Caravan engine failure in TSV
Very good post J0N0, that is pretty much how I remember the procedure for the Van and I also worked for a ASETPA approved low capacity RPT company.
I often wondered why a GPS manafacturer couldn't create an overlay for any aerodrome with fixed waypoints for high key (over the top) , low key (close base, say 1.8nm) and short final. Surely it would be simple trigonometry to work out but I guess there would be some sort of public liability factor in there as well?? In the PC12 you would have the added bonus of having it presented on a moving map display plus you could factor in a VNAV profile as well.
Totally agree with the rationale of being at best glide and slowing as you approach terra firma, at the end of the day being as slow as you can and quite possibly within the confines of the aerodrome (or a mile from it) is going to greatly enhance your chances of surviving and being rescued.
ps Yes very well done to the pilot in question in YBTL, especially considering the weather there has been absolute c**p over the last couple of days.
I often wondered why a GPS manafacturer couldn't create an overlay for any aerodrome with fixed waypoints for high key (over the top) , low key (close base, say 1.8nm) and short final. Surely it would be simple trigonometry to work out but I guess there would be some sort of public liability factor in there as well?? In the PC12 you would have the added bonus of having it presented on a moving map display plus you could factor in a VNAV profile as well.
Totally agree with the rationale of being at best glide and slowing as you approach terra firma, at the end of the day being as slow as you can and quite possibly within the confines of the aerodrome (or a mile from it) is going to greatly enhance your chances of surviving and being rescued.
ps Yes very well done to the pilot in question in YBTL, especially considering the weather there has been absolute c**p over the last couple of days.
Grandpa Aerotart
Nicely flown that man.
However,
All very well and good saying turbines are more reliable therefore an ASEPTA single is safer than one of those busted arse 30 year old piston twins but compare, if you will, apples to apples...compare the chances of one turbine engine failing and two pistons simultaneously failing for reasons other than fuel starvation.
The incidence of engine failures in piston twins leading to fatal outcomes has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years due to better aircraft, better training and knowledge...better than the 1950s era early piston twins/training and mentality that permeated piston twin flying generally right up to the 70s at least maybe even the 80s.
The only piston engine failures I have had that ended in forced landing have been in singles...all the engine failures I have had in piston twins, including one at 50' with no nice options straight in front, ended up with a nice landing on a runway.
Like FTDK I'll happily enough fly my Bonanza IFR provided it's not over mountainous terrain with insufficient cloudbase to pull off a survivable landing...or freezing levels down near the ground...And I'll happily fly my aircraft at night..just not both if I can avoid it. I did once fly Camden-Redcliffe at night and was in IMC along the coast between PMQ-Coffs sort of area...when offered some more direct tracking by ATC I declined saying I had only one engine and would rather maximise the time within gliding range of airports/major highways/beaches.
But that is private ops and my informed choice. For night/IFR/commercial ops of any description (including POLAIR style) two engines whether piston or turbine (preferably the later of course) is the minimum.
Ask the fella at YBTL if he'd rather have been in a C441/BE200/BE350, or even a B58 Baron or Chieftain, in the exact same circumstances.
However,
All very well and good saying turbines are more reliable therefore an ASEPTA single is safer than one of those busted arse 30 year old piston twins but compare, if you will, apples to apples...compare the chances of one turbine engine failing and two pistons simultaneously failing for reasons other than fuel starvation.
The incidence of engine failures in piston twins leading to fatal outcomes has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years due to better aircraft, better training and knowledge...better than the 1950s era early piston twins/training and mentality that permeated piston twin flying generally right up to the 70s at least maybe even the 80s.
The only piston engine failures I have had that ended in forced landing have been in singles...all the engine failures I have had in piston twins, including one at 50' with no nice options straight in front, ended up with a nice landing on a runway.
Like FTDK I'll happily enough fly my Bonanza IFR provided it's not over mountainous terrain with insufficient cloudbase to pull off a survivable landing...or freezing levels down near the ground...And I'll happily fly my aircraft at night..just not both if I can avoid it. I did once fly Camden-Redcliffe at night and was in IMC along the coast between PMQ-Coffs sort of area...when offered some more direct tracking by ATC I declined saying I had only one engine and would rather maximise the time within gliding range of airports/major highways/beaches.
But that is private ops and my informed choice. For night/IFR/commercial ops of any description (including POLAIR style) two engines whether piston or turbine (preferably the later of course) is the minimum.
Ask the fella at YBTL if he'd rather have been in a C441/BE200/BE350, or even a B58 Baron or Chieftain, in the exact same circumstances.
'Chimbu chuckles' couldn't agree more and that was one of the reasons for me pulling out of RUFDUS westops and before their whole fleet became PC12s. They maybe reliable, bulletproof, economical etc..etc.. but it really ownly takes one engine out in a PC12 with a bad outcome to turn the whole concept of ASETPA upside down, not that RFDS operate to those regs anyway... 'Airwork' I think they call it??
