USMCmech
Well-Known Member
The consequences of a catastrophic turbine failure were never covered in ground school when I was there.
Another Caravan engine failure
- Thread starter tiredcfi
- Start date
The consequences of a catastrophic turbine failure were never covered in ground school when I was there.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Absolutely correct, it is not a point hammered home. They are big on getting it going again.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Not necessarily. Could be a compressor stall causing a flame-out, those are really loud, or any number of other things. If I was a boss (haha!) and a pilot who had an engine failure and had plenty of time to attempt a restart told me that he didn't attempt a restart because it probably wouldn't work anyway I think I would slap him in the back of the head.Because, if you are flying along, and hear the engine grenade (which they seem to be doing with increasing frequency) which generally means the gas generator has locked solid. Hitting the starter at point will be like shorting out the battery. You stand to heat (red hot) any of those heavy duty cables that run between the battery, solenoids, and starter. So now you have a nice burning smell to accompany you in your glide. If the engine puked oil, you stand a moderate chance of lighting that off as well. To say nothing of losing your battery, and thus nav/com. Other than that, yeah, no problem.
Now, if it is showing any Ng, then go for it, you have little to lose. If it went out with a bang, and Ng went right to zero, you have a lot more to lose. An engine that has not locked will show 5% or more in the glide.
Also, energizing the starter generator on a locked gas generator section would shortly fry out the generator due to heat, but I do not think any fire would occur. At least not in the cables. It isn't like shorting the battery at all. Those cables can handle a thousand amps easy, and you'll never get more than 500 or so from the battery.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
# of fatalities due to an engine failure in a TP single in the past 5 years = 1
# of fatalities due to an engine failure in a ME piston in the past 5 years = a lot more than that
Every day a 747 worth of people are killed driving in cars, but it never makes the news. But, if an airliner makes a precautionary landing it's covered live.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Remember, I said in the beginning, if the NG was indicating 0. A loud noise, an engine destructing itself, is a very obvious sequence of events. You would be ill advised to try a restart on an engine that you knew was physically no longer an engine. It would serve no purpose, is a fire hazard, it could possibly deplete your electrical system (Hey! Want flaps at the end of the glide? What if it was IFR? Still would be nice to keep the radios. If the system voltage dropped low enough, you would have to go through the re-boot sequence again), and maybe wasting time you could have been using figuring something else out.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I'm not sure how much of a "re-boot" there is on a Caravan. Plus, it certainly appeared to be VMC from what I could tell. My sense of these things is that I'm going to do what's on the checklist. IMS, ours says something like "If ng < whatever, depress starter button". Yes sir!
Edit: With that said, if it were a King Air (God forbid) and I wasn't in the mountains (God forbid), I can see the argument for thinking twice, but I have zero hours in gliders, and I'm not interested in learning on the job.
Edit: With that said, if it were a King Air (God forbid) and I wasn't in the mountains (God forbid), I can see the argument for thinking twice, but I have zero hours in gliders, and I'm not interested in learning on the job.
Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
"eff it, we're cranking."
SpiraMirabilis beat me to it, a compressor stall has a more than superficial resemblance to a "loud bang."
Errr...
Affirmative. Granted most of those aren't necessarily the airplane's fault, but unless it's a transport category twin, you aren't guaranteed to survive canning one at rotation.
You love the smell of jet fuel in the morning, don't lie. Plus the growl.I'll take a single PT 6.
But what do I know!
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Statistically, you're a lot more likely to "fly to the scene of the accident" in a multi piston with one caged than have a turbine stop in the first place. Plus, a fair number of engine failures (not this one, obviously), come from feeding the engine either nothing or stuff it can't burn, which would presumably affect any number of piston engines in just the same way as a turbine.
Now, with that said, do I feel a bit of "whistling past the graveyard" when flying a turbine single at night in low IMC? Guilty. Which is pretty funny, because I don't think I had a care in the world when I used to do it in a PISTON single with like 20,000 hours on the clock. I guess it's all a matter of Perspective.
Now, with that said, do I feel a bit of "whistling past the graveyard" when flying a turbine single at night in low IMC? Guilty. Which is pretty funny, because I don't think I had a care in the world when I used to do it in a PISTON single with like 20,000 hours on the clock. I guess it's all a matter of Perspective.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Really? Single engine performance on a 402 may not be enough to make it back to the airport, then the airplane hits the ground at some speed higher than redline (if you're still in control at all). The Caravan stalls at something like 50 KIAS. I'd prefer that.
PT6 is supposed to have a failure once every 100,000hrs or something like that. Pistons are supposedly twice as much.
Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
Clyde Cessna once stated of one of the high wing designs built in Independence, "It's just fast enough to kill you." Pertinent.
As someone who flies a light twin for fun, the content in this article often hangs around in the back of my mind.Statistically, you're a lot more likely to "fly to the scene of the accident" in a multi piston with one caged than have a turbine stop in the first place. Plus, a fair number of engine failures (not this one, obviously), come from feeding the engine either nothing or stuff it can't burn, which would presumably affect any number of piston engines in just the same way as a turbine.
Now, with that said, do I feel a bit of "whistling past the graveyard" when flying a turbine single at night in low IMC? Guilty. Which is pretty funny, because I don't think I had a care in the world when I used to do it in a PISTON single with like 20,000 hours on the clock. I guess it's all a matter of Perspective.
Jimmy_Norton
Well-Known Member
Why does it seem like the Caravan has a much higher engine failure rate than the PC-12 or TBM?
Side note, more people have been killed in King Air's post engine failure than the in the PC-12. In fact, there have been ZERO fatalities in a PC-12 after an engine failure.
Side note, more people have been killed in King Air's post engine failure than the in the PC-12. In fact, there have been ZERO fatalities in a PC-12 after an engine failure.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
I think utilization rates for the first question. More of them flying every single day. As far as the pc-12, I think there was one near UNV? Granted, it may have failed due to thirst, but it was fatal.
Jimmy_Norton
Well-Known Member
My company has 30ish PC-12's, we put about 600 hours a year on each, and since 1995, we've had one in flight engine failure, and it could have been restarted.
The crash near UNV was due to a stall/spin, with some ice thrown in for good measure. http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17024
Itchy
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected. For some reason I thought that one ran dry.....
Jimmy_Norton
Well-Known Member
Nope....there have been a few off airport landings due to engine failure, but none have been fatal. All of the fatal crashes have been due to pilot error.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Ok, so why does it seem like you hear about C208 PT-6 failures way more often than Kingair failures?
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
No question in my mind but that flying a Kingair (pitooie!) is safer than flying a PC-12. But on a cost basis, the PC-12 is more in the complex piston twin department, and I suspect that it gives them a spanking.