Caravan engine failure in TSV
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey 'chimba' yr fighting a loosing battle here mate with some. It's a bit like 'selective deafness'..........some only want to hear/read what they want to!
My original posts way back in this thread where more aimed at the risks involved & therefore the low chance of survival of an eng failure in a SE plane of any nature at night in IMC over tiger country. NOT when yr within gliding range of a suitable airport, it's approachable as in there's no need for an actual inst app & everything else is going for you etc. Oh & you have excess height to play with in the first place. That's not when yr likely to come a cropper it's when yr low, say only a few miles from the dep AD & have entered IMC with hills in all directions ! That's the difference that I feel is TOO risky to accept, but then again I'm not silly enough to believe that they (SE's) are safer in the first place !
Stats to say othyerwise won't be of much comfort to yr family & friends is the unthinkable happens!
CW
My original posts way back in this thread where more aimed at the risks involved & therefore the low chance of survival of an eng failure in a SE plane of any nature at night in IMC over tiger country. NOT when yr within gliding range of a suitable airport, it's approachable as in there's no need for an actual inst app & everything else is going for you etc. Oh & you have excess height to play with in the first place. That's not when yr likely to come a cropper it's when yr low, say only a few miles from the dep AD & have entered IMC with hills in all directions ! That's the difference that I feel is TOO risky to accept, but then again I'm not silly enough to believe that they (SE's) are safer in the first place !
Stats to say othyerwise won't be of much comfort to yr family & friends is the unthinkable happens!CW
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Mainframe,
Whilst there are a number of places where the five minutes are referenced in relation to switching on the igniter after encountering unexpected icing, there are many instances where this time limit is not mentioned - heavy precipitation, separator fails to open in icing conditions, operation off wet or slush covered runways, low fuel reservoir light on, following flame out if you can't establish a reason etc off the top of my head.
I have no argument that running the ignition continuously will reduce its life - and I have had an igniter exciter fail on me on start - fortunately at base, and not 40nm offshore.
The ASEPTA requirement is that it must be capable of being run continuously for at least an hour - the fact that Cessna or Pratt advise that excessive use will shorten the life of the component is not part of the criteria. And lets face it, using an aircraft shortens its life but we still do it.
The important issue is not whether or not the aircraft gets you home, but whether or not people are injured or killed. I have long had the attitude that when things go pear shaped the hull immediately belongs to the insurance company and my number one consideration is to get everyone down in one piece (usually the best way to guarantee this is by getting the plane down in one piece).
With more than 10 pax TAWS-B+ is mandatory, and as most C208's used for RPT will be 'B's with the 14 seat configuration most will have it fitted.
W
PS The quiet times are not that inviting when over 3m seas with 25 knots on the surface. Yes, I believe that the C208 with its single PT6 is more likely to get me home than a R985 in a DHC-2, but I still wear a PFD and 406 PLB in both when over water.
Whilst there are a number of places where the five minutes are referenced in relation to switching on the igniter after encountering unexpected icing, there are many instances where this time limit is not mentioned - heavy precipitation, separator fails to open in icing conditions, operation off wet or slush covered runways, low fuel reservoir light on, following flame out if you can't establish a reason etc off the top of my head.
I have no argument that running the ignition continuously will reduce its life - and I have had an igniter exciter fail on me on start - fortunately at base, and not 40nm offshore.
The ASEPTA requirement is that it must be capable of being run continuously for at least an hour - the fact that Cessna or Pratt advise that excessive use will shorten the life of the component is not part of the criteria. And lets face it, using an aircraft shortens its life but we still do it.
The important issue is not whether or not the aircraft gets you home, but whether or not people are injured or killed. I have long had the attitude that when things go pear shaped the hull immediately belongs to the insurance company and my number one consideration is to get everyone down in one piece (usually the best way to guarantee this is by getting the plane down in one piece).
With more than 10 pax TAWS-B+ is mandatory, and as most C208's used for RPT will be 'B's with the 14 seat configuration most will have it fitted.
W
PS The quiet times are not that inviting when over 3m seas with 25 knots on the surface. Yes, I believe that the C208 with its single PT6 is more likely to get me home than a R985 in a DHC-2, but I still wear a PFD and 406 PLB in both when over water.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles,
The statistic you referred to is fatality probability in an accident in a twin vs a single, not following an engine failure. As I assume you haven't bent a twin his statistics for twins are not applicable in your case.
