Caravan engine failure in TSV

[strobe12]

Anyone know who's van had a engine failure there today?

Pilot got it back on the runway, good job mate!

:D:ok:

[av8trflying]

It belonged to the police air wing.

Apparently the engine seized and he glided back to the field from 4500'.

Well done.:ok:

[Islander Jock]

Apparently the engine siezed:eek:
Sort of thing you expect to hear from brothers Lycoming and Continental. How often does this occur on PT-6s?

[schoolboy]

My advice is the aircraft was a Queensland Police van. Pilot did a great job to put it back with all safe.

[av8trflying]

Yeah the engine made a squealing sound, smoke started to issue and then it shut down.

Nasty!

[Stationair8]

So did the cops give the pilot a breath test and slap unroadworthy sticker on the caravan.

Sounds like the pilot did a top job.

[Green gorilla]

NT police several years ago had it happen in a PC12 all survived just,,

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Given the weather in YBTL today (8/8 crap!), I wonder if they were in IMC?

Well done that pilot!

Dr :8

[bushy]

The PT6 is a very good engine, and surprisingly, handles outback conditions well.
But they are not infallible, as we have been led to believe.
There have been a number of forced landings in Australia by aircraft with a single PT6, and more overseas.

[Flying Binghi]

Bushy, whats been causing these PT6 failures ?

[Oodnadatta]

Green Gorilla,

Heard about a lightning strike but not about any engine failure involving an NT Police PC12. Lightning strike caused a small pit on the trailing edge of a prop blade and a small exit hole on the undersurface of the L/H flap. No engine damage, but an inspection was carried out. I had a look at it in nthe Pel-Air hanger while pasing through Darwin at the time.

Any details on the engine failure that you mentioned. Roughly where, when and which aircraft (DN or AS Base?.

Cheers,
Oodnadatta.

[Capt Wally]

I don't want to hear about PT6 eng failures:bored:.Two of 'em are barely enough in times of fright!:bored: One has to wonder about SE turbines. Once upon a time you couldn't do IFR pax charter in any single never lone turbines. What changed? Nothing. They can & will continue to fail. I question the sense of IFR SE charter, always have, but that's just a personal opinion! I take my hat off to the guys at the RFDS who fly the PC12's, too damn risky for me !:bored:

Still the pilot was obviously well trained in eng failure proceedures (as you need to be in any SE plane) & did a stirling job to get it back on the ground.:)

CW

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Boarding a burner and watching this overgrown 182 landing, thinking, "He's landing the wrong direction.........and with a stopped prop......."
It was a very good outcome. Some debris had to be cleared off the runway (apparently). Got it down about halfway along 01 (19 in use). Well Done.:ok:
Heavy showers in the area at the time. The Dashes were missing GPS approaches at Palm. Virgins going around (and red 73's too:E)

[Dave Incognito]

I think you'll find it is a private(?) op, so doesn't count as single IFR charter. The van actually glides quite nicely with the prop feathered. Sounds like some good work getting it back on the deck in one piece.

But they are not infallible, as we have been led to believe.

I don't think anyone ever said they were. They are however damn reliable. Almost everone I know that's flown behind a single PT6 swears by them, myself included.

[Capt Wally]

Hi 'dave incog'. I wasn't refering to that particular op as an IFR charter more the fact that I consider it too dangerous as did the dept of the time did to do them.
Seeing as you fly SE turbines Dave what's yr proceedure for an eng failure IMC? & need to make an app, if you could......assuming you do IFR pax charter? Curious I am that's all

CW:)

[Green gorilla]

By what I was told true or not the engine shut down but were able to start it again.

[Sarcs]

Had a catastrophic engine failure in a Van in the Straits once, it was my first ICUS flight after obtaining the endorsement. We were fortunately about 7nm from the only bit of beach available to land on and we managed to pull up in about 150m.

The beach was renamed the Caravan Park as it was nearly a week before it was able to be flown off again with a new donk. Great truck the Van and it glides pretty well too!

cheers Sarcs

[j3pipercub]

Hey all,

well done that man. SE IFR charter can be done in vans but the aircraft have to be ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) A few more dials that can break (for memory Rad Alt and backup vacuum source).

As far as deadstick in IMC it is a good glider but not good enough to do an approach, so pretty much aim it at the waypoint and try and line it up with the strip.

However, in saying that, over 500' but below about 1000' after takeoff (varies with companies), a turnback procedure is employed, it involves 10 deg flap, a 45 deg turn into wind and landing on reciprocal runway. Watching them is good fun, doing them is even more fun, although you have to be right onthe numbers if the machine is carrying a decent load. This procedure is taught to be used VMC or IMC, so a 45 deg turn in IMC at 1000' not sure i'd like to do one in anger pesonally, so once again, smashing job, no matter what the height

Cheers

j3

[Warm Ballast]

.... not Bushy here....
but have a look at ATSB report #200600563
Recommendations are interesting to say the least.....

[dash 27]

I have many thousand hours in mainly 600hp short bodies, with pods and floats and have shut down plenty of PT6's. Thankfully not a Van's. Makes me angry when I hear the propoganda of Cessna's PT6 sales pitch. Today was why!!!
I was alerted to the emergency services being scrambled on TSV GND. When I heard it was PSQ, the caravan, my heart sank. I, 5 minutes earlier crewed the RNAV 19 to near mins in p#ssing rain, heard his calm gravelly voice call on tower that he was changing to 01, as it has the ILS to 270. I saw him get visual at about 600 ish, feathered, and 12 knots of downwind on a very wet runway, and land long, as vans do feathered. The bugger put it on nice, and stopped before the "slopway" at the end.

I am current in the ways of ASETPA IFR in singles and crap weather in VFR van ops. This guy needs a massive commendation. The wx was to minimums, he was a slippery glider, and he didn't scratch it. TSV is full of hills in all directions, the NDB was out, the ILS was notam'd 15 mins notice, and there he popped out and landed. Someone was watchin over him today. Hope to hear his voice soon. May his career be well !!!:D

[Torres]

Sarcs.

Ah, the Badu 'Van Park..... Well I remember! :{

Well done you two that put it there and well done the pilot who flew it out! :ok:

[StickWithTheTruth]

Sarcs, was that CRN a few moons back?

[Sarcs]

Hey Torres, yeah that brings back a few memories! No SWTT that would be URT and that was a few moons back, it was in the last century near the end of 98'.

[Dave Incognito]

Capt. Wally,

The company I was working for at the time started the process for gaining ASETPA, but pulled out due to weighing up the cost/benefit. As a result I only ever flew the Van empty or with freight outside of day VMC conditions.

To the best of my knowledge, an approved route has to have numerous designated landing areas along track within gliding distance from your cruise alt. If the engine fails you hit direct to nearest on the emergency page of the GPS and start gliding. As I said, I’ve never flown ASEPTA myself, but that’s the general concept I got from a couple of CASA guys during a ramp check (they were flying a Van as well). The RFDS have a special cloud break procedure for the PC12’s which if memory serves me correctly, sets you up for a visual base/final. Maybe one of their drivers could explain it?

[Capt Wally]

Thanks 'Dave incog', The only trouble is an approved route maybe fine when it's 'planned' but some of the RFDS work isn't planned, as in getting diverted enroute. I know of the basic concept used by the RFDS PC12's. Their cloud break proceedure is heavily reliant on the radar alt. I also believe they fly the craft at VNE or close to it where possible so that there is enough energy to complete an abrieviated appr & land. All sounds feasable during practise but sheeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz at night, in awful WX the thought doesn't bare contemplating !:yuk:
I know where I work the PC12 was considered but like you said the cost/benifits where weighed up & wasn't an option at the end of the day due to risk.

Like I said I take my hat off to those brave souls !:D

It's simple maths.........2 is better than 1 in every occasion, even a work !:p

CW

p.s.....well done 'sarcs':ok:

[Sarcs]

I know for a fact that the ASETPA approval was initially looked at in the RFDS Westops section when they first recieved the PC12. How do I know that? Well I was tasked with researching the enroute requirements of ASETPA and whether they were feasible for RFDS ops.:{

The enroute reqs basically say that an approved a/c must be able to glide to a 'suitable landing area' at all times except for 15min in the cruise at normal cruise TAS. So in the case of the PC12 normal cruise TAS was 240kts meaning that you would have to be able to glide to a SLA at all times except for 60nm in the cruise.