The bloke who pulled the Caravan landing off in TL.... Is it the same person who has been flying the machine for a couple of years now out around Mt Isa?
(I heard his voice referred to as "gravelly". Wondered if it is the same person?)
Regards,
OpsN.
(I heard his voice referred to as "gravelly". Wondered if it is the same person?)
Regards,
OpsN.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The achilles heel of the PT6 is that a short in the starter-gen can find its way to the #1 bearing leading to a ctastrophic failure of that bearing. It happened in a Shorts 360 and recently in a Caravan in Tasmania. The Tasmanian incident was potentially a disaster except that the pilot chose to turn back when a gear box chip detector light come on. He managed to deadstick it on Lake Burbury instead of finding himself over a designated remote area.
Grandpa Aerotart
The achilles heel of the PT6-20/27/34 that were on the DHC6-200/300 and Bandit (and we had two Twotters with -34s) was the spline on the engine driven fuel pump...if it sheered the engine driven fuel pump impeller blocked the fuel line and no fuel could get past from the electric fuel pump.
On the Bandit if the throttle linkage to the thrust lever failed the engine went to idle...it happened to a mate on takeoff in Mt Hagen...luckily early enough so he could still just barely stop on the runway.
Did they change this setup on the ASEPTA singles?
They're a great engine...but not infallible.
Chuck ..... The C208 has an emergency power lever which bypasses the normal fuel system in the event of an FCU failure on the PT6A-114 engine.
Tail Wheel
On the Bandit if the throttle linkage to the thrust lever failed the engine went to idle...it happened to a mate on takeoff in Mt Hagen...luckily early enough so he could still just barely stop on the runway.
Did they change this setup on the ASEPTA singles?
They're a great engine...but not infallible.
Chuck ..... The C208 has an emergency power lever which bypasses the normal fuel system in the event of an FCU failure on the PT6A-114 engine.
Tail Wheel
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asetpa
Well said CC
There is much debate on single engine turbine vs multi engine piston or turbine, the following is a copy of AIN’s 2001 article.
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar
by Gordon Gilbert
In the aftermath of July’s well publicized engine-out ditching of a Pilatus PC-12 in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Russia,
industry observers are asking how this and other recent accidents have affected the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops and if sales of these aircraft are suffering.
Although production-built single-turbine airplanes used for business flying typically do not have the same speed,
load capability or systems redundancy as twin-turbine airplanes, they have amassed a comparable safety record,
according to statistics through last year compiled by accident analyst firm Robert E. Breiling Associates of Boca Raton, Fla.
Breiling reports U.S. turboprop-singles have had 1.99 total accidents and 0.80 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hr compared with 2.37 and 0.83,
respectively, for U.S.-registered turboprop twins. These figures cover the period from initial aircraft certification through last year.
Last year the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops was even played up by Pilatus in its marketing of the PC-12.
While accident rate statistics seem to back up that claim, the actual number of single-engine turboprop accidents is increasing as the fleet gets larger.
This year to date, the NTSB reports that there have been 10 accidents, five of them fatal, involving four production-certified single-engine turboprops:
the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian, Socata TBM 700 and Pilatus PC-12.
Nine of the 10 accidents are still under investigation, seven of the accidents were in Cessna 208s (by far the most numerous of all turboprop singles,
with close to 1,300 in operation), and engine failure has definitely been determined as a factor in four accidents, (April 26, July 6, July 8 and July 10) none causing critical injuries.
The Safety Board determined the January 31 crash of the Cessna 208 on floats was caused when the airplane hit a swell during a water landing.
All production turboprop singles are powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 series.
Engine Problems
A Caravan flying for FedEx made a forced landing April 26 after an engine failure.
The pilot (not injured in the accident) said that during climbout the airplane’s engine “spooled down, slowly and smoothly,
like a loss of torque or the propeller going to feather.”
Later, an examination of data from the power analyzer recorder system revealed that during the most recent takeoff the engine exceeded its torque limit of 1,980 ft lb for 99 seconds.
The peak torque value over that duration was 2,649 ft lb.
On July 6, a Caravan on a repositioning flight operated by Maxfly Aviation ditched into the Atlantic Ocean 20 mi east of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
following loss of engine power. According to the pilot (who was not hurt), the airplane was cruising at 6,500 ft when the engine lost power and came to a “screeching halt.”
The propeller made a “chow, chow, chow” noise, turned three times, stopped and feathered.
In the July 8 PC-12 ditching, the pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise at 26,500 ft when he felt a vibration followed by a rapid increase in the
engine’s turbine temperature indication (TTI). He reported that the TTI reached 1,144 deg C, at which point there was a compressor stall.
He shut down the engine, feathered the propeller and entered a power-off emergency descent.
