Runup every time?

[Ddayle]

Before every take-off . It hurts nothing to do , takes very little time, and if it finds a problem only once in my life , that once may save my life. Easily worth the effort. DaveR

 

[Ted]

Statistics are very good predictors of what will happen to a statistically significant group. They are USELESS for predicting what will happen to a particular member of that group.

Yep. That is why I have never bought the "Well, statistics say you should..." argument. Sure, I'll listen to it, but I'll only go with it if it makes sense for me.

GA pilots IN GENERAL have a fatal accident rate about 100 times as bad as the airlines. Me in particular, my accident rate is better than ANY airline.

Mine, too (knock on wood). I'll fly with you any day, Tim.

For many of the pilots in here (and in my safety lectures too) it's a Lake Wobegon thing - all the pilots are above average (compared to the entire population).

But are the women strong and the men good looking?

 

[TMetzinger]

and the men good looking?

I dunno about you, Tovarisch, but I am!

 

[jmaynard]

I dunno about you, Tovarisch, but I am!

Ja da, cobber!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's more than a "fear," it's a proven accident cause.

(Uber-pilots can ignore this --->) Mere mortals make mistakes. The hurry-up condition of landing/rolling/re-configuring is no place to teach complex aircraft operations.

If a T&G is a "hurry-up condition" in any airplane, the runway is too short to be doing T&G's.

 

[gismo]

Turbo or non-turbo?

Lycoming built my turbocharged engine, guess we can blame them...

Some engines really don't care, some do. Certainly anything that's turbo'd, geared, or has floating counterweights needs a gentle throttle hand. A constant speed prop needs consideration as well. But IMO an engine with none of those won't suffer harm due to jamming the throttle wide open as long as it's warmed up sufficiently at the time.

 

[gismo]

A rejected landing (go google it) is a situation where you have already touched down, and for any reason, like:

• Moose walks onto the runway
• You've landed too long, or bounced
• The LAHSO traffic has L'ed and failed to HS.

it is your best judgment that you want to be back in the air, rather than rolling/skidding/groundlooping to a stop. As you've noted, runway length can play a part in this decision, as can your speed and rate of deceleration. But you've made the decision to GO.

The short checklist for this procedure is CRAM, CLIMB, CLEAN
CRAM the throttle(s)
CLIMB the airplane
CLEAN the airplane.

I agree that teaching and practicing a rejected landing (on a suitably long runway) is a good thing but this is much different that a touch an go landing IMO. On a "typical" T&G the procedure is to return the airplane to it's normal takeoff condition prior to initiating the "GO" part, including opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding) and that's where the risk of an inadvertent retraction comes in. I've witnessed three retractable gear mishaps and two were the result of attempting a T&G. Curiously there was a CFI onboard providing transition training in both of those two.

I'm firmly in the camp of never performing T&G landings in a complex airplane with the possible exception of cases where there is a CFI and he's willing and able to guard the LG control with his life and there's no chance that he (the CFI) could accidentally move the control himself. I also subscribe to the concept of not moving anything on the panel until the airplane has slowed sufficiently to allow complete visual attention inside (better yet stopped) during any control activation on the panel. I don't see that this should preclude practicing rejected landings but I think having a competent CFI along for that is worthwhile as well.

 

[jesse]

I'm with the "no TNG in complex" crowd. Plenty of smart pilots have banged up retractable aircraft trying to rush something that just doesn't need to be rushed.

 

[gismo]

I checked the "before every takeoff" but in reality I don't do this quite that often. The WOTLOPSOP (wide open throttle, lean of peak, standard operating procedure) gurus promote the idea of performing a mag check prior to your descent for landing with the mixture well leaned as this will allow detection of ignition problems before they become serious enough to affect a takeoff (LOP requires more ignition energy than ROP) and often provides the opportunity to fix a problem without delaying your next flight. I've been working on getting in that habit but haven't mastered it yet.

