PDA

View Full Version : Turbo prop problems


bushy
7th Feb 2006, 10:15
It seems that the Whizbang turbo aircraft are having lots of problems these days, flying into the ground, running out of fuel or having "woop woop alerts. Maybe things should bre simpler so nistakes happen less often!!!!!

Howard Hughes
7th Feb 2006, 10:22
Are you having a go at any particular turboprop Bushy? Cause the ones in my area seem to be going along just fine......:}
Maybe things should bre simpler so nistakes happen less often!!!!!
Yes indeed, that's why we fly turboprops!!:ok:

AerocatS2A
7th Feb 2006, 12:09
Yeah because flying a turbo prop is soooo demanding :hmm:

Chimbu chuckles
7th Feb 2006, 13:34
Turbine aircraft are not technically difficult to operate...easier than the old GTSIO and TSIO time bombs some of us had to cope with in times past...VASTLY easier than the old radials of the generations before...BUT they are faster, cruise higher and descend at much higher rates of descent than were possible in the pistons...without damaging the engines....and therein lay the problems for young players.

They require higher levels of airmanship and much higher understanding of good IFR basics....two areas that FAR too many relatively inexperienced pilots are short on these days.

Because turbine engines are so 'easy' and have such 'relatively' carefree handling pilots are not forced to THINK and PLAN things the way we were on C402s/404s/Queenairs/Aerostars etc. That thought and planning carried over to Turbines and coupled with , usually, much higher levels of supervision and recurrent training than appear the norm these days led to better safety results generally.

There was a time not so very long ago when you were required to have much higher experience levels to fly a Turbine...even simple ones like Twin Otters required 3000 + hrs...5000+ for Bandits and Kingairs...not because the systems were complicated but because the inherent abilities of the aircraft provided pitfalls for the unwary or unaware.

These days pilots are progressing through the ranks that much quicker. They are NOT getting the levels of on going supervision and recurrent training that was more common when virtually all high performance, cabin class piston twins and turbines were owned by 'Third Level Airlines'.

They are missing out on the basics learned by spending reasonable amounts of time at each step of the ladder....this is what we mean when we say so many pilots these days, in GA especially, but even regionals 'just don't know what they don't know'.

Hazeltons, Eastern, Sunstate, Talair, Flightwest, Oconnor, Connellan, Tillair, Air North, Ansett & East West (through their Air Ambulance contracts) etc all were operating DC3,C404s, C441s, Twin Otters, Bandits, Kingairs, C310s, Barons, C421s, Navahos, Chieftians, Queenairs etc until as recently as 15 years ago. It was a unusual to get to fly these aircraft without being employed by the above companies and ten more I can't think of off the top of my head....it was unheard of to get to fly the turbines without flying virtuall all the pistons in the above list first.

There tends to be an attitude among MANY younger pilots these days that experience is 'not required' to fly turbine equipment because "you just press a button and they start", 'computers look after this and that", "FMCs tell you all you need to know about where you are and when you will get where you are going", "they are so reliable the engines virtually never fail"

But pilots run them out of fuel despite generally very accurate gauges....pilots fly them into the ground at night, usually because they develope high RODs without it being obvious to the pilot cocooned in his quiet, pressurised hull and lacking in the IFR scan and manipulative skills to fly a circling approach into a black hole airport. Skills that WERE developed through 1000s of hours flying piston twins with often unserviceable A/Ps and that required carefull planning and engine management to avoid frightening noises from both the engines and the Chief Pilot.

Turbines generally fly at levels that are the most potentially dangerous for icing, turbulence etc...mid/high teens to highish 20s. You are covering ground that much faster, you're a long way off the ground and when things go wrong they are often commensurately more complicated.

That is why the RFDS require such high experience levels, especially IFR/night experience....not because B200s or PC12s are technically difficult aircraft to master from a systems point of view.

