North Star BT67 put down on lake

[digits_]

Would auto iginition or autofeather have made a difference if they shut off the fuel? Would it have helped during a restart?

[Plausibledeniability]

Would auto iginition or autofeather have made a difference if they shut off the fuel? Would it have helped during a restart?

My PT6 time is limited, but I’m pretty sure as soon as you pull the condition levers, an engine restart procedure is required, regardless of auto ignition being selected on or off.

[valleyboy]

First using continuous ignition for take off is not sop and there is no auto ignition system as for auto feather how does that help for a dbl engine failure, the system is not designed to figure that one out.

The fuel was cut off just imagine the dramatic engine response if fuel was introduced with ignition on, could have been right back into dbl engine failure, nothing automatic, everything is done manually.

[flyinhigh]

Time of the accident was 0 dark 30...I'm thinking that fatigue had a bit to do with this...

AGREED

[North Shore]

First using continuous ignition for take off is not sop and there is no auto ignition system as for auto feather how does that help for a dbl engine failure, the system is not designed to figure that one out.

The fuel was cut off just imagine the dramatic engine response if fuel was introduced with ignition on, could have been right back into dbl engine failure, nothing automatic, everything is done manually.

Funny turbine SOP that doesn't have ignition on for takeoff? Every turbine I've ever flown (PT6, PW123, PW535) did...
Agreed, AutoFx wouldn't have helped, but it does point towards a rushed/missed checklist. Miss one thing, and you have to start asking what else was missed?

Fuel cutoff...nothing to be lost by re-introducing the fuel..perhaps they restart, perhaps not...

[Zaibatsu]

I’ve always had continuous ignition on for takeoff on the types I’ve flown and it’s for things like this. So that if the engine flames out at a low altitude it can relight. Some types have auto ignition that’s on any time the aircraft is airborne. The FCU will schedule fuel based on N1 and P3 air but even if it’s sslow and low and both the primaries and secondaries throw a ton of fuel in better too much than too little. Better a hot section or even an overhaul rather than overload failed or thermally shocked junk with a very damaged aircraft.

[goingnowherefast]

Time of the accident was 0 dark 30...I'm thinking that fatigue had a bit to do with this...

AGREED

Yeah, but nobody cares about fatigue. Remember how hard industry lobbied that pilots aren't tired? TC even has the 2-stage implementation plan, because 703 and 704 pilots and their passengers are less important. God help the medevac pilots, they must be like batteries. Store them on the shelf at 100%, then (ab)use as needed.

[pelmet]

I’ve always had continuous ignition on for takeoff on the types I’ve flown and it’s for things like this. So that if the engine flames out at a low altitude it can relight. Some types have auto ignition that’s on any time the aircraft is airborne.

Engines other than the PT-6 are irrelevant.

Going from memory(so please correct if wrong).......the Twin Otter had a selection called MAN(for manual) which turned the ignition on. I only ever saw it used once and that was in turbulence. The Beech products I flew had an Auto selection that was always used which only came on if the torque decreased significantly to almost idle(400 foot-lbs if I remember correctly).

What does that mean....ignition was never on during takeoff for any of the aircraft I flew with PT-6 engines. So we shouldn't assume that everybody and every turbine uses ignition on for takeoff.

[Zaibatsu]

Time of the accident was 0 dark 30...I'm thinking that fatigue had a bit to do with this...

AGREED

Yeah, but nobody cares about fatigue. Remember how hard industry lobbied that pilots aren't tired? TC even has the 2-stage implementation plan, because 703 and 704 pilots and their passengers are less important. God help the medevac pilots, they must be like batteries. Store them on the shelf at 100%, then (ab)use as needed.

I can’t wait for the conservatives to come back to power.

Regular 17 hour duty days (24 for saving a life), 1 in 30, a bullshyat reset and take it or leave it so TFWs don’t take your jobs. All for the greater good of their donors.

[goingnowherefast]

Haha TFW would be better going back to their own countries where they have better flight and duty regs! Canada is bottom 3 in the world. Maybe I'll go with them.

[valleyboy]

it's been a long while but I can't remember using manual ignition on the 2 otter for take off, nor the sanders nor the hawker or the cv64 as for the King Air 200 slips my mind as well but likely in auto.

BTW these guys had only been on duty for about 6 hours, it's up to the crew to ensure the rest, scheduling had no part in it.

[propfeather]

it's been a long while but I can't remember using manual ignition on the 2 otter for take off, nor the sanders nor the hawker or the cv64 as for the King Air 200 slips my mind as well but likely in auto.