Surprisingly this proved to be quite doable over most of WA with some pretty big restrictions in certain areas. An example would be having to climb to at least FL260 over a route such as Meeka to Onslow (real tiger country out there an Mount Augustus smack bang in the middle). Also there would have to be quite a few strip upgrades to some of the designated SLAs and some would need to be made night capable as well.:D

I believe the cloud break procedure was derived from the RAAFs procedure for an engine failure in IMC for the PC9. Which is all very well if you get to bottom of the procedure and you are still in IMC as the PC9 pilot has the option of ejecting out. Personally I couldn't see what the problem was setting the PC12 up for best glide and circling down over the airfield, even if it was for say a 20min glide. By the time you got to the bottom you would pretty much have the high key, low key, short final down pat especially with inputed info from the GPS. However the cloud break procedure was a lot of fun to practise but I think you would have to your wits about you (not to mention an ounce of luck) to really pull it off!!:=

[Dave Incognito]

Capt Wally,

Agreed, doing it in practice is good fun, but doing it for real in IMC or at night….. :yuk:

[Capt Wally]

Tnxs 'sarcs' interesting reading there. That's preety much what I've heard also but as we all seem to agree doing it for real is another whole other story !. Besides even if you where over dead flat terrain & found yourself without pwr a landing at night is a precarious event even in a controlled state !;) The PC12 has an excellent glide range, strong seats with high G's capabilities (shame the human hasn't !) but it means little when faced with cloud to grnd lvl:yuk:
The B200 for Eg. glides as per POH 2NM per 1000 ft loss, that's not too bad for a flying brick!;) I reckon that if it did get to that (both failed) I wasn't meant to be flying that day!;)

Anyway that's half the reason why they put more than one engine on an airframe, purely for safety. With todays modern large Hi bypass engs I bet they could design a large plane to carry many pax with just one RR Trent 900 eng !.......but they don't & we all know why!~;)

CW

[Capt Wally]

Hey tnxs to you too 'bara' also interesting reading but there's too many 'hopes' in that article !!:{

CW;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

As one who flies SE IFR (but NOT night SE IFR), this subject is near and dear to my heart.

Set up for a max range glide, the V35B comes down at about 700 '/min.

Given that I fly most GPS RNAV approaches at about 600 '/min rate of descent, if an aerodrome with a GPS RNAV approach was within range, why would you not just fly the appraoch, providing you don't have to go too far out of your way to get onto it?

If still in IMC at the minima I would maintain the approach track and ride the aeroplane to the ground. If I broke out an found myself high (I wish!), dropping the gear and a judicious side-slip would soon get me down.

If faced with an engine-out appr I would find it impossible to track outbound in an NDB Appr, but Jeppesen FlightDeck would allow me to track direct to the inbound track.

Dr :8

[Capt Wally]

Hi Doc:8

...........yr statement "(but NOT night SE IFR)" says it all, but some have no choice but to fly in all conditions, reg's permitting of course.

I trust that yr 'Bo' is running well? Good solid airframe, none better I reckon there but still don't want to be in one at night...gliding !:{
We all say (myself inc) given the right conditions it's possible to survive an eng out ldg, but rarely would it be the 'right' conditions. If you really sit down & think about it one could have an eng failure at any stage of flight (obviously) esspecially where one didn't have the luxury of height to trade for distance/time. Eg. Yr on an app, on the correct glidepath say 3 degs, 6 mls from touchdown, gear out, flap out, all's good, 'till the fan quits abruptly. And that 6 mls might still has high terrain to overfly, you simply won't make it! If you have a choice simply don't do it !

...........whoops....getting off the track here I guess but a worthwhile dissucssion.
CW

[bushy]

1. Some time ago, American research showed that twin engined aircraft were less likely to be involved in fatal accidents that were caused by engine failure, but they were more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than singles.
2. Australia has had a few night engine failures in singles, but I don't think we have had a fatal one yet.
3. To turnback after an engine failure after takeoff was considered suicidal until the single engined turboprop came along. (look at the test pilot section of PRUNE.)
4. Turboprop engines DO fail. How many have we had in Australia?
5. PT6's are good engines.

[tinpis]

5. PT6's are good engines.

Especially in pairs

Amen

[compressor stall]

How quickly we forget Towoomba.:(

[tinpis]

Yes,a town easily forgotten....erm.... what happened there ?

[Capt Wally]

.....tinpis, couldn't have said it better myself !:8

CW:ok:

p.s.

hey 'bushy' yr correct there with yr statements, but it would only take one death resulting from an eng failure that was SE IFR charter to make most think twice, oh & that's one death too many as well !
Funny I was just looking outside the office window b4 & what taxied in?, low & behold a PC12, made me shiver to think of the consequences of that fan failing at the wrong time !
Obviously this is all opinions of concerned pilots, we have choice these days thank goodness:ok:

CW

[Section28- BE]

Link here to the Initial ATSB Report:

Beech Aircraft Corporation C90 (VH-LQH) Toowoomba, QLD - 27 November 2001 (http://search.dotars.gov.au/search/click.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atsb.gov.au%2Fpublications%2F investigation_reports%2F2001%2FAAIR%2Fpdf%2Faair200105618_00 1.pdf&rank=4&collection=Dotars)

[compressor stall]

Thanks for the link Section 28-BE. The previous two postings to yours prove the point quite well I think. :D :ugh:

[Capt Wally]

Good link as mentioned, but there where/are numerous factors that contributed to that unfortunate event such as an inop auto feather(for whatever reason) none of which is related to SE A/C.

Sure we've read it all before, eng failure in a twin at T/off is the most dangerous situation unless it's in either a transport cat A/C or the operator is working to a balanced field length (which I/we do whenever possible) regime meaning it gives the pilot a better margin for maintaining flight with an eng failure recognized at V1.
Obviously any A/C is subject to some failure of a system that will render the flight unachievable but Single Engine IFR in IMC ops still stands as the most dangerous in my mind.
Keep the posts coming, a very interesting read thus far:)

CW:)

[J0N0]

I flew for a company that operated Vans ASETPA. On top of what has been listed also think a rad alt (as per the PC12) and also an engine trend monitor so the engineers could keep an eye on it, also I think the WX radar had to work as well?? Anyway we were allowed to do turnbacks from 700/800ft (memory fading) and so long as you didnt muck around getting it feathered was no problem.
The procedure we had approved for a failure in cruise was to immediately trim for best glide and go to the nearest airport. We also had a 'reasonable' amount of the strips around the area of operation with a waypoint stored for the middle of the runway. So (best case scenario) arrive overhead at I think 4500agl and turn crosswind, fly out and follow a 3 mile arc around, by now you would have the HSI selected to GPS and the track to the airport waypoint lined up with the runway direction so when you were on base you could use the CDI as a poor mans LLZ to line you up with the runway. Then using the distance to run off the GPS would start putting out flap on final. As I duck for cover and prepare to be shot down in flames personally I prefered the sound of this method more than the RFDS PC12 idea, if I was gonna smack into a hill in the circuit then it would be at slow speed and if I didnt get visual cause the cloud was on the deck then I had a greater chance of crashing in the vicinity of the runway and hopefully even right on it!! Still I have never flown an PC12 so maybe there are reasons against it! (And I have endless repsect for the RFDS drivers and the operation in general)
Certainly there are many "what ifs" "maybes" and "with luck" etc with the procedure, thats just how it was done then!! Were not as many GNSS approaches around then and we were not trained at the time to use them anyway so having a waypoint in the middle of the runway was kinda important. The concept worked in training and thankfully I never had to really test it out!!
One of the selling points for the SE Turbine at the time was it was more reliable than an older twin piston?? Speculation aside does anyone actually have any stastics on that??
Certainly the prefered option when one goes bang would be to nail V2/Vbg etc climb to LSA then either return for the approach or climb to FL_ _ _ and divert to Y_ _ _ but I guess thats not always an option!!
The only thing better than a turbine is TWO turbines!! :ok:

All that aside, well done to the Van driver who put whatever procedure into practise and got it back down safely!! :D

[Sarcs]

Very good post J0N0, that is pretty much how I remember the procedure for the Van and I also worked for a ASETPA approved low capacity RPT company.

