NT Air King Air Accident - Pilot Discussion Thread

[Siddley Hawker]

Actually, if you flew an F-27 with those old Darts, they seemed to be the ones with the most oil leaking from them. I'm surprised you ever got going anywhere.

I probably got 14,000 hours on Darts, only one shutdown where it was angry. The Dart could digest anything except a tungsten shroud nut. That made 'em belch pretty good.

[ahramin]

I have several thousand hours on be100 including serial number 003. I never came across what you describe on 100/90 cowls. All had a small door to both check and fill the oil. Yes a ladder or step up was required to allow you to see what you were doing.

Guess my memory is playing tricks on me. Didn't fly the 100 much. If serial 003 had the door, they must all have had them. Unless it was an A100? The 90 got the oil door in the late 70s, I believe about serial number 800.

[MUSKEG]

Sorry. Flew an old Southern Frontier 90 in the early 90s I think pre 300 serial number and lots of time on 376. Both had the doors. But I agree if you had to take the cowls off they were a pain in the ass to get back on.

[ahramin]

I just remembered that the top half (the part that opened) on the older 90 cowls are interchangeable with at least some 100s so something is amiss here. I've never heard of an STC to add the oil door so I doubt they were changed after the fact. On these 100s and 90s with the oil door how did the openable panels on the cowl work Muskeg? The only ones I've seen were either the whole top half was one piece that opened, or it had a small oil door on top and each side opened separately. Can anyone who isn't going from memory chime in? Anyone from NT remember what the cowls were like on B36 (C-GXRX)?

[pelmet]

Actually, if you flew an F-27 with those old Darts, they seemed to be the ones with the most oil leaking from them. I'm surprised you ever got going anywhere.

I probably got 14,000 hours on Darts, only one shutdown where it was angry. The Dart could digest anything except a tungsten shroud nut. That made 'em belch pretty good.

Same here...one shutdown. Autofeathered followed by an overheat light. Was totally seized and one could have done chin-ups on the propeller blade. A bit of solidified beads of metal on the exhaust pipe. The rpm indicator really spins down quickly when this happens.14 revolutions in about 2 seconds. I always did like that guage.

As for the King Air cowls...wouldn't mind getting the proper info on the access for the oil caps. Sounds like some have them and some don't.

Doc has lots of King Air time....how is it in your world and do you check the oil level or cap security on the walkaround Doc? And how is the cowl designed on the machines you have flown.

[nine sixteenths]

I know the picture below is a 99, I have worked on both these and PT6 powered 100s, the aft upper cowls are the same. The picture isn't great, but it shows the aft upper cowl partly open. No oil door on the top of any I have been around. The 200-300-1900 all have the oil door on the top. I presently do not have access to a 100 to take a picture of the cowls myself, this was the best I could find on google.

99.jpg (181.15 KiB) Viewed 3894 times

In addition, the following TSB report explains the upper aft cowl on a 100, from another incident involving an A100 cowls/oil checking procedures

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5w0180.asp

The relevant quote:

"The upper aft cowling on the King Air 100 is a hoop-shaped panel that is approximately 30 inches long. It is secured by two hinges on the left side and two latches on the right side. The cowling hinges upward and outward from the inboard side of the left nacelle to expose the plenum and accessory sections of the Pratt and Whitney PT6 turboprop engine. "

The incident above the crew was checking the oil and the cowl didn't stay attached after.

edited for clarity

[spaner]

Yes, it is very very easy to close both latches and have the crow's feet below, and not on, the cross pins of the cowl. The cowl will be closed, the latches will be closed, but nothing is being held down. It's just sitting there. The captain does a "cowl push", x2, on the "hail marry".
While engaging the latches, you must see the crows feet engage the cross pin on the cowl before closing the latch...x2

The oil, checked every shift. With a ladder, and a rag, and a can of turbo, and a funnel, and a tapping spout... (sigh)
The final check, for the oil cap, is a one-fist-pound. If it moves, then you didn't do it right, but, well it's OK now..

