Jump to content

Engine Runs / MLG Doors


Nc97
 Share

Recommended Posts

Common sense would say it doesn't matter. Closed and off are identical for engine run purposes.

You can even fly with them off, just restricted to a certain airspeed (don't remember the number anymore, gear is restricted to 165 KIAS so probably close to that).

The only reason you need to close them for an engine run is the plane bounces its butt off and between bouncing and any airload stress from the props I imagine its possible to damage them.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you perform an engine run with a drybay cover, AC panel, or engine cowling removed? The JG says all the panels must be secured, but you can use your general aircraft knowledge to justify your actions. I've done a max power engine run with the door removed, but I've also been told to do an engine run with open bleed air lines and didn't.

The job guide also tells you to start up all 4 engines, so would you start them all up for a #3 leak check? It's one of those things you just have to use your own judgement on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input guys, but common sense doesn't cut it. I once ran #1 engine to NGI, but had the RH MLG door up. Lovely QA saw this, and then wrote me up for a DSV. Like I mentioned before, the 71-00-1 says "Closed, Secured." Is there anything that says I can run with any panel or door "Fully Removed?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure closed, secured is still a judgment call. why QA wrote you up for running #1 with the RH gear door open seems a little anal (a lot actually) even though I always had them closed. I know you could argue with the guy till your blue in the face and he would still come out on top. Secured is such a broad term. It coulda been removed and "secured" in the cargo pit and it would be legal just like Dan says for flying with one removed. If it aint a structural panel it just needs to be out of harms way. (removed or closed) I'm thinking Tiny may be digging through his books as we speak!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules are not written for use by those with common sense. Rules are written as if nobody has any common sense or mechanical aptitude. Those who are working in Quality Assurance (or QC for us old guys) are not necessarily selected to work there because they have any common sense either. Unfortunately, those with authority are not necessarily those with knowledge or skills.

Nobody that I am aware of ever wrote that the engines can be run with landing gear doors off. The writers may have figured that, since they cannot make a rule for every possible condition, we can figure some things out for ourselves. In the case of flying, we are allowed to fly with the landing gear doors removed up to 171 knots. I'd say that, since we are allowed to takeoff without them, we had better be allowed to run engines with out them. Do you think QA can figure their way through that train of thought?

I wish you luck, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The -1 flight manuals in section 5 talk about limitations and state the aircraft can be flown with gear doors removed "if authorized or directed by MAJCOM" Max speed 200 KIAS with gear up and gear door removed. Lists a couple options. Still, common sense or a good C-130 QA will know they can run it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it seems, we have a situation where the experts have been unable to write the guidance so as to take out all judgement.:rolleyes:Is there any thing that would be damaged/harmed buy running engines missing the mlg door? Don't think so. If the JG stated don't operate engines with mlg door missing you would have your answer. This is a situation that calls for good judgement based on experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that as long as the linkage was secured for the missing door - and the other door wasn't flapping in the breeze it should not have been a problem. However, I've not seen these job guides that are being cited.

If the door was removed to FOM or for an in-shop repair, I would get with QA and seek the necessary blessing or waiver to run the engines. If I could not get the necessary blessings, I'd see if I could still fill out an AFTO 22.

Our senior QA inspector was normally an APG or AR troop. Much more reasonable to work with. QA takes many a bad rap - some earned, some not. I didn't enjoy working there nearly as much as crewing, but it was a good experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran into some A.H. QA people at Cam Rahn. Trying to get a C-7 out of the phase docks, which is only scheduled for 1.5 days, the QA guys would check each and every flap bearing for any wear/movement. The dock Chief wanted no bearings replaced unless absolutely necessary since it created a FCF requirement. Too bad he never relayed that to QA since I was written up a few times for "out of limits" bearing wear. Four phase docks, about 80 birds, Phase inspection every 150 hours. Do the math....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I can see that people just can't find the time to cover every eventuality in maintenance manuals. What a shame, leaving such decisions to the technicians to decide!

We'll just have to write more manuals, I guess.

Sometimes, while I miss the people I had working with me in the Air Force, I like the military maintenance manuals which are more complete in providing data, but I am glad that I no longer have to deal with all the garbage that come with it.

The AF does not trust its people, so they write a ton of regulations. I guess, you are stuck asking the blessings of the QA guy, who may have been hired from AGE or the wash rack. IF you are really lucky, it may be a guy who actually knows something and you can be amazed that this supervisor let him go to QA when he needed him on the line.

I wish you luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would like to see it done. I've seen the time when we ended up off the concrete at the edge of the runway, and at full power; we could not get over the lip of the concrete back onto the runway. It sure laid some doubt in my mind if it is even possible to "jump" a real set of chalks, much less "run chalks." The concrete edge above ground level was less than eight inches high, and I had to use whatever I could find to build a ramp up for the tires before we could bet back onto the runway.

I've never met anyone who ever jumped chalks either, but I am aware of the fun of doing power runs on ice. That is amusing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input guys, but common sense doesn't cut it. I once ran #1 engine to NGI, but had the RH MLG door up. Lovely QA saw this, and then wrote me up for a DSV. Like I mentioned before, the 71-00-1 says "Closed, Secured." Is there anything that says I can run with any panel or door "Fully Removed?"

There is a paragraph in the front of every single TO/JG that states that this book does not cover every single situation. There is also a MOI that discusses this. It usually states all panel, cowling, doors will either be completely installed or completely removed.

CONDITIONS NOT COVERED BY THIS MANUAL.

The instructions in this manual represent planned action for

conditions normally encountered during maintenance. It is

almost impossible to account for maintenance difficulties

that may be only occasionally encountered. Therefore, the

use of local decisions for general repair practices not involving

safety of flight is encouraged to avoid unnecessary delay

when coverage in the manual is incomplete. Any variation

from procedures shall be consistent with standard shop practices

and shall not detract from overall efficiency and operation

of the equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Never jumped the chocks but had her jumping up and down bad enough to ask the engine and prop guys to hurry up it was getting scary.

were these engine guys trying to resync at 900 TIT or pitchlock with only8,000 lbs of fuel. that's not a fun run, especially when your ground guy finds watching air traffic is more important then watching the chocks! this was desert ops of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...