I often wondered why a GPS manafacturer couldn't create an overlay for any aerodrome with fixed waypoints for high key (over the top) , low key (close base, say 1.8nm) and short final. Surely it would be simple trigonometry to work out but I guess there would be some sort of public liability factor in there as well?? In the PC12 you would have the added bonus of having it presented on a moving map display plus you could factor in a VNAV profile as well.:8

Totally agree with the rationale of being at best glide and slowing as you approach terra firma, at the end of the day being as slow as you can and quite possibly within the confines of the aerodrome (or a mile from it) is going to greatly enhance your chances of surviving and being rescued. :ouch:

ps Yes very well done to the pilot in question in YBTL, especially considering the weather there has been absolute c**p over the last couple of days.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nicely flown that man.:D

However,

All very well and good saying turbines are more reliable therefore an ASEPTA single is safer than one of those busted arse 30 year old piston twins but compare, if you will, apples to apples...compare the chances of one turbine engine failing and two pistons simultaneously failing for reasons other than fuel starvation.

The incidence of engine failures in piston twins leading to fatal outcomes has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years due to better aircraft, better training and knowledge...better than the 1950s era early piston twins/training and mentality that permeated piston twin flying generally right up to the 70s at least maybe even the 80s.

The only piston engine failures I have had that ended in forced landing have been in singles...all the engine failures I have had in piston twins, including one at 50' with no nice options straight in front, ended up with a nice landing on a runway.

Like FTDK I'll happily enough fly my Bonanza IFR provided it's not over mountainous terrain with insufficient cloudbase to pull off a survivable landing...or freezing levels down near the ground...And I'll happily fly my aircraft at night..just not both if I can avoid it. I did once fly Camden-Redcliffe at night and was in IMC along the coast between PMQ-Coffs sort of area...when offered some more direct tracking by ATC I declined saying I had only one engine and would rather maximise the time within gliding range of airports/major highways/beaches.

But that is private ops and my informed choice. For night/IFR/commercial ops of any description (including POLAIR style) two engines whether piston or turbine (preferably the later of course) is the minimum.

Ask the fella at YBTL if he'd rather have been in a C441/BE200/BE350, or even a B58 Baron or Chieftain, in the exact same circumstances.

[Sarcs]

'Chimbu chuckles' couldn't agree more and that was one of the reasons for me pulling out of RUFDUS westops and before their whole fleet became PC12s. They maybe reliable, bulletproof, economical etc..etc.. but it really ownly takes one engine out in a PC12 with a bad outcome to turn the whole concept of ASETPA upside down, not that RFDS operate to those regs anyway... 'Airwork' I think they call it??

[OpsNormal]

The bloke who pulled the Caravan landing off in TL.... Is it the same person who has been flying the machine for a couple of years now out around Mt Isa?

(I heard his voice referred to as "gravelly". Wondered if it is the same person?)

Regards,

OpsN.

[permFO]

The achilles heel of the PT6 is that a short in the starter-gen can find its way to the #1 bearing leading to a ctastrophic failure of that bearing. It happened in a Shorts 360 and recently in a Caravan in Tasmania. The Tasmanian incident was potentially a disaster except that the pilot chose to turn back when a gear box chip detector light come on. He managed to deadstick it on Lake Burbury instead of finding himself over a designated remote area.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The achilles heel of the PT6-20/27/34 that were on the DHC6-200/300 and Bandit (and we had two Twotters with -34s) was the spline on the engine driven fuel pump...if it sheered the engine driven fuel pump impeller blocked the fuel line and no fuel could get past from the electric fuel pump.

On the Bandit if the throttle linkage to the thrust lever failed the engine went to idle...it happened to a mate on takeoff in Mt Hagen...luckily early enough so he could still just barely stop on the runway.

Did they change this setup on the ASEPTA singles?

They're a great engine...but not infallible.


Chuck ..... The C208 has an emergency power lever which bypasses the normal fuel system in the event of an FCU failure on the PT6A-114 engine.

Tail Wheel

[Mainframe]

Well said CC

There is much debate on single engine turbine vs multi engine piston or turbine, the following is a copy of AIN’s 2001 article.

Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar
by Gordon Gilbert

In the aftermath of July’s well publicized engine-out ditching of a Pilatus PC-12 in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Russia,
industry observers are asking how this and other recent accidents have affected the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops and if sales of these aircraft are suffering.

Although production-built single-turbine airplanes used for business flying typically do not have the same speed,
load capability or systems redundancy as twin-turbine airplanes, they have amassed a comparable safety record,
according to statistics through last year compiled by accident analyst firm Robert E. Breiling Associates of Boca Raton, Fla.

Breiling reports U.S. turboprop-singles have had 1.99 total accidents and 0.80 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hr compared with 2.37 and 0.83,
respectively, for U.S.-registered turboprop twins. These figures cover the period from initial aircraft certification through last year.

Last year the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops was even played up by Pilatus in its marketing of the PC-12.

While accident rate statistics seem to back up that claim, the actual number of single-engine turboprop accidents is increasing as the fleet gets larger.

This year to date, the NTSB reports that there have been 10 accidents, five of them fatal, involving four production-certified single-engine turboprops:

the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian, Socata TBM 700 and Pilatus PC-12.

Nine of the 10 accidents are still under investigation, seven of the accidents were in Cessna 208s (by far the most numerous of all turboprop singles,
with close to 1,300 in operation), and engine failure has definitely been determined as a factor in four accidents, (April 26, July 6, July 8 and July 10) none causing critical injuries.

The Safety Board determined the January 31 crash of the Cessna 208 on floats was caused when the airplane hit a swell during a water landing.

All production turboprop singles are powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 series.

Engine Problems
A Caravan flying for FedEx made a forced landing April 26 after an engine failure.
The pilot (not injured in the accident) said that during climbout the airplane’s engine “spooled down, slowly and smoothly,
like a loss of torque or the propeller going to feather.”

Later, an examination of data from the power analyzer recorder system revealed that during the most recent takeoff the engine exceeded its torque limit of 1,980 ft lb for 99 seconds.
The peak torque value over that duration was 2,649 ft lb.

On July 6, a Caravan on a repositioning flight operated by Maxfly Aviation ditched into the Atlantic Ocean 20 mi east of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
following loss of engine power. According to the pilot (who was not hurt), the airplane was cruising at 6,500 ft when the engine lost power and came to a “screeching halt.”
The propeller made a “chow, chow, chow” noise, turned three times, stopped and feathered.

In the July 8 PC-12 ditching, the pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise at 26,500 ft when he felt a vibration followed by a rapid increase in the
engine’s turbine temperature indication (TTI). He reported that the TTI reached 1,144 deg C, at which point there was a compressor stall.

He shut down the engine, feathered the propeller and entered a power-off emergency descent.
After spending 15 hr in a life raft, the pilot and all three passengers were safely recovered some 60 mi from the Russian coast in the icy Sea of Okhotsk.

Two days later, on July 10, a Cessna 208 of Bolivian registration (CP-2395), was substantially damaged during a forced landing
following a loss of engine power during climbout from the La Paz International Airport in Bolivia.
The pilot, the copilot and 11 passengers were injured. The flight crew reported a loss of engine power approximately six minutes after takeoff.

No Effect on Sales
According to comments from three manufacturers, sales of new turbine singles remain strong and the issue of single vs twin rarely comes up in conversation between sellers for the OEM and buyers.

Tom Aniello is just completing his first six months as v-p of marketing for Pilatus Business Aircraft in Boulder, Colo.
He told AIN, “I have spent a lot of time with our dealers and that is one of the questions I had for them:
how much marketing effort should I put on the single versus twin issue? And I was surprised that their answer to me was that it’s really become a non-issue.

Even after the [July 8] ditching incident I was surprised by how few questions I’ve received.
People have come to accept and understand that turbines are more reliable than pistons.”

