Caravan engine failure in TSV
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. Wally,
The company I was working for at the time started the process for gaining ASETPA, but pulled out due to weighing up the cost/benefit. As a result I only ever flew the Van empty or with freight outside of day VMC conditions.
To the best of my knowledge, an approved route has to have numerous designated landing areas along track within gliding distance from your cruise alt. If the engine fails you hit direct to nearest on the emergency page of the GPS and start gliding. As I said, I’ve never flown ASEPTA myself, but that’s the general concept I got from a couple of CASA guys during a ramp check (they were flying a Van as well). The RFDS have a special cloud break procedure for the PC12’s which if memory serves me correctly, sets you up for a visual base/final. Maybe one of their drivers could explain it?
The company I was working for at the time started the process for gaining ASETPA, but pulled out due to weighing up the cost/benefit. As a result I only ever flew the Van empty or with freight outside of day VMC conditions.
To the best of my knowledge, an approved route has to have numerous designated landing areas along track within gliding distance from your cruise alt. If the engine fails you hit direct to nearest on the emergency page of the GPS and start gliding. As I said, I’ve never flown ASEPTA myself, but that’s the general concept I got from a couple of CASA guys during a ramp check (they were flying a Van as well). The RFDS have a special cloud break procedure for the PC12’s which if memory serves me correctly, sets you up for a visual base/final. Maybe one of their drivers could explain it?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 'Dave incog', The only trouble is an approved route maybe fine when it's 'planned' but some of the RFDS work isn't planned, as in getting diverted enroute. I know of the basic concept used by the RFDS PC12's. Their cloud break proceedure is heavily reliant on the radar alt. I also believe they fly the craft at VNE or close to it where possible so that there is enough energy to complete an abrieviated appr & land. All sounds feasable during practise but sheeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz at night, in awful WX the thought doesn't bare contemplating !
I know where I work the PC12 was considered but like you said the cost/benifits where weighed up & wasn't an option at the end of the day due to risk.
Like I said I take my hat off to those brave souls !
It's simple maths.........2 is better than 1 in every occasion, even a work !
CW
p.s.....well done 'sarcs'
I know where I work the PC12 was considered but like you said the cost/benifits where weighed up & wasn't an option at the end of the day due to risk.
Like I said I take my hat off to those brave souls !
It's simple maths.........2 is better than 1 in every occasion, even a work !
CW
p.s.....well done 'sarcs'
I know for a fact that the ASETPA approval was initially looked at in the RFDS Westops section when they first recieved the PC12. How do I know that? Well I was tasked with researching the enroute requirements of ASETPA and whether they were feasible for RFDS ops.
The enroute reqs basically say that an approved a/c must be able to glide to a 'suitable landing area' at all times except for 15min in the cruise at normal cruise TAS. So in the case of the PC12 normal cruise TAS was 240kts meaning that you would have to be able to glide to a SLA at all times except for 60nm in the cruise.
Surprisingly this proved to be quite doable over most of WA with some pretty big restrictions in certain areas. An example would be having to climb to at least FL260 over a route such as Meeka to Onslow (real tiger country out there an Mount Augustus smack bang in the middle). Also there would have to be quite a few strip upgrades to some of the designated SLAs and some would need to be made night capable as well.
I believe the cloud break procedure was derived from the RAAFs procedure for an engine failure in IMC for the PC9. Which is all very well if you get to bottom of the procedure and you are still in IMC as the PC9 pilot has the option of ejecting out. Personally I couldn't see what the problem was setting the PC12 up for best glide and circling down over the airfield, even if it was for say a 20min glide. By the time you got to the bottom you would pretty much have the high key, low key, short final down pat especially with inputed info from the GPS. However the cloud break procedure was a lot of fun to practise but I think you would have to your wits about you (not to mention an ounce of luck) to really pull it off!!
The enroute reqs basically say that an approved a/c must be able to glide to a 'suitable landing area' at all times except for 15min in the cruise at normal cruise TAS. So in the case of the PC12 normal cruise TAS was 240kts meaning that you would have to be able to glide to a SLA at all times except for 60nm in the cruise.
