EWR Q Engine Failures...

Baronman

Baronman

Well-Known Member
One yesterday? One Today? Are we going for the trifecta?

Actually I saw today's and heard it on the radio..Something about a "prop caution message?" Landed safely and taxied away on the single engine. And actually it was a precautionary shutdown, not really a failure around 7am.
 
Prop Electronic control Failure...

Stupid system that has a common Commutator plate for all 6 blades, if there is any disruption to the the electrical power that plate the thing fails..

QRH calls for a shut down if the back up systems are working ( and the prop feathers normally)... to ensure that it will be feathered if the engine fails. If you really really needed the engine, it would still run fine though.

The system is way to complicated now... and MPU speed pick up, 2 torque sensors, 6 blade angle sensors, and a brain box that compares prop speed to expected engine load, blade angle rate of change etc... There is no longer a mechanical linkage... so if it secures normally, you leave it secured, rather than loose control of it if the engine fails.

Glad it's not my black cloud anymore - but the Q supposedly does quite well on 1 engine
 
FTWeb says the prop RPM was at 1070...sounds like an overspeed/governor failure to me. I didn't know there was one yesterday too, though?
 
Teller1900 said:
FTWeb says the prop RPM was at 1070...sounds like an overspeed/governor failure to me. I didn't know there was one yesterday too, though?
Click to expand...

1070 means the over speed was working... 1120 if that fails.

PEC Fail reverts to over speed governing...

Or something like that.
 
Baronman said:
One yesterday? One Today? Are we going for the trifecta?

Actually I saw today's and heard it on the radio..Something about a "prop caution message?" Landed safely and taxied away on the single engine. And actually it was a precautionary shutdown, not really a failure around 7am.
Click to expand...

Shouldnt taxi on single engine, not allowed.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
1070 means the over speed was working... 1120 if that fails.

PEC Fail reverts to over speed governing...

Or something like that.
Click to expand...

I phrased that poorly. I meant sounds like a prop overspeed or a primary governor failure, not an overspeed governor failure...I just had an unfortunate choice of words.

cencal83406 said:
Why not? Colgan is bleeding money - they have to pay for gas. They should be doing everything they can to save on it, including taxiing on one engine.
Click to expand...

Because it'll cost us even more to replace all the nose tires/gear if we taxi around single engine. Manufacturer says not to, company says not to. The Q just isn't designed to withstand the force of SE taxi. Also, we don't pay for the gas on the Q, Continental does.
 
Teller1900 said:
I phrased that poorly. I meant sounds like a prop overspeed or a primary governor failure, not an overspeed governor failure...I just had an unfortunate choice of words.



Because it'll cost us even more to replace all the nose tires/gear if we taxi around single engine. Manufacturer says not to, company says not to. The Q just isn't designed to withstand the force of SE taxi. Also, we don't pay for the gas on the Q, Continental does.
Click to expand...

Hm. Well Corp says that the contracts were negotiated without the mainline paying. Learn something new every day... or does Colgan's other contract require them to?
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Prop Electronic control Failure...

Stupid system that has a common Commutator plate for all 6 blades, if there is any disruption to the the electrical power that plate the thing fails..

QRH calls for a shut down if the back up systems are working ( and the prop feathers normally)... to ensure that it will be feathered if the engine fails. If you really really needed the engine, it would still run fine though.

The system is way to complicated now... and MPU speed pick up, 2 torque sensors, 6 blade angle sensors, and a brain box that compares prop speed to expected engine load, blade angle rate of change etc... There is no longer a mechanical linkage... so if it secures normally, you leave it secured, rather than loose control of it if the engine fails.

Glad it's not my black cloud anymore - but the Q supposedly does quite well on 1 engine
Click to expand...


I can tell ya the Q does fly really well on 1 engine...it was almost a given that you'd get a V1 cut in Reno (4500ft ASL) at about 33C with a 63,000lbs aircraft on Traning in Lieu. The turn proceedure departing to the south was very complicated, but she'd do it without too much trouble. Horizon would single engine taxi the Q2, but the Q4 couldn't because of too much stress on the nose gear itself.

Is Colgan planning on getting HUD's for the Q4?
 
The Q today that I saw most definitely had one shut down but they kept it rolling. Landed 22L and kept it going all the way northbound on "A" I think...Probably not that much stress on the nosewheel if it's already rolling.

But...if it's a limitation I probably would have just stopped and asked for a tug.
 
