PC-12 Engine Shut Down

[SinkRate]

Here we go...lol

Looks like I shit on someones cornflakes......

First of all turbo I never said I wouldnt want another engine...Read.
What I said is id rather be in a single engine turbine over a twin piston ....any day.
The chances of having an engine failure are far greater in a piston opposed to a turbine. You cant disagree with that.
" I've brought home a "couple" of twins on only ONE engine.... " as quote

As for my so called bone headed statement....your telling me no one has had directional problems when experiencing an engine failure on a twin? And it couldnt be maybe a bit stressfull in IMC... No comment

And the pilot factor for pistons comment it was in regards to the fact that they require more attention to operate (more oppurtunity for error and mechanical failure) A turbine is forward go fast, back slow down. No temperature perimeters.


Oh and yes I fly....Yes I have training captains....deleted

[ScudRunner]

CNN is claiming a Pilatus PC12 has crashed in Butte Montana with 17 dead...do they have that many seats?

Well typical configuration would have 9 pax seats but you could easily fit another in there no problem to make ten, however I don't think they are certified for that anywhere. So I guess with a Child on each passengers lap in Commuter layout would make a maximum of 18 plus the two Pilot seats so theoretically you could have 20 in a PC-12.

[Cat Driver]

As for my so called bone headed statement....your telling me no one has had directional problems when experiencing an engine failure on a twin?

Generally only during their initial training. If you have problems with directional control during an engine failure you are not ready to fly one yet.

And it couldnt be maybe a bit stressfull in IMC...

There can be some stress involved with an engine failure in IMC in a multi engine airplane....but no where close to the stress you will feel if you have an engine failure in a single engine in IMC.

[trey kule]

A turbine is forward go fast, back slow down. No temperature perimeters.

ah, an indepth knowledge of turbine engines...nope...no temp guages on a turbine...no limitation other than torque on take off........

[ipilot54]

http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/world/2009 ... lane-crash

[SinkRate]

That was meant in comparison to a piston in descent having to add power to warm up...There are plenty of limitations on a turbine...but engine warmings arent one of them.

[Invertago]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_crash_montana

BUTTE, Mont. – A small plane — possibly carrying children on a ski trip — crashed Sunday as it approached the Butte airport, killing 17 people, including several children, a federal official said. Witnesses said the single engine turboprop nosedived into a cemetery 500 feet from its destination.

The aircraft crashed and burned while attempting to land, said Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus. The Montana Standard reported in an online story that it crashed in Holy Cross Cemetery.

The aircraft had departed from Oroville, Calif., and the pilot had filed a flight plan showing a destination of Bozeman, about 85 miles southeast of Butte. But the pilot canceled his flight plan at some point and headed for Butte, Fergus said.

Preliminary reports indicate the dead include numerous children, he said. There were no known fatalities on the ground, he added.

"We think that it was probably a ski trip for the kids," Fergus said.

Martha and Steve Guidoni, who were at a gas station across from the cemetery, told the Standard that the plane "just nose-dived into the ground."

"My husband went over there to see if he could do anything," Martha Guidoni said.

Fergus said the Pilatus PC-12 aircraft was manufactured in 2001.

The plane was registered to Eagle Cap Leasing Inc. in Enterprise, Ore., Fergus said. He didn't know who was operating the plane.

I. Felkamp is listed in Oregon corporate records as Eagle Cap's president. Attempts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful.

In California, Tom Hagler said he saw a group of about a dozen children and four adults Sunday morning at the Oroville Municipal Airport, about 70 miles north of Sacramento.

Hagler, owner of Table Mountain Aviation, described the children as ranging from about 6- to 10 year olds. He let the children into his building to use the restroom.

"There were a lot of kids in the group," he said. "A lot of really cute kids."

Hagler said he showed the pilot where he could fuel his plane, and the pilot said he expected his flight to take two-and-a-half hours. The pilot didn't file a flight plan at the Oroville airport.

National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Keith Holloway said its investigators were expected to arrive in Butte late Sunday or early Monday.

The crash is the fourth major plane accident in slightly more than three months.

On Dec. 20, Continental Airlines plane veered off a runway and slid into a snowy field at Denver International Airport, injuring 37 people. No one was killed. In January, a US Airways jetliner landed in New York's Hudson River after a flock of geese disabled both its engines. All 155 people onboard survived. Last month, commuter plane fell on a house in a suburb of Buffalo, N.Y., killing all 49 passengers and a man in the home.

