Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
C-FPCN, a Pilatus PC-12/45 aircraft operated by Air Bravo, was conducting flight AB1258 from Thunder Bay, ON (CYQT) to Deer Lake, ON (CYVZ) with two crew members and one passenger on board. During the climb at approximately 3500 feet ASL, the engine (Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67B) torque began to fluctuate. The flight crew requested a return to CYQT and were instructed to descend to 3400 feet. During the descent, the auto-pilot disengaged and the aircraft descended below the assigned altitude. At approximately 2400 feet ASL, ATC issued a terrain safety alert to the flight crew who immediately climbed back to 3300 feet ASL. ATC requested that ARFF be called out as a precautionary measure and the aircraft landed without further incident. It was reported that during the return to CYQT, the workload in the cockpit was excessive and the crew was unaware that they had descended below their assigned altitude.
-
Meatservo
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
- Location: Negative sequencial vortex
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
I have often, and you guys can back me up here, I have often advocated that a third pilot be present on the PC-12. It is just too much machine for two guys, especially when the autopilot is on the fritz.
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
While I am in total agreement with your reasoning Meat, I think the APLG. ( Airline Profit Lobby Group), will convince TC that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved if the PIC has taken an aerobatic and tail wheel course. Experts say with that training a pilot will never have an accident.
I never cease to be amazed at how new school graduate parrots can squawk "Aviate-Navigate....", and boast about CRM, and then when the merde hits the fan, completely forget about it.
Lots and lots of accidents as a result of this. Guess we all did not learn the lesson after the Florida Everglades alligator feast accident.
What we need is more speculating on these accident threads. And tossing out sage advice to our fellow inferior pilots.
I never cease to be amazed at how new school graduate parrots can squawk "Aviate-Navigate....", and boast about CRM, and then when the merde hits the fan, completely forget about it.
Lots and lots of accidents as a result of this. Guess we all did not learn the lesson after the Florida Everglades alligator feast accident.
What we need is more speculating on these accident threads. And tossing out sage advice to our fellow inferior pilots.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
-
kilocharliemike
- Rank 3
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:47 am
- Location: EI
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
Meatservo wrote:I have often, and you guys can back me up here, I have often advocated that a third pilot be present on the PC-12. It is just too much machine for two guys, especially when the autopilot is on the fritz.
Avcanada needs a like function like Facebook and Instagram. Writing this took a lot of energy...
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
Its pretty hard to not notice that the auto pilot disengaged on that plane. PC12 have a CAWS system and will turn on the master caution along with an aural tone when the auto pilot is disengaged. My guess is they had the wrong altitude selected in the altitude selector and were not paying attention.
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
There's a theory out there that bouncing off the tq limiter all the time wears out the fcu bellows. You guys might want to try not doing that and see if it helps.
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
if the only point of this forum is to entertain experts, and diss anyone learning or sharing, I guess its not for everyone.
It never will hurt to remind folks that qualified crews sometimes forget to "aviate, navigate, communicate and deal with the problem. Darn thing is that in a single, with a mis behaving furnace,its probably more entertaining to help with the trouble shooting than fly, OR,,, one is so scared of landing off airport, that dealing with the engine is more a front of the mind deal. CRM certainly says one guy flies while the other sorts out the problem.
The reason they pay 2 folks to fly that thing, is so that it does not hit the rocks, or poorly placed cell towers, when given an altitude assignment, during a high workload time. On a further note, why the heck would the controller give you 3400 feet (probably the min in your area, as an assigned) when you are doing quite fine at 3500. In fact, climbing assuming you are not on fire, might be a better plan, while the engine is still running , if you think the engine is going to stop shortly and you cannot glide to the approved pavement. ....
I was not there,,, so ,,, I will never be sure I could do any better.
It never will hurt to remind folks that qualified crews sometimes forget to "aviate, navigate, communicate and deal with the problem. Darn thing is that in a single, with a mis behaving furnace,its probably more entertaining to help with the trouble shooting than fly, OR,,, one is so scared of landing off airport, that dealing with the engine is more a front of the mind deal. CRM certainly says one guy flies while the other sorts out the problem.
The reason they pay 2 folks to fly that thing, is so that it does not hit the rocks, or poorly placed cell towers, when given an altitude assignment, during a high workload time. On a further note, why the heck would the controller give you 3400 feet (probably the min in your area, as an assigned) when you are doing quite fine at 3500. In fact, climbing assuming you are not on fire, might be a better plan, while the engine is still running , if you think the engine is going to stop shortly and you cannot glide to the approved pavement. ....
I was not there,,, so ,,, I will never be sure I could do any better.
Re: Any Autopilot disengage warning in a PC-12?
if the only point of this forum is to entertain experts, and diss anyone learning or sharing, I guess its not for everyone.
It never will hurt to remind folks that qualified crews sometimes forget to "aviate, navigate, communicate and deal with the problem. Darn thing is that in a single, with a mis behaving furnace,its probably more entertaining to help with the trouble shooting than fly, OR,,, one is so scared of landing off airport, that dealing with the engine is more a front of the mind deal. CRM certainly says one guy flies while the other sorts out the problem.
The reason they pay 2 folks to fly that thing, is so that it does not hit the rocks, or poorly placed cell towers, when given an altitude assignment, during a high workload time. On a further note, why the heck would the controller give you 3400 feet (probably the min in your area, as an assigned) when you are doing quite fine at 3500. In fact, climbing assuming you are not on fire, might be a better plan, while the engine is still running , if you think the engine is going to stop shortly and you cannot glide to the approved pavement. ....
I was not there,,, so ,,, I will never be sure I could do any better. IT may well be that they were IMC, and that altitude assignment might well make some sense, if they were rushing back to land. It dos not say in the stuff above.
It never will hurt to remind folks that qualified crews sometimes forget to "aviate, navigate, communicate and deal with the problem. Darn thing is that in a single, with a mis behaving furnace,its probably more entertaining to help with the trouble shooting than fly, OR,,, one is so scared of landing off airport, that dealing with the engine is more a front of the mind deal. CRM certainly says one guy flies while the other sorts out the problem.
The reason they pay 2 folks to fly that thing, is so that it does not hit the rocks, or poorly placed cell towers, when given an altitude assignment, during a high workload time. On a further note, why the heck would the controller give you 3400 feet (probably the min in your area, as an assigned) when you are doing quite fine at 3500. In fact, climbing assuming you are not on fire, might be a better plan, while the engine is still running , if you think the engine is going to stop shortly and you cannot glide to the approved pavement. ....
I was not there,,, so ,,, I will never be sure I could do any better. IT may well be that they were IMC, and that altitude assignment might well make some sense, if they were rushing back to land. It dos not say in the stuff above.
