King Air C-90

[Henning]

As far as insurance is concerned there are 2 important items to remember when it comes to turbines:

Hot Starts are never covered.

Foreign Object Damage claims are only covered when the foreign object came from outside the engine. So if a bolt comes lose from the engine inlet and goes through the turbine - NONE of the claim is covered - all policies treat that as mechanical failure of the entire engine as a unit.

Best,

AG
True-Course Aviation Insurance

Thanks for that. So, seems the fail proof systems must not be so fail proof if you can't buy the product; there must be no profit to be made. Then I wonder why turbine time is a requirement/significant actuarial statistic of the insurance company? The higher performance? Engine destruction in a botched landing that goes over the nose I know for fact is covered, but it is expensive to insure a turbine ag plane. My buddy had to do 100,000 acres to crack the nut on his 502 operation.
I never saw a hot start claim, just theoretical. I think the big expensive engines are typically leased and if they blow up, repairs from the lessor should be contracted in the lease I would hope. Are airlines in anyway protected? Can a hand full of incompetent operators bankrupt a company? Surely not, no? Hard to imagine, but I think that comes with a 7-9% 100 hr type/ hull premium as you see on commercial policies.

 

[ronnieh]

Henning, to answer your question on sulphidation, I don't know. However whenever the conversation comes up it seems to center around Pratt engines. All of our fuel has sulphor in it. If you operate around coastal areas the sodium makes it worse. P&W has proceedures for turbine washes depending on conditions. In other words engines operated a lot near marine enviroment is suppose to be washed more often. A lot of schools of thought on this. Pure water verses chemical solutions to counter the corrosion. I suspect the blade coating is a factor. There is even disagreement on the affects of temperature. Some say running the engines too cool worsens it some say that is BS. The temperature only changes where the corrosion is the worse. Some advocate a motoring wash and others want the engine running.
That was my reason for urging Dave to get some factual information from somebody he trusts. For me I just follow what my mechanic says as far as how to operate the engine. He is not a fan of washes on an engine that is operated like ours are.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement even amongst people that should know. Some mechanics say Pratt can't be trusted because they sell parts. Others call BS on that in that Pratt has a reputation to protect.
I think the care and feeding of turbines is one part guess work, one part OWT, one part BS, a little voo doo and/or magic with some knowledge and experience sprinkled in. You take the above mixture and garnish well with $100 dollar bills, lots of them.
Even torque verses gear speed in the gear box causing gear failure, people differ.
The only thing I know for sure is the pratt engine is a tough engine but, when things go south you will be writing big checks.

 

[Alejandro Galioto]

Thanks for that. So, seems the fail proof systems must not be so fail proof if you can't buy the product; there must be no profit to be made. Then I wonder why turbine time is a requirement/significant actuarial statistic of the insurance company? The higher performance? Engine destruction in a botched landing that goes over the nose I know for fact is covered, but it is expensive to insure a turbine ag plane. My buddy had to do 100,000 acres to crack the nut on his 502 operation.
I never saw a hot start claim, just theoretical. I think the big expensive engines are typically leased and if they blow up, repairs from the lessor should be contracted in the lease I would hope. Are airlines in anyway protected? Can a hand full of incompetent operators bankrupt a company? Surely not, no? Hard to imagine, but I think that comes with a 7-9% 100 hr type/ hull premium as you see on commercial policies.

Few points:

Aviation insurance remains so relatively small, and the market is so soft that I don't think actuarial statistics play a significant role anymore. Underwriting is done based on loss experience and knowledge of aviation.

Your buddy paying a lot for the turbine AG plane has a high cost of insurance but it has more to do with the activity of AG spraying, which has a high incidence of losses, than the fact that he has a turbine up front. Those guys are simply doing an activity that is far more risky than you and I getting a $100 hamburger - or even a passenger charter operator doing their thing.

A wide body carries a deductible of $1M, this is standard in airline insurance. The numbers are too large for hot starts to be considered a threat to the companies - they are obviously taken very seriously and procedures are strict but their incidence doesn't come up in conversation often.