Until now I've been doing a low power mag check prior to takeoff except when the time since the last landing is no more than 10-15 minutes. Before a takeoff that occurs shortly after landing as well as when surface conditions raise concerns about debris damaging props or boots (gravel kicked up by the props can punch expensive holes in deice boots) I will often make a quick check of the mags at fast idle (1000-1200 RPM). IME a fast idle check is just as likely to identify a fouled plug or mag problem as a check made at low power (e.g. 1700 RPM) and it's definitely more prop/boot/neighbor friendly. The biggest issue IMO for an idle check is that the loss of one cylinder (especially with 6 or more cylinders) isn't as obvious in terms of vibration or RPM drop but it definitely shows up on an engine monitor (which I have on the B55).

 

[wabower]

If you train at one of the major 142 schools, you will find that the rejected landing is executed from a height less than 50' in landing configuration. The FAA is clearly on board with this definition, at least in Savannah and DFW. Maybe they don't google.

I agree that teaching and practicing a rejected landing (on a suitably long runway) is a good thing but this is much different that a touch an go landing IMO. On a "typical" T&G the procedure is to return the airplane to it's normal takeoff condition prior to initiating the "GO" part, including opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding) and that's where the risk of an inadvertent retraction comes in. I've witnessed three retractable gear mishaps and two were the result of attempting a T&G. Curiously there was a CFI onboard providing transition training in both of those two.

I'm firmly in the camp of never performing T&G landings in a complex airplane with the possible exception of cases where there is a CFI and he's willing and able to guard the LG control with his life and there's no chance that he (the CFI) could accidentally move the control himself. I also subscribe to the concept of not moving anything on the panel until the airplane has slowed sufficiently to allow complete visual attention inside (better yet stopped) during any control activation on the panel. I don't see that this should preclude practicing rejected landings but I think having a competent CFI along for that is worthwhile as well.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree with you, Lance, the mag check I do before takeoff is mainly to check for a fouled plug. It generally doesn't detect minor mag issues the way an inflight one does.
I once made a precautionary landing while ferrying a Symphony when it sounded "off" to me in flight and one mag was much rougher than the other. So I landed, found an A&P, got the spark plugs checked (replaced one as "marginal", and did normal ground checks and such, and off we went. It was a little better in flight, but still not great. When I delivered the airplane I told the owner, and he had the mags overhauled and the problem went away.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree that teaching and practicing a rejected landing (on a suitably long runway) is a good thing but this is much different that a touch an go landing IMO. On a "typical" T&G the procedure is to return the airplane to it's normal takeoff condition prior to initiating the "GO" part, including opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding) and that's where the risk of an inadvertent retraction comes in. I've witnessed three retractable gear mishaps and two were the result of attempting a T&G. Curiously there was a CFI onboard providing transition training in both of those two.

Agreed.

 

[sba55]

I agree with you, Lance, the mag check I do before takeoff is mainly to check for a fouled plug. It generally doesn't detect minor mag issues the way an inflight one does.

I don't know if this point is worth making again, but mags don't just foul routinely. It's probably safe to say that 99.9% of the time they foul because people aren't leaning correctly. IMO, it's better to correct the underlying issue than to mag check for something that shouldn't occur to begin with.

-Felix

 

[gismo]

I don't know if this point is worth making again, but mags don't just foul routinely. It's probably safe to say that 99.9% of the time they foul because people aren't leaning correctly. IMO, it's better to correct the underlying issue than to mag check for something that shouldn't occur to begin with.

-Felix

I suspect you meant spark plugs not "mags".

 

[CJones]

I don't know if this point is worth making again, but mags don't just foul routinely. It's probably safe to say that 99.9% of the time they foul because people aren't leaning correctly. IMO, it's better to correct the underlying issue than to mag check for something that shouldn't occur to begin with.