Surprisingly this proved to be quite doable over most of WA with some pretty big restrictions in certain areas. An example would be having to climb to at least FL260 over a route such as Meeka to Onslow (real tiger country out there an Mount Augustus smack bang in the middle). Also there would have to be quite a few strip upgrades to some of the designated SLAs and some would need to be made night capable as well.
I believe the cloud break procedure was derived from the RAAFs procedure for an engine failure in IMC for the PC9. Which is all very well if you get to bottom of the procedure and you are still in IMC as the PC9 pilot has the option of ejecting out. Personally I couldn't see what the problem was setting the PC12 up for best glide and circling down over the airfield, even if it was for say a 20min glide. By the time you got to the bottom you would pretty much have the high key, low key, short final down pat especially with inputed info from the GPS. However the cloud break procedure was a lot of fun to practise but I think you would have to your wits about you (not to mention an ounce of luck) to really pull it off!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tnxs 'sarcs' interesting reading there. That's preety much what I've heard also but as we all seem to agree doing it for real is another whole other story !. Besides even if you where over dead flat terrain & found yourself without pwr a landing at night is a precarious event even in a controlled state !
The PC12 has an excellent glide range, strong seats with high G's capabilities (shame the human hasn't !) but it means little when faced with cloud to grnd lvl
The B200 for Eg. glides as per POH 2NM per 1000 ft loss, that's not too bad for a flying brick! I reckon that if it did get to that (both failed) I wasn't meant to be flying that day!
Anyway that's half the reason why they put more than one engine on an airframe, purely for safety. With todays modern large Hi bypass engs I bet they could design a large plane to carry many pax with just one RR Trent 900 eng !.......but they don't & we all know why!~
CW
The PC12 has an excellent glide range, strong seats with high G's capabilities (shame the human hasn't !) but it means little when faced with cloud to grnd lvlThe B200 for Eg. glides as per POH 2NM per 1000 ft loss, that's not too bad for a flying brick!
I reckon that if it did get to that (both failed) I wasn't meant to be flying that day!Anyway that's half the reason why they put more than one engine on an airframe, purely for safety. With todays modern large Hi bypass engs I bet they could design a large plane to carry many pax with just one RR Trent 900 eng !.......but they don't & we all know why!~
CW
As one who flies SE IFR (but NOT night SE IFR), this subject is near and dear to my heart.
Set up for a max range glide, the V35B comes down at about 700 '/min.
Given that I fly most GPS RNAV approaches at about 600 '/min rate of descent, if an aerodrome with a GPS RNAV approach was within range, why would you not just fly the appraoch, providing you don't have to go too far out of your way to get onto it?
If still in IMC at the minima I would maintain the approach track and ride the aeroplane to the ground. If I broke out an found myself high (I wish!), dropping the gear and a judicious side-slip would soon get me down.
If faced with an engine-out appr I would find it impossible to track outbound in an NDB Appr, but Jeppesen FlightDeck would allow me to track direct to the inbound track.
Dr
Set up for a max range glide, the V35B comes down at about 700 '/min.
Given that I fly most GPS RNAV approaches at about 600 '/min rate of descent, if an aerodrome with a GPS RNAV approach was within range, why would you not just fly the appraoch, providing you don't have to go too far out of your way to get onto it?
If still in IMC at the minima I would maintain the approach track and ride the aeroplane to the ground. If I broke out an found myself high (I wish!), dropping the gear and a judicious side-slip would soon get me down.
If faced with an engine-out appr I would find it impossible to track outbound in an NDB Appr, but Jeppesen FlightDeck would allow me to track direct to the inbound track.
Dr
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Doc
...........yr statement "(but NOT night SE IFR)" says it all, but some have no choice but to fly in all conditions, reg's permitting of course.
I trust that yr 'Bo' is running well? Good solid airframe, none better I reckon there but still don't want to be in one at night...gliding !
