PDA

View Full Version : PT6 Failure


av8trflying
31st Dec 2009, 01:18
A skydiving caravan in Cairns just had a total engine failure at 12,000ft.

Glided back to the field safely.

Well done that man.:ok:

Super Cecil
31st Dec 2009, 01:24
Fuel systems failure?

av8trflying
31st Dec 2009, 01:26
Pilot said he doesn't know. Tried a restart but nothing. All skydivers got out at 12

Howard Hughes
31st Dec 2009, 01:36
Skydivers weren't responsible perchance? They have been known to take the occasional thing, like keys!:eek:

OK, OK, I know Caravans don't have keys...well not start them anyway!

toolowtoofast
31st Dec 2009, 02:12
I've had the mixture pulled by the DZ/aircraft owner, but never the keys. If someone did pull my keys, they would be nursing a very sore jaw about 5 minutes later, and I would refuse to ever take them up again. The guys at my DZ know this, so we're all on the same page :)

Back to the subject - highly unusual for a pT6 to give out without some outside influence like overtemp or overtorque or underfuelling, however poor maintennance will of course lead to failure (more often though lead to reduced performance, which leads to high temps etc...)

lk978
31st Dec 2009, 02:44
nice work... see its not true what they say about skydive drivers they can actually fly :D

harder then it sounds from that altitude it is almost too much altitude would have been a slower decent than normal

ps i doubt any skydiver would mess around with a Caravan, they do sit pretty close to the FC lever though

The Green Goblin
31st Dec 2009, 03:52
Those pesky PT6s playing up again hey?

kam16
31st Dec 2009, 05:11
Well done to the pilot did a super job from SW of aerodrome left downwind snaking down final and an absolute greaser of a landing vacating at A3 under own steam so to speak.
No idea the reason for the failure but congradulations Mr Pilot you sounded very cool under pressure and never in doubt from our view:D:D.

VH-XXX
31st Dec 2009, 07:35
harder then it sounds from that altitude it is almost too much altitude would have been a slower decent than normal


Are you for real? What could you possibly mean by this? How on earth can you have too much altitude with an engine failure (unless you are ojn fire and even then it would be a good thing to help it burn out)? Anyone who couldn't pull off a perfect landing from 12,000ft should have their licence pulled off them, even if they are a GFPT !!!!! :ugh:

fasterblaster
31st Dec 2009, 09:02
12,000 feet
Very close to a 3km runway
No pax

Can't get much luckier than that, compare that to the poor guy in png!

Super Cecil
31st Dec 2009, 09:18
Will be interesting to see why it stopped. Recon a Caravan might go allright with an 1820 innut, you'd have to use avgas then.:}

Howard Hughes
31st Dec 2009, 11:34
Recon a Caravan might go allright with an 1820 innut, you'd have to use avgas then.
And oil!;)

zac21
2nd Jan 2010, 01:01
Does anyone know why it stopped yet ?????

Ref + 10
2nd Jan 2010, 01:53
If I had an engine failure in anything I'd want it to be in a van

or maybe a twin :O

Well done to the guy. I'll bet the pax were happy they had those bags on their backs.

There seemed to be a bunch of vans having engine failures around the world. For a while a year or two ago they always seemed to be in the accident reports of Australian Aviation. I know of 3 PT6 failures in King Airs and Vans. No of them happened to me thankfully but one of them was particularly concerning as the casing didn't contain the blades as they parted company from the turbine wheel.

It's good to hear that everyone was fine.

rigpiggy
2nd Jan 2010, 02:10
Narrative:
En route from Tofino to Vancouver, the pilot issued a mayday and wanted to divert to Port Alberni Airport, BC (YPB). The aircraft did not make it and crashed in the woods, some 10 km from the airport.

CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS AS TO CAUSES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
1. 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.

2. 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.

glekichi
2nd Jan 2010, 04:10
There's a 'van' operating out of EN these days often (shifty business) & wonder what the ability of same would be if an eng failure occurred at say 300ft on a typical day say 10 kts H/W. Can these big lumbering ducklings turn & glide back to the rwy from that height?

I'm no van man, never flown one, but my guess is that at EN you would hit 300ft with half the runway remaining and have plenty of room to land.

I'd still rather a King Air!

tail wheel
2nd Jan 2010, 05:22
"...casing didn't contain the blades as they parted company from the turbine wheel."