 

[Henning]

Henning, to answer your question on sulphidation, I don't know. However whenever the conversation comes up it seems to center around Pratt engines. All of our fuel has sulphor in it. If you operate around coastal areas the sodium makes it worse. P&W has proceedures for turbine washes depending on conditions. In other words engines operated a lot near marine enviroment is suppose to be washed more often. A lot of schools of thought on this. Pure water verses chemical solutions to counter the corrosion. I suspect the blade coating is a factor. There is even disagreement on the affects of temperature. Some say running the engines too cool worsens it some say that is BS. The temperature only changes where the corrosion is the worse. Some advocate a motoring wash and others want the engine running.
That was my reason for urging Dave to get some factual information from somebody he trusts. For me I just follow what my mechanic says as far as how to operate the engine. He is not a fan of washes on an engine that is operated like ours are.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement even amongst people that should know. Some mechanics say Pratt can't be trusted because they sell parts. Others call BS on that in that Pratt has a reputation to protect.
I think the care and feeding of turbines is one part guess work, one part OWT, one part BS, a little voo doo and/or magic with some knowledge and experience sprinkled in. You take the above mixture and garnish well with $100 dollar bills, lots of them.
Even torque verses gear speed in the gear box causing gear failure, people differ.
The only thing I know for sure is the pratt engine is a tough engine but, when things go south you will be writing big checks.

I have participated in 'steam cleaning' a PT-6 on an Air Tractor to take a Hudson sprayer with no nozzle tip and climb under the plane and pump it all through the intake stream. This was under the direction and supervision of our chief of maint. I fly round engines, turbines are horrible. I'd like to see what they are like on algae oil though. There's some guys in CO I believe who have an FAA Jet-A approved process, it's just too energy intensive to be economical alone. It needs a big waste heat source.

 

[ronnieh]

Turbines are horrible?

 

[gismo]

Gee Lance, all I had to do was buy and KA and start asking a lot of questions 'bout how to run it! Any time, pardner!

Of course, I just asked some simple questions. It's the other folks participating on here that made it so interesting!

Best,

Dave

Might have even been more good/interesting questions if you bought a Cessna Mustang Dave. Next year maybe?

 

[gismo]

Guess Boeing and Airbus had better rename the "Auto Throttle" switch to "power switch" then.........

I have wondered why that feature isn't called "AutoThrust". Of course the reason the thrust levers aren't called "throttles" is that nothing is throttling the air. OTOH the fuel/power control on a diesel is usually referred to as a throttle and there's no throttling of air there either.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

As you know, I looked at those and did the demo ride. It's very much like the KA interior and dimensions inside with two jet engines. I just don't need or want to pay for the extra speed. The KA pretty well fits my needs right now. This may be my LAST plane! (Pretend I haven't said that before in polite company.)

Best,

Dave

 

[Clark1961]

Engineers are funny people.

Hey now! I resemble that remark!

 

[Henning]

Turbines are horrible?

Choking gagging stench that makes breathing a tortuous experience. I need pressurized charcoal filtered, air conditioned, respiration equipment to fly turbine ag planes. When you are flying hardest is when the air is stagnant and you hot load/fuel. Sitting on the wing with that hot exhaust blowing in your face as you pump fuel... it was a choking, gagging, suffocating experience in the still heat of the summer. I'll take a radial. A Diesel on algae fuel would be good though, and very efficient. I'm looking forward to seeing if they allow me to take responsibility for myself and put it into some new and/or experimental category. If that happens I think Deltahawk with turbos on top of roots. There are few applications where it works, and this is one.

 

[CJones]

Sitting on the wing with that hot exhaust blowing in your face as you pump fuel... it was a choking, gagging, suffocating experience in the still heat of the summer.

Preach it, brother man...

At least with the Pratts, you can half-way carry on a conversation with the pilot - notsomuch with the Garrets.

 

[Everskyward]

So, seems the fail proof systems must not be so fail proof if you can't buy the product; there must be no profit to be made.

What fail-proof system are you talking about?

Can a hand full of incompetent operators bankrupt a company? Surely not, no?

Huh? There are much worse things incompetent operators can do to damage a company's bottom line than hot start an engine.

 

[Henning]

Preach it, brother man...

At least with the Pratts, you can half-way carry on a conversation with the pilot - notsomuch with the Garrets.

Garrets move ever so slightly more air on a hot load, but it's no different.

 

[gismo]

As you know, I looked at those and did the demo ride. It's very much like the KA interior and dimensions inside with two jet engines. I just don't need or want to pay for the extra speed. The KA pretty well fits my needs right now. This may be my LAST plane! (Pretend I haven't said that before in polite company.)

