Air Nelson Replaces 2 Q300 engines already!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat...
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Nelson Replaces 2 Q300 engines already!
Good sources have it that Air Nelson, having only 3 of their 17 brand new Q300s in service, have ruined two engines already!
Apparently it is due to the fact that there is only 1 FMC display unit. Even though they are wired for two displays....
Person in the rt seat leaning over to do some FMC work and pushes the levers forward. Ouch!! $$$$$$$$$
Gee, maybe the saving they made by not putting in the second display unit has already gone, poof!
Smacks of not putting autopilots in the B-1900.
Hang on a minute, isnt the boss the same guy that saw over both projects....hmmm.....?
Do other operators have the same problem??
Or do you have 2 FMCs?
Apparently it is due to the fact that there is only 1 FMC display unit. Even though they are wired for two displays....
Person in the rt seat leaning over to do some FMC work and pushes the levers forward. Ouch!! $$$$$$$$$
Gee, maybe the saving they made by not putting in the second display unit has already gone, poof!
Smacks of not putting autopilots in the B-1900.
Hang on a minute, isnt the boss the same guy that saw over both projects....hmmm.....?
Do other operators have the same problem??
Or do you have 2 FMCs?
Sounds a bit fishy to me.
Not only do they have to knock the power the lever, but they have to knock it enough to over torque it and then not notice for the 20secs it's allowed for a transient over torque.
Not only do they have to knock the power the lever, but they have to knock it enough to over torque it and then not notice for the 20secs it's allowed for a transient over torque.
Confectionary Transfer Technician
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Island
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't work for Air Nsn but have friends who do & it is fact they have over torqued one, was aparently the guy in the Jumpseat overseeing the other two, reaching forward & his jacket catching the power lever. Reliable souces say that once the ginger beers got it they found it had gone to 140% Tq 
. Haven't heard anything about the second one
. Haven't heard anything about the second one
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't sound like a big deal to me, when I was flying Dash 8's with my former company it was a regular occurrance for over torqued engines especially in the early years. It takes very tentitive handling to ensure that no over torqing taking place, like on approach when you put the condition levers forward you have to bring the thrust levers back to avoid over torques, this is where the majority of ours happened with people a little over enthusiastic when pushing the levers forward. The other prime case was on the go around.
nah mate, it's the other way around. never a problem on final as you need to advance the power levers(not thrust levers
) on approach to maintain speed. the problem could be on take-off from 1200 to 1050 or 1050 to 900rpm where the torque will rise about 10-15%(+/_). that may be a problem but i find it hard to believe that it would stuff an engine up so quickly. easy to see how unintentional advancement of power lever could happen reaching for the fms.
another observation from my saab days was during the climb you had to advance the power levers to match climb torque during the climb. in the dash it's the opposite, you have to keep an eye on it as it's easy to get a few % above climb torque fairly quickly.
old habits.......
) on approach to maintain speed. the problem could be on take-off from 1200 to 1050 or 1050 to 900rpm where the torque will rise about 10-15%(+/_). that may be a problem but i find it hard to believe that it would stuff an engine up so quickly. easy to see how unintentional advancement of power lever could happen reaching for the fms.another observation from my saab days was during the climb you had to advance the power levers to match climb torque during the climb. in the dash it's the opposite, you have to keep an eye on it as it's easy to get a few % above climb torque fairly quickly.
old habits.......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Line
Reliable souces say that once the ginger beers got it they found it had gone to 140% Tq .
.Unless of course they left it there for a bit.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another observation from my saab days was during the climb you had to advance the power levers to match climb torque during the climb. in the dash it's the opposite, you have to keep an eye on it as it's easy to get a few % above climb torque fairly quickly.
Particularly between 6-8000 on climb, ay.
was aparently the guy in the Jumpseat overseeing the other two, reaching forward & his jacket catching the power lever
You have to be exceedingly rough to damage a PW123 from an overtorque.
Maintenance required is:
Over 145.6% for 20sec or 127.9% for greater than 20sec, a boroscope of the engine is required.
Over 202% for 20sec down to 145% for 300sec (
) requires replacement of the Reduction Gear Box.
Unless there is damage found during a boroscope there ain't no reason to remove the engine.
And to get it to that stage you have to really give it the onions and then forget about it for quite a while - considering you guys notice one when it burps a bit - can you really imagine not noticing one running at 140%+ for 20 or more secs?
