Bird strike out of Guernsey continues on one Engine to Birmingham

[Exascot]

Bird strike destroys Flybe plane propeller but pilot continues to fly on ONE ENGINE | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2829801/Bird-strike-destroys-Flybe-plane-propeller-pilot-continues-fly-hour-destination-just-ONE-ENGINE.html)


OK, Daily Mail, but does anyone know the true story?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

OMG - you'd think the world had ended...

[Dimitri Cherchenko]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/editors-picks/398294/video-horrifying-moment-bird-strike-takes-plane-engine/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11222704/Bird-strike-leaves-plane-with-just-one-engine-as-alarmed-passengers-look-on.html

[BN2A]

Dispatcher Dan seems to know the full story!! Even for the DM, they've excelled themselves this time.... :ugh:

Think my favourite bit is
'There was a PA announcement from the first officer I think saying that as a precaution they were going to shut the engine down as it was wobbling a lot.

Credit to the designers of the engine though, when the prop is feathered it really is minimum drag... Hardly any movement despite significant forward speed!! :D

[Herod]

Maybe I've been too long out of the business, but in my day an engine shut-down was an immediate landing at the nearest suitable. Of course, it could be that BHX was the nearest suitable.

[Agaricus bisporus]

A 20 min 2 engine climb out of Guernsey with a tail wind might well put Birmingham as close as any time wise in a s.e descent. It's the time that counts, not distance after all.

Interesting to see the P & J parroting verbatim the hooey from it's gutter companion, the daily wail...

[AdamFrisch]

You fly to where it can be serviced and/or where the weather might be better. A shutdown in stable flight is a non event on a twin. If it weren't, then every single engine aircraft would be in a constant emergency. Non-story.

[Dont Hang Up]

We do not know how precautionary the shutdown was and how confident the commander was of a restart if needed. Probably "very" to both questions.

Twenty minutes into a flight from Guernsey they would already have crossed the south coast. And there are alternates pretty much all the way for an aircraft like the Dash 8 with its quite modest runway requirements.

[Stanwell]

Oh dear.
The DM again with the obligatory photo of suitably distressed 'survivors'.

The Torygraph was hardly any better with a breathless report of the 'front propeller' being smashed (as opposed to the rear one, of course).

Compare that with the Spicejet 737 at Surat, India a couple of days ago (South Asia forum).
They damn-near ingested a buffalo on take-off.
"The impact with the buffalo was heavy and very noticeable", observed a passenger afterward."

Seems the pilots in India are more cautious than ours - the passengers were required to take another aircraft to continue their journey.

[student88]

I heard these guys declare a PAN, my colleague remarked about how they didn't envy them having to land single engine in the high winds that were around on the day.

Perhaps they chose to carry on to BHX where a safer landing could have been made without a large crosswind! Sensible decision imo.

[ironbutt57]

where it can be serviced

hmmm don't think that washes...not a factor in determining suitability...weather, airport CFR facilities..runways, approach types,...yes...

[Exascot]

I was the OP. In my book a bird strike after take off with any signs of damage you go straight back in. I wonder if they didn't initially see any signs. Then sure if they had reached cruising altitude continue with many alternatives available en route.

[wiggy]

Without wishing to comment on this specific incident, because who knows what the truth was behind the newspaper reports.....

Most/many rules sets pertinent to commercial Ops state that if an engine is not capable of producing "go-around" power then it should be treated to all intents and purposes as failed. Most of those rule sets also state that for a twin if you have an engine failure then one should land at the nearest suitable airfield, as ironbutts says servicing doesn't enter into it.

Just saying...

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Back into Guernsey single engine? No ta.

ironbutt57 where it can be serviced

hmmm don't think that washes...not a factor in determining suitability...weather, airport CFR facilities..runways, approach types,...yes...


Why not? If all else is equal then head to a maintenance base.

[RHS]

About the only thing that can be drawn from that is dispatcher dan knows just enough about aircraft to be dangerous, but not enough to say anything intelligent. He also appears to know even less about the dash.

"The other engine would have to be at full power which is very dangerous" - :ugh:

[bubbers44]

Yes, nearest suitable may include maintenance base so why not land there. If continuing beyone nearest suitable for convenience of airline then explaining why may be tricky. Most of us have or will at some time be in this position.

[Airbanda]

One wonders what view Dan's employers might take? Particularly if his company handle Flybe at GCI.

Mine (non aviation) certainly wouldn't have been too happy about me pontificating to press on matters so close to work.

[A4]

What's the climb rate of the Dash? 20 mins into the flight would indicated a "high" bird and probably quite big to destroy the spinner. What's the sector time GUR(?)-BHX? Be interested to know exactly where the strike occurred.

[BN2A]

If you're overhead LHR or LGW, it would only be 5 miles away or thereabouts.... Does that mean it's the nearest suitable in such an event??

Maybe an airport 100 miles away would be more suitable to allow descent, planning, briefing, etc...

:rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

The Torygraph was hardly any better with a breathless report of the 'front propeller' being smashed (as opposed to the rear one, of course).

And the Times' report is accompanied by a photo of a Flybe Saab 340 ...

Flybe pilot flew on one engine after birdstrike | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4264534.ece)

[Airbanda]

What's the climb rate of the Dash? 20 mins into the flight would indicated a "high" bird and probably quite big to destroy the spinner. What's the sector time GUR(?)-BHX? Be interested to know exactly where the strike occurred.

The report suggests strike was on departure from GCI with impact damage to prop spinner rather than blades or by ingestion. Reported to flight deck by cabin crew.

Shutdown only after one of one of pilots had gone back and viewed damage. While there was some vibration (or even more than usual in a Q400 according to some wags) engine was functioning normally and could presumably have been re-started.

[wiggy]

If you're overhead LHR or LGW, it would only be 5 miles away or thereabouts.... Does that mean it's the nearest suitable in such an event??

Maybe an airport 100 miles away would be more suitable to allow descent, planning, briefing, etc...


FWIW a colleague of mine had pretty much that happen...ETOPS Twin (early days of ETOPS) engine failure at TOD for main base but, as it happened, also directly overhead a very suitable and available airport XXX. My mate carried on to base....at the subsequent board of enquiry the authority did ask some very pointed questions but eventually accepted that continuing the descent to destination, rather than diving into the alternate was fair enough......However he was of the opinion that if the failure had happened before TOD the authorities might well have expected him to divert, and that they wouldn't have looked very kindly if he'd used a excessively lengthy decision making process to make home base even more suitable...;)

[eastern wiseguy]

Questions from an ex ATCO. Is maintenance available at BHX or SOU? Would EXT not have been considered? If it was ,what would be the logic in rejecting that option?