Aniello thinks it’s still not an issue despite the 10 accidents so far this year, but he wonders about next year.
These accidents “will skew the statistics for next year, and I don’t know whether that’s going to become a big factor or not.”

A bigger factor, in Aniello’s opinion, is not the number of engines, but the number of crew.
“For single versus twin, statistics don’t show an appreciable gap. But statistics do lead you to realize that you’re better off adding another person up front than you are adding another engine.”

In the U.S., more than 70 percent of PC-12 sales are to owner-pilots for personal and business flying. As might be expected, just the opposite is true for the Caravan, where 70 percent of its users are small package commercial operators, according to director of Caravan sales for Cessna John Doman. “In our experience with the Caravan–which has more than 15 years of service under its belt, flying in all sorts of different conditions–it has established an enviable safety record. The PT6 is a legendary powerplant in terms of reliability. So our reaction from the marketplace is one of acceptance of the safety inherent in the turbine single.”

A lot of Caravan air-freight customers are moving up from piston twins such as Beech 18s, Queen Airs, Navajos and Cessna 402s. “Statistics and just common knowledge tell you that a single-turbine airplane is going to be a safer, more reliable piece of machinery than the piston twin,” Doman said.

Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.

There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.

For the last five years Cessna has been working with other airframe manufacturers as a member of the Single Engine Turbine Alliance (SETA) to get the JAA to change the requirements in Europe to allow single-turbine IFR commercial operations. Such operations are currently prohibited for both carrying cargo and fare-paying passengers. “We think that the way things are headed, we should see a change by perhaps the end of this year,” Doman said.

A spokesman for Piper Aircraft in Vero Beach, Fla., echoed the statements on the quality, excellence, reliability and safety perceived by prospective and new owners of single turboprop airplanes. Indeed, P&WC statistics show the time between unplanned removals for the PT6 family as occurring once in every 142,817.14 hr and the time between in-flight shutdowns to be one in every 250,000 hr.
________________________________________

Aviation International News is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., P.O. Box 277, Midland Park, NJ, 07432. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission from The Convention News Co., Inc., is strictly prohibited. The Convention News Co., Inc., also publishes NBAA Convention News, HAI Convention News, EBACE Convention News, Paris 2003, Dubai 2001, Asian Aerospace 2002, Farnborough 2002, AIN Reports and AIN News Alerts.


My comment:
A single engine aircraft is a single engine aircraft, with many single points of failure.

The PT6 engine has a proud family history, but the PT6A-114 and 114A are derived from the venerable PT6-34 that has given good service in Bandits, Twotters and C90’s.
Interestingly, the 114 series seem to be the only models without auto relight available as either standard or optional equipment.

They (PT6) do have some undocumented features most now addressed by Ads and SBs, such as fuel pump spline failures, generator bearing short circuit, FCU bellows, oil system loss of oil, compressor rollbacks, bleed air valves and other things that can spoil your day, just like any other piece of machinery.
Unfortunately the ASETPA certificate wont help you, it just says “what just happened shouldn’t have, best of luck!”
Try the following site and search on Cessna 208 or Pilatus. Some interesting and sobering reading
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

A dead stick landing in IMC at Townsville not only requires a lot of skill, the numerous hills and mountains within and near the circuit area require an equal measure of special luck.

Well done to the police pilot, good training, good skills and good luck.

In closing, the UK will not condone ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) for IFR charter or RPT.
They take the realistic view that an engine failure at night, or in IMC, will inevitably result in fatalities.

And note the terminology used for turbine engine failures, they are only counted as a failure if the engine was shut down, using the statistical term IFSD (In Flight Shut Down).

[APMR]

Barramundi said:
... but by time to level out at 700' AGL you will be close to VNE, over the field hooking along at about 230kts for a PC12.

I know that if conducting one of these for real, you wouldn't let turbulence bother you, but what about the turbulence encounters at those speeds during training and practice scenarios?

Or is training/practice conducted only at those times/places where the air is expected to be calm?

[Brian Abraham]

but what about the turbulence encounters at those speeds

A turbine does not have the piston cautionary range at the top end of the speed range. The green goes all the way to the Vne. (If thats what you are alluding to)

[werbil]

Not taking anything away from the pilot (great job:ok:), one of the rationales behind ASEPTA is to fly so that you maximise the options to land if the donk stops. And let's face it, the wx was crap, there is a fair bit of high ground there.

In this case, we have no injuries and an undamaged aircraft (apart from the original failure). In this case ASEPTA worked - following the unlikely event of an engine failure the pilot followed the appropriate procedures and (with some considerable skill) achieved a great outcome.

If we consider some of the numerous accidents resulting in fatalities following a single engine failure on take off in a twin where the outcome was catastrophic TSV seems to be pretty good. I'm sure that every pilot will acknowledge that there are times in piston and turboprop light twins where an engine failure will at best result in completing a landing off airport assuming that everything is handled perfectly.

Additionally, assuming the same powerplant reliability, in a twin engine aircraft statistically you are going to have to deal with twice as many propulsion system failures in a single. C208's (and most other SE turbines I believe) have an EPL that allows you to control engine power crudely following certain failures in the FCU.

And finally, IMHO single engine aircraft are more suitable for off airport landings than twins for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is a big lump of mass out in front of you and the structure to support it should you hit something. Secondly, they generally stall slower than a twin - the engine out full flap approach speed for a C208 is 80KIAS, and as energy is proportional to the square of the velocity the slower you hit the better your chances.

W

PS The C208s I fly are amphib floatplanes in day VFR ops.

PPS The ignition system in the C208 is rated for continuous operation.

[Capt Wally]

All true "werbil", good facts there & worth considering. Just a point of interest here tho & this is not directed at you persay. Why don't the major builders of transport cat A/C build a large SE jet to carry perhaps a 100 people or so? The answer is very obvious & it's got nothing to do with not enough power 'cause just one Trent 900 for Eg. produces around 100000 lbs thrust!.
Yeah I know will get all sorts of smart ass remarks back about that but what I'm getting at is that as engines have been made bigger to produce more power they have reduced the number fitted to a praticluar airframe, STOPPING just short of ONE !..............only reason there are 2 engines (min) in a large airliner is for SAFETY !!!:).................& of course they can build 'em even bigger !

CW

[werbil]

Capt Wally,

Just a few thoughts as to why large transport aircraft don't do ASEPTA and singles do.

1 - Transport category aircraft must be able to cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight and be able to climb to safety or stop within the remaining runway. The ability to out climb the terrain is not a LEGAL consideration for a light twin.

2 - A large transport aircraft would generally not meet the ASEPTA performance requirement to be able to glide to a suitable aerodrome for the required percentages / times of the flight, except possibly along the eastern seaboard in Australia.

3 - I don't think a turn back would be possible - it would be interesting watching someone attempt a 45deg angle of bank turn to return to the airport following a complete propulsion system failure at 700 feet in a heavy.

4 - Off airport landing ability. Singles (including large ones) often land on unprepared surfaces without causing major damage to either the aircraft or the surroundings. The results of transport aircraft landing off airport are generally spectacular.

5 - The same reason we have so many windows in an airliner - too many of the public would refuse to fly otherwise.

Now (ducking for cover) by adding a second engine we increase the risk of an accident during the critical take off phase by doubling the probability of a propulsion system failure when there may be no possible safe outcome (eg short strip / high terrain / heavy load). On this basis it is quite possible that certain routes could be safer flown ASEPTA than in a twin turbo prop.

W

[werbil]

Tailwheel / Chimbu Chuckles

The EPL on a C208 operates the metering valve of the FCU directly. The first problem would remain, the EPL could be used to deal with the second one if you had enough time.

[Capt Wally]

W great post, all true but nobody is arguing what you have said here. I was more theorizing that's all & obviously none of what you wrote would or could apply to a single engined transport if there ever was one designed & produced. I know that it would never happen (SE heavy) for all the reasons you stated. There all at least twins to cover what you wrote. New rules would need to be drafted for SE Transport A/C, I;d hate to be putting pen to paper on that death sentence!:bored:

I also couldn't agree with you more there with yr statement 'by adding a second engine we "increase" the posiblity of an engine failure during the T/off phase etc", so true..............BUT having that second eng only 'increases' the chances of that failure, having only one eng in the first place & it fails doesn't "increase" yr chance it defines it, in concrete !:bored: & that's at any stage of the flight not just at the critical stage of T/off.