We all say (myself inc) given the right conditions it's possible to survive an eng out ldg, but rarely would it be the 'right' conditions. If you really sit down & think about it one could have an eng failure at any stage of flight (obviously) esspecially where one didn't have the luxury of height to trade for distance/time. Eg. Yr on an app, on the correct glidepath say 3 degs, 6 mls from touchdown, gear out, flap out, all's good, 'till the fan quits abruptly. And that 6 mls might still has high terrain to overfly, you simply won't make it! If you have a choice simply don't do it !
...........whoops....getting off the track here I guess but a worthwhile dissucssion.
CW
...........yr statement "(but NOT night SE IFR)" says it all, but some have no choice but to fly in all conditions, reg's permitting of course.
I trust that yr 'Bo' is running well? Good solid airframe, none better I reckon there but still don't want to be in one at night...gliding !
We all say (myself inc) given the right conditions it's possible to survive an eng out ldg, but rarely would it be the 'right' conditions. If you really sit down & think about it one could have an eng failure at any stage of flight (obviously) esspecially where one didn't have the luxury of height to trade for distance/time. Eg. Yr on an app, on the correct glidepath say 3 degs, 6 mls from touchdown, gear out, flap out, all's good, 'till the fan quits abruptly. And that 6 mls might still has high terrain to overfly, you simply won't make it! If you have a choice simply don't do it !
...........whoops....getting off the track here I guess but a worthwhile dissucssion.
CW
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points
1. Some time ago, American research showed that twin engined aircraft were less likely to be involved in fatal accidents that were caused by engine failure, but they were more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than singles.
2. Australia has had a few night engine failures in singles, but I don't think we have had a fatal one yet.
3. To turnback after an engine failure after takeoff was considered suicidal until the single engined turboprop came along. (look at the test pilot section of PRUNE.)
4. Turboprop engines DO fail. How many have we had in Australia?
5. PT6's are good engines.
2. Australia has had a few night engine failures in singles, but I don't think we have had a fatal one yet.
3. To turnback after an engine failure after takeoff was considered suicidal until the single engined turboprop came along. (look at the test pilot section of PRUNE.)
4. Turboprop engines DO fail. How many have we had in Australia?
5. PT6's are good engines.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....tinpis, couldn't have said it better myself !
CW
p.s.
hey 'bushy' yr correct there with yr statements, but it would only take one death resulting from an eng failure that was SE IFR charter to make most think twice, oh & that's one death too many as well !
Funny I was just looking outside the office window b4 & what taxied in?, low & behold a PC12, made me shiver to think of the consequences of that fan failing at the wrong time !
Obviously this is all opinions of concerned pilots, we have choice these days thank goodness
CW
CW
p.s.
hey 'bushy' yr correct there with yr statements, but it would only take one death resulting from an eng failure that was SE IFR charter to make most think twice, oh & that's one death too many as well !
Funny I was just looking outside the office window b4 & what taxied in?, low & behold a PC12, made me shiver to think of the consequences of that fan failing at the wrong time !
Obviously this is all opinions of concerned pilots, we have choice these days thank goodness
CW
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Safety Investigation #: 200105618
Link here to the Initial ATSB Report:
Beech Aircraft Corporation C90 (VH-LQH) Toowoomba, QLD - 27 November 2001
Beech Aircraft Corporation C90 (VH-LQH) Toowoomba, QLD - 27 November 2001
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good link as mentioned, but there where/are numerous factors that contributed to that unfortunate event such as an inop auto feather(for whatever reason) none of which is related to SE A/C.
Sure we've read it all before, eng failure in a twin at T/off is the most dangerous situation unless it's in either a transport cat A/C or the operator is working to a balanced field length (which I/we do whenever possible) regime meaning it gives the pilot a better margin for maintaining flight with an eng failure recognized at V1.
Obviously any A/C is subject to some failure of a system that will render the flight unachievable but Single Engine IFR in IMC ops still stands as the most dangerous in my mind.
Keep the posts coming, a very interesting read thus far
CW
Sure we've read it all before, eng failure in a twin at T/off is the most dangerous situation unless it's in either a transport cat A/C or the operator is working to a balanced field length (which I/we do whenever possible) regime meaning it gives the pilot a better margin for maintaining flight with an eng failure recognized at V1.
