The End of SEIFR?

[safetywatch]

CTV News at 6.00 pm tonight and the Globe and Mail tomorrow are carrying stories pointing out what we all knew that the TSB report into the Sonicblue crash explained that the Caravan/PT6 combo has not met the required reliability criteria for 7 of the last 10 years.

Bill Yearwood was interviewed on CTV at 6.00 pm and made it crystal clear that TC has to either change the reliability criteria or ban SEIFR. Hats off to Bill Yearwood for ignoring special interest lobbies and telling the truth. Lets see what TC does in response. Hope Bill has a good severance package in place!!!

[sky's the limit]

Lets see what TC does in response. Hope Bill has a good severance package in place!!!

That in itself is a sad commentary on the bureaucracy in this country.

stl

[Dog]

That's OK he can apply for Linda Keen's job at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[Conquest Driver]

Any ideas of how this might or might not effect the PC-12?

[Doc]

Gee, hard to tell. How many engines does that thing have? One, you say? Might be a good time to get a deposit down on a used King Air?

[boeingboy]

explained that the Caravan/PT6 combo has not met the required reliability criteria for 7 of the last 10 years.

Wow - still spreading lies to fit your little agenda. Get a life.

[1000 HP]

If I got this right, it means that a twin engine airplane flying IFR, that has an engine failure, must shut the remaining engine down or risk a fine?

[Justwannafly]

If I got this right, it means that a twin engine airplane flying IFR, that has an engine failure, must shut the remaining engine down or risk a fine?

lol yep

[bob sacamano]

If I got this right, it means that a twin engine airplane flying IFR, that has an engine failure, must shut the remaining engine down or risk a fine?

Nope, just cancel and continue VFR.

[rd1331]

Once again another moron comming outta the wood works. I have over 3k in that airplane i have never had the engine sputter. How many of you can say that about other airplanes? The airplanes fine, you just have to not be a moron. Would i go out IFR when the weather was at minimums, hell no. I always made sure that I had at least 1k off clear blue below the clouds, that way if anything did happen i have some time to figure something out. Just like the ice thing, they airplane says don't fly in moderate ice, but people do and they pay for it.

For anyone flying it, just be smart. Its not an airplane to push the limits on, but if you fly it by its limits its fine, unfortunately alot don't and they pay for it. Overweight, flying into moderate/severe icing, t/o with contamination on wings, other airplanes you may get away, the van you won't so don't do it. That is why they have those limitations on the airplane, its not that someone lost a hand at blackjack and thats how those limitations came out.

[Dog]

Once again another moron comming outta the wood works.

I'd think that as someone who flies caravans you would be upset that the shutdowns per flight hours had been misrepresented. 3000 hrs and not a sputter... only 22000 more to go in your career: good luck.

I've met Bill Yearwood on several occasions; rest assured he is no moron.

[rd1331]

Hey i never said 3k was what there limits where. But in a lot less time on a lot of other a/c since i have had to shutdown engines, all 705 aircraft. Metro's, what they shut one down ever week don't they, at least at the green machine, 3 in one day, on the same airplane. Are there going to be failures, of course, anything man made will fail at some point.

[Dog]

OK, then I am missing your point. The report states that for SEIFR engines need to meet a certain level of reliability. The -114 on the Van only meets that if you count failures directly related to Pratt components, when you count all shutdowns (what we really care about) it has crossed the line in the sand in seven of the last ten years. The report is stating fact: TC created a reliability threshold for SEIFR and, in so far as total shutdowns per flight hour, the Caravan fails more often than not.

The rules regarding twins are different depending on what you're doing (ETOPS for example). Therefore they don't apply. I would be interested to know if the company had filed all the paperwork required after the situation you mentioned (SDR, recurring defect etc.).

[rd1331]

If they have to shutdown because of pilot stupidity, why they heck should that be part of the reliability number. That has nothing to do with the engine, that has to do with the guy upfront missing something. So everytime someone forgets to pull the gear pins on an a/c (example), and the gear won't come up and they have to turn around, we should put that as a ding against the reliability of the gear and the a/c. Doesn't make sense to me. Or everytime a certain company runs outta fuel, we should put that as a ding against the reliability of the fuel tanks, pumps, lines, and of course the engines because its there fault the pilot ran the airplane outta fuel. Just doesn't make sense.

[Dog]

Because TC's job is to protect the flying public. It doesn't mater the reason for the shutdown if you crash. If the traveling public are killed then the rules need to be changed. Maybe they need two pilots for example, or a system change.
Fuel is a human factors issue. But prop governors, FCUs, Tele-flex cables, the list goes on: if you don't count all the parts of the machine as a whole then the numbers are not realistic.

[V1 Rotate]

Once again another moron comming outta the wood works. I have over 3k in that airplane i have never had the engine sputter. How many of you can say that about other airplanes? The airplanes fine, you just have to not be a moron. Would i go out IFR when the weather was at minimums, hell no. I always made sure that I had at least 1k off clear blue below the clouds, that way if anything did happen i have some time to figure something out. Just like the ice thing, they airplane says don't fly in moderate ice, but people do and they pay for it.