Never seen an oil door on any 100 or A100.
Anything bigger than a Canadian Loonie oil spot, on the ground, is a no-go..duh..

Gott'a watch those copilots man..

[ahramin]

Thanks guys. Glad to see my memory isn't that far gone.

[MUSKEG]

I hate to admit it but you are right. I guess that's what 8 years will do to your brain. Took awhile but it eventually made its way to the front of my brain.

[pelmet]

I am a little taken a back that there may be pilots out there that don't know how to check oil and make sure the cap is secure and then the cowling. Its not a big scary monster folks.... Just an oil cap and a cowling.
Edit: on a pt6 type turbine that is.

And the last few posts allow me to respond to 2.5 mile final by saying...read the last few posts. I never checked the oil and never had a loose oil cap or a loose engine cowl due to checking for a loose oil cap.

Sometimes doing some things increases the risks even though you think you are decreasing the risks. I was told that if the cowls were not put on properly, they could appear to be latched when they were not latched, therefore I let the trained people(maintenance) latch them and I just checked the latches as best I could on the walkarounds and assumed that maintenance had put the oil caps on properly after they ensured the oil level was adequate.

I marvel at the idiousy of several posts here.

[2.5milefinal]

And don't get me wrong pelmet, if that is the SOP at the company(s) you work at, so be it.
I have operated 6 different turbine aircraft at 4 different company's and was not only required to check oil levels and cap (and cowl) security but was also allowed to add oil when needed.
I have found the oil cap lose on 2 different occasions. The first time the maintenance guys where apologetic and thanked me for catching the screw up. The second (different base) I was told I was full of sh1t and to worry about driving the plane not doing the maintenance(?).
I have always thought that pilots should be required to know a lot more about their aircraft and what liquid goes where. But that's a personal opinion of course.
If able, do you check fuel cap security?
...thread drift continues

[spaner]

Yea, but it's a good drift 2.5...

Maybe so, pelmet, maybe so. You gott'a draw the line somewhere. I can't advocate sticking your head into the "hell-hole" to check the rigging; before shift. So, you gott'a set your own bar.

For me, I just can't give ground crews that much faith. I just can't do it. They are safe and sound on the ground after all. I've found so many no-goes on a supposed good-to-go AC, if I told you, you would find another profession. How about an entire FCU witness-wired "backwards". (prevention of more tight). How about an elevator trim tab rigged backwards. How about a turbo missing all of the clamps. The shit gets deep; one of those almost "got me". 45degree bank and two feet on the yoke.

I check the oil, cu'z I want to know; that's all.

Stay frosty out there guys...

[pelmet]

And don't get me wrong pelmet, if that is the SOP at the company(s) you work at, so be it.
I have operated 6 different turbine aircraft at 4 different company's and was not only required to check oil levels and cap (and cowl) security but was also allowed to add oil when needed.
I have found the oil cap lose on 2 different occasions. The first time the maintenance guys where apologetic and thanked me for catching the screw up. The second (different base) I was told I was full of sh1t and to worry about driving the plane not doing the maintenance(?).
I have always thought that pilots should be required to know a lot more about their aircraft and what liquid goes where. But that's a personal opinion of course.
If able, do you check fuel cap security?
...thread drift continues

On the turbine stuff, most would require a ladder or more to check oil caps. Take a look at the next AC or WJ or Jazz guy doing a walkaround to see if they check fuel or oil caps for security. Of course not, I haven't seen an AC pilot walking on the wing yet(just on water). They only check to see that panels are closed and secure.

As for fuel caps, on small planes always.

On most turbine stuff where the walkaround was my responsibility, the caps been out of reach. Sometimes you have a refuelling panel door to make sure it is closed plus there will be caps on the wing for the extremely rare event of overwing refueling(even the largest aircraft seem to have them). The refueling panels on the present machine are well out of reach and overwing cap security is impossible to check.