A loss of 50% of power plants prompts UK ATC to initiate an emergency turnout,however this seems to have been treated as a non event by the commander.

Is this a fair assessment by me?

NOT judging in any way shape or form.....merely curious.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

SOU isn't much longer than GCI, or JER. EXT may have been considered but if you're over the south coast on your way to Brum then there's not much in it.

[tubby linton]

The bird carcass was stuck in the rear plate of the spinner on arrival at BHX. The bird appears to have been a yellow legged hawk-perhaps a twitcher could identify it.

[evansb]

The Dash-8 Q-400 propellers are GE-Dowty 6-blade, single-removable composite type.

[Artie Fufkin]

You fly to where it can be serviced and/or where the weather might be better. A shutdown in stable flight is a non event on a twin. If it weren't, then every single engine aircraft would be in a constant emergency. Non-story.


Kegworth? Nearest suitable, not nearest maintenance.

[Burpbot]

You would think dispatcher Dan would be aware it is illegal to take photographs Airside at a uk airport, without the express permission of the airport authority! Yes I know it's rarely enforced, but as a so called aviation professional feeding the gutter press rubbish to print, who feels he should be made an example of?

[mad_jock]

Bournemouth would have been an option if they wanted a longer runway or a different wind from Sou

[Jwscud]

Anybody who has operated in or out of GCI at this time of year would tell you that somewhere the other side of the channel or on the French mainland would be a damn sight more suitable than Guernsey. Short, humped runway with horrible local winds and awful weather. If you're pointing towards the mainland, do your checklists, preparation and so on while heading in the right direction rather than getting dizzy in the hold.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

"Nearest suitable" isn't the same as "nearest practical" and neither is the same as "land immediately" never mind when " ... considering an off airfield landing" gets appended. The manuals I am familiar with have a graduated set of advice (not instructions, in an emergency captain's prerogative is always in effect) and nearest suitable is the lowest level of urgency.

[Proline21]

Consindering how small the UK is by air and given the weather conditions I see no problem to choose BHX which is quite a good option for strong crosswinds in the UK due to its layout.

[Faire d'income]

You fly to where it can be serviced and/or where the weather might be better. A shutdown in stable flight is a non event on a twin. If it weren't, then every single engine aircraft would be in a constant emergency. Non-story.

This is a professional site discussing a real event.

If you wish to post opinions that detached from industry reality, try :ugh: .com or :confused: .org.

[Two's in]

The only flaw in the "press on to the full base maintenance and support facilities" approach is that you don't know exactly what the damage is. The shattered spinner debris had potential for causing secondary damage, the vibration before shut down the same, was it more than one bird? Was it a bird? Only by landing and having some level of engineering inspection can you absolutely rule out secondary or additional damage.

In this case, descending to Birmingham was arguably as expeditious as peeling off to an en route alternative, but it won't always be the case. A good captain's decision will have more than a little curiosity about exactly what has happened to the aircraft and a desire to secure that knowledge sooner rather than later.

[Fair_Weather_Flyer]

Shouldn't be a problem justifying continuing to BHX. My past experience of these kind of scenarios is that the CAA are looking for safety orientated decision making. Any mention of commercially driven decisions such as continuing to a maintenance base would be far more likely to attract scrutiny. Yet, I do hear pilots briefing that they will continue or divert to the maintenance base in the event of problems.

As for dispatcher Dan, hope he's enjoying his 15 minutes of infamy.

[engineer137]

The Daily Mail like to sensationalize every story but the facts as we are told are that the birdstrike happened immediately after lift off causing a large piece of spinner to break off. The propellor which would have been at take off power would almost certainly have had some damage - there was increased vibration noted and was there any other damage to the elevator perhaps, engine ingested debris, wing L/E damage? - At the time nobody knew only engineers on the ground could have assessed it. I would have thought that the flight should have been diverted for a full assessment of the damage to be carried out and repairs made, at the first suitable airfield which I find hard to believe was Birmingham .

The bump in Guernseys runway was removed during runway resurfacing works a few years ago.

[Uplinker]

To all those saying "he should have landed back immediately", nobody has mentioned landing distance. Guernsey is SHORT ! only 1,700m.

With the loss of an engine - and who knows what collateral damage - did they have all their stopping systems available? Wheel brakes, hydraulics, spoilers etc? They obviously only had reverse pitch available on one engine, and depending on the weather and conditions, asymmetric reverse pitch might have been a no-no.

We don't know do we? , but there is a strong possibility that their landing performance might have been compromised. So they opted for an airport with a longer runway. Given that you have left Guernsey and are flying north, it makes no sense to turn south towards France, and Jersey is also quite short, so that leaves you with EGKK, EGLL, and EGSS with long runways in the south of the UK. If you are near the south coast of the UK by the time you have contained the problem and run all the appropriate checklists, the obvious thought would be EGKK. But again, I don't know what the weather was, or what the approach aid servicability was that day. There might have been a very good reason why EGKK was not the most suitable diversion airfield - and forget about EGLL unless you have an uncontained fire !

As far as I am aware, nobody with a current ATPL, let alone a Captains rating or even a type rating is a staff writer on the Daily Mail, or the Torygraph. So what the hell do they know about landing a Dash 8 - Q400 with an engine failure?

Gentlemen of the press if you are reading this: Please would you show more respect to your own profession by at least thoroughly researching incidents before pronouncing on the actions of actual professionals who are doing a highly skilled job that you have no experience of.

[DaveReidUK]

"OK, Daily Mail, but anyone know the true story?"The comments in the Mail do include a somewhat more balanced one (than Dan's) from another of the passengers on board:

"I must refute the story of horror and terrified passengers as utter crap. Everyone was calm and the crew were excellent. What Dan failed to say was that captain announced that the best weather in the south of England at the time was Birmingham so we would continue with an on time arrival. Having just left Guernsey with a strong crosswind and wet runway with turbulence in the climb even Dan should have known it would not be a good idea to return with just one engine."

[A and C]

How dare you have the temerity to critisise journalists, do you not understand that they are experts on everything?