We can bounce back & forth here with the old SE versus Twins all day/night long. Answer this, not just you 'W' If you where required for whatever reason to travel on a PC12 (EG only) at night from say CB to Tumit in NSW for work for Eg in pouring rain & low cloud with TS's about how would you really feel boarding that aircraft? I know I would be terribly concerned. Like I've always said we have choices most of the time. The facts about SE reliablity (which there are numerous) will never comfort anyone in a SE at night in IMC.

CW:)

[werbil]

CaptWally,

:ok:, however even though an engine failure in SE aircraft provides few options for the pilot the outcome is certainly not defined - TSV proved this, as did the C208 in Tasmania.

Personally, I'd prefer the PC12 over a 414 or Chieftan around that high country. Flogging around in a piston twin with marginal SE performance around those mountains is not my idea of fun. The PC12 glides 2.5nm per 1000' so remaining within gliding distance of an aerodrome would not be a problem. At FL150 (it is pressurized) it would reach either Tumut or CB comfortably - just no option to hold for the TS, but then again there is no real SE go around option for the piston twin at Tumut either.

Personally flying single engine over tiger country / open water / IMC does not make me uncomfortable - however I am always considering options should it go quiet. At night you've always got the option of turning the landing light off if you don't like what you see.

W

[Capt Wally]

Yr right werbil in those 2 cases the outcome wasn't defined, lucky them!:). But given one single pax death resulting from a charter flight in a SE in IMC in OZ the whole industry would be rocked, is it really worth it? I think not, but like you we all have our feelings & opinions based on freedom of speech:)

All posts in here that support SE IMC Chtr either say 'given these circumstances' or 'should' "or most of the time" (as in glide that far) they would make it down safe, there all plausable, but where not talking about "most" of the time here we are (well I am anyway) talking about that perhaps one in a million chance (where it doesn't have to be if it where not allowed in the first place) that yr caught over tiger country in a "man made glider" at night in cloud with a very slim chance of surviving. As you would realise it's not just the impact to survive it's the environment also. At the above mythical crash site in winter you'd be lucky to survive the night before rescue!
Twin flying has almost the same amount of risks generally as a SE, but not quite, & that might be all it takes to be here writing this rather than being
worm food !:ok:
Horses for courses, SE flying, great, love it, we've all done it & there's always a risk, but why make that risk even higher by leaving yr options very slim?:)

Me to not happy flying about in that tiger country in a C414 (shhheeez could you pick a worse plane?) or PA31 but we had little choice once upon a time. Yr a braver man than most I'd say Werbil if yr comfy with SE flying over tiger country/open water in IMC.
Most are fortunate they fly for fun in the sun or either have 2 engs for safety reasons in their 'mounts', hats of to those that have no or little choice.

Good chatting werbil:)

CW:)

[White and Fluffy]

Capt Wally,

You are saying that you would rather have two engines for the 1 in a million chance that you have an engine failure in a single engine turbine and don't meet any of the emergency procedure requirements as already detailed. What would happen in your B200 if you had another 1 in a million emergency such as a fire in the cabin, total elec failure, airframe failure, slow depressurisation loss (without indication), inflight heart attack, birdstrike through pilot windscreen, engine fire, fuel tank rupture, etc, etc?

The extra engine isn't going to help if you or the aircraft is not in a state to fly. I guess you have to do the stats and come up with a risk assessment. At the end of the day if pilots didn't get into an aircraft becuase of a small risk of death then we would all wrap ourselves in cotton wool and never go flying. Isn't the slight rush half the reason we do go flying?

W&F.

[bentleg]

I saw a statistic somewhere said that there are more serious injuries and fatalities from a twin losing one engine, than there are from a single losing its engine. So much for the extra safety in a twin........

Can be due to the twin pilot trying to push the envelope in marginal SE conditions, when he should have just put it down like a single pilot would.

Having said that a twin, properly managed, SHOULD be safer than a single......

[Capt Wally]

W&F I think you miss the point here that I am aludding to. You can have all of what you mentioned obviously in any airframe at anytime, I won't argue with what yr saying, agree completely there with you it's just that in a SE plane you have an extra worry not found in multiple engined A/C, & that's the failure of the ONLY eng !
Got nothing to do with wrapping ones self up in cotton wool, we all know flying is a risk, it's just a calculated risk that varies & why vary it to yr dissadvantage?

Still am enjoying thre banter, keep it up you SE purists !:)

CW:)

[No1Dear]

Reluctant to buy in to this but here goes anyway.

Most ASEPTA approvals do not allow for night flying.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, ie route selection is a major factor in the safety of ASEPTA.

There are many routes where a van will be in gliding range of a runway at all times, without even considering other area's suitable to land in an emergency.

Can't think of any pilots who have been trained and approved for ASEPTA who have any major concerns about the operation.

A number of the views expressed in this thread have shown a lack of full knowledge of ASEPTA operations.

[pithblot]

After years of flying clapped out piston twins, tired turbo props and geriatric jets, I had the pleasure of flying a PC12 on a demo flight. What a pleasant experience it was! Great aeroplane! It was the first new aeroplane I´d flown, everything worked, it smelled good and I was left with the distinct impression that this must be just about the best private aircraft produced.


And I think that´s where it should have remained – as a private machine. Most passengers don´t count the number of engines, they just expect them to fly. And they usually do, from piston singles up, in a properly run commercial venture with adequate maintenance and well trained pilots.


The article by Gordon Gilbert posted by Mainframe (#48) says ´ Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry´ and that the UK CAA won´t allow ASETPA operations. There is good reason for this. And the reason will become obvious when surviving relatives of the first Australian ASETPA passenger fatality complain that nobody told them the aeroplane would not fly after an engine failure.


In Australia, the horse has bolted. It’s now too late to change the rules. But I think ASETPA operators should be required to inform their passengers of the approval and detailed information should be available on a web site, maybe as part of the operator´s AOC.


At least this way intending passengers could make an informed choice whether or not to fly IFR at night in a Single.


PITHBLOT

[Capt Wally]

Well said 'pithblot', yr statement 'private' flying says it all. That's where no one 'has' to go flying if the wx isn't suitable.

No ones disputing the advantages of ASETPA those rules are there for good reasons & work well. But those regs & others can't cover all situations for SE failure at night in cloud & hence we have most of IFR chrt esspecially at night done in multi eng craft.

There's stats that could argue the twin versus single all day everyday in fav of the single, but at the end of the day........would you fly in a SE A/C (of any kind) at night in cloud over tiger country?............if yes then YOU haven't got a problem, if not, then you have made a smart choice. Life is all about choices, go choose one that suits you !:)

Personal opiniuons as always:)

CW

[Pinky the pilot]

The PC12 glides 2.5nm per 1000' so remaining within gliding distance of an aerodrome would not be a problem

Hmm, that works out to a L/D ratio of around 13:1, which for the Gliding types reading these pages would be approximately the same as an ASW 20 with half dive brakes at a flap setting of +4.:eek:

I have no experience in S/E Turbine or M/E Turbine (command anyway) for that matter but I really don't feel comfortable with the S/E option in RPT.

Just my two Toea worth.

[Capt Wally]

:)hey 'pinky' that 2.5 for a 1000ft loss in the PC12 probably is about right seeing as the B200 says in the POH 2 nm per 1000ft loss (nil wind). Not too shabby for a blunt object!:)

CW

[bushy]

How many PC 12'S are flying charter or RPT services in Australia?
I think the RFDS fly most of them. Aboriginal Air tried to, and failed.

[beeva]

Getting back to the actual engine failure of the 208 at TSV.., has anyone heard the possible cause of the failure yet?

With regards to the electronic disharge through to the no1 bearing failures, I beleive that only happened on the 600hp engine fitted with the lucas starter/gen..

[Mainframe]

Werbil.

The ignition system is rated for continuous operation?

suggest you re read the POH / AFM and note the limitations specified.