A couple of notes to ramble on about. I have seen on one of the bigger machines I flew(where I could get on the wing), There were flapper valves in each overwing fuelling point in case a cap is left off but am not sure about most of the other aircraft as you just don't get on the wings of those machines. I once went to a military base where the refueller insisted that the pilots take the fuel caps off and put the fuel caps on. This aircraft had pressure refuelling points under the wings. I had never put the fuel cap on before. Sounded pretty simple so I did it. One wouldn't think it was too complicated but guess what....one of the fuel covers disappeared at some point in flight. Fortunately these fuel ports have a very secure spring-closed valve that doesn't let a drop out of the wing. The cap is just for streamlining I suppose. Hey we all make mistakes.

As for the King Air/99, It has been a while but I know that I never physically checked fuel caps for security. But, an oldtimer did tell me once to always look at the fuel caps on top of the nacelle after engine start to see if there is any fuel leaking from on top of the engine from the nacelle tank. So I did. Never saw a leak until one time as a passenger on a positioning flight(after I had moved on to a different aircraft type) where right after going fine on the props, the fuel started pouring from the cap. So I told the pilots and they shut down, secured the cap and then started up again. Same thing happened again so they had to get a new cap. The oldtimers advice paid off.

He also said by the way......to prevent the brakes from freezing up on you if there is blowing snow etc and the brakes are warm(which is a problem for this type and I have experienced it)......when at the end of the runway in position for takeoff, release the brakes then wait for a bit. The warm brakes now will cool down and liquid will freeze, then maybe check your brakes are not frozen or to break the ice and then go(or something along that line). It was along time ago and I didn't fly it for too long. Maybe someone can add to this precaution.

Of course the lucky guys have bleed air heat to the brakes.

[2.5milefinal]

umm yea...get a latter I guess.

I have to wonder just where you did your kingair time. I have been around for a bit and I just have never heard of not checking oil and fuel caps before flight...on small twins and singles that is.
As far as the big guys go I am willing to bet if it was at all possible most pilots (I know anyway) would like to be able to check oil levels and caps before flight. But on large aircraft its just not practical.
Then again I don't like comparing what I do with a small twin turbine and what they do with a large jetliner...Apples and oranges thing.
Its been fun but I think I am done here.

[ahramin]

CAR 625.10

(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.

[GA MX Trainer Dude]

CAR 625.10 is for Unservicable Equipment on aircraft without a MEL.

The above quote is out of context for a Pre-Flight Inspection process undertaken by flight crew members.

It is a very good item for all flight crew members to review - especially the parts about the aircraft acceptance by the flight crew.

For Full Reference

625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List

Information Note:

The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.

(i) CAR 605 requires that all equipment listed in the applicable airworthiness standard, and all equipment required for the particular flight or type of operation, must be functioning correctly prior to flight. The requirement for a particular system or component to be operative can be determined by reference to the type certificate data sheet, operating regulations or the applicable equipment list in the aircraft operating manual.

(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft. In the following paragraphs, private and commercial aircraft are considered separately.

(iii) Defects (e.g. buckling, cracks, extensive corrosion) of the skin or structure of the aircraft or of the pressure hull of a pressurized aircraft beyond the safe limits established by the manufacturer in his maintenance manual or other approved maintenance instructions will render that aircraft unfit for safe operation.

(iv) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter not operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft not operated pursuant to Part VII, the pilot must review the log prior to flight and decide whether any of the defects recorded affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. Reference may be made to the type certificate data sheet, the aircraft operating manual, or any list provided by the aircraft manufacturer respecting equipment that must be operational for the intended flight. The Minister may also approve a minimum equipment list for use by an owner. Any or all of these may indicate that particular items of equipment are mandatory.

(v) In the case of an aircraft operated pursuant to CAR 604, specific instructions must be provided in the operations manual to facilitate this assessment.

(vi) Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME. This is best done by requesting the AME to inspect the defective system or component to determine its effect upon the aircraft's fitness for flight. By following this procedure and obtaining the AME's signature in the log book in the form of a maintenance release, the pilot will be able to demonstrate, if necessary, that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft. Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.