When issued with an NUJ card they are empowerd with knowlage and wisdom that the common man can only gasp at in ore, it also gives the moral right to pry into people's private lives, bug phone conversations, follow people around constantly photographing them, wreck professional careers, accuse people of crimes without evidence and a host of other activitys all in the name of a free press.
Journolists are the only people who prosess these very high standards of integrity and moral character to be permitted to excersise such powers without any responsability for the consequences.

It is crystal clear to all the readers of the DM that the journolist in this case was a stickler for accuracy, after all the information was obtained from Dispatcher Dan ( a well respected aviation professional with a years standing) who was able to conferm that dispite years of aviation training and experience the professional flight crew made dangerouse and wreckless decisions and endangered all aboad the aircraft just to save the airline a quid or two.

Without doubt it is clear that the journolists are acting in the public interest exposing these wreckless practices that are prevalent in the air transport.

Sarcastic Moi ?

[tech...again]

GCI is even shorter than 1700m - 1463m I think (still).

[Exascot]

It is decades since I last flew into Guernsey. OK we understand wet runway and gusty cross wind conditions. Sure going back in on one was probably not the best thing to try. We all know that sitting at home in an armchair thinking about a scenario and the, 'what would I have done?' is completely different to sitting in that left hand seat in the thick of it. Personally, from my armchair, I think that I would have gone for the nearest suitable diversion. However all is well that ends well.

[Landflap]

A point of consideration with twins is that it should be sphinctre tightening to know that on one engine, it might fail too. So, with heightened awareness let us all recall, please, that a 50% reduction in power is a Mayday ; not a Pan . "Nearest suitable " means just that. NEAREST. Time is not a factor. "Suitable" means only with regard to RWY length, app facilities etc. In otherwords, it is a field capable of taking you with specific regard. A farmers's field is capable but would not meet specified criteria.

Colleague lost an engine of a 737 in the descent to Orley. He returned to LGW (Base) and CP invited all of us, howling for blood, that the discussion should centre on "suitable" ! Oh really ! Mind you , offender was from same squadron, liked golf & was probably a ......................................oh no, here I go again !

[gawbc]

The bird carcass was stuck in the rear plate of the spinner on arrival at BHX. The bird appears to have been a yellow legged hawk-perhaps a twitcher could identify it.

I am a birdwatcher, anyone got a photo? Many birds of prey have yellow legs I would imagine it was a Common Buzzard which is reasonably big. Failing that it could be a Kestrel (bit small) or female Sparrowhawk (can be biggish) or something more exotic. As it is related to m x v squared I guess speed is more important than mass of the bird, although I would think a large Buzzard at least twice the mass of a Kestrel.

From my PPL memory Southampton is 1723m (02/20) and there is maintenance (executive stuff) but not sure FlyBe use it

[gawbc]

Kestrel 140-310g, Buzzard 430-1400g = ouch!!

I had a couple of close encounters with Buzzards in my Arrow, thank goodness I didn't hit one (or vice versa)

[MPN11]

Made the Jersey news today ... a short video included, which may have been linked already ...
Video: Plane flies on despite propeller smash in bird strike « Jersey Evening Post (http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/11/12/plane-flies-on-despite-propeller-smash-in-bird-strike/)

[B1GGLES]

@gawbc

Looks like a big bird...

https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/d573787d-bd30-4f5f-b509-0a9e1819d938-large.png

[DaveReidUK]

Made the Jersey news today ... a short video included, which may have been linked already ...Yes, unsurprisingly it's the same video as the one in the DM article linked from post #1.

I'd guess that if any other passengers had also filmed the event we'd have seen the results by now.

[gawbc]

Fairly sure it's a Common Buzzard (one of the most common birds of prey in the UK / GB / British Isles whatever Guernsey is)

[Andrewgr2]

What's the chances of a bird hitting a spinner? Unless a bang on central hit, I would have expected the airflow to sweep a bird around the spinner and into the blades. I suppose it is possible that a blow from a blade could throw a bird forward into the spinner but again this seems pretty low probability.

[OwnNav]

Probably in the lottery odds.

[BN2A]

I bullseyed a bird on the nosecone once... Middle of the night, 3000 feet in the climb... 250 knots...

Slipstream doesn't help with a bird that size!!

:ouch:

[Super VC-10]

and forget about EGLL unless you have an uncontained fire !

Why's that then? If the captain of the flight had decided that Heathrow was the appropriate course of action, then he'd have gone there. I'm not aware of any rule that says you can't divert to Heathrow unless there is an imminent danger of death.

[Nightstop]

From the AIP:

Diversion: Before filing EGLL as ALTN, prior arrangement for GND handling are necessary. Except EMERG.

[Newgen Jock]

No-one seems to have mentioned it so far, but the prop/spinner assembly "seems" to be moving (wobbling) around on the shaft or bearings, suggesting fairly significant damage to the prop-shaft and/or reduction gearboxbox.
Could be the camera wobbling though doesn't look like it.
Not getting into the "nearest Suitable" debate................;)

[DaveReidUK]

Could be the camera wobbling though doesn't look like it.

Given that the cabin sidewall and window frame "wobble" in unison with the engine/prop, I think it's safe to assume that it's our friend Dan who has the shakes ...

[framer]

Nearest suitable " means just that. NEAREST. Time is not a factor.
Time might not be a factor on your flight deck LandFlap but it is on mine. If I've got to chose between two equally suitable airports and A is 50 minutes away while B is 60 minutes away, I'm going to A even if B is closer.

[Tankertrashnav]

The Daily Mule's PPL qualified aviation "editor's"?

Blimey, he's got a PPL? More likely got the job because he once flew to Spain on holiday. About as qualified as the average "defence correspondent" :*

[slowjet]

Framer ; Splitting hairs ole mate. Aces like you who can quickly determine the best given an almost equal choice are skygods whom I greatly admire. LF is correct though. Nearest is nearest is nearest. Otherwise we get bogged down in all the claptrap like which is "more" suitable. Thats why the Regulatory Authorities defined it closely as "nearest". Or was it "nearest" as "closest". Oh gosh, tea & bickies for an average poler like me every time.

[framer]

LF is correct though. Nearest is nearest is nearest.
Rubbish. Go to the most sensible airport, if the law says something else then it's an excellent chance to use the authority you have to make decisions in the name of safety that don't align with the law.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

. Nearest is nearest is nearest.