And that is the reason RFDS, as an example, has the impeccable safety record it has...experience (many RFDS pilots, if not most/all of the senior ones, have many 1000s of hrs on complex, high performance piston twins), supervision and recurrent training.

Over and gout
7th Feb 2006, 17:02
These days pilots are progressing through the ranks that much quicker.
If only !:eek:

Lord Snot
7th Feb 2006, 17:33
Yes indeed, that's why we fly turboprops!!I thought we fly turbo-props because some head-shrink at Quantas said we have deep emotional issues about little animals and we should stick to flying machines with no Rat on the tail.

And as we all know, you can never go back to stocking shelves. Oh the humiliation to go back and ask the pimply junior-dork who's now store-manager for my old job back at Woolies..... :{

tinpis
7th Feb 2006, 22:22
With the good background training these fellas got they all ended up successful jet (http://www.pngair.com/?q=node/1329) Captains.:p

lo Dennis :ok:

Time Bomb Ted
7th Feb 2006, 23:37
Chimbu

That would have to be the best post I've seen on Pprune for some time. It is nice to hear a well constructed, from the heart response sometimes, with some real experience attached to it. We should all learn from it.

Thank-you


TBT

:ok:

bushy
8th Feb 2006, 00:11
Chimbu
Thank you. You have said what I have been trying to say for a long time.
I guess there are not many people from those days left, who still have an interest in GA.

I remember when I first flew a Kingair, the roller blind checklist used to stick, because the roller blind was far too long, and would not fit without jamming. Most of the items were not essential (it even included the coffee machine), and appeared to be there to protect people who were not in the aeroplane.
Pre landing checks could not be started before entering the circuit, and you often found yourself winding the checklist knob on short final, when you should be looking out the window. It finally got simplified, and things went much better.
Is this sort of thing contributing to some of the latest mishaps?

maxgrad
8th Feb 2006, 08:16
Bushy, Care to expand on the "mishaps" statement.
Haven't heard of that many to start running for the hills yet.

Chimby C. As always, classic, to the point and with knowledge behind it.
You are spot on. Things happen a heck of a lot faster in them and one needs to be way in front to stay with it.

bushy
8th Feb 2006, 10:27
Sure.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.

THE CONTRACTOR
9th Feb 2006, 01:03
Brilliant thread, I am a keen player in GA and looking forward to many years of flying some of the above mentioned machines before RFDS/Airline or any of the such. I however would like to comment on how hard it is for a new CPL to get in with a crowd who supervise/mentor their Pilots with the passion and dedication it requires.

bodex666
19th Feb 2006, 03:37
Sure.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.

Why pick on turboprops? Considering the amount of hours they fly and have flown you would expect more accidents. Also consider that these aircraft usually fly on short routes, often with up to 8-10 sectors into small, usually un-aided strips. I've flown Metro's for a year, almost 700hrs on them and I've only ever had 1 breakdown. I think in the end it comes down to the quality of maintenance and the deligence and abilities of the pilot. How many jets do you know that fly into these areas, put these pilots into my favorite 7 sector, 6 hrs flight time, 45 + degree day throughout QLD and see how they feel at the end.....buggered I bet. Give us a break !

psycho joe
19th Feb 2006, 19:29
I think you'll find Bushy wasn't picking on the aircraft, but highlighting a human factor.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
9th Mar 2006, 01:13
Bushy,

Regarding the Metro landing on one with 15 Lts in the other, that pilot has a solid back ground in GA, was an enginerring problem ( fuel indication system ), good bloke to boot, on all other examples agreed.

Continental-520
9th Mar 2006, 10:42
Nice post Chimbu, as said above.

However, whilst I appreciate the value (and importance) of experience, especially in the context of the RFDS case, wouldn't you agree that if someone cannot fly a circling approach at night in a machine they are endorsed on, then they should not have been issued with a MECIR in the first place???

If I can do it, like I have before, surely anyone can. I would've thought that going from a complex piston twin such as those you stated into a King Air, for example, would amount to a reduced workload since, as you say, there is less planning/engine management involved.

