Twotter engine failure

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:33 pm

FYI, Guys. Kudos to the Crew

Engine problem forces floatplane to make emergency landing on Patricia Bay

Times Colonist
Tuesday, December 04, 2007

A West Coast Air floatplane was forced to make an emergency landing yesterday afternoon in Patricia Bay due to an engine problem.

The Twin Otter plane was carrying 10 passengers and two crew members from Victoria's Inner Harbour to Vancouver about 2 p.m. when one of the engines failed. The pilots decided to turn around near Active Pass and land in Patricia Bay, said Victoria Airport Authority spokesman Terry Stewart.

An RCMP boat based in the bay met the plane, and attached a rigid-hulled inflatable to one of the pontoons. The plane was then pulled to a nearby dock, and staff from the airport organized cabs to get the passengers from the plane back downtown.

No one was injured in the incident. "Most of the passengers were thanking the pilots for their professionalism, " Stewart said.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:39 pm

Bulawrench · Post by **Bulawrench** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:18 pm

Congrats to the pilots for their quick thinking. It must be part of their daily check. When will someone do something about the shoddy operators. I don't know how many horror stories i have herd now about West Coast but i wouldn't recommend anyone fly with them.Period. If the public only knew what goes on behind hangar doors.

Yikes

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:24 pm

Bula wrench, better back that up with some facts or, to put it in words even you can understand, f*ck right off.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:05 pm

Do WCA pilots get egress training?

Good job on a safe outcome.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:51 pm

The Twin Otter plane was carrying 10 passengers and two crew members from Victoria's Inner Harbour to Vancouver about 2 p.m. when one of the engines failed. The pilots decided to turn around near Active Pass and land in Patricia Bay,

Is it possible that a series 100 T.O. on floats with dash 20's on it will fly further that a single engine float plane after an engine failure?

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:13 pm

Widow wrote:Do WCA pilots get egress training?

Good job on a safe outcome.

Good question.

wasYKnowFJ · Post by **wasYKnowFJ** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:37 pm

Seems like the pilots handled the problem well... glad to read the post, until the second reply...

BWrench, Could have been maintenance, or a broken part, or a bird or... a million things. Why smear a company with "shoddy operators"???

Widow, Egress training? Why take the thread in that direction. Seems self-serving.

Cat... rhetorical question about single vs. multi engine? Did I miss something? Maybe the humor... half a DHC6 is a DHC3?

Just frustrated that a thread starts as an informative post, and always seems to degenerate into something... else.

In summary... Thanks rigpiggy.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:44 pm

wasYKnowFJ wrote:Widow, Egress training? Why take the thread in that direction. Seems self-serving.

Was this a floatplane that had to make an "unscheduled" landing on the water? Could the outcome have easily been very different? Self-serving or not, it was a valid question. I'd also be curious to know if the pax (and pilot) were all wearing their life vests ... as per TCCAs ever so staunch recommendations.

seniorpumpkin · Post by **seniorpumpkin** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:22 pm

Sorry widow, but the kind of accident that requires one to wear a life jacket is completely different than an engine failure. A life jacket is only useful for when the plane flies INTO the water, losing an engine regardless of how many you have, doesn't mean you can't safely land, especially in a float plane over water.
I'm not saying that life jackets aren't useful, just explaining that this is a very different type of event.
Kudos to the crew for doing a great job!

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:33 pm

With all due respect seniorpumpkin, even a scheduled landing on the water can end badly for all kinds of reasons ... you cannot say that because an engine failed, there is suddenly no danger of ending inverted in the water. Say the engine had failed right after take-off ... like the VIAir accident in April ... say it had failed in an area of glassy water, or any number of other scenarios. I don't need to be an expert to know that while an engine failure doesn't necessitate a "failed" landing, it does add to the otherwise existing risks.

seniorpumpkin · Post by **seniorpumpkin** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:30 pm

wow, 11 minutes, an impressive response time widow, I knew you would respond!
I know, an engine failure can add more difficulty to a landing. I'm just amazed at how the perception out there is that if the engine stops there will be a horrific accident. I've had to explain the principles of gliding to many ill-informed passengers.
In other words, what you said was right, can we get back to the topic at hand please?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:33 pm

From what has been posted they lost an engine around Active Pass and flew back to Pat Bay on the other one.....not bad for a series 100......

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:44 pm

A properly-handled engine-failure scenario with no casualties, broken metal or any other thing except a large bill for the operating company and we get one dork who slags the whole company and another yahoo who shoots his mouth off about Widow's well-intentioned crusade for safety. How on God's earth can wanting float plane pilots and float plane passengers to be safer than they are now be self-serving to someone who doesn't even fly? If West Coast is supposed to be an unsafe operation, lets hear some evidence? I have ridden with them and know their CP and TO captains and they must be very clever at hiding all these evil things they are being accused of doing as I haven't seen any of it.

Sometimes I wonder if you gathered half of the bright sparks that post on Avcanada if you would be able to assemble one normal human brain from all the crap.

Welcome to Avcanada where no aviator's opinion is too moronic.