Best,

Dave

Just tugging your chain Dave. I completely understand sticking with something you can actually afford to fly. Every step up the "ladder" seems to increase the cost about 50-100% over the rung below. But a Mustang would sure be fun and it's enough faster to notice.

 

[Henning]

What fail-proof system are you talking about?

Huh? There are much worse things incompetent operators can do to damage a company's bottom line than hot start an engine.

Well, the PT-6 is told to me here to not be able to feed fuel below a safe N2. That means the only way you should be able to hot start is with a significant enough tail wind up the pipe, and that is incompetence. Oh yes, I understand that there are greater risks. However... I don't know any other that is uninsurable and that says a lot.

 

[wabower]

Did you read #169?

Well, the PT-6 is told to me here to not be able to feed fuel below a safe N2. That means the only way you should be able to hot start is with a significant enough tail wind up the pipe, and that is incompetence. .

 

[DavidWhite]

Why are hot starts bad for turbines?

 

[Henning]

Did you read #169?

Oy, what did I miss? Going back... what is that page number?...uggg, long thread.

 

[wabower]

You missed the step-by-step process to insure a hot start and a hell of a fireball. It may not damage anything, but it's exciting for the witnesses and the guy in the right seat.

Oy, what did I miss? Going back... what is that page number?...uggg, long thread.

 

[Henning]

Ok, that I understand, and is my point, the parts must be less reliable than I expected they would be if you didn't pay attention. My turbine experience is very limited. TPE 331s with SRL computers and push button starting, both pilots are monitoring the start, anyone can pull it. The other was 5 hrs of basic PT-6 operation. I was not infomed of how the systems operated, I was instructed how to operate them. I hated the experience of turbines in ag planes along with the fact that there was no way I could afford to get my hands on one. I was told (This needle has to make this mark before you push the power leaver out of it's detent or you will melt the engine" "No worries, will never do that", "keep this needle below this value" "No worries, will not exceed specified values, first red line is limiting, simple enough." "Go"
I did hear from an A&P in Calgary who was responsible for Artic and Antarctic Twin Otter programs that there was a way around the 12% N2 limiter available in extreme emergencies, but I don't make any claims to the veracity of the story.

 

[wabower]

I don't know what you expect from engine parts, but overhaul interval can be 8,000 hours. How does that compare with your 310?

Ok, that I understand, and is my point, the parts must be less reliable than I expected they would be if you didn't pay attention. My turbine experience is very limited. TPE 331s with SRL computers and push button starting, both pilots are monitoring the start, anyone can pull it. The other was 5 hrs of basic PT-6 operation. I was not infomed of how the systems operated, I was instructed how to operate them. I hated the experience of turbines in ag planes along with the fact that there was no way I could afford to get my hands on one.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Why are hot starts bad for turbines?

It's a controlled fire. If you get enough cooling air to have temps within the confines of design, fine. If not, you effectively burn critical engine parts. Kind of like, but not quite like, having an engine fire in a piston.

It's probably the end of that engine if not caught very quickly, and may cause more damage than that.

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

I don't know what you expect from engine parts, but overhaul interval can be 8,000 hours. How does that compare with your 310?

$125k a side max? Maybe under $200k total.... In the mean time I have gotten 8.5mpg block at lets call it $6 a gallon? How do the economics compare? There is no way to have a King Air for my mission have a greater economic value, it can't happen. The 310 is the penultimate type for the single pilot low VFR light weight mission with occasional capacity to stick 2 more couples for 1200 lbs in the plane and haul them 250 miles.

All the King Air stuff you pay for comfort and added capability, and that doesn't come cheap.

 

[gismo]

Well, the PT-6 is told to me here to not be able to feed fuel below a safe N2. That means the only way you should be able to hot start is with a significant enough tail wind up the pipe, and that is incompetence. Oh yes, I understand that there are greater risks. However... I don't know any other that is uninsurable and that says a lot.

I suspect you can get a hot start if the battery is weak and you don't use external power. AFaIK a good start not only requires sufficient RPM when fuel is introduced but also needs the spool to be accelerating properly.

 

[DavidWhite]

It's a controlled fire. If you get enough cooling air to have temps within the confines of design, fine. If not, you effectively burn critical engine parts. Kind of like, but not quite like, having an engine fire in a piston.