After spending 15 hr in a life raft, the pilot and all three passengers were safely recovered some 60 mi from the Russian coast in the icy Sea of Okhotsk.
Two days later, on July 10, a Cessna 208 of Bolivian registration (CP-2395), was substantially damaged during a forced landing
following a loss of engine power during climbout from the La Paz International Airport in Bolivia.
The pilot, the copilot and 11 passengers were injured. The flight crew reported a loss of engine power approximately six minutes after takeoff.
No Effect on Sales
According to comments from three manufacturers, sales of new turbine singles remain strong and the issue of single vs twin rarely comes up in conversation between sellers for the OEM and buyers.
Tom Aniello is just completing his first six months as v-p of marketing for Pilatus Business Aircraft in Boulder, Colo.
He told AIN, “I have spent a lot of time with our dealers and that is one of the questions I had for them:
how much marketing effort should I put on the single versus twin issue? And I was surprised that their answer to me was that it’s really become a non-issue.
Even after the [July 8] ditching incident I was surprised by how few questions I’ve received.
People have come to accept and understand that turbines are more reliable than pistons.”
Aniello thinks it’s still not an issue despite the 10 accidents so far this year, but he wonders about next year.
These accidents “will skew the statistics for next year, and I don’t know whether that’s going to become a big factor or not.”
A bigger factor, in Aniello’s opinion, is not the number of engines, but the number of crew.
“For single versus twin, statistics don’t show an appreciable gap. But statistics do lead you to realize that you’re better off adding another person up front than you are adding another engine.”
In the U.S., more than 70 percent of PC-12 sales are to owner-pilots for personal and business flying. As might be expected, just the opposite is true for the Caravan, where 70 percent of its users are small package commercial operators, according to director of Caravan sales for Cessna John Doman. “In our experience with the Caravan–which has more than 15 years of service under its belt, flying in all sorts of different conditions–it has established an enviable safety record. The PT6 is a legendary powerplant in terms of reliability. So our reaction from the marketplace is one of acceptance of the safety inherent in the turbine single.”
A lot of Caravan air-freight customers are moving up from piston twins such as Beech 18s, Queen Airs, Navajos and Cessna 402s. “Statistics and just common knowledge tell you that a single-turbine airplane is going to be a safer, more reliable piece of machinery than the piston twin,” Doman said.
Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.
There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.
For the last five years Cessna has been working with other airframe manufacturers as a member of the Single Engine Turbine Alliance (SETA) to get the JAA to change the requirements in Europe to allow single-turbine IFR commercial operations. Such operations are currently prohibited for both carrying cargo and fare-paying passengers. “We think that the way things are headed, we should see a change by perhaps the end of this year,” Doman said.
A spokesman for Piper Aircraft in Vero Beach, Fla., echoed the statements on the quality, excellence, reliability and safety perceived by prospective and new owners of single turboprop airplanes. Indeed, P&WC statistics show the time between unplanned removals for the PT6 family as occurring once in every 142,817.14 hr and the time between in-flight shutdowns to be one in every 250,000 hr.
________________________________________
Aviation International News is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., P.O. Box 277, Midland Park, NJ, 07432. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission from The Convention News Co., Inc., is strictly prohibited. The Convention News Co., Inc., also publishes NBAA Convention News, HAI Convention News, EBACE Convention News, Paris 2003, Dubai 2001, Asian Aerospace 2002, Farnborough 2002, AIN Reports and AIN News Alerts.
My comment:
A single engine aircraft is a single engine aircraft, with many single points of failure.
The PT6 engine has a proud family history, but the PT6A-114 and 114A are derived from the venerable PT6-34 that has given good service in Bandits, Twotters and C90’s.
Interestingly, the 114 series seem to be the only models without auto relight available as either standard or optional equipment.
They (PT6) do have some undocumented features most now addressed by Ads and SBs, such as fuel pump spline failures, generator bearing short circuit, FCU bellows, oil system loss of oil, compressor rollbacks, bleed air valves and other things that can spoil your day, just like any other piece of machinery.
Unfortunately the ASETPA certificate wont help you, it just says “what just happened shouldn’t have, best of luck!”
Try the following site and search on Cessna 208 or Pilatus. Some interesting and sobering reading
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
A dead stick landing in IMC at Townsville not only requires a lot of skill, the numerous hills and mountains within and near the circuit area require an equal measure of special luck.
Well done to the police pilot, good training, good skills and good luck.
In closing, the UK will not condone ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) for IFR charter or RPT.
They take the realistic view that an engine failure at night, or in IMC, will inevitably result in fatalities.
And note the terminology used for turbine engine failures, they are only counted as a failure if the engine was shut down, using the statistical term IFSD (In Flight Shut Down).
There is much debate on single engine turbine vs multi engine piston or turbine, the following is a copy of AIN’s 2001 article.
