PC12 Glide Approach
 

Reported in the West Australian last night that a PC12 had a total power failure and managed to make a successful glide approach into Derby.

Was it a RFDS aircraft.

Anyone have any more info?

RFDS PC12, Pan was initially called, followed by a mayday. Oil sprayed over the windscreen, followed by a shutdown or failure.

It seems the advertised statistics for single engined turbines rarely failing or shutting down in flight doesn't bare out the reality , it seems this is happening with a caravan or now PC-12 at least 3 or 4 times a year in Oz alone ?

It certainly seems like the season for single engine turbines dropping their bundle, that's for sure!

Well done to the Captain !!!.

Is it a common cause? - such as maintenance, coincidence, or age etc.?

Also, great work to the capt for getting it down almost blindly - due oil apparently! :ok:

"JC" I concur, well done Capt:D Me takes me hat off to ya!
And no I won't be brought in kicking & screaming about single V twin, those who know me know my feelings on that subject. The PC would kill the old Beech in every area.....bar 1 !!!!:}

Wmk2..............love the sound of out of sync props:}

RFDS PC12 NWO suffered a total engine failure about 20nm out of Derby, heading to Kununurra then onto Darwin. Doc, nurse and patient on board at the time. Pilot did an awesome job and got the plane back on the ground in one piece. I tip my hat to her as she kept calm under very stressful situation.

Congratulations to the skipper - good effort. Anyone know if she had to use the dv window to see or is an oiled up windshield not as bad as it sounds? We are taught to use this window (open it) as required in such instances but have I often giggled in wonder at how TF you could see anything through it. Sideslip down final? :confused:

Compared to how many hours being flown?????
If you want to look at the PT6A, start including King Airs, TBM's, PC9's...
Does it really seem that often?

That's like saying there are hundreds of accidents involving commodores and falcons. Should they be investigated?

OK how many in flight shut downs due FAILURE, not precautionary, on King airs in same time periods ??

Is this the start of a trend with this type of engine ?? as they become more widely dispersed in the < 5700 kg fleet .

I doubt it, in the 90's the manager of P&WC who was a good friend of ours living here in BNE at the time would often show me around teh workshop over a cup of coffee and they would have the odd failed PT6 from Otters and Bandits and King Airs, there was never a flood of them but they happened just like any other turbine I guess.

The difference today is and in particular on this forum you hear about them all and quickly. Just like rapes and murders, the news travels much faster these days.

If anyone knows Peter that worked during Red's days at P&WC ask him about failure rates and the causes, he would surely know.

J:ok:

Point is, as usage increases, proportionally, there are going to me more occurences.

Questioning whether they are "still" a safe powerplant was like the media suggesting there should be an investigation into the safety of PA-31's due to the Whyalla, Hotham and similar accidents.:hmm:

Out of interest, does an endorsment on say a caravan, PC12, TBM etc. go over and practice a couple glide approaches? And are the pilots always looking round for a spot to put them down?

My endorsement included quite a few forced landings without power. One from FL140 thirty miles out, one from 5000 feet five miles out and lots on downwind in the circuit. The book (from memory) says you should be able to achieve a forced landing without power from 79 miles out (nil wind) from FL300.

If you are not looking around for a spot to land SM27 you are not much of a pilot in my books!

They do glide very well. You can achieve 2:1 comfortably from most altitudes and even 2.5:1 if minimal curcuit work required ie straight in approach.
We set range rings on the ehsi according to altitude (eg 40nm @ FL200 ) and so any suitable landing sites on the screen are fair game.

Turnbacks from >1000' are easily achieved - a common error in training is underestimating glide ability and a tendency to over-run. With zero thrust set they just keep floating down the runway! At airfields wiith cross strips, even an engine failure turning crosswind usually means you can continue the turn and land on the adjacent runway.

Cloud breaks are fun too - 1:1 descent from 7nm just below vne giving max inertia for arrival in the curcuit - once again plenty of options (if visual:sad:)

This is all well and good in training that I hope to never use.

It sounds like a good glider to me and well done to the captain, outstanding effort. Me personally, if an engine fails I want to be diverting to the most suitable aerodrome, not any suitable landing site :sad:. Two donk's are much more fun. Just out of interest, AD-PLC is the PC12 always within a gliding distance of somewhere safe to land? Just curious is all.

Fourballs
 

Is 2:1 a good glide??? does not sound to good to me. From 20000' doesnt that mean you can only go about 8 NM??. 2.5:1 is not much better.I would have thought a PC12 would have a glide around, say, 6-7.5:1 I could be wrong ofcourse.