I still wonder at what smoke and mirrors trick produced the ASETPA compliance for the ignition system.

It is a great aircraft for what you do with it, (and I believe most amphibs have a 2nd ignition unit installed so that you can
swap the connections over if it doesn't go "tick-tick----tick-tick" during start, which they sometimers dont.

And yes, I have had the unwanted experience of riding one down when it went quiet. (good landing, nil damage, nil injuries).

can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin,
I've also brought one of those home to an aerodrome of my choice, unlike the se turbine, where I had a certificate that said it cant happen, and if does,
good luck!

and apart from all the stuff from the NTSB, here's another a different TSB.

TSB: final report on Cessna 208 engine failure accident


The Canadian TSB issued the final report of their investigation into the January 2006 accident of a Cessna 208B aircraft near Port lberni. It was en route at 9000 feet above sea level, from Tofino, British Columbia, to Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia, when the engine failed. The pilot began a glide in the direction of the Port Alberni Regional Airport before attempting an emergency landing on a logging road. The aircraft struck trees during a steep right-hand turn and crashed. Five passengers survived with serious injuries; the pilot and the other two passengers were fatally injured.

It was concluded that the engine lost power when a compressor turbine blade failed as a result of the overstress extension of a fatigue-generated crack. The fracture initiated at a metallurgical anomaly in the parent blade material and progressed, eventually resulting in blade failure due to overstress rupture

The combination of aircraft position at the time of the engine failure, the lack of equipment enabling the pilot to locate and identify high terrain, and the resultant manoeuvring required to avoid entering instrument flight conditions likely prevented the pilot from attempting to glide to the nearest airfield. (TSB)

TSB Report Number A06P0010: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2006/a06p0010/a06p0010.asp

(aviation-safety.net)

The PT6 is not bullet proof, it is not unstoppable, nor was the Titanic the unsinkable ship.

Horses for courses, the C208 are great at what they were designed for (think about it)
but ASETPA somehow compromises the safety standards that a paying passenger may be entitled to.

Yes, I fly SE IFR / Night, but not with paying pax. I know the risks, I hope I can manage them, but I cant guarantee that I can.

I think I can get a tired 402, Chieftain or Baron home on one, and have done so.

I've also had the sadness of no noise in a single, fortunately, day, VFR.

Hats off to the police pilot again, but did he need that risk exposure?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Mainframe,

Last time i looked at the requirements for ASETPA, having an ignition system that could operate continuosly was one of the qualifying requirements.

Whilst i have not had an engine failure, in the 1100 hours of PT6 ( -114 and -34 ) flying i have, at mainly low levels, never did it let me down, can not recall how many dozens of "issues" I experienced with pistons in that time.

I guess the real question to ask is:

In a million hours of flight in a C208/PA31 how many:

1) engine failures did the C208 have, versus,
2) the number of double engine failures the PA31 experienced.

That is comparing apples with apples.

[Desert Duck]

A Training and Checking Captain once told me that he would be happy to fly a B200 anywhere in the world in any weather.

He also said that he would be happy to fly a PC12 anywhere in the world in any weather.

Having operated the PC12 and B200 I have to agree 100%

The discussion on this thread is very interesting, unfortunately a lot of people have a fear / prejudice of /to SE turbines and very few will be swayed by reading about it.

I have known many over the years who have overcome that prejudice once they have operated the PC12 and realize what a fantastic and safe aircraft that it is.

[Mainframe]

LHRT,

Good call, total power loss in SE turbine vs total power loss in ME piston twin.

Sounds like apples vs apples to me.

by the way, very good response to the C310 -402 fuel system in another post, you've done your homework.

Anyone want to publish the max continuous ignition cycle duty in a PT6A-114 from the POH, before I do?
No prizes for the first correct entry (clue: the time is in minutes, not hours and minutes!)

Its certainly not continuous!!! as required for ASETPA.

The PT6, or any turbine, is just NOT bullet proof thats all, (just a really good power plant) as most of us have asked to believe.

And I restate, the PT6 is a good engine, but not mythical.

[werbil]

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower,

To compare apples with apples you need to compare how many

a) engine failures the C208 had
less engine failures in a C208 where the pilot landed on a runway using only normal, straightforward flight manouvers in day VMC (ie no superior skill / luck).

with

b) double engine failures a PA31 experienced
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on remaining runway after aborting the take off
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on other than a runway or overran a runway on landing
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 which subsequently crashed
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where the pilot only just maintained terrain clearance but was still able to land on a runway.

Admittedly there are not many of any of any of these in b, but they do occur.

W

[werbil]

Mainframe,

From memory the only time referred to in the POH is that the ignition must be turned on for five minutes after opening the inertial separator when encountering conditions conducive to intake icing.

I do not believe there is a time limitation listed in section 2 of the POH, but I will check tomorrow.

W

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

actually after a few more bundy's, i think the ASETPA had a 60 minute continual option, with the EPL, or something similar.

Here it is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/aac/part-1/1-116.htm

2: An ignition system which can be selected 'ON" and has a duty cycle greater than one hour.

[Carrier]

I suggest you look at three threads, two on PPRuNe and one on another site.
The first is titled “Sonicblue TSB Report to be Released” and it may be found in the General Comments (Canada) forum of www.avcanada.ca
The second is titled “Van has engine failure in Tanzania” and it may be found in the African Aviation forum of PPRuNe. Take a good look at the statistics reference by Shenzi Rubani in his post dated 21/10/04, and then note his comment at the end regarding various PT6 powered twins.
The third is titled “Pilatus PC-12s” and it may be found in the Biz Jets & GA forum of PPRuNe. It also dates from 2004.

[Capt Wally]

Excellent post 'mainframe'.

At post #12 I started the thread drift unwittingly towards the pros & cons of SE versus Twins, & i'm not sorry I did, been very interesting indeed.So far we haven't broken down into a slanging match as I've seen on a lot of other threads with the theme. "them versus" us !:bored:

It's simple really yr either for the idea of SE chrt flight in IMC or yr not, I'm the latter purely 'cause of self preservation. I've enjoyed the banter back & forth here from a lot with experience in both types of flying. Some have showed good cause as to the advantages (of which there are many but only in VFR conditions) of SE flight in chrt ops but at the end of the day some just don't get it ! But like i've said here a few times we have choice & believe that with this choice we can guarantee (to the best of our ability) a safe transit ONLY if in multi eng A/C !:)

"can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin, ".............These words quoted by "Mainframe" says it all but it is just his opinion of which I happen to agree along with others in here.
Please continue with facts & figures on both sides, we as pilots can only achieve one thing here, & that's LEARN:)

CW:)

[werbil]

Mainframe,

As previously advised in an earlier post there is no time limit on use of ignition in C208 according to the POH. Section 2 (Limitations) does not mention the ignition system. Section 7 (System Descriptions) suggests when it should be used, the only mention of time is to turn on the ignition and leave it on for five minutes after opening the separator following an inadvertent icing encounter. Section 7 also advises that the ignition should be switched on in heavy precipitation with no mention of maximum time. I could find nothing in Sections 2 & 3, nor in the known icing supplement S1 that contradicts the above information.

W

[werbil]

Capt Wally,

How about we stop perpetrating the myth that ASEPTA is unsafe.

In most circumstances you will be better off in a twin engine aircraft following the failure of a single propulsion system compared to a single engine aircraft.


However, given exactly the same powerplant reliability you are twice as likely to experience a propulsion system failure in a twin engine aircraft compared to a single engine aircraft for the same flight time (accruing twice as many engine hours per flight hours).


According to Professional Surveyor Magazine September 2007 Volume 27 Number 9 in the article “Aerial Perspective: Flying Dollars and Sense” by Steven E. Scates (http://www.profsurv.com/archive.php?issue=130&article=0)“Federal Aviation Administration studies indicate that piston engines in aircraft have a failure rate, on average, of one every 3,200 flight hours while turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours. Accordingly, for every turbine engine experiencing a failure, 117 piston engines will have failed. In other words, turbine engines are more than 11,700 percent more reliable than piston engines.”