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar
by Gordon Gilbert
In the aftermath of July’s well publicized engine-out ditching of a Pilatus PC-12 in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Russia,
industry observers are asking how this and other recent accidents have affected the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops and if sales of these aircraft are suffering.
Although production-built single-turbine airplanes used for business flying typically do not have the same speed,
load capability or systems redundancy as twin-turbine airplanes, they have amassed a comparable safety record,
according to statistics through last year compiled by accident analyst firm Robert E. Breiling Associates of Boca Raton, Fla.
Breiling reports U.S. turboprop-singles have had 1.99 total accidents and 0.80 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hr compared with 2.37 and 0.83,
respectively, for U.S.-registered turboprop twins. These figures cover the period from initial aircraft certification through last year.
Last year the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops was even played up by Pilatus in its marketing of the PC-12.
While accident rate statistics seem to back up that claim, the actual number of single-engine turboprop accidents is increasing as the fleet gets larger.
This year to date, the NTSB reports that there have been 10 accidents, five of them fatal, involving four production-certified single-engine turboprops:
the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian, Socata TBM 700 and Pilatus PC-12.
Nine of the 10 accidents are still under investigation, seven of the accidents were in Cessna 208s (by far the most numerous of all turboprop singles,
with close to 1,300 in operation), and engine failure has definitely been determined as a factor in four accidents, (April 26, July 6, July 8 and July 10) none causing critical injuries.
The Safety Board determined the January 31 crash of the Cessna 208 on floats was caused when the airplane hit a swell during a water landing.
All production turboprop singles are powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 series.
Engine Problems
A Caravan flying for FedEx made a forced landing April 26 after an engine failure.
The pilot (not injured in the accident) said that during climbout the airplane’s engine “spooled down, slowly and smoothly,
like a loss of torque or the propeller going to feather.”
Later, an examination of data from the power analyzer recorder system revealed that during the most recent takeoff the engine exceeded its torque limit of 1,980 ft lb for 99 seconds.
The peak torque value over that duration was 2,649 ft lb.
On July 6, a Caravan on a repositioning flight operated by Maxfly Aviation ditched into the Atlantic Ocean 20 mi east of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
following loss of engine power. According to the pilot (who was not hurt), the airplane was cruising at 6,500 ft when the engine lost power and came to a “screeching halt.”
The propeller made a “chow, chow, chow” noise, turned three times, stopped and feathered.
In the July 8 PC-12 ditching, the pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise at 26,500 ft when he felt a vibration followed by a rapid increase in the
engine’s turbine temperature indication (TTI). He reported that the TTI reached 1,144 deg C, at which point there was a compressor stall.
He shut down the engine, feathered the propeller and entered a power-off emergency descent.
After spending 15 hr in a life raft, the pilot and all three passengers were safely recovered some 60 mi from the Russian coast in the icy Sea of Okhotsk.
Two days later, on July 10, a Cessna 208 of Bolivian registration (CP-2395), was substantially damaged during a forced landing
following a loss of engine power during climbout from the La Paz International Airport in Bolivia.
The pilot, the copilot and 11 passengers were injured. The flight crew reported a loss of engine power approximately six minutes after takeoff.
No Effect on Sales
According to comments from three manufacturers, sales of new turbine singles remain strong and the issue of single vs twin rarely comes up in conversation between sellers for the OEM and buyers.
Tom Aniello is just completing his first six months as v-p of marketing for Pilatus Business Aircraft in Boulder, Colo.
He told AIN, “I have spent a lot of time with our dealers and that is one of the questions I had for them:
how much marketing effort should I put on the single versus twin issue? And I was surprised that their answer to me was that it’s really become a non-issue.
Even after the [July 8] ditching incident I was surprised by how few questions I’ve received.
People have come to accept and understand that turbines are more reliable than pistons.”
Aniello thinks it’s still not an issue despite the 10 accidents so far this year, but he wonders about next year.
These accidents “will skew the statistics for next year, and I don’t know whether that’s going to become a big factor or not.”
A bigger factor, in Aniello’s opinion, is not the number of engines, but the number of crew.
“For single versus twin, statistics don’t show an appreciable gap. But statistics do lead you to realize that you’re better off adding another person up front than you are adding another engine.”
In the U.S., more than 70 percent of PC-12 sales are to owner-pilots for personal and business flying. As might be expected, just the opposite is true for the Caravan, where 70 percent of its users are small package commercial operators, according to director of Caravan sales for Cessna John Doman. “In our experience with the Caravan–which has more than 15 years of service under its belt, flying in all sorts of different conditions–it has established an enviable safety record. The PT6 is a legendary powerplant in terms of reliability. So our reaction from the marketplace is one of acceptance of the safety inherent in the turbine single.”
A lot of Caravan air-freight customers are moving up from piston twins such as Beech 18s, Queen Airs, Navajos and Cessna 402s. “Statistics and just common knowledge tell you that a single-turbine airplane is going to be a safer, more reliable piece of machinery than the piston twin,” Doman said.
Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.
There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.
For the last five years Cessna has been working with other airframe manufacturers as a member of the Single Engine Turbine Alliance (SETA) to get the JAA to change the requirements in Europe to allow single-turbine IFR commercial operations. Such operations are currently prohibited for both carrying cargo and fare-paying passengers. “We think that the way things are headed, we should see a change by perhaps the end of this year,” Doman said.
A spokesman for Piper Aircraft in Vero Beach, Fla., echoed the statements on the quality, excellence, reliability and safety perceived by prospective and new owners of single turboprop airplanes. Indeed, P&WC statistics show the time between unplanned removals for the PT6 family as occurring once in every 142,817.14 hr and the time between in-flight shutdowns to be one in every 250,000 hr.
________________________________________
Aviation International News is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., P.O. Box 277, Midland Park, NJ, 07432. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission from The Convention News Co., Inc., is strictly prohibited. The Convention News Co., Inc., also publishes NBAA Convention News, HAI Convention News, EBACE Convention News, Paris 2003, Dubai 2001, Asian Aerospace 2002, Farnborough 2002, AIN Reports and AIN News Alerts.
My comment:
A single engine aircraft is a single engine aircraft, with many single points of failure.
The PT6 engine has a proud family history, but the PT6A-114 and 114A are derived from the venerable PT6-34 that has given good service in Bandits, Twotters and C90’s.
Interestingly, the 114 series seem to be the only models without auto relight available as either standard or optional equipment.
They (PT6) do have some undocumented features most now addressed by Ads and SBs, such as fuel pump spline failures, generator bearing short circuit, FCU bellows, oil system loss of oil, compressor rollbacks, bleed air valves and other things that can spoil your day, just like any other piece of machinery.
Unfortunately the ASETPA certificate wont help you, it just says “what just happened shouldn’t have, best of luck!”
Try the following site and search on Cessna 208 or Pilatus. Some interesting and sobering reading
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
A dead stick landing in IMC at Townsville not only requires a lot of skill, the numerous hills and mountains within and near the circuit area require an equal measure of special luck.
Well done to the police pilot, good training, good skills and good luck.
In closing, the UK will not condone ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) for IFR charter or RPT.
They take the realistic view that an engine failure at night, or in IMC, will inevitably result in fatalities.
And note the terminology used for turbine engine failures, they are only counted as a failure if the engine was shut down, using the statistical term IFSD (In Flight Shut Down).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barramundi said:
I know that if conducting one of these for real, you wouldn't let turbulence bother you, but what about the turbulence encounters at those speeds during training and practice scenarios?
Or is training/practice conducted only at those times/places where the air is expected to be calm?
... but by time to level out at 700' AGL you will be close to VNE, over the field hooking along at about 230kts for a PC12.
Or is training/practice conducted only at those times/places where the air is expected to be calm?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but what about the turbulence encounters at those speeds
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Not taking anything away from the pilot (great job
), one of the rationales behind ASEPTA is to fly so that you maximise the options to land if the donk stops. And let's face it, the wx was crap, there is a fair bit of high ground there.
In this case, we have no injuries and an undamaged aircraft (apart from the original failure). In this case ASEPTA worked - following the unlikely event of an engine failure the pilot followed the appropriate procedures and (with some considerable skill) achieved a great outcome.
If we consider some of the numerous accidents resulting in fatalities following a single engine failure on take off in a twin where the outcome was catastrophic TSV seems to be pretty good. I'm sure that every pilot will acknowledge that there are times in piston and turboprop light twins where an engine failure will at best result in completing a landing off airport assuming that everything is handled perfectly.
Additionally, assuming the same powerplant reliability, in a twin engine aircraft statistically you are going to have to deal with twice as many propulsion system failures in a single. C208's (and most other SE turbines I believe) have an EPL that allows you to control engine power crudely following certain failures in the FCU.
And finally, IMHO single engine aircraft are more suitable for off airport landings than twins for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is a big lump of mass out in front of you and the structure to support it should you hit something. Secondly, they generally stall slower than a twin - the engine out full flap approach speed for a C208 is 80KIAS, and as energy is proportional to the square of the velocity the slower you hit the better your chances.
W
PS The C208s I fly are amphib floatplanes in day VFR ops.
PPS The ignition system in the C208 is rated for continuous operation.
), one of the rationales behind ASEPTA is to fly so that you maximise the options to land if the donk stops. And let's face it, the wx was crap, there is a fair bit of high ground there.In this case, we have no injuries and an undamaged aircraft (apart from the original failure). In this case ASEPTA worked - following the unlikely event of an engine failure the pilot followed the appropriate procedures and (with some considerable skill) achieved a great outcome.
If we consider some of the numerous accidents resulting in fatalities following a single engine failure on take off in a twin where the outcome was catastrophic TSV seems to be pretty good. I'm sure that every pilot will acknowledge that there are times in piston and turboprop light twins where an engine failure will at best result in completing a landing off airport assuming that everything is handled perfectly.
