Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 13, 2014, 11:27 AM
Post #1 of 31 (10270 views)
Shortcut
Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 Can't Post

I have been looking at the FAA and NTSB daily sites for info on this and have not seen anything yet.

I had someone sent me a message but I have not been able to confirm this so if anyone has additional details please post them:


It appears that the PAC750 experienced an engine outage over the weekend during the climb to altitude at around 7000 feet. The pilot had all the jumpers leave the plane by around 6000 feet and he brought it back to a dead stick landing on the airport with no further damage.


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on May 14, 2014, 5:44 AM)


ActionAir  (D License)

May 13, 2014, 11:30 AM
Post #2 of 31 (10235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Other than it all starting around 8,000', you have it right.
Pilot did a great job, after engine failure. New engine is being installed now. Will be back up and flying in a day or two.


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on May 14, 2014, 5:44 AM)




dwhenline

May 14, 2014, 6:40 AM
Post #4 of 31 (8724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

That is very interesting since I believe the Pac is a turbo prop airplane and those engines generally have a low failure rate. One of the reasons, turbo props are supposed to be 'safer" than Piston Engines.
Glad everyone got out OK
dwh


theonlyski  (D License)

May 14, 2014, 7:07 AM
Post #5 of 31 (8664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dwhenline] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

dwhenline wrote:
That is very interesting since I believe the Pac is a turbo prop airplane and those engines generally have a low failure rate. One of the reasons, turbo props are supposed to be 'safer" than Piston Engines.
Glad everyone got out OK
dwh

It's not unheard of for a turbo prop to fail. It is better than a piston engine for reliability but still has issues that can come up.


TitaniumLegs  (D 19246)

May 14, 2014, 8:05 AM
Post #6 of 31 (8527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, PT6 are awesome engines, but they can certainly fail. We had one go just after takeoff (~1300' IIRC) on a King Air in Monterey ~98 or so. Pilot did a fantastic job of keeping it level and bringing it around to a smooth landing with full load.
There were no maintenance issues in the Hollister case. It was scheduled for early (40 hour) maintenance literally the next day. It had 39 hours on it since previous maint.

(edit to add alt of engine failure)


(This post was edited by TitaniumLegs on May 14, 2014, 8:31 AM)


theonlyski  (D License)

May 14, 2014, 8:12 AM
Post #7 of 31 (8508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TitaniumLegs] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm trying to remember where/when there was a VMC roll on a multi-engine jump plane on takeoff.

There are some times I'd rather a single engine airplane. Takeoff VMC rolls scare the crap out of me.


totter

May 14, 2014, 12:05 PM
Post #8 of 31 (8193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have been looking at the FAA and NTSB daily sites for info on this and have not seen anything yet.

Part 91 doesn't have to report this type of event unless it ends in injury/accident/property damage.

Even if this happened to a 135/121 operator it would be reported using the MSDR system (Mechanical Service Difficulty Report) which is total seperate from the FAA/NTSB accident/incident websites.

Thanks though to Ray and Action Air for replying so quickly.


diablopilot  (D License)

May 14, 2014, 12:22 PM
Post #9 of 31 (8155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
I'm trying to remember where/when there was a VMC roll on a multi-engine jump plane on takeoff.

There are some times I'd rather a single engine airplane. Takeoff VMC rolls scare the crap out of me.

This is the first one that came to mind for me. http://www.dropzone.com/...post=2356575#2356575


ryoder  (D 6663)

May 14, 2014, 12:24 PM
Post #10 of 31 (8145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
I'm trying to remember where/when there was a VMC roll on a multi-engine jump plane on takeoff.

There are some times I'd rather a single engine airplane. Takeoff VMC rolls scare the crap out of me.

I did one at 12,500';
That was really exciting, but I'll pass on doing it at takeoff.


divertech  (B 2910)

May 14, 2014, 11:30 PM
Post #11 of 31 (7581 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

We had a PAC engine failure after a big storm, the plane got in the hanger about 5min too late during the storm on the Saturday and when we took of on first load the Sunday the engine cut out when the pilot turned for the first time at around 2k. We ended up getting out at 1800ft and the pilot landed safely.


diverdriver  (D 19012)

May 15, 2014, 10:01 AM
Post #12 of 31 (7117 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divertech] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

divertech wrote:
We had a PAC engine failure after a big storm, the plane got in the hanger about 5min too late during the storm on the Saturday and when we took of on first load the Sunday the engine cut out when the pilot turned for the first time at around 2k. We ended up getting out at 1800ft and the pilot landed safely.

Why did it fail. What did five minutes have to do with it?


format  (B 15348)

May 15, 2014, 2:20 PM
Post #13 of 31 (6821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

diverdriver wrote:
divertech wrote:
We had a PAC engine failure after a big storm, the plane got in the hanger about 5min too late during the storm on the Saturday and when we took of on first load the Sunday the engine cut out when the pilot turned for the first time at around 2k. We ended up getting out at 1800ft and the pilot landed safely.