It's probably the end of that engine if not caught very quickly, and may cause more damage than that.

Best,

Dave

Oh wow, that would not be good! So do you have to wait for a couple hours between shutdown, and starting back up, or do turbines not retain heat like a piston?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

You can restart pretty quickly after shutdown, you might alter the shutdown a bit if you're sure you'll restart quickly.
What you are doing is using the starter to begin turning the turbine before introducing fuel; that's putting outside air through the turbine. Once the turbine gets up and stabilized, fuel is introduced and one watches ITT (Inlet turbine temp.) If it begins rising too quickly or exceeds an allowable limit, one quickly cuts off the fuel supply and keeps running the starter (in a different position) to keep cold air coming in for about a minute or until temps get down to an acceptable level.

If you get a fire on engine start, you do basically the same thing: cut off the fuel and keep turning the starter until the fire is out.

A low battery could lead to slower turbine speed on start. A ground power unit would provide better power if the battery wasn't strong. My N1 speed gets to about 17 to 18% before stabilizing on start. 12% is what the POH states as the lowest allowable N1 to start.

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

I suspect you can get a hot start if the battery is weak and you don't use external power. AFaIK a good start not only requires sufficient RPM when fuel is introduced but also needs the spool to be accelerating properly.

According to Wayne, as long as the systems are working correctly if it doesn't make 12% N2. A low battery will end up in a hung start with the fuel controller never feeding fuel if I understand him correctly. With the TPE 331 10-Uxxx... we had an SRL computer. If it didn't work, you had to make some calls to proceed. I never saw it not work in not many hours of real operation (Plenty of ground & sim and IOE + a couple paychecks and I was gone) With the SRL we pushed it up to redline (sometimes power restricted, sometimes requiring water meth) and the computer handled it from there and you just monitor one setting regardless altitude or atmospheric condition.

Please, someone, I would really appreciate an inflight demonstration so I can make sense of all the information I've read here. There are things that aren't making sense that I have to see what is going on to make sense out of it.

 

[wabower]

So your debate strategy is to quickly shift from reliability to cost and see if anybody notices?

$125k a side max? Maybe under $200k total.... In the mean time I have gotten 8.5mpg block at lets call it $6 a gallon? How do the economics compare? There is no way to have a King Air for my mission have a greater economic value, it can't happen. The 310 is the penultimate type for the single pilot low VFR light weight mission with occasional capacity to stick 2 more couples for 1200 lbs in the plane and haul them 250 miles.

All the King Air stuff you pay for comfort and added capability, and that doesn't come cheap.

 

[Henning]

So your debate strategy is to quickly shift from reliability to cost and see if anybody notices?

Oh God NO!!! Holy crap, if I could afford to fly a King Air, I would fly a King Air (or a rather a Royal Turbine; I'd look good in a Duke. Only thing sexier than my 310). I don't play in those circles though lol. I can't afford it. It's a stretch for me to afford what I have so I try to get the best value out of every dollar I spend. I do enjoy spending other peoples money, I'm even pretty good at it. For the capability I receive, my 310 gives me a good value for the dollar I spent/spend. I protect that by operating my equipment gently.
I'd love to go to 3 1/2 or 4 miles a minute, but the total dollar cost goes up exponentially and out of my budget in anything bigger than a formula racer. Speaking of which, I'm down to 155 lbs, that's racing weight.

 

[wabower]

Battery or external power is required until N1 reaches 50%, self sustaining thereafter. A battery failure during start can be problematic.

I suspect you can get a hot start if the battery is weak and you don't use external power. AFaIK a good start not only requires sufficient RPM when fuel is introduced but also needs the spool to be accelerating properly.

 

[wabower]

A hung start on the PT6-A is typically due to less than full complement of nozzles providing fuel to the burner. During simulated failure the engine will typically stabilize at low N1 (below self-sustain speed) and require shutdown.

According to Wayne, as long as the systems are working correctly if it doesn't make 12% N2. A low battery will end up in a hung start with the fuel controller never feeding fuel if I understand him correctly. With the TPE 331 10-Uxxx... we had an SRL computer. If it didn't work, you had to make some calls to proceed. I never saw it not work in not many hours of real operation (Plenty of ground & sim and IOE + a couple paychecks and I was gone) With the SRL we pushed it up to redline (sometimes power restricted, sometimes requiring water meth) and the computer handled it from there and you just monitor one setting regardless altitude or atmospheric condition.