Ok, go to the nearest which has crosswinds, is wet, short, doesn't have fire cover and isn't open.

No QRH I've ever seen instructs you to land at the nearest. Nearest suitable yes, nearest no.

[DaveReidUK]

The whole bloody wing will be getting wobbled with the amount of out of balance mass in the hubWhen the engine is developing power, granted.

But in the video the prop is already feathered and barely windmilling at all (about 2 rpm).

[mad_jock]

You will have bluff body dynamics vortex shedding coming from the damaged face in the air flow.


Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube (http://youtu.be/j-zczJXSxnw)

Its what caused this bridge to fail.

The vortexes shed on one side then the other and set up a resonance so I wouldn't be surprised if there was vibration still even after the engine was shut down.

[Miserlou]

Finding it quite interesting how black and white some people think things are.
One of the odd things that happens to pilots is that they begin to think differently. The answer to a simple question "how far away is X?" will often be answered in terms of time, "about half an hour". This is very relevant in this scenario.

For my money, if it's going to take 15 minutes to get on the ground then any field within approximately 15 minutes flying time is perfectly valid and I'd rather have extra minutes than too few as too few will increase the workload either by pressure or manoeuvring.

The difference will be whether the checklist says 'land at nearest suitable airport' or 'land IMMEDIATELY at nearest suitable airport'(my capitals).

In almost any case, except when there is a dire emergency, the deciding factor may well be cabin preparation.

And one can always point to the paragraph 'captain's discretion to deviate from...'.

[Deano777]

And I also think some posters on here have short memories. The weather on Saturday in the south was just awful so the crew elected to go to Birmingham where the wind was straight down the runway. GCI - BHX is hardly transatlantic for crying out loud. GCI - EXT or SOU is about 25-30 minutes airborne on a good day, with checklists to do etc it'll be about 40-45 minutes. In that time you've flown to BHX anyway.
It's nice to see the dispatcher from GCI on board is so knowledgeable about Q400 operations (not) :ugh:

[Landflap]

Spandy missing the point too. Wet, windy and the last bit, in particular, no fire cover and closed anyway does not in any sense make it suitable. Nearest is nearest is nearest and has to be suitable. Of course. If it isn't you go somewhere else. Geees, the very claptrap I think Slowjet was seeking to avoid.

Here's the thing Skygods : almost overhead Larnaca on the way home to a Birthday Bash in the ME, engine quits. Drills complete, into the hold (very high level and descending, company calls on HF and says that there is a spare engine in Damascus and there is an Engineers strike at LCA. Also, massive 80kts up yer ass on the way to Damascus. Kindly divert to Damascus. What would you Skygods do ? Careful, this really happened and was incorporated into our Command Selection Interviews. responses were interesting and in some cases, the straw that broke the camel's back resulting in a bit more RHS time being recommended.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Nearest is nearest is nearest and has to be suitable

Not quite what you said last time though. The nearest is NOT necessarily suitable, or useable.

[RomeoZulu]

Has nobody had a look at FR24 yet?

Well 20 mins put the aircraft over the Needles at 17k doing about 280 kts (give or take a bit). Slight speed reduction about 20 miles South it would seem but it fair nipped along to BHX after that.

[Piltdown Man]

The last four types I've flown said that you should "Land at the nearest suitable airport" following an engine out. And in my book that equals time, not distance. My company trusts me to make that decision as to where that will be together with my colleague. This guy was also trusted by his company to do the same but this time he actually had to do it for real. What is important is that he took his time and didn't stuff it up. Hats off to him plus plenty of tea and medals. Saving a couple of minutes or going somewhere possibly geographically closer where A. You are not used flying, b. Where you might not have handling arrangements and engineering and c. Where the weather might not be as good might not be the best option (or most suitable). So if flying to where you were going in the first place is also reasonable, then why not?

PS. I think we are still allowed to use common sense.

[Herod]

PS. I think we are still allowed to use common sense.

Not sure about that, and anyway, it's in short supply. However, in this case I'm not going to judge: I wasn't there. However, in my career I did have six single-engine landings in twin-engine aircraft.

[megan]

I know we are not referring to ETOPS, but with 330 minutes permitted on some, are we not making a bit of an issue about what constitutes safe practice in this particular case. Save the Monday morning quarterbacking for the footy.

[Capn Bloggs]

b. Where you might not have handling arrangements and engineering
Perhaps if there is only a few minutes difference, OK, but otherwise, these convenience factors have nothing to do with "Land at Nearest Suitable Airport". You do only have one chance left, and while obviously the chance that it too will stop/have to be shutdown is very very small, you'd look like a total goat if you decided to fly "past" a "suitable" airport because it had inferior handling arrangements or no engineers and the other stopped before you got to where you'd like to have got-to.

[totty highflier]

I think we are missing the point here.
The aircraft had a problem.
The crew elected to shut down the engine to limit any potential further damage.
The aircraft landed safely and without further incident.
What exactly do you guys want as a 'better' outcome?

[Deano777]

totti highflyer, you're right, it really is as simple as that.

Just for clarity, the Q400 checklist will lead you into a decision making process in the fact that if it is serious enough it will instruct you to "land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield" or "land at the nearest suitable airfield". Notice the slight difference.

This incident happened around 10:50z, the weather in the South and West of England at the time was not pleasant.

Guernsey - R09/27

EGJB 081050Z 18021G33KT 9999 -RA SCT012 BKN022 13/12 Q1000
EGJB 081120Z 19023KT 9999 VCSH SCT013 BKN025 14/12 Q1000

Jersey - R08/26

EGJJ 081050Z 18023KT 9999 FEW008 SCT035 13/11 Q1002 TEMPO RA BKN015
EGJJ 081120Z 18016KT 9999 FEW008 SCT012 BKN035 13/11 Q1001 TEMPO RA BKN015

Bournemouth - R08/26

EGHH 081050Z 19021G32KT 9999 SCT017 BKN027 13/12 Q0999 RERA
EGHH 081120Z 18021G32KT 9999 SCT018 BKN030 14/12 Q0998

Southampton - R02/20

EGHI 081050Z 19013G32KT 150V230 9999 BKN020 13/09 Q1000
EGHI 081120Z 19012G28KT 140V230 9999 BKN022 13/09 Q0999

Newquay - R12/30

EGHQ 081050Z 24022G32KT 9999 SCT020 11/08 Q0996
EGHQ 081120Z 24021KT 9999 SCT022 11/07 Q0996

Exeter - R08/26

EGTE 081050Z 20014KT 9999 FEW010 SCT025 12/10 Q0996
EGTE 081120Z 19012KT 9999 SCT028 12/10 Q0996

Bristol - R09/27

EGGD 081050Z 18016KT 6000 RA FEW005 SCT006 BKN009 11/10 Q0995
EGGD 081120Z 17021G32KT 9000 RA FEW005 SCT006 BKN009 11/10 Q0995

