PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   PT6 Failure (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/400433-pt6-failure.html)

Arm out the window 4th Jan 2010 00:13


CASA know and have been watching, many a trip to Tully one of the CS FOI's told me.
You would think a bit of action rather than just knowing and watching would be in order.

Josh Cox 4th Jan 2010 03:21

AOW,

I think you'll agree that there is a big difference between "knowing something" and "knowing something, having evidence and credible witnesses to collaborate the evidence".

The only reason some feel they can get away with this behaviour is due to witnesses not presenting themselves.

There are trustworthy FOI's within CASA FNQ, one that will not burn your future employment prospects ( infact quite to the contrary ).

excellr8 4th Jan 2010 03:25

Couple of points from previous comments.
1. Al's Caravans operate to a lower 'Normal Condition' ITT temp limit. Much lower than the 'book' limit.
2.Increasing the voltage during a external power start only benefits the engine by getting the engine past self sustaining RPM faster thereby reducing the peak temperature.
3. BackdoorBandit - Your opinion of The Caravan Operation to which Al is involved in is clearly limited. Maybe your too young or maybe have a bone to pick however only a few operators have actaully invested in Capital to bring these much newer aircraft into skydiving operations. This has result in the whole operation being conducted with a lot more professionalism from engineering through to flight operations. Maybe get the movie Fandango, Now that is what skydiving used to be. Thanks to Al and a few other operators it's a whole different scene.
4. Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them. If you use them it's illegal in IMC and you better know what your doing. It's up to the pilot not the aeroplane owner to determine what risks they are willing to take. I know Al does not want his plane driven into the side of a hill and Im sure all the people that come through the operation are respected for saying no if they are not comfortable with the conditions.

VH-XXX 4th Jan 2010 04:16

There are a lot of allegations being thrown around in this thread. I hope everyone has the required evidence to back them up.

BackdoorBandit 4th Jan 2010 05:39

excellr8
 

BackdoorBandit - Your opinion of The Caravan Operation to which Al is involved in is clearly limited.
Lets just say, without giving away too much, that I have first hand knowledge of Al's pseudo professional outfit, and I know what makes the man tick.
No point in making any more derogatory statements.


Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them.
Are you serious? Lets just say that if you refuse to take that van up too many times - your job is on the line. To a low hour pilot (i.e. inexperienced, doesn't know any better) that is as good as a gun to the head.

av8trflying 4th Jan 2010 07:39

I cant believe it!
 
A tip? Have your CIR before you work for him cause you WILL use it.
Home grown IFR approaches. Simple, no one is forcing anyone to use them.
Big Al has his own McRnav's into Tully he's making the kids fly.

Wow....This is absolutely amazing.
I remember a story once....you may have heard of it too.
There was this navajo driver who was known to push limits. Such as flying in icing conditions in an aircraft not fitted for it. Flew VFR plans when in known IMC. Made up his own IFR approaches. Flew in snow storms. Flew his own RNAV which followed a highway to below minimas which his company knew he did.
And do you know the ending of this story.....You betcha...he face planted on the side of a mountain. But here is the kicker, he killed two passengers as well.
I bet you have all have heard of this story before.
And yet this **** still goes on.:ugh:
I can see why when there are still the opinions above.:ugh:

YMEN 4th Jan 2010 08:35

UMV was being leased by Skydive Cairns, Al still owns it.

And as for Al's Approaches into Tully, that is just not true!

John Eacott 4th Jan 2010 08:43

Re PT6 failures, this one let go on me one sunny day in the North Sea :hmm:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/2...ne+failure.jpg

Focuses the mind for moment or two ;)

j3pipercub 4th Jan 2010 09:06

Let's all just be a little careful about flinging accusations, as XX said, unless you have hard proof (or the paper copy of the RNAV) then you could be in deep water pretty quick. Those of us that have worked for the outfit know what we have seen and heard, just leave it at that eh?

j3

av8trflying 4th Jan 2010 10:35

Firstly Owen I wasnt accusing you of anything. Read my post better.

Now just to get things straight, because the aircraft is in the IFR category and has a cloud jumping manual you can create your own approach and fly it whenever you like? Is that what you are saying?

