well... you wrote much without saying anything ... on the tpe331 you look primary ( especially at low altitude) into the torque- the egt is just the limiting factor, not a setting device at low altitudes.
It would appear that you're not pleased until you hear whatever it is that you want to hear. Why don't you go ahead and tell me the words that you'd like to hear and perhaps you can get me to say them. Will that make your day?
EGT is only a limiting factor? Not on the airplane I was flying, where most of the working operation takes place between 5' and 50' above the surface, and nearly all of it in very mountainous terrain, and nearly all of that working vertically in the terrain. Limiting, yes, but the operation was temp limited, and it's a very important limit. So no, not "only" a limiting factor, but a very critical limiting factor, and one that was often reached, or risked being reached, before torque limits came into play.
As you're aware, turbopropeller airplanes can be torque-limited at low elevations, and temperature limited at higher elevations. The base elevation of the departure field was about five thousand feet. On a hot summer day, the density altitude for departure was about 8,500'. The fire I was fighting was on a mountainside at a higher density altitude, and the primary power setting instrument, as designed by modifier of the aircraft when it was converted to a turbine airplane, was the EGT. The EGT was a large instrument, set to the pilot couldn't miss it. Get the power in there, then fine tune with torque if one likes. Keeping within limits was of greater interest than setting fine power. It wasn't a conquest, and it wasn't middle-of-the-box kind of flying. One set power using the power lever to a known position while looking outside the airplane to keep away from rocks and trees, and glanced briefly at EGT to ensure one wasn't hurting anything, and occasionally at torque. Power was up and down so much throughout the flight, constantly changing, that trying to watch torque would be a futile exercise, to say nothing of it being a small instrument on a side panel which held little prominence other than confirmation that things were going according to plan. On the day in question, a glance at torque confirmed that indeed things were not.
I don't recall specific numbers for the torque or other settings, off-hand. That was several years ago, and I've operated 10 other types of aircraft in the intervening time. As I recall, I was able to pull about 85% torque when approaching the takeoff temp limits in that airplane, with the speed lever in high. The installation was temp limited in those operating conditions, not torque limited. In that installation, I believe we used a percentage or torque indication, as opposed to many airplanes which used a calibration in foot-pounds, or horsepower, psi, or other methods of indication.
If you don't like the installation, you should speak to the STC holders who modified the aircraft. I didn't design it or make the installation; I only flew it.
when you did not looked at the instrument in this emergency conditons- what happened? you pushed the lever forward an what?
I have no idea what you're trying to say, or ask, but you appear to have it wrong, whatever it might be. I did look at the engine instrumentation; that's really the point. Low oil quantity didn't produce discernable changes in engine operation, and according to Garrett/Honeywell, the manufacturer, one shouldn't necessarily expect it to do so, either.
The aircraft type was a PZL M-18T-331-10.