Please, someone, I would really appreciate an inflight demonstration so I can make sense of all the information I've read here. There are things that aren't making sense that I have to see what is going on to make sense out of it.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I did see a couple hung starts in the military. We'd usually find someone left something on and drained the battery. Sometimes, you could just turn everything off and wait about ten minutes and be fine. Other times, we needed the GPU or worse. I never got stuck anywhere, but know some folks that did.

Best,

Dave

 

[kgruber]

Just climb higher until you temp out rather than torque out.

 

[Henning]

A hung start on the PT6-A is typically due to less than full complement of nozzles providing fuel to the burner. During simulated failure the engine will typically stabilize at low N1 (below self-sustain speed) and require shutdown.

Thank you, and if you don't shut that down quickly I assume it leads to a hot start? If so, is scheduled nozzle maintenance adequate assurance/expense against a jackpot? That jackpot is awfully rich for my blood.

As for someone mentioning spool up speed, Lance I think, I remember that in the 503 starting. The instructions contained "Flip this switch and watch this gauge. It has to reach at least 12% N2 in xx Seconds (I forget the exact count) before you push this handle forward. Watch this needle here, it should rise briskly and start slowing about 2/3rds way to (redline value). Watch it, if it's too slow or doesn't look like it's going to stop before it exceeds redline, pull the fuel back off and leave it keep spinning for 20 seconds to vent." That's the best I can remember the instructions.

 

[wabower]

Without battery power, external power or X-gen power the hung-start condition would/could/might/might not eventually deteriorate into a hot start if the pilot failed to move the condition lever to idle cutoff. Fortunately, even you could probably be trained to handle that complexity, given sufficient time.

Or the flow divider could open and everything could be normal. I don't think anybody ever waits long enough to determine if the problem will heal itself.

Thank you, and if you don't shut that down quickly I assume it leads to a hot start? If so, is scheduled nozzle maintenance adequate assurance/expense against a jackpot? That jackpot is awfully rich for my blood.

As for someone mentioning spool up speed, Lance I think, I remember that in the 503 starting. The instructions contained "Flip this switch and watch this gauge. It has to reach at least 12% N2 in xx Seconds (I forget the exact count) before you push this handle forward. Watch this needle here, it should rise briskly and start slowing about 2/3rds way to (redline value). Watch it, if it's too slow or doesn't look like it's going to stop before it exceeds redline, pull the fuel back off and leave it keep spinning for 20 seconds to vent." That's the best I can remember the instructions.

 

[ronnieh]

Wayne explained it quite well on the hot start. In auto ignition the ignitors will not energize untill you push the condition levers to low idle. Also the fuel will not flow until you are at the minimum N1. That varies with dash number but the 10-12% is common. With a hot battery it is pretty straight forward. The problems that can occur include the hung start which is caused by the FCU not bringing in the secondary nozzles. Something can interupt the power to the starter before reaching at least 40% or so. A breaker could pop or something like that. Strong wind up the tailpipe of a hot engine.
The hot start is just that. The ITT exceed max limits. However many PT6's have a different max temp for starting than continuous operation. For example on the -61 it is 810 deg. for continuous but you are allowed 1000 deg for 10 seconds during start. However, if I ever saw 1000deg, heck even 850 I would have a heart attack. My point is that a hot start is kind of a moving target. I have seen the -61's reach 810 deg but just for an instant then is drops pretty fast. Most likely to happen on a hot day and a quick turn. I can not even imagine going anywhere close to 1000 deg.
One serious glitch could occur if when you push the condition lever to idle and you do not get a light in auto ignition DO NOT reach up and select manual ignition. Pull condition lever to off wait a few seconds to clear the burner can then go to manual ignition and carefully add fuel watching temps. At Sim Com in Orlando they have a photo of a King Air that this happened to. It got the paint, boots and windows on the right side. The hot section was a total. A definate CEM. Unlike the 331 the Pratts are pretty easy to get going. The 331 has a computer that pulses the fuel on and off as the turbine comes up to speed. It makes me nervous watching the turbine speed increase ever so slowly while the temps are setting at or slightly above red line. It takes a lot of battery power to get the gear box and props spinning with the gas generator section. If you do not have a GPU the second engine start can be interesting on the TPE's

 

[wabower]

ronnieh;882977]Wayne explained it quite well on the hot start.