Compressor turbine?

Surprising the failure was not contained as the -114 has a containment ring around the CT wheel.

In respect to 'Van engine failures, I wonder how many of those had daily compressor washes, engine trend monitoring systems and regular boroscope inspections?

fencehopper
2nd Jan 2010, 05:48
The pilot has now set a standard for those tight ass tandem operators. They will want him to dead stick after every drop to save engine time and fuel.

Howard Hughes
2nd Jan 2010, 06:13
I second Wally's comments, it's great to work somewhere where even the slightest abnormality is taken seriously!

Keep up the good work guys!:ok:

Super Cecil
2nd Jan 2010, 06:28
There have been failures to things other than bad maintenance and throttle bashing, and to resonably low hour powerplants.

Howard Hughes
2nd Jan 2010, 06:42
Occasionally things break without warning, but if you take care of the areas you can control, then you are minimising the risk.

Of the six people I know who have had engine failures in turbines, five were FCU failures! :eek:

VH-XXX
2nd Jan 2010, 06:59
where even the slightest abnormality is taken seriously!

like when the second backup AH fails, bummer.

manymak
2nd Jan 2010, 08:34
In respect to 'Van engine failures, I wonder how many of those had daily compressor washes, engine trend monitoring systems and regular boroscope inspections?

If van's (or any S/E turbine) are operating as part of a ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) approval it is a requirement they undertake daily comp washes and have trend monitor systems fitted to those aircraft.

Lasiorhinus
2nd Jan 2010, 08:42
Wasn't VH-DVS, was it? If so, it's the second engine failure in 18 months- and the first one had absolutey nothing to do with fuel.

manymak
2nd Jan 2010, 08:48
Wasn't VH-DVS, was it? If so, it's the second engine failure in 18 months- and the first one had absolutey nothing to do with fuel.

Didn't the ARO find turbine power blades on the rwy? :eek:

werbil
2nd Jan 2010, 09:45
Caravan Pilots • View topic - Caravan Accident (http://www.caravanpilots.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=796) contains some interesting comments regarding an engine failure in a C208.

Arnold E
2nd Jan 2010, 09:46
If the second A/H fails, please explain to me how you handle that?:confused:
To be honest, I am interested in how you know the second A/H HAS failed.

werbil
2nd Jan 2010, 10:28
Arnold E:

Secondary instruments (which is the ONLY way you can tell a single AH has failed or determine which AH has failed if you have 2):

Turn cordinator & dg (compass in worst case) for lateral.
Power plus performance for pitch.

Big beef with my training was did a bit of limited panel work, but there was no training on how to diagnose a suspect insturment.

One AH failure I had was obvious - the thing was showing a roll rate of about 1400 degrees per second. You could even feel the vibration through the airframe.

werbil

PS - the most insidious instrument failure I've had was a partial blockage of a pitot tube - airspeed indicator was undereading by about 20 knots. At least with a blocked static system the constant altitude indication gives you a very good hint to treat the airspeed indication with extreme caution.

VH-XXX
2nd Jan 2010, 11:18
Arnold, there was sarcasm in my post. I said second backup, as in AH #3.

Have a mate that flies and he was telling me how he comes to work for the day, checks everything, finds the tiniest of issue (eg failed second backup), declares ac us, collects his $500 and goes home again. It would be good to think that all operators were like that. (sorry thread drift)?

Arnold E
2nd Jan 2010, 11:25
the thing was showing a roll rate of about 1400 degrees per second.
An A/H showing a roll rate of 1400 degrees /sec?? please explain??:confused:

Do you mean it had toppled?
Just for information, an A/H is not a rate gyro.

werbil
2nd Jan 2010, 12:07
The AH was indicating that the aircraft was rolling completely around the longitudinal axis about 4 times each second - hence the calculated roll rate.

It had failed - I'm pretty sure it ended up just lolling about when it stopped spinning - I can't remember for sure - it did happen about 15 years ago. It's funny the bits you remember - I could show you on a map where it occured within a radius of a about half a mile - I was climbing at the time - possibly in a shallow right hand turn.

Arnold E
2nd Jan 2010, 12:16
Hmmm, ok gymbal lock.

YMEN
2nd Jan 2010, 15:56
It was VH-UMV, not VH-DVS!