520.

Chimbu chuckles
9th Mar 2006, 13:56
wouldn't you agree that if someone cannot fly a circling approach at night in a machine they are endorsed on, then they should not have been issued with a MECIR in the first place???

Yes I absolutely agree with that statement...however.

The very BIG difference between IFR standards now and IFR standards up until the last 10 yrs or so are years ago you invariably did your initial IFR rating with the department and then subsequent (6 mthly) renewals with a company check and training pilot. The chap from CAA was often an old crusty mil pilot who was just looking for a reason to fail you. The company check and training pilot, and I was one, worked on the basis that if he wasn't prepared to put his family members in the aeroplane with you on your WORST day then you didn't pass. In both the initial and renewal cases you went back for more training and if you didn't come up to scratch you a/. didn't get that rating in the CAA case or b/. you got sacked in the company case.

This is still the case in regionals/airlines...every 6 mths.

In GA now the vast majority of people do their initial IR with a CASA delegate (ATO) and type ratings are done by just about any Instructor with 10 odd hrs on type.

In both cases you are PAYING for it...you're the customer....that was never, or very rarely the case, many years ago....it is a huge psycological difference for both the trainee and the trainor.

You did not pay for the CAA guy...he was a public servant working for the CAA. If he was the toughest mutha fker to ever to sit in an aeroplane it did NOT effect his pay packet one bit. The same was the case for the company approved fella...he was paid by the company you both worked for, a premium over line captains pay, and you were BY GOD paid to be there too...so you better not **** around.

I'll give you an example...I was once failed on an IR by a company C&Ter who was also one of my best mates...I had not called out the glideslope check on the ILS...his comment after was "Chuck that was one of the best ILSs I have ever seen BUT...." Small niggly point? Yes....he renewed my NDB and DME (we did DME homings and DME letdowns in those days for real)...but I had to repeat the ILS.

These days not only are you only tested 12mthly...i.e. HALF as often (and I believe that is a huge mistake) but if the ATO/Instructor is 'too tough' he very soon gets that reputation and his work dries up...it affects his earning potential....so lots of people have MECIRs who SHOULD NOT have MECIRs.

Same thing when you pay for a type rating at a flying school. You are a customer and they want you to recommend them to your mates. GA has been ransacked by the airlines, both regional and major, of the VAST MAJORITY of really experienced multi engined pilots and all that is left is minimally experienced (in a multi engine sense) Instructors and the career failures who populate CASA in numbers to high for the good people at CASA to overcome. Thus you have practices like landing and taking off at blue line speed becoming commonly accepted 'best practice' when it is bloody dangerous. This sort of rubbish even makes it into print in Australian Flying being quoted as 'CASA preference'...I wrote a scathing email to Oz Flying last time they did it..it was printed in a VERY watered down form.

If I can do it, like I have before, surely anyone can

No...for all the above reasons that is not a true statement.

I would've thought that going from a complex piston twin such as those you stated into a King Air, for example, would amount to a reduced workload since, as you say, there is less planning/engine management involved.

Yes when we went from 1000s of hrs of piston twin to Turboprop...having been checked every 6 mths for some years leading up to that coveted turbine type rating...and some guys were NOT given turbine promotion based on those previous checks....and you were being type rated by a company training captain with 1000s of hrs on type...and he wasn't just going to 'give you the rating'...see above about family members...and then you did 30 hrs ICUS on the company route network followed by a line check with a different fella, usually the CP or his deputy...and they did fail people (every one I ever met/worked for/Checked for/Trained for/was checked by worked on the same worst day/family members mix mentioned above)...yes after all that flying the turbines was often 'easier'....or did we just make it look easier?:ok:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
9th Mar 2006, 22:19
Hi Chuck,

I am not seeing your point regarding Blue Line, if you are taking of from a 2000 metre runway in say a C310 or a C404, why shouldn't blue line and insufficient runway be the go / no go decision ( brakes, positive rate, gear up ) ?, then Blue Line plus ten in the fourth segment climb ?.

