Recently, C J Campbell posted:

On 2007-04-23 11:20:24 -0700, "Neil Gould"
said:

Recently, Karl-Heinz Kuenzel posted:

Neil Gould schrieb:
I have a somewhat different take on this event. [...]
I don't find it
surprising that the props feathered in this situation, and would
even say that it would be the expected behavior, rather than a
fluke of some kind. I would find it surprising if Diamond doesn't
have adequate information about their flight systems in the POH to
inform the pilot of this possibility.


OK Neil.

You find it in the article.

My Deutsch is far too rusty to find it in the article. ;-)

POH - Under - abnormal operating procedures - 4B.7 STARTING ENGINE
WITH EXTERNAL POWER - #13 Opposite engine ..... START WITH NORMAL
PROCEDURE

That is it.

That's fine for starting the engines, but that isn't the only issue,
is it?

Is there nothing in the POH about the electrically powered items
(landing gear, FADEC, etc.)? If there is, it shouldn't require an EE
degree to realize that one should be concerned about the condition
of the batteries, charging, etc. if one has to "jump start" the
engine, or to realize that something critical is in need of
attention.

Maybe I'm just an overly cautious type. ;-)

Neil

No, you are not overly cautious. Every pilot should be taught that if
the battery is dead and you start the plane with external power, the
first thing you check is to see if the alternator(s) is charging. If
it isn't, either the alternator is broken or the battery did not
excite the alternator.

Now, if the excitation system did not excite the alternator, why
didn't the remote starting system do it? It should have. I would want
a look
at the power cart, its cables, and the wiring to the port on the
airplane. In fact, especially the latter, as it could provide a clue
as to why the excitation battery died in the first place.

If the alternators weren't excited, wouldn't the pilot be looking at two
alternator warning lights prior to take off? Does the aircraft have an
ampmeter?

Neil