Caravan engine failure in TSV
After years of flying clapped out piston twins, tired turbo props and geriatric jets, I had the pleasure of flying a PC12 on a demo flight. What a pleasant experience it was! Great aeroplane! It was the first new aeroplane I´d flown, everything worked, it smelled good and I was left with the distinct impression that this must be just about the best private aircraft produced.
And I think that´s where it should have remained – as a private machine. Most passengers don´t count the number of engines, they just expect them to fly. And they usually do, from piston singles up, in a properly run commercial venture with adequate maintenance and well trained pilots.
The article by Gordon Gilbert posted by Mainframe (#48) says ´ Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry´ and that the UK CAA won´t allow ASETPA operations. There is good reason for this. And the reason will become obvious when surviving relatives of the first Australian ASETPA passenger fatality complain that nobody told them the aeroplane would not fly after an engine failure.
In Australia, the horse has bolted. It’s now too late to change the rules. But I think ASETPA operators should be required to inform their passengers of the approval and detailed information should be available on a web site, maybe as part of the operator´s AOC.
At least this way intending passengers could make an informed choice whether or not to fly IFR at night in a Single.
PITHBLOT
And I think that´s where it should have remained – as a private machine. Most passengers don´t count the number of engines, they just expect them to fly. And they usually do, from piston singles up, in a properly run commercial venture with adequate maintenance and well trained pilots.
The article by Gordon Gilbert posted by Mainframe (#48) says ´ Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry´ and that the UK CAA won´t allow ASETPA operations. There is good reason for this. And the reason will become obvious when surviving relatives of the first Australian ASETPA passenger fatality complain that nobody told them the aeroplane would not fly after an engine failure.
In Australia, the horse has bolted. It’s now too late to change the rules. But I think ASETPA operators should be required to inform their passengers of the approval and detailed information should be available on a web site, maybe as part of the operator´s AOC.
At least this way intending passengers could make an informed choice whether or not to fly IFR at night in a Single.
PITHBLOT
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said 'pithblot', yr statement 'private' flying says it all. That's where no one 'has' to go flying if the wx isn't suitable.
No ones disputing the advantages of ASETPA those rules are there for good reasons & work well. But those regs & others can't cover all situations for SE failure at night in cloud & hence we have most of IFR chrt esspecially at night done in multi eng craft.
There's stats that could argue the twin versus single all day everyday in fav of the single, but at the end of the day........would you fly in a SE A/C (of any kind) at night in cloud over tiger country?............if yes then YOU haven't got a problem, if not, then you have made a smart choice. Life is all about choices, go choose one that suits you !
Personal opiniuons as always
CW
No ones disputing the advantages of ASETPA those rules are there for good reasons & work well. But those regs & others can't cover all situations for SE failure at night in cloud & hence we have most of IFR chrt esspecially at night done in multi eng craft.
There's stats that could argue the twin versus single all day everyday in fav of the single, but at the end of the day........would you fly in a SE A/C (of any kind) at night in cloud over tiger country?............if yes then YOU haven't got a problem, if not, then you have made a smart choice. Life is all about choices, go choose one that suits you !
Personal opiniuons as always
CW
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Japan, flying the Glider Tug, eating great Japanese food, looking at lovely Japanese Ladies and continuing the neverending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Posts: 2,984
Received 111 Likes
on
64 Posts
The PC12 glides 2.5nm per 1000' so remaining within gliding distance of an aerodrome would not be a problem
I have no experience in S/E Turbine or M/E Turbine (command anyway) for that matter but I really don't feel comfortable with the S/E option in RPT.
Just my two Toea worth.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey 'pinky' that 2.5 for a 1000ft loss in the PC12 probably is about right seeing as the B200 says in the POH 2 nm per 1000ft loss (nil wind). Not too shabby for a blunt object!CW
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charter or RPT PC12/s ????
How many PC 12'S are flying charter or RPT services in Australia?
