for a new model on their general STC. But... they aren't
interested in doing so unless they feel there is "market" for the result.
Mind you, if you've got an experimental it's even easier. They send a set of
development ROMs, the installer has a test pilot fl a series of manuevers,
and a new set of "permanent" roms are sent. So, if you've got a 520 you're
out of luck, but if you're flying an Experimental Exhibition certified
Stidestrander-Chuffington, literally the sky's the limit.
I love how the FAA protects us all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tylor Hall"
Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
> Phil,
> The STEC 50 is approved on a number of short body flat nacelle Twin
> Commanders. We would be willing to help in the process. We would need
> STEC's support. The 560F, 680F/FL/FP/FLP all need new autopilots. I have
> several customers that need new autopilots. We have a DER on staff. Give
> me a call.
>
> Regards,
> Tylor Hall
> Wind Dancer Aviation Services, Inc.
> 2V1, Pagosa Springs, CO
> 970-731-2127
>
>
> Subject: RE: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
>
>
>
> I've been trying to find a shop/FSDO combo that will do a one time
approval
> for S-TEC 50 in my 560F (also approved for Lear and Brittain). Commander
> Aero is exploring the possibilitys.
> Does anyone know of a shop that can do a non-stc'd S-Tec install?
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Bruce Campbell
> > To:
> > Date: 10/23/2003 3:54:23 PM
> > Subject: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
> >
>
> >
> > I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
> >
> > Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
> >
> > Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
> >
> > Bruce Campbell
> > AC52 N4186B
> >
> >
>
>
Buddy Windham, President
Cycon Enterprises, Inc.
General Contractors/Construction Management/Design Build Services
0-608 Quincy Street S.W.
Grandville, Michigan 49418
616 896-6488 office
616 896-6490 fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
I erased this email yesterday but will now send it instead.
I think it is very important to, at some point, shut one down. I think it
is good for the fear factor to see what that looks like. It might keep you
from wetting you pants if the real think happens.
another 1.5 cents.
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Schuermann" <cschuerm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
>
>
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents
worth
> > of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in
real
> > life?
>
> During my ownership of the 520 (GO-435's), I shut both engines down
> several times on purpose (not at the same time of course). I always
> pre-cooled prior to shutdown. Never had a re-start problem although
> they did require a bit of cranking before coming out of feather.
> Although I knew it was hard on the engines, I just felt it was prudent
> for me to have a good "feel" for the airplane with one really shut down.
> Although it's hard on those geared starters, it's probably easier on
> the engine to shut it down rather than clatter the gearbox at idle....
> I'm glad I did bother to practice single-engine work and do a couple of
> true single-engine landings because I did loose an engine during takeoff
> once. The right engine just stopped cold at about 200ft agl. Glad it
> was the right one because the gear were just coming up. Feathered it
> and climbed out easily for a return to a non-eventful landing.
>
> Chris Schuermann
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brock Lorber - VegasFC" <blorber(at)vegasfc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
We just added a new checklist for the guy who calls himself the co-co-pilot
(he monitors the door lock, door seal, and runs the entertainment center).
This is a preflight checklist to ensure he remembers to take his bags out
of the back of his truck and put them on the ground near the baggage
compartment so they get loaded instead of left at the airport!
The good news is, 400CH is back in the air, purring like a kitten, and the
families are enjoying the new interior and entertainment center! ~ 9 hours
this week from Vegas to Boise, back to Vegas with a quick stop in Battle
Mountain, NV, a quick hop to Bakersfield, and back to Vegas. A few minor
items to tighten up, but we're just about ready for the hunting seasons!
Brock Lorber
>
>
> I agree. I just got lost in the communication. Seems like more that a
few
> items and I forget. So I need a check list on everything I do anymore.
> bobby
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Wrom: TQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGV
> To:
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
>
> >
> > Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus
memorized
> > drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I
was
> a
> > total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to
which
> > one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists
are
> > good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of
the
> > flight from memory.
> > Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> > Nico
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Wrom: CJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLK
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The point being?????
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Wrom: BRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMN
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> > practicing
> > > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
> to
> > > heed
> > > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the
story.
> > > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if
the
> > > pros
> > > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
> but
> > > they
> > > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> > blast
> > > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
> from
> > > left
> > > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > > within
> > > > the reality realm.
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Nico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > Wrom: NSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIB
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > > tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have
to
> be
> > > > > > conducted from memory
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
> or
> > > > write
> > > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > > written
> > > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential
to
> > > > safety.
> > > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> > currently
> > > > found on
> > > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
> pump
> > > > after TO
> > > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
> These
> > > > items
> > > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
> the
> > > > real
> > > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
> airplanes
> > > > that are
> > > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is
not
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brock Lorber - VegasFC" <blorber(at)vegasfc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
Well put, Mr. Gordon. Gary Gadberry proved to me (with one of my employers
in the back) that the 680 flies (and lands) much better with one feathered
than with one at zero-thrust. That went a loooong way to boost my
confidence (and more importantly the families who ride in back) in the AC's
handling and the value of dragging around our huge vertical sail!
