Reduced power take-off's in King Air and other turbo-props.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced power take-off's in King Air and other turbo-props.
Regarding King Air turbo prop types. To be legal should full power be used for all take-offs? In other words are reduced power take offs legal?
I ask the question because some operators of aircraft such as the Bandeirante, and King Air use less than full rated power in order to avoid inadvertently exceeding the maximum take off torque.
This has the effect of extending the take off distance required and also risks the chances of an over-run in the event the take off is aborted before gear retract. I thought only turbo-jet aircraft were certified for reduced thrust take offs and then only under certain circumstances.
I ask the question because some operators of aircraft such as the Bandeirante, and King Air use less than full rated power in order to avoid inadvertently exceeding the maximum take off torque.
This has the effect of extending the take off distance required and also risks the chances of an over-run in the event the take off is aborted before gear retract. I thought only turbo-jet aircraft were certified for reduced thrust take offs and then only under certain circumstances.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, non, nyet, nada, nein there is no LEGAL basis nor are there any certificated charts that allow TO with reduced power.
Max torque or temp which ever comes first.
Depending on the condition of the compressors and/or the temp/elevation you might go temp limited first, but the parameters required for the day will be in the WAT charts in the book.
But then CASA have approved some really odd things in Ops Manuals over the years.
If this is a "mandatory unofficial" requirement just keep practising your skills in handling hostile cross examination in a courtroom and perhaps being made personally liable for the damage.
Max torque or temp which ever comes first.
Depending on the condition of the compressors and/or the temp/elevation you might go temp limited first, but the parameters required for the day will be in the WAT charts in the book.
But then CASA have approved some really odd things in Ops Manuals over the years.
If this is a "mandatory unofficial" requirement just keep practising your skills in handling hostile cross examination in a courtroom and perhaps being made personally liable for the damage.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The salutary example provided by Advance Airlines (if memory serves me correct) at Sydney twenty odd years ago must have passed from collective memory. It hit the sea wall killing all on board. EFATO.
Other factors as well, including autofeather disconnected on the two Kingairs that had it out of the fleet of three for purpose of standardisation. Unfortunate as the crash A/C was equipped.
Also unfortunate was no headset, requiring the use of a handmike during assymetric flight and a lot of back and forth with the controller due a 727 landing negating a 180 deg return to the R/W
A BIGGY in the BASI report though was the use of reduced power T/Os.
Other factors as well, including autofeather disconnected on the two Kingairs that had it out of the fleet of three for purpose of standardisation. Unfortunate as the crash A/C was equipped.
Also unfortunate was no headset, requiring the use of a handmike during assymetric flight and a lot of back and forth with the controller due a 727 landing negating a 180 deg return to the R/W
A BIGGY in the BASI report though was the use of reduced power T/Os.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
I hate to disagree with you but manufacturers have approved the use of reduced power for take off in a number of turbine aircraft types that I have been involved in.
The basis is that of utilising an assumed temperature for your take off.
In a simple form it works like this, if the aircraft is capable of meeting all runway and performance requirements at a specific weight - say 5700kg and an ambient temperature of say 40 degrees, but the actual temperature is only 10, then take-off power can be reduced to that of the power setting that would have been utilised on the 40 degree day (reduced a maximum of 10% usually)
The logic applied here is that the power setting used on the 40 degree day will meet the performance requirements if it is used on the 10 degree day.
ie - Use the power setting that will obtain the required performance within the manufacturers minimum limitations. After all, if you need the additional power it is always available and the saving by way of engine costs can be significant.
I hate to disagree with you but manufacturers have approved the use of reduced power for take off in a number of turbine aircraft types that I have been involved in.
The basis is that of utilising an assumed temperature for your take off.
In a simple form it works like this, if the aircraft is capable of meeting all runway and performance requirements at a specific weight - say 5700kg and an ambient temperature of say 40 degrees, but the actual temperature is only 10, then take-off power can be reduced to that of the power setting that would have been utilised on the 40 degree day (reduced a maximum of 10% usually)
The logic applied here is that the power setting used on the 40 degree day will meet the performance requirements if it is used on the 10 degree day.
ie - Use the power setting that will obtain the required performance within the manufacturers minimum limitations. After all, if you need the additional power it is always available and the saving by way of engine costs can be significant.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can, provided.....
You can use reduced power takeoffs in a Metro 23 via the Assumed Temperature method (described above by splatman). I think, but am not sure, that it is available in the EMB120 Brasilia.
I hasten to add that you just can't decide that reduced power takeoffs in a turboprop are a good idea. You can't mess with your power without considering TORA TODA ASDA balanced field and climb performance.
It has to be in the AFM, giving both performance data and specifying the techniques and crew procedures to follow. It also has to be written into your ops manual and your pilots have to be trained and checked on how to do them.
I hasten to add that you just can't decide that reduced power takeoffs in a turboprop are a good idea. You can't mess with your power without considering TORA TODA ASDA balanced field and climb performance.
