King Air Emergency Landing in YYC

tincanflyer · Post by **tincanflyer** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:19 am

Any one know the story on the King Air that just (8am) landed in YYC with 5 fire trucks meeting it on the runway? Had to get towed of the runway!
Whos was it?
What was wrong?
Thanks!

R2000/1830 · Post by **R2000/1830** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:43 am

It was me, false fire light. Just fallowed SOP's exited on taxiway and shut down. Brought back memories of Buffalo.

picwally · Post by **picwally** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:15 am

Hey same thing happened to me in YQB last year... was it defective probe?

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:50 pm

Just curious if your SOPs call for it to be shutdown? Had a few fire lights, but it was just a false indication. Infact I remember hearing there has never been a king air with an in flight PT6 fire.

Scuba_Steve · Post by **Scuba_Steve** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:01 pm

185/310 wrote:Just curious if your SOPs call for it to be shutdown? Had a few fire lights, but it was just a false indication. Infact I remember hearing there has never been a king air with an in flight PT6 fire.

Well there could always be the first...engine was shut down on the ground, better safe than sorry..

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:34 pm

I have had 4 engine shutdowns for 3 different opperators flying King Airs, and 3 were from false fire lights. Turn away from the sun, and if it doen't go out, shut it down as per the manual.

The 1 time someone doesn't shut it down, will be the time it's actually on fire.

yycflyguy · Post by **yycflyguy** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:55 pm

Flying through heavy precipatation or low sun angles can activate the photoelectric fire sensors.

Wrench · Post by **Wrench** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:28 pm

Most King Airs have a piece of stainless bolted on to the exhaust stacks, to block the sun from the fire detector.

Concestor 0 · Post by **Concestor 0** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:07 pm

Got a light while taxiing for take-off a couple of weeks ago and shut it down (low overcast - no direct sunlight). In the -200 you can certainly see the engines from the cockpit. Does anyone know if you could expect to visually confirm a fire in all cases?

Personally, I think that if you decide not to shut down the engine right away then you may as well not shut it down at all.

CloudCover · Post by **CloudCover** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:33 pm

Visual confirmation comes right before the out of body experience, usually at the same time as the big white light.

JetPilot123 · Post by **JetPilot123** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:10 pm

Ya I know the 200 have false lights. Like someone above said, turn from the sunlight and if it doesn't go out SHUT IT DOWN.

Why are people NOT following SOP's and Checklist and Lights????

You should ALWAYS follow these. I can not believe people on here would question it. If you are questioning fire lights what are you going to do when you have a fire?or any other emergency?

Good job by following your SOP's.

Good job to the other guy that shut it down on the taxi out. I would never wait till visual smoke or flames, it would be to far gone by that point.

Just my thoughts. I could be wrong but I think SOP's, Checklist (manual) should always be followed.

chief · Post by **chief** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:24 pm

Fire trucks? If you know R1850/2000 that is just every AIRPORT's SOP when he is landing. LOL. Nothing wrong with shutting it down. Aint gonna hurt anyone when sitting on the ground. Good job there R1850/2000 (or as I used to call you when i flew with you......"numbnutz".....JUST KIDDING). Even if it was SOP or not sometimes ya gotta think outside the box. SOP's dont have every scenerio covered. Gimme a call sometime 1850. I thought you were heading to Jazz dude? ttyl

which plane was it anyway?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:28 pm

SOP's dont have every scenerio covered.

Exactly.

COCO THE MONKEY · Post by **COCO THE MONKEY** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:37 pm

I used to fly Garretts on Mu-2's and the company policy was to ignore fire warning lights as they had a number of, what they thought, were false alarms causing shutdowns and lots of paperwork. Company training was that the fire must be visually confirmed before the engine was shut down, assuming it was still running, of course.

Turns out one of the offending engines had a cracked bleed air line causing the high cowling temp. In another case it was a cracked combustion can. Yikes! In both cases the aircraft flew for some time with the lights illuminating on occasion. The SOP was to shut down at a safe altitude but was regularly ignored as were most other trained procedures. Not what you would call a By The Book Company!

No indication of fire in either case, of course. The LH (or RH) ENGINE light doesn't actually say FIRE but is actually a cowling temp sensor which could be triggered by other serious problems than fire. Maybe should say "COWLING TEMP".

In any case you would never see a fire coming forward at, say, 250 KIAS, from a compressor intake which is visible from the cockpit. By the time you could visually comfirm a fire you would be toast. It is pure idiocy to take these warnings casually.

I think with no other symptoms, at the very least, returning to the airport and shutting down as you did is the right course of action. Well done!

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:15 pm

Every company has different SOPs, for example the company I am at right now says if we get a fire light we must shutdown the engine, and blow the fire bottle for that engine, regardless if there was a any second fire indications or not. There has been past situations where a perfectly good engine was shutdown and there was a big mess to clean up after, but you never know I guess. However in my opinion if I did get a fire light I wouldnt be shutting down an engine if I really needed it.

chief · Post by **chief** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:29 pm

Just remember the Air Montreal Metro that had the wing fall off. If I remember correctly they elected not to shut down the engine because they previously been getting false warning lights so they thought it was just another one. Everyone on board suffered that flight. I may not have the details perfectly correct on that particular flight but i believe it was along those lines.

