Use the Autofeather

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Use the Autofeather

Post by pelmet »

It is there for a reason. For a while, I was flying two Beech types, one type with autofeather and one type without. Of course, the autofeather was armed on the one which had it. And I have had a legitimate autofeather on another aircraft type, although it was in descent. It feathered the engine very fast(Good thing in my case because the engine was seized after landing).

But in the case of this accident, for fleet commonality procedures, the company decided that the aircraft with the autofeather should not use it. Guess what happened. The aircraft that had autofeather but had it selected off, had an engine failure at a critical moment......right after getting airborne on a hot day, at high weight, single crew and with the sun in the pilots eyes. He didn't get far and everyone died. Could he have made it with autofeather.....no guarantees but it would have been more likely. He did get the engine feathered but other stuff did not get done.

Use the autofeather. It is there for a reason.

http://aviationcollection.org/Advance%2 ... 2-1017.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
Cessna 180
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: YKF

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by Cessna 180 »

That accident report is very interesting. It highlights the dangers of "company takeoff power" settings that are all too common with smaller operators. I would hazard a guess that at least 80% of King Air operators in Canada use a procedure similar to the accident company was using.

Airliners (Boeing, Airbus, De Havilland, etc.) have manufacture approved procedures to take off with reduce thrust, and the numbers to support it. Beechcraft has never published a procedure to support an assumed temperature departure in a King Air.

I'm surprised there haven't been more accidents. Maybe the TSB hasn't highlighted the safety risk in an accident yet as Australia has.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JL
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:56 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by JL »

---------- ADS -----------
 
Cessna 180
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: YKF

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by Cessna 180 »

JL wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:44 pm They did, 10 years ago...

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... q0098.html
I can't understand how Transport Canada consistently approves FOMs mandating reduced take-off power settings not in accordance with aircraft manufacturer procedures.

I remember years ago at FSI and mentioning the reduced takeoff power setting to my sim instructor. He was flabbergasted. Before instructing at FSI, he had owned a company chartering King Airs in Alaska and California. Not a 300 hour wonder like many of their instructors.
---------- ADS -----------
 
NotDirty!
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by NotDirty! »

Cessna 180 wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:57 pm
JL wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:44 pm They did, 10 years ago...

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... q0098.html
I can't understand how Transport Canada consistently approves FOMs mandating reduced take-off power settings not in accordance with aircraft manufacturer procedures.

I remember years ago at FSI and mentioning the reduced takeoff power setting to my sim instructor. He was flabbergasted. Before instructing at FSI, he had owned a company chartering King Airs in Alaska and California. Not a 300 hour wonder like many of their instructors.
The whole justification that reduced power takeoffs are going to reduce cost at overhaul/hot section is misguided. In most of these engines, it is not the torque that is going to cause damage, it is temperature! If the redline is at 1628 ft.lbs, and you push it to 1650, but the temperature is still 650, you are not hurting the engine! You may be mildly exceeding the airframe power limit, but I don’t hear operators fussing about reduced power takeoffs to limit wear on the engine mounts!
The extra wear from running the engine at an ITT closer to the redline is marginal considering the short time you are at takeoff power... and in the case of an emergency, red lines don’t matter anymore if it is the difference between walking away from the incident and falling out of the sky!

I used to work for a company flying A100s. When I started, the SOP called for setting 1500 ft.lbs at the start of the takeoff roll, as the torque naturally increases as you accelerate and more ram air enters the engine. This rise is typically about 80 ft.lbs, so setting 1500 put you near red line at rotation. It sounds like the guys in YQB were setting 1400 to avoid exceeding 1500, thus never produced more than about 90% of takeoff power. After reading that accident report, we revised our SOPs to remove any verbiage that could be interpreted as condoning reduced power takeoffs.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by valleyboy »

First there is no provision for propeller aircraft to have reduced power T/O's having said that 704/703 there is no requirement for runway analysis and obstruction other than what is dictated in the CAP. The pilot under VFR has little or no performance restrictions and self analysis of T/O path etc is allowed. Ya know -- LAR - looks about right.

This whole concept of the savings goes way back, I spent a very short time where it was mandated for METO power used as T/O power on DC3's lucky it was out of Toronto and long runways. One week later I was gone!!

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.