Why did it fail. What did five minutes have to do with it?
Why surprise? I remember my car wouldn't start after washing it with high water pressure. Or it does but fails later


inspector

May 15, 2014, 3:21 PM
Post #14 of 31 (6737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

One difference, aircraft are designed to fly in rain, heavy rain. The one weak spot that comes to mind though would be bad fuel cap seals, allowing water into the tank or tanks. Water contamination should be caught by pre-flight fuel sampling.

Not familiar with the PAC fuel system but when water finds the pick up in the tank it will travel with the fuel to a filter of some kind. Normally it's trapped until filter is drained but if the filter was overloaded with water it could cause a shut-down.

I don't think water was the cause though as Action Air posted thy are replacing the engine now.


Deisel  (D 31661)

May 15, 2014, 7:21 PM
Post #15 of 31 (6493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Anyone care to explain WHY the engine went out. This doesn't happen for no reason.


divertech  (B 2910)

May 15, 2014, 11:24 PM
Post #16 of 31 (6318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

diverdriver wrote:
divertech wrote:
We had a PAC engine failure after a big storm, the plane got in the hanger about 5min too late during the storm on the Saturday and when we took of on first load the Sunday the engine cut out when the pilot turned for the first time at around 2k. We ended up getting out at 1800ft and the pilot landed safely.

Why did it fail. What did five minutes have to do with it?

Sorry my technical knowledge is not great on these motors but the wrong "part" retained water and caused a problem when the pilot turned. The storms in SA can get rough at times and the rain tends to get side ways going in to places it should not go into. The 5min is the time it took us to put the PAC in the hanger (time exposed to the storm).


inspector

May 16, 2014, 12:28 AM
Post #17 of 31 (6286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divertech] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems to be confusion in the threads. We started out in Hollister, CA and at post 11 went to South Africa???


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 16, 2014, 10:16 AM
Post #18 of 31 (5840 views)
Shortcut
Re: [inspector] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

>We started out in Hollister, CA and at post 11 went to South Africa???

Phree reported an incident in Hollister. Divertech related a similar incident from South Africa.


av8rdav  (C 24395)

May 18, 2014, 7:49 AM
Post #19 of 31 (5091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

It's not unheard of for a turbo prop to fail. It is better than a piston engine for reliability but still has issues that can come up.
PT6 failure rate is 1 out of every 325,000 hours. I don't think this includes things like a prop governor going out.


twatterpilot  (A License)

May 18, 2014, 4:16 PM
Post #20 of 31 (4662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
I'm trying to remember where/when there was a VMC roll on a multi-engine jump plane on takeoff.

There are some times I'd rather a single engine airplane. Takeoff VMC rolls scare the crap out of me.


If the possibility of a VMC roll on departure due to an engine failure scares you, then you are, #1, probably not flying with a skilled enough pilot, or, #2, probably jumping at a DZ with piss poor maintenance practices.

I have been flying behind Pratt turboprops for over 15 years and 8000 + flying hours.

They fail for 2 reasons.
Piss Poor Maintenance
Piss Poor Pilots

If the pilot fails to drain the sumps, perform proper pre-flights or hot starts and over temps the engines, they *might* fail.
If the owner/mechanic doesn't perform proper maintenance or performs sub-standard maintenance they WILL fail.

Engines don't just fail out of the blue. I don't care how often they go in for "inspection", if the nozzles don't get replaced every 100-200 hours, compressor rinses and power recovery washes don't get performed on schedule, dynamic engine and prop balancing don't get done every year or two, oil analysis, accessory overhauls, component tracking and a myriad of other things don't get done ON TIME, then all those "inspections" are worthless.

Skydivers must DEMAND talented pilots, and DEMAND perfect maintenance.

Skydivers also must PAY for those services. They don't come cheap.

So, ask yourself...
What is your life worth?

This PAC driver got lucky this time. He/she handled the situation properly and got the aircraft on the ground.

This pilot should not buy a meal or a beer for a month at least.

If this was in a King Air or Twin Otter or any other turbine twin, I doubt it would have even made it on the forum. An engine failure in a twin turbo-prop is a non-event. Not so with a single engine anything.


totter

May 19, 2014, 8:50 AM
Post #21 of 31 (4070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [twatterpilot] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Engines don't just fail out of the blue.

Then please explain your thoughts on the -114 & -114A failures. The CT blade failures have nothing to do with maintenance or pilot practices. It's due to a totally random metallurgical condition in the CT blades that cause them to crack and fail.
Now this is considered a manufacturing flaw but it was not discovered until recently. (Last 1- 1.5 yrs). Before then this condition would have been completely unnoticeable to the mechanic/pilot until to late even using the recommended maintenance intervals, hence it would be considered "out of the blue".
If this were to happen now to a Caravan, with the new AD inspection/borescope interval, mandatory Hot Section Insp and CT blade replacement, then I would say piss poor maintenance.