I believe your post http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...40&postcount=4 is very well thought out and reasoned. I will not quote your post as it is quite long and all very relevant even though it is discussing piston singles vs piston twins. I strongly recommend anyone following this thread read it.
Whilst I acknowledge a lot of twin engine failure accidents are caused by stupidity in training, of those accidents that occur following an engine failure in a twin in real life, a significant number result from inappropriate actions by the flight crew. I can also recollect a number of high profile fatality accidents in Australia over the last twenty years following an engine failure in a twin. Some of these prompted changes to the carriers liability act, and another changed the requirement for carriage of life jackets in aircraft.
W
The statistic you referred to is fatality probability in an accident in a twin vs a single, not following an engine failure. As I assume you haven't bent a twin his statistics for twins are not applicable in your case.
I believe your post http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...40&postcount=4 is very well thought out and reasoned. I will not quote your post as it is quite long and all very relevant even though it is discussing piston singles vs piston twins. I strongly recommend anyone following this thread read it.
Whilst I acknowledge a lot of twin engine failure accidents are caused by stupidity in training, of those accidents that occur following an engine failure in a twin in real life, a significant number result from inappropriate actions by the flight crew. I can also recollect a number of high profile fatality accidents in Australia over the last twenty years following an engine failure in a twin. Some of these prompted changes to the carriers liability act, and another changed the requirement for carriage of life jackets in aircraft.
W
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asetpa
Werbil
We can go on for ages but there is no point. I'm a myth buster at heart, and there is a myth that needs busting, based on personal experience.
The PT6 - 114 variants are the only ( ONLY) PT6's without auto ignition. The ASETPA normally requires Auto Ignition,
but a "demonstrated" 60 minutes or more of a non auto system is accepted.
(the PC12 has auto ignition, as does the remainder of the PT6 family that the PT6-114 depends on for ASETPA certification,
it is just not available, standard or optional, on the C208, end of story!)
frankly, this is B'****! it is a twist of the rules to achieve compliance.
I've had igniter exciter failures, and so have you, and others.
Most amphibs have a 2nd exciter unit available, but require a manual change over of the connectors to bring it online.
So if you're 40nm offshore and it doesn't go "tick tick" you can get out, open the cowls and swap the connectors.
You cant do that in flight.
Cessna does not encourage SE turbine IFR/Night Charter in the US, only in 3rd world countries where it doesn't really matter,
like Sth America, Africa and Australia, as a few examples.
Make your own choices as a pilot, but fully inform your passengers of the reduced margin of safety and significantly increased risk
that you are prepared to accept on their behalf.
after all, they rely on you and your company, as a duty of care, to fully inform them.
And again, I fly SE and ME IFR night, and that includes ASETPA.
There is a marketing consortium dedicated to coercing 3rd world countries such as Australia that "its OK".
The UK have wisely decided that its not "OK" for RPT or IFR Charter, they take the view that a quiet time at night or in IMC will most likely result in fatalities.
Regardless of your or my or any ones opinion on SE turbines, they are most likely to be proven correct, hence no approval. End of story.
We can go on for ages but there is no point. I'm a myth buster at heart, and there is a myth that needs busting, based on personal experience.
The PT6 - 114 variants are the only ( ONLY) PT6's without auto ignition. The ASETPA normally requires Auto Ignition,
but a "demonstrated" 60 minutes or more of a non auto system is accepted.
(the PC12 has auto ignition, as does the remainder of the PT6 family that the PT6-114 depends on for ASETPA certification,
it is just not available, standard or optional, on the C208, end of story!)
frankly, this is B'****! it is a twist of the rules to achieve compliance.
I've had igniter exciter failures, and so have you, and others.
Most amphibs have a 2nd exciter unit available, but require a manual change over of the connectors to bring it online.
So if you're 40nm offshore and it doesn't go "tick tick" you can get out, open the cowls and swap the connectors.
You cant do that in flight.
Cessna does not encourage SE turbine IFR/Night Charter in the US, only in 3rd world countries where it doesn't really matter,
like Sth America, Africa and Australia, as a few examples.
Make your own choices as a pilot, but fully inform your passengers of the reduced margin of safety and significantly increased risk
that you are prepared to accept on their behalf.
after all, they rely on you and your company, as a duty of care, to fully inform them.
And again, I fly SE and ME IFR night, and that includes ASETPA.
There is a marketing consortium dedicated to coercing 3rd world countries such as Australia that "its OK".
The UK have wisely decided that its not "OK" for RPT or IFR Charter, they take the view that a quiet time at night or in IMC will most likely result in fatalities.