Before the Buffalo crash there hadn't been an accident involving a commercial airliner in the U.S. in which there were fatalities in more than two years.

[trey kule]

ah...it was the forward go fast, back slow down precurser that confused me.....if you push the throttle forward, you have a temp limitation to be concerned about..but I understand there was a misunderstanding.

[Eleveniron]

Since this is all about Engines.

Anyone Know the TBO on the PT6A-67B Engine when strapped to a PC-12? Off the top of my head 3600 comes to mind., I understand that its basically replaced and cannot be put on condition or a special maintenance program.

Now Compare that to King Airs, whats the TBO's Wich brings me to the other question how much time does your PT6 have on each side of you in your King Air????

I believe a private operator or a brand new turbine operator would have a 3600hr TBO. I do recall hearing about a conversation at a NATA conference in YZF a few years ago. The discussion was amongst 2 or 3 operators and Pratt regarding getting all their operating data to increase the base TBO for the PT6 series to around 5000hrs. The reply to Pratt's request was essentially "Why the f%#* would we provide our data that has cost us hundreds of thousands to acquire to save our competition hundreds of thousands in overhaul costs."

I would guess either Borek or Tindi have the highest TBO's for their PT6 fleet, somewhere in the 10-15000 hour range (JUST A GUESS), but I wonder what Tindi would actually run their Van's to before pulling them.

As far as I know their are no special requirements or differences if the aircraft only has one or 2 or more engines, just depends on the company's operating experience with the engine, common sense, and how much risk they're willing to take.

The 67B basic TBO is 3,500 hrs. But like other PT6s, the operator can extend his fleet (eben the PC12) TBO by sampling his overhauls. I don't think there's many commercial operators still at 3,500 hrs TBO.

[jetflightinstructor]

Quote:
I am sure you won' t find a study in the world comparing a bush airplane with a PC12 because this is irrelevant.
Quote:


Then, I have to ask, why did you make the claims that there were stats that did exactly that?

Please quote me!!! Where did I say there is a PC12-Bush airplanes study??? lawsuit against wiches guys!!!
I remember yfly asked for a study.

[/quote]

I can't figure out why it is gone from your post near the top of page 3. Oh, I see. It was conveniently editted! Fortunately, I had already quoted it so your claims that there were stats is near the bottom of page 4. The post where I politely asked you for the stats.

Nice try though brainiac!

[/quote]

yfly, What the hell are you talking about? Are you calling me a liar? Are you insulting me?
So if you fortunately already quoted my claims, please past it!
Yes I usually edit my post, most of the time tou correct the mistakes, english is not my first language.
I have edited one at the beginning of the thread (first or second page), but is was only speaking about the Cat experience with the engine failure, then I edited it, thinking it was too much.
I said I beleive in statistics, and claim that statistics say the PC12 is safer than bush airplanes. I have never said their is study.

OFFICIAL CALL TO THE MODERATOR: could you put back online my initial post near the top of page 3 that I have edited?
If it takes time and a technician, I am ready to pay for it. I cannot accept to be accused to be a liar, please understand.

What a thread! What a day! What a waste in Montana!

[anonymity]

"Since 2001, federal authorities have investigated 15 crashes involving PC-12s. Six involved deaths, with a total of 14 people killed before Sunday's crash. Rosenker said his agency has yet to find a common thread that would link those accidents".

This is from the thread about the Butte PC12 crash, thought it interesting since the only reference I saw in here was towards the pc12's record in Canada. Another nail in the pc12/IFR coffin.

[teacher]

How many of these were engine related and how many were from inexperienced owner operators flying planes they couldn't handle or unrelated to SEIFR mechanical failures? We'd have a lot more accidents I think had the economy not tanked and all these folks with money actually bought those VLJs.

[Widow]

OFFICIAL CALL TO THE MODERATOR: could you put back online my initial post near the top of page 3 that I have edited?

Not possible as far as I'm aware.

I think you explained yourself though, English not your first language ... you stated your opinion, not fact.

[Eleveniron]

"Since 2001, federal authorities have investigated 15 crashes involving PC-12s. Six involved deaths, with a total of 14 people killed before Sunday's crash. Rosenker said his agency has yet to find a common thread that would link those accidents".

This is from the thread about the Butte PC12 crash, thought it interesting since the only reference I saw in here was towards the pc12's record in Canada. Another nail in the pc12/IFR coffin.

