Mount Royal Engine Failure

[FLYaJET]

Was flying into YYC a few weeks ago and heard an airplane with an engine failure going into Olds/Didsbury. CADORS 2012c1792. It looks like one of thier brand new twins.....Guess they cant maintain alt on 1 if they choose Olds to land at? Interesting......i thought they got rid of the old Cougars and 172's for a more reliable fleet...

[JVader]

If they can maintain altitude wouldn't it still be prudent to land at the nearest? Who knows that the issue is?

[FLYaJET]

It is also considered prudent and in my mind a responsibility to those on board, to land at a airport where there is the emergency equipment/medical facilities to handle the worst case scenario if things do escalate, not to mention a longer/ wider runway. I think the crew did a great job getting on the ground and what I said in my earlier post was just an question not an attack. It just shows that risk cannot be eliminated by getting a brand new shinny fleet. I was out at CYBW a couple weeks ago on a Saturday and it was sad to not see a sole at theMRC hangar. Good job to the crew for the safe landing.

[Diadem]

I don't have any idea about the causes of the incident, nor why they went to Olds-Didsbury instead of back to YBW, but I saw it sitting on the grass out there after it happened with one prop feathered and one not. Apparently the pilot didn't state which airport he was landing at, he just announced that he'd had an engine failure and was landing. Most of the airports out that way use 123.2, so he could have been anywhere. This is hearsay, of course, but if true it sounds like poor airmanship could have contributed to his decision to land right away.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I don't have any idea about the causes of the incident, nor why they went to Olds-Didsbury instead of back to YBW, but I saw it sitting on the grass out there after it happened with one prop feathered and one not. Apparently the pilot didn't state which airport he was landing at, he just announced that he'd had an engine failure and was landing. Most of the airports out that way use 123.2, so he could have been anywhere. This is hearsay, of course, but if true it sounds like poor airmanship could have contributed to his decision to land right away.

Poor airmanship was what caused them to land a broken airplane safely at the nearest available airport? Why fly around in an airplane with one engine already failed when you have an obviously acceptable airport to use. Were you born stupid, or do you have to work at it?

[North Shore]

+1 to the above.

A few years back, we had an engine failure about 80 miles from our base. I convinced the skipper to continue on to that base where our maintenance was - overlooking the inconvenient (for the company) but wholly suitable runway that was en-route. About 10 miles past the enroute strip, the fire bell on the good engine started ringing - giving us about 30seconds of preparation for a deadstick onto a lake or into the rhubarb, if the lake was unreachable. Subsequently, the fire bell stopped (fire went out of its own accord) we landed at the enroute strip, and phoned the company to come and fix it.

Lesson: land at the nearest suitable, no matter the inconvenience to company, passengers, or you..

[Big Pistons Forever]

I hope this incident was not a result of the engine being deliberately feathered for its supposed "training" value. If this is the case the instructor should be fired for deliberately endangering the aircraft.

[CFR]

I hope this incident was not a result of the engine being deliberately feathered for its supposed "training" value. If this is the case the instructor should be fired for deliberately endangering the aircraft.

Wasn't ...

UPDATE Maintenance and Manufacturing reported that the #2 engine began surging, so the student and instructor elected to perform a precautionary landing at Olds/Didsbury. The AMO dispatched AMEs to inspect the aircraft. Maintenance found the aircraft with half a tank of fuel, and no visible leaks or pools. They ran the aircraft and the #2 engine once again began surging. When they shut it down they discovered a pool of fuel on the ground near the subject engine. An investigation discovered that the Curtis valve on the #2 engine was in the open position. This valve drains the fuel bowl that feeds the pump. It is believed that this valve was opened by the pilots on the walk around, however it does not/did not spring back to the closed position. The fuel bowl was therefore filling with fuel but the open valve was allowing some to dump overboard, leading to interrupted fuel flow and engine surging. Maintenance closed the valve and ran the aircraft again with no noted surging or deficiencies. The CFI then flew the aircraft back from Olds/ Didsbury with no faults and the aircraft was inspected upon its return to Springbank by both the AMO and Rotech, the engine service provider, then returned to revenue service. Mount Royal University has taken action to prevent recurrence by posting a bulletin for students on their student internal website and discussed with/trained all of the instructors on the matter. It is also to be included in briefings for new students prior to their first flight in the aircraft.

[crazy_aviator]

Okay, please explain HOW one goes about training a student to push a curtis valve up and then explain and train them that,,,as the fuel is gushing out,,,you need to reset the valve ?

[iflyforpie]

12 years in aircraft maintenance and I had to Google what a Curtiss valve was.

However, I never had to be taught that any quick drain should be checked to ensure they aren't leaking after being opened. I guess its true what they say about common sense...

[Colonel Sanders]

Oh wow - not you, IFP, the student that left the drain valve open ...

Time for a quick review. There are 3 common drain valves that
you are likely to encounter.



First is the "curtiss" drain valves, which has two little arms which
must be pushed up and can conveniently (ahem) be rotated so
that the tank can be drained. Picture:





Next are the flush-type drain valves, where the entire bottom
surface moves up when you push on it. See the bottom row:





Then there are the flush-type drain valves, where the bottom
surface does not move - you need to poke a wire up into it,
to make fuel come out:




As mentioned above, when a drain valve drips, it either has junk stopping
the seal from closing - so just drain some more fuel out - or the o-ring
is no longer serviceable. Most people swap out the entire valve, but you
can save some money by just changing the distorted o-ring.


PS I can see how this incident could happen. I have seen aircraft that you
can open the drain valve on the gascolator and due to the filter and lack of
pressure, some fuel drains out and then it stops flowing due to the restriction
of the filter and the lack of head pressure (eg low wing aircraft).

But when the fuel pumps come on, then the fuel would start to flow!

[pelmet]

PS I can see how this incident could happen. I have seen aircraft that you
can open the drain valve on the gascolator and due to the filter and lack of
pressure, some fuel drains out and then it stops flowing due to the restriction
of the filter and the lack of head pressure (eg low wing aircraft).

But when the fuel pumps come on, then the fuel would start to flow!

Based on the above quote of "Maintenance found the aircraft with half a tank of fuel, and no visible leaks or pools. They ran the aircraft and the #2 engine once again began surging. When they shut it down they discovered a pool of fuel on the ground near the subject engine.", it seems that this may have been the case.

If this is what the valve looks like....

http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/catalog/ ... uickdv.php

You have to make sure that is not open any longer(rotated and latched in the up position). I have seen it as well where fuel will not come out unless there is pressure applied such as from a wobble pump, making the fuel check at that location a two person check.

[torquey401]

I always snap the valve closed to ensure a good chance to seal. I have seen valves gently closed and then leak, which is why I don't care for the flush ones.

[howard40]

I try to let it snap back , and then wait 15 or so secs to make sure it is not dripping. That is what I currently do, until of course one day i forget to. The twin comanche has drains that are actuated inside the cabin. I am no fan of those, you have to go out to make sure they close, and to retrieve the sample (i am sure when they designed it , one was to watch the nice blue fuel go out through the nice clear hose, Water would not be blue. I am sure in 1963 this labour saving device was leaving 91 /96 fuel all over the ground on a ramp near you.

[J31]

Ok so I'm wondering what light twin this thread is about. Took some digging and it is a Tecnam P2006T. What is a Tecnam P2006T? A 4 place, high wing, retractable, Rotax powered twin from Italy. http://www.tecnam.com/twin/p2006t.aspx