Yes. From FL180, glide range is re 40-45nm. ie. 80nm between suitable sites is fine.
YMLD (Maitland) - YSPY (Spilsby Island) is 69nm, with YPLC a further 23nm away. And there are plenty of perfectly acceptable landing areas on Yorke Peninsula that would be closer than that.

Just to get Wally excited, one of our aircraft went YPAD - YWYY (Wynyard, TAS) earlier this week. From FL270 / 280 the aircraft is always within glide range of an airport or suitable site, even on that flight.

:}

Pin, what he is saying is that from ten thousand you can glide 20 miles ie a ratio of 1:2 if you forget about everything but the raw number. Pilots like to keep maths simple.

Thanks for that info Brian, I understand what he is saying now:ok:

Sorry Pin. What I mean is 2nm/1000' ie 12:1 using same scale - a safe number to make the field. Actual glide is more likeley to be 15:1.

From FL200, you have around 22min till you land. Enough time for a cuppa:ok:

What about IMC? Can you glide an RNAV or similar approach when it's dark and stormy?

jebbbusssss i can think of 3 single engine turbine AC in Australia with failures this month now. This is makes me wonder what is happening to PT6 this year. Everyone get ready to hear about the pt6 pro's and con's.....

Tid
 

This is why we have the cloud-break. 1:1 descent profile is designed to avoid the rocks at most places in oz. The normal glide is maintained until 7nm then point it at the field. Altitude alert set at 1200agl and radalt set at 700' - level off height. Puts you near vne - then circling approach if visual. If not, gear, flap, bring it down at 80kt, try to miss obstacles and nail the 64kt stall onto the deck. Easier said than done.

I like the sound of the RNAV option too.

Fourballs
 

Thanks for that explanation Fourballs, Wow that thing is almost a glider.I never realized they were so good. I think if I was ever a patient I would feel fairly safe in the hands of the RFDS:ok:
PS. Can you thermal those things? (only kidding)

Single engine Tubine
 

fourballs (furr balls?)

In the event of engine failure the PC-12 has two significant advantages over the van.

1. Its cruising in the flight levels, so has altitude to play with.
The van is usually 10,000' or lower, less options

2. It has a typical TAS of 240 kts, plenty of penetration speed for gliding and a huge margin above best glide speed.
The van is typically 160 kts with a pod, and a bit slower with floats.

Height plus speed are good things to have in your bag of luck and definitely increase your options.

The van does glide beautifully, especially when feathered, the PC-12 even better.

The van in IFR RPT ops (for which it should never have been approved) has to meet ASETPA (Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aircraft) requirements.

RFDS has a working engine failure in IMC (dont even think about night) procedure for the PC-12.

Vans operated to ASETPA criteria in RPT need a means of carrying out a dead stick instrument approach to a forced landing.

One method is to use a database of surveyed ALA's such that the aircraft arrives over the top and continues to descend in a pseudo LLZ/DME runway aligned approach.

Quite an exciting procedure and if flown correctly can be a great confidence booster.

Will post a diagram when I work how to include a PDF.

The following is part of the procedure based on a King KLN89B / KLN90


♦


2 Power Lever Idle
3 Propeller Feather
4 Fuel Condition Lever Cutoff
5 Flaps Up
6 Fuel Boost Off
7 Fuel Shutoff Off - Pull Out
8 Ignition Normal
9 Stanby Power Off
10 Electical Load Reduce

11 NRST Press
12 Airfield type - Rotate Outer Knob ENT Press
13 D Press
14 ENT Press
15 Track & Distance to Airfield Displayed
16 Heading Turn to Track
17 HSI Course bar Turn to Track

18 CRSR Press
19 CLR Press Button x 2
20 Rotate Inner Knob .3 nm
21 CLR Press

22 Outer Knob Rotate Counter clockwise
23 Cursor ACT
24 Inner Knob In Rotate Counter clockwise
25 Rotate Outer Knob clockwise Cursor at NAV

