|
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 09:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.