PT6 Failure
 

A skydiving caravan in Cairns just had a total engine failure at 12,000ft.

Glided back to the field safely.

Well done that man.:ok:

Fuel systems failure?

Pilot said he doesn't know. Tried a restart but nothing. All skydivers got out at 12

Skydivers weren't responsible perchance? They have been known to take the occasional thing, like keys!:eek:

OK, OK, I know Caravans don't have keys...well not start them anyway!

I've had the mixture pulled by the DZ/aircraft owner, but never the keys. If someone did pull my keys, they would be nursing a very sore jaw about 5 minutes later, and I would refuse to ever take them up again. The guys at my DZ know this, so we're all on the same page :)

Back to the subject - highly unusual for a pT6 to give out without some outside influence like overtemp or overtorque or underfuelling, however poor maintennance will of course lead to failure (more often though lead to reduced performance, which leads to high temps etc...)

nice work... see its not true what they say about skydive drivers they can actually fly :D

harder then it sounds from that altitude it is almost too much altitude would have been a slower decent than normal

ps i doubt any skydiver would mess around with a Caravan, they do sit pretty close to the FC lever though

Those pesky PT6s playing up again hey?

Well done to the pilot did a super job from SW of aerodrome left downwind snaking down final and an absolute greaser of a landing vacating at A3 under own steam so to speak.
No idea the reason for the failure but congradulations Mr Pilot you sounded very cool under pressure and never in doubt from our view:D:D.

Are you for real? What could you possibly mean by this? How on earth can you have too much altitude with an engine failure (unless you are ojn fire and even then it would be a good thing to help it burn out)? Anyone who couldn't pull off a perfect landing from 12,000ft should have their licence pulled off them, even if they are a GFPT !!!!! :ugh:

12,000 feet
Very close to a 3km runway
No pax

Can't get much luckier than that, compare that to the poor guy in png!

Will be interesting to see why it stopped. Recon a Caravan might go allright with an 1820 innut, you'd have to use avgas then.:}

And oil!;)

Does anyone know why it stopped yet ?????

or maybe a twin :O

Well done to the guy. I'll bet the pax were happy they had those bags on their backs.

There seemed to be a bunch of vans having engine failures around the world. For a while a year or two ago they always seemed to be in the accident reports of Australian Aviation. I know of 3 PT6 failures in King Airs and Vans. No of them happened to me thankfully but one of them was particularly concerning as the casing didn't contain the blades as they parted company from the turbine wheel.

It's good to hear that everyone was fine.

There's a 'van' operating out of EN these days often (shifty business) & wonder what the ability of same would be if an eng failure occurred at say 300ft on a typical day say 10 kts H/W. Can these big lumbering ducklings turn & glide back to the rwy from that height? Some guru 'van' man (or gal) might be able to shed some light here.
As for why the '6' failed? Can only be fuel related. The other 2 things needed for an 'infernal' combustion engine to work will always be there once running unless hardware mech failure prevailed which still really means fuel not being supplied or the inability not to be able to turn.

Now I know why we have '2' of 'em, safety in numbers:}


Wmk2

Narrative:
En route from Tofino to Vancouver, the pilot issued a mayday and wanted to divert to Port Alberni Airport, BC (YPB). The aircraft did not make it and crashed in the woods, some 10 km from the airport.

CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS AS TO CAUSES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
1. The engine lost power when a compressor turbine blade failed as a result of the overstress extension of a fatigue-generated crack. The fracture initiated at a metallurgical anomaly in the parent blade material and progressed, eventually resulting in blade failure due to overstress rupture.

2. The combination of aircraft position at the time of the engine failure, the lack of equipment enabling the pilot to locate and identify high terrain, and the resultant manoeuvring required to avoid entering instrument flight conditions likely prevented the pilot from attempting to glide to the nearest airfield.

I'm no van man, never flown one, but my guess is that at EN you would hit 300ft with half the runway remaining and have plenty of room to land.

I'd still rather a King Air!

Compressor turbine?

Surprising the failure was not contained as the -114 has a containment ring around the CT wheel.

In respect to 'Van engine failures, I wonder how many of those had daily compressor washes, engine trend monitoring systems and regular boroscope inspections?

The pilot has now set a standard for those tight ass tandem operators. They will want him to dead stick after every drop to save engine time and fuel.

Reliability of any engine is all about maintenance or lack thereof.

I know we (as in our Co) have near 30 '6's' all operating high cycles & at times in less than fav conditions & no engine failures after a zillion hrs.(a few shut down at pilot discretion, bunch of sissies they are:}) All hangin' in there due I believe good maintenance with reg comp washes & engine tear downs at the slightest hint of sumfun' fishy. BUT that doesn't mean am gunna fly with just one '6' at a time!:}
Tnxs to the boys who keep us safe, the Engineers, we loves ya!:ok:


"glekichi" am not too sure about ldg straight ahead on what's left of the AD after an eng failure at say 300 ft. I've watched the ugly ducklings (the van) get to about that height & I'd hate to have to get it back on the deck with what's left still I guess a controlled crash on airport is better than off airport especially off Rwy 17 @ 17....yeeek!
Amazing A/C just the same, be nice to fly if it's typical Cessna.




Wmk2