PC-12 Engine Shut Down

[Tim]

dont the pt6's have a failure rate of something like less than 1 per every million hours flown?

[Cat Driver]

dont the pt6's have a failure rate of something like less than 1 per every million hours flown?

They might but I have had two quit on me so I must be very unlucky.

[Bushav8er]

I'm curious Cat...how many failures with the R-1830 on the Cats? No comparison intended, just curious.

[baby_fly]

What a great irony though, when single engine aircraft are required to remain within gliding distance to shore and a twin jet flying over land has to make an emergency landing in the water.

Single engine aircraft are not required to remain within gliding distance of shore. CAR 602.62 (1) states "No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board." In addition, if operating single engine more than 100 nm from shore, CAR 602.63(1) states that life rafts must be carried.

[Cat Driver]

I'm curious Cat...how many failures with the R-1830 on the Cats? No comparison intended, just curious.

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

The first was in Gander on an engine we had just changed four cylinders on because it had been overboosted and logged as such.

The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

I have shut down a few P&W 1830's for various reasons and finished the flights on the other one.

Turbines are far more reliable than piston pounders....my position is any engine can fail and I like having another one to get me to a safe landing surface.....it's just a personal quirk I have.

[ScudRunner]

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

Please tell me this is one of your I was young and dumb and learned from it stories?

Most times when I think somethings going to go bang in a bad way I usually don't take it flying, it's just a personal quirk I have.

[mrsbitchy]

I believe it is 1 per 100,000 hours to get SEIFR approval. The C208 is close to losing their certification, if I'm not mistaken. The PC12 has had 3 in Canada that I know of, but I do not know total hours flown.

[Cat Driver]

Please tell me this is one of your I was young and dumb and learned from it stories?

No I was not young and dumb I was the chief pilot for the company and also involved in the mechanical work done on said engine. The cylinders were changed because they were below what we felt to be to the standard we wanted. We found the four weak cylinders during the trouble shooting process we followed using the P&W engine repair manual. The original problem that started the process was because after changing the engine that failed I had a situation where the engine started to run rough on the descent into Cartwright when I left cruise altitude, then when I started the descent back at Gander the same problem occurred. The maintenance department first decided to change the AMC and while waiting for the unit to come from Montreal we went through the cause checks as outlined in the P&W manual. It was during this process we found the weak cylinders and changed them.

The engine failed on the test flight at the airport.

I fail to see how this event was anything out of the normal procedures used when trouble shooting engine problems, therefore it was not a when I was young and dumb event.

Most times when I think somethings going to go bang in a bad way I usually don't take it flying, it's just a personal quirk I have

You would not test fly aircraft that maintenance had released for a test flight after being worked on?

If you have any credible reasons to question my decision making when flying or agreeing to flying aircraft . feel free to do so, but I would appreciate it if you get the facts straight before you do it on a public forum.

Or do you feel I should not answer questions regarding things that happened during my career?

[teacher]

Simply put if we were to ban SEIFR in factory built aircraft in commercial service due to the risk we would have to ban float flying. There is NO comparison when it comes to risk and loss of life. There is a huge difference in the type of operation but risk and safety are the same regardless.

Why this debate is going on is beyond me. It's the stupidest debate that's been raging for years and the proof is in the stats. Flying in it's self has all sorts of risks, calculated risks. If you don't wanna fly single engine turbine IFR than don't. Maybe we should ban departures during migration season as well, look at what happened in NY.

[ScudRunner]

Oh Dear I made an "Avcanada Faux Pas" I questioned Cat.

Lets go over the timeline again here for folks watching at home

You said:

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

The first was in Gander on an engine we had just changed four cylinders on because it had been overboosted and logged as such.

The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

So I say :

Please tell me this is one of your I was young and dumb and learned from it stories?

Most times when I think somethings going to go bang in a bad way I usually don't take it flying, it's just a personal quirk I have

So as I read your tale, I'm questioning the fact you would fly something that you knew was going to go Bang. thus the young and dumb remark. Your story mentioned nothing about a Maintenance Flight or Test Flight

Ok you with me so far folks?

You would not test fly aircraft that maintenance had released for a test flight after being worked on?

Refer to above comment about not mentioning a test flight.

If you have any credible reasons to question my decision making when flying or agreeing to flying aircraft . feel free to do so, but I would appreciate it if you get the facts straight before you do it on a public forum.

Thats what I was doing trying to get the facts of the story now we all have the fact that you where on a test flight ahhhhhhhhhhh its clear now I get why you where flying a plane you knew was going to go bang any second. Is that a credible enough reason to question it?