Hardly a nail.

[Flybaby]

so its a crash after TO if you have an engine failure..............NO!!!
The PC12 can preform a 180 and land back on the runway it landed on.... flaps 15, prop feathered... after 800 feet and yes there is no reason that it cannot be performed in IMC.. terrain permitting!!

people, people, people there are some misinformed armchair critics making comments which are a bit beyond their aviation knowledge. yes engines do fail...

NTSB Identification: NYC03FA008.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Wednesday, October 16, 2002 in Trenton, NJ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/2/2004
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12/45, registration: N96WF
Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 Uninjured.

The Pilatus PC-12/45 departed into instrument meteorological conditions. Just as the airplane entered clouds, loud bangs were heard from the engine and flame was observed coming the left side engine exhaust. The pilot in command pushed the nose over, aimed the airplane to where he thought the airport was, and the second pilot initiated engine shutdown. The airplane touched down long and fast, on a wet runway. The pilot intentionally yawed the airplane, and it departed the runway in a nose right 60-degree skid, and struck a chain link fence about 300 feet beyond the departure end of the runway. Examination of the engine revealed the #1 bearing had failed. Electrical pitting was found on the gears in the accessory drive between the starter-generator (SG) attach point, and the # 1 bearing. About 704 hour earlier, the SG had an unscheduled replacement. Records indicated that the SG had burn marks on the stator vanes and armature; however, the initiating event for the SG failure was not determined. Other engines were identified as having experienced electrical discharge damage (EDD), all of which preceded the accident. Each event occurred on a multi-engine airplane and resulted in an in-flight shutdown, followed by a single engine landing. None of the starter generators that were identified as the source of the EDD were original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and all had been previously overhauled. Additional engines were identified as having experienced EDD; however, the records on the engines were incomplete, and there was no starter generator history to review. Goodrich published an overhaul manual for the starter-generator. In the manual they stated that only Goodrich replacement parts should be used, and the use of non-Goodrich parts would void their warranty. However, there was no FAA requirement that the overhaul be conducted by an FAA approved repair station, or that only Goodrich parts be used as replacement items

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A power loss, due to failure of the No. 1 bearing, which was a result of previous electrical discharge damage (EDD). Factors were the low ceiling and a wet runway.

I guess this is an example of that fancy 180 return the PC 12 can do. The flight crew had over 38000 hours of combined experience.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The 1408 weather observation at Trenton included winds from 350 degrees at 17 knots, with gusts to 21 knots, visibility 3 statute miles, mist, a few clouds at 800 feet, and broken clouds at 1,200 feet. The 1440 weather observation included winds from 340 degrees at 17 knots, with gusts to 22 knots, visibility 3 statute miles, mist, and clouds at 800 feet overcast.

[teacher]

..........and everybody survived.

[anonymity]

"Since 2001, federal authorities have investigated 15 crashes involving PC-12s. Six involved deaths, with a total of 14 people killed before Sunday's crash. Rosenker said his agency has yet to find a common thread that would link those accidents".

This is from the thread about the Butte PC12 crash, thought it interesting since the only reference I saw in here was towards the pc12's record in Canada. Another nail in the pc12/IFR coffin.

Hardly a nail.


Ok maybe a tack, either way the PT6 is not infallible, and the above mentioned accident could have easily been short of the runway into someones house as opposed to a runway excursion. I think taking any single engine into IMC is almost as stupid as bombing around at 300' with 1 mile vis, the bush guys are doing this all the time. Thats a risk not worth taking.

The pilot in command pushed the nose over, aimed the airplane to where he thought the airport was

[Flybaby]

..........and everybody survived.

That time

NTSB Identification: SEA06FA126.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Saturday, June 24, 2006 in Big Timber, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/25/2007
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12/47, registration: N768H
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