I'm a less-agressive instructor in other types. I teach my clients to
safely practice engine out maneuvers with zero-thrust, and have them
feather and perform a couple of air starts not so much to practice
maneuvers, but to show them how quickly the engine cools and how hard it
can be to get them re-started. I also cannot stand the grinding and
shaking out on the wing, but don't have enough confidence in the
single-engine performance of many airplanes (or the traffic
patterns/controllers at our local airports) to make a feathered approach
and landing.
I love the pre-oilers on 400CH. What a great feeling it gives to have oil
pressure BEFORE cranking the starter! We ask a lot of that airplane, and
little things like the pre-oilers put me way ahead of the game before we
even leave the chocks.
Brock Lorber
N400CH
>
> In a message dated 10/25/03 11:05:07 Pacific Daylight Time,
> kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
>
> > What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
> > with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
> > shut-down feather and re-start?
> >
>
> Kelly,
>
> Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM. You'll
> have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end of
the
> day.
>
> You're demonstrating technique on your checkride and I.M.O you shouldn't
be
> making a blood sacrifice to the FAA.
>
> As soon as you can, find a Commander owner with a direct drive model and
work
> out what ever kind of deal you have to, to feather the left engine and
fly
> around to get the true sense of handling and climb gradient.
>
> In the past, I think I've gotten one geared engine to restart
comfortably.
> The rest, I gave the client a chance to go through the steps, but I just
> couldn't stand the grinding and grinding to get it started in the air.
Maybe they
> would have all started eventually, but it just drives me berserk to watch
all
> that shaking and straining out there on the wing.
>
> I always used this as an opportunity to land with an engine feathered
because
> the deceleration with an engine feathered is so much different than with
two
> turning that I think it's important to experience. Believe it or don't,
the
> plane doesn't slow down as fast with one feathered, contrary to what your
> intuition would have you think.
>
> Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents
worth
> of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in
real
> life?
>
> I figure if it gets to the point of actually needing featering a piston
> engine (you've done all you can do to keep it running: fuel selector,
boost pumps,
> mixture, mags), there's probably no reason to ever restart it. Is there?
>
> By the way, aside from the IGSO-540 boys, anyone have unfeathering
> accumulators or electric (pre) oil pumps? I believe N400CH, a Mr. RPM
FLP, has
> pre-oilers, but not sure if anyone else does. Those would be a big help
in
> unfeathering, I'd think.
>
> It's all about building enough oil pressure to unfeather the prop and
that's
> a lot to ask of a starter motor fighting with 80 to 100+ knots of cold
wind.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jody and Susan Pillatzki" <jpillatzki(at)702com.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? |
To agree with everyone else and put it short and sweet. The only time a go
around should be an emergency is when you are doing something or in a
portion of the envelope you shouldn't have been in to begin with.
Jody
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brock Lorber - VegasFC" <blorber(at)vegasfc.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up?
>
> Well put, Mr. Gordon. Gary Gadberry proved to me (with one of my
employers
> in the back) that the 680 flies (and lands) much better with one feathered
> than with one at zero-thrust. That went a loooong way to boost my
> confidence (and more importantly the families who ride in back) in the
AC's
> handling and the value of dragging around our huge vertical sail!
>
> I'm a less-agressive instructor in other types. I teach my clients to
> safely practice engine out maneuvers with zero-thrust, and have them
> feather and perform a couple of air starts not so much to practice
> maneuvers, but to show them how quickly the engine cools and how hard it
> can be to get them re-started. I also cannot stand the grinding and
> shaking out on the wing, but don't have enough confidence in the
> single-engine performance of many airplanes (or the traffic
> patterns/controllers at our local airports) to make a feathered approach
> and landing.
>
> I love the pre-oilers on 400CH. What a great feeling it gives to have oil
> pressure BEFORE cranking the starter! We ask a lot of that airplane, and
> little things like the pre-oilers put me way ahead of the game before we
> even leave the chocks.
>
> Brock Lorber
> N400CH
>
> >
> > In a message dated 10/25/03 11:05:07 Pacific Daylight Time,
> > kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> >
> > > What is the best practice for zero-thrust setup and execution
> > > with the GO-480's? Or dare I ask - how detrimental is it to actually
> > > shut-down feather and re-start?
> > >
> >
> > Kelly,
> >
> > Take the power to the "bottom of the green" for both MAP and RPM.
You'll
> > have more than zero thrust, but you'll still have an engine at the end
of
> the
> > day.
> >
> > You're demonstrating technique on your checkride and I.M.O you shouldn't
> be
> > making a blood sacrifice to the FAA.
> >
> > As soon as you can, find a Commander owner with a direct drive model and
> work
> > out what ever kind of deal you have to, to feather the left engine and
> fly
> > around to get the true sense of handling and climb gradient.
> >
> > In the past, I think I've gotten one geared engine to restart
> comfortably.
> > The rest, I gave the client a chance to go through the steps, but I just
> > couldn't stand the grinding and grinding to get it started in the air.
