RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Hand Prop Prohibition
- Thread starter dmccormack
- Start date
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
There is only a limited number of possibilities...
I seem to recall doing that once or twice...
Learned about propping an aircraft with one of the old man's hangar queen Navions.
It will go eventually.
Well not always: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23433
Only one way to find out.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
You are required to maintain your aircraft IAW 91.405 (a)
Each owner or operator of an aircraft—
(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph(c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;
The FAA airworthiness inspector would hang you with 91.405 (a)
plus a violation of 91,13 for a dangerous action with out cause.
My advice? get a jump start. and excite the battery before you fly.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
That was a pretty good vid, Geoff.
In the solo start, I think he had enough rope to make that tail tiedown a quick release that could be pulled from the cockpit. I have done that and felt slightly more secure doing so.
In the solo start, I think he had enough rope to make that tail tiedown a quick release that could be pulled from the cockpit. I have done that and felt slightly more secure doing so.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Wanna bet?
Well, shee-it you wait for the bozo to leave fer crying out loud.
Besides, the starter still works, and, well, I ain't sure, but somehow I thought I might of heard something and I didn't want to take any chances until it was checked out by the A&P.
Safety first, right?
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Well, shee-it you wait for the bozo to leave fer crying out loud.
Besides, the starter still works, and, well, I ain't sure, but somehow I thought I might of heard something and I didn't want to take any chances until it was checked out by the A&P.
Safety first, right?
Yep, safety first. Besides, If I saw someone propping their plane I would just say "better him than me" and if nothing else was amiss I would just go on my merry way.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Even the old C-100 series aircraft with a generator, the master will not close if the battery is dead. simply because it is closed by the battery side of the master relay.
In this case the generator will excite its self, and put voltage to the main buss, but you can't charge the battery because the relay is closed by the battery not the generator.
So to hand prop the aircraft to get it started, and charge the battery you will be require to jump the master relay to close it, you can't do that until you remove the cowl.
Jack Spectre
Line Up and Wait
I'm not going to challenge your knowledge of FARs, but from a common sense point of view, if you have a bad starter (not a dead battery), what possible safety hazard does that introduce to your upcoming flight?
I'm not being argumentative, I'm just trying to determine if there is a logical basis for the requirement.
slowjoe
Pre-Flight
It's very clear that you have NO IDEA how a battery works. It takes dozens, sometimes over a hundred cold cranking amps to turn an engine over. It takes VERY LITTLE amperage to excite and alternator. I guess you've never pop-started a car when the battery is "dead" and let the alternator charge the battery? Guess what? A car has an alternator too!
You really should learn how things work. 91.405 DOES NOT apply to a battery of diminished capacity. The battery is fine, just low on power. In fact, the battery could very well have SEVERAL HOURS worth of capacity to power the avionics, just not enough to turn over the engine.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Yup. BTDT too.
That's why you want to lay off the starter before the battery is too flat.
'course if the battery is totally flat, u b up the creek.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,186
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
With the FAA, things are black or white. VERY little shades of gray.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,186
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Wow. You never read "How to influence people and win friends", did you?
slowjoe
Pre-Flight
Actually, with the FAA what is black and white for this FSDO is white and black for that FSDO. In reality you could say that the FAA is nothing but gray.
slowjoe
Pre-Flight
Yes, I have. It's a bunch of P.C. crap. I tell it like it is.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,186
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Well, you tell it like YOU see it. LOL
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,365
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
Get out the weight and balance paperwork. There should be an equipment list with it. If it ain't there your paperwork isn't complete. On that equipment list there's a whole raft of stuff, most of it with an "R" (required) or an "O" (optional) beside it. That's your MEL for a lightplane.
Dan
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,365
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
HUNDREDS of cold-cranking amps, actually. 400 or 500 isn't unusual.
An alternator has no residual magnetic field in its rotor like the generator has in it's field pole shoes, and so it will not generate any current flow if the battery is totally dead. I've learned that the hard way. The generator will bring up enough juice to feed its own field, and from there it bootstraps up to normal very quickly. The airplane's engine can be hand-propped but unless there's a bit of juice left in the battery the alternator won't work. And neither will the master solenoid close, which is something your bump-started car doesn't have to worry about. It doesn't have one.
And bootstrapping is about the only advantage a generator has over an alternator. Besides being heavier and putting out much less current for a given weight, its brushes wear out far too soon since they're carrying the entire output, while the alternator's brushes carry only two or three amps of field current.
Me? If I had a weak battery or bum starter I'd probably hand-prop it and get the battery back up. I have lots of hand-propping time, even on larger engines and having taught it a few times on O-320s. But I sure don't want an untrained student or other person doing it. Besides risking his own neck, he's risking the airplane and anyone or anything else that might be in its way. It's a case of your ignorance killing you or someone else: the old "how hard can it be?" stuff.
Here are a few hand-prop chops. I couldn't find any pictures of chopped people, which would be graphic indeed. Happens to those who don't stand close enough, actually, and fall into the prop on the downswing.
Dan
Last edited:
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
The starter will drag a battery down to about 8 volts, the alternator requires 9 or more to excite it.
Get out your meter and check the reality of it.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I also hand prop my Fairchild 24 too, but I do it because the starter is a very expensive one that I don't want to break.
rottydaddy
En-Route
That seems logical, and it's SOP for floatplane pilots with no starters on their planes, but I guess most of us don't do that because we don't like the feeling of being corralled between the landing gear (or wing, or strut) and the prop. In the event the plane comes alive at a high power setting, I'd rather have to worry only about the prop as I get clear, not the gear,wing strut, wing, probes, venturis, etc. Seems to me you could get knocked forward into the prop if you are back there and the plane jumps the chocks or whatever. Also, if you are facing forward, you may not see in time that the plane is lurching forward.
I am not a very experienced hand-propper, but I am careful to make sure I have a firm footing, close enough so I am not leaning towards the prop, and I follow through with my hands going behind me, stepping back and towards the side, away from the "prop disc".
And I don't lift one leg, at least not with a 65-hp engine, LOL. I see people doing the leg-swinging bit when propping little putt-putt engines, and it puzzles me. If you don't have the strength to swing the prop on a Champ without lifting your leg, you should get someone else to do it, IMHO. Two feet on the ground= more stable footing.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
You'll find that Ron is closer to the FAA interpretation than you'd like.
SteveR
Pre-takeoff checklist
I've handpropped my Pietenpol probably 900 times or so in the last five years. Haven't lost a limb yet. It can be done safely...however I have seen people hand prop planes before and it scared the crap out of me. For that reason I usually don't accept when someone offers to prop me, unless I know them and know that they know what they are doing.
As for airports prohibiting hand propping, doesn't the FAA have strict regulations regarding limiting access to airports that have accepted federal funds? By eliminating hand propping, you would be restricting the operation of planes without starters, something that may be a violation of the FAA's terms.
But once the engine is running (via handprop), the starter would not be engaged, and so the voltage would be much higher than 9v, right? So it would provide move than enough voltage to excite the alternator and begin charging the battery. Particularly on a cold day, a battery might be in decent condition, but not produce enough amps to turn the engine over. That doesn't necessarily mean its capacity has been compromised.
As for airports prohibiting hand propping, doesn't the FAA have strict regulations regarding limiting access to airports that have accepted federal funds? By eliminating hand propping, you would be restricting the operation of planes without starters, something that may be a violation of the FAA's terms.
But once the engine is running (via handprop), the starter would not be engaged, and so the voltage would be much higher than 9v, right? So it would provide move than enough voltage to excite the alternator and begin charging the battery. Particularly on a cold day, a battery might be in decent condition, but not produce enough amps to turn the engine over. That doesn't necessarily mean its capacity has been compromised.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I still haven't figured out how some of those gear teeth got past the exhaust valves...