As a note they (FAA) are looking into -34s for this same condition.

In reply to:
If the pilot fails to drain the sumps, perform proper pre-flights or hot starts and over temps the engines, they *might* fail.

Oh, but it will fail. It's called Blade Creep and it will cause catastrophic failure of the engine.

And your a little off on your timeline. If you need to change nozzles every 100-200 hours you need to check your fuel supply or engine cut-off rigging since the commonly accepted interval is 400 hours. And to do prop/vibration analysis every year or two is stretching it. The suggested interval is every 450 hours. (If you flew at a small/slow DZ then I would understand the 1-2 yrs)
I do agree that all the items you mentioned do need to be done, though.

Sometimes, but rarely, Pratts do "just fail". And when they do it's almost impossible for a mechanic or pilot to predict.


flipper3  (D 3115)

May 19, 2014, 12:47 PM
Post #22 of 31 (3769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [totter] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I was on a Caravan in December 2013 departing from Kalaupapa, Molokai, HI that experienced a catastrophic engine failure about a mile from shore as it was heading for Oahu. The pilot managed to land it in a 12' swell with the wheel side down so we were all able to exit. I got a good swim out of that experience. The cause was a turbine compressor blade flying off at 50k rpm's. P W has had this occur 9 times on a run of 3,000 pt-6 engines in the past 14 months prompting Canada to issue an AD on it and now US is also in the process if they haven't already. Nothing is perfect but this doesn't appear to be random so they are looking into it.

All inspections and maintenance were current on this plane.

Not a skydiving plane but similar to many that are.

Flip


alexki

May 19, 2014, 1:04 PM
Post #23 of 31 (3726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [twatterpilot] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I've maintained PT-6 -series engines and participated in numerous accident investigations for the past 40+ years.

These engines, like all machines, are utterly capable of catastrophic failure regardless of quality of maintenance and pre-flight. This is especially true for a gas-turbine engine, with its, shall we say, mechanically intense environment.

Strategies exist to prevent such events, maintenance and pre-flights not in the least, but still, they're only machines.


totter

May 19, 2014, 4:03 PM
Post #24 of 31 (3437 views)
Shortcut
Re: [flipper3] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Nothing is perfect but this doesn't appear to be random so they are looking into it.

That must of been some experience. What I meant by the term random is that there was/is no set pattern to the failures.
The FAA just issued an AD on the -114 & -114As.
There used to be just a Service Bulletin for this until the FedEx Caravan crashed just out of Memphis, I believe, killing the pilot.


twatterpilot  (A License)

May 19, 2014, 5:12 PM
Post #25 of 31 (3353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [totter] Airplane Engine out - Hollister CA - May 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, Pratt says 400 hours for nozzle cleaning/inspection/flowing/replacement.

I have not seen a set yet at on any of the 500+ Pratts I have flown behind make it that far without some streaking.

Cheap preventative maintenance. We do them every 100 hours. Like the airline did...like most 121 and 135 operators do... like everyone should do. We have the cleanest fuel out there. We have a 10,000 dollar filtration system on our fuel, I have never even had a single drop of water in my fuel in 3 years, let alone debris.

We see signs of streaking at every nozzle change.
We also split our engines every year to take a quick peak. Check the vane ring, check the wheel clearance etc. Takes a day, and gives piece of mind.

If -114 operators did that, perhaps the mean time between failures would drop? *shrug* There are lots of 114's that have no issues... makes me wonder sometimes... Perhaps I will dig into that a bit deeper.


And yes, we do our balancing every year, or about every 300 hours. We are not a fun jump DZ, so therefore our utilization is lower. But I agree with your 450 hour assessment. You would be surprised how many DZ don't balance AT ALL. EVER. Put it to you this way, in the 20 years I have been around jump flying, the DZ I work for now is the ONLY one I have ever worked for that did it. Not saying others don't, but this is the first in 4000 hours of jump flying that I am aware of.

M.O.R.E. requires dynamic balancing as part of the program, and I always thought that was yearly.

But yes, the 114 series is a junk motor.

And again, why would anyone pay over a million dollars for a single engine jump plane with know engine issues when a twin can be had for less than half the price?

Oh yeah... (in a skydiver whine) "I wanna bigger dooooooor."

8000 + hours behind PT6's and PW120 series Pratts. I would estimate 20,000 + starts. I have NEVER had a hot start except in the Dash 8 simulator.

I am convinced that is not an accident. I can also tell you I would bet that I have battery started LESS than 20 times out of those 20,000+.

There is a difference between doing it right and half assing it.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)