> Maybe they
> > would have all started eventually, but it just drives me berserk to
watch
> all
> > that shaking and straining out there on the wing.
> >
> > I always used this as an opportunity to land with an engine feathered
> because
> > the deceleration with an engine feathered is so much different than with
> two
> > turning that I think it's important to experience. Believe it or
don't,
> the
> > plane doesn't slow down as fast with one feathered, contrary to what
your
> > intuition would have you think.
> >
> > Since I'm raking it in on useless advice today, anyone have a few cents
> worth
> > of experience of actually having to shut one down and then restart -- in
> real
> > life?
> >
> > I figure if it gets to the point of actually needing featering a piston
> > engine (you've done all you can do to keep it running: fuel selector,
> boost pumps,
> > mixture, mags), there's probably no reason to ever restart it. Is
there?
> >
> > By the way, aside from the IGSO-540 boys, anyone have unfeathering
> > accumulators or electric (pre) oil pumps? I believe N400CH, a Mr. RPM
> FLP, has
> > pre-oilers, but not sure if anyone else does. Those would be a big
help
> in
> > unfeathering, I'd think.
> >
> > It's all about building enough oil pressure to unfeather the prop and
> that's
> > a lot to ask of a starter motor fighting with 80 to 100+ knots of cold
> wind.
> >
> > Wing Commander Gordon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Dominguez" <dan(at)worldflight2000.com> |
>I don't want to give the impression that geared engines are made >of glass.
>Quite the contrary. I think they're stout, rugged power plants. >They sound
>really bitchin', too!
>They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a >rare commodities
wcg-
when chris and i were flying around the world in 559, i shut down the left side
at FL160 over the red sea. at vyse it took us around 20 minutes to fall out
of the sky as we dumped gas to get under mgtow. she stabilized at 75% around
5000ft to an unventful landing some 45 minutes later.
with both turning, proper planning sequencing an approach at 160 or 90 can be done
safely and effectively with power,gear,flap management.
thanks for taking the time to provide your advice. always valuable...
dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Barry Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
On Saturday, October 25, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Commander-List Digest Server
wrote:
> They do require knowledge and operating technique that are now a rare
> commodities.
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
In the warbird world they say "radial engines are for real pilots". I
guess I'm just lucky I was brought up on radials because operating a
geared motor (radials are geared too, but just much more stout because
they don't have planetary gears) is not a big issue. As far as
technique, you're talking about the "Think ahead, plan ahead, and run
over any poor sucker that gets in your way...." philosophy, right?
So what are you saying, WCG? That I'm some sort of enigma at 35? Wait,
don't answer that....
Barry (I fly radials and geared motors, but I'm still working on being a
real pilot) Hancock
Barry Hancock
Director of Operations
Red Stars, Inc.
949.300.5510
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/26/03 20:24:01 Pacific Standard Time,
radialpower(at)cox.net writes:
> So what are you saying, WCG? That I'm some sort of enigma at 35?
You're worse than that.
But, I'm jealous because other than a bit of Convair 240 flying, I've never
spent time between or even behind radials.
Of course, it's been said that the IGSO-540 is a flat radial ...
At 35 you're carrying a lot of history around with you, my boy.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Commander-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 10/26/03 |
| From: | Barry Hancock <radialpower(at)cox.net> |
On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Commander-List Digest Server
wrote:
> At 35 you're carrying a lot of history around with you, my boy.
Yeah, the probably should have put it in more capable hands.... :)
B
Barry Hancock
Director of Operations
Red Stars, Inc.
949.300.5510
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Farmer <daniellfarmer(at)yahoo.com> |
I probably should send out birth announcements but thought that might be a little
to vain. Just wanted to let anyone who cares and those who dont that as of
last Friday the 25th of Oct. 2003 I am officially the owner to N6369U a 500B.
Have flown it 12 hours already and looking forward to many more.
Thanks in advance
dan farmer
Commander-List Digest Server wrote:
*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
Today's complete Commander-List Digest can be also be found in either
of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
version of the Commander-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-26.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list/Digest.Commander-List.2003-10-26.txt
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Commander-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sun 10/26/03: 8
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:03 AM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Buddy Windham)
2. 05:15 AM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Bill Bow)
3. 06:23 AM - Re: Checklists anyone? (Brock Lorber - VegasFC)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Brock Lorber - VegasFC)
5. 07:50 AM - Re: Shut 'em down ... start 'em up? (Jody and Susan Pillatzki)
6. 10:38 AM - single engine (Dan Dominguez)
7. 08:23 PM - Technique (Barry Hancock)
8. 09:04 PM - Re: Technique (CloudCraft(at)aol.com)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
From: Buddy Windham
Subject: Re: Commander-List: STEC in a 520?
Hey guys, a little late jumping in but my experience with stec ain't so good.
I wanted to remove my 50 series and upgrade to a 60-2 in my 560e. The main reason
was the footprint in the panel. I worked with stec for over 1 year trying
to get them off top dead center and get this stc done. I heard every excuse
October 09, 2003 - October 27, 2003
Commander-Archive.digest.vol-bc