Placards - do we care?

Pilot DAR: ... I require them because I have little faith that pilots read the flight manual...

PD,

But in all honesty in your case you flew an aircraft that was a new variant to you and just assumed that it was certified for known flight into icing.

Ok...I, like Achimha, just object to the aesthetics of them, and perhaps saving the pilots who fly new variants into known icing conditions without checking that the aircraft is certified for that, is more important that the aesthetics. But the trouble with that is where does it end?

Does a pilot who has flown all sorts of variants of a PA28 need a placard to tell them to put the gear down on a retractable PA28? (Our Arrow doesn't have a placard saying that).

You are always very honest with your accounts, and I don't mean to criticise you here. I just think that your example say more about needing to ensure that pilots get proper familiarisation with new aircraft variants (whether that be through training or reading the POH) rather than hoping to educate them through placards.

Eventually the whole flight manual will be placarded if we need to do that!

Imagine that when you got into a manual car there was a placard telling you that you need to use the clutch before changing gears, or the indicators were on the other side of the steering wheel. Or perhaps the handbrake was in an unusual location. Yet we all manage to swap from car to car without great difficulty and without the need for placards, simply by familiarising ourselves before driving off.

Colm

Yeah, but the challenge is that the accident investigators are not finding that the cause of a car accident was that the driver could not find the parking brake handle. Every time an over worked or unfamiliar pilot goes bump, someone analyses the event, and realizes that if that pilot had done something differently, the bump would not have happened. So better write it somewhere, so the lawyers can point to it, as say "we told him!" - and maybe actually prevent an accident too!

I honestly don't remember if the 303 was known icing approved, it was nearly 30 years ago. We did not set off into icing conditions, but encountered them. Though, between the two of us, we would not have continued if we did not think it was icing certified. Lesson learned!

The Arrow is pretty simple for lowering the gear for anyone, particularly if you have flown one before, but new pilot, high workload, and the most simple things can become a real problem. When I was "checked out" in a rental one in Florida, I had to explain to the instructor how the system worked. I flew him directly home after that!

In my test flying of the DC-3, I had to be mentored through some things which in today's world would certainly have been Flight Manual and placard items. However, it was pointed out to be that back in the day, if you were flying (or maintaining) a DC-3, or any other comparable aircraft, you were doing it during or after lots of training, from either the military, or an airline who operated them. Now, a guy can go and buy a Cessna Caravan, and pretty well get in and fly if he wants. The requirements for type conversion training (in North America anyway) are slim to none. Most are driven by the insurer, rather than the regulator. We go to a lot of effort to assure the basics of flying the type are common, but you still have the little oddities, which deserve a placard, rather than a design change!

Last month, I picked up the 182RG for a buddy, and flew it home from California. It had been 15 years since I'd flown the one he owned previously. I refreshed my memory and procedures, and off I went. He will be required to do type training with me, before he's insured to fly it - go figure - he owned the last one, and put a lot more time on it than I did! I does have some really weird avionics interconnections, which I wish were placarded!

But, if formal type or conversion training were to be required ('cause I'm not an instructor), he'd have a problem, as there are very few instructors around who know anything about many of these planes. In the broader picture, there is little source for conversion training on many types of GA singles in Canada. You're pretty well on your own in many cases. I have checked myself out on many types, as there was just no one else to do it. Having a limitations placard, and oddities placarded, is reassuring. If you've covered the content of the placard, there is no surprise lurking for you with that aspect of the aircraft. There is not always time to reach for the Flight Manual.

I recommended a placard for the Lycoming powered DA-42, when I realized that the emergency landing gear extension control of the DA-42 could be easily confused for the alternate air control of the DA-40. I've never flown a DA-40. DA-40 pilots could reasonably be expected to fly DA-42's and a very different control arrangement deserved a placard to draw attention.

My understanding is that if a POH is required by the TCDS, then the POH will include the required placards in the Limitation section. If the placards are not in place and with the wording required, the aircraft is technically unairworthy. The limitations section of the POH is the only section that carries FAA approval. If an AD is issued that requires a placard, it must be installed in order for the AD to be complied with. Failure to comply with the AD makes the aircraft unairworthy, as would be the case described by Pilot DAR. Placards are also listed in the TCDS. The wording is mandatory as well as the location. In some cases, the TCDS calls for a placard by part number, in which case you can't make your own.

PilotDAR, you're touching on one of the few differences between FAA and EASA regulations where I for once believe EASA may be better. It has to do with the requirement for formal training on different types of aircraft.