Additionally, assuming the same powerplant reliability, in a twin engine aircraft statistically you are going to have to deal with twice as many propulsion system failures in a single. C208's (and most other SE turbines I believe) have an EPL that allows you to control engine power crudely following certain failures in the FCU.
And finally, IMHO single engine aircraft are more suitable for off airport landings than twins for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is a big lump of mass out in front of you and the structure to support it should you hit something. Secondly, they generally stall slower than a twin - the engine out full flap approach speed for a C208 is 80KIAS, and as energy is proportional to the square of the velocity the slower you hit the better your chances.
W
PS The C208s I fly are amphib floatplanes in day VFR ops.
PPS The ignition system in the C208 is rated for continuous operation.
Last edited by werbil; 17th Jan 2008 at 04:40.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All true "werbil", good facts there & worth considering. Just a point of interest here tho & this is not directed at you persay. Why don't the major builders of transport cat A/C build a large SE jet to carry perhaps a 100 people or so? The answer is very obvious & it's got nothing to do with not enough power 'cause just one Trent 900 for Eg. produces around 100000 lbs thrust!.
Yeah I know will get all sorts of smart ass remarks back about that but what I'm getting at is that as engines have been made bigger to produce more power they have reduced the number fitted to a praticluar airframe, STOPPING just short of ONE !..............only reason there are 2 engines (min) in a large airliner is for SAFETY !!!
.................& of course they can build 'em even bigger !
CW
Yeah I know will get all sorts of smart ass remarks back about that but what I'm getting at is that as engines have been made bigger to produce more power they have reduced the number fitted to a praticluar airframe, STOPPING just short of ONE !..............only reason there are 2 engines (min) in a large airliner is for SAFETY !!!
.................& of course they can build 'em even bigger !CW
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Capt Wally,
Just a few thoughts as to why large transport aircraft don't do ASEPTA and singles do.
1 - Transport category aircraft must be able to cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight and be able to climb to safety or stop within the remaining runway. The ability to out climb the terrain is not a LEGAL consideration for a light twin.
2 - A large transport aircraft would generally not meet the ASEPTA performance requirement to be able to glide to a suitable aerodrome for the required percentages / times of the flight, except possibly along the eastern seaboard in Australia.
3 - I don't think a turn back would be possible - it would be interesting watching someone attempt a 45deg angle of bank turn to return to the airport following a complete propulsion system failure at 700 feet in a heavy.
4 - Off airport landing ability. Singles (including large ones) often land on unprepared surfaces without causing major damage to either the aircraft or the surroundings. The results of transport aircraft landing off airport are generally spectacular.
5 - The same reason we have so many windows in an airliner - too many of the public would refuse to fly otherwise.
Now (ducking for cover) by adding a second engine we increase the risk of an accident during the critical take off phase by doubling the probability of a propulsion system failure when there may be no possible safe outcome (eg short strip / high terrain / heavy load). On this basis it is quite possible that certain routes could be safer flown ASEPTA than in a twin turbo prop.
W
Just a few thoughts as to why large transport aircraft don't do ASEPTA and singles do.
1 - Transport category aircraft must be able to cope with an engine failure at any stage of the flight and be able to climb to safety or stop within the remaining runway. The ability to out climb the terrain is not a LEGAL consideration for a light twin.
2 - A large transport aircraft would generally not meet the ASEPTA performance requirement to be able to glide to a suitable aerodrome for the required percentages / times of the flight, except possibly along the eastern seaboard in Australia.
3 - I don't think a turn back would be possible - it would be interesting watching someone attempt a 45deg angle of bank turn to return to the airport following a complete propulsion system failure at 700 feet in a heavy.
4 - Off airport landing ability. Singles (including large ones) often land on unprepared surfaces without causing major damage to either the aircraft or the surroundings. The results of transport aircraft landing off airport are generally spectacular.
5 - The same reason we have so many windows in an airliner - too many of the public would refuse to fly otherwise.
Now (ducking for cover) by adding a second engine we increase the risk of an accident during the critical take off phase by doubling the probability of a propulsion system failure when there may be no possible safe outcome (eg short strip / high terrain / heavy load). On this basis it is quite possible that certain routes could be safer flown ASEPTA than in a twin turbo prop.
W
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Tailwheel / Chimbu Chuckles
The EPL on a C208 operates the metering valve of the FCU directly. The first problem would remain, the EPL could be used to deal with the second one if you had enough time.
The EPL on a C208 operates the metering valve of the FCU directly. The first problem would remain, the EPL could be used to deal with the second one if you had enough time.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W great post, all true but nobody is arguing what you have said here. I was more theorizing that's all & obviously none of what you wrote would or could apply to a single engined transport if there ever was one designed & produced. I know that it would never happen (SE heavy) for all the reasons you stated. There all at least twins to cover what you wrote. New rules would need to be drafted for SE Transport A/C, I;d hate to be putting pen to paper on that death sentence!
