Since when is a pan a mayday? When reported by GT!:

Rex plane issues mayday call before emergency landing at Sydney Airport | Perth Now

standby, fact checking

OOOpppsss... OK OK, I'll go quietly.

When I saw it, it was very corroded, and I am aware of the wing leading edge separating after a severe pull-up, so the 'story' was....

Apols for 'giving' this one to the US Navy....

Is it possible that the prop shaft could literally rip itself apart due to an extremely excessive uncontrolled increase in RPM? That's what uncommanded engine operations would mean to me.

If the prop seperated in the approx area of the map above. It should be relatively easy to recover, from someone's lounge room, back paddock or garden. If it's in the blue mountains national park, it would be nearly impossible to find.

Isn't the CT7 engine a fixed turbine. Would the FCU be able to keep the RPM under disc explosion level once the prop came off. What sort of torque value do the SAABs use on descent.

Is there any mode of CSU failure that would drive the blades to fine pitch. I would imagine that the drag of accelerating the engine in this case would keep the RPMs much lower than on a PT6.

It was. And a repeat of a US Navy P-3 event at Cocos three years earlier that had similar leading edge collapse but landed safely. Interesting report on the investigation into the RAAF event by ARL. Design errors by Lockheed and manufacturing defects in the leading edge ribs part of the story.

Sad end for a plane IsDon.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/galler...754/A9_754.jpg

^^ I was referring to prop RPM

The main reason I make the point is too me "uncommanded engine operations" (stated to ATC) likely means an increase in power, because a loss/reduction of power would more likely be referenced as failed engine.

if I recall correctly, the US officer flying had played a significant role, and not a positive one, in the genesis of this disaster. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Canadian exchange officer & captain flying at the time was but one of the 'slices of Swiss cheese' in the event's evolution.🤔😉

Correct, the guy was on exchange from Canada, not the US.

I believe, happy to be corrected, he was also the Aurora display pilot prior to his posting to Australia. Doing air shows in the aircraft. I've been told this by others, I don't know it for certain.

SF340 VH-EKT had torque motor issues immediately prior to this incident.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair199201222/

Crew elected to land without going to torque motor lockout. Prop runaway ensued resulting in loss of control and snapping of nose gear on touchdown. Not saying todays incident is similar but the CT7, like any engine, is not infallible.

https://www.geaviation.com/commercia...nes/ct7-engine

It's been around a while and is pretty reliable.

Job well done by the crew. I'm sure Rex will give them a little bit of extra nothing in their pay check as a reward.

Well done job by the crew, as well as ATC and emergency services.

Interesting that they declared it only as a Pan. Then again I suppose they did have full control of the aircraft and they were Ozzies ;)

I'm sure the pax said "sod councelling, where's the bar"! :)

Auto feather.... Pffft... Auto-jettison!!

Did the flight crew call it a pan pan or was that designated by ATC? Nicely managed by all given the additional medical pan pan at similar time. But should both planes have been allowed 16R then the runway check done? As the taxi time from 16L is long for the flight with the medical emergency.

The problem is the rex aircraft vacating the runway in time for the medical pan

Has GT come forward with a theory yet?

Was the aircraft turning from upwind to a downwind air mass?

Has ATSB checked Cash Convertors out in western Sydney in case they have Saab prop for sale?

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - perhaps by the time they told ATC, they had everything under control and thought Mayday was no longer warranted.

I can't wait for the headlines "aircraft are designed to land with only one prop"

DF.