Aircraft systems study tips

[roundout]

Also in a previous plane I flew there was a nefarious caution message that if uncorrected (isolating the faulty bleed system) in 30 seconds would lead to a warning message and loss of all pressurization requiring an emergency descent.

Human factors? Never heard of her?

 

[Roger Roger]

Human factors? Never heard of her?

View attachment 77591

*guppy has entered the chat*

 

[EAD]

One thing I’m suprised no one has mentioned yet is to review every QRH procedure. Every possible light, annunciator, caution message, warning message, non-message failures like cracked windshields etc. it’s a great way to familiarize yourself with exactly what procedures exist in the QRH, and also to have a general working knowledge of what is going on so when it actually happens you have an idea. It can also help to piece together systems knowledge. I would say it’s definitely important to have a basic understanding of your aircraft’s systems before diving into the QRH so you can really apply your systems knowledge and build more complex information in your mind.

It was ironic I had actually just been reviewing non-EICAS message QRH procedures for my aircraft not to look long before *BANG* had a windshield crack on me. Since it was fresh I was already familiar with the procedure so it was better for me to understand system consequences (windshield heat / integrity, speed limitations, pressurization, altitude limitations etc.) and form a game plan while working through all the issues.

Also in a previous plane I flew there was a nefarious caution message that if uncorrected (isolating the faulty bleed system) in 30 seconds would lead to a warning message and loss of all pressurization requiring an emergency descent. Unless you knew where that QRH procedure was and had it down cold there was no way you’d get to the corrective action before it began depressurizing the airplane. With certain MELs I was aware of this and would have the QRH procedure tabbed and ready to go as well as briefed in case it did happen.

For non QRH planes I think it would be prudent to review all abnormal and emergency procedure checklists. Then beyond that find scenarios that are not covered by those checklists and dig into systems and think through the problem. Likely a good idea to then come with questions ready for when training begins if you aren’t so lucky to get an in person systems class.

There is certainly way more to studying systems, but on a more applicable level these are techniques to study that I have found very helpful.

Assuming you are talking about the CRJ 7/9? If so, it's a warning that proceeds to a caution and depressurization if you don't react in time.

The best part is the innocuous "do nothing" deferral that is incredibly common to see but leaves you a single point of failure away from that scenario AND the deferral DOESN'T warn you about it. Just says system redundancy is reduced

 

[Roger Roger]

@jrh I think one of the biggest hurdles for understanding systems is often lacking a grasp of the underlying basic principles. If someone doesn’t conceptually get how a hydraulic pump works or how DC electricity works, they’ll struggle with the concept of a PTU or a buss tie relay. I don’t know how you go about training that if someone has got the level of 135 pilot without it though, especially if they don’t have an intrinsic curiosity about it.

I was lucky because all of that was part of the foundation of the A&P curriculum I took (and plenty of A&Ps struggle with those same basic concepts too but that’s another story)

 

[JustinS]

Assuming you are talking about the CRJ 7/9? If so, it's a warning that proceeds to a caution and depressurization if you don't react in time.

The best part is the innocuous "do nothing" deferral that is incredibly common to see but leaves you a single point of failure away from that scenario AND the deferral DOESN'T warn you about it. Just says system redundancy is reduced

Yup that’s exactly it.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

DC electricity is straightforward and logical.

AC is witchcraft. I got good at it during my airframe electrical systems class, but that’s pushing 20 years ago and I proceeded to never work on aircraft AC electrical systems.

RF is witchcraft. AC is great if you don't want 3 inch thick wires, or need to step voltages up or down.

 

[jrh]

@jrh I think one of the biggest hurdles for understanding systems is often lacking a grasp of the underlying basic principles. If someone doesn’t conceptually get how a hydraulic pump works or how DC electricity works, they’ll struggle with the concept of a PTU or a buss tie relay. I don’t know how you go about training that if someone has got the level of 135 pilot without it though, especially if they don’t have an intrinsic curiosity about it.

I was lucky because all of that was part of the foundation of the A&P curriculum I took (and plenty of A&Ps struggle with those same basic concepts too but that’s another story)

Good point. I was talking to a lower time pilot awhile ago who shared how helpful it was to be taught the fundamentals of how to read a schematic and what individual components do.

For example, he had no clue what an electrical solenoid is or does when he showed up to training. He was super lost until the systems instructor gave a brief rundown of what underlying components fundamentally do.