Single engined take off in a Gulfstream!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single engined take off in a Gulfstream!
'Picked up a story last week that a G450, crewed by Russians, couldn't get one engine up and running so just went anyway. Gulfstream became aware. Crew got fired. Anyone have any further news? It all sounds too incredible for words.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about your story but here's a factual event with another Bizjet trying a single engined takeoff. Didn't turn out well but I must admit a clever "out of the box" problem solving idea. Too bad it was a lame one. Enjoy:
What not to do.
What not to do.
Last edited by ksjc; 12th Nov 2012 at 03:05.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: on earth
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian one engine T/O
When I was flying the Twotter around the Darfur, Sudan a Russian crew decided it was a good idea to take off with their AN-28 with OEI. After all, it was Christmas Eve and the vodka was calling.
Needless to say, they never made it to the party. Or any party for that matter. VMCed about halfway down the strip and created one big bonfire.
Antanov or Gulfstream doesn't matter, it's obviously an attitude problem.
Needless to say, they never made it to the party. Or any party for that matter. VMCed about halfway down the strip and created one big bonfire.
Antanov or Gulfstream doesn't matter, it's obviously an attitude problem.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: AUCKLAND
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I few years ago a pilot in Papua New Guinea attemped a single engine take-off (Starter Motor problem)from a remote down hill airstrip in a BN2 Islander with the idea of falling off the end of the strip into the valley and hopefully do a airstart with a windmilling propellor...never made it !!! was lucky to walk away from the wreakage... the local feds pulled his licence.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SE takeoff
I know for a fact that a friend did this very thing in a Twin Otter in the Baluchi desert back in the '70s. It was either that or park it at an oasis for a couple of weeks waiting for a starter. No telling what would have been left when they returned. I am told that they cleared a wide swath of desert and did an arcing takeoff roll, getting airborne around 50 kts. Once airborne, he performed an air start and returned to pick up the pax for the return to Karachi. Bush flying, always an adventure.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
papal,
Don't doubt the story probably just a little license in the telling, although when you look at the vertical stab, the Otter is probably quite capable.
The early Aero Commander, similarly endowed, is famously supposed to have flown back to base with the propellor from the dead engine in the cabin.
Don't try this at home folks.
For a long time light aircraft manufacturers only put two engines on the frame with the attendant issues, because they could not get a powerful enough single. They were and still are and should be dealt with as such as single engine aircraft with dispersed power.
Hence the Turboprop Caravan and PC12. My carriage of choice over any piston or turboprop twin.
The temptation for the pilot to chance his arm with a continuation of a take off is not available and concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her.
Transport category aircraft are another animal altogether.
Don't doubt the story probably just a little license in the telling, although when you look at the vertical stab, the Otter is probably quite capable.
The early Aero Commander, similarly endowed, is famously supposed to have flown back to base with the propellor from the dead engine in the cabin.
Don't try this at home folks.
For a long time light aircraft manufacturers only put two engines on the frame with the attendant issues, because they could not get a powerful enough single. They were and still are and should be dealt with as such as single engine aircraft with dispersed power.
Hence the Turboprop Caravan and PC12. My carriage of choice over any piston or turboprop twin.
The temptation for the pilot to chance his arm with a continuation of a take off is not available and concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her.
Transport category aircraft are another animal altogether.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 42
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re
It was G550, P4-TPS, operated by Petroff Air. Main issue was that both pilots were 15-20 hours on type.
After this incindent Petroff Air russian AOC was withdrawn by CAA.
After this incindent Petroff Air russian AOC was withdrawn by CAA.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unconfirmed rumor has it that they forgot to deselect the engine start switch, and that upon setting T/O thrust, one of the FADECs refused to cooperate.
If that is true, the main issue truly is the lack of experience on type of both pilots, couple with an astonishing lack of judgment...
If that is true, the main issue truly is the lack of experience on type of both pilots, couple with an astonishing lack of judgment...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turboprop Caravan and PC12. My carriage of choice over any piston or turboprop twin.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windypops
Short version.
It's a modern turboprop single v any older piston turboprop twin thing, Part 23 certification refers.
The temptation for the pilot to chance his arm with a continuation of a take off is not available and concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her.
Is the operative reason.
The modern turboprop singles mostly use the ultrareliable PT6 series turbo prop engines.
Also their cabin and seating arangements are generally stressed to 25g which for those types whose stall speed by the certification rules cannot be more than 61kts or so, means that all other things being equal you will most likely walk away from a properly controlled off airport landing.