Cardiff - R12/30

EGFF 081050Z AUTO 19013KT 9999 FEW023/// //////TCU 12/10 Q0995 RERA
EGFF 081120Z AUTO 19009KT 9999 SCT021/// //////TCU 12/10 Q0995


And finally at destination

Birmingham - R15/33

EGBB 081050Z AUTO 14012KT 6000 -RA SCT007/// BKN010/// OVC015/// 09/09 Q0996 RERA
EGBB 081120Z 14013KT 4000 RA FEW006 BKN012 BKN020 10/09 Q0996


We're not talking medium to long haul operations here as Landflap alludes to, we're talking short haul, regional flying (no sh** Sherlock) where a suitable airfield "should" generally be within 15 minutes flying time regardless of where you are, but ask yourself this, was this situation an engine failure? Of course not. Was it a precautionary shutdown? Of course it was. Was the engine available should they needed it in a dire situation? Of course it was. They elected to go to BHX based on the information presented to them, was this a bad decision? I think not, but if you think it was then I'd love to hear why.

[Capn Bloggs]

the Q400 checklist will lead you into a decision making process in the fact that if it is serious enough it will instruct you to "land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield" or "land at the nearest suitable airfield". Notice the slight difference.

If you don't have to land immediately, then why would you land at any place other than a "suitable airfield"?

[Livesinafield]

wow, well this dan sounds like a prat....

"I guess the pilots wanted to be home in Birmingham for the night"

what an absolute moron

[Deano777]

Capt Bloggs you've answered your own question because you clearly know what the definition of "suitable airfield" is with regard to airline operations. Unless your question was completely rhetorical of course?

[SLFguy]

Off topic..

How is Deano a 'Probationary PPruner' but have a join date of 2003 and over 700 posts :confused:

[deptrai]

Totty highflier: well put.

[Deano777]

SLFguy, I've no idea. I've PM'ed the top mods several times about it, including this morning infact, but as yet I've not had one response. Ce la vie.

[lomapaseo]

An awful lot of "what-ifs" here in contrast to "what-did" happen.

What's missing in the analytical discussions is the inherent ability of the crew coupled with the tolerance of the machine to result in a safe outcome.

Any talk about imbalances either due to the offset mass of the bird or even rubbery vortex shedding need balance against the inherent dampening in the wing and the ability of the crew to adjust airspeed eve a little bit.

[Landflap]

And, FRAMER now wants us to go to the "most sensible" . Geeeeez.

[Smudger]

This is a non-story. I am confident that the crew assessed the situation, decided on the best course of action and carried it out to a successful conclusion. I'm sure they have had a good chuckle at the scribblings of all you Monday morning quarterbacks out there who think you know better or just enjoy slagging other people off. By all means read and learn but just leave it at that .... please

[FullWings]

Agree with Smudger.

England is a small place and the difference in time between going to one airport or another is very little. As I doubt there is a specific checklist on the Q400 for “birdstrike to spinner with part of it coming off”, the crew would have wanted to diagnose the problem(s), get some options together then sort out a plan of action. As it wasn't a time-critical scenario (stabilised, precautionary) expending a little mental effort to make the handling of the incident as easy as possible would have been a great idea. If it’s going to take you X amount of time to prepare the aircraft, crew and passengers for an approach and landing, why not spend those X minutes to get to the airfield that offers the best mix of facilities and weather?

I don’t know what the OEI crosswind limits are for the type but to go somewhere that was gusting 30kts+ across the runway in the wet as opposed to 12kts straight down the strip (and a longer strip as well) would raise my eyebrows far more than a decision to carry on for another 5-10 minutes on one engine. The one shut down had not failed, it is important to note.

From what I see it was an interesting technical issue, handled in a competent manner by the crew. What more do you want?

[Consol]

Just a little thought about dispatcher Dan. If I am operating out of GCI with DD assisting on the ground and a tech issue means I have to dispatch under MEL. Will DD then be on the phone to the Daily Mail on the lines of 'Pilot deliberately takes off with a known fault on aircraft!'? All from his expert aviation experience. Methinks I might get a different dispatcher. :hmm:

[Chronus]

The crew displayed good airmanship. They did not act in haste, they allowed themselves ample time to understand and cope with the situation, reduce tension and stress. Their decision to divert was well considered and executed.

Unlike the ill fated Lear 35A G-MURI carrying Coultard to Nice. Unfortunately in that accident the crew paid for their haste with their lives.

The probable cause in the accident report of the Lear 35 accident was:

"The accident resulted from a loss of yaw and then roll control which appears to be
due to a failure to monitor flight symmetry at the time of the thrust increase on the
right engine.

The hastiness exhibited by the Captain, and his difficulty in coping with the stress
following the engine failure, contributed to this situation."

We should on this forum applaud this crew rather than criticise them and hope that the tabloids learn something from it.

[OldLurker]

OK, colour me ignorant, but I'll take the bait on Landflap's CSI question (13th Nov 2014, 18:20).

As I understand Landflap's scenario, you're in cruise - say FL300? - heading east overhead Larnaca, and an engine quits. (Why? The reason could be important.) Your company says go to Damascus, we've got a spare engine there and you've got an 80kt tailwind. (I take it this is before the Syrian civil war and everyone's nice and friendly.)
Now, it seems to me Larnaca to Damascus is about 180nm, well under half an hour even on one engine, with the 80kt tailwind. Starting over water, yes, but you're very high and if the other engine quits (improbably? depends why the first one went out) then I'd guess you're in glide range either turning back to Larnaca or straight ahead to Beirut.

Alternatively, go round in circles descending into Larnaca. Doesn't that take at least as long as continuing straight ahead? And the other engine can still quit on the way down.

What's the proper professional action in this scenario, and why?

[Cantiflas]

Chronus makes such good sense but I fear his hope is forlorn!

