Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

GAM Aero Commander nose gear failure

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

GAM Aero Commander nose gear failure

Old 14th Oct 2022, 07:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,937
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
GAM Aero Commander nose gear failure

Howdy experts,

I just watched the crew do an outstanding job of landing on R 26 at YMEN with an unsafe nose gear. It collapsed as expected.

My question is to the shutdown feathering of the Engines, I understand normally Garetts aren’t feathered on shutdown but why was there smoke and flames on feathering this time? Did they forget to shut off the fuel first and it melted down? (A little like on the old F-27 ( RR Dart fixed turbine ) if you didn’t engage the prop locks after landing it would quickly over temp and melt down…)

https://www.9news.com.au/national/es...2-f13e05b064d7

just curious.
ACMS is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2022, 08:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: MOM n DADs
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 2 Posts
I've seen the odd hot start... but never a hot stop
SITTINGBULL is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2022, 09:30
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Someplace else
Age: 39
Posts: 1,385
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ACMS View Post
Howdy experts,

I just watched the crew do an outstanding job of landing on R 26 at YMEN with an unsafe nose gear. It collapsed as expected.

My question is to the shutdown feathering of the Engines, I understand normally Garetts arenít feathered on shutdown but why was there smoke and flames on feathering this time? Did they forget to shut off the fuel first and it melted down? (A little like on the old F-27 ( RR Dart fixed turbine ) if you didnít engage the prop locks after landing it would quickly over temp and melt downÖ)

https://www.9news.com.au/national/es...2-f13e05b064d7

just curious.
Looks a lot like the by product of pulling the stop and feather/emergency stop function on a Garrett. The engine doesn't have the chance to purge the combustion chamber, so a fair bit of unburnt fuel I'd suggest from my very basic, engine goes brum brum level of knowledge. Happy to stand corrected.
j3pipercub is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2022, 11:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 222
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
J3 you are correct as they do tend to do that on an emergency shut down. I double check the rigging first to see the fuel shuts off first before the feather valve.
It is also part of my engine run after maintenance when called up. I always put the prop back on the locks, spin it and restart it to eventually do a normal shut down
Propstop is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2022, 22:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
I've seen the odd hot start... but never a hot stop
I think you mean torching when oldmate doing the start is too busy gasbagging and forgets to introduce spark quick enough after fuel input. Hot start will just melt your hot section, not nes a flame thrower, could be a lot of black smoke if you don't deal with it.

Flash of flame like that is exciting but does nothing much as its too quick to harm anything.
43Inches is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2022, 10:15
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 66
Posts: 1,504
Received 26 Likes on 7 Posts
forgets to introduce spark quick enough after fuel input
Interesting. In my 40 years of flying turbine engines of many different types, they have all had the spark operating before fuel is introduced. Listen to any turbine starting and you will hear the igniters shortly after starter engagement (PT6 is a classic example).

I've yet to encounter an engine where the pilot controls the spark, but I'm happy to be educated.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2022, 12:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
Saab mate, fuel introduced prior to ignition on because austronauts.

43Inches is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2022, 21:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Don't think I'd taker an aircraft with a certain gear problem from an airfield with high RFF to an airport with no RFF. Not right or wrong - just my preference for the
likelihood of the unexpected in this situation.
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 00:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 66
Posts: 1,504
Received 26 Likes on 7 Posts
43 inches I'm intrigued. Never flown a Saab, but is it correct that the pilots manually select ignition after the fuel goes in?
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 02:23
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
Originally Posted by chimbu warrior View Post
43 inches I'm intrigued. Never flown a Saab, but is it correct that the pilots manually select ignition after the fuel goes in?
It's some sort of left over from the A model having clockwork engine electrics. The SAAB has an auto start system where you can just hit start with levers in the right position and it does the rest. But certain operators felt it had issues so they use a motoring start where you put the fuel in start once reaching an Ng threshold and then ignition to auto, AFAIK it's only an Australian thing. One excuse I heard was that it reduced torching, but the technique seems to be in favor of torching if you think about it, in any case the B model has a digital system, so much more refined and reactive to changes.
43Inches is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 06:35
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 2,144
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Pretty sure the Irish Concorde, needed the ignition to be manually selected in the start sequence on the PT-6.
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 07:07
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,324
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Trevor the lover View Post
Don't think I'd taker an aircraft with a certain gear problem from an airfield with high RFF to an airport with no RFF. Not right or wrong - just my preference for the
likelihood of the unexpected in this situation.
That's what I though as well.

Could also be in breach of CASR Part 91.685, I'm sure our friends at CASA are onto it.

I assume the diversion had a lot to do with their maintenance base being at Essendon.

Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 10:01
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 66
Posts: 1,504
Received 26 Likes on 7 Posts
Thanks 43 inches, most interesting.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 10:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,150
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
That's what I though as well.

Could also be in breach of CASR Part 91.685, I'm sure our friends at CASA are onto it.

I assume the diversion had a lot to do with their maintenance base being at Essendon.
Breach of 91.685 is an interesting discussion.