ALL Part 23 twins i.e.<12,500 lbs/5700kgs have marginal single engine performance if at all beyond a required EFATO positive rate (+50fpm) they may do better but they are not required to demonstrate it. The manufacturers generally advise that continued flight after or during take off is the least desirable option. The only in flight single engine performance they are required to demonstrate is maintaining level flight (+50 fpm) at 5,000ft in ISA.
Pilot (usually single) mishandling of an failure in these twin types more often than not results in the live engine taking him to a bad place at high speed often upside down. Survivability is now improbable. He should concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her. Cabin and seats are only stressed to I think 9g and if you are lucky you should walk away.
Higher pilot experience may mitigate the result but, unlike Part 25 transport category types (requires 2 crew) you are relying on him getting everything exactly right in a relatively very short period of time, unlike Part 25 operations where the crew should basically sit on their hands and fly it away until they get to transition.
Problem is the experience thing just happens to be upside down, i.e. the least experienced pilots tend to be flying the piston and turboprop twin types that require the most.
Hence my comment above.
Goes quiet, all he has to do is maintain control and find the least worst area in front of him to land in, and, continue to fly the aircraft until the crashing noise stops. It might not be pretty but the insurance company now owns the aircraft so party on.
Short version.
It's a modern turboprop single v any older piston turboprop twin thing, Part 23 certification refers.
The temptation for the pilot to chance his arm with a continuation of a take off is not available and concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her.
Is the operative reason.
The modern turboprop singles mostly use the ultrareliable PT6 series turbo prop engines.
Also their cabin and seating arangements are generally stressed to 25g which for those types whose stall speed by the certification rules cannot be more than 61kts or so, means that all other things being equal you will most likely walk away from a properly controlled off airport landing.
ALL Part 23 twins i.e.<12,500 lbs/5700kgs have marginal single engine performance if at all beyond a required EFATO positive rate (+50fpm) they may do better but they are not required to demonstrate it. The manufacturers generally advise that continued flight after or during take off is the least desirable option. The only in flight single engine performance they are required to demonstrate is maintaining level flight (+50 fpm) at 5,000ft in ISA.
Pilot (usually single) mishandling of an failure in these twin types more often than not results in the live engine taking him to a bad place at high speed often upside down. Survivability is now improbable. He should concentrates his/her mind wonderfully in doing what he/she should always do, land more or less straight ahead in the least worst area in front of him/her. Cabin and seats are only stressed to I think 9g and if you are lucky you should walk away.
Higher pilot experience may mitigate the result but, unlike Part 25 transport category types (requires 2 crew) you are relying on him getting everything exactly right in a relatively very short period of time, unlike Part 25 operations where the crew should basically sit on their hands and fly it away until they get to transition.
Problem is the experience thing just happens to be upside down, i.e. the least experienced pilots tend to be flying the piston and turboprop twin types that require the most.
Hence my comment above.
Goes quiet, all he has to do is maintain control and find the least worst area in front of him to land in, and, continue to fly the aircraft until the crashing noise stops. It might not be pretty but the insurance company now owns the aircraft so party on.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP 
Why in the time honored manner of course, turn on the landing lights and if you see something you don't like, turn them off again.
Provided you are properly restrained you are capable of even higher than a transient 25g. The seats are designed to absorb the forces (deform) in a controlled manner.
Controlled for the aircraft and Transient fir the seats being the operative words.
Most fatals result from a departure from controlled flight ie the pilot in command changes his status to passenger.
Besides only bats and vampires fly at night.
At the end of the day it's always a risk calculation and whether your passengers are totally informed or not.
Why in the time honored manner of course, turn on the landing lights and if you see something you don't like, turn them off again.
Provided you are properly restrained you are capable of even higher than a transient 25g. The seats are designed to absorb the forces (deform) in a controlled manner.
Controlled for the aircraft and Transient fir the seats being the operative words.
Most fatals result from a departure from controlled flight ie the pilot in command changes his status to passenger.
Besides only bats and vampires fly at night.
At the end of the day it's always a risk calculation and whether your passengers are totally informed or not.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FedEx plane crashes south of Wichita Mid-Continent Airport; Lawrence man dead - KansasCity.com
The PT6 is ultra reliable, until it's not!
The PT6 is ultra reliable, until it's not!
Last edited by 412SP; 14th Nov 2012 at 00:27.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
412SP
You are of course correct.
Sh!t still happens.
Vale Brian Quinn, lets see what the NTSB has to say.
But in context Fedex operate 250 of them in all sorts of ****ty weather and are probably going towards 4,000,000 hours operating them over the last 20 years.