In the past in the US, one could purchase an MU2 and take it flying at hearts desire with only Seminole time in the books. Now, they are very different aircraft, and a number of people were killed because they didn't realize their own limitations. That has been remedied with an SFAR, but in Europe the MU2 has always required a formal rating. Not so many accidents. It seems to make a lot of sense.

In most (if not all?) parts of EASA land, there is a formal requirement for differences training on all models of (piston)twins, and familiarisation training for singles. Differences training requires an instructor, where familiarisation could be down to the pilot just reading the books, but in many cases also requires an hours flying with someone who actually knows the aircraft. The last part being a requirement either for insurance/owner/aero club reasons.

The above requirements should cover most reasons for placarding an aircraft beyond actual limitations, else I think we would find, as someone pointed out, the whole contents of the POH taped to the cabin walls.

Comparing to automobiles, I can imagine there are a few out there that might benefit from formal training, especially when it comes to finding the lever that controls turn indicators. They're so rarely used it must be because of poor placarding, or lack of training.

I've brought the placards up to spec on my aircraft because, like a fresh wash job, it makes the aircraft look like somebody cares about its condition. I like the image :-)

They don't have to be ugly or mismatched - Zazzle (dot com) is one way to make nice looking placards, ordered as adhesive stickers that come to you through the mail after you create them on line.

To touch on the original topic, the applicable Canadian regulation says:

"602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations

(a) set out in the aircraft flight manual, where an aircraft flight manual is required by the applicable standards of airworthiness;

(b) set out in a document other than the aircraft flight manual, where use of that document is authorized pursuant to Part VII;

(c) indicated by markings or placards required pursuant to section 605.05; or

(d) prescribed by the competent authority of the state of registry of the aircraft. "

So you have no way out to explain why the aircraft you were flying did not have the placards installed, it was not airworthy without them.

The larger issue of type familiarization or rating is a bit of a can of worms. There will never be a reasonable solution, as their are so many different piloting skills and nuances - one size will not fit all.

Let's take the Caravan for example. Mr. 172 pilot jumps in the Caravan with zero type training. His flight will be totally safe, if he applies heavy 172 flying skill to the flight, and follows all of the Flight Manual and Checklist information, the flight will be as safe as it is required to be for the certification basis of the Caravan. Yes, starting it has a whole bunch of "new" for a piston pilot, but it is not "unsafe" to a flight if the pilot does a hot start. Sure, it's really bad for the engine, and is going to cost a fortune to repair, but the plane will fly safely. I would say that the Caravan is actually safer and easier to fly than some other Cessna singles, as long as you manage the engine properly. Indeed, if you do operate the engine properly, you'll have much more consistent success in getting it started!

The MU-2 is a anomaly in this discussion, and is not a good example. Yes, it should by and is a type requiring type training. The Piper Cheyennes are close behind. Not common planes not a big problem.

When I was first licensed, my PPL was limited to 4000 pound gross weight aircraft, unless endorsed. I got endorsed for the Cessna 310 and Piper Aztec. There was no speed limit associated with the license. Transport Canada very wisely changed the limitations, so that the weight limit was the 12,500 pound line of the Part 23/25 aircraft, but now had a speed limit. The risk for the inadequately type trained pilot is not the heavier plane, it's the faster one. There is a lot less risk with the 172 pilot flying the Twin Otter, than a very light jet, or the fast TBM's for example.

My plane is full of placards. Everywhere from the window (Open limit speed 130K), MP (do not exeed 24MP with RPM lower than 2400) to my sunvisor (MP limitations per altitude). Even throttle, mixture and prop lever are marked as such.

I bet this makes my plane overweight. LOL

Referring to the CB panel pic

can anyone suggest a company which could make engraved metal strips to replace the mess? They would be basically rectangular, with the CB holes, and the text engraved and filled-in with white paint.

One reason I want to re-do it is because I need to find room for several more CBs. I have found that the current spacing (about 35mm) is overly generous and 30mm is plenty, which allows one more CB per row.

I can do the metal strips myself but can’t do engraving, and doing painting to a high standard (on such a small batch) is also not easy, given the hassle of buying the stuff and cleaning out the spraygun etc. Not sure if one can anodise to that colour. Obviously black is possible. The strip material would have to be no more than 1.5mm thick, due to the CB thread length limitation.

https://www.schaeffer-ag.de/en/

You download a CAD software and design all the metal pieces youself. Then you hit a button and get the finished product by mail.They do anodizing, engraving, putting color in the engraving, round corners, painting etc. It is not super cheap but I think their pricing is ok for small volumes.