Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Rare but happens - PT6 engine failure - PC12 N477SS

ASN

There is even a Youtube movie of ATC radar and the radio. The pilot is calm but didn’t declare a mayday, and didn’t quite make it to the runway



Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Owww. Better land immediately with engine problems. I was playing with X-Avion + X-Plane last days. Have to try it in the real aircraft. Problem is unfeathering the prop takes a long time.

LPFR, Poland

Weird decision making there. With a questionable engine I would land asap and sort it out on the ground.

Gethomeitis

LFMD - Cannes Mandelieu, EGLL - London Heathrow, France

Does PC12 TR training put emphasis on off-airport field landings? Or you have to get to one of the big airports?

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

Does PC12 TR training put emphasis on off-airport field landings? Or you have to get to one of the big airports?

One factor in the decision making process is certainly the mx availability. I suspect the pilot in question didn’t want to land at some little airfield without services, or at least without any turbine shop. My guess is that’s why he wanted to go back to KDFW. Didn’t end well….

Mind you, this also works the other way round: many big airports don’t have mx facilities for small piston airplanes. This can catch you out. I think I mentioned it in another thread already, but one of our club pilots got stuck at KLAS with a minor engine issue. Had to bring in a mechanic from a different airport.

The QRH calls for a land as soon as practical, on a partial power loss, not as soon as possible. There is some trouble shooting in the QRH but at this altitude, Monday morning quarterbacking might suggest going straight to Forced Landing drill.

Also the theoretical 10nm gliding range, slightly longer with the tailwind, at 5,000 feet AGL, is based on the PROP in IDLE CUT OFF/FEATHER. It doesn’t look like the pilot did this, he also lowered the gear without having an aiming point. With a large drag disk of a windmilling propeller and gear down, the pitch attitude in the PC-12 is very steep/nose low. In FEATHER mode and gear up it is more glider like, weight probably well below MAUM so a best glide around 110 KIAS.

Assuming Part91 the PIC may have had limited if no PFL practice/currency.

Partial power loss in PT-6 is not that rare, usually a problem in the FCU, not inertial separator as the PIC implied advising he had anti ice on. It is more insidious with MET as the rudder boost and auto feather might not kick in.

Luckily the structure gave some protection, but he probably could have landed short, given the terrain and the PC12 landing gear, and left the aircraft reusable. He probably ran out of energy to flare due to not keeping a sufficiently nose low pitch on the glide approach.

Interesting to understand what went wrong with the turbine.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

172driver wrote:

One factor in the decision making process is certainly the mx availability. I suspect the pilot in question didn’t want to land at some little airfield without services, or at least without any turbine shop. My guess is that’s why he wanted to go back to KDFW. Didn’t end well….

Yes probably, things like runway length, maintenance, insurance do influence the choices but they are not as intuitive as we think, working on the assumption that the aircraft belongs to insurers when engine is quits is a safe bet to save own skin for both health & finances, at 5000ft, the most safe outcome for health & finances is a field landing (insurance will pay for it if the aircraft gets damaged )

Will be good to know what happened to the engine?

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Apr 13:51
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

If it was the Fuel Control Unit the partial power procedure has a Manual Override (MOR) which allows power to be set at NG80% plus. The PIC may need to bump the starter generator to help the MOR stabilise the turbine.

Given the ability of the PC12 to glide a reasonable distance there is a reasonable probability scenario that a better outcome was possible. No MAYDAY call, no request for priority landing. Hopefully the operator will improve recurrent training.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

If it was the Fuel Control Unit the partial power procedure has a Manual Override (MOR) which allows power to be set at NG80% plus. The PIC may need to bump the starter generator to help the MOR stabilise the turbine.

Indeed MOR is the most likely way to handle an FCU failure. Hard to see many failure modes short of running out of fuel or fuel system icing where it is anything other than a failure in the FCU.

EGTK Oxford
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top