Using these statistics (which I don’t think can be correct as I think that piston engines would be more reliable than that), you are 238 times more likely to have an engine failure during a particular take off in a piston twin than in a turbine single. Even if we assume that the piston engine failure rate is only one every 10,000 hours you are still 75 times more likely to have any engine failure in a piston twin than in a turbine single for the same flight time.

ASEPTA not only requires engine reliability, it requires procedures to be followed to reduce the risk of injuries / fatalities should an engine failure occur. Townsville was an example of how following these procedures further reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities.

Crashworthiness is another factor. According to AOPA Online (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2005/sp0506.html)June 2005 Volume 48 / Number 6 the article “Safety Pilot: The Way to Fly” By Bruce Landsberg (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2005/sp0506.html) states that “The "lethality index," or percentage of accidents that result in death, in singles is about one in 10 while in twins it runs in the 50-percent range, or one out of two.”

[Chimbu chuckles]

werbil that article is a classic example of statistics and damn lies. If you quote the entire paragraph a somewhat different inference can be drawn.

With engine failures, basic statistics tell the story. There are far more single-engine accidents because a lot more singles are flying and, if the engine stops, an accident or at least an off-airport landing is a high probability. In multiengine aircraft there are very few accidents, and we have no record of how many engine failures there are when the aircraft landed safely. However, in those incidents where a twin does have an accident it is much more likely to be fatal. The "lethality index," or percentage of accidents that result in death, in singles is about one in 10 while in twins it runs in the 50-percent range, or one out of two. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and that's why so much multiengine training is devoted to single-engine operations.

Which makes his 'lethality index' pure BS.

and that's why so much multiengine training is devoted to single-engine operations.

Take out the accidents that happen during ME training caused by abject stupidity and the scales tip even further in favour of twins.

By his statistics I should be dead when the reality is that every engine/prop failure I have had led to a forced landing in the singles, with varying degrees of damage, and controlled return to a runway in the twins with no damage.

[Mainframe]

Werbil,

You are correct in that the Limitations section does not state an ignition system limitation.
However, there are many references to limiting the useage to no more than 5 minutes.
The following refers to the C208, 600SHP version. (Similar information will be found in the C208B manual with slight differences in page numbering.)

In lieu of Auto Ignition, ASETPA certification in Australia requires that the ignition system (exciter and ignitors etc)
have a demonstrated duty cycle in excess of one hour.



It is interesting to note the references in the C208 Operating Handbook appearing to restrict the use of continuous ignition to periods of five minutes
(refer pages 3-13B, 4-28, 7-39) and stating that it is normally only energized during starting (7-38) and that use for extended periods of time
will reduce ignition system component life (4-28).



When it is considered that the normal duty cycle for the ignition system is around 15 seconds during engine start,
a five minute limiting period equates to twenty start cycles of 15 seconds each.,
hence the note explaining the reduction in component life if used for extended periods.

Ask your engineer if there will be any problem if you select Ignition ON and leave it in that mode for all flight phases.
(yes, there will be a reduced life of the ignitors, and the High Energy Supply source.)

Your operation in an Amphib Van, mostly over water, in VFR, gives you far better options for the quiet times, as the Tassie operator will attest.

Again, go to the NTSB site and review the large amount of quiet times that have occurred, also the Transport Canada site, and the Sth African site.

Like CC, I have come home on one in a twin, and wasn't able to bring a single home on none.

If you operate a S/E turbine in IMC or at night, dont assume that the power plant is unstoppable,
and remember the turbine manufacturers and the various TSB's around the world use the IFSD terminolgy, not engine failure terminology.

Enjoy the van, but respect its limitations, even if it does have a good glide, a large amount of luck is also needed to get into Townsville dead stick in IMC.

TAWS-B would significantly reduce the risk factor, but surprisingly the ASETPA rules dont mandate that tool.

MF

[flog]

With regards to the electronic disharge through to the no1 bearing failures, I beleive that only happened on the 600hp engine fitted with the lucas starter/gen..

There's an 'quote' in the automotive industry - "Lucas, Lord of Darkness"

[Capt Wally]

Hey 'chimba' yr fighting a loosing battle here mate with some. It's a bit like 'selective deafness'..........some only want to hear/read what they want to!
My original posts way back in this thread where more aimed at the risks involved & therefore the low chance of survival of an eng failure in a SE plane of any nature at night in IMC over tiger country. NOT when yr within gliding range of a suitable airport, it's approachable as in there's no need for an actual inst app & everything else is going for you etc. Oh & you have excess height to play with in the first place. That's not when yr likely to come a cropper it's when yr low, say only a few miles from the dep AD & have entered IMC with hills in all directions ! That's the difference that I feel is TOO risky to accept, but then again I'm not silly enough to believe that they (SE's) are safer in the first place !:ugh: Stats to say othyerwise won't be of much comfort to yr family & friends is the unthinkable happens!

CW:)

[NOSIGN]

hey PinkyTP, if the pc12 glides at 2.5nm per 1000', that's 15190'/1000' which is a glide ratio of approx 15:1 not 13:1. I guess you did say "around".

[heywatchthis]

Was in TVL today, while i didnt see any 208's, I saw a pretty sad dinged up 207. What happened there?

[werbil]

Mainframe,

Whilst there are a number of places where the five minutes are referenced in relation to switching on the igniter after encountering unexpected icing, there are many instances where this time limit is not mentioned - heavy precipitation, separator fails to open in icing conditions, operation off wet or slush covered runways, low fuel reservoir light on, following flame out if you can't establish a reason etc off the top of my head.

I have no argument that running the ignition continuously will reduce its life - and I have had an igniter exciter fail on me on start - fortunately at base, and not 40nm offshore.

The ASEPTA requirement is that it must be capable of being run continuously for at least an hour - the fact that Cessna or Pratt advise that excessive use will shorten the life of the component is not part of the criteria. And lets face it, using an aircraft shortens its life but we still do it.

The important issue is not whether or not the aircraft gets you home, but whether or not people are injured or killed. I have long had the attitude that when things go pear shaped the hull immediately belongs to the insurance company and my number one consideration is to get everyone down in one piece (usually the best way to guarantee this is by getting the plane down in one piece).

With more than 10 pax TAWS-B+ is mandatory, and as most C208's used for RPT will be 'B's with the 14 seat configuration most will have it fitted.

W

PS The quiet times are not that inviting when over 3m seas with 25 knots on the surface. Yes, I believe that the C208 with its single PT6 is more likely to get me home than a R985 in a DHC-2, but I still wear a PFD and 406 PLB in both when over water.

[werbil]

Chimbu Chuckles,

The statistic you referred to is fatality probability in an accident in a twin vs a single, not following an engine failure. As I assume you haven't bent a twin his statistics for twins are not applicable in your case.

I believe your post http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=663740&postcount=4 is very well thought out and reasoned. I will not quote your post as it is quite long and all very relevant even though it is discussing piston singles vs piston twins. I strongly recommend anyone following this thread read it.

Whilst I acknowledge a lot of twin engine failure accidents are caused by stupidity in training, of those accidents that occur following an engine failure in a twin in real life, a significant number result from inappropriate actions by the flight crew. I can also recollect a number of high profile fatality accidents in Australia over the last twenty years following an engine failure in a twin. Some of these prompted changes to the carriers liability act, and another changed the requirement for carriage of life jackets in aircraft.

W

[Mainframe]

Werbil

We can go on for ages but there is no point. I'm a myth buster at heart, and there is a myth that needs busting, based on personal experience.

The PT6 - 114 variants are the only ( ONLY) PT6's without auto ignition. The ASETPA normally requires Auto Ignition,
but a "demonstrated" 60 minutes or more of a non auto system is accepted.

(the PC12 has auto ignition, as does the remainder of the PT6 family that the PT6-114 depends on for ASETPA certification,
it is just not available, standard or optional, on the C208, end of story!)

frankly, this is B'****! it is a twist of the rules to achieve compliance.
I've had igniter exciter failures, and so have you, and others.

Most amphibs have a 2nd exciter unit available, but require a manual change over of the connectors to bring it online.
So if you're 40nm offshore and it doesn't go "tick tick" you can get out, open the cowls and swap the connectors.