Obviously any A/C is subject to some failure of a system that will render the flight unachievable but Single Engine IFR in IMC ops still stands as the most dangerous in my mind.
Keep the posts coming, a very interesting read thus far
CW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: FNQ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASETPA Opps
I flew for a company that operated Vans ASETPA. On top of what has been listed also think a rad alt (as per the PC12) and also an engine trend monitor so the engineers could keep an eye on it, also I think the WX radar had to work as well?? Anyway we were allowed to do turnbacks from 700/800ft (memory fading) and so long as you didnt muck around getting it feathered was no problem.
The procedure we had approved for a failure in cruise was to immediately trim for best glide and go to the nearest airport. We also had a 'reasonable' amount of the strips around the area of operation with a waypoint stored for the middle of the runway. So (best case scenario) arrive overhead at I think 4500agl and turn crosswind, fly out and follow a 3 mile arc around, by now you would have the HSI selected to GPS and the track to the airport waypoint lined up with the runway direction so when you were on base you could use the CDI as a poor mans LLZ to line you up with the runway. Then using the distance to run off the GPS would start putting out flap on final. As I duck for cover and prepare to be shot down in flames personally I prefered the sound of this method more than the RFDS PC12 idea, if I was gonna smack into a hill in the circuit then it would be at slow speed and if I didnt get visual cause the cloud was on the deck then I had a greater chance of crashing in the vicinity of the runway and hopefully even right on it!! Still I have never flown an PC12 so maybe there are reasons against it! (And I have endless repsect for the RFDS drivers and the operation in general)
Certainly there are many "what ifs" "maybes" and "with luck" etc with the procedure, thats just how it was done then!! Were not as many GNSS approaches around then and we were not trained at the time to use them anyway so having a waypoint in the middle of the runway was kinda important. The concept worked in training and thankfully I never had to really test it out!!
One of the selling points for the SE Turbine at the time was it was more reliable than an older twin piston?? Speculation aside does anyone actually have any stastics on that??
Certainly the prefered option when one goes bang would be to nail V2/Vbg etc climb to LSA then either return for the approach or climb to FL_ _ _ and divert to Y_ _ _ but I guess thats not always an option!!
The only thing better than a turbine is TWO turbines!!
All that aside, well done to the Van driver who put whatever procedure into practise and got it back down safely!!
The procedure we had approved for a failure in cruise was to immediately trim for best glide and go to the nearest airport. We also had a 'reasonable' amount of the strips around the area of operation with a waypoint stored for the middle of the runway. So (best case scenario) arrive overhead at I think 4500agl and turn crosswind, fly out and follow a 3 mile arc around, by now you would have the HSI selected to GPS and the track to the airport waypoint lined up with the runway direction so when you were on base you could use the CDI as a poor mans LLZ to line you up with the runway. Then using the distance to run off the GPS would start putting out flap on final. As I duck for cover and prepare to be shot down in flames personally I prefered the sound of this method more than the RFDS PC12 idea, if I was gonna smack into a hill in the circuit then it would be at slow speed and if I didnt get visual cause the cloud was on the deck then I had a greater chance of crashing in the vicinity of the runway and hopefully even right on it!! Still I have never flown an PC12 so maybe there are reasons against it! (And I have endless repsect for the RFDS drivers and the operation in general)
Certainly there are many "what ifs" "maybes" and "with luck" etc with the procedure, thats just how it was done then!! Were not as many GNSS approaches around then and we were not trained at the time to use them anyway so having a waypoint in the middle of the runway was kinda important. The concept worked in training and thankfully I never had to really test it out!!
One of the selling points for the SE Turbine at the time was it was more reliable than an older twin piston?? Speculation aside does anyone actually have any stastics on that??
Certainly the prefered option when one goes bang would be to nail V2/Vbg etc climb to LSA then either return for the approach or climb to FL_ _ _ and divert to Y_ _ _ but I guess thats not always an option!!
The only thing better than a turbine is TWO turbines!!
All that aside, well done to the Van driver who put whatever procedure into practise and got it back down safely!!