For anyone flying it, just be smart. Its not an airplane to push the limits on, but if you fly it by its limits its fine, unfortunately alot don't and they pay for it. Overweight, flying into moderate/severe icing, t/o with contamination on wings, other airplanes you may get away, the van you won't so don't do it. That is why they have those limitations on the airplane, its not that someone lost a hand at blackjack and thats how those limitations came out.

So there is some intelligent life left in the universe. As a relatively new Caravan driver I agree with all that. In any case, I fly cargo, do they want to band SEIFR for that too?

[Four1oh]

I've always thought that the Van and the PC-12 would make great SEIFR Cargo machines... and that's about it. I could give a shit how many thousands of hours some of you have 'without a sputter'. The bottom line is, you only have one. A turbine engine is far more reliable than a piston, we all know that, but it is still thousands of parts spinning around at an incredible rate, and it's just a matter of time before something happens. Why would you put all your eggs in one basket?

I guess you can argue by pointing out how many 705 single engine airplanes are hauling people around...

[Go Guns]

I always made sure that I had at least 1k off clear blue below the clouds

At both companies for which I operated the Caravan, if I demanded a 1000' ceiling before I would leave IFR, they would probably ask why at that point I wouldn't just go VFR, and why they bothered to send me to Memphis.

I'm with Dog on this arguement.

from the report

These events are not included in the MTBF calculations and, for example, would include fuel pump failure, loss of oil pressure, bird ingestion, propeller failure, operator or maintenance error such as improper fuel load, failure to correctly complete compressor washes, engine overspeeds, engine over-temperatures, or improper engine adjustments.

Fuel pump (depending on which one), loss of oil pressure, propeller failure... All these things are going to lead to the Caravan coming out of the sky, so they need to be included in the calculation of reliability.

[safetywatch]

FROM THE GLOBE AND MAIL

TRANSPORT CANADA

Crash prompts review of engine-safety rules
Pilot and two passengers killed in 2006 attempt to land small plane on logging road in mountainous terrain
ROD MICKLEBURGH

January 19, 2008

VANCOUVER -- Transport Canada says it is reviewing a finding that the deadly crash of a single-engine commercial flight near Port Alberni might have been avoided if more stringent engine safety requirements had been in place.

"We take any recommendation very seriously," spokesman Rod Nelson said yesterday, referring to a call by the Transportation Safety Board this week for changes to the way engine risk is assessed for such flights.

"We are studying their conclusion and we will have a response within the next 90 days."

The TSB recommendation was contained in a report into the crash of a Cessna 208B that lost engine power and went down in mountainous terrain Jan. 21, 2006, as the pilot tried to make an emergency landing on a logging road.

More National Stories
Critically ill patients rushed to U.S. for care
Outrage builds after another innocent's gun death
Stray bullet ended father's dreams of building a new life for his family
Ad exec Lafleur was quietly shifting assets offshore, files say
Advocates of women's ski jumping get a boost at meeting
Ford Canada driven to apologize after ad backfires badly
Go to the National section
The pilot, Ed Huggett, and passengers Terry Douglas, 58, and three-year-old Braeden Hale were killed. Two passengers survived.

According to the TSB, the plane's Pratt & Whitney engine would have exceeded aviation risk standards set by Transport Canada in seven of the past 10 years, if the manufacturers had been required to report all engine shutdowns.

But Pratt & Whitney, with the approval of Transport Canada, has restricted its notifications to engine mishaps that involve actual components. The company has not bothered to report failures caused by other factors such as fuel pump problems or loss of oil pressure.

The matter is important because Transport Canada agreed to sanction instrument-guided, single-engine commercial flights only if the engines had fewer than 0.01 failures per 1,000 hours of flight time.

The Pratt & Whitney engine would not have met that standard if all failures had been reported, TSB regional manager Bill Yearwood said.

"We need engines to run. When engines stop, they are at risk, regardless of what broke. Transport Canada was being fed only half the information on engine reliability."

Rigorous reliability standards are needed for single-engine, commercially used aircraft because they do not have a second engine as backup, Mr. Yearwood said.

That is particularly critical when flying over mountain areas, such as the fatal flight that had been heading to Vancouver from Tofino, he added.

"We are saying [the engines] are not meeting that reliability factor ... and if they are not meeting that reliability, then you've got to go back to [twin-engines]. Obviously, the reliability wasn't high enough, because we had this accident."

Said Mr. Nelson of Transport Canada: "The safety board is suggesting we consider [engine reliability] in a different way, and we're taking a look at it." He noted, however, that the accident rate among air taxis (carrying a maximum of nine passengers) had dropped from an annual rate of 4.3 between 1984 and 1995 to 2.1 over the next 10 years "as equipment becomes reliable."