You cant do that in flight.

Cessna does not encourage SE turbine IFR/Night Charter in the US, only in 3rd world countries where it doesn't really matter,
like Sth America, Africa and Australia, as a few examples.

Make your own choices as a pilot, but fully inform your passengers of the reduced margin of safety and significantly increased risk
that you are prepared to accept on their behalf.

after all, they rely on you and your company, as a duty of care, to fully inform them.

And again, I fly SE and ME IFR night, and that includes ASETPA.

There is a marketing consortium dedicated to coercing 3rd world countries such as Australia that "its OK".

The UK have wisely decided that its not "OK" for RPT or IFR Charter, they take the view that a quiet time at night or in IMC will most likely result in fatalities.

Regardless of your or my or any ones opinion on SE turbines, they are most likely to be proven correct, hence no approval. End of story.

[werbil]

Capt Wally,

ASEPTA is not about flying low level over tiger country.

In RPT ASEPTA operations, there is a route requirement that the aircraft cannot fly further than fifteen minutes cruise outside of gliding distance to a suitable aerodrome.

One of the guys I work with used to fly night freight in C208's. Even flying freight they flew over aerodromes rather than taking the direct route - the company policy was quite specific that direct track shortening was NOT to be accepted. On the Melbourne to Sydney route this added significant flight time.

If you fly ASEPTA according to the CASA procedures / recommendations, you fly in a manner to remain within gliding distance of the departure aerodrome as much as possible.

I assume when you fly a twin, you climb at a speed where you will be able to control the aircraft and continue to climb following an engine failure. ASEPTA requires a different style of flying and mindset compared to flying twins to minimize the risk of accidents following an engine failure.


W

[Mainframe]

Werbil

On night freight, if it goes quiet, they will usually be able to recover most of the freight and forward it on another flight or road transport.

Not so for the pilot.

Lets not even think about the trusting fare paying passengers.

The van has been extremely successful for night freight, doesn't matter if goes quiet.

At what point are you going to understand that there may be trusting passngers on board who dont know it cant keep flying on none,
despite statistics that say its allright if it goes down somewher you didnt intend.

There is simply no backup or redundant source of propulsion. What is hard about understanding that?

Forget the statistics. quiet times do happen, more often than some of us seem to want to recognize.

[Justin Grogan]

Werbil,

Check your PM's!

[Capt Wally]

"Werbil " Like my comrade here on this subject 'Mainframe" am sure he too respects the rules & regs pertaining to ASEPTA although it's not the answer in all cases.(those 15 mins would seem like forever!) The restrictions as you mentioned might be well & good for RPT & certain other ops for Eg. but I did mention many posts ago what about the non RPT operator that uses SE turbines (or any type of SE airframe) such as the RFDS where some flights that don't go to plan exactly such as a safer route & diversions are common. Yr word 'minimize' the risks is what I believe any paying pax in a SE chrt/rpt wouldn't want to read on the back of their ticket under conditions of flight if there wa such a thing!

Many in here for the use of SE planes for IFR chtr keep reffering back to some beliefs that twins have twice the eng failure rate & many crash after an eng failure anyway. Whilst I can see & believe to some degree those sentiments if an eng does fail on a twin you have options to some degree (yes it's not a given right that yr as safe as eggs I understand that) but the loss of the ONLY powerplant means yr options INCLUDE a guarenteed forced landing with the obvious added fact that the paper work alone would outweigh the advantages of the cheaper operating costs!:bored: Remember at the end of the day the advatages of the cheaper operating costs will ALL be gone after just one eng failure that didn't work out as per the ASEPTA guidlines!

Still I respect the beliefs of others in here I'm not really tyring to convince anybody per say just to be part of an informed group who like I've said in the past have 'choice' ! I choose not to be that foolish with my life when flying.

CW:)

[Callisthenes]

If anyone can help me with this, I'm guessing it's someone who's posting in this thread...

Does anyone know of an incident where a pilot has navigated to a safe landing in a SE after an en route engine failure in IMC?

I'm not clear yet on whether this one actually was IMC, or how far out he was from the airport when the engine failed.

[morno]

Yes, the pilot was in IMC at the time, down to near ILS minima's. The distance was about 6nm's.

morno

[Arm out the window]

"The PT6 - 114 variants are the only ( ONLY) PT6's without auto ignition."

I'm pretty sure the -62 doesn't.

[OpsNormal]

Callisthenes. Many years ago there was a C210 (Tim'sFlyingInferno) that caught fire and shut down the engine (from what I understand) just after attaining cruise altitude south of Darwin one night in IMC that had a successful outcome back onto the ground in Darwin.

There are many here who will verify it.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[Shanty]

Morno/Callis

departed rwy 19, at 8nm through 4,500feet. oil line fracture somewhere on the way. 180 degree turnback. wx and heavy rain. popped out at or below minima for rwy 01.

[Callisthenes]

Thanks for the info guys, I appreciate it. It sounds like a great job to have pulled it off.

Any chance the TFI pilot's around to tell his story?

[BEACH KING]

I forget the exact year (C185 Skywagon will probably remember it better) but it was around 1996, a C210 enroute from Windorah at night in pretty much IMC booted a cylinder off and it landed here OK. The guy was lucky Wouldn't have wanted to happen a bit earlier though

[Capt Wally]

........hey "BK" you said the cylinder got booted off & landed here ok, fair enough but what about the rest of the plane?.......where did it land?:E
Lucky fella's that for sure!

V35 had eng failure some years ago over the hunter valley somewhere at night I think it was, pilot survived but with lasting injuries. Anyway remember that event?
Dr that ought to get YOU thinking:-):)

CW:ok:

[Capt Wally]

............VH-CFH, that nearly drove me nuts, had to go back thru several log books to find the rego of the V35 I flew a few times back in the 80's. Ended up as per my previous post, I think ! Now Dr go do ya best!:)

CW:)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Dr that ought to get YOU thinking:-):)"

Been thinking about it for many years Wally!

I rarely fly at night. If I do, it is generally only the last hour or so to get home.

I know my aeroplane, know how it is flown and how it is maintained.

The guy that did the last rebuild was a genius cause it is the sweetest sounding IO520 I have heard. Just purrs along.

70,000+ nm to date without missing a beat! I'll take my chances!

If I didn't fly IFR, the aeroplane would be of limited value to me. YBTL can be a pig of a place to get in and out of VFR - but IFR is usually only a climb to on-top on departure and a cloud break on arrival.

If and when I splatter the FTDK (and myself) I expect you to post a thread in here titled "I told him so!" But don't weep for me, my friend - there is no better way to go than in a Bonanza!

Dr :8

[Pinky the pilot]

Slight thread drift!

there is no better way to go than in a Bonanza!



Forky, I would tend to disagree!! In a horizontal position with a smile on your face, as per a few late politicians I could name (but won't!) would be preferable!!:E

Sorry Taily, Much ado, Tid et al. Could'nt resist it.

[Capt Wally]

......ah Dr my learned friend, 'twill be a sad day when the Bo takes you places that you don't want to go !! :) the chances of having a total eng failure are slim (as you have demostrated) & it's all about personal risk. I wouldn't purposely fly IFR in IMC @ NGT in a SE but many do (obviously). If I remember further to that V tail that went in as I mentioned before here the crankshaft broke, i could be wrong as it was a long time ago so no amount of maint will avoid such rare happenings!:bored:
I won't be saying "I told ya so" if it ever happens I'll be sadened as PPRUNE needs a Dr every now & then !:)......ahhhh look you ain't going anywhere & neither am I, we have much to do here like keeping the youngin's on their low experienced toes !:)

This extention to this thread might seem odd but do they make those balistic chutes for A/C as heavy as the Bo? I guess 3X on a space capsule worked, might need about 6 on theh Bo though with all that fancy gear onbaord Dr `!:E

CW:)

[werbil]

The ATSB report has released their report here 200800024 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200800024.aspx) - it is quite an interesting read / look.

The amount of destruction caused following the fatigue failure of one CT blade is an eye opener - especially considering the failure occurred only 215 hours after a HSI, and only 2,007 hours after an overhaul where all the CT blades were replaced with new ones.