Bulawrench · Post by **Bulawrench** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:07 am

November 2000 crash-stick that in your butt xsbank the smeer campaign continues.
I am not blaming the pilots or maintenance. It is the accountable executive that is to blame for the company culture. We all know who that shishter is.mmmm

Report Number A00P0210
Summary

A de Havilland DHC-6-100 float-equipped Twin Otter (serial number 086), operated by West Coast Air Ltd., was on a regularly scheduled flight as Coast 608 from Vancouver Harbour water aerodrome, British Columbia, to Victoria Harbour water aerodrome. The flight departed at about 1510 Pacific standard time with two crew members and 15 passengers on board. Shortly after lift-off, there was a loud bang and a noise similar to gravel hitting the aircraft. Simultaneously, a flame emanated from the forward section of the No 2 (right-hand) engine, and this engine completely lost propulsion. The aircraft altitude was estimated to be between 50 and 100 feet at the time. The aircraft struck the water about 25 seconds later in a nose-down, right wing-low attitude. The right-hand float and wing both detached from the fuselage at impact. The aircraft remained upright and partially submerged while the occupants evacuated the cabin through the main entrance door and the two pilot doors. They then congregated on top of the left wing and fuselage. Within minutes, several vessels, including a public transit SeaBus, arrived at the scene. The SeaBus deployed an inflatable raft for the occupants, and they were taken ashore by several vessels and transported to hospital for observation. There were no serious injuries. The aircraft subsequently sank. All of the wreckage was recovered within five days.

buck82 · Post by **buck82** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am

'They' don't wear mae wests anymore because they float to the top of a sinking cabin, making exit through the submerged door impossible!!

seniorpumpkin · Post by **seniorpumpkin** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:29 am

cpl-atc, based on my experience, the 100 series can take an engine failure in some situations, but not all! 10 passengers at sea level, I would think you would be right on the verge of being able to maintain altitude. Active pass is close to Pat bay but certainly not within gliding range. WCA traffic is usually relatively low when they cruise to and from Vancouver, I would guess that they were able to maintain altitude. That being said, they didn't continue to Vancouver, and they also didn't fly back to their base in Victoria, so who knows, maybe they just maintained a slow gentle decent.

I fully support wearing life jackets, I just don't see how every accident discussion has to revolve around life jackets. Sorry if my comments hurt anyones feelings.

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:51 am

Here in the Maldives we have had 3 engines failures in 4 months! Not sure why as they have gone 3 years without one but all were fully loaded and yes one was a 100 series. All were handled as per SOP's and all landed safely without a single injury. Two were just airborne out of short lagoons and the other was climbing through 1600' when it stopped dead. After landing the crew could do chin-ups on the prop!!

Two were Canadian Crews and the 100 Series was an Aussie Crew!

carholme · Post by **carholme** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:56 am

CLGuy

You had better start wearing trousers. those legs are a bit much even for an adult site like this.

Hope you are having a good time.

Regards

carholme

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:11 am

Life is good! Will be home next week on leave for Xmas so starting to count the days!! Hope all is good with you as well!!

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:32 am

I had a PT6 catastrophic once too. They do that. Not as often as an 1830, but they still do it.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:42 am

Help me figure out why the maintenance should be blamed for this.......

(right-hand) engine, and this engine completely lost propulsion. The aircraft altitude was estimated to be between 50 and 100 feet at the time. The aircraft struck the water about 25 seconds later in a nose-down, right wing-low attitude. The right-hand float and wing both detached from the fuselage at impact

Was it a maintenance engineer at the controls?

'79K20driver · Post by **'79K20driver** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:18 pm

It will cruise just fine on one engine with that load. I would have went to Pat Bay too (given the proper water conditions) even though it could have reached either Vancouver or Victoria harbour. Why land in the media spotlight when you can go to quiet little Pat Bay. I could just see it on the front page of the Vancouver Province (maybe it was, I don't know). Pat Bay is right beside Victoria airport so there's going to be others to help you out once you get it on the water. Its a nice big dock too. And hey, its closer to the ferry terminal for all the pax who probably won't be wanting to get on another airplane for a while!
About the other incident mentioned here: I think there is a point just after Take off in a loaded up 100 twin otter or a Yellowknife loaded 300 (probably from lift off to about 75ft) where it would be extremely difficult to deal with an engine failure. First of all, a 100's a dog on two engines, and you are airborne near VMC (especially those flap 30 guys and gals). The engine fails, the airplane rolls over and hello stall speed and down you go. We could only practice this at altitude of course, and you always lost a bit of altitude. You have to plan on landing and not flying away and to do this you have to reduce power on the operating engine just enough to keep straight, get your flaps traveling to 30 and land straight ahead. It's easier said than done as the airplane will have instantly started rolling and yawing and by the time you get enough power off it could be too late. I think the key in protecting yourself is getting enough speed before take-off, don't let it fly off at or below VMC and keep building speed. Avoid flap 30 Take-offs where you can (they're not approved). There are no guarantees though.

Good work to the crew at WCA, I know you have a lot to deal with.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:24 pm

I think the key in protecting yourself is getting enough speed before take-off, don't let it fly off at or below VMC and keep building speed.

I don't think that is the key.

I know that is the key.

star · Post by **star** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:14 pm

I havt to say ""great job by the pilots on this one""
I could ramble on with ""KNOWN"" facts but instead of doing that
I was there for the 608 crash and the pilots saved the company's ass there aswell
how many times can this happen before something bad happends?
knowing the way they run things .........
I hope people on the inside realize it soon and put a stop to the management!
that place has mngt running the maintenance
with no ground for the guys to stand on, some from other countries not knowing what rights they really have
walking into there hangar explains alot
hopefully nobody gets hurt from this managment
too many good people working there and good people flying there
hopeing for the best