YMEN
3rd Jan 2010, 02:13
Ah you jumped with SAM! Top Bloke!

BackdoorBandit
3rd Jan 2010, 04:17
Al's dodgy vans are everywhere. It is no surprise that the last two letters of the rego are "MV".

littlehurcules
3rd Jan 2010, 07:27
Stay well clear of any plane ending with "MV"

Like the man - the planes are dodgy as well

beaver_rotate
3rd Jan 2010, 12:14
Big Al has his own McRnav's into Tully he's making the kids fly.

I mean it's not like QLD's HIGHEST LSALT is nearby or anything.

CASA know and have been watching, many a trip to Tully one of the CS FOI's told me.

So boys, if you have these approaches loaded into your Vans, I would delete them quick smart (if you get my drift) ;)

j3pipercub
3rd Jan 2010, 13:44
So it was U hey? Hmm interesting. All of the MV's were on a system of maintenance, I believe to try and extend the life of the donk, last I heard M was past 6k on its donk. Thought with the exception of O, U had the lowest time engine.

Something to do with the cool starts and the short-circuiting of the over-voltage protection (32 volt battery cart if memory serves). Just don't touch the avionics masters with the cart plugged in, lest the magic blue smoke start to pour out of the radion stack, or so I've heard.

Arm out the window
4th Jan 2010, 01:13
CASA know and have been watching, many a trip to Tully one of the CS FOI's told me.

You would think a bit of action rather than just knowing and watching would be in order.

Josh Cox
4th Jan 2010, 04:21
AOW,

I think you'll agree that there is a big difference between "knowing something" and "knowing something, having evidence and credible witnesses to collaborate the evidence".

The only reason some feel they can get away with this behaviour is due to witnesses not presenting themselves.

There are trustworthy FOI's within CASA FNQ, one that will not burn your future employment prospects ( infact quite to the contrary ).

excellr8
4th Jan 2010, 04:25
Couple of points from previous comments.
1. Al's Caravans operate to a lower 'Normal Condition' ITT temp limit. Much lower than the 'book' limit.
2.Increasing the voltage during a external power start only benefits the engine by getting the engine past self sustaining RPM faster thereby reducing the peak temperature.
3. BackdoorBandit - Your opinion of The Caravan Operation to which Al is involved in is clearly limited. Maybe your too young or maybe have a bone to pick however only a few operators have actaully invested in Capital to bring these much newer aircraft into skydiving operations. This has result in the whole operation being conducted with a lot more professionalism from engineering through to flight operations. Maybe get the movie Fandango, Now that is what skydiving used to be. Thanks to Al and a few other operators it's a whole different scene.
4. Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them. If you use them it's illegal in IMC and you better know what your doing. It's up to the pilot not the aeroplane owner to determine what risks they are willing to take. I know Al does not want his plane driven into the side of a hill and Im sure all the people that come through the operation are respected for saying no if they are not comfortable with the conditions.

VH-XXX
4th Jan 2010, 05:16
There are a lot of allegations being thrown around in this thread. I hope everyone has the required evidence to back them up.

BackdoorBandit
4th Jan 2010, 06:39
BackdoorBandit - Your opinion of The Caravan Operation to which Al is involved in is clearly limited.

Lets just say, without giving away too much, that I have first hand knowledge of Al's pseudo professional outfit, and I know what makes the man tick.
No point in making any more derogatory statements.

Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them.

Are you serious? Lets just say that if you refuse to take that van up too many times - your job is on the line. To a low hour pilot (i.e. inexperienced, doesn't know any better) that is as good as a gun to the head.

av8trflying
4th Jan 2010, 08:39
A tip? Have your CIR before you work for him cause you WILL use it.
Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them.
Big Al has his own McRnav's into Tully he's making the kids fly.

Wow....This is absolutely amazing.
I remember a story once....you may have heard of it too.
There was this navajo driver who was known to push limits. Such as flying in icing conditions in an aircraft not fitted for it. Flew VFR plans when in known IMC. Made up his own IFR approaches. Flew in snow storms. Flew his own RNAV which followed a highway to below minimas which his company knew he did.
And do you know the ending of this story.....You betcha...he face planted on the side of a mountain. But here is the kicker, he killed two passengers as well.
I bet you have all have heard of this story before.
And yet this SHIT still goes on.:ugh:
I can see why when there are still the opinions above.:ugh:

YMEN
4th Jan 2010, 09:35
UMV was being leased by Skydive Cairns, Al still owns it.