Other engine types seem to have good reliable systems, even as old as the hawker 748 the system worked. Why is the PT6 so different? It seems that any aircraft where you don't need to do an auto-feather check the system works as advertised. Ever wonder why the PT6 needs all those run-up checks?

We are all whores and if a small snag like auto-feather is there we will go flying.

The mentality, that notion has grown, leads us to believe the PT6 will never fail. This, psychologically, is what is needed to keep the PC12 types in their happy spot, :mrgreen: has filtered down to where people think the risk is very low that you will ever need auto-feather.

As we all know, nothing ever goes wrong in an aircraft and murphy's law doesn't exist.

So, would I always turn it on, likely not a 100% of the time based on experience and what that system has done to me in the past.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3604
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by KAG »

4 bladed King Airs have a modified definition of VMC - dead engine feathered, not windmilling. I assume the same for other types with 4 blades.
Check it every flight.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Cessna 180
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: YKF

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by Cessna 180 »

valleyboy wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:27 am First there is no provision for propeller aircraft to have reduced power T/O's having said that 704/703 there is no requirement for runway analysis and obstruction other than what is dictated in the CAP. The pilot under VFR has little or no performance restrictions and self analysis of T/O path etc is allowed. Ya know -- LAR - looks about right.

This whole concept of the savings goes way back, I spent a very short time where it was mandated for METO power used as T/O power on DC3's lucky it was out of Toronto and long runways. One week later I was gone!!

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.

Other engine types seem to have good reliable systems, even as old as the hawker 748 the system worked. Why is the PT6 so different? It seems that any aircraft where you don't need to do an auto-feather check the system works as advertised. Ever wonder why the PT6 needs all those run-up checks?

We are all whores and if a small snag like auto-feather is there we will go flying.

The mentality, that notion has grown, leads us to believe the PT6 will never fail. This, psychologically, is what is needed to keep the PC12 types in their happy spot, :mrgreen: has filtered down to where people think the risk is very low that you will ever need auto-feather.

As we all know, nothing ever goes wrong in an aircraft and murphy's law doesn't exist.

So, would I always turn it on, likely not a 100% of the time based on experience and what that system has done to me in the past.
Small turboprops no, but the Dash 8-400, I'm assuming other FADEC controlled engine aircraft, have reduced takeoff power settings.

It goes back to the northern attitude where the company thinks they're smarter than the aircraft manufacture, government regulators, the TSB, etc.. How many of them don't deice or use backpack sprayers because "king airs fly just fine with ice." there's a few accident reports about the dangers of that. yet the practice still precists.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TG
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Around

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by TG »

valleyboy wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:27 am

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.
Oh yes, like you said no auto-feather armed for landing with the Basler.

I thought I would add some explanations as to why.

-The engine going on feather all by itself will be the one showing the highest torque.
So there you are, at low power during your approach, no real dead foot/dead engine indication, confusing torque's gauges.
And the icing on the cake is if you add power on both levers or just the one you "think" is good before restoring its prop back....

You will over torque it like there is no tomorrow! :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by valleyboy »

I thought I would add some explanations as to why.
You explain how but not why, That would be interesting to have that explained. The system isn't even armed and you get an auto feather.

I can't believe P&W can get something so mickey mouse certified in the first place.

I didn't really care about auto feather in the winter but in the heat of summer obviously it's more critical.
---------- ADS -----------
 
VSF
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:18 am
Location: NWO

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by VSF »

Cessna 180 wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:15 am
valleyboy wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:27 am First there is no provision for propeller aircraft to have reduced power T/O's having said that 704/703 there is no requirement for runway analysis and obstruction other than what is dictated in the CAP. The pilot under VFR has little or no performance restrictions and self analysis of T/O path etc is allowed. Ya know -- LAR - looks about right.

This whole concept of the savings goes way back, I spent a very short time where it was mandated for METO power used as T/O power on DC3's lucky it was out of Toronto and long runways. One week later I was gone!!

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.

Other engine types seem to have good reliable systems, even as old as the hawker 748 the system worked. Why is the PT6 so different? It seems that any aircraft where you don't need to do an auto-feather check the system works as advertised. Ever wonder why the PT6 needs all those run-up checks?

We are all whores and if a small snag like auto-feather is there we will go flying.

The mentality, that notion has grown, leads us to believe the PT6 will never fail. This, psychologically, is what is needed to keep the PC12 types in their happy spot, :mrgreen: has filtered down to where people think the risk is very low that you will ever need auto-feather.