Maintenance required is:
Over 145.6% for 20sec or 127.9% for greater than 20sec, a boroscope of the engine is required.
Over 202% for 20sec down to 145% for 300sec (
) requires replacement of the Reduction Gear Box.Unless there is damage found during a boroscope there ain't no reason to remove the engine.
And to get it to that stage you have to really give it the onions and then forget about it for quite a while - considering you guys notice one when it burps a bit - can you really imagine not noticing one running at 140%+ for 20 or more secs?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still reckon the amount of leaning over the levers to manipulate the FMS is excessive. I caught one condition lever with my watch band once and it increased the rpm a bit. Frightened the $hit outa the captain but no big deal. 2 FMS's would be nice though. Q400 has two!
Bottums Up
Sounds like twaddle to me. In5 yrs on DH8 100/200/300 I never saw an inadvertant increase in thrust due to manipulation of the FMS.
As for torque rises with prop speed changes, climb Tq on the 200 is 114%, and at take-off power to set climb Tq of 114%, one only has to retard the condition levers to min (900 prop rpm).
An unsheduled autofeather on takeoff years ago resulted in the prop feathering with the engine still at takeoff power. The highest Tq I recall seeing was 125%. Engineer's checked their little magic book and after rectifying a faulty ECU connection, we were on our way. No Boro, no inspection, all within published limits.
As for torque rises with prop speed changes, climb Tq on the 200 is 114%, and at take-off power to set climb Tq of 114%, one only has to retard the condition levers to min (900 prop rpm).
An unsheduled autofeather on takeoff years ago resulted in the prop feathering with the engine still at takeoff power. The highest Tq I recall seeing was 125%. Engineer's checked their little magic book and after rectifying a faulty ECU connection, we were on our way. No Boro, no inspection, all within published limits.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capt claret...couldnt agree more,this sounds more like rumour than fact...flew the Dash-8,100/200 and Dash 7 for the same amount of years....never once do I believe we even got close exceeding the engine parameters,(except when playing touch footy in the cockpit)......thats not saying it couldnt happen,and for those that fly it will tell you ,it is one of he most complicated and complex in respect to learning its systems.
Horizon Airlines(a subsiduary of Alaska Airlines,Seattle)currently fly the new 400.A mate of mine,capt on the 400,tells me they are currently relacing several engines and having problems with others ,due the fact that the oil seals(engine) are not holding up to their design,thus causing major problems,ie one precautionary shutdown so far.
I,m not familiar with the A-N equipment,but engine seals seem a little more plausible than the other theories put forward??????? if I,m wrong......crikey mate,that will be a first for sure
......PB
Horizon Airlines(a subsiduary of Alaska Airlines,Seattle)currently fly the new 400.A mate of mine,capt on the 400,tells me they are currently relacing several engines and having problems with others ,due the fact that the oil seals(engine) are not holding up to their design,thus causing major problems,ie one precautionary shutdown so far.
I,m not familiar with the A-N equipment,but engine seals seem a little more plausible than the other theories put forward??????? if I,m wrong......crikey mate,that will be a first for sure
......PB
Originally Posted by Capt Claret
Sounds like twaddle to me. In5 yrs on DH8 100/200/300 I never saw an inadvertant increase in thrust due to manipulation of the FMS.
As for torque rises with prop speed changes, climb Tq on the 200 is 114%, and at take-off power to set climb Tq of 114%, one only has to retard the condition levers to min (900 prop rpm).
), or at least they do on ours, (200s.)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AerocatS2a......You are correct,and for the several Dash operators I have worked for,that is the procedure that De-havilland wants,even in the Dash 7...re-read Blue line post.....I was a check Airmen on the Dash,in my wildest dreams I could not envisage this happening,and if this did......the time required to retard the levers with a "smart " crew onboard would keep the engine within it parameters........correct me if I,m wrong....on the thrust levers, is there not a way to stiffen up the free play(cant remember)??????...PB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat...
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further investigation shows just 1 engine, and that it was over tqd. Checked and put back into service.
Apparently, however it had happened 7 times previously, and no-one had reported it.... Lucky they are P&W.
Apparently, however it had happened 7 times previously, and no-one had reported it.... Lucky they are P&W.
