banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 21:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 17:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3578
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Very high MTBF in a modern PT6, with synthetic vision, of all the things I lose sleep over, losing my Pratt and not being able to get down safely in that very low likelihood scenario, is not one of them. Now clowns ;) ..... :peace:

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 19:55 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 20:04 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 20:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
WOW!!!

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 22:29 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 23:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 1943
Post Likes: +1258
Company: Underground Airways
Location: CYKF Kitchener, Ontario
Aircraft: Mooney M20K 231+
Very multi talented man. Excellent piloting and photography


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 00:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 00:49 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 08:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
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.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 09:07 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 09:09 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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. :D

_________________
Jeff

soloed in a land of Superhomers/1959 Cessna 150, retired with Proline 21/ CJ4.


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 10:38 
Offline


 Profile




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. :D


I thought all turbine failures are supposed to get reported to the NTSB under 43 CFR 830.


Top

 Post subject: Re: PT6’s fail too
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 11:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.