I think the RFDS fly most of them. Aboriginal Air tried to, and failed.
I think the RFDS fly most of them. Aboriginal Air tried to, and failed.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: terra australis
Age: 49
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the actual engine failure of the 208 at TSV.., has anyone heard the possible cause of the failure yet?
With regards to the electronic disharge through to the no1 bearing failures, I beleive that only happened on the 600hp engine fitted with the lucas starter/gen..
With regards to the electronic disharge through to the no1 bearing failures, I beleive that only happened on the 600hp engine fitted with the lucas starter/gen..
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asetpa
Werbil.
The ignition system is rated for continuous operation?
suggest you re read the POH / AFM and note the limitations specified.
I still wonder at what smoke and mirrors trick produced the ASETPA compliance for the ignition system.
It is a great aircraft for what you do with it, (and I believe most amphibs have a 2nd ignition unit installed so that you can
swap the connections over if it doesn't go "tick-tick----tick-tick" during start, which they sometimers dont.
And yes, I have had the unwanted experience of riding one down when it went quiet. (good landing, nil damage, nil injuries).
can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin,
I've also brought one of those home to an aerodrome of my choice, unlike the se turbine, where I had a certificate that said it cant happen, and if does,
good luck!
and apart from all the stuff from the NTSB, here's another a different TSB.
TSB: final report on Cessna 208 engine failure accident
The Canadian TSB issued the final report of their investigation into the January 2006 accident of a Cessna 208B aircraft near Port lberni. It was en route at 9000 feet above sea level, from Tofino, British Columbia, to Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia, when the engine failed. The pilot began a glide in the direction of the Port Alberni Regional Airport before attempting an emergency landing on a logging road. The aircraft struck trees during a steep right-hand turn and crashed. Five passengers survived with serious injuries; the pilot and the other two passengers were fatally injured.
It was concluded that the engine lost power when a compressor turbine blade failed as a result of the overstress extension of a fatigue-generated crack. The fracture initiated at a metallurgical anomaly in the parent blade material and progressed, eventually resulting in blade failure due to overstress rupture
The combination of aircraft position at the time of the engine failure, the lack of equipment enabling the pilot to locate and identify high terrain, and the resultant manoeuvring required to avoid entering instrument flight conditions likely prevented the pilot from attempting to glide to the nearest airfield. (TSB)
TSB Report Number A06P0010: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...0/a06p0010.asp
(aviation-safety.net)
The PT6 is not bullet proof, it is not unstoppable, nor was the Titanic the unsinkable ship.
Horses for courses, the C208 are great at what they were designed for (think about it)
but ASETPA somehow compromises the safety standards that a paying passenger may be entitled to.
Yes, I fly SE IFR / Night, but not with paying pax. I know the risks, I hope I can manage them, but I cant guarantee that I can.
I think I can get a tired 402, Chieftain or Baron home on one, and have done so.
I've also had the sadness of no noise in a single, fortunately, day, VFR.
Hats off to the police pilot again, but did he need that risk exposure?
The ignition system is rated for continuous operation?
suggest you re read the POH / AFM and note the limitations specified.
I still wonder at what smoke and mirrors trick produced the ASETPA compliance for the ignition system.
It is a great aircraft for what you do with it, (and I believe most amphibs have a 2nd ignition unit installed so that you can
swap the connections over if it doesn't go "tick-tick----tick-tick" during start, which they sometimers dont.
And yes, I have had the unwanted experience of riding one down when it went quiet. (good landing, nil damage, nil injuries).
can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin,
I've also brought one of those home to an aerodrome of my choice, unlike the se turbine, where I had a certificate that said it cant happen, and if does,
good luck!
and apart from all the stuff from the NTSB, here's another a different TSB.