Hypothetically, an aircraft has a nose gear failure leaving Adelaide but can climb and cruise happily with the failure. Drag and fuel burn not an issue.
Is it in breach of 91.685 if it continued with the pax on board to Mel - and for arguments sake, both airports CAVOK and same RFFS.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 11:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,041
Received 39 Likes on 15 Posts
The aircraft had a groundspeed over 300kts between ADL and MEB so I guess that would indicate the gear was up for that leg?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 12:16
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
It's some sort of left over from the A model having clockwork engine electrics. The SAAB has an auto start system where you can just hit start with levers in the right position and it does the rest. But certain operators felt it had issues so they use a motoring start where you put the fuel in start once reaching an Ng threshold and then ignition to auto, AFAIK it's only an Australian thing. One excuse I heard was that it reduced torching, but the technique seems to be in favor of torching if you think about it, in any case the B model has a digital system, so much more refined and reactive to changes.
You really have no idea. Essentially everything you said is incorrect. Itís not an A model hangover. Itís not just Australian operators.

Itís in the AOM FFS. The manufacturer recommends motoring starts for all starts on the ground for both A and B models. You canít turn the ignition on before condition lever to start for a motoring start, because not only is the aircraft not designed to do that, it damages the start relay in the PDU.

But what would SAAB know
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 21:57
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
Funny that the engineers do direct starts all the time and the US pilots that transferred to Australia, and the Swedes did direct starts, hey, but what would I know.


Oops what start method is that???

If during a ”Motoring” start the IGN switch is set to NORM and the CL is advanced to START at about the same time with the IGN switch leading the CL movement, the start signal to the start relay will be interrupted momentatily similar to a poor ground power unit.
The issue with PDU frying is when selecting fuel and IGN too close together, especially IGN immediately prior to fuel, this has nothing to do with motoring vs direct, its only an issue during motoring starts. It is mainly because it is designed for direct starts, but a motoring start is preferred in any turbine to increase airflow prior to combustion. The start sequence requires both fuel in start and IGN auto to engage properly, if you switch it all on during motoring at the same time the system takes a second or two to recognise where its at and continue, a bit like mashing the keyboard on an old computer. Watching some of the euro operators new procedures actually seems to go against this advice and has the FO putting in fuel at the same time as the captain selecting IGN, seems way overly complicated and runs against the advice leveled. At least the Aussie procedure has the Captain doing all the start so its a clear order.

PS apart from PDU issues of spiking power from an abridged stuffed up motoring start the other downside to motoring are increased wear on everything else not the hot section, starter motor, battery, even just the increased time at load across the electrical system, longer load on the GPU if used, etc etc... Direct starts is designed to get the engine up and running as efficiently as possible, not necessarily the absolute best heat wise across the hot section.

Last edited by 43Inches; 16th Oct 2022 at 22:44.
43Inches is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 22:46
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 4 Posts
Yes, the engineers sometimes do direct starts. I donít know, but Iím assuming that during maintenance a direct start must be periodically demonstrated/tested as itís the inflight restart method.

But it doesnít change the fact that motoring starts are done by pilots for every ground start because itís what the manufacturer/AOM recommends.

Not because of A model hangovers, not because of Austronauts, not because of any other reason you tried to explain. And the condition lever is moved to start before ignition for a motoring start BY DESIGN.

You know, you could have just said ďI didnít know that.Ē or ďOh, thatís why they do motoring starts.Ē

But good to see youíve doubled down Always a good trait as a pilot.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2022, 22:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
Not doubling down, just on advice from the engineers that direct starts have no real issues, especially on the B model. It measures all the temps etc and manages the start appropriately. The advice is almost universal for all turbines that motoring starts are a little better for the hot sections as you are increasing air flow through the whole system for longer. As for cold starts especially on batteries the direct start may be the only way you are going anywhere if you are not careful with power management. I do find it funny that most Aussie pilots are shite scared of direct starts when its designed for it. I suppose at least with motoring starts you are watching the sequence more vigilantly so there is that.

Yes, the engineers sometimes do direct starts. I don’t know, but I’m assuming that during maintenance a direct start must be periodically demonstrated/tested as it’s the inflight restart method.
From what the engineers say its their standard start method.

BTW I do think it was the A model issue had too rich fuel mixtures on occasion where the direct start had fuel input, uneven combustion, and led to some torching. The motoring leans out the mixture so better combustion at the point of ignition, smoother flow of gases, no torching if its done properly. The A model fuel injectors were also modified for a few reasons, one was inflight relight characteristics and so on, so its probably not as much an issue now either. The B model does not have this issue at all as far as I'm aware so it is a hangover procedure that remained in the AOM as far as I'm aware.

Last edited by 43Inches; 16th Oct 2022 at 23:13.
43Inches is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2022, 02:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: itinerant
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could also be in breach of CASR Part 91.685,
91.685 reads:(1) The pilot in command of a multi‑engine aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight:

(a) an emergency occurs that threatens the safety of the aircraft or the persons on the aircraft; and

(b) the pilot does not land at the aerodrome that is, in the circumstances, the nearest suitable aerodrome for the aircraft to land at.

Is it an emergency that fits that requirement of aircraft or occupant safety being threatened?

As was shown, the aircraft flew quite capably from Adelaide to Essendon.

Not until the aircraft touches down does the safety concern/threat arise so, until that touchdown happens, there is no emergency. An abnormal situation, certainly, but not an emergency.
kitchen bench is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.