And as for Al's Approaches into Tully, that is just not true!

John Eacott
4th Jan 2010, 09:43
Re PT6 failures, this one let go on me one sunny day in the North Sea :hmm:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/2013-1/G-BALZ+turbine+failure.jpg

Focuses the mind for moment or two ;)

j3pipercub
4th Jan 2010, 10:06
Let's all just be a little careful about flinging accusations, as XX said, unless you have hard proof (or the paper copy of the RNAV) then you could be in deep water pretty quick. Those of us that have worked for the outfit know what we have seen and heard, just leave it at that eh?

j3

av8trflying
4th Jan 2010, 11:35
Firstly Owen I wasnt accusing you of anything. Read my post better.

Now just to get things straight, because the aircraft is in the IFR category and has a cloud jumping manual you can create your own approach and fly it whenever you like? Is that what you are saying?

I NEVER said that you flew homemade RNAV approaches. The statement that you made was that you should have a CIR because you will use it. Correct me if I am wrong but all parachuting ops are VFR ops and a cloud jumping manual does not allow you to fly into IMC, it only lets parachutists jump through cloud.

Just so this doesnt go on forever, I do not agree with creating your own approach into an aerodrome. We can agree to disagree. As J3 said a lot of people know a lot of things.

aseanaero
4th Jan 2010, 11:52
tell ya the truth his emergency procedure training is the simplest and best I've come across

... ah the legendary 'Jedi Approach'

pcx
4th Jan 2010, 12:58
Hopefully the kids have finished fighting now.

I wonder if any one has any accurate information on why this engine failed.

VH-XXX
4th Jan 2010, 20:35
And do you know the ending of this story.....You betcha...he face planted on the side of a mountain. But here is the kicker, he killed two passengers as well.
I bet you have all have heard of this story before.

nice example av8trflying, but did you realise that the aircraft you speak of had an engine failure and the approach may have had nothing to do with the crash? This was conveniently ignored by investigators / regulators as part of the new ATSB pilot "profiling" where everthing you have ever done wrong in your career (fact or fiction) comes back to haunt you in the final ATSB report.

Lasiorhinus
4th Jan 2010, 23:52
nice example av8trflying, but did you realise that the aircraft you speak of had an engine failure and the approach may have had nothing to do with the crash?

Not correct.

ATSB Report Here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/pdf/aair200503265_001.pdf) Page 22: Damage to the engines and propellers was consistent with both engines delivering power at the time of impact.

av8trflying
5th Jan 2010, 00:18
Owen

Well that was my point. There are no published approaches for Tully. You could go to Innisfail 20nm away to get down, but i dont know how happy the boss would be on your fuel burn.

VH-XXX

I have read the debate regarding the accident in question and I have read both reports. I have my own opinion.

My overall point is the dangers in flying your own approaches and not sticking by the rules will one day bite you in the ass.

VH-XXX
5th Jan 2010, 00:37
Not correct.

ATSB Report Here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/pdf/aair200503265_001.pdf) Page 22: Damage to the engines and propellers was consistent with both engines delivering power at the time of impact.

Sorry but you are incorrect (correct in that you found this reference, however this has been proven as incorrect - the ATSB aren't perfect you know), hence my point about the ATSB (fact or fiction). This was done to death in another thread and independant engineers found that the engine was not running. I wonder what came of the court case on that.


I often wonder how you would feel if you were doing the right thing and crashed, but because others in your company often do the wrong thing (home-made approaches) or someone said that you sometimes do the wrong thing and you crash, then everyone points the finger at you?

aseanaero
5th Jan 2010, 03:45
Once upon a time civil IFR parachute drops were allowed until a civil B25 jump ship dropped 18 skydivers over Lake Erie in the USA and most of them drowned


Worst Civilian Skydiving Accident
August 28, 2007 6:17 AM http://mefi.us/images/mefi/feed10.png (http://www.metafilter.com/64215/Worst-Civilian-Skydiving-Accident/rss)Subscribe (http://www.metafilter.com/64215/Worst-Civilian-Skydiving-Accident/rss)