Meanwhile, the pilot's father, Jonathan Huggett, said he intends to continue his quest for a coroner's inquest into the tragedy.

"Transport Canada have known the engines didn't meet the reliability standard and they've done nothing about it," he said.

"We can't have a situation where planes that don't meet the regulations are still flying. This whole thing is just unbelievable. Why was that plane ever allowed to fly over mountainous areas of British Columbia?"

[KAG]

Let me start by saying I have never flown SEIFR, and nor would I…now that I have past my time building phase, yes I’m spoiled but a little leery of singles, I have bad luck.
I know the arguments about how great the PT6's are, and I agree there a great engine. Knowing that I still would not place my friends and family in a PC12, or C208, in the north at night when the weather is bad - especially all that and in the rocks.
I know how sturdy, how advanced, how amazingly well build both machines are, but they only have one engine and the older those machines get, the greater the chances of that engine failing. I have shut down or lost a few PT6’s that were on condition.

Should they get rid of SEIFR? I don’t think so. Maybe limit the weather, the locations (S.S.A) or maybe allow only freight. I think the better idea is to force operators to have a much stricter MTCE schedule and disallow engines on condition on single engines planes – maybe they already have all this I honestly don’t know.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

"We are studying their conclusion and we will have a response within the next 90 days."

Typical response.....stonewall.

But what else do you expect from wankers?

[2R]

So honest operators who have followed the rules .Done their maintenance to the manufactures standards .Trained their pilots .Operate their aircraft By the book get painted by the same brush as those who do not ???
Why should the honest operators have to suffer because of people who do not fix or operate their planes to the applicable standards ???


Is Transport Canada going to ban automobiles because someone drives beyond thier cababilty on bald tires in a vehicle that has not been maintained ???

[rd1331]

Is Transport Canada going to ban automobiles because someone drives beyond thier cababilty on bald tires in a vehicle that has not been maintained ???

Exactly!

I do agree though that SEIFR over the mountains shouldn't be allowed, as I have said before. That is just putting to many strikes against you.

But even if it was 1000ft, I would still go IFR. Because altitude = time. The more time you have the longer you have to figure it out. I can't understand people flying around at 1000ft SE because you don't want to file and go 9000ft above the clouds. Hey if your operator won't let you say no to requiring 1000ft maybe you should find another job. Everyone I have flown for would, and when I was CP I would never have told someone off for it either. At 1000ft by the time you get a transmittion out, you'll be lucky if someone hears you and hopefully your ELT goes off. At 9000ft with 1000ft ceiling, you know your going to break out, and now you have all the time in the world to try to restart it and get radio calls out, etc.

Most of the accidents so far with the Caravan have been human related incidents, not failures of the aircraft.

[Mustard]

I think you must be more afraid of your own skills than the airplane itself. At least 1000ft to go IFR?
Come on man.
KAG how would you feel about your friends and family getting in an SUV? I hear they have a higher rollover
rate than cars. Or do you tell WestJet that you refuse to go to Washington because they have a higher murder
rate than Calgary and you're scared of being murdered?

As for the 208 and ice? If they are forecasting lots of ice all the way up past your cruise level just don't go.
Its actually very simple. If you have ever flown a 208 though you would know it handles quite a bit of ice.

Its not the plane that scares me. Its the guy at the controls.

[Widow]

"We are studying their conclusion and we will have a response within the next 90 days."

Typical response.....stonewall.

But what else do you expect from wankers?

As a result of Clarenville, TSB recommended, for example:

The Department of Transport require that the magnetic chip detecting system on PT-6-equipped single-engine aircraft be modified to provide a warning to the pilot of excessive ferrous material in the entire engine oil lubricating system. (A00-03)

Transport Canada's Response:

Transport Canada will review the consistency of certification and operational requirements of the chip detector system for single-engine aircraft. The results of this review will determine if any additional requirements need to be initiated.

The Department of Transport require that single-engine instrument flight rules (SEIFR) operators have in place an automatic system or an approved program that will monitor and record those engine parameters critical to engine performance and condition. (A00-04)

Transport Canada's Response:

Transport Canada (TC) agrees with the recommendation and, subject to the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) consultation process, will develop Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) for applicable areas of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and associated Standards. Transport Canada is anticipating submitting these documents to the December 2000 meeting of the CARAC’s Commercial Air Services Operations Technical Committee.

The Department of Transport review the equipment standard for SEIFR and include equipment technologies that would serve to further minimize the risks associated with SEIFR flight. (A00-05)

Transport Canada's Response:

Transport Canada (TC) agrees with this recommendation and will review the applicable equipment requirements for SEIFR operations, with a view to mitigating to the extent possible the risks associated with this type of flight. The efforts in implementing the Board’s recommendations on engine monitoring systems, additional oxygen supply and additional electrical power will be an integral part of this review. The results of this review will be consulted through CARAC on any proposed regulatory changes.

And what's happened since 2000?