Turbo prop problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo prop problems
It seems that the Whizbang turbo aircraft are having lots of problems these days, flying into the ground, running out of fuel or having "woop woop alerts. Maybe things should bre simpler so nistakes happen less often!!!!!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Are you having a go at any particular turboprop Bushy? Cause the ones in my area seem to be going along just fine......
Yes indeed, that's why we fly turboprops!!
Maybe things should bre simpler so nistakes happen less often!!!!!
Grandpa Aerotart
Turbine aircraft are not technically difficult to operate...easier than the old GTSIO and TSIO time bombs some of us had to cope with in times past...VASTLY easier than the old radials of the generations before...BUT they are faster, cruise higher and descend at much higher rates of descent than were possible in the pistons...without damaging the engines....and therein lay the problems for young players.
They require higher levels of airmanship and much higher understanding of good IFR basics....two areas that FAR too many relatively inexperienced pilots are short on these days.
Because turbine engines are so 'easy' and have such 'relatively' carefree handling pilots are not forced to THINK and PLAN things the way we were on C402s/404s/Queenairs/Aerostars etc. That thought and planning carried over to Turbines and coupled with , usually, much higher levels of supervision and recurrent training than appear the norm these days led to better safety results generally.
There was a time not so very long ago when you were required to have much higher experience levels to fly a Turbine...even simple ones like Twin Otters required 3000 + hrs...5000+ for Bandits and Kingairs...not because the systems were complicated but because the inherent abilities of the aircraft provided pitfalls for the unwary or unaware.
These days pilots are progressing through the ranks that much quicker. They are NOT getting the levels of on going supervision and recurrent training that was more common when virtually all high performance, cabin class piston twins and turbines were owned by 'Third Level Airlines'.
They are missing out on the basics learned by spending reasonable amounts of time at each step of the ladder....this is what we mean when we say so many pilots these days, in GA especially, but even regionals 'just don't know what they don't know'.
Hazeltons, Eastern, Sunstate, Talair, Flightwest, Oconnor, Connellan, Tillair, Air North, Ansett & East West (through their Air Ambulance contracts) etc all were operating DC3,C404s, C441s, Twin Otters, Bandits, Kingairs, C310s, Barons, C421s, Navahos, Chieftians, Queenairs etc until as recently as 15 years ago. It was a unusual to get to fly these aircraft without being employed by the above companies and ten more I can't think of off the top of my head....it was unheard of to get to fly the turbines without flying virtuall all the pistons in the above list first.
There tends to be an attitude among MANY younger pilots these days that experience is 'not required' to fly turbine equipment because "you just press a button and they start", 'computers look after this and that", "FMCs tell you all you need to know about where you are and when you will get where you are going", "they are so reliable the engines virtually never fail"
But pilots run them out of fuel despite generally very accurate gauges....pilots fly them into the ground at night, usually because they develope high RODs without it being obvious to the pilot cocooned in his quiet, pressurised hull and lacking in the IFR scan and manipulative skills to fly a circling approach into a black hole airport. Skills that WERE developed through 1000s of hours flying piston twins with often unserviceable A/Ps and that required carefull planning and engine management to avoid frightening noises from both the engines and the Chief Pilot.
Turbines generally fly at levels that are the most potentially dangerous for icing, turbulence etc...mid/high teens to highish 20s. You are covering ground that much faster, you're a long way off the ground and when things go wrong they are often commensurately more complicated.
That is why the RFDS require such high experience levels, especially IFR/night experience....not because B200s or PC12s are technically difficult aircraft to master from a systems point of view.
And that is the reason RFDS, as an example, has the impeccable safety record it has...experience (many RFDS pilots, if not most/all of the senior ones, have many 1000s of hrs on complex, high performance piston twins), supervision and recurrent training.
They require higher levels of airmanship and much higher understanding of good IFR basics....two areas that FAR too many relatively inexperienced pilots are short on these days.