26 Track to Airfield
27 Airspeed Best Glide for weight ~ 700 fpm (refer placard)
28 Mayday Transmit intentions



♦ Check Height above Airfield and decide which approach to carry out






2 > 2500' " GPS " Mid Level Approach

3 < 2500' " GPS " Abbreviated Approach to FAF




IAP


5 Course bar Runway Direction

6 Heading 45° to Runway Direction for 1 nm

7 Turn Left Rate 1 (15°)

8 Intercept Course bar & Inbound Track

9 Track to Final 600' @ 1 nm

10Flap As required

28Landing → 4-4 Power Off Forced Landing







Chart icons


Δ IAF FAF 600' FAF
* GPS Ref Pt

* GPS Ref Pt 1 nm
Δ IAF > 2500'

Δ IAF FAF 600' FAF
* GPS Ref Pt

* GPS Ref Pt 1 nm

My two Bobs worth
 

Lets not get into that old chestnut of twin versus single. How about considering that PT6 turbines, like all engines, have an overhaul at TBO regardless of what hours that may be. Now have a think about how long they have been in service. The PT6 can be overhauled a number of times. It may well be that some of these failures might have occured in engines that have been reworked 3 or 4 times and that work may not have been done in the PWC factory approved work shop. I am not pointing anywhere in particular but there are overhauls and there are overhauls. What we may possibly be seeing is the result of overhauls not quite up to scratch on an engine that has in excess of 10,000 hours since new. Just a thought!!!!!!

Groggy

Groggy
Are you suggesting that CASA would approve a workshop that is not up to"scratch"??:eek:

:E

Mainframe, (or anyone else who wants to answer)

So am I correct in assuming, based off those checklists that there are no trouble checks/attempts to restart the engine - like a piston engine? Or did you omit that from the checklist?
Come to think of it,
Example: PT6 Has a flame out, attempt to restart or perform said checklist and find nearest suitable aerodrome?

Sorry for being ignorant (if I have been)

:ok:Pyro

Decision... engine start attempt(s)=less time remaining on Batts should relight not occur.

From what I've read here, thats along time on Batt only if its a flameout/IFS from the high levels.

Just pointing out a consideration when considering restart attempts.

Gotta say I'm way impressed with glide/cloudbreak procedure. Kudos to anybody who performs that! Great thread by the way :ok:

Dixons Cider is correct - pc12 restart attempts are limited to one with the single battery installed. Use up all your power and you lose efis+gyro instruments and flap - flapless landing uses 80% more runway than flaps 40. Gear is ok - it will fall out below 110kts.

Pyro
The POH has trouble checks (time permitting) for Power Control Lever failure (eg due bleed air leak) and the use of the Manual Override Lever - which basically acts directly on the fuel metering valve and is very touchy - you lose torque and Ng governing and landing distance required doubles! There are also airstart procedures.

Of course this is of no use with an oily windscreen as is the case here. Your only option is feather it and glide. At least you know your option.

Mainframe - thanks for the 208 info. You did, however forget the third advantage of the pc12 - it isn't fugly. Swiss and sweet
(not to be confused with the wamby-pamby who just won the tennis)

Obviously, in this case. When the oil comes out, something has clearly had a major issue.
Thanks for the info :ok:

So what about if you are half way between Wyndham and Derby at 2am in the morning and this scenario occurs. There is nothing that has lights and within gliding distance and you, nurse and unfortunate pax are probably dead.

The RFDS management are more than happy to risk the life of their crews flying around in single engine aeroplanes at night because it is cheaper.

If they are going to operate them at night then they should always plan to be within a gliding distance of a suitable and available landing strip or fly the King Air.

It's time they had bit of a re-think about the safety of their crews!

i dunno eco. I flew over some flat terrain the other day but i still recon if i went in i wouldn't have high chances of walking away. i guess we will never know unless it happens to us and if its out time its out time.

Maybe its worth noting that the last major accident that occurred in the RFDS (central section), and it was fatal, was in a King Air.

It's funny that those who think the PC-12 is dangerous, are in most cases those who know very little about the aircraft.

If you are endorsed, have experience on the things, know their capabilities and have some knowledge of the design of the machine in regards to it's crash worthiness, then you are normally one to take back any words you said about the PC-12 before, being dangerous.

Job very well done to the crew onboard.

morno

With respect Morno,
Its not that the aircraft is inherently dangerous, on the contrary it has its good points and its bad points like any aircraft, HOWEVER, IMHO I just dont think it is the right aircraft for RFDS.
I have several reasons for taking this opinion, but probably the most critical one is the large amount of night flying in very remote areas.
Just my two cents worth.
(BTW, my opinion is garnered from years of operating said aircraft and not that of an armchair expert).

Hans

That may have been the Qld Police C208 with a prisoner run out of TL, he/she did an excellent job there too! :ok: