|
Thanks, Mr. Blue.
I looked up the crash site as marked by Simon Hradecky on AVH on Google Earth, and came to an elevation of about 800-1000m. So drifting to 14000' and an elevation do not create a problem. Something else made them fall from the sky. |
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
Apparently one engine failed, so which of the other two options should we put our bets on? Or maybe both? |
I wouldn't be so quick to make that hard a statement. I would also like to look for evidence of unexpected drag affecting the performance of man and machine.
|
Backing up lomapaseo here, the initial official report suggested that it was more than a simple engine failure, a catastrophic uncontained engine failure can easily render the aircraft uncontrollable regardless of crew training & experience. The accident site suggests a complete LOC.
|
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
(Post 9612003)
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made.
|
You can introduce a lot of other possible factors, but it would not be the first time a crash was blamed on a "simple" engine failure. Or caused by one.
TransAsia comes to mind. |
PIA restarts ist ATR operations. To prevent more bloodshed and deaths, a goat was sacrificed on the spot:
https://mobile.twitter.com/asimusafz...16110890172416 I wonder whether the goat was correctly admitted to the secure area.:E |
|
No aircraft will crash if one engine fails and the pilots are qualified/trained and the proper performance calculations have been made. |
Absolutely .
Posted here on Dec 9th : The Pakistan Internatio*nal Airlines ATR-42 that crashed into the mountains near Havelian on Wednesday had been flying smoothly at 13,375 feet when its left engine malfunctioned, exploded and damaged a wing, an initial inquiry report by the Civil Aviation Authority says |
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 9614100)
PIA restarts ist ATR operations. To prevent more bloodshed and deaths, a goat was sacrificed on the spot:
https://mobile.twitter.com/asimusafz...16110890172416 I wonder whether the goat was correctly admitted to the secure area.:E |
Due Preliminary/Interim Report
More than a month and a half has passed since this accident. Should there not be a preliminary report out by now ( 30 days ), or at least a interim report?
|
Accident of PIA Flight PK-661 ATR 42-500 AP-BHO Near Havelian on 7th December, 2016 1. On December 7, 2016, a PIA ATR 42-500 (AP-BHO) flying from Chitral to Islamabad crashed near Havelian killing all 47 souls on-board. Safety Investigation Board (SIB) of Pakistan was mandated by the Federal Government to carry out detailed investigation into this unfortunate air crash. The investigation is towards a concluding stage, however, some important findings of technical nature require immediate attention/intervention. These are as follows: (a) Sequence of events was initiated with dislodging of one blade of power turbine Stage-1 (PT-1), inside engine number one (left-side engine) due to fatigue. (b) This dislodging of one blade resulted in in-flight engine shut down and it contributed towards erratic/abnormal behavior of engine number one propeller. (c) According to Service Bulletin these turbine blades were to be changed after completion of 10,000 hours on immediate next maintenance opportunity. The said engine was under maintenance on November 11, 2016, at that time those blades had completed 10004.1 hour (due for change). This activity should have been undertaken at that time but itwas missed out by the concerned. (d) Aircraft flew approximately ninety-three hours after the said maintenance activity, before it crashed on December 7, 2016. (e) Missing out of such an activity highlights a lapse on the part of PIA (maintenance and quality assurance) as well as a possible in-adequacy/lack of oversight by Pakistan CAA. 2. In light of the above, following is recommended please:- (a) PIA is to ensure immediate implementation of said Service Bulletin in letter and spirit on the entire fleet of ATR aircraft, undertake an audit of the related areas of maintenance practices, ascertain root cause(s) for the said lapse, and adopt appropriate corrective measures to avoid recurrence. (b) Pakistan CAA is to evaluate its oversight mechanism for its adequacy to discover lapses and intervene in a proactive manner, ascertain shortfall(s) and undertake necessary improvements. |
|
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause). |
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10358469)
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause). |
The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. That’s 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. |
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10358469)
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. |
I understand that an uncommanded unfeathering of the propeller after the engine had been shutdown was the major factor.
|
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10358469)
Hmm having bypassed the maintenance interval certainly doesn't reflect well on PIA but I don't think those 4h made a real difference. We still don't really know what happened here (apart an engine failure being most likely the root cause). |
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. |
Originally Posted by punkalouver
(Post 10359104)
If the blades that flew apart had been changed, they wouldn't have flown apart. How can that not make a real difference.
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10358614)
The aircraft flew about 100hrs over that 10000hrs replacement limit. That’s 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.
|
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10359978)
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 punkalouver
(Post 10360640)
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 !
|
best post so far
Originally Posted by Victor_IL
(Post 9602633)
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.