Because turbine engines are so 'easy' and have such 'relatively' carefree handling pilots are not forced to THINK and PLAN things the way we were on C402s/404s/Queenairs/Aerostars etc. That thought and planning carried over to Turbines and coupled with , usually, much higher levels of supervision and recurrent training than appear the norm these days led to better safety results generally.
There was a time not so very long ago when you were required to have much higher experience levels to fly a Turbine...even simple ones like Twin Otters required 3000 + hrs...5000+ for Bandits and Kingairs...not because the systems were complicated but because the inherent abilities of the aircraft provided pitfalls for the unwary or unaware.
These days pilots are progressing through the ranks that much quicker. They are NOT getting the levels of on going supervision and recurrent training that was more common when virtually all high performance, cabin class piston twins and turbines were owned by 'Third Level Airlines'.
They are missing out on the basics learned by spending reasonable amounts of time at each step of the ladder....this is what we mean when we say so many pilots these days, in GA especially, but even regionals 'just don't know what they don't know'.
Hazeltons, Eastern, Sunstate, Talair, Flightwest, Oconnor, Connellan, Tillair, Air North, Ansett & East West (through their Air Ambulance contracts) etc all were operating DC3,C404s, C441s, Twin Otters, Bandits, Kingairs, C310s, Barons, C421s, Navahos, Chieftians, Queenairs etc until as recently as 15 years ago. It was a unusual to get to fly these aircraft without being employed by the above companies and ten more I can't think of off the top of my head....it was unheard of to get to fly the turbines without flying virtuall all the pistons in the above list first.
There tends to be an attitude among MANY younger pilots these days that experience is 'not required' to fly turbine equipment because "you just press a button and they start", 'computers look after this and that", "FMCs tell you all you need to know about where you are and when you will get where you are going", "they are so reliable the engines virtually never fail"
But pilots run them out of fuel despite generally very accurate gauges....pilots fly them into the ground at night, usually because they develope high RODs without it being obvious to the pilot cocooned in his quiet, pressurised hull and lacking in the IFR scan and manipulative skills to fly a circling approach into a black hole airport. Skills that WERE developed through 1000s of hours flying piston twins with often unserviceable A/Ps and that required carefull planning and engine management to avoid frightening noises from both the engines and the Chief Pilot.
Turbines generally fly at levels that are the most potentially dangerous for icing, turbulence etc...mid/high teens to highish 20s. You are covering ground that much faster, you're a long way off the ground and when things go wrong they are often commensurately more complicated.
That is why the RFDS require such high experience levels, especially IFR/night experience....not because B200s or PC12s are technically difficult aircraft to master from a systems point of view.
And that is the reason RFDS, as an example, has the impeccable safety record it has...experience (many RFDS pilots, if not most/all of the senior ones, have many 1000s of hrs on complex, high performance piston twins), supervision and recurrent training.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 7th Feb 2006 at 13:48.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed, that's why we fly turboprops!!
And as we all know, you can never go back to stocking shelves. Oh the humiliation to go back and ask the pimply junior-dork who's now store-manager for my old job back at Woolies.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu
That would have to be the best post I've seen on Pprune for some time. It is nice to hear a well constructed, from the heart response sometimes, with some real experience attached to it. We should all learn from it.
Thank-you
TBT
That would have to be the best post I've seen on Pprune for some time. It is nice to hear a well constructed, from the heart response sometimes, with some real experience attached to it. We should all learn from it.
Thank-you
TBT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience
Chimbu
Thank you. You have said what I have been trying to say for a long time.
I guess there are not many people from those days left, who still have an interest in GA.
I remember when I first flew a Kingair, the roller blind checklist used to stick, because the roller blind was far too long, and would not fit without jamming. Most of the items were not essential (it even included the coffee machine), and appeared to be there to protect people who were not in the aeroplane.
Pre landing checks could not be started before entering the circuit, and you often found yourself winding the checklist knob on short final, when you should be looking out the window. It finally got simplified, and things went much better.
Is this sort of thing contributing to some of the latest mishaps?
Thank you. You have said what I have been trying to say for a long time.