40 years ago yesterday, 18 experienced recreational skydivers took off in a converted World War II B-25 flying at 20,000 feet, intending to land at Ortner Field in Wakeman, Ohio. Expecting to free fall and then pop their chutes at 3,000 feet, after passing through the clouds at 4,000 feet, they instead plunged into Lake Erie, five miles from shore. FAA rules then and now bar skydiving through clouds, for obvious reasons. The plane's pilot wasn't rated to fly the craft but he also received bad information about his location from an air traffic controller in Oberlin: the controller mistook a Cessna observing the jump from a couple of miles away for the B-25. Two skydivers, one of whom had used his Styrofoam-lined helmet as a flotation device, were saved from the waters by a passing boater; 16 skydivers drowned. Oddly, one skydiver had told people the night before that, given a choice, he would take drowning as the way to go. He did not survive. The tragedy remains the worst recreational skydiving accident in history.

zac21
5th Jan 2010, 11:07
OK, I shall ask again, what was the cause of the stoppage,, CTor PT or Gear box problems,,, someone should know by now ?????

zac21
7th Jan 2010, 07:31
Someome should know something by now, or is it being kept quiet ?????

lk978
7th Jan 2010, 08:03
Why do you need to know so bad... wait for the report

or

why don't you call Al?

zac21
7th Jan 2010, 08:56
Call Al 'eh,,, sorry, I want the truth, or something closer to it.

lk978
7th Jan 2010, 09:40
well pprune is not really much help then is it?

Blinkensloppen
12th Jan 2010, 05:37
VH-XXX When you describe an independent engineering inspection of the engines you are of course talking about an engineer who was hired by the operator to do the inspections, as opposed to the ATSB who are answerable to no one. I think you better look up the term independent in the dictionary because I think you have the word confused with purchased.

VH-XXX
12th Jan 2010, 07:35
Thanks BS, I always take my advice from he who has only 2 posts. Your initials equal your on-line credibility.

Herky Turkey
12th Jan 2010, 07:44
You must regard your "post count" status quite highly VH-XXX. Not the first time I have read such a comment from you towards someone with a low number of posts either. Strange... :confused:

megle2
12th Jan 2010, 08:18
XXX - Have to agree, you post too much.

VH-XXX
12th Jan 2010, 11:06
You must regard your "post count" status quite highly VH-XXX. Not the first time I have read such a comment from you towards someone with a low number of posts either. Strange...

That's because people who like to stir up trouble always seem to go to the effort of registering a new username specifically for the purpose so we don't know who they are and can't link them to their previous posts, then we never hear from them again once the thread dies down.

A good example of this would be a recent thread started about "which flying school should I go to to learn to fly in city X" which I was later told was just bait to see what people will say about it, thus wasting the precious time of those that care enough to respond.

A high post count is no indication of credibility on here, however those with <5 or whatever posting definitively on situations/issues they know nothing about nor the people involved does arouse the suspicions of others.

Herky Turkey
12th Jan 2010, 11:12
hmmm well said. Fair enough.

the wizard of auz
12th Jan 2010, 13:48
Ah, its all about post count. I have heaps of posts, and I'm a Jedi, so therefore I am a guru. :E
Wally. I'm not going to bite.......... you know I wanna though. :}
GG. same goes for you... and I still hate the screaming Garret. ;)

Diatryma
15th Jan 2010, 00:19
Sorry to continue the thread drift - but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere anyway............


Vh-XXX - I agree with what Blinkensloppen said - and I've a few more posts that him/her - and some direct knowkledge of the matter.


I wonder what came of the court case on that


Which court case - hull or liablility? In any event both were settled "out of court"....FYI.

everthing you have ever done wrong in your career (fact or fiction) comes back to haunt you in the final ATSB report

Well the pilot concerned and his passengers are more likely to be doing the "haunting" now arent they?????

Di :yuk:

VH-XXX
15th Jan 2010, 00:34
Understood D, but it comes down to professional integrity. Opinions can be bought, but not from just anyone. I'll let this one rest because it's probably best not to name names in this instance without hard facts and it's not relevant to the pt6 thread anyway.

The Green Goblin
15th Jan 2010, 00:35
C'mon wiz, you don't see to many garretts shutting down do you? :ok:

They may be noisy, but they certainly are reliable!

Brian Abraham
15th Jan 2010, 02:28
you don't see to many garretts shutting down do you?