1.2 Vs is certainly relevant when ( or as per POH ) operating from a short field where performance is a huge issue, but if performance is not the primary consideration, control will certainly then become the primary concern, i.e Blue Line ASAP after take off .

Same logic for landing ?.

Chimbu chuckles
9th Mar 2006, 22:29
I am talking about holding an aeroplane on the ground until blue line speed on takeoff and/or touching down at blue line speed.

Continental-520
10th Mar 2006, 01:13
Yes, it does seem like a very different kettle of fish now that you outline it like that, Chimbu.

I do often question whether the training we get here these days is of any comparison to that around the world too, when I hear of European airlines putting 2 - 300hr 22yr olds in the right seats of 737s, etc.

By the time they are upgraded to command, the bulk of their experience is from the right hand seat. It is therefore surprising that the accident rate up there is not higher, especially given the adverse weather conditions that they face from day to day compared to here.

They are missing out on the basics learned by spending reasonable amounts of time at each step of the ladder....this is what we mean when we say so many pilots these days, in GA especially, but even regionals 'just don't know what they don't know'

What scares me is that in 30 odd years or so (maybe even less), I could well be sitting here saying exactly that, how standards have slid over the generation(s). Hopefully though, the accident rates will be less, somehow.

There doesn't appear to be an easy fix to this sort of problem...


520.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
10th Mar 2006, 02:57
Understood Chuck, that sort of operations in many aircraft would apply stresses outside their rated category for many components, for example, many small aircraft tyres are rated to 100 mph.

From having flown in a number of parts of the world, Australian Pilots are far better trained than many other countries, although we are their poor cousins when it comes to type of equipment flown .

Ever sat at a retirement village and listened to old folk complaining how everything is so expensive, children do not respect their parents, politicians are corrupt ( this has been happening for many generations ), ;).

haughtney1
10th Mar 2006, 11:31
I do often question whether the training we get here these days is of any comparison to that around the world too, when I hear of European airlines putting 2 - 300hr 22yr olds in the right seats of 737s, etc.
By the time they are upgraded to command, the bulk of their experience is from the right hand seat. It is therefore surprising that the accident rate up there is not higher, especially given the adverse weather conditions that they face from day to day compared to here.

Just as an aside, I think there are a couple of reasons for this...and Ive reached my conclusion coming from the perspective as a former GA warrior in NZ and OZ.
Quite simply the training standards in Europe (particularly the UK) are far higher than they are in NZ or OZ (CTC train in NZ to these standards), thats not to say that they produce better aviators, in many cases quite the reverse, however they produce a product that is perfectly capable of operating a complex turbofan aircraft (A320-737).
On the other hand the day to day "house keeping" part of the job is something these 300hr wonders struggle with, because the reality of operating in a commercial environment, coping with weather, slot restrictions, and a new type all gang up on the pilot and initially make them a bit of a liability.
As an example of your last point..i.e. right hand seat experience. The same I have found is also true of experienced skippers upgrading onto a new type. The airline I work for operate 2 types 737's & 757's. I recently flew with a upgraded 737 skipper onto the 75, and to be honest from my position as the F/O he was a bloody liability, he had thousands of hours of 737 time, but only 11 sectors (10 sectors is company minimum for line release) on the aircraft..all I did all day was prompt him to do this..do that..and generally manage the flight for him, so I guess this all goes both ways.
Finally I have to agree with Chimbu in regards to turbo-props, my experience of them is that they are a bit of a doddle to fly once you have mastered the fundamentals...the challenge is all the rest, and for those who havent been there its hard to teach...if you havent done it, its tough to learn..all the more to be said for high levels of relevant quality experience.:ok:

Continental-520
11th Mar 2006, 04:13
Interesting post, haughney. Funny how these same issues manifest themselves at all levels of the ladder. Thanks.


520.