Couple of itmes on interest from the Kansas City Star.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinari said. Quinn was attempting to return to the airport when the plane went down about two miles south of the airport.
and
The FAA was on scene Tuesday, Molinari said, but the National Transportation and Safety Board will be the lead agency in the investigation.
The Caravan is one of the safest general aviation airplanes in operation, said David Dewhirst, head of airplane management company Sabris Corp.
In the past 10 years, there have been seven accidents due to engine failures, none of them fatal.
During that time, the Caravan has been involved in a total of 61 accidents, seven of them fatal. All fatalities were due to pilot error, Dewhirst said his research shows. This was the first fatality from engine failure during that time, according to his data.
Now you might say this is the press but Kansas is where it all happens as far as GA aviation is concerned and you can be sure the reporter would use reliable sources if he values his job.
Thats not for me to judge, but Dewhirst's comments are about how I understand it, I used to work for the Cessna distributor in Australia and had a fair bit to do with the introduction of the type and the ASEPTA certification here.
At the end of the day it's always a risk calculation!
Getting a bit off thread and for those unitiated, Part 25 types >12,500lbs, are required by certification rules basically to be able to coninue the take off beyond V1 meet predetermined obstacle gradients for a return or to the destination if a return is unavailable. its a fascinating design exercise, for those interested, of tradeoffs.
Getting to V1 unscathed is the trick. You might want to go have a look here.
FAR. Part 25
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart B—Flight
§ 25.107 Takeoff speeds.
This might help explain whay the abovementioned got themselves into a bad place.
i am always personally amazed how few pilots of said Part 25 aircraft have any idea of how the certification process works and what it means for them. They mostly default to following the numbers in the manual, as they should, but without understanding the consequences of making it up as they go along and becoming test pilots in the process.
You are of course correct.
Sh!t still happens.
Vale Brian Quinn, lets see what the NTSB has to say.
But in context Fedex operate 250 of them in all sorts of ****ty weather and are probably going towards 4,000,000 hours operating them over the last 20 years.
Couple of itmes on interest from the Kansas City Star.
Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinari said. Quinn was attempting to return to the airport when the plane went down about two miles south of the airport.
and
The FAA was on scene Tuesday, Molinari said, but the National Transportation and Safety Board will be the lead agency in the investigation.
The Caravan is one of the safest general aviation airplanes in operation, said David Dewhirst, head of airplane management company Sabris Corp.
In the past 10 years, there have been seven accidents due to engine failures, none of them fatal.
During that time, the Caravan has been involved in a total of 61 accidents, seven of them fatal. All fatalities were due to pilot error, Dewhirst said his research shows. This was the first fatality from engine failure during that time, according to his data.
Now you might say this is the press but Kansas is where it all happens as far as GA aviation is concerned and you can be sure the reporter would use reliable sources if he values his job.
Thats not for me to judge, but Dewhirst's comments are about how I understand it, I used to work for the Cessna distributor in Australia and had a fair bit to do with the introduction of the type and the ASEPTA certification here.
At the end of the day it's always a risk calculation!
Getting a bit off thread and for those unitiated, Part 25 types >12,500lbs, are required by certification rules basically to be able to coninue the take off beyond V1 meet predetermined obstacle gradients for a return or to the destination if a return is unavailable. its a fascinating design exercise, for those interested, of tradeoffs.
Getting to V1 unscathed is the trick. You might want to go have a look here.
FAR. Part 25
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart B—Flight
§ 25.107 Takeoff speeds.
This might help explain whay the abovementioned got themselves into a bad place.
i am always personally amazed how few pilots of said Part 25 aircraft have any idea of how the certification process works and what it means for them. They mostly default to following the numbers in the manual, as they should, but without understanding the consequences of making it up as they go along and becoming test pilots in the process.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early Aero Commander, similarly endowed, is famously supposed to have flown back to base with the propellor from the dead engine in the cabin.
On May 9th, 1951 the new Aero Commander, a twin-engined executive machine, certainly attracted attention; the aircraft was flown from Oklahoma City to Washington, a distance of 1,160 miles, on one engine from standstill to standstill. In order to guarantee that no extra power would be available during take-off or landing (and, of course, no drag from the airscrew blades), the port airscrew was removed. At a gross weight of 4,800 lb, the Commander was able to taxi to take-off position after a 2,700-ft run, and to attain adequate cruising height, on the power of its remaining 260 h.p. Lycoming engine. The pilot was the makers' flight operations manager, Mr. Bert Bantle, who had with him a former airline pilot as observer.
