Engine Failure Alternate Minima (IFR)

[Guilden]

Hey guys was just wondering if someone could refresh me on the rules in such that you lose an engine on climbout after departure and the WX is below minimums to return for a safe landing. Now I know its not good airmanship to depart if the WX is at or near minimums in the first place, but in spite of. Thanks..

[SAR_YQQ]

Now I know its not good airmanship to depart if the WX is at or near minimums in the first place,

How's that?

I can only assume you are referring to take-off alternate weather requirements?

Google is your friend.

[Flying Low]

In our manual (OPS SPEC 6) it says I can takeoff from a runway using CAP take off minima that are below the landing minima for that runway provided I have an alternate specified in the flight plan and that the alternate is within the distance that can be flown in 60 minutes at normal cruising speed.

[Vortex_driver]

703 ops: 60min 2 engine speed

704 ops: - 9 pax or less on board(occupied seat): 60 mins 2 engine speed
- 10 pax or more on board : 60 min 1 engine speed

705 ops: 60 min 1 engine speed


PS : of course if your a pilatus you don't have to worrie about that... it's NOT gonna fail !!!

[AuxBatOn]

PS : of course if your a pilatus you don't have to worrie about that... it's NOT gonna fail !!!

Of course, the pilot would not take off in weather that wouldn't enable him to come back to the departure aerodrome.

[Vortex_driver]

Of course, the pilot would not take off in weather that wouldn't enable him to come back to the departure aerodrome.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Rockie]

PS : of course if your a pilatus you don't have to worrie about that... it's NOT gonna fail !!!

Of course, the pilot would not take off in weather that wouldn't enable him to come back to the departure aerodrome.

It's done all the time in airline operations. 600 RVR is typically the lowest.

[Cat Driver]

There have been PC12 pilots here claim the PC12 will climb fast enough to allow you to circle back to the runway if the engine fails.

Do any companies have this in their Ops Specs to allow for reduced visibility take offs?

[AuxBatOn]

There have been PC12 pilots here claim the PC12 will climb fast enough to allow you to circle back to the runway if the engine fails.

Do any companies have this in their Ops Specs to allow for reduced visibility take offs?

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas. I would think you would have a warning of some sort, in case the gearbox is eating itself (CHIP light). In that case, a sensible use of the engine can keep you in the air. The provision to have the weather to shoot an approach back at the airport is, in my opinion, for that kind of situation. I do not believe someone would be able to glide a PC-12 back to the airport, shortly after take off with a ceased engine, unless of course, the climb rate is greater than the sink rate with a ceased engine/prop and the pilot is able to get his shit together in time to figure out how to break out in a position to land. This is a lot of stars alligned together to make it happen.

[Cat Driver]

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas.

I have had two PT6's fail on me due to a fuel controller failure, the power loss was like turning off a light bulb.

[Banjo]

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas.

How about if the high pressure fuel pump calves in something like a 1900?

[AuxBatOn]

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas.

I have had two PT6's fail on me due to a fuel controller failure, the power loss was like turning off a light bulb.

Was it when the first PT-6 Prototype flew on a Beech 18 on 30 May 61??

Kidding appart, as I said, I have never personally heard of Turboprops suffering a sudden failure, although I am sure it happened. However, I think we can agree that a Turboprop is more reliable, everything taken into consideration (environmental factors included) than a piston even maybe a jet engine... The odds of the thing failing right after take off are slim, but not impossible, IMO.

[Tiny Tyke]

During PC 12 Capt Sim the 180 degree turn back due to engine failure are a major focus of the training. This procedure can be accomplished with as little as 700' AGL.

[AuxBatOn]

During PC 12 Capt Sim the 180 degree turn back due to engine failure are a major focus of the training. This procedure can be accomplished with as little as 700' AGL.

Was it with a ceased engine and IMC 1/2 SM vis, 200 ft ceiling and wind 25 kts down the other direction?

In good conditions, no one will argue that it's not likely to make it happen.

[Brown Bear]

During PC 12 Capt Sim the 180 degree turn back due to engine failure are a major focus of the training. This procedure can be accomplished with as little as 700' AGL.

