Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Pakistani PK-661 reported missing near Havelian (07 Dec 2016)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Pakistani PK-661 reported missing near Havelian (07 Dec 2016)

Old 13th Jan 2019, 03:42
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 32
If I remember right the PT blades on a PW127 are on condition and the life limit is a recommendation, not hard time. Still not good to go through the amount of time that the manufacturer recommends though.

If anyone has SIL PW100-151 that I believe describes the requirements for PT blades.
Station Zero is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 03:26
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by punkalouver View Post
If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.
The blades were supposed to be changed at the first opportunity after passing 10.000 hours. The aircraft had an inspection at 10.004 hours and the blades were not changed. Yes that is wrong. The blades failed at 10.097 hours. The first maintenance inspection could have been at 10.099 hours, and the aircraft would have crashed even though all the required maintenance would have been complied with. How hard is it to understand that although in this case they would have saved the day by replacing the blades at 99.9% of the time before failure, that is not acceptable. I would like to think there is at least a 30% to 50% margin, if the blades fail in the test phase at 10.097 hours, they should be removed/inspected before reaching 5.000 - 7.000 hours, not 10.000 + the first scheduled inspection interval.


Originally Posted by Intrance View Post
The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. Thatís a damn narrow margin of 1%... so what if the failure happens at 9900hrs instead? Seems like that limit might have to be looked at and adjusted.
Exactly!
hans brinker is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:10
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
The blades were supposed to be changed at the first opportunity after passing 10.000 hours. The aircraft had an inspection at 10.004 hours and the blades were not changed. Yes that is wrong. The blades failed at 10.097 hours. The first maintenance inspection could have been at 10.099 hours, and the aircraft would have crashed even though all the required maintenance would have been complied with. How hard is it to understand that although in this case they would have saved the day by replacing the blades at 99.9% of the time before failure, that is not acceptable. I would like to think there is at least a 30% to 50% margin, if the blades fail in the test phase at 10.097 hours, they should be removed/inspected before reaching 5.000 - 7.000 hours, not 10.000 + the first scheduled inspection interval.
How hard is it to understand that PIA lack of following the maintenance was a direct contributing factor. PWC engine reliability may be an issue or may not depending on the reason for the failure which may have been an outside factor such as damage from FOD or engine abuse during operation. If it was a failure after normal operation over all those hours then there is a manufacturer issue.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 03:06
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by punkalouver View Post
How hard is it to understand that PIA lack of following the maintenance was a direct contributing factor. PWC engine reliability may be an issue or may not depending on the reason for the failure which may have been an outside factor such as damage from FOD or engine abuse during operation. If it was a failure after normal operation over all those hours then there is a manufacturer issue.
You are a special person....

As I said in my post, it was wrong of PIA not to follow the recommended maintenance interval, so I acknowledged already that that was a direct contributing factor. The fact that the recommended maintenance could just as easy have been legally scheduled AFTER the crash is a bigger concern, because there is a lot of these engines flying around, and an engine failing less than 1% after its recommended life time is the real issue, not the fact that they operated the engine 97 hours over the 10.000 hour limit.
I suggest you read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

The air-frame failed after twice the cycles it was designed for, and it still lead to increased scrutiny to make sure this would not happen again. To even suggest that a 1% exceedance is a major factor is stupid.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 03:22
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Surrey UK
Age: 70
Posts: 60
Don't know about this engine but back in my R.R. Dart days we had to regularly perform auto feather checks on night layovers for the FH227; it was a pain because you had to fit an oil by-pass kit to allow oil to exit the hub on the static engine, now if this blade failure caused a seized engine then scavenge of oil, if similar system, would have been impeded !
aeromech3 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2019, 10:17
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 55
best post so far

Originally Posted by Victor_IL View Post
Hello.
I looked at the isobar and I see a very good sigmet Last 12 hours.
If the aircraft was in icing on this engine for the prohibit all to fly in single-engine due to boost flow in the ice condition level at level 2 ... Boots condiition on PW127E there are two, but they are separated by each engine difference PW127F / M has two boost two independent on my own.

Cant say much about PW127E engine because each company has its own modification, especially purchased. But I know from experience that most of these cases are due to not proper use of the inertial separator or part span stall.
this is the best post so far. As far as journoes go, taking things a bit wrong, they had this Quest guy for that in the US. Just any unrelated b s he would spout off with his more than just limited knowledge, and people stayed tuned.
Blohm 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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.