High Performance Flying Technique...safe?

dell30rb said:
And what are the odds of that happening? Your kid is probably 50x more likely to get struck by lightning
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, stuff happens, and we don't need people using poor judgment flying small airplanes, and making us all look bad, especially with a general public absolutely terrified of us.

The fact that he won't touch the prop or mixture tells me he is AFRAID of the plane. That's not a good place to be. People do DUMB things when they are scared.
 
Anthony said:
So when the plane crashes in my kid's school yard, and takes other people with him, I'll remind you of this. Flying the plane this way is just stupid. It is bad for the aircraft, and displays poor judgment. I don't want to be in the air with this guy either. He is a danger to himself, and others in the air, and on the ground.

Your attiutude displayed in this thread isn't much better.
Click to expand...


To begin with, everybody dies, end of story. However, his operating technique is not something prone to cause a failure. He leans to keep it smooth and operates an O-540 Lycoming within the published operating specs. All he is doing wrong is costing himself a bit of extra money. Doesn't cost me a dime because my share cost is still lower having him as a 3rd partner than if there was only 2.

The attitudes of 'control and authority' over non critical issues here is more disturbing to me than the guy's operating technique. He's showing me he stays with 'known safe'. The people complaining about it are showing me they don't understand what constitutes safe and not.
 
Anthony said:
Agreed. However, stuff happens, and we don't need people using poor judgment flying small airplanes, and making us all look bad, especially with a general public absolutely terrified of us.

The fact that he won't touch the prop or mixture tells me he is AFRAID of the plane. That's not a good place to be. People do DUMB things when they are scared.
Click to expand...


People do even dumber things when they are ignorant, and considering the guys operating technique as unsafe is ignorant. That makes both groups equally dangerous in my book. Difference is the scared person is only dangerous when scared; the ignorant person is always dangerous.
 
Henning said:
People do even dumber things when they are ignorant, and considering the guys operating technique as unsafe is ignorant. That makes both groups equally dangerous in my book. Difference is the scared person is only dangerous when scared; the ignorant person is always dangerous.
Click to expand...


The operating technique is only a symptom, and in itself not dangerous. The attitude, and judgment is the disease, and a fatal one.

Nice way to call me ignorant though Henning. So it would be OK to fly a retract with the wheels down all the time too, huh? :rolleyes:
 
Anthony said:
The operating technique is only a symptom, and in itself not dangerous. The attitude, and judgment is the disease, and a fatal one.

Nice way to call me ignorant though Henning. So it would be OK to fly a retract with the wheels down all the time too, huh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be unsafe to do so. Dumb, but not unsafe. Always assuming you didn't violate any limitations.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It may be too easy to exceed max gear speed. That could be unsafe.

Interesting thread:popcorn:
Click to expand...


Yes, interesting because while the one activity in, and of itself may not be unsafe. The deficiency, attifude, and lack of judgment it shows can be.

Maybe on the way home I will drive the entire way in 1st gear, in the snow, in a Prius. :)
 
Anthony said:
Maybe on the way home I will drive the entire way in 1st gear, in the snow, in a Prius. :)
Click to expand...

Ooooh, ooooh - doesn't a Prius have an electric CVT transmission?

//end of techical snip
 
azure said:
More people are taught this way than you might think. My current CFII, for example, prides himself on keeping his last engine well past TBO and thinks part of it may be that he teaches all of his students to never lean unless necessary to make the engine run smoothly. He was also Maint VP until recently, and made this the recommended way to operate both of our 172s.

It's pretty much as you say: he blames all engine issues of unknown cause on improper leaning. He also claims that he's never had problems with lead fouling.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good thing you've replaced him as Maint VP. I hope the new one knows more about engine care.
 
If the guy won't adapt his flying technique after a full explanation backed up with evidence, he's an accident waiting to happen.

But airplanes are incredibly forgiving and so most of them go along and survive over many years and even thousands of hours.

So when you ask one about leaning or approach speed he'll just smile and say, "It's worked for me for 40 years and 5,000 hours..."

Start doing Flight reviews. Quickly your appreciation of the airplane's ability to protect the pilot from his own stupidity will astound you....
 
Anthony said:
So when the plane crashes in my kid's school yard, and takes other people with him, I'll remind you of this. Flying the plane this way is just stupid. It is bad for the aircraft, and displays poor judgment. I don't want to be in the air with this guy either. He is a danger to himself, and others in the air, and on the ground.

Your attiutude displayed in this thread isn't much better.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree and go with Henning on this one. I'm my brother's keeper only to a point. If he crashes into a school it's between the Insurance companies, the Estate, and whoever signed him off on his last check ride.

We have plenty enough nannies these days. They'll figure it out. And enact some new inane law like "Pilot must use the red knob and not be a retard."