-Felix

I used to fall into this camp, but after this weekend, I have to change my stance a bit. Talked to dad this week and he said he spent all day Saturday flying Young Eagles - multiple start-ups, etc. He got done for the day and went into the FBO to have a Pepsi and relax. When he came back out to taxi the plane over to the hangar, it would crank-crank-crank but only fire when the impulse coupler would activate on the left mag then immediately die. He eventually had to tug it over to the hangar. The next day he went back out to check things out - he pulled the left mag and after slight disassembly noticed a bit of carbon buildup of some sort on the contacts. He cleaned the buildup off and was going to reinstall the mag later this week - haven't heard the results yet.

If this had been the right mag, the plane would have started fine on the left mag and the only way to find out that the right mag wasn't firing would be the customary mag check at runup. The RV will take off with one mag operational, but it would be a real b***h to loose the only 'good' one in flight.

So yes, 99.9% of the time mags don't fail, but it's that .1% that can be checked for with a quick 10 second pre-takeoff check that makes a runup worthwhile for me (now). And obviously it can happen at any time - even after a full day of flying YE - and no amount of proper leaning (which we both adhere to religously) would have prevented a fouled mag.

 

[wabower]

With the Slick mag problems now widely-known, it would seem prudent to keep a closer eye on any engine with those installed.

I used to fall into this camp, but after this weekend, I have to change my stance a bit. Talked to dad this week and he said he spent all day Saturday flying Young Eagles - multiple start-ups, etc. He got done for the day and went into the FBO to have a Pepsi and relax. When he came back out to taxi the plane over to the hangar, it would crank-crank-crank but only fire when the impulse coupler would activate on the left mag then immediately die. He eventually had to tug it over to the hangar. The next day he went back out to check things out - he pulled the left mag and after slight disassembly noticed a bit of carbon buildup or some sort on the contacts. He cleaned the buildup off and was going to reinstall the mag Monday later this week - haven't heard the results yet.

If this had been the right mag, the plane would have started fine on the left mag and the only way to find out that the right mag wasn't firing would be the customary mag check at runup. The RV will take off with one mag operational, but it would be a real b***h to loose the only 'good' one in flight.

So yes, 99.9% of the time mags don't fail, but it's that .1% that can be checked for with a quick 10 second pre-takeoff check that makes a runup worthwhile for me (now). And obviously it can happen at any time - even after a full day of flying YE - and no amount of proper leaning (which we both adhere to religously) would have prevented a fouled mag.

 

[brcase]

<snip>
On a "typical" T&G the procedure is to return the airplane to it's normal takeoff condition prior to initiating the "GO" part, including opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding) and that's where the risk of an inadvertent retraction comes in. I've witnessed three retractable gear mishaps and two were the result of attempting a T&G. Curiously there was a CFI onboard providing transition training in both of those two.

My concern is I see exactly this a happen when I surprise a pilot with a go around they "Open they opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding)" all while still descending for the runway and they add power last. Only adding power is going to prevent the landing but that is the last thing they do. They do what they are most familiar with doing.

I suppose the result of this could be argued two ways.
1. If you never do T&G's then you won't practice this procedure at all. But I would recommend you regularly practice Go arounds if this is the case. This usually isn't a problem if you stay instrument current, as you will probably do low approaches with some frequency.

2. If you do perform T&G's then do them in the same sequence you do a go around. There are probably exceptions but typically the only things you should touch until you are off the ground in a retract are the throttle and Flaps. This way there is little chance of inadvertantly retracting the gear.

It doesn't surprise me much that incidents you describe had CFI on board when they happened. True the CFI's should have caught these. But typically Retractible gear aircraft are not used for Take off and Landing practice unless training is being done in them. So this is the only time that T&G's are really even considered.

A friend of mine with a C210 he has owned for about 10 years tell me he figures with the additional cost of maintenance of the retractable gear it costs him about $50 every time he moves the gear handle.

Brian

 

[Erice]

Back to the OP topic--I just taught myself a significant lesson on doing the runup every time, at least a mag check.

I was giving a ride to a friend (who is a pre-solo student pilot) in the Cub. I showed him how to stand on the brakes. I then cracked the throttle, put the mag switch on L, then went out front to prop the plane. No problems.