TSB: final report on Cessna 208 engine failure accident
The Canadian TSB issued the final report of their investigation into the January 2006 accident of a Cessna 208B aircraft near Port lberni. It was en route at 9000 feet above sea level, from Tofino, British Columbia, to Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia, when the engine failed. The pilot began a glide in the direction of the Port Alberni Regional Airport before attempting an emergency landing on a logging road. The aircraft struck trees during a steep right-hand turn and crashed. Five passengers survived with serious injuries; the pilot and the other two passengers were fatally injured.
It was concluded that the engine lost power when a compressor turbine blade failed as a result of the overstress extension of a fatigue-generated crack. The fracture initiated at a metallurgical anomaly in the parent blade material and progressed, eventually resulting in blade failure due to overstress rupture
The combination of aircraft position at the time of the engine failure, the lack of equipment enabling the pilot to locate and identify high terrain, and the resultant manoeuvring required to avoid entering instrument flight conditions likely prevented the pilot from attempting to glide to the nearest airfield. (TSB)
TSB Report Number A06P0010: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...0/a06p0010.asp
(aviation-safety.net)
The PT6 is not bullet proof, it is not unstoppable, nor was the Titanic the unsinkable ship.
Horses for courses, the C208 are great at what they were designed for (think about it)
but ASETPA somehow compromises the safety standards that a paying passenger may be entitled to.
Yes, I fly SE IFR / Night, but not with paying pax. I know the risks, I hope I can manage them, but I cant guarantee that I can.
I think I can get a tired 402, Chieftain or Baron home on one, and have done so.
I've also had the sadness of no noise in a single, fortunately, day, VFR.
Hats off to the police pilot again, but did he need that risk exposure?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe,
Last time i looked at the requirements for ASETPA, having an ignition system that could operate continuosly was one of the qualifying requirements.
Whilst i have not had an engine failure, in the 1100 hours of PT6 ( -114 and -34 ) flying i have, at mainly low levels, never did it let me down, can not recall how many dozens of "issues" I experienced with pistons in that time.
I guess the real question to ask is:
In a million hours of flight in a C208/PA31 how many:
1) engine failures did the C208 have, versus,
2) the number of double engine failures the PA31 experienced.
That is comparing apples with apples.
Last time i looked at the requirements for ASETPA, having an ignition system that could operate continuosly was one of the qualifying requirements.
Whilst i have not had an engine failure, in the 1100 hours of PT6 ( -114 and -34 ) flying i have, at mainly low levels, never did it let me down, can not recall how many dozens of "issues" I experienced with pistons in that time.
I guess the real question to ask is:
In a million hours of flight in a C208/PA31 how many:
1) engine failures did the C208 have, versus,
2) the number of double engine failures the PA31 experienced.
That is comparing apples with apples.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Training and Checking Captain once told me that he would be happy to fly a B200 anywhere in the world in any weather.
He also said that he would be happy to fly a PC12 anywhere in the world in any weather.
Having operated the PC12 and B200 I have to agree 100%
The discussion on this thread is very interesting, unfortunately a lot of people have a fear / prejudice of /to SE turbines and very few will be swayed by reading about it.
I have known many over the years who have overcome that prejudice once they have operated the PC12 and realize what a fantastic and safe aircraft that it is.
He also said that he would be happy to fly a PC12 anywhere in the world in any weather.
Having operated the PC12 and B200 I have to agree 100%
The discussion on this thread is very interesting, unfortunately a lot of people have a fear / prejudice of /to SE turbines and very few will be swayed by reading about it.
I have known many over the years who have overcome that prejudice once they have operated the PC12 and realize what a fantastic and safe aircraft that it is.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asetpa
LHRT,
Good call, total power loss in SE turbine vs total power loss in ME piston twin.
Sounds like apples vs apples to me.
by the way, very good response to the C310 -402 fuel system in another post, you've done your homework.
Anyone want to publish the max continuous ignition cycle duty in a PT6A-114 from the POH, before I do?
No prizes for the first correct entry (clue: the time is in minutes, not hours and minutes!)