I guess there are not many people from those days left, who still have an interest in GA.
I remember when I first flew a Kingair, the roller blind checklist used to stick, because the roller blind was far too long, and would not fit without jamming. Most of the items were not essential (it even included the coffee machine), and appeared to be there to protect people who were not in the aeroplane.
Pre landing checks could not be started before entering the circuit, and you often found yourself winding the checklist knob on short final, when you should be looking out the window. It finally got simplified, and things went much better.
Is this sort of thing contributing to some of the latest mishaps?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy, Care to expand on the "mishaps" statement.
Haven't heard of that many to start running for the hills yet.
Chimby C. As always, classic, to the point and with knowledge behind it.
You are spot on. Things happen a heck of a lot faster in them and one needs to be way in front to stay with it.
Haven't heard of that many to start running for the hills yet.
Chimby C. As always, classic, to the point and with knowledge behind it.
You are spot on. Things happen a heck of a lot faster in them and one needs to be way in front to stay with it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mishaps
Sure.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant thread, I am a keen player in GA and looking forward to many years of flying some of the above mentioned machines before RFDS/Airline or any of the such. I however would like to comment on how hard it is for a new CPL to get in with a crowd who supervise/mentor their Pilots with the passion and dedication it requires.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brissvagas, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bushy
Sure.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.
Metros running out of fuel.Landing with one engine stopped and the other with about 15 litres left.
Caravans, landing in the water, or overshooting the runway, or running out of fuel.
A bandeirante landing with hardly any fuel left.
Others suffering CFIT.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
Regarding the Metro landing on one with 15 Lts in the other, that pilot has a solid back ground in GA, was an enginerring problem ( fuel indication system ), good bloke to boot, on all other examples agreed.
Regarding the Metro landing on one with 15 Lts in the other, that pilot has a solid back ground in GA, was an enginerring problem ( fuel indication system ), good bloke to boot, on all other examples agreed.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes...but,
Nice post Chimbu, as said above.
However, whilst I appreciate the value (and importance) of experience, especially in the context of the RFDS case, wouldn't you agree that if someone cannot fly a circling approach at night in a machine they are endorsed on, then they should not have been issued with a MECIR in the first place???
If I can do it, like I have before, surely anyone can. I would've thought that going from a complex piston twin such as those you stated into a King Air, for example, would amount to a reduced workload since, as you say, there is less planning/engine management involved.
520.
However, whilst I appreciate the value (and importance) of experience, especially in the context of the RFDS case, wouldn't you agree that if someone cannot fly a circling approach at night in a machine they are endorsed on, then they should not have been issued with a MECIR in the first place???
If I can do it, like I have before, surely anyone can. I would've thought that going from a complex piston twin such as those you stated into a King Air, for example, would amount to a reduced workload since, as you say, there is less planning/engine management involved.
520.
Grandpa Aerotart
wouldn't you agree that if someone cannot fly a circling approach at night in a machine they are endorsed on, then they should not have been issued with a MECIR in the first place???
The very BIG difference between IFR standards now and IFR standards up until the last 10 yrs or so are years ago you invariably did your initial IFR rating with the department and then subsequent (6 mthly) renewals with a company check and training pilot. The chap from CAA was often an old crusty mil pilot who was just looking for a reason to fail you. The company check and training pilot, and I was one, worked on the basis that if he wasn't prepared to put his family members in the aeroplane with you on your WORST day then you didn't pass. In both the initial and renewal cases you went back for more training and if you didn't come up to scratch you a/. didn't get that rating in the CAA case or b/. you got sacked in the company case.
This is still the case in regionals/airlines...every 6 mths.
In GA now the vast majority of people do their initial IR with a CASA delegate (ATO) and type ratings are done by just about any Instructor with 10 odd hrs on type.
In both cases you are PAYING for it...you're the customer....that was never, or very rarely the case, many years ago....it is a huge psycological difference for both the trainee and the trainor.