Regardless of your or my or any ones opinion on SE turbines, they are most likely to be proven correct, hence no approval. End of story.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Capt Wally,
ASEPTA is not about flying low level over tiger country.
In RPT ASEPTA operations, there is a route requirement that the aircraft cannot fly further than fifteen minutes cruise outside of gliding distance to a suitable aerodrome.
One of the guys I work with used to fly night freight in C208's. Even flying freight they flew over aerodromes rather than taking the direct route - the company policy was quite specific that direct track shortening was NOT to be accepted. On the Melbourne to Sydney route this added significant flight time.
If you fly ASEPTA according to the CASA procedures / recommendations, you fly in a manner to remain within gliding distance of the departure aerodrome as much as possible.
I assume when you fly a twin, you climb at a speed where you will be able to control the aircraft and continue to climb following an engine failure. ASEPTA requires a different style of flying and mindset compared to flying twins to minimize the risk of accidents following an engine failure.
W
ASEPTA is not about flying low level over tiger country.
In RPT ASEPTA operations, there is a route requirement that the aircraft cannot fly further than fifteen minutes cruise outside of gliding distance to a suitable aerodrome.
One of the guys I work with used to fly night freight in C208's. Even flying freight they flew over aerodromes rather than taking the direct route - the company policy was quite specific that direct track shortening was NOT to be accepted. On the Melbourne to Sydney route this added significant flight time.
If you fly ASEPTA according to the CASA procedures / recommendations, you fly in a manner to remain within gliding distance of the departure aerodrome as much as possible.
I assume when you fly a twin, you climb at a speed where you will be able to control the aircraft and continue to climb following an engine failure. ASEPTA requires a different style of flying and mindset compared to flying twins to minimize the risk of accidents following an engine failure.
W
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
On night freight, if it goes quiet, they will usually be able to recover most of the freight and forward it on another flight or road transport.
Not so for the pilot.
Lets not even think about the trusting fare paying passengers.
The van has been extremely successful for night freight, doesn't matter if goes quiet.
At what point are you going to understand that there may be trusting passngers on board who dont know it cant keep flying on none,
despite statistics that say its allright if it goes down somewher you didnt intend.
There is simply no backup or redundant source of propulsion. What is hard about understanding that?
Forget the statistics. quiet times do happen, more often than some of us seem to want to recognize.
On night freight, if it goes quiet, they will usually be able to recover most of the freight and forward it on another flight or road transport.
Not so for the pilot.
Lets not even think about the trusting fare paying passengers.
The van has been extremely successful for night freight, doesn't matter if goes quiet.
At what point are you going to understand that there may be trusting passngers on board who dont know it cant keep flying on none,
despite statistics that say its allright if it goes down somewher you didnt intend.
There is simply no backup or redundant source of propulsion. What is hard about understanding that?
Forget the statistics. quiet times do happen, more often than some of us seem to want to recognize.
BS Alert
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Werbil " Like my comrade here on this subject 'Mainframe" am sure he too respects the rules & regs pertaining to ASEPTA although it's not the answer in all cases.(those 15 mins would seem like forever!) The restrictions as you mentioned might be well & good for RPT & certain other ops for Eg. but I did mention many posts ago what about the non RPT operator that uses SE turbines (or any type of SE airframe) such as the RFDS where some flights that don't go to plan exactly such as a safer route & diversions are common. Yr word 'minimize' the risks is what I believe any paying pax in a SE chrt/rpt wouldn't want to read on the back of their ticket under conditions of flight if there wa such a thing!
Many in here for the use of SE planes for IFR chtr keep reffering back to some beliefs that twins have twice the eng failure rate & many crash after an eng failure anyway. Whilst I can see & believe to some degree those sentiments if an eng does fail on a twin you have options to some degree (yes it's not a given right that yr as safe as eggs I understand that) but the loss of the ONLY powerplant means yr options INCLUDE a guarenteed forced landing with the obvious added fact that the paper work alone would outweigh the advantages of the cheaper operating costs!
Remember at the end of the day the advatages of the cheaper operating costs will ALL be gone after just one eng failure that didn't work out as per the ASEPTA guidlines!
Still I respect the beliefs of others in here I'm not really tyring to convince anybody per say just to be part of an informed group who like I've said in the past have 'choice' ! I choose not to be that foolish with my life when flying.