Its certainly not continuous!!! as required for ASETPA.
The PT6, or any turbine, is just NOT bullet proof thats all, (just a really good power plant) as most of us have asked to believe.
And I restate, the PT6 is a good engine, but not mythical.
Good call, total power loss in SE turbine vs total power loss in ME piston twin.
Sounds like apples vs apples to me.
by the way, very good response to the C310 -402 fuel system in another post, you've done your homework.
Anyone want to publish the max continuous ignition cycle duty in a PT6A-114 from the POH, before I do?
No prizes for the first correct entry (clue: the time is in minutes, not hours and minutes!)
Its certainly not continuous!!! as required for ASETPA.
The PT6, or any turbine, is just NOT bullet proof thats all, (just a really good power plant) as most of us have asked to believe.
And I restate, the PT6 is a good engine, but not mythical.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower,
To compare apples with apples you need to compare how many
a) engine failures the C208 had
less engine failures in a C208 where the pilot landed on a runway using only normal, straightforward flight manouvers in day VMC (ie no superior skill / luck).
with
b) double engine failures a PA31 experienced
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on remaining runway after aborting the take off
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on other than a runway or overran a runway on landing
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 which subsequently crashed
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where the pilot only just maintained terrain clearance but was still able to land on a runway.
Admittedly there are not many of any of any of these in b, but they do occur.
W
To compare apples with apples you need to compare how many
a) engine failures the C208 had
less engine failures in a C208 where the pilot landed on a runway using only normal, straightforward flight manouvers in day VMC (ie no superior skill / luck).
with
b) double engine failures a PA31 experienced
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on remaining runway after aborting the take off
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where it landed on other than a runway or overran a runway on landing
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 which subsequently crashed
plus single engine failures experienced in a PA31 where the pilot only just maintained terrain clearance but was still able to land on a runway.
Admittedly there are not many of any of any of these in b, but they do occur.
W
Last edited by werbil; 19th Jan 2008 at 11:31. Reason: reduce bold amounts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Mainframe,
From memory the only time referred to in the POH is that the ignition must be turned on for five minutes after opening the inertial separator when encountering conditions conducive to intake icing.
I do not believe there is a time limitation listed in section 2 of the POH, but I will check tomorrow.
W
From memory the only time referred to in the POH is that the ignition must be turned on for five minutes after opening the inertial separator when encountering conditions conducive to intake icing.
I do not believe there is a time limitation listed in section 2 of the POH, but I will check tomorrow.
W
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually after a few more bundy's, i think the ASETPA had a 60 minute continual option, with the EPL, or something similar.
Here it is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/aac/part-1/1-116.htm
2: An ignition system which can be selected 'ON" and has a duty cycle greater than one hour.
Here it is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/aac/part-1/1-116.htm
2: An ignition system which can be selected 'ON" and has a duty cycle greater than one hour.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 19th Jan 2008 at 12:07.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you look at three threads, two on PPRuNe and one on another site.
The first is titled “Sonicblue TSB Report to be Released” and it may be found in the General Comments (Canada) forum of www.avcanada.ca
The second is titled “Van has engine failure in Tanzania” and it may be found in the African Aviation forum of PPRuNe. Take a good look at the statistics reference by Shenzi Rubani in his post dated 21/10/04, and then note his comment at the end regarding various PT6 powered twins.
The third is titled “Pilatus PC-12s” and it may be found in the Biz Jets & GA forum of PPRuNe. It also dates from 2004.
The first is titled “Sonicblue TSB Report to be Released” and it may be found in the General Comments (Canada) forum of www.avcanada.ca
The second is titled “Van has engine failure in Tanzania” and it may be found in the African Aviation forum of PPRuNe. Take a good look at the statistics reference by Shenzi Rubani in his post dated 21/10/04, and then note his comment at the end regarding various PT6 powered twins.