The private pilot receiving instruction and his flight instructor departed on runway 06 with a headwind of 17 knots gusting to 23 knots. Witnesses said that the pilot had transmitted on Common Traffic Advisor Frequency the intention of practicing a loss of engine power after takeoff, and turning 180 degrees to return to the airport. Another witness said that the airplane pitched up 30 degrees while simultaneously banking hard to the right in an uncoordinated manner. He said that as the airplane rolled to the right, the nose of the airplane yawed down to nearly 45 degrees below the horizon. Subsequently, the airplane's wings rolled level, but the aircraft was still pitched nose down. He said the airplane appeared to be recovering from its dive. A witness said that the airplane appeared to be in a landing flare when he observed dirt and grass flying up behind the aircraft. He said the airplane's right wing tip and engine impacted terrain, and a fire ensued that consumed the airplane. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane's right wingtip hit a 10 inch in diameter rock and immediately impacted a wire fence 10 inches above the ground. Approximately 120 feet of triple wire fence continued with the airplane to the point of rest. No preimpact engine or airframe anomalies which might have affected the airplane's performance were identified. The weight and balance was computed for the accident airplane at the time of the accident and the center of gravity was determined to be approximately one inch forward of the forward limit.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flight instructor's failure to maintain an adequate airspeed while maneuvering, which led to an inadvertent stall.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 0882&key=1

[ipilot54]

..........and everybody survived.

Holy crap! I pay to ride as a passenger and the best I can expect from you is to "survive" an engine shut down?? I think that most paying pax would like something a little better than "just surviving"!! I know if I were to take an AC flight or WestJet flight, I expect to survive an engine failure and if it were to happen; for it to be a “non-event”; at least from my perspective!

Start thinking from YOUR passenger’s perspective! You are a commercial pilot, right?

[Benwa]

How far can you glide at FL250 ?

Should PC12 be allowed to fly in the North then ?

When I see PC12's in Wakeham Bay (CYKG) or anywhere North... I feel bad for the crew and pax.

Ok you might survive an engine failure after takeoff or withing gliding distance of a suitable landing surface... but when there is nothing for more than a 100 NM...

Luck and the fact that they are still rather new is the only reason we don't see more deaths in my humble opinion.

It's a great aircraft in the US where there are as many runways as there are WalMarts... but anywhere else ?

[teacher]

True but keep in mind the vast majority of PC12s are private or corporate owned. I wouldn't be opposed to limits (like takeoff vis and ceiling limits) on PC12s in commercial service say for scheduled flying however blanket limits, no.

[RFN]

A bunch of posters have already hit the nail on the head.

Flying for a living boils down to risk management. Flying a PC-12 around the U.S., where there is a field with a couple of ILSs every 10 miles, is different than flying one around the Arctic, or across Hudson's Bay, where even a nice slow 64 Kt ditching is still pretty much game over.

If you do fly PC-12s, then stack the odds in your favour. Keep an eye on your 40 mile scale map so that if something does happen, you are on your way to a suitable field when you are dealing with the engine.
Try not to fly for a company who cuts corners on maintenance. With just the one fan turning, that's even more important than it usually would be. Ask around to see which companies have good reputations.

Put it on ampib floats and you're golden.

[oldncold]

i say once again

a well trained maintenance staff doing inspections as per the maintenance manual, and a well trained and current crewfolloing the operating limitation of the p.o.h. either single pilot or multi crew= a safe operation

it is the best aircraft to date for cabin size payload and flexibility
in its class . but failure to respect it and its limitations will result in clamity . that is the way with all things in life that go faster than you can walk. regardless of the bells and whistles .the end!

[KAG]

Maybe this was answered in the previous 7 pages (I skimmed) but can the Pratt on the PC12 be allowed to operate on condition?
I've run some retard high time Pratt’s on the King air, and had some issues along the way. Glad the other geriatric engine was happily purring away to get my ass home.
Sure the PC 12 is a sweet plane, the only thing(s) it’s lacking is another engine, or a ballistic chute.

[ScudRunner]

How far can you glide at FL250 ?

Should PC12 be allowed to fly in the North then ?

Ok, from FL250 zero wind the PC-12 can glide 62.5 Miles to sea level. The service ceiling is FL300 (With RVSM) however its limited to FL250 with pax because its not equipped with drop down masks thus limited to FL250.

I have said it before but a ton of my time has been in single engine piston bangers operating in "VFR" crawling around valleys at "500 feet" should that be aloud to fly in the north then??

I have heard and please confirm this, In the US Commercial operators are permitted to fly IFR in piston singles, so whats safer dodging tree's at "100 feet" "VFR" or on top in the sun above the clag? If its all about risk management whats riskier flying above where loosing an engine is your biggest concern or down low dodging fog banks tree's and socked in valleys.

Would folks on here support Commercial Single Piston IFR in let's say a Cirrus equipped with a ballistic chute? Or without a Chute but equipped with a detailed moving map and Advanced avionics? Lets open up this debate.