CW
Many in here for the use of SE planes for IFR chtr keep reffering back to some beliefs that twins have twice the eng failure rate & many crash after an eng failure anyway. Whilst I can see & believe to some degree those sentiments if an eng does fail on a twin you have options to some degree (yes it's not a given right that yr as safe as eggs I understand that) but the loss of the ONLY powerplant means yr options INCLUDE a guarenteed forced landing with the obvious added fact that the paper work alone would outweigh the advantages of the cheaper operating costs!
Remember at the end of the day the advatages of the cheaper operating costs will ALL be gone after just one eng failure that didn't work out as per the ASEPTA guidlines!Still I respect the beliefs of others in here I'm not really tyring to convince anybody per say just to be part of an informed group who like I've said in the past have 'choice' ! I choose not to be that foolish with my life when flying.
CW
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone can help me with this, I'm guessing it's someone who's posting in this thread...
Does anyone know of an incident where a pilot has navigated to a safe landing in a SE after an en route engine failure in IMC?
I'm not clear yet on whether this one actually was IMC, or how far out he was from the airport when the engine failed.
Does anyone know of an incident where a pilot has navigated to a safe landing in a SE after an en route engine failure in IMC?
I'm not clear yet on whether this one actually was IMC, or how far out he was from the airport when the engine failed.
Yes, the pilot was in IMC at the time, down to near ILS minima's. The distance was about 6nm's.
morno
morno
Callisthenes. Many years ago there was a C210 (Tim'sFlyingInferno) that caught fire and shut down the engine (from what I understand) just after attaining cruise altitude south of Darwin one night in IMC that had a successful outcome back onto the ground in Darwin.
There are many here who will verify it.
Regards,
OpsN.
There are many here who will verify it.
Regards,
OpsN.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morno/Callis
departed rwy 19, at 8nm through 4,500feet. oil line fracture somewhere on the way. 180 degree turnback. wx and heavy rain. popped out at or below minima for rwy 01.
departed rwy 19, at 8nm through 4,500feet. oil line fracture somewhere on the way. 180 degree turnback. wx and heavy rain. popped out at or below minima for rwy 01.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AMONGST BRIGALOW SUCKERS
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I forget the exact year (C185 Skywagon will probably remember it better) but it was around 1996, a C210 enroute from Windorah at night in pretty much IMC booted a cylinder off and it landed here OK. The guy was lucky Wouldn't have wanted to happen a bit earlier though
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........hey "BK" you said the cylinder got booted off & landed here ok, fair enough but what about the rest of the plane?.......where did it land?
Lucky fella's that for sure!
V35 had eng failure some years ago over the hunter valley somewhere at night I think it was, pilot survived but with lasting injuries. Anyway remember that event?
Dr that ought to get YOU thinking:-)
CW
Lucky fella's that for sure!
V35 had eng failure some years ago over the hunter valley somewhere at night I think it was, pilot survived but with lasting injuries. Anyway remember that event?
Dr that ought to get YOU thinking:-)
CW
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
............VH-CFH, that nearly drove me nuts, had to go back thru several log books to find the rego of the V35 I flew a few times back in the 80's. Ended up as per my previous post, I think ! Now Dr go do ya best!
CW
CW
"Dr that ought to get YOU thinking:-)"
Been thinking about it for many years Wally!
I rarely fly at night. If I do, it is generally only the last hour or so to get home.
I know my aeroplane, know how it is flown and how it is maintained.
The guy that did the last rebuild was a genius cause it is the sweetest sounding IO520 I have heard. Just purrs along.
70,000+ nm to date without missing a beat! I'll take my chances!
If I didn't fly IFR, the aeroplane would be of limited value to me. YBTL can be a pig of a place to get in and out of VFR - but IFR is usually only a climb to on-top on departure and a cloud break on arrival.
If and when I splatter the FTDK (and myself) I expect you to post a thread in here titled "I told him so!" But don't weep for me, my friend - there is no better way to go than in a Bonanza!
Dr
"Been thinking about it for many years Wally!
I rarely fly at night. If I do, it is generally only the last hour or so to get home.
I know my aeroplane, know how it is flown and how it is maintained.
The guy that did the last rebuild was a genius cause it is the sweetest sounding IO520 I have heard. Just purrs along.
70,000+ nm to date without missing a beat! I'll take my chances!
If I didn't fly IFR, the aeroplane would be of limited value to me. YBTL can be a pig of a place to get in and out of VFR - but IFR is usually only a climb to on-top on departure and a cloud break on arrival.
If and when I splatter the FTDK (and myself) I expect you to post a thread in here titled "I told him so!" But don't weep for me, my friend - there is no better way to go than in a Bonanza!
Dr