Pakistani PK-661 reported missing near Havelian (07 Dec 2016)
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.
If anyone has SIL PW100-151 that I believe describes the requirements for PT blades.
Exactly!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
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.
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 !
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
best post so far
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.
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.