The third is titled “Pilatus PC-12s” and it may be found in the Biz Jets & GA forum of PPRuNe. It also dates from 2004.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post 'mainframe'.
At post #12 I started the thread drift unwittingly towards the pros & cons of SE versus Twins, & i'm not sorry I did, been very interesting indeed.So far we haven't broken down into a slanging match as I've seen on a lot of other threads with the theme. "them versus" us !
It's simple really yr either for the idea of SE chrt flight in IMC or yr not, I'm the latter purely 'cause of self preservation. I've enjoyed the banter back & forth here from a lot with experience in both types of flying. Some have showed good cause as to the advantages (of which there are many but only in VFR conditions) of SE flight in chrt ops but at the end of the day some just don't get it ! But like i've said here a few times we have choice & believe that with this choice we can guarantee (to the best of our ability) a safe transit ONLY if in multi eng A/C !
"can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin, ".............These words quoted by "Mainframe" says it all but it is just his opinion of which I happen to agree along with others in here.
Please continue with facts & figures on both sides, we as pilots can only achieve one thing here, & that's LEARN
CW
At post #12 I started the thread drift unwittingly towards the pros & cons of SE versus Twins, & i'm not sorry I did, been very interesting indeed.So far we haven't broken down into a slanging match as I've seen on a lot of other threads with the theme. "them versus" us !
It's simple really yr either for the idea of SE chrt flight in IMC or yr not, I'm the latter purely 'cause of self preservation. I've enjoyed the banter back & forth here from a lot with experience in both types of flying. Some have showed good cause as to the advantages (of which there are many but only in VFR conditions) of SE flight in chrt ops but at the end of the day some just don't get it ! But like i've said here a few times we have choice & believe that with this choice we can guarantee (to the best of our ability) a safe transit ONLY if in multi eng A/C !
"can we please just stop propogating the myth that a se turbine is better than a GA twin, ".............These words quoted by "Mainframe" says it all but it is just his opinion of which I happen to agree along with others in here.
Please continue with facts & figures on both sides, we as pilots can only achieve one thing here, & that's LEARN
CW
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Mainframe,
As previously advised in an earlier post there is no time limit on use of ignition in C208 according to the POH. Section 2 (Limitations) does not mention the ignition system. Section 7 (System Descriptions) suggests when it should be used, the only mention of time is to turn on the ignition and leave it on for five minutes after opening the separator following an inadvertent icing encounter. Section 7 also advises that the ignition should be switched on in heavy precipitation with no mention of maximum time. I could find nothing in Sections 2 & 3, nor in the known icing supplement S1 that contradicts the above information.
W
As previously advised in an earlier post there is no time limit on use of ignition in C208 according to the POH. Section 2 (Limitations) does not mention the ignition system. Section 7 (System Descriptions) suggests when it should be used, the only mention of time is to turn on the ignition and leave it on for five minutes after opening the separator following an inadvertent icing encounter. Section 7 also advises that the ignition should be switched on in heavy precipitation with no mention of maximum time. I could find nothing in Sections 2 & 3, nor in the known icing supplement S1 that contradicts the above information.
W
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Capt Wally,
How about we stop perpetrating the myth that ASEPTA is unsafe.
In most circumstances you will be better off in a twin engine aircraft following the failure of a single propulsion system compared to a single engine aircraft.
However, given exactly the same powerplant reliability you are twice as likely to experience a propulsion system failure in a twin engine aircraft compared to a single engine aircraft for the same flight time (accruing twice as many engine hours per flight hours).
According to Professional Surveyor Magazine September 2007 Volume 27 Number 9 in the article “Aerial Perspective: Flying Dollars and Sense” by Steven E. Scates “Federal Aviation Administration studies indicate that piston engines in aircraft have a failure rate, on average, of one every 3,200 flight hours while turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours. Accordingly, for every turbine engine experiencing a failure, 117 piston engines will have failed. In other words, turbine engines are more than 11,700 percent more reliable than piston engines.”