Since I had *just* completed a short flight to that airport to pick him up, I figured that everything was running well. I taxied back, and pulled onto the runway to depart. But I just wasn't developing airspeed. So, I exercised some good ADM and aborted the takeoff. While taxiing back to try again, I glanced up at the mag switch...only to discover that it was still in the L position

The next takeoff on BOTH mags worked much better.

Lesson learned: I WILL do a runup on every flight after an engine shutdown. No more "kick the tires and light the fires" for me.
________
VT750CD

 

[gismo]

Back to the OP topic--I just taught myself a significant lesson on doing the runup every time, at least a mag check.

I was giving a ride to a friend (who is a pre-solo student pilot) in the Cub. I showed him how to stand on the brakes. I then cracked the throttle, put the mag switch on L, then went out front to prop the plane. No problems.

Since I had *just* completed a short flight to that airport to pick him up, I figured that everything was running well. I taxied back, and pulled onto the runway to depart. But I just wasn't developing airspeed. So, I exercised some good ADM and aborted the takeoff. While taxiing back to try again, I glanced up at the mag switch...only to discover that it was still in the L position

The next takeoff on BOTH mags worked much better.

Lesson learned: I WILL do a runup on every flight after an engine shutdown. No more "kick the tires and light the fires" for me.

Seems to me you may have learned the wrong lesson. I think your take away should be that you will forever more check the "killer items" before pushing the throttle in on takeoff e.g. fuel on, mags on, trim set, flaps set.

 

[CJones]

With the Slick mag problems now widely-known, it would seem prudent to keep a closer eye on any engine with those installed.

True. Their overhaul was on the to-do list but the overhaul kit was backordered. Now that the kit is in, it will occur quickly.

 

[gismo]

My concern is I see exactly this a happen when I surprise a pilot with a go around they "Open they opening cowl flaps, raising wing flaps, resetting trim, changing frequencies (just kidding)" all while still descending for the runway and they add power last. Only adding power is going to prevent the landing but that is the last thing they do. They do what they are most familiar with doing.

A go around is part of the PTS and power is supposed to be the first item on the short list for that.

I suppose the result of this could be argued two ways.
1. If you never do T&G's then you won't practice this procedure at all. But I would recommend you regularly practice Go arounds if this is the case. This usually isn't a problem if you stay instrument current, as you will probably do low approaches with some frequency.

2. If you do perform T&G's then do them in the same sequence you do a go around. There are probably exceptions but typically the only things you should touch until you are off the ground in a retract are the throttle and Flaps. This way there is little chance of inadvertantly retracting the gear.

I was with you right up to the: "...the only things you should touch until you are off the ground in a retract are the throttle and Flaps". It's generally when attempting to retract flaps on a T&G that the gear switch is moved accidentally. For an aborted landing that occurs after touching down (generally a bad idea in the first place), you'd be better off leaving the flaps alone until you have enough altitude (50ft?) that an inadvertent retraction of the gear won't hurt anything. Every retractable airplane I've ever flown will climb off the runway with full flaps during a landing abort.

It doesn't surprise me much that incidents you describe had CFI on board when they happened. True the CFI's should have caught these. But typically Retractible gear aircraft are not used for Take off and Landing practice unless training is being done in them. So this is the only time that T&G's are really even considered.

I'm not following that at all. First I and virtually every other owner of a retractable I know practice landings and takeoffs occasionally and we do it in the planes we own. Most of the time there is no CFI present. Second I've encountered way too many pilots who think that T&Gs in a retract are the "norm" because that's the way they were taught to practice landings.

A friend of mine with a C210 he has owned for about 10 years tell me he figures with the additional cost of maintenance of the retractable gear it costs him about $50 every time he moves the gear handle.

Ha! That's what he gets for owning a hydraulic nightmare. Other than annual lubrication and minor adjustments the only money I've spent on the (electric) retraction mechanism in the Bonanza and Baron I've owned is overhauling the motor every 1000 hrs or so at a cost of around $500 each time. That's $0.50 per hour and probably about that for each gear cycle.