Was it with a ceased engine and IMC 1/2 SM vis, 200 ft ceiling and wind 25 kts down the other direction?

In good conditions, no one will argue that it's not likely to make it happen.

As long as the weather is above limits at the Burger King on Arthur Street, all should work out. At 200 and 1/2 a PC12 will make sleek looking coffin!

[it'sme]

never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other

Had a PT6 on two different occasions go from running perfectly normally to being dead weight in under 8 seconds. Even all the historic trend data on one of them didn't show anthing untoward. The other, who knows, it was a rental from P&W and we were advised that it had been on an airframe in Africa for the previous installation and P&W refused to give us a report on that one.

But has been argued to death on here...........everybody knows it would never happen on a PC12.........nooooo

That said
I think we can agree that a Turboprop is more reliable, everything taken into consideration

Agreed

[BTD]

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas. I would think you would have a warning of some sort, in case the gearbox is eating itself (CHIP light). In that case, a sensible use of the engine can keep you in the air.

It has also happened to me with a Garret. One second running, the next not. Flame out, with the NTS system unknowingly not functioning. The NTS partially feathers the prop and attempts are relite by turning on the igniters. Happened on approach, and we landed SE.

[ScudRunner]

During PC 12 Capt Sim the 180 degree turn back due to engine failure are a major focus of the training. This procedure can be accomplished with as little as 700' AGL.

Was it with a ceased engine and IMC 1/2 SM vis, 200 ft ceiling and wind 25 kts down the other direction?

In good conditions, no one will argue that it's not likely to make it happen.

Yes

[station60]

There have been PC12 pilots here claim the PC12 will climb fast enough to allow you to circle back to the runway if the engine fails.

Do any companies have this in their Ops Specs to allow for reduced visibility take offs?

Maybe I'm totally out of it, but I personally have never heard of any Turbo Prop just fail and be useless from a second to an other, other than running out of gas. I would think you would have a warning of some sort, in case the gearbox is eating itself (CHIP light). In that case, a sensible use of the engine can keep you in the air. The provision to have the weather to shoot an approach back at the airport is, in my opinion, for that kind of situation. I do not believe someone would be able to glide a PC-12 back to the airport, shortly after take off with a ceased engine, unless of course, the climb rate is greater than the sink rate with a ceased engine/prop and the pilot is able to get his shit together in time to figure out how to break out in a position to land. This is a lot of stars alligned together to make it happen.

I think you're totally out of it buddy. I used to think the same as you until I had a PW-121 catch fire on me in June. From our perspective it was totally useless and had to be shutdown or we ran the risk of exploding the 3000 lbs of fuel that was sitting ontop of it in the tank... trust me , these things happen! It's very ignorant of you to think otherwise.

My 2 cents.

[ettw]

If human hands built it, it will fail, sooner or later.

ETTW

[robshelle]

Regarding PC12 and returning after engine failure. Years ago I was working tower in YZF when the RCMP PC12 departed southbound IFR (wx was good however). A few minutes after takeoff he reported emergency, engine failure. Was able to do the 180 and land safely (actually almost overran the end of the runway northbound).

Robbie Benusic
CYEG Tower

[algore]

During PC 12 Capt Sim the 180 degree turn back due to engine failure are a major focus of the training. This procedure can be accomplished with as little as 700' AGL.

Was it with a ceased engine and IMC 1/2 SM vis, 200 ft ceiling and wind 25 kts down the other direction?

In good conditions, no one will argue that it's not likely to make it happen.

As a matter of fact that exact scenario is covered in training. I made it back to the field when the engine was cut at 500'. (Weather at 200&1/2 with a bitchin’ tailwind after the 180) In that scenario they teach to tear-drop it back onto the backcourse. Most times the hardest part of the exercise is not overshooting the far end of the runway on touchdown (depending on runway length obviously)

[CAL]

I would like to try that in the sim...
PC12 is a great looking machine I wonder when they will just make one with an engine on each wing? Not being a dick but seriously I wonder if Pilatus have considered it?

[PT6-114A]

they have its called a KA350

[Flybaby]

A BE20 is a lot better comparison, the PC 12 is not even in the same class as the 350.