Using these statistics (which I don’t think can be correct as I think that piston engines would be more reliable than that), you are 238 times more likely to have an engine failure during a particular take off in a piston twin than in a turbine single. Even if we assume that the piston engine failure rate is only one every 10,000 hours you are still 75 times more likely to have any engine failure in a piston twin than in a turbine single for the same flight time.
ASEPTA not only requires engine reliability, it requires procedures to be followed to reduce the risk of injuries / fatalities should an engine failure occur. Townsville was an example of how following these procedures further reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities.
Crashworthiness is another factor. According to AOPA Online June 2005 Volume 48 / Number 6 the article “Safety Pilot: The Way to Fly” By Bruce Landsberg states that “The "lethality index," or percentage of accidents that result in death, in singles is about one in 10 while in twins it runs in the 50-percent range, or one out of two.”
How about we stop perpetrating the myth that ASEPTA is unsafe.
In most circumstances you will be better off in a twin engine aircraft following the failure of a single propulsion system compared to a single engine aircraft.
However, given exactly the same powerplant reliability you are twice as likely to experience a propulsion system failure in a twin engine aircraft compared to a single engine aircraft for the same flight time (accruing twice as many engine hours per flight hours).
According to Professional Surveyor Magazine September 2007 Volume 27 Number 9 in the article “Aerial Perspective: Flying Dollars and Sense” by Steven E. Scates “Federal Aviation Administration studies indicate that piston engines in aircraft have a failure rate, on average, of one every 3,200 flight hours while turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours. Accordingly, for every turbine engine experiencing a failure, 117 piston engines will have failed. In other words, turbine engines are more than 11,700 percent more reliable than piston engines.”
Using these statistics (which I don’t think can be correct as I think that piston engines would be more reliable than that), you are 238 times more likely to have an engine failure during a particular take off in a piston twin than in a turbine single. Even if we assume that the piston engine failure rate is only one every 10,000 hours you are still 75 times more likely to have any engine failure in a piston twin than in a turbine single for the same flight time.
ASEPTA not only requires engine reliability, it requires procedures to be followed to reduce the risk of injuries / fatalities should an engine failure occur. Townsville was an example of how following these procedures further reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities.
Crashworthiness is another factor. According to AOPA Online June 2005 Volume 48 / Number 6 the article “Safety Pilot: The Way to Fly” By Bruce Landsberg states that “The "lethality index," or percentage of accidents that result in death, in singles is about one in 10 while in twins it runs in the 50-percent range, or one out of two.”
Grandpa Aerotart
werbil that article is a classic example of statistics and damn lies. If you quote the entire paragraph a somewhat different inference can be drawn.
Which makes his 'lethality index' pure BS.
Take out the accidents that happen during ME training caused by abject stupidity and the scales tip even further in favour of twins.
By his statistics I should be dead when the reality is that every engine/prop failure I have had led to a forced landing in the singles, with varying degrees of damage, and controlled return to a runway in the twins with no damage.
With engine failures, basic statistics tell the story. There are far more single-engine accidents because a lot more singles are flying and, if the engine stops, an accident or at least an off-airport landing is a high probability. In multiengine aircraft there are very few accidents, and we have no record of how many engine failures there are when the aircraft landed safely. However, in those incidents where a twin does have an accident it is much more likely to be fatal. The "lethality index," or percentage of accidents that result in death, in singles is about one in 10 while in twins it runs in the 50-percent range, or one out of two. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and that's why so much multiengine training is devoted to single-engine operations.
and that's why so much multiengine training is devoted to single-engine operations.
By his statistics I should be dead when the reality is that every engine/prop failure I have had led to a forced landing in the singles, with varying degrees of damage, and controlled return to a runway in the twins with no damage.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 23rd Jan 2008 at 14:05.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asetpa
Werbil,
You are correct in that the Limitations section does not state an ignition system limitation.