You did not pay for the CAA guy...he was a public servant working for the CAA. If he was the toughest mutha fker to ever to sit in an aeroplane it did NOT effect his pay packet one bit. The same was the case for the company approved fella...he was paid by the company you both worked for, a premium over line captains pay, and you were BY GOD paid to be there too...so you better not **** around.
I'll give you an example...I was once failed on an IR by a company C&Ter who was also one of my best mates...I had not called out the glideslope check on the ILS...his comment after was "Chuck that was one of the best ILSs I have ever seen BUT...." Small niggly point? Yes....he renewed my NDB and DME (we did DME homings and DME letdowns in those days for real)...but I had to repeat the ILS.
These days not only are you only tested 12mthly...i.e. HALF as often (and I believe that is a huge mistake) but if the ATO/Instructor is 'too tough' he very soon gets that reputation and his work dries up...it affects his earning potential....so lots of people have MECIRs who SHOULD NOT have MECIRs.
Same thing when you pay for a type rating at a flying school. You are a customer and they want you to recommend them to your mates. GA has been ransacked by the airlines, both regional and major, of the VAST MAJORITY of really experienced multi engined pilots and all that is left is minimally experienced (in a multi engine sense) Instructors and the career failures who populate CASA in numbers to high for the good people at CASA to overcome. Thus you have practices like landing and taking off at blue line speed becoming commonly accepted 'best practice' when it is bloody dangerous. This sort of rubbish even makes it into print in Australian Flying being quoted as 'CASA preference'...I wrote a scathing email to Oz Flying last time they did it..it was printed in a VERY watered down form.
If I can do it, like I have before, surely anyone can
I would've thought that going from a complex piston twin such as those you stated into a King Air, for example, would amount to a reduced workload since, as you say, there is less planning/engine management involved.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck,
I am not seeing your point regarding Blue Line, if you are taking of from a 2000 metre runway in say a C310 or a C404, why shouldn't blue line and insufficient runway be the go / no go decision ( brakes, positive rate, gear up ) ?, then Blue Line plus ten in the fourth segment climb ?.
1.2 Vs is certainly relevant when ( or as per POH ) operating from a short field where performance is a huge issue, but if performance is not the primary consideration, control will certainly then become the primary concern, i.e Blue Line ASAP after take off .
Same logic for landing ?.
I am not seeing your point regarding Blue Line, if you are taking of from a 2000 metre runway in say a C310 or a C404, why shouldn't blue line and insufficient runway be the go / no go decision ( brakes, positive rate, gear up ) ?, then Blue Line plus ten in the fourth segment climb ?.
1.2 Vs is certainly relevant when ( or as per POH ) operating from a short field where performance is a huge issue, but if performance is not the primary consideration, control will certainly then become the primary concern, i.e Blue Line ASAP after take off .
Same logic for landing ?.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm hmm...
Yes, it does seem like a very different kettle of fish now that you outline it like that, Chimbu.
I do often question whether the training we get here these days is of any comparison to that around the world too, when I hear of European airlines putting 2 - 300hr 22yr olds in the right seats of 737s, etc.
By the time they are upgraded to command, the bulk of their experience is from the right hand seat. It is therefore surprising that the accident rate up there is not higher, especially given the adverse weather conditions that they face from day to day compared to here.
What scares me is that in 30 odd years or so (maybe even less), I could well be sitting here saying exactly that, how standards have slid over the generation(s). Hopefully though, the accident rates will be less, somehow.
There doesn't appear to be an easy fix to this sort of problem...
520.
I do often question whether the training we get here these days is of any comparison to that around the world too, when I hear of European airlines putting 2 - 300hr 22yr olds in the right seats of 737s, etc.
By the time they are upgraded to command, the bulk of their experience is from the right hand seat. It is therefore surprising that the accident rate up there is not higher, especially given the adverse weather conditions that they face from day to day compared to here.
They are missing out on the basics learned by spending reasonable amounts of time at each step of the ladder....this is what we mean when we say so many pilots these days, in GA especially, but even regionals 'just don't know what they don't know'
There doesn't appear to be an easy fix to this sort of problem...
520.