I also couldn't agree with you more there with yr statement 'by adding a second engine we "increase" the posiblity of an engine failure during the T/off phase etc", so true..............BUT having that second eng only 'increases' the chances of that failure, having only one eng in the first place & it fails doesn't "increase" yr chance it defines it, in concrete ! & that's at any stage of the flight not just at the critical stage of T/off.
We can bounce back & forth here with the old SE versus Twins all day/night long. Answer this, not just you 'W' If you where required for whatever reason to travel on a PC12 (EG only) at night from say CB to Tumit in NSW for work for Eg in pouring rain & low cloud with TS's about how would you really feel boarding that aircraft? I know I would be terribly concerned. Like I've always said we have choices most of the time. The facts about SE reliablity (which there are numerous) will never comfort anyone in a SE at night in IMC.
CW
I also couldn't agree with you more there with yr statement 'by adding a second engine we "increase" the posiblity of an engine failure during the T/off phase etc", so true..............BUT having that second eng only 'increases' the chances of that failure, having only one eng in the first place & it fails doesn't "increase" yr chance it defines it, in concrete !
& that's at any stage of the flight not just at the critical stage of T/off.We can bounce back & forth here with the old SE versus Twins all day/night long. Answer this, not just you 'W' If you where required for whatever reason to travel on a PC12 (EG only) at night from say CB to Tumit in NSW for work for Eg in pouring rain & low cloud with TS's about how would you really feel boarding that aircraft? I know I would be terribly concerned. Like I've always said we have choices most of the time. The facts about SE reliablity (which there are numerous) will never comfort anyone in a SE at night in IMC.
CW
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
CaptWally,
, however even though an engine failure in SE aircraft provides few options for the pilot the outcome is certainly not defined - TSV proved this, as did the C208 in Tasmania.
Personally, I'd prefer the PC12 over a 414 or Chieftan around that high country. Flogging around in a piston twin with marginal SE performance around those mountains is not my idea of fun. The PC12 glides 2.5nm per 1000' so remaining within gliding distance of an aerodrome would not be a problem. At FL150 (it is pressurized) it would reach either Tumut or CB comfortably - just no option to hold for the TS, but then again there is no real SE go around option for the piston twin at Tumut either.
Personally flying single engine over tiger country / open water / IMC does not make me uncomfortable - however I am always considering options should it go quiet. At night you've always got the option of turning the landing light off if you don't like what you see.
W
, however even though an engine failure in SE aircraft provides few options for the pilot the outcome is certainly not defined - TSV proved this, as did the C208 in Tasmania.Personally, I'd prefer the PC12 over a 414 or Chieftan around that high country. Flogging around in a piston twin with marginal SE performance around those mountains is not my idea of fun. The PC12 glides 2.5nm per 1000' so remaining within gliding distance of an aerodrome would not be a problem. At FL150 (it is pressurized) it would reach either Tumut or CB comfortably - just no option to hold for the TS, but then again there is no real SE go around option for the piston twin at Tumut either.
Personally flying single engine over tiger country / open water / IMC does not make me uncomfortable - however I am always considering options should it go quiet. At night you've always got the option of turning the landing light off if you don't like what you see.
W
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yr right werbil in those 2 cases the outcome wasn't defined, lucky them!. But given one single pax death resulting from a charter flight in a SE in IMC in OZ the whole industry would be rocked, is it really worth it? I think not, but like you we all have our feelings & opinions based on freedom of speech
All posts in here that support SE IMC Chtr either say 'given these circumstances' or 'should' "or most of the time" (as in glide that far) they would make it down safe, there all plausable, but where not talking about "most" of the time here we are (well I am anyway) talking about that perhaps one in a million chance (where it doesn't have to be if it where not allowed in the first place) that yr caught over tiger country in a "man made glider" at night in cloud with a very slim chance of surviving. As you would realise it's not just the impact to survive it's the environment also. At the above mythical crash site in winter you'd be lucky to survive the night before rescue!
Twin flying has almost the same amount of risks generally as a SE, but not quite, & that might be all it takes to be here writing this rather than being
worm food !
Horses for courses, SE flying, great, love it, we've all done it & there's always a risk, but why make that risk even higher by leaving yr options very slim?
Me to not happy flying about in that tiger country in a C414 (shhheeez could you pick a worse plane?) or PA31 but we had little choice once upon a time. Yr a braver man than most I'd say Werbil if yr comfy with SE flying over tiger country/open water in IMC.
Most are fortunate they fly for fun in the sun or either have 2 engs for safety reasons in their 'mounts', hats of to those that have no or little choice.