However, there are many references to limiting the useage to no more than 5 minutes.
The following refers to the C208, 600SHP version. (Similar information will be found in the C208B manual with slight differences in page numbering.)
In lieu of Auto Ignition, ASETPA certification in Australia requires that the ignition system (exciter and ignitors etc)
have a demonstrated duty cycle in excess of one hour.
It is interesting to note the references in the C208 Operating Handbook appearing to restrict the use of continuous ignition to periods of five minutes
(refer pages 3-13B, 4-28, 7-39) and stating that it is normally only energized during starting (7-38) and that use for extended periods of time
will reduce ignition system component life (4-28).
When it is considered that the normal duty cycle for the ignition system is around 15 seconds during engine start,
a five minute limiting period equates to twenty start cycles of 15 seconds each.,
hence the note explaining the reduction in component life if used for extended periods.
Ask your engineer if there will be any problem if you select Ignition ON and leave it in that mode for all flight phases.
(yes, there will be a reduced life of the ignitors, and the High Energy Supply source.)
Your operation in an Amphib Van, mostly over water, in VFR, gives you far better options for the quiet times, as the Tassie operator will attest.
Again, go to the NTSB site and review the large amount of quiet times that have occurred, also the Transport Canada site, and the Sth African site.
Like CC, I have come home on one in a twin, and wasn't able to bring a single home on none.
If you operate a S/E turbine in IMC or at night, dont assume that the power plant is unstoppable,
and remember the turbine manufacturers and the various TSB's around the world use the IFSD terminolgy, not engine failure terminology.
Enjoy the van, but respect its limitations, even if it does have a good glide, a large amount of luck is also needed to get into Townsville dead stick in IMC.
TAWS-B would significantly reduce the risk factor, but surprisingly the ASETPA rules dont mandate that tool.
MF
You are correct in that the Limitations section does not state an ignition system limitation.
However, there are many references to limiting the useage to no more than 5 minutes.
The following refers to the C208, 600SHP version. (Similar information will be found in the C208B manual with slight differences in page numbering.)
In lieu of Auto Ignition, ASETPA certification in Australia requires that the ignition system (exciter and ignitors etc)
have a demonstrated duty cycle in excess of one hour.
It is interesting to note the references in the C208 Operating Handbook appearing to restrict the use of continuous ignition to periods of five minutes
(refer pages 3-13B, 4-28, 7-39) and stating that it is normally only energized during starting (7-38) and that use for extended periods of time
will reduce ignition system component life (4-28).
When it is considered that the normal duty cycle for the ignition system is around 15 seconds during engine start,
a five minute limiting period equates to twenty start cycles of 15 seconds each.,
hence the note explaining the reduction in component life if used for extended periods.
Ask your engineer if there will be any problem if you select Ignition ON and leave it in that mode for all flight phases.
(yes, there will be a reduced life of the ignitors, and the High Energy Supply source.)
Your operation in an Amphib Van, mostly over water, in VFR, gives you far better options for the quiet times, as the Tassie operator will attest.
Again, go to the NTSB site and review the large amount of quiet times that have occurred, also the Transport Canada site, and the Sth African site.
Like CC, I have come home on one in a twin, and wasn't able to bring a single home on none.
If you operate a S/E turbine in IMC or at night, dont assume that the power plant is unstoppable,
and remember the turbine manufacturers and the various TSB's around the world use the IFSD terminolgy, not engine failure terminology.
Enjoy the van, but respect its limitations, even if it does have a good glide, a large amount of luck is also needed to get into Townsville dead stick in IMC.
TAWS-B would significantly reduce the risk factor, but surprisingly the ASETPA rules dont mandate that tool.
MF
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YLIL on my days off
Age: 50
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the electronic disharge through to the no1 bearing failures, I beleive that only happened on the 600hp engine fitted with the lucas starter/gen..