It has to be in the AFM, giving both performance data and specifying the techniques and crew procedures to follow. It also has to be written into your ops manual and your pilots have to be trained and checked on how to do them.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hasten to add that you just can't decide that reduced power takeoffs in a turboprop are a good idea.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
splatman, you may well be right. To use assumed temps etc the operator would need to be using RTOW tables meeting the reqs of CAO 20.7. 1B and CAR 235. That is runway length and segment obstacle clearance.
It is not clear in the first post whether this is the case or not.
It is not clear in the first post whether this is the case or not.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
splatman please feel free. 
bit quick on the draw there. 
You're right, but as ITCZ says there are a whole bunch of qualifications.
I was referring to regular ops in FAR23 types maybe SFAR23/41 types have it available, certainly it is for FAR25 types.
Like Spotlight I'm dredging my memory on the Advance accident, and if my memory serves me correctly there were some very red faces in the regulator and their surveilance on it.
The assumed temperature case also means that you are denying yourself the "extra" runway and obstacle clearance when you really need it.
I can't recall if it was the same accident but a failure to increase power to the maximum available on the remaining engine was a contributory factor.
IMHO in single pilot ops trying to sort the deadun and get cleaned up and going is busy busy without having to reset the live un and you're off the back of the curve all the time.
With carefully and properly trained and supervised pilots we never found it necessary, nor did we ever have any surprises at HSI or overhaul.
bit quick on the draw there. You're right, but as ITCZ says there are a whole bunch of qualifications.
I was referring to regular ops in FAR23 types maybe SFAR23/41 types have it available, certainly it is for FAR25 types.
Like Spotlight I'm dredging my memory on the Advance accident, and if my memory serves me correctly there were some very red faces in the regulator and their surveilance on it.
The assumed temperature case also means that you are denying yourself the "extra" runway and obstacle clearance when you really need it.
I can't recall if it was the same accident but a failure to increase power to the maximum available on the remaining engine was a contributory factor.
IMHO in single pilot ops trying to sort the deadun and get cleaned up and going is busy busy without having to reset the live un and you're off the back of the curve all the time.
With carefully and properly trained and supervised pilots we never found it necessary, nor did we ever have any surprises at HSI or overhaul.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty...believe you are wrong on the reduced pwr t/o,s ...have used them for years on the metro/dash 100/200/7...King air 200b....this has been a hotly debated issue and has been ultimately been the decision of the company involved.....obviously factors ie density altitude etc dictate your pwr setting,but reduced pwr setting have been around awhile......pilot participation is your choice.....currently on the A320(jets vs Turbines)...we are able to flex up to 25%....we are actually required to do this......kia kaha
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere the job offer is!
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced power take offs reduce the EGT and therefore increase the life of the engine.
The company I flew metros for used the assumed temperature method for reducing power. However I knew a lot of the chaps didn't like doing it and used max power available instead. If using performance charts for the specific runway in use using the assumed temp method will ensure that all climb gradients are adhered to. However the standard procedure following an engine failure is gear up and max power which gives you that little bit more. The metro was only allowed to reduce power by a maximum of 10% torque.
The company I flew metros for used the assumed temperature method for reducing power. However I knew a lot of the chaps didn't like doing it and used max power available instead. If using performance charts for the specific runway in use using the assumed temp method will ensure that all climb gradients are adhered to. However the standard procedure following an engine failure is gear up and max power which gives you that little bit more. The metro was only allowed to reduce power by a maximum of 10% torque.
In an aircraft that is only certified to FAR 23, (the KingAir which is the primary subject under discussion) why on earth would you want to?
I suggest you all read the accident report of the C90 accident at YTWB.
An engine failure at the wrong time, do everything right and you are still going down. Why make that window any longer?
Transport Cat/FAR 25 aircraft are a different kettle of fish. "Guaranteed" performance, 2 pilots, NTS etc etc etc.
Reduced hot section wear means jack when you are through the fence off the end, or worse.
I suggest you all read the accident report of the C90 accident at YTWB.
An engine failure at the wrong time, do everything right and you are still going down. Why make that window any longer?
Transport Cat/FAR 25 aircraft are a different kettle of fish. "Guaranteed" performance, 2 pilots, NTS etc etc etc.
Reduced hot section wear means jack when you are through the fence off the end, or worse.
Last edited by compressor stall; 7th Sep 2005 at 01:25.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regional turbines such as Dash/Saab/Bras etc do it all around the world and are totally legal.
As for terrain clearances on one, if the aircraft is certified accordingly then MCP on the live engine will keep you out of trouble. That is assuming it is operated by a 'competent crew'.
As for terrain clearances on one, if the aircraft is certified accordingly then MCP on the live engine will keep you out of trouble. That is assuming it is operated by a 'competent crew'.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks I think we are probably probably all in heated agreement on one issue or another.
As Stallie IMHO quite correctly points out it's the old certification issue.
FAR23.....SFAR23/41......FAR25
SAFE....SAFER...SAFEST
Different strokes for different blokes.
ITCZ as he often does says it much more eloquently than I.