As we all know, nothing ever goes wrong in an aircraft and murphy's law doesn't exist.

So, would I always turn it on, likely not a 100% of the time based on experience and what that system has done to me in the past.
Small turboprops no, but the Dash 8-400, I'm assuming other FADEC controlled engine aircraft, have reduced takeoff power settings.

It goes back to the northern attitude where the company thinks they're smarter than the aircraft manufacture, government regulators, the TSB, etc.. How many of them don't deice or use backpack sprayers because "king airs fly just fine with ice." there's a few accident reports about the dangers of that. yet the practice still precists.


Interestingly, the Metro 23 AFM (and possibly the M3) have a section on reduced power takeoff calculation. Also, the M23 does factor obstacles in its takeoff performance calculations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by bobcaygeon »

Cessna 180 wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:15 am
valleyboy wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:27 am First there is no provision for propeller aircraft to have reduced power T/O's having said that 704/703 there is no requirement for runway analysis and obstruction other than what is dictated in the CAP. The pilot under VFR has little or no performance restrictions and self analysis of T/O path etc is allowed. Ya know -- LAR - looks about right.

This whole concept of the savings goes way back, I spent a very short time where it was mandated for METO power used as T/O power on DC3's lucky it was out of Toronto and long runways. One week later I was gone!!

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.

Other engine types seem to have good reliable systems, even as old as the hawker 748 the system worked. Why is the PT6 so different? It seems that any aircraft where you don't need to do an auto-feather check the system works as advertised. Ever wonder why the PT6 needs all those run-up checks?

We are all whores and if a small snag like auto-feather is there we will go flying.

The mentality, that notion has grown, leads us to believe the PT6 will never fail. This, psychologically, is what is needed to keep the PC12 types in their happy spot, :mrgreen: has filtered down to where people think the risk is very low that you will ever need auto-feather.

As we all know, nothing ever goes wrong in an aircraft and murphy's law doesn't exist.

So, would I always turn it on, likely not a 100% of the time based on experience and what that system has done to me in the past.
Small turboprops no, but the Dash 8-400, I'm assuming other FADEC controlled engine aircraft, have reduced takeoff power settings.

It goes back to the northern attitude where the company thinks they're smarter than the aircraft manufacture, government regulators, the TSB, etc.. How many of them don't deice or use backpack sprayers because "king airs fly just fine with ice." there's a few accident reports about the dangers of that. yet the practice still precists.
All Dash 8's have reduced power takeoffs, FADEC or not, as does the Metro 23.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by BMLtech »

Seems to me there are many large turboprop twins such as Convair 580 where attempting to take off with inoperative autofeather is russian roulette.Things go sideways before a human can react.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by valleyboy »

Seems to me there are many large turboprop twins such as Convair 580 where attempting to take off with inoperative autofeather is russian roulette.Things go sideways before a human can react.
Top
This issue was with pt6 powered aircraft, any other turboprop I have flown with other engines has had pretty reliable and maintenance free systems.

No one should ever consider operating a 705 aircraft with auto-feather inop.

The covair 580 and 640 I would have never considered accepting or flying the aircraft(unless an authorized ferry flight), same with the Herc with no auto-feather. I'm thinking but grey moment and 40 years ago even the CV440 had the system and was always a requirement.

This poor system has plagued the PT6 in various aircraft since in conception. Ironically the Sanders ST27 had a good reliable auto-feather and I never encountered any issues with that but the Totter and the Basler conversion DC3(flown under 704 waiver) it was a constant source of problems.

As for reduced power thing, I stand corrected. Does that mean a runway analysis for every T/O and criteria like tailwind and wet runways etc considered. I know 704 is less restrictive but in 705 you need this stuff. I guess its in the company published, from the runway analysis provider, to the performance QRH . Educate me :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by rigpiggy »

valleyboy wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:27 am First there is no provision for propeller aircraft to have reduced power T/O's having said that 704/703 there is no requirement for runway analysis and obstruction other than what is dictated in the CAP. The pilot under VFR has little or no performance restrictions and self analysis of T/O path etc is allowed. Ya know -- LAR - looks about right.

This whole concept of the savings goes way back, I spent a very short time where it was mandated for METO power used as T/O power on DC3's lucky it was out of Toronto and long runways. One week later I was gone!!