We are not authorized for single engine taxi... for a few reasons. Honestly, 1 engine and an APU burns nearly the same as 2 engines on the ground. Bombardier sells a "kit" that allows single engine taxi... :rolleyes:

Something about normal brakes and anti skid are on the left hyd. system, and nose wheel steering on the right... but the when you run the standby pump, i guess pressure is not significant enough to prevent loss of service should the pressure drop... So, if the left is shut off you may lose normal brakes suddenly - and nearly mow down a rampie ? I think thats about what happened, resulting in a grab for the Ebrake and lots of shaking

Not gonna Lie.. with #2 shut down, you are relying on the hyd. power transfer to run the nose steering, e-brake, #2 elevator and rudder... Taxiing in that situation is ballsy. The first thing you lose if the pressure drops on that PTU is the nose steering and outboard spoilers. The Q does not caster well... so no knowing if your going to keep that nose steering while trying to make that turn off... relying on differential braking to turn is like Russian roulette I think.

I also wasn't there... so I can't say. They may have talked to MX/Company and been told to roll it. Not really worth running the arm chair QB on this one... normal procedure is to Feather 1 when lined up with the gate (although not approved "yet" CK CA's saying it's ok... fwiw) So I'm also not gonna worry about it too much
 
Trip7 said:
Man, reminds me of the complicated ATR systems. Glad those days are behind me:D
Click to expand...

No kidding! MFC what? All it does is make #### start flashing and chiming when you try to start with a weak GPU.

Actually, you guys didn't have the 212A's, did you? Those things had PEC's too--just more there to go wrong.
 
cencal83406 said:
Why not? Colgan is bleeding money - they have to pay for gas. They should be doing everything they can to save on it, including taxiing on one engine.
Click to expand...

Like said earlier, on the Q Continental pays for the fuel.

On the contrary- Colgan is VERY VERY profitable systemwide right now.

Something like 8-9 Million Profit last quarter. Not bad. Not bad at all for a company with mostly pro rate agreements.

You're facts are grossly outdated, sir.

The SAABs taxi on one engine. Beeches can't. Shows one of the many Beech inferiorities to the SAAB.
 
SmitteyB said:
Like said earlier, on the Q Continental pays for the fuel.

On the contrary- Colgan is VERY VERY profitable systemwide right now.

Something like 8-9 Million Profit last quarter. Not bad. Not bad at all for a company with mostly pro rate agreements.

You're facts are grossly outdated, sir.

The SAABs taxi on one engine. Beeches can't. Shows one of the many Beech inferiorities to the SAAB.
Click to expand...

Something's not adding up with corporate's latest doom and gloom, then. Colgan making money, we've got a "cost plus" agreement with NWA and Delta....um, so, why are we laying off people and crying poor? Did someone in corporate embezzle a lot of money, or did Phil and gang lose a lot in Tunica a la the auction rate securities?
 
Smitty, check yo facts. The beech can do a single engine taxi. It's just not worth it cause atc always let's the beech go first- they know it's faster and more capable.

Laying off seems like good prep work for merging front offices.
 
zmiller4 said:
No kidding! MFC what? All it does is make #### start flashing and chiming when you try to start with a weak GPU.

Actually, you guys didn't have the 212A's, did you? Those things had PEC's too--just more there to go wrong.
Click to expand...

I forgot which model we of the 212 we had. Not the one with the Auto detent on the prop levers though. We had to pull those suckers back to 86% on the after t/o check and back to 77% on the CRZ check. It was annoying...
 
Trip7 said:
I forgot which model we of the 212 we had. Not the one with the Auto detent on the prop levers though. We had to pull those suckers back to 86% on the after t/o check and back to 77% on the CRZ check. It was annoying...
Click to expand...

Did you really just complain about pulling the props back on climb out and in cruise?? Haha
 
kellwolf said:
Something's not adding up with corporate's latest doom and gloom, then. Colgan making money, we've got a "cost plus" agreement with NWA and Delta....um, so, why are we laying off people and crying poor? Did someone in corporate embezzle a lot of money, or did Phil and gang lose a lot in Tunica a la the auction rate securities?
Click to expand...

Kell... I think the obvious has blinded you much like the obvious is being overlooked by those on the company board. This was an INTERNAL CALL. Not as SEC statement or investor call/meeting. This is a scare tactic. Think about the timing....... Their little scheme is working when even those with an ear to the ground are clammering!:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top