I NEVER said that you flew homemade RNAV approaches. The statement that you made was that you should have a CIR because you will use it. Correct me if I am wrong but all parachuting ops are VFR ops and a cloud jumping manual does not allow you to fly into IMC, it only lets parachutists jump through cloud.

Just so this doesnt go on forever, I do not agree with creating your own approach into an aerodrome. We can agree to disagree. As J3 said a lot of people know a lot of things.

aseanaero 4th Jan 2010 10:52


tell ya the truth his emergency procedure training is the simplest and best I've come across
... ah the legendary 'Jedi Approach'

pcx 4th Jan 2010 11:58

Hopefully the kids have finished fighting now.

I wonder if any one has any accurate information on why this engine failed.

VH-XXX 4th Jan 2010 19:35


And do you know the ending of this story.....You betcha...he face planted on the side of a mountain. But here is the kicker, he killed two passengers as well.
I bet you have all have heard of this story before.
nice example av8trflying, but did you realise that the aircraft you speak of had an engine failure and the approach may have had nothing to do with the crash? This was conveniently ignored by investigators / regulators as part of the new ATSB pilot "profiling" where everthing you have ever done wrong in your career (fact or fiction) comes back to haunt you in the final ATSB report.

Lasiorhinus 4th Jan 2010 22:52


Originally Posted by VH-XXX (Post 5421020)
nice example av8trflying, but did you realise that the aircraft you speak of had an engine failure and the approach may have had nothing to do with the crash?

Not correct.

ATSB Report Here Page 22: Damage to the engines and propellers was consistent with both engines delivering power at the time of impact.

av8trflying 4th Jan 2010 23:18

Owen

Well that was my point. There are no published approaches for Tully. You could go to Innisfail 20nm away to get down, but i dont know how happy the boss would be on your fuel burn.

VH-XXX

I have read the debate regarding the accident in question and I have read both reports. I have my own opinion.

My overall point is the dangers in flying your own approaches and not sticking by the rules will one day bite you in the ass.

VH-XXX 4th Jan 2010 23:37


Not correct.

ATSB Report Here Page 22: Damage to the engines and propellers was consistent with both engines delivering power at the time of impact.
Sorry but you are incorrect (correct in that you found this reference, however this has been proven as incorrect - the ATSB aren't perfect you know), hence my point about the ATSB (fact or fiction). This was done to death in another thread and independant engineers found that the engine was not running. I wonder what came of the court case on that.


I often wonder how you would feel if you were doing the right thing and crashed, but because others in your company often do the wrong thing (home-made approaches) or someone said that you sometimes do the wrong thing and you crash, then everyone points the finger at you?

aseanaero 5th Jan 2010 02:45

Once upon a time civil IFR parachute drops were allowed until a civil B25 jump ship dropped 18 skydivers over Lake Erie in the USA and most of them drowned


Worst Civilian Skydiving Accident
August 28, 2007 6:17 AM http://mefi.us/images/mefi/feed10.pngSubscribe

40 years ago yesterday, 18 experienced recreational skydivers took off in a converted World War II B-25 flying at 20,000 feet, intending to land at Ortner Field in Wakeman, Ohio. Expecting to free fall and then pop their chutes at 3,000 feet, after passing through the clouds at 4,000 feet, they instead plunged into Lake Erie, five miles from shore. FAA rules then and now bar skydiving through clouds, for obvious reasons. The plane's pilot wasn't rated to fly the craft but he also received bad information about his location from an air traffic controller in Oberlin: the controller mistook a Cessna observing the jump from a couple of miles away for the B-25. Two skydivers, one of whom had used his Styrofoam-lined helmet as a flotation device, were saved from the waters by a passing boater; 16 skydivers drowned. Oddly, one skydiver had told people the night before that, given a choice, he would take drowning as the way to go. He did not survive. The tragedy remains the worst recreational skydiving accident in history.

zac21 5th Jan 2010 10:07

OK, I shall ask again, what was the cause of the stoppage,, CTor PT or Gear box problems,,, someone should know by now ?????

zac21 7th Jan 2010 06:31

Someome should know something by now, or is it being kept quiet ?????

lk978 7th Jan 2010 07:03

Why do you need to know so bad... wait for the report

or

why don't you call Al?


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:36.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.