Of course, this is a different scenario here than would happen in real life for me, because during that first flight with the red knob all the way forward, I'd be saying, "You going to pull that out? It's not supposed to be full forward for the whole flight!" There wouldn't be any pussyfooting around about it.

Sounded to me like the accident chain started right there -- the first time someone did NOT ask questions while flying with him, and decided to be politically correct instead of telling the pilot he was screwing up. (I'm okay with telling him politely, but withholding the information because you're afraid to insult him? Hell no. He's flying the airplane wrong enough it won't pass PTS standards... no holding back on that one.)
 
Anthony said:
The operating technique is only a symptom, and in itself not dangerous. The attitude, and judgment is the disease, and a fatal one.

Nice way to call me ignorant though Henning. So it would be OK to fly a retract with the wheels down all the time too, huh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Fine by me as long as I don't have to sit in the plane for the extra time or pay for the extra fuel. Heck I don't really mind dying in a crash, always kinda figured it would be my demise one day, just don't bore me to death getting to the scene first.

Thing is the guy isn't doing anything that detrimentally effects my interests so I really don't have place to insist he does something 'my way' when he is comfortable using a different non destructive method. He is operating within his comfort zone and it doesn't negatively effect me. He's old, likely his mind is starting to go and he doesn't want to be bothered with the potential of confusion, besides there is absolutely nothing wrong with leaving the prop full forward at any throttle setting, in fact, when the system fails, that is where it defaults to. The only purpose is to increase efficiency, if he's willing to pay the bill, no worries.

The greater issue is as you point out, the likely deteriorating mental capacity which will eventually get him killed if he doesn't die of something else first. The reason this doesn't bother me is the fact that everyone dies and it's not my place to regulate how, when, or why. When/if it happens the other partner and I have a toast to the sunset, collect the insurance and get another plane. If the plane I had was rare or a work of art, I probably wouldn't want him as a partner, but a Cherokee 235 is easy to replace.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Fine by me as long as I don't have to sit in the plane for the extra time or pay for the extra fuel. Heck I don't really mind dying in a crash, always kinda figured it would be my demise one day, just don't bore me to death getting to the scene first.
Click to expand...
There's one other aspect of this the pilot needs to deal with. The endurance and range numbers in the POH are based on a "properly" leaned engine (i.e. leaned in accordance with the POH procedures). If he runs full rich and max RPM he will need to adjust his range and endurance expectations to something significantly less than book performance. And if he flies a retract with the gear down the endurance won't be affected but the range will take a serious hit.
 
denverpilot said:
I have to disagree and go with Henning on this one. I'm my brother's keeper only to a point. If he crashes into a school it's between the Insurance companies, the Estate, and whoever signed him off on his last check ride.

We have plenty enough nannies these days. They'll figure it out. And enact some new inane law like "Pilot must use the red knob and not be a retard."
Click to expand...


I am not saying the guy is going to crash for certain, or that there should be a law forcing pilots to use various knobs in the plane. I am just saying it could be an indicator of a more serious issue.
 
gismo said:
There's one other aspect of this the pilot needs to deal with. The endurance and range numbers in the POH are based on a "properly" leaned engine (i.e. leaned in accordance with the POH procedures). If he runs full rich and max RPM he will need to adjust his range and endurance expectations to something significantly less than book performance. And if he flies a retract with the gear down the endurance won't be affected but the range will take a serious hit.
Click to expand...


Yes, but at what point of leaning are the published numbers accurate? Do they have the instrumentation for 'proper leaning'? Especially for Lycoming who IIRC doesn't recommend leaning below 3000'...
 
Henning said:
Yes, but at what point of leaning are the published numbers accurate? Do they have the instrumentation for 'proper leaning'? Especially for Lycoming who IIRC doesn't recommend leaning below 3000'...
Click to expand...

Over 75% power....
 
Henning said:
Yes, but at what point of leaning are the published numbers accurate? Do they have the instrumentation for 'proper leaning'? Especially for Lycoming who IIRC doesn't recommend leaning below 3000'...
Click to expand...

Common misconception. It's the way it's worded in that they recommend leaning above 3,000 but there's nothing that precludes leaning below.

In my POH (lycoming engined) it recommends leaning at idle on the ground at sea level. It recommends smooth running leaning at DA above 5,000.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Common misconception. It's the way it's worded in that they recommend leaning above 3,000 but there's nothing that precludes leaning below.

In my POH (lycoming engined) it recommends leaning at idle on the ground at sea level. It recommends smooth running leaning at DA above 5,000.
Click to expand...

Actually they do not want you to lean below 3000 if you are operating above 75% power.

Below 3000 and above 75% power - full rich

elsewhere you should lean

The 152 (lycoming O-235) POH lists the leaning procedure for best economy while operating at or below 75% power (at any altitude) as to lean until you lose 25-50 rpm.
 
