28 Mar 2024, 21:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 22 Oct 2019, 19:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/02/15 Posts: 846 Post Likes: +593 Location: Austin, Texas and Argentina
Aircraft: L-39 Albatros
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Christophe is a good pilot with lots of experience and he makes some great flying videos. I think he did the right thing. Glad it all resolved in what seems like a speedy fashion and probably didn't cost an arm and a leg. I was pretty impressed with him landing a 414A in St. Barth. I think he grew up there, but still... Landing at 6:45: [youtube]https://youtu.be/bCo7CUIqkxo[/youtube]
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 22 Oct 2019, 20:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5521 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was pretty impressed with him landing a 414A in St. Barth. I think he grew up there, but still...
Yeah, he nailed that thing! 414 probably not the easiest plane to land on such a short strip, but you'd never be able to tell.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 22 Oct 2019, 22:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/06/11 Posts: 59 Post Likes: +68
Aircraft: M600
|
|
I would love to see the convincing data that says carrying an extra PT6 results in fewer serious injuries.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 00:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 329 Post Likes: +269 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I would love to see the convincing data that says carrying an extra PT6 results in fewer serious injuries. We’ve lost a Pratt on climbout from Casper., WY. It was good to have another on the opposite wing. Three pax, no injuries. The airlines all use equipment with two or more engines. They must just be paranoid, foolish companies throwing away their profit margins on all the extra fuel the second engine burns. I have no idea why the FAA would require such a thing.
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 00:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/07/17 Posts: 7026 Post Likes: +5805 Company: Malco Power Design Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I would love to see the convincing data that says carrying an extra PT6 results in fewer serious injuries. We’ve lost a Pratt on climbout from Casper., WY. It was good to have another on the opposite wing. Three pax, no injuries. The airlines all use equipment with two or more engines. They must just be paranoid, foolish companies throwing away their profit margins on all the extra fuel the second engine burns. I have no idea why the FAA would require such a thing.
I don’t think they do. Boutique flys passengers in PC12s.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 09:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/11 Posts: 721 Post Likes: +392 Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The airlines all use equipment with two or more engines. They must just be paranoid, foolish companies throwing away their profit margins on all the extra fuel the second engine burns. I have no idea why the FAA would require such a thing. Not sure the profit would change much with 1 engine vs 2. That would be one very large engine strapped to the tail, Cirrus Jet style. Chip-
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 09:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/30/18 Posts: 2223 Post Likes: +1707 Location: NH
Aircraft: F33A, A320
|
|
Username Protected wrote: https://youtu.be/vtet47DJfLk
Watch 9:55 - 15:00. Great outcome and sober thinking.
I lost a PT6A many years ago ... so glad I had another on board.
-Kevin Why did he land 2/3rd's of the way down the runway? And there is no reason not to declare an emergency when you have an engine failure.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/09 Posts: 4693 Post Likes: +2403 Company: retired corporate mostly Location: Chico,California KCIC/CL56
Aircraft: 1956 Champion 7EC
|
|
Quote: I would love to see the convincing data that says carrying an extra PT6 results in fewer serious injuries. Paul, the problem is, when a twin loses one, and lands safely, there is no report. I had a -42 grenade in cruise at FL290 (good place, if it is gonna happen), the only report on this may be in the files of the crash crew that greeted us when we landed, and the maintenance bill for the engine change... 9 passengers. Once everything was secured, checks checked... there was enough time to call ahead and have a charter waiting for the 9 when we landed. I had a toddy at the Holiday Inn.
_________________ Jeff
soloed in a land of Superhomers/1959 Cessna 150, retired with Proline 21/ CJ4.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 329 Post Likes: +269 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
When I had a cylinder depart my twin piston, I had 80 miles to fly in VMC to the next field and landed with the equipment rolled but didn’t declare with ATC because I didn’t think it would make a difference. Later, when I did a precautionary shut-down in the same plane during a very cold snow-storm (oil cooler froze at -30 and engine overheated) I asked ATC what the traffic looked like to shoot the ILS into a field about 90 miles away (the departure point was below minimums) and nobody else was conflicting. I asked for the equipment again and a block altitude, but ATC declared the emergency for me. Both times in piston, not turbine, so not entirely germane, but I would have been off-airport in both cases had I been in my single (admittedly, possibly without injury on a rural road, but I prefer to have my safety dictated by my ability, training and the capability of the second engine, not by luck).
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/07/17 Posts: 7026 Post Likes: +5805 Company: Malco Power Design Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Quote: I would love to see the convincing data that says carrying an extra PT6 results in fewer serious injuries. Paul, the problem is, when a twin loses one, and lands safely, there is no report. I had a -42 grenade in cruise at FL290 (good place, if it is gonna happen), the only report on this may be in the files of the crash crew that greeted us when we landed, and the maintenance bill for the engine change... 9 passengers. Once everything was secured, checks checked... there was enough time to call ahead and have a charter waiting for the 9 when we landed. I had a toddy at the Holiday Inn. I thought all turbine failures are supposed to get reported to the NTSB under 43 CFR 830.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 11:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6052 Post Likes: +12356 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If they are running a PC 12, they are likely not an airline but a 135/charter/on-demand operator. Other 135 operators use Piper Super Cubs in Alaska, that doesn’t make them an airline. FAR/AIM 121.159 spells it out pretty clearly. There are lots of "scheduled 135" "airlines" that fly Caravan's, PC-12s, and I am sure some with piston singles as well in remote areas. Air Choice One (Caravans) serves my homedrome with 5 scheduled flights a day, MSP ORD & STL. Boutique Air serves other Midwestern cities with PC-12s. I fly on the Caravan occasionally, and I am comfortable with it, except when we get vectored 15 miles out over Lake Michigan at 4000 ft. I hate that....
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|