PC-12 medevac flight, engine failed

Happy to hear everyone is okay!

Hmmm. Engine failure in a turbine single. This may be a dumb question, but do you professional pilots out there flying single turbines go through complete-loss-of-power scenarios as part of your periodic simulator recurrency training and checks?
 
GRG55 said:
Happy to hear everyone is okay!

Hmmm. Engine failure in a turbine single. This may be a dumb question, but do you professional pilots out there flying single turbines go through complete-loss-of-power scenarios as part of your periodic simulator recurrency training and checks?
Click to expand...

absolutely. Then we (are supposed to) pull the yellow and black striped handle!
 
GRG55 said:
Happy to hear everyone is okay!

Hmmm. Engine failure in a turbine single. This may be a dumb question, but do you professional pilots out there flying single turbines go through complete-loss-of-power scenarios as part of your periodic simulator recurrency training and checks?
Click to expand...

Yes. And as the poster above me we go through a lot of training on the manual override lever and its operation in case of a fuel control unit failure. Regardless of what happened looks like the crew did a stellar job and the airplane may even be reusable after a little work.
 
For those that haven't been to southwest Alaska where this incident happened, it is as flat as a billiard table, with lakes everywhere. And when the lakes freeze they all become landing areas. So landing on a frozen lake in winter is almost a non event. Folks are in more danger of freezing various body parts due to the cold than being injured in an off airport landing there.

I would guess the plane will be flown off of the lake.
 
Zeldman said:
For those that haven't been to southwest Alaska where this incident happened, it is as flat as a billiard table, with lakes everywhere. And when the lakes freeze they all become landing areas. So landing on a frozen lake in winter is almost a non event. Folks are in more danger of freezing various body parts due to the cold than being injured in an off airport landing there.

I would guess the plane will be flown off of the lake.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, not too often a pilot has to deadstick a turboprop onto a frozen lake. I still think that was a job well done.
 
GRG55 said:
Happy to hear everyone is okay!

Hmmm. Engine failure in a turbine single. This may be a dumb question, but do you professional pilots out there flying single turbines go through complete-loss-of-power scenarios as part of your periodic simulator recurrency training and checks?
Click to expand...


Yes
 
AKBill said:
Will be interesting to hear about the engine failure. Don't hear of a lot of turbines having mechanical issues.
Click to expand...

PT6 engines quit with regularity. The reason you don't hear about it is that a VERY high percentage are installed in King Airs, and they are just flown home and repaired, usually the fuel control unit. That is why ALL single-engine PT6 installations have a secondary manual FCU. Two PT6s have quit on me.
 
kgruber said:
PT6 engines quit with regularity. The reason you don't hear about it is that a VERY high percentage are installed in King Airs, and they are just flown home and repaired, usually the fuel control unit. That is why ALL single-engine PT6 installations have a secondary manual FCU. Two PT6s have quit on me.
Click to expand...

That's news to me too
 
kgruber said:
PT6 engines quit with regularity.
Click to expand...
How do you define "regularity?" Since various aviation authorities certified turbine single engine IFR (SEIFR) commercial ops back in the 90s, if I recall correctly, only aircraft powered by PT-6s could meet the engine reliability requirements per TCCA and CASA of 1/100,000 flight hours. The FAA does it a bit different, but I personally don't know of any other turbine engine type in SEIFR aircraft. This is why PC-12s and 208s have become so popular in the commercial pax/cargo ops. The only place I experienced excessive PT-6 failures was in operations where the failures were mx/support related and not core engine related. So I'm definitely in the "that's news to me" group.
AKBill said:
it would be nice to know the failure rate.
Click to expand...
From what I experienced/researched/read, the failure rates have ranged from .05/100,000 flt hrs to 1/370,000 flt hrs depending on the type report and database. Throw in the use of the MORE STC, and I believe the mean failure rate is somewhere around 1/200,000 flt hrs. But for all the work I've done on PT-6s, considering the levels of acceptable in-service damage/wear that are within OEM limits, it's the most bullet-proof engine I've ever worked on. The PW 200 series turboshaft is a close 2nd, but nowhere near the PT-6.
 
Do the statistics consider an IFSD caused by mechanical engine failure (ain't restarting) to be different from some other cause (FCU, bad fuel, etc.) and thus the latter are not counted as an engine failure? I'd think that the latter numbers would be much larger than the former.
I don't know anyone who's had a PT6 mechanical failure, but I do know of one who had a fuel control unit crap out in an early PC-12 (on approach, those things are good gliders, he didn't even bother to engage the manual control.)
 