They may be noisy, but they certainly are reliable
I wish there was one that would shut down - Peter.

Super Cecil
15th Jan 2010, 02:45
GG saidC'mon wiz, you don't see to many garretts shutting down do you?
They may be noisy, but they certainly are reliable!
You be kidding right? :}

the wizard of auz
15th Jan 2010, 14:50
seen more than a few that wouldnt start. gotta love that full auto start system that eats itself and the chipset on a regular basis. :)
Probably the quietest thing about them............ until the pilot starts shouting.

j3pipercub
15th Jan 2010, 23:20
Wiz

You telling me that there is a 'chipset' controlling manual engaging of speed switches as well?

j3

The Green Goblin
16th Jan 2010, 00:44
Never had an SRL computer let go on me yet. Garretts like to have a bit of spare power in the battery's to kick them over (not unlike any other turbine I might add)

Hot starts, cold starts, quick turn arounds never had or seen a problem :cool:

NWS - thats a different story :ugh:

eocvictim
16th Jan 2010, 03:28
331's biggest drama is on start, get that prestart temp down and give it just enough juice and they're fine. :ok: Only problems overall that I've seen was gens, NTS etc. Operationally the engines just keep going.

Super Cecil
16th Jan 2010, 05:06
Hasn't any body heard of Garrets "Blowing up", wearing prematurely, gearbox's grenading?

j3pipercub
16th Jan 2010, 05:25
Ah c'mon GG, there just a horrbile big tail-dragger with ADD with no NWS :}

j3

The Green Goblin
16th Jan 2010, 05:29
331's biggest drama is on start, get that prestart temp down and give it just enough juice and they're fine. Only problems overall that I've seen was gens, NTS etc. Operationally the engines just keep going.

Now I know you don't fly 'em.

Pre start temp does not effect them very often at all unless you have crappy battery's. Give the prop 30 blades after shutdown. disembark, chuck the bags 'n load her up, hit the starter test and at 15% hit the start button, away she goes.

You will never know you have a NTS failure until the engine stops even after successful NTS checks on first taxi every morning :eek: Or you do a shutdown in flight for training purposes, use the unfeather pump to unfeather the propeller and she starts disking on you without NTSing while you are attempting a start. You'll run out of rudder before you worked out what happened............

BTW how do you give it just enough juice? The SRL computer maintains about 690-710 on start, you can add a bit to get it there quicker if it's bogging down around 40% but not as a rule. (you can tell me how you do this if you like)

eocvictim
16th Jan 2010, 19:09
No you're right GG I dont fly them. I used to fly them.

Prestart temps arnt a problem? 30 blades is fine for conquest or a metro, 100+ blades for a U model. A hot U model can chip (even jam) due to shaft warp, but I'm sure you knew that.

NTS fail? Why check something if it doesn't fail just because there is an OIL requiring it? Or cors eets furn? :}

Yes, always boost fuel to keep from bogging or slow start as per the company ops manual (I'm so very sorry it doesn't match yours). Slow starts are killers and if you have an option why not?

Give up mate, we're from different companies, flying different aircraft on different operations under different ops manuals.

Swiss Cheese
25th Feb 2010, 14:12
I recall a 208 engine failure at altitude, without vibration - just a silent spool down: P&W reported that CT was found with 6 blades fractured mid span with heavy damage on turbine shroud and vane ring. CT blade distress was initiated by fracture of one blade by creep, that was observable on 17 other blades.

Anyone else had silent spool downs after CT problems?

Tmbstory
25th Feb 2010, 15:16
In days gone past I was involved in the operation of a Skyvan SC7 aircraft, in the interior of Borneo. The Skyvan used this type of engine. The engines were reliable, fuel efficient and noisy. However when they were making a noise, it mean't they were working. The pilot's liked the fixed shaft design of the engines when making approaches into short fields. A good sized cabin made it ideal for operations in that area.

I ferried the machine from Belfast to Borneo in 47 flying hours, accompanied by an Engineer and a good looking Flight Attendant. There was plenty of "bushmills whisky",on board which assisted with clearances etc through the Middle East.

Tmb

DUXNUTZ
25th Feb 2010, 19:48
Wow. I rode in a skyvan for an hour and am not in a hurry to do that again! 47 hours! :eek: Wow is all i can say....