Or do you feel I should not answer questions regarding things that happened during my career?

where the fack did that come from?

coles notes

Cat:
I knew the engine was going to go bang!
..:
You flew a plane that you knew was going to go bang?
Cat:
its was a test flight don't question me
..:
Ok then it was a test flight I get it.
Cat:
Meow
..:
I need to get back to the thread about the 18 year olds

[lyncher]

Why this debate is going on is beyond me. It's the stupidest debate that's been raging for years and the proof is in the stats. Flying in it's self has all sorts of risks, calculated risks. If you don't wanna fly single engine turbine IFR than don't. Maybe we should ban departures during migration season as well, look at what happened in NY.

Amen to that! I flew PC12s up north and loved it. I wouldnt trade my P&W PWC308C rockets in for it, but I still loved the airplane.

[jetflightinstructor]

Cat wrote:

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

No I was not young and dumb I was the chief pilot for the company and also involved in the mechanical work done on said engine.

WOW!!! Now Cat you scare me!!!
It doesn' t look like your and DOC's ususal advices concerning safety...

Really, two catastrophic failures? Fly a PC12 Cat, much safer...

[jetflightinstructor]

Well, it was too much.

[Bushav8er]

Gee Cat...sorry I asked. I was just wondering, after all the Cat hours you logged, how it's engines where. I should have known this ego packed forum would pounce if something in an answer appeared 'wrong'.

[theabcman]

DONT LET CATDRIVER GET INTO A PC12!!!!!

he will have an engine failure for sure!!..... who gets into a plane knowing that they will have an engine fail on them in flight?

Catdriver does!!!

I pay more attention to . comments these days than Cat Drivers dribble!!!
Its a shame that Cat is the number one poster...maybe he should go on holiday and let his wife use the computer!!

[jetflightinstructor]

I did many test flight in my previous company. Never did a test flight on an airplane I knew the engine will fail.
Sorry Cat but for once you will have to admit you did something wrong and unsafe.
You keep telling the other posters they are wrong, this time it is you. Not big deal. Everybody makes mistake in their career, even the stubborn individuals.

And don' t use: I survived then I was right! Because many dumb persons survived on earth.

One last thing, if it was a new poster making the same comment as yours, you will be the first one to jump on him telling him he is not safe.

[Cat Driver]

Wow, I answer a question for someone here and low and behold the anonymous posters crawl out of the woodwork and parse every word I write in an attempt to make it look like I was real dangerous and a high risk taker during my career.

Gee Cat...sorry I asked. I was just wondering, after all the Cat hours you logged, how it's engines where. I should have known this ego packed forum would pounce if something in an answer appeared 'wrong'.

Not to worry Bushav8er I answered your question in the best manner I could, however every once in a while one chooses words that can be used by others to tear apart the message as happened in this case.

Here is what I said:

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

I did not say I deliberately flew an airplane " Knowing " the engine " would " fail on that flight.

I said I kind of expected they might due to my concern that maintenance had not found the underlying cause for the engines showing signs of internal problems.

So here is what I will do from now on, when you have a question about flying airplanes and trouble shooting their mechanical problems just ask the experts on here who feel I am not a good role model, just scroll back and choose which anonymous poster you think is your best source of advice.

And before any of you hero's start jumping up and down accusing me of whining and crying because I got caught using the wrong words in a post fill your boots.

Just remember most of you have a very long road ahead of you until you have flown as long as I have and survived without ever smashing one up...or getting violated by the regulators.

Actually I am happy this happened because I was getting tired of this forum anyhow so to you guys who are experts hiding behind made up names I want to thank you for giving me the perfect reason to turn all this advice giving over to you.

[HighBypass]

I actually cant belive what I'm reading. (and that I have time to bother replying!!) the discussion regarding the radial should have stopped with .'s comment and we could have moved on to more enlightening things. For all those who are questioning the almighty Catdriver I have a question:

How would you test a freshly worked on engine that maintenace has be slaving over for a few days in an effort to get back into service??

Let me paint a picture of the Events, and possibly Cat can correct me on any incorrect assumptions or misinterpretations i may have made.

The AME's followed the P&W manual and have added several new parts. Now they hung it on the aircraft, poured a bucket of oil in and its ready to rock. Cat is the CP, and is involved with the process, maybe he helped tighen some nuts on it too? (we wont go there). Maybe he lockwired a penny on the bottom forr good luck? Anyhow to the best of everyones experience (from the AME's point of view who will have to sign the logbook saying the engine is now airworthy), everything is tickety-boo, and it is good to go. They followed the manual. what more could they do? (however Cat doesn't like this particular engine, and has a bad feeling about it, but try telling that to an AME! After they've just spent days on it!)

Cat is obligated to do a ground test run, (since he's the CP and wass helping them with the whole thing anyways).

Ground tests are successful.

Now the rings on the new cyliders added need to get seated properly before they get the max compression they were designed to do, this will take a few hrs of normal operation.

Lets go flying! It's just the next step in the process. Sure Cat may still be skeptical about the engine, but maybe he took an AME along to monitor the gauges, another set of eyes to watch things. After all they had worked on it for a few days (maybe a week) and are very interested on how it's going to fare.

They go for test flight, and engine fails. They are over airport at safe altitude and land without further incident.

Am I missing something? Seems like this kind of thing happens all the time to me. Sooner or later your gong to have to take it flying wont you? Or did the engineers put all the time, company spend all the $$ on new parts just for the thing to be a really heavy ornament on the wing?

Thats how I see it.

[Rubberbiscuit]

I agree with Teacher.

If we are to prohibit SEIFR, especially A/C using an engine as reliable as the PT6, then IFR in twins that won't fly on one engine close to full gross weight or on a hot day must be banned from commercial air service use as well.

[Cat Driver]

They go for test flight, and engine fails. They are over airport at safe altitude and land without further incident.

Exactly.

Am I missing something? Seems like this kind of thing happens all the time to me. Sooner or later your gong to have to take it flying wont you? Or did the engineers put all the time, company spend all the $$ on new parts just for the thing to be a really heavy ornament on the wing?

Thats how I see it.

You have explained it very well, both events took place during the normal legal trouble shooting procedures that all holders of operating certificates are required to follow.

Cat is the CP, and is involved with the process, maybe he helped tighen some nuts on it too? (we wont go there). Maybe he lockwired a penny on the bottom forr good luck?

There is no reason you can't go there. Many pilots work in both the flying and maintenance end of the operations, I personally prefer the mechanical part of the flying business....thus my feelings that the problems had not yet been found in those two instances......however unless you do a run up and test flight you no longer have an airplane you have a lawn ornament.

Thanks for the support highbypass, I am sure you can understand why I feel I have reached the point that I will leave all the advice giving to the experts here.

[Widow]

Simply put if we were to ban SEIFR in factory built aircraft in commercial service due to the risk we would have to ban float flying. There is NO comparison when it comes to risk and loss of life. There is a huge difference in the type of operation but risk and safety are the same regardless.

I don't think I agree with this ... of course, it all depends on training and experience but ... when you have an engine failure SEIFR, finding a good place to glide down is likely to be near impossible and post-impact fire is a huge added threat to life and limb. Not so with floatplanes.

[ScudRunner]

Cat, The only reason this turned into this hair ball about flying around in a plane you knew was going to go bang, was that it was not clear in your original story that you where on a test flight. It could have been a simple answer after I threw the "WTF Over" seeking clarification.

What I take exception to is how you jumped on me with your "how dare you question me response" which was completely uncalled for and way out of left field.

As everyone can see on this public forum others misinterpreted what you where saying as well, Trust me we all value experience and everyone's input into this forum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the PC-12

Best, toughest , safest plane I ever flew!

[Cat Driver]

No problem .., this vehicle of communication on a keyboard is not a natural way to express ones thoughts and emotions flare because we all write and read things different.

I think I'll just try and post less because it is like driving your car between a gang gun fight, sooner or later you get shot.

[anonymity]

Trying to tell AME's what you think is wrong with an engine, sometimes it's like you're trying to tell a brain surgeon where to cut. they won't listen. I snagged an engine one time and even suggested what I thought it might be. Not being an AME, my opinion was meaningless to them, the funny thing was after 3 days of trouble shooting to no avail they tried what I suggested and voila problem solved. I didn't have to say anything, they all ate crow. Sometimes experience can help trouble shoot a problem, but the us verses them aspect gets in the way.
Therefore CAT had no choice but to fly the thing and hope he was right, and fortunately it failed on the test flight and not the 1st flight after the testflight with a gross load.

[jetflightinstructor]

Alright Cat, what you did was safe you were right. You took the good decision. And that is why you feel intilted today to say the PC12 is unsafe.
Everything makes sense. Everything is fine.
Whatever you want.

Seriously, if we are against the PC12 to fly in IMC, we will have to be against almost all the twin piston flying IMC and regularly crashing.
What is the safest as a passenger? Taking C185 or a PC12?
And don' t tell me they don' t have the same purpose. Because we are speaking about safety, human life here.

This focus against the PC12, as soon as there is an incident is ridiculous, while we don't comment that much on daily incidents occuring on other kind of airplanes.