IMHO though" conceptually legal by regulation" (and I speak of FAR23 types) it may be, I suspect it is not something the manufacturers would support without a black letter law certification rule setting out the certification performance requirements for it.
Even so IMHO this is a dubious practise given the risks that the PIC will fcuk up weighed against the so called costs savings.
It takes as much care to properly and legally set the flex power as it does to set full power, otherwise why bother and it simply introduces another action to be performed exactly when you need the most concentration to save your sorry ass in a machine that wasn't certified for the FAR25 "guaranteed" case in the first place.
I can hear the posters revving up now to tell me that the Whizbang123 turboprop goes up like the proverbial on one, I'm here to tell you you're in for a nasty surprise one day.
At best around 220fpm and then only when you're "slotted, feathered, clean and tidy" and holding your mouth the right way.
On the other hand in general terms for FAR 25 performers, besides "positive rate gear up", ALL other items beyond flying V2 are left for review and action until the third segment.
And of course there's the old multicrew argument to add to the confusion.
Am I correct in making the following statement?
As Stallie IMHO quite correctly points out it's the old certification issue.
FAR23.....SFAR23/41......FAR25
SAFE....SAFER...SAFEST
Different strokes for different blokes.
ITCZ as he often does says it much more eloquently than I.
I hasten to add that you just can't decide that reduced power takeoffs in a turboprop are a good idea. You can't mess with your power without considering TORA TODA ASDA balanced field and climb performance.
It has to be in the AFM, giving both performance data and specifying the techniques and crew procedures to follow. It also has to be written into your ops manual and your pilots have to be trained and checked on how to do them.
It has to be in the AFM, giving both performance data and specifying the techniques and crew procedures to follow. It also has to be written into your ops manual and your pilots have to be trained and checked on how to do them.
Even so IMHO this is a dubious practise given the risks that the PIC will fcuk up weighed against the so called costs savings.
It takes as much care to properly and legally set the flex power as it does to set full power, otherwise why bother and it simply introduces another action to be performed exactly when you need the most concentration to save your sorry ass in a machine that wasn't certified for the FAR25 "guaranteed" case in the first place.
I can hear the posters revving up now to tell me that the Whizbang123 turboprop goes up like the proverbial on one, I'm here to tell you you're in for a nasty surprise one day.
At best around 220fpm and then only when you're "slotted, feathered, clean and tidy" and holding your mouth the right way.
On the other hand in general terms for FAR 25 performers, besides "positive rate gear up", ALL other items beyond flying V2 are left for review and action until the third segment.
And of course there's the old multicrew argument to add to the confusion.
Am I correct in making the following statement?
The assumed temperature case also means that you are denying yourself the "extra" runway and obstacle clearance ( I should have added "available" here) when you really need it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most useless things in aviation
Here is another to add to the list of most useless things in aviation..... The runway behind you, the height above you, the space in your fuel tank and the "revs / torque" you didn't use on takeoff.
J
J
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see that this topic will dribble on for days possibly weeks, maybe months. How about we all agree that, Yes you can use reduced power/torque takeoffs, and that some operators approve their crews to use it, yet the choice remains solely with the operating crew on the day.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously some strong opinions on the subject and that is always good when people think about performance.
But wasn't the original question " is it legal?"
OK - I think we have worked it out - YES IT IS!
But wasn't the original question " is it legal?"
OK - I think we have worked it out - YES IT IS!
My understanding is that the RFDS at Essendon use the technique of using slightly less than full power than max on take off in order to minimise the possibility of inadvertent exceedance of full power. On the face of it this sounds a reasonable argument. But really, this is only a bastardised form of reduced thrust take off without the formal use of a runway analysis presentation.
If an engine fails and rudder is used (of course) to stop further yaw, then by increasing power on the live engine back to that additional torque, the yaw will be increased and could catch the unwary. One presumes of course that CASA has approved the policy described above. If so, the buck stops there - maybe?
Let's face it, the whole business of not using the manufacturer's recommended technique in this case could be perfectly safe on nice long runways, but although I am not licenced on type, I find it hard to imagine it being a manufacture's recommendation. If that is correct, then as Gaunty pointed out, watch out for the legal fraternity who would quickly swoop if there was an accident in which reduced throttle setting may be a factor.
If an engine fails and rudder is used (of course) to stop further yaw, then by increasing power on the live engine back to that additional torque, the yaw will be increased and could catch the unwary. One presumes of course that CASA has approved the policy described above. If so, the buck stops there - maybe?
Let's face it, the whole business of not using the manufacturer's recommended technique in this case could be perfectly safe on nice long runways, but although I am not licenced on type, I find it hard to imagine it being a manufacture's recommendation. If that is correct, then as Gaunty pointed out, watch out for the legal fraternity who would quickly swoop if there was an accident in which reduced throttle setting may be a factor.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the RFDS at Essendon use the technique of using slightly less than full power than max on take off in order to minimise the possibility of inadvertent exceedance of full power.
What Im trying to say is why not just go for max torque