Lndwarrior
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Gary
I've been flying for 30 years but have recently become a fan of the word "abnormal" when it comes to things that happen in the air.
I think there is a benefit to this word when something seems off while you are flying.
Previously, when something seemed off with the plane, the question in my mind was, "is something wrong"? This would apply to a smell, a sound, or a slightly different reading on one of my gauges. I would then continue to fly while trying to decide if something was wrong. If so, what?
On today's local sightseeing flight, something wasn't quite right.
As I climbed out, the CHT on #3 seemed just a little high. This was different because #3 is never the hot cylinder (carbureted 0-235-C1). When I leveled off and throttled back the temperature started to come down. Only now it was dropping lower than normal.
I remember a recent YouTube video where the word "abnormal" was used. And I immediately had the thought that the current situation was "abnormal" for my plane. This led me to turn back to the airport without any delay. Something abnormal was going on and that was all the information I needed to turn around and land. I would troubleshoot the condition on the ground.
Previously, I think I might have just continued, thinking that this was not likely a serious issue. Perhaps playing around with the mixture or throttle settings. After all, the engine sounded fine, and the EGT's were normal. I would have tried to figure out if something was really wrong. However, the NTSB has many reports where a delay in landing has had serious consequences.
But the point of the YouTube video was that any abnormal condition of an engine is reason enough to land and trouble shoot on the ground. Unless you are a knowledgeable engine person or mechanic, I think this makes a lot of sense.
Again, if you are knowledgeable about engines and capable of troubleshooting in flight, then this would be irrelevant. However, I think many pilots are like me and do not have the knowledge to do this confidently (though I built my own plane and installed the engine).
There are other scenarios where you might be forced to troubleshoot in the air - on an IFR flight plan, in IMC, over water, far from an airport, etc. So, this simplistic response doesn't apply to all cases.
It turned out that I did have a problem, though I could have continued the flight. The problem was the #3 top and bottom spark plugs were badly worn. I went and pulled a sample from the other cylinders and they, too, needed replacing. They were Tempest plugs with about 300 hours on them. I ordered 8 new UREM 37BY plugs and washers from Aircraft Spruce for a painful $346...
I don't revisit my posts after I post them. I won't read the follow-up comments. I post things that I think some might find beneficial. I have no interest in debating or defending the idea.
I think there is a benefit to this word when something seems off while you are flying.
Previously, when something seemed off with the plane, the question in my mind was, "is something wrong"? This would apply to a smell, a sound, or a slightly different reading on one of my gauges. I would then continue to fly while trying to decide if something was wrong. If so, what?
On today's local sightseeing flight, something wasn't quite right.
As I climbed out, the CHT on #3 seemed just a little high. This was different because #3 is never the hot cylinder (carbureted 0-235-C1). When I leveled off and throttled back the temperature started to come down. Only now it was dropping lower than normal.
I remember a recent YouTube video where the word "abnormal" was used. And I immediately had the thought that the current situation was "abnormal" for my plane. This led me to turn back to the airport without any delay. Something abnormal was going on and that was all the information I needed to turn around and land. I would troubleshoot the condition on the ground.
Previously, I think I might have just continued, thinking that this was not likely a serious issue. Perhaps playing around with the mixture or throttle settings. After all, the engine sounded fine, and the EGT's were normal. I would have tried to figure out if something was really wrong. However, the NTSB has many reports where a delay in landing has had serious consequences.
But the point of the YouTube video was that any abnormal condition of an engine is reason enough to land and trouble shoot on the ground. Unless you are a knowledgeable engine person or mechanic, I think this makes a lot of sense.
"Abnormal" is a much simpler decision point than "Is something wrong?".
This is abnormal for this airplane, let's land and figure it out. I think this recognition can lead to a quicker, and perhaps life-saving, decision to land.
Again, if you are knowledgeable about engines and capable of troubleshooting in flight, then this would be irrelevant. However, I think many pilots are like me and do not have the knowledge to do this confidently (though I built my own plane and installed the engine).
There are other scenarios where you might be forced to troubleshoot in the air - on an IFR flight plan, in IMC, over water, far from an airport, etc. So, this simplistic response doesn't apply to all cases.
It turned out that I did have a problem, though I could have continued the flight. The problem was the #3 top and bottom spark plugs were badly worn. I went and pulled a sample from the other cylinders and they, too, needed replacing. They were Tempest plugs with about 300 hours on them. I ordered 8 new UREM 37BY plugs and washers from Aircraft Spruce for a painful $346...
I don't revisit my posts after I post them. I won't read the follow-up comments. I post things that I think some might find beneficial. I have no interest in debating or defending the idea.