Last edited:
In this specific airplane, the prop issues isn't hurting anything. The 235 is a derated O540 with a 2400rpm redline (vs 2700rpm in other applications).
Frankly, if i owned a 235 there's a good chance I'd be flying at 2400 rpm everywhere. That's slow for an O540.

So, does he not know how to use a CS prop, or is 2400rpm as slow as he wants to go? Do you know for certain?

The leaning may be an issue, but unlikely to cause damage or an engine failure (if he stays at low DA fields, and doesn't climb too high).
 
Jaybird180 said:
Common misconception. It's the way it's worded in that they recommend leaning above 3,000 but there's nothing that precludes leaning below.

In my POH (lycoming engined) it recommends leaning at idle on the ground at sea level. It recommends smooth running leaning at DA above 5,000.
Click to expand...


I suggest you read the Lycoming operation manual, you will find more information there where you see that anytime below 3000' or above 75% power they want you at full rich. Perhaps the old man read it as well and doesn't mind spending the extra fuel money.

The reality is, the 235hp IO 540 is making full rated power at 2400 rpm which is already 300 RPM lower than continuous duty rating on its 260hp twin sister. Reality is, when you are operating an engine at less than .5hp/cuin, there's not a lot you can do operationally to damage the engine.

If someone doesn't want the old man flying his share of the plane the way he wants to, they should buy him out. If one isn't willing to do that, then they need to shut up and mind their own business and quit worrying about what others do. Most pilots don't have their own act in order well enough to be casting aspersions on others; they'd do much better tending to their own faults and failings.

BTW, Can someone please list me 5 effects that change of RPM has on the engine?
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
I am not saying the guy is going to crash for certain, or that there should be a law forcing pilots to use various knobs in the plane. I am just saying it could be an indicator of a more serious issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hopefully his friends and the next CFI to see him for a BFR care enough... but if I'm not in the airplane with him, I don't care what he does.

GA has a PR problem that is secondary to this, so if he crashes into the proverbial school house, the press will have a field day -- but if the guy had no partners and owned the aircraft by himself, the only thing stopping him from flying it around all day at full-rich is the BFR process.

That process either works or it doesn't, and we'll really see the proof, as the pilot population continues to age.
 
OP here. Just to clarify a few things I see on this thread. The prop and mixture controls are always full forward for the duration of the flight. The only knob he touches is the throttle. If he runs it at 2300 during cruise RPM, this means the prop is out of it's governing range, and is at full fine pitch right? Which means the MP must be somewhere below 20"; I would have to fly it to find out for sure. Other than the possibility of fouling the plugs, hopefully his technique isn't that dangerous. He doesn't fly much, and hasn't made any trips by himself other than some local sightseeing. He doesn't like to go to any strange airports, which only leaves a handful he's comfortable with. He also never goes much above 3000' (field elevation is approx 650'). I think last year he had about 10 hours total.

I agree with his training requirements. One thing he did recently was buy an entire junked aircraft hull to turn into an ultra realistic flight simulator. He has thousands invested in the computer/ 3 monitors/ and every possible Saitek option, but none of it has been set up yet. I will be the one helping him with all this, and once it's up and going (the actual airplane hull comes later), we will practice using all the knobs available. I think the simulator will be a big benefit to him, plus we plan to go flying together for real very soon. Hopefully with the right gentle approach, he will be more receptive to change.
 
Not to be too harsh, but all that money spent on the sim should have gone toward more dual with a CFI. :(
 
denverpilot said:
Not to be too harsh, but all that money spent on the sim should have gone toward more dual with a CFI. :(
Click to expand...


??? Why? It's his money, perhaps he'll get more enjoyment out of the sim than the plane. I'm certain he'll get more use out of it than the 10 hrs a year he currently pays a few thousand dollars for.
 
Henning said:
??? Why? It's his money, perhaps he'll get more enjoyment out of the sim than the plane. I'm certain he'll get more use out of it than the 10 hrs a year he currently pays a few thousand dollars for.
Click to expand...

Good point. It's his money and time.
 
Unregistered said:
The prop and mixture controls are always full forward for the duration of the flight. The only knob he touches is the throttle. If he runs it at 2300 during cruise RPM, this means the prop is out of it's governing range, and is at full fine pitch right? Which means the MP must be somewhere below 20"; I would have to fly it to find out for sure. Other than the possibility of fouling the plugs, hopefully his technique isn't that dangerous. He doesn't fly much, and hasn't made any trips by himself other than some local sightseeing. He doesn't like to go to any strange airports, which only leaves a handful he's comfortable with. He also never goes much above 3000' (field elevation is approx 650'). I think last year he had about 10 hours total.
Click to expand...


These are some of the things that bother me about this guy, especially the ten hours per year as that is not nearly enough to remain current nor proficient. I HOPE the Sim helps him gain confidence, and skill that translates into more air time, properly flown.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top