Good chatting werbil
CW
. But given one single pax death resulting from a charter flight in a SE in IMC in OZ the whole industry would be rocked, is it really worth it? I think not, but like you we all have our feelings & opinions based on freedom of speechAll posts in here that support SE IMC Chtr either say 'given these circumstances' or 'should' "or most of the time" (as in glide that far) they would make it down safe, there all plausable, but where not talking about "most" of the time here we are (well I am anyway) talking about that perhaps one in a million chance (where it doesn't have to be if it where not allowed in the first place) that yr caught over tiger country in a "man made glider" at night in cloud with a very slim chance of surviving. As you would realise it's not just the impact to survive it's the environment also. At the above mythical crash site in winter you'd be lucky to survive the night before rescue!
Twin flying has almost the same amount of risks generally as a SE, but not quite, & that might be all it takes to be here writing this rather than being
worm food !
Horses for courses, SE flying, great, love it, we've all done it & there's always a risk, but why make that risk even higher by leaving yr options very slim?
Me to not happy flying about in that tiger country in a C414 (shhheeez could you pick a worse plane?) or PA31 but we had little choice once upon a time. Yr a braver man than most I'd say Werbil if yr comfy with SE flying over tiger country/open water in IMC.
Most are fortunate they fly for fun in the sun or either have 2 engs for safety reasons in their 'mounts', hats of to those that have no or little choice.
Good chatting werbil
CW
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Wally,
You are saying that you would rather have two engines for the 1 in a million chance that you have an engine failure in a single engine turbine and don't meet any of the emergency procedure requirements as already detailed. What would happen in your B200 if you had another 1 in a million emergency such as a fire in the cabin, total elec failure, airframe failure, slow depressurisation loss (without indication), inflight heart attack, birdstrike through pilot windscreen, engine fire, fuel tank rupture, etc, etc?
The extra engine isn't going to help if you or the aircraft is not in a state to fly. I guess you have to do the stats and come up with a risk assessment. At the end of the day if pilots didn't get into an aircraft becuase of a small risk of death then we would all wrap ourselves in cotton wool and never go flying. Isn't the slight rush half the reason we do go flying?
W&F.
You are saying that you would rather have two engines for the 1 in a million chance that you have an engine failure in a single engine turbine and don't meet any of the emergency procedure requirements as already detailed. What would happen in your B200 if you had another 1 in a million emergency such as a fire in the cabin, total elec failure, airframe failure, slow depressurisation loss (without indication), inflight heart attack, birdstrike through pilot windscreen, engine fire, fuel tank rupture, etc, etc?
The extra engine isn't going to help if you or the aircraft is not in a state to fly. I guess you have to do the stats and come up with a risk assessment. At the end of the day if pilots didn't get into an aircraft becuase of a small risk of death then we would all wrap ourselves in cotton wool and never go flying. Isn't the slight rush half the reason we do go flying?
W&F.
I saw a statistic somewhere said that there are more serious injuries and fatalities from a twin losing one engine, than there are from a single losing its engine. So much for the extra safety in a twin........
Can be due to the twin pilot trying to push the envelope in marginal SE conditions, when he should have just put it down like a single pilot would.
Having said that a twin, properly managed, SHOULD be safer than a single......
Can be due to the twin pilot trying to push the envelope in marginal SE conditions, when he should have just put it down like a single pilot would.
Having said that a twin, properly managed, SHOULD be safer than a single......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W&F I think you miss the point here that I am aludding to. You can have all of what you mentioned obviously in any airframe at anytime, I won't argue with what yr saying, agree completely there with you it's just that in a SE plane you have an extra worry not found in multiple engined A/C, & that's the failure of the ONLY eng !
Got nothing to do with wrapping ones self up in cotton wool, we all know flying is a risk, it's just a calculated risk that varies & why vary it to yr dissadvantage?
Still am enjoying thre banter, keep it up you SE purists !
CW
Got nothing to do with wrapping ones self up in cotton wool, we all know flying is a risk, it's just a calculated risk that varies & why vary it to yr dissadvantage?
Still am enjoying thre banter, keep it up you SE purists !
CW
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reluctant to buy in to this but here goes anyway.
Most ASEPTA approvals do not allow for night flying.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, ie route selection is a major factor in the safety of ASEPTA.
There are many routes where a van will be in gliding range of a runway at all times, without even considering other area's suitable to land in an emergency.
Can't think of any pilots who have been trained and approved for ASEPTA who have any major concerns about the operation.
A number of the views expressed in this thread have shown a lack of full knowledge of ASEPTA operations.
Most ASEPTA approvals do not allow for night flying.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, ie route selection is a major factor in the safety of ASEPTA.
There are many routes where a van will be in gliding range of a runway at all times, without even considering other area's suitable to land in an emergency.
Can't think of any pilots who have been trained and approved for ASEPTA who have any major concerns about the operation.
A number of the views expressed in this thread have shown a lack of full knowledge of ASEPTA operations.