Now to the actual subject. Question, why don't people use auto-feather, simple answer, the PT6 has a history of a very crappy and unreliable system. Auto feathering as you are taxiing, would you use that system and nothing changes, no matter how often you snag it. This has happened over the years and even with new conversions like the DC3T where it is also mandated by checklist to use it on landing. If you do arm the system for landing you will eventually get an auto-feather. Basler has mandated it be used but not one carrier, I know of does it.

Other engine types seem to have good reliable systems, even as old as the hawker 748 the system worked. Why is the PT6 so different? It seems that any aircraft where you don't need to do an auto-feather check the system works as advertised. Ever wonder why the PT6 needs all those run-up checks?

We are all whores and if a small snag like auto-feather is there we will go flying.

The mentality, that notion has grown, leads us to believe the PT6 will never fail. This, psychologically, is what is needed to keep the PC12 types in their happy spot, :mrgreen: has filtered down to where people think the risk is very low that you will ever need auto-feather.

As we all know, nothing ever goes wrong in an aircraft and murphy's law doesn't exist.

So, would I always turn it on, likely not a 100% of the time based on experience and what that system has done to me in the past.
1. Actually almost every turboprop i have flown has had reduced/min/scheduled power charts either by the mfr/jepps/apg and sanctioned by TC through our SOP's and ops manual.

2. Every turboprop that i have flown with afx/nts has required either operative or mel'd iaw mfr requirements ie the 200 required 8 kts added to ref/v1,v2 speeds to go without

3. If you were to have an issue, and afx wasn't armed expect that you will be keelhauled by the courts/insurance. And charged by TCCA for flying contrary to the afm

4. 3 pt6 shutdowns, 1 lycoming.....if man made it will break, not if , when
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by valleyboy »

I thought the 2Otter had a reduced T/O weight for autofeather inop - guess that is mute because they were always seriously over gross(6K pounds at certain times) :mrgreen:

Most of my turboprop time is on Darts and Allison's. Although there are rumours of a single engine T/O of a 748 in Frob in the bygone years, the ultimate reduced power departure -- haha. The darts certainly have no provision for reduced power and the Herc I never saw any reference to reduced power T/O. Nor did we use it on the 580 but that was 35 years ago for me.

I know in the jet world the company had to be approved for reduced power T/O - I would suspect the same is required for the turboprop world but maybe I'm a little out of date and things have changed recently. Possibly not required in 704/703 ops but What are the restrictions for a turboprop besides the normal runway length, temperature and obstructions. I believe there were about 7 points that we had to adhere to for jet ops.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by pelmet »

Further info on King Air Autofeather systems......

http://www.kingairmagazine.com/wp-conte ... 18-WEB.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by rigpiggy »

The AFX uses high pressure oil, low pressure oil, PLA Column switches for arming. In Cold Weather open bleeds, use ice doors for takeoff. Most times that will allow PLA Power lever Angle switches to be close to the 92%. If not hold AFX in Test(bypass column switches) and allow the F/O to fly the leg
---------- ADS -----------
 
PanEuropean
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:03 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by PanEuropean »

valleyboy wrote: Thu Nov 12, 2020 6:52 amI thought the 2Otter had a reduced T/O weight for autofeather inop...
No, that's not the case. If I recall correctly, there is a slight increase in Vr - which results in a longer accelerate-stop distance - if the autofeather system on a Series 300 or Series 400 Twin Otter is inoperative. There is no weight reduction.

Operating a Twin Otter with inoperative autofeather is permitted by the MEL, but there is a time restriction imposed - the inoperative autofeather system needs to be fixed within a time limit specified in the MEL. Otherwise, it is obligatory to use the autofeather system during takeoff on the Twin Otter - the AFM makes that very clear, the operators do not have a choice in the matter.

It is also worth noting that the Aircraft Flight Manual for the Series 300 and 400 Twin Otter prohibits reduced power takeoffs, this because the engine is flat-rated and a full power takeoff (in other words, 50 PSI torque at ISA) is already a reduced power takeoff as a result of the flat rating of the engine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Use the Autofeather

Post by valleyboy »

I stand corrected and there is one instance of reduced T/O weight and I believe that's structural at colder than -40 due to landing gear. Maybe that's changed as well. It's only been almost 40 years since I flew one :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”