Bubbaganoosh · Post by **Bubbaganoosh** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:03 pm

chief wrote:Just remember the Air Montreal Metro that had the wing fall off. If I remember correctly they elected not to shut down the engine because they previously been getting false warning lights so they thought it was just another one. Everyone on board suffered that flight. I may not have the details perfectly correct on that particular flight but i believe it was along those lines.

The details are the metro's gear was retracted while the wheels were on fire, bad move.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:46 pm

185/310 wrote: However in my opinion if I did get a fire light I wouldnt be shutting down an engine if I really needed it.

Unless your on climbout in the rocks, loaded to the nuts, I would shut it down. Why gamble? The plane will fly just fine on one engine if you respect speed and weight restrictions.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:28 am

And yet the Flight Safety produced emergency checklist for the Becch 200 and the Simuflite produced emergency checklist for the Beech 350 suggest, and I quote "Positive visual indication of an engine fire should be confirmed. An overheat condition can be verified by retarding the affected power lever to idle and allowing the engine compartment to cool". Now this is for an engine fire/fail in flight. The only other suggestions are for an emergency shut down on the ground for a fire and that calls for the usual shut down, blow the extingushers and evacuate. There is no published emergency procedures for an engine fire during take-off, just engine fail and no mention what so ever about engine fire. I read in CARS 523 where Commuter Category airplanes had do demonstrate that an 1100C degree fire for 5 minutes cannot cause structural failure of the engine compartment and the electrical components aft of the firewall have to perform their required functions after 15 minute of the same fire. Now the question arrises, do you trust those predictions?
And to verify Bubbagnoosh's post, the Air Montreal Metro was indeed overheated brakes that caused a wheel well fire. Shutting down the engine is only for a bleed air leak. In that accident, the engine was running just fine, it was indications of improper operation that caused concern among the flight crew.
Hence a favorite quote of mine. "Never do anything stupid - Quickly"

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:35 am

Oldtimer, are those the same type of photocells used in older King airs? Have the newer 200's and 350's switched to fire loops? If so, the procedure quoted here by most would differ greatly from what your saying.

Secondary indications of an engine fire in a King Air 200 - you most likely have any on the onset of a fire barring major internal/external damage of the PT6. The gauges will most likely read normal, and it would be extremely hard to see smoke moving at 200 KTS, unless it’s really bad.
These photo cells will react to a lighter or flashlight with red plastic over it (I’ve tested them myself), and yes they do short out due to moisture and do react to sunlight at funny angles. But still, when it’s my ass sitting beside a possibly burning engine, it’s getting shut down if that’s what the AFM dictates.

R2000, Good job for shutting it down, as you discovered, she fly’s great on one engine.

tiggermoth · Post by **tiggermoth** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm

I'm with maintenance at the company that owns this 200, at a differnet base. Talked to Director of Maint. and QA the other day. Apparently this fire light was caused by broken off wire shorting to ground. No sulight issues.

I have seen fire lights illumiated in a KA100 due to sunlight directly head on and shining under the glareshield, which the shined through the fire lights because of their position.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:13 pm

KAG - The King Air 350 has a temperature sensitive tube that is looped continuously around the engine compartment and ends in a responder unit. The alarm is activated any time any one foot section of the tube reaches 800F, when the average temperature of the entire tube reaches 360F, when the temperature in the accessory compartment reaches 545F or when the temperature in the hot section reaches 540F. As you can see, it takes a lot to activate the fire warning so false alarms are reduced. I think this is the same system now used in the newer King Air B200's. Also, do not forget that if you have done your homework, you should be able to complete a single engine climb to the MEA, otherwise you are not in compliance with the performance section of the AFM. This is the beauty of CC airplanes, nothing has to be done quickly and there is an answer for almost every scenario, but like CAT said, you cannot cover them all. That is why we are paid the big bucks.
Now, how is it going to look on the accident/incident report. "The pilot responded properly to an alarm and the aircraft, crew and passengers are safe." The newspapers will no doubt say that were no injuries

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:21 pm

I would guess that the rational is that different operators have different needs, and that there is no single "best" checklist that fits all scenarios. Thus operators are left to determine the procedures most appropriate for there operation.

Just a guess though, I tend to agree with you about the manufacturers having the best idea.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:55 pm

I can assure you that some checklists from manufacter's are about as user friendly as wipping your a$$ with sandpaper. This is especially true for the emergency procedures.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:24 am

An operator should have no authority when it comes to making those sorts of calls.

cpl_atc, welcome to the goofy world of flying TCCA style.

Where it matters not how fu.king stupid an operators proceedures are as long as they are in writing and approved by TCCA.......

...I wonder what will happen when someone tries to nail TCCA for having approved some of these ops manuals?