(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.

(viii) Such systems provide a greater degree of confidence that the airworthiness effects of defects have been taken into account, and ensure consistency of application of the standards. They also set limits on the periods for which the repair of a defect may be deferred. For aircraft operated in commercial air service, this system is normally based on the use of Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), thereby providing the pilot with a sound basis on which to make his decision regarding the intended flight.

(ix) The final decision, however, still rests with the pilot. A pilot who accepts an aircraft with defects, the repair of which has been deferred in accordance with an approved system, has a good defence against any possible charge of flying an unairworthy aircraft, whereas a pilot who undertakes a flight with an aircraft that is not in compliance with the approved system to control the deferral of repairs to defects commits an offence.

(x) The complexity of a system used to control the deferral of repairs to defects will vary according to the type of aircraft operated and the size and nature of the operation and may include reference to an approved minimum equipment list and/or configuration deviation list. In all cases the control system must be described in the air operator's maintenance control manual. Once approved, compliance with those procedures is mandatory.


Regards

Mx

[pelmet]

While the concept of checking the security of oil caps makes sense(Not an overall benefit if you then accidentally leave the cowl unlatched), for those actually undoing the oil cap and checking the oil level on a walkaround on a cold engine may want to at least be aware of this from PWC.....

"The PT6A engine has a self-contained oil system with the exception of the oil cooler, air duct and associated plumbing. The oil level should be verified after engine shutdown and while the oil is still hot, using either a dipstick or a sightglass."

[oldtimer]

Unless it was added after I delivered it to the new owners, GXRX did not have a small door to check the oil. One had to open the butterfly top cowl and reach across the engine. I flew GNAA, serial 18, the one that had the cowl come open in-flight and GXVX, serial 24 and none had the small door. GNAA had an older type of secondary cowl latch that had a weak spring which would allow the main latch to pop open. GXVX had a much stronger spring and I assume GXRX had the same because they were operated by the same air carrier until XRX was sold to an operator in YVR. There was one drain I was always checking under the wing and that was the drains for the submerged boost pumps. No fuel was supposed to drip out of there.

it was interesting to read the comments of the RR Dart. I flew a Gulfstream 1 with RR Dart 529-8X engines and they all used a lot more oil that a PT6 or a TPE 331. Only had one in-flight shutdown when we lost gearbox oil pressure which turned out to be a faulty pressure switch. Had an EGT probe break off and go thru all 3 stages of the turbines on take-off but the engine still produced full power. Engine change solved the problem when we got home. One hell of a tough engine as long as the complex Dowty Rotol propeller did it's thing and the Flight Fine Pitch Lock released after landing.

[Siddley Hawker]

Oldtimer there was an F-27 in the hangar next to ours that landed with the HP cocks in Fuel On and cooked both engines on the ground when he came up on the power to taxi off the runway. It was in Reading PA, they were training a new F/O and trying to beat a CB to the airport. No one noticed the HP cocks weren't in Cruise Pitch Lock Out and the props had hung on the locks. My cousin was there waiting for them to arrive, he said he could chin himself on the props, both engines seized solid. Allegheny lost a 227 due to hung props, in Albany or Erie, I forget which. Some oil company lost a G1 in Texas the same way. They were training and forgot the HP cocks in Fuel On on the approach. The props had hung on the Cruise Pitch locks and both engines were on fire before they hit the ground. I seem to recall another G1, CF-MMM was lost in YZ the same way, many years ago.

[oldtimer]

I never had much to do with the F27 but the Gulfstream has a few additions to the prop system. Flight Safety told us the most frequent cause of accidents in the Grief One was propeller problems. The cruise lockout was there to control RPM in case of overspeed and the Flight Fine Pitch Lock was to hold the props at the flight idle gate in flight and if any one failed, EGT would go through the roof. The only solution was to shut the engine(s) down. The G1 had a big honking FFPL lever in between the power levers that floped forward at full power and we had to select it to fine on landing.