[Grizzle]

From what I understand Dan is now an ex-dispatcher and is now looking for somewhere to land too!!

[framer]

We should on this forum applaud this crew rather than criticise them and hope that the tabloids learn something from it.
I tend to agree. I think the crew most probably weighed the risk of a few extra minutes airborne against the risk of landing in unfavourable weather conditions and then made the decision to continue. Sounds like a safe and sensible thing to do. Our whole job is weighing up risks and choosing what we hope is the best option. Trying to make hard and fast rules like " nearest is nearest is nearest" is understandable but will never be a substitute for solid decision making.

[mini]

The disparities in opinions of the proper response, for what seemed to be a relatively straightforward event, no doubt sim tested etc. Is somewhat disturbing.

It would seem that the more experienced have sided with the chosen option.

The fresher FO's might have pulled the pin earlier, opting to take on the weather at a local field.

Interesting.

[SLFguy]

Just a little thought about dispatcher Dan. If I am operating out of GCI with DD assisting on the ground and a tech issue means I have to dispatch under MEL. Will DD then be on the phone to the Daily Mail on the lines of 'Pilot deliberately takes off with a known fault on aircraft!'? All from his expert aviation experience. Methinks I might get a different dispatcher

So we critisize the DM for chit journalism then critisize DD for what he supposedly said according to the DM..??

You people make me laff.

[Miserlou]

Bearing in mind the requirement for a take-off alternate within 1 hr (regardless of a 'land immediately') and this really is a non-event.

I don't see the problem.

[Torque Tonight]

I don't think there can be any genuine professionals or even knowledgeable laymen out there who really think that they are better placed to judged the course of action taken than the operating crew in this incident.

The fact that that this whole thread stems from a Daily Mail article in which they take their 'facts' from an over-dramatic baggage chucker who can smell a paycheck rather than anyone with an iota of professional knowledge says it all. The trouble with 'Dan' and many like him is that he is so stupid, he doesn't realise quite how stupid he is. His opinion and speculation is absoulutely worthless, yet the Mail present it as the testimony of an expert witness. Drivel. :ugh:

[Uplinker]

Yes, exactly, this is terrible journalism.

The young dispatcher chap involved is clearly not a pilot and does not understand why an aircraft with a shut-down engine might continue to EGBB instead of turning round and landing back at EGJB. This chap obviously doesn't understand anything about flying twin engined aircraft, ("if the other engine failed we would fall out of the sky"), how the size and orientation of a runway affects landing decisions, what aircraft systems one needs for landing, nor how weather conditions impinge on a landing, etc. etc.

So what does the paper do? It spends the majority of the 'report' focussing on and quoting the OPINIONS of said young chap who is a dispatcher at a small regional airfield, and who has NO experience or knowledge of aircraft operations.

They go and take a picture of the young chap and his girlfriend, who seem to have been told to have suitably serious/scared expressions for the picture.

It would be so much better if the papers had quoted the concerns of the dispatcher chap and then researched the incident and asked BALPA for a general explanation about engine shutdowns. Then the paper could have explained why the Captain and F/O of the Dash did what they did, that they handled the situation really well and professionally, and gone on to say that this is why us pilots undergo extensive training and assessment.

They could have celebrated the fact that experienced professionals do their job very well.

Daily Mail; what exactly are you trying to achieve by making out that everything in our country is crap? I would love to know what your motivations are.

[Exascot]

Oh dear, who started all of this?

No, no, it was the bird!

OK, actually a good discussion and as we all know cr@p journalism.

[olympus]

Not directly related to this story but...

When I joined my first airline I was surprised to learn that quite a few of my flight deck colleagues had in their address books the telephone numbers of the news desks of the major newspapers and TV stations no doubt with an eye to making a bob or two for alerting said media organisations to stories of aeronautical interest. (But not if it involved them obviously!). Perhaps Despatcher Dan also had an eye to the main chance and contacted the DM himself.

[Monde]

Good decision and a good job well done imho. Why give yourself a 20kt xwind single engine , when for another 5 mins its a wind straight down the strip = no brainer.

[Stanwell]

Well, y'see, our 'expert witness' and survivor, 'Desperate Dan' is now world famous.
Therefore, he should have no trouble finding suitable employment elsewhere (perhaps even as the DM's aviation correspondent).

[7AC]

This saga reminds me of the HS 748 that caught fire on takeoff from
Stansted some years ago. It seems at the time many pundits and "junior"
pilots castigated the captain for stopping and putting it in the grass. The
AAIB seemed to think he made the right call. I wonder what the outcome
will be here.

[Airbanda]

If he'd done it by book and flown a circuit to land then Stansted would have featured with Munich as a football team disaster.

[rog747]

''From what I understand Dan is now an ex-dispatcher and is now looking for somewhere to land too!!''

yes i would have thought him working for an airline handling agent he would have been told in his training to keep his gob shut to the press in any incident - although he was off duty and a pax he would certainly be having tea with no biccies in his DM's office on his return to the island

[Piltdown Man]

7AC & Airbanda - I don't agree you. I'm afraid the closest the report goes is saying that the "...decision was sensible in the circumstances." It never, ever, said that it was the right one. If you work your way through the factual elements of the report you'll see that the the fire damage was minimal with the greatest damage occurring on the ground. Absolutely nowhere does it state that the wing would have burnt off in x seconds or y minutes. And this is an important factor. Furthermore, this crash, for that is what it was, was the result a reaction rather than considered action. For example, how can you possibly know what is happening inside a cowled engine on the side opposite to where you are sat? There was no crew communication on this matter (unless it was done by sign language), the fire warning did not go off until five seconds after the first signs of the fire. But the most glaring omission from this report was any comment the training of the crew. As a result, it fails to make any comparison between with what should have happened and what actually happened on the day.

Lastly, it is not fair to contrast the lucky escape of Leeds United with a flight where the crew appear to have gathered information and worked as a team to ensure a safe outcome.

[OldLurker]

Yes, the AAIB said "The Commander's decision to land the aircraft immediately on the runway remaining was sensible in the circumstances."
www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/3_2001_g_ojem.cfm (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/3_2001_g_ojem.cfm)

[manrow]

OldLurker:-
Are you suggesting that is sensible with this particular occurrence, where the circumstances are almost certainly totally different?