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
How much of a load will the dead battery place on a Generator/ alternator after the engine is started by hand. It will take all the alternator can produce.
wanttaja
En-Route
Uhhh, not with my airplane. Low wing, wire bracing. If the plane lunges forward, you've got nowhere to go. The mag switches for both Fly Babies I've flown are on the left side of the cockpit, the opposite side from where you'd be standing to hand prop from behind (and a long reach around the windshield into the cockpit).
The biggest mistake people make is hand propping airplanes without securing them. Over the years, I've only heard about one or two guys that got hit by the prop while trying to swing it, but I've heard story after story about folks who didn't have the plane tied down and it ran away from them when the throttle was set too high.
The solution is a glider tow hook attached to the tail wheel, with a remote release in the cockpit. You can tie a loop in a spare tiedown rope, latch it in the hook, prop the engine, and release the hook after climbing into the pilot seat.
STC'd glider hooks for certified airplanes are a bit pricey ($350 or so plus installation), but homebuilt hooks for Experimentals are quite a bit cheaper.
I've got more information on tailhooks on my Fly Baby page.
Ron Wanttaja
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Nor am I, but...
The way I've seen hand-propping taught, you swing your leg so that your CG is traveling away from the prop so if you fall, you will not fall into the prop. Makes perfect sense to me, and even a 65-hp engine is plenty to kill me if I fall into it.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Technically speaking you cannot use an equipment list as a "MEL" (Minimum Equipment List).
I interpreted the statement from the other poster as the "R" items being the minimum equipment needed to fly the plane.
Do you mean the the "R" items do not constitute an MEL or nothing in the document can be used as an MEL?
Just asking for a clarification...
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
While it may seem you could use an Equipment List in the place of an MEL, you simply can't. There are differences. A MEL prescribes at what time the deferred equipment must be repaired and signed off. An MEL also has a Preamble which goes into further detail of deferrals, and another part of the MEL is the "Special Procedures" which must be followed in the event of certain deferred items.
Also bear in mind that it requires a mechanic to defer an item and make the appropriate log entries. Take the example of an inop starter or battery. If the pilot wants to proceed he needs to have a mechanic look at it and make a log entry for the aircraft to proceed. I seriously doubt you will find an A&P willing to do that for a battery or starter.
91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:
(1) An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for that aircraft.
(2) The aircraft has within it a letter of authorization, issued by the FAA Flight Standards district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operator is located, authorizing operation of the aircraft under the Minimum Equipment List. The letter of authorization may be obtained by written request of the airworthiness certificate holder. The Minimum Equipment List and the letter of authorization constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft.
(3) The approved Minimum Equipment List must—
(i) Be prepared in accordance with the limitations specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii) Provide for the operation of the aircraft with the instruments and equipment in an inoperable condition.
(4) The aircraft records available to the pilot must include an entry describing the inoperable instruments and equipment.
(5) The aircraft is operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and the letter authorizing the use of the list.
(b) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in a Minimum Equipment List:
(1) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or otherwise required by the airworthiness requirements under which the aircraft is type certificated and which are essential for safe operations under all operating conditions.
(2) Instruments and equipment required by an airworthiness directive to be in operable condition unless the airworthiness directive provides otherwise.
(3) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by this part.
(c) A person authorized to use an approved Minimum Equipment List issued for a specific aircraft under subpart K of this part, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter must use that Minimum Equipment List to comply with the requirements in this section.
(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided—
(1) The flight operation is conducted in a—
(i) Rotorcraft, non-turbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list has not been developed; or
(ii) Small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered small airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft for which a Master Minimum Equipment List has been developed; and
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not—
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are—
(i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or
(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; and
(4) A determination is made by a pilot, who is certificated and appropriately rated under part 61 of this chapter, or by a person, who is certificated and appropriately rated to perform maintenance on the aircraft, that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not constitute a hazard to the aircraft.
An aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment as provided in paragraph (d) of this section is considered to be in a properly altered condition acceptable to the Administrator.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an aircraft with inoperable instruments or equipment may be operated under a special flight permit issued in accordance with §§21.197 and 21.199 of this chapter.
Last edited:
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
One of the C182s I fly under is on a 135 certificate and has an MEL. The above reg indicates that I'm subject to that MEL when I'm flying it under Part 91, not the exception in 91.213(d)2, even though I don't have a "chief pilot" to approve operations as specified in the MEL, right?
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Joe, I just noticed this post. Your opinion is certainly welcome here and I for one appreciate reading your thoughts, but we sort of fancy ourselves a community here more so that a web board. I think you comments about Tom were really unecessary. Tom is a well respected A&P and aircraft restorer here, I'm not saying his position is right and yours is not but there is really a much more civil way to go about disagreeing. Personal attacks tend to discredit one position even if it is superior. By the way I'm not a big fan of PC either but Civil Discourse and disagreement is by no means a PC kind of thing.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Technically speaking, an MEL doesn't prescribe at what time the deferred equipment must be repaired and signed off under solely Part 91 operations. I think that's stated in the Preamble.
This is correct...AND since the MEL is issued to a 135 operator, you DO need to comply with the time intervals specified (A, B, C, D listings)
Confused yet?
David
rottydaddy
En-Route
I guess it is one of those "whatever works for you" things... I know I can prop in such a way that as I follow through I am headed back and to the side (to my left), and I'd prefer to keep both feet on the ground.
AFAIK, leg-swinging came about when there were many aircraft with fairly long,heavy props and high-comp engines that needed hand-starting (WWI fighters, for example). The mass of that leg coming back down helped a little.
But again, whatever works for you. I do it "my" way because that's how my taildragger guru showed me, and he's been doing it that way for almost 50 years and hasn't been hit yet.
I think Ron W. has a very good point: securing the plane is most important. A runaway plane can make a joke of even the best propping technique.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
From the Preamble:
The MMEL is intended to permit operations with inoperative items
of equipment for the minimum period of time necessary until
repairs can be accomplished. It is important that repairs be
accomplished at the earliest opportunity in order to return the
aircraft to its design level of safety and reliability.
Inoperative equipment in all cases must be repaired, or inspected
and deferred, by qualified maintenance personnel at the next
required inspection [Section 91.165(c), NEW Section 91.405(c)].
Let me see whether I understand you.
It is not illegal to hand-prop my airplane to start the engine. It is not illegal to fly my airplane NORDO. But if the alternator is toast and there is no mechanic on the field it is illegal to pull the circuit breakers, hand prop, and fly to the nearest mechanic?
It is not illegal to hand-prop my airplane to start the engine. It is not illegal to fly my airplane NORDO. But if the alternator is toast and there is no mechanic on the field it is illegal to pull the circuit breakers, hand prop, and fly to the nearest mechanic?
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Correct.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntPeggy View Post
Let me see whether I understand you.
It is not illegal to hand-prop my airplane to start the engine. It is not illegal to fly my airplane NORDO. But if the alternator is toast and there is no mechanic on the field it is illegal to pull the circuit breakers, hand prop, and fly to the nearest mechanic?
Correct.
__________________
Show me your reference,
The Equipment list for Cessnas is not a MEL, the "R" is required equipment to meet its type design, and airworthiness requirements.
Those items can not be inop for any inspection including the preflight.
To be airworthy the aircraft must meet its type design, and be safe to fly.
No, chalk it up to stupid people.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,186
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
I think he is agreeing with you, Tom.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Not with out a ferry permit. IF the alternator is a required "R" item on your equipment list.
When you have discrepancies you must repair them and have a return to service entry to be legal. If the maintenance is not a item on the 43-A(c) items 1-31. a appropriately ratd person must make the entry.