Bell206 said:
The only place I experienced excessive PT-6 failures was in operations where the failures were mx/support related and not core engine related. So I'm definitely in the "that's news to me" group.
Click to expand...

All the King Airs that I flew were maintained PT-135, by a huge multi-national maintenance facility. And, as far as I know, there is no "maintenance" on an FCU. They either work or not......................and quite regularly not. They fail to idle or fail to engine meltdown. I was also hired to retrieve airplanes, which had had PT6 failures and were fixed away from home base.
 
What is the TBO on a Fuel Control Unit for a PT-6? Is it shorter than TBO of engine?
 
kgruber said:
Nobody is counting. The "rate" information is bogus.
Click to expand...
Maybe in your corner of the world, but considering there are various regulatory, insurance, operational, etc. requirements that require counting turbine engine IFSDs the rate info is hardly bogus. Here's a few examples but there are others:

upload_2019-12-29_10-33-16.png
upload_2019-12-29_10-33-51.png

Part VII - Commercial Air Services
Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)
Last amendment to standard: 2019/08/16

Standard 723 - Air Taxi - Aeroplanes

723.22 Transport of Passengers in Single-Engined Aeroplanes

The standard for transport of passengers in a single-engined aeroplane under IFR or VFR at night is:

(1) General
  1. (a) only factory built, turbine-powered aeroplanes are permitted;
  2. (b) the turbine-engine of the aeroplane type must have a proven Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of .01/1000 or less established over 100,000 hours in service; and
  3. (c) pilot training in accordance with subsection 723.98(24).
    (amended 2000/12/01)
 
AKBill said:
What is the TBO on a Fuel Control Unit for a PT-6? Is it shorter than TBO of engine?
Click to expand...
If I recall, most of the accessories on the PT-6 go to engine TBO. However, if on an OEM mx program there are a few "on-wing" mx procedures done to these accessories. At least as I recall on the helicopter side.
 
kgruber said:
What single-engine PT6 aircraft has no manual override?
Click to expand...
FWIW: Before we go too far down this path, manual override and a manual FCU are different. Some models of PT6 had separate automatic and manual FCUs while others had a single FCU. Each type system provided manual override of the fuel scheduling in different ways. In following your #16 post "manual FCU" I was thinking of the auto/manual system which was replaced by FADEC in the PT6C variant and also replaced the turbine governor as well. So yes, to my knowledge, all PT6s have a form of manual override but some models also have a physical manual FCU which provides the manual override capability. It's all in the details.;)
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Most of the restricted use certified singles I flew did not have the manual override.
Click to expand...

Crop dusters!! You guys are expendable.

The only single-engine PT6 aircraft I got to fly were certified in the "normal" category. Cessna Caravan floatplane (not amphibian) and the Jet-Prop. Both had some sort of manual override.
 
The new PC-12NGX is completely electronic, they are doing away with the MOR.
 
PT6s are extremely reliable and Pratt follows all in-flight shut downs regardless of cause even if it’s related to an accessory. Depending on what they are reporting, they may report that information separately, but they do have all the information. Currently with some of their PT6’s mean time between failures is in the one in 600,000 hour range. Generally one in 350,000 hours is accepted. These engines fly a lot. The fact that we rarely hear about PT6 failures is not because they’re flying on twins, it is because they don’t fail very often, especially in singles, where precautionary shutdowns, often for indication or non critical issues don’t occur. PT6 failures are so rare that when they do occur, it makes all the forums multiple times, psychologically magnifying the situation. Think there has been an AV gas powered engine failure recently in Alaska? Sure there has been, but probably didn't make all the mainstream aviation forums. :)
 
GRG55 said:
This may be a dumb question, but do you professional pilots out there flying single turbines go through complete-loss-of-power scenarios as part of your periodic simulator recurrency training and checks?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And that includes recognition of an FCU failure vs a complete engine failure and the response to both scenarios. I usually ask to do an impossible turn from 500 AGL too.

Kenny Phillips said:
an early PC-12 (on approach, those things are good gliders, he didn't even bother to engage the manual control.)
Click to expand...

I dunno about the PC12, but the TBM has a 14:1 glide ratio - Better than the Mooney (11.2)! An engine failure in cruise has so many options you could even go so far as to consider which field would give your passengers the quickest airline flight home. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top