[OldLurker]

manrow:
Obviously I'm not suggesting any such thing. The Stansted incident was brought up in post #99 and subsequently; I quoted the AAIB on that incident. The AAIB hasn't said anything about the Guernsey incident that I've seen.

Obviously the Guernsey incident that was the original subject of this thread is totally different in various ways. At Stansted the mode of failure was different and the captain was "aware that a considerable amount of runway remained ahead of the aircraft" (said AAIB) so that he had the option to make a split-second decision to put it back on the ground, which he did, and everyone walked away.

The similarity pointed out in post #99 is that both crews are castigated by people who weren't there* (but not by the AAIB in the Stansted case) for failing to follow standard procedures; yet both crews' decisions resulted in safe outcomes.

* And Dan, who was there, but has been pretty much dismissed in this thread.

[BN2A]

ASR's, MOR's, paperwork and CAA notifications, yes....

But AAIB?? Wasn't technically an 'accident'....

:confused:

[Right Way Up]

AAIB guidance

An aircraft accident is an occurrence associated with operation of an aircraft, which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which the aircraft incurs damage (with certain exceptions) or any person suffers death or serious injury.

[spekesoftly]

in which the aircraft incurs damage (with certain exceptions)And the AAIB guidance further defines those exceptions (my bold)

It does not include engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin.

[DaveReidUK]

AAIB investigations can also cover events that are not classed as accidents.

[Airbanda]

@Piltdown Man,

I am merely an observer of both the FlyBe incident and the Emerald Accident and am not qualified to make a detailed critique of flight deck action in either case. I do though stand by my comment that a longer time in the air would certainly, or at least very probably, have been catastrophic in the circumstances of G OJEM.

The AAIB report at Conclusions/Findings point 2 refers to an immediate substantial nacelle fire. At point 4 of conclusions it refers to significant leakage from the fuel heater and fire which posed a considerable hazard to the aircraft (my bold/italics).

The crew were alerted to the fire by the cabin crew via interphone (AAIB report p3).

[TDK mk2]

Eleven years ago I had an engine failure after take off at 1000' in a turbo prop. The Captain suggested we return where we had engineering cover and a strong gusty crosswind. I proposed we fly 35 miles to where there was no engineering cover and no crosswind, and he agreed. It was a mayday of course but an uneventful outcome. Had I known that the "good" engine had the same incorrect IGV settings that caused the other engine to fail I might have taken a different view. There was never a hint of criticism (as far as I'm aware) from the company but who knows if the outcome had been different. Sometimes, as in LOFT exercises I've done there's different outcomes which may not be wrong but help one to learn about failure management.

[Dont Hang Up]

A genuinely unloaded question...

When an engine is subject to a precautionary shutdown should the continued progress of the flight be on the basis that this is a failed engine (only to be reconsidered in the event of critical problems with the remaining engine)?

[lomapaseo]

Are there not other alternatives?

Some things are rule based (Regs, FCOMs, etc.) while others are expected to be left to training, experience, and reasoned decisions.

The later category probably would take up a thread of their own elsewhere

[Basil]

When an engine is subject to a precautionary shutdown should the continued progress of the flight be on the basis that this is a failed engine
In a twin I'd say yes and land at the nearest suitable as, I'm sure would everyone.
As you say, in dire straits, with second donk acting up you may HAVE to try a restart. Command decision depending upon reason for first shutdown.

Flying one of them there single turbo-props strikes me as a situation where the captain is going to have to nurse the engine if there's a problem. I'd a JP donk go nuts due severe icing but just closed the throttle and kept it in reserve for the subsequent deadstick. It worked for the taxi in but was knackered.

[BN2A]

Speedbird 9, engines failed, not precautionary shutdown...

Restarted following 'command decision'...

If you have to, you have to!!

:D

[redflyer]

All these comments. Does anyone who has commented before know what the performance requirements are for a dash 8 single engine. I do as I fly them.

[OldLurker]

redflyer, it's good to have someone here who knows all about the dash 8. Would you like to give us your informed opinion on the Guernsey incident and its outcome?

[freespeed2]

I fly a similar category of twin turboprop and have flown into all the airfields mentioned. When I read this first I thought 'that seems like a hell of a long way to go on one engine...surely there was a 'suitable' airport nearer than that'. Then I read the location quoted as near the Needles and Deano777's post on the weather. I would not entertain going to any of the nearer airfields in that kind of crosswind on one engine. The best option of a bad bunch was EGHI; while the W/V was 10 degrees off the runway, the varying direction and the size of the gust factor (19013G32KT 150V230) would make for an uncomfortably turbulent final approach. From the Needles at that altitude there's probably not much to choose between EGHI and EGBB anyway. Cardiff; probably a rushed 'dive and drive' would have task-loaded the crew unnecessarily.

It showed me that a little factual information on what was actually happening around them totally changed my opinion on the crews decision making process. In hindsight I think it was a good call. EGHI might have been a good call also, or it could have resulted in LOC due windshear on short finals...we'll never know.

[flybymike]

I seem to remember an asymmetric crosswind approach in a turbo prop (probably more that 20 years ago now) which if I remember rightly resulted in a wing scrape, cartwheel' and many fatalities.
Others may recall the incident?

[Lancelot de boyles]

The problem, as ever, is that the initial sparse information doesn't accurately describe the real situation.
It is easy to assume from the title/headline that there was some sort of engine failure after take off, followed by a decision to continue on to destination, whereas the actual situation appears to be damage incurred after take off/in the departure, but not adversely affecting performance. The crew then subsequently decided on a precautionary shutdown (for whatever reasons), along with an assessment of the actual situation in flight, as well as conditions and risks to be encountered as a result.
A plan was formulated, and a relatively uneventful outcome was the result.
Aren't we all expected to not make the situation any worse than it already is, if we can manage it?

The only casualties involved being to the reputation of a numpty who mistook the situation as an opportunity for 15 minutes of, as it turned out, infamy. And the bird. The latter being the only one unable to walk away from the subsequent landing.

[Chronus]

Yes Flybymike, I do recall the accident you mention. It was KLM Flight 433, a Saab 340B.

PROBABLE CAUSES: "Inadequate use of the flight controls during an asymmetric go around resulting in loss of control.
Contributing factors: Insufficient understanding of the flight crew of the SAAB 340B engine oil system; lack of awareness of the consequences of an aircraft configuration with one engine in flight idle; poor crew resource management."