BTW these guys had only been on duty for about 6 hours, it's up to the crew to ensure the rest, scheduling had no part in it.

Manual continuous is only used in the twotter for heavy precip/icing. In the king air 200 the switches are armed from takeoff to landing but the continuous ignition is only on if the tq drops below ~400ft/lbs.

[pelmet]

It seems to me that the lack of use of ignition for takeoff is irrelevant as the report says they were too low to restart the engines anyways. Lack of autofeather arming seems irrelevant for this accident as well(I do remember the Twin Otter guys not arming the autofeather when I first started as there had been uncommanded autofeathers which can be dangerous).

As for fatigue, it can always be a problem but it sounds like the theory is that the F/O accidentally shut off the condition levers while operating the landing gear. It would have been interesting if the TSB had published what the pilots said they thought happened. Many NTSB final reports quote relevant statements by the pilots in the report and/or provide further information of what they said in what is known as a docket which is accessible by the public. I suggest the TSB create a similar docket for Canadian reports.

[JL]

And how do you think the quality of the interviews will be if the interviewee knew that their statements or portions of their statements would be made public.

[digits_]

It seems to me that the lack of use of ignition for takeoff is irrelevant as the report says they were too low to restart the engines anyways. Lack of autofeather arming seems irrelevant for this accident as well(I do remember the Twin Otter guys not arming the autofeather when I first started as there had been uncommanded autofeathers which can be dangerous).

As for fatigue, it can always be a problem but it sounds like the theory is that the F/O accidentally shut off the condition levers while operating the landing gear. It would have been interesting if the TSB had published what the pilots said they thought happened. Many NTSB final reports quote relevant statements by the pilots in the report and/or provide further information of what they said in what is known as a docket which is accessible by the public. I suggest the TSB create a similar docket for Canadian reports.

According to the report it was the captain that was raising the gear and shut off the fuel.

[pelmet]

And how do you think the quality of the interviews will be if the interviewee knew that their statements or portions of their statements would be made public.

Why don't you contact the NTSB for such information based on first hand experience.

However, seeing as that may not be a realistic thing to do, here is an example for you of the AC incident in SFO a few years back with details of the interviews with the captain and F/O. Of course it is quite extensive but it shows how it can be done effectively.

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/61000-61499 ... 614632.pdf

Something for our TSB to consider.

[pelmet]

It seems to me that the lack of use of ignition for takeoff is irrelevant as the report says they were too low to restart the engines anyways. Lack of autofeather arming seems irrelevant for this accident as well(I do remember the Twin Otter guys not arming the autofeather when I first started as there had been uncommanded autofeathers which can be dangerous).

As for fatigue, it can always be a problem but it sounds like the theory is that the F/O accidentally shut off the condition levers while operating the landing gear. It would have been interesting if the TSB had published what the pilots said they thought happened. Many NTSB final reports quote relevant statements by the pilots in the report and/or provide further information of what they said in what is known as a docket which is accessible by the public. I suggest the TSB create a similar docket for Canadian reports.

According to the report it was the captain that was raising the gear and shut off the fuel.

Thanks for the correction.

[shimmydampner]

BTW these guys had only been on duty for about 6 hours, it's up to the crew to ensure the rest, scheduling had no part in it.

Unless you have first hand knowledge of the schedules in question that's a pretty bold statement, considering your average northern operator's proclivity for fucking with crews' schedules, including the infamous day shift to night shift swap (or vice versa).

[digits_]

BTW these guys had only been on duty for about 6 hours, it's up to the crew to ensure the rest, scheduling had no part in it.

This *might* be an point if they knew when their reserve or duty would start and end. At this kind of operator, I doubt this was the case.

[JL]

And how do you think the quality of the interviews will be if the interviewee knew that their statements or portions of their statements would be made public.

Why don't you contact the NTSB for such information based on first hand experience.

However, seeing as that may not be a realistic thing to do, here is an example for you of the AC incident in SFO a few years back with details of the interviews with the captain and F/O. Of course it is quite extensive but it shows how it can be done effectively.

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/61000-61499 ... 614632.pdf

Something for our TSB to consider.

I am glad you provided an example. If you look closely it is not even the pilot's exact statement or his own words, it is a summary or paraphrase of his words. Probably the least factual thing you could do. It is not what the pilot said...it what the NTSB investigator thought the pilot said. I would hope the NTSB has a process to ensure that the summaries are faithful to the original.

Getting back to the original thought about how humans in general may provide information; especially one in a culture where litigation is prevelent. I personally would be more forthright with information knowing that the statement was protected and that no form of it would become part of the public domain.