[CJ Driver]

I'm late catching up to this thread, but 7 pages in, I'm still wondering - what makes you all think that the Captain shut down the engine? I'm not familiar with the Dash 8, but I have flown other P&W turboprops, and as far as I know they are all free-spool power stages. On many (all?) you can feather the propeller completely in flight without shutting down the engine, leaving the engine at idle. I know that the passengers were told "as a precaution we are going to shut down the left engine", but that's what I would have said on the PA too, even if I was leaving the engine running and just feathering the prop. It's too hard to explain it any other way when the propeller is quite clearly stationary.

Meanwhile, since the hit was the "lucky shot" right on the spinner, I imagine the only symptom on the flight deck was a "thump" on the climb-out. With all the T's and P's in the green, both engines turning just fine, of course you keep going - fly the SID, get up into the cruise. Then (20 minutes into the flight) the F.O. went back to see if there was anything to see, returned and said "we've lost a huge chunk of the spinner". They decide to feather the prop to limit any further damage, but carry on because there's nothing obviously broken - and if my guess is right, both engines are still running. If the worst comes to happen, they can always unfeather the one with the broken spinner and get back to two. No relight required.

So - anyone here flown a Dash 8? Can you feather the prop with the engine running?

[Tu.114]

You sure can feather the propeller without shutting down the turbomachinery - this is commonly done during every shutdown (it takes 30 seconds from feather before the engine may be shut down due to cooling). There are some abnormal procedures as well that call for feathering only, not shutting the engine down inflight.

...when the propeller is quite clearly stationary.

A running engine will keep on spinning a feathered prop. On the DH8D, approximately 220 rpm are expected. While the look of a propeller in such a state is certainly different from a normally running example, it is most definitely not stationary.

However, on the incident in question, I strongly doubt the engine was left running.

Firstly, it would take quite a coincidence for a birdstrike to shave off the spinner that cleanly without causing any temporary imbalance. Disintegration of the spinner must come with a few seconds worth of strong vibrations while parts break off unevenly. Also, it is not unlikely that some parts hit the fuselage (in the area of the ice impact trays).

Secondly, the forward 2/3 of the spinner are visible from the flight deck. It does not take a trip to the cabin to find the spinner gone - just turning back and looking out will do the trick; at night, the wing inspection lights will come in handy. So if after a noticeable airframe shudder, the Captain finds the spinner no longer visible from the flight deck, the assumption of serious engine damage, possibly with ingestion of debris, may well be made. This in turn calls for one of the likely best known checklists on this aircraft (from the simulator, I should add): "Engine failure or severe damage after V1" and will result in a full shutdown.

So I think it most unlikely that the colleagues decided to run the engine feathered in such a condition instead of properly securing it.

[lomapaseo]

TU.114

So I think it most unlikely that the colleagues decided to run the engine feathered in such a condition instead of properly securing it.

What would shutting off the fuel to the engine actually do to any of the symptoms available to the pilot?

Does not the prop continue to spin slowly even with the engine shut down?

No withstanding the tenths of seconds of imbalance as the spinner tears away doesn't the final imbalance seem very small considering it's small relative diameter compared to the prop?

Not being there and not seeing the actual symptoms displayed I'm wont to predict what the pilots actually did.

[Tu.114]

I agree - it is impossible to say "it has been thus" until an investigation report is out. This is why I wrote "unlikely", not "certainly not".

But just for discussion purposes and beyond the scope of this incident:

A feathered propeller with its engine shut down is expected to stand still - it might move momentarily, but nowhere near the mentioned 220rpm of a feathered, but still driven propeller and even way farther from the 850rpm of a thrust-producing one in cruise (numbers for DH8D). The centrifugal force induced by an off-center, unbalanced object, such as the bird carcass that remained in the spinner (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2829801/Bird-strike-destroys-Flybe-plane-propeller-pilot-continues-fly-hour-destination-just-ONE-ENGINE.html) is F=m ω² r. M and r is constant; at 2 rpm the figure for ω² is 0,04; at 220rpm 530 and at 850rpm 7923 - the force creating an imbalance obviously rises proportionally to this figure.

In case this is true, there must have been noticeable and certainly abnormal persistent vibration caused by this damage while the engine still was running. The "Engine Failure/Severe damage" checklist is definitely applicable in this case and will lead to an engine shutdown.

If the spinner was just dumped without any persistent vibration, it certainly is a case-by-case decision to be made on the other hand.

[CJ Driver]

Fair enough TU.144, thanks for the type specific info. I confess I am surprised at the 220 RPM though. On our turboprop, feathering the prop with the engine running gave a lazy "hardly turning at all" effect, especially in level cruise, where the propeller really would stop - presumably because the airflow over the blades completely overcame the residual torque on the power turbine. If you slowed down, the prop would start slowly turning again. At the other extreme (stationary on the ground with the propeller feathered) it would go around at a fair clip - but even then I'm not sure it was 220 rpm.

[Tourist]

Tu144

The RPM you mention. That seems to be likely stationary on the ground but unlikely in flight. Have you actually seen that rotation feathered in flight with the engine still running?
Like Cj driver, I have found most to be nearly stationary feathered in flight with the engine still running though I have not flown the Dash.

[Tu.114]

I have not yet had an engine quit in flight, so I cannot provide any first hand experience here. However, in the simulator, 200-220rpm have been observed in flight with a feathered propeller driven by an idling engine. Also, our documentation is rather clear about this; it contains the following figures as an aid to determine the state of a malfunctioning engine/propeller assembly:

- engine running, propeller feathered: 200rpm
- engine dead, propeller feathered: 0 rpm
- engine dead, propeller unfeathered: above 0 rpm; the sim shows about 150-170 rpm constantly in this condition after a V1 cut

So I have no reason to assume that a feathered propeller will not be spun by a still running engine. Another thought: A running engine provides a few percent of torque. Were the propeller to stand still despite this, the torque would have to be countered by something. That "something" can only be aerodynamic force; likely created by airflow interacting with the feathered prop blades. Assuming this to be true, what happens when one shuts down the gas generator? The engine provides no more torque, but the aerodynamic forces in the opposite direction are still there. So the propeller would start to spin in the direction opposite to its normal operation.

On the DH8, this is definitely not the case. Is it on Your type? If not, is a prop brake installed and activated in such a situation?

[Tourist]

That is interesting.

All the free power turbine types I have flown the feathered prop rotates v slowly and distractingly when feathered.