In auto ignition the ignitors will not energize untill you push the condition levers to low idle.

On King Airs the ignition should start when the starter switch is moved upward to the "start" position. Pilot should confirm that green "Ignition" annunciator has illuminated.

Also the fuel will not flow until you are at the minimum N1. That varies with dash number but the 10-12% is common.

All King Airs that I have flown (haven't flow the 100) an 80 PSI switch that allows fuel to flow to the engine. N1 of ~12% is required to achieve that pressure.

With a hot battery it is pretty straight forward. The problems that can occur include the hung start which is caused by the FCU not bringing in the secondary nozzles. Something can interupt the power to the starter before reaching at least 40% or so. A breaker could pop or something like that. Strong wind up the tailpipe of a hot engine.

The hot start is just that. The ITT exceed max limits. However many PT6's have a different max temp for starting than continuous operation. For example on the -61 it is 810 deg. for continuous but you are allowed 1000 deg for 10 seconds during start. However, if I ever saw 1000deg, heck even 850 I would have a heart attack. My point is that a hot start is kind of a moving target. I have seen the -61's reach 810 deg but just for an instant then is drops pretty fast. Most likely to happen on a hot day and a quick turn.

I can not even imagine going anywhere close to 1000 deg.

Not uncommon for some of the older engines to spike during start at higher temp than pilot's sphincter would prefer. But the temp falls very quickly as well after start.

One serious glitch could occur if when you push the condition lever to idle and you do not get a light in auto ignition DO NOT reach up and select manual ignition.

I don't understand how a pilot could do this on a King Air. Where is the manual ignition switch? Nor do I think the auto-ignition being on or off has anything to do with a normal start.

 

[Henning]

Without battery power, external power or X-gen power the hung-start condition would/could/might/might not eventually deteriorate into a hot start if the pilot failed to move the condition lever to idle cutoff. Fortunately, even you could probably be trained to handle that complexity, given sufficient time.

Or the flow divider could open and everything could be normal. I don't think anybody ever waits long enough to determine if the problem will heal itself.

No worries, you're telling me I do the same in a King Air as I do in a Jet Stream (no autopilot fleet except 2 pt91 for Coca Cola, but it did have a poor, chase the double needle Flight Director.) and a Air Tractor: Watch the start cycle poised to cut the fuel the moment I judge it to not be going well; no worries, can do. Even with the SRL computer starting it, you had your hand on the handle ready to pull that sucker. I know a buddy who hot started a Jetstream 20+ years ago is still flying King Air Ambulance (he was a paramedic/ambulance driver long before) today.

 

[Doggtyred]

Well, the PT-6 is told to me here to not be able to feed fuel below a safe N2. That means the only way you should be able to hot start is with a significant enough tail wind up the pipe, and that is incompetence. Oh yes, I understand that there are greater risks. However... I don't know any other that is uninsurable and that says a lot.

We hot started a lear once (twice) actually. Combination of tailwind and a bad bearing on the starter/gen. I wasn't the pilot. I was medical crew in the back but saw the gauges plain as day.

No idea if that same scenario could play out on the pt-6.

I quit working for that outfit soon after that. The hot start, shutdown, marginal start. Mission completion then marginal start and leg home sufficiently impressed on me this was not a place I wanted to be.

Later, the owner got nailed for fraud using planes with cooked books as loan collateral. The planes never flew again - the FAA saw to that.

 

[ronnieh]

Wayne, I can only plead the time of night I posted that caused a few brain cells to mis fire. I was at Sim Com in Orlando for initial CHEYENNE IIIA school. They start the school with that picture which is the first time I had heard the term CEM. Everything in that particular posts was concerning a IIIA. No more late night posts for me.
BTW it is 10% on the -61
There is an auto ignite-off-manual ignite on the IIIA
The auto position allows ignition when condition levers are in idle and torque below 400 pounds.
Anyway, my bad, Cheyenne not KA. Thanks for pointing that out, we do not need more confusion on the turbines.
Edit: Now that I have had a cup of coffee let me finish cleaning this up.
On the CHEYENNE, not KA your normal start proceedure is pretty simple. The scenerio is putting fuel pump in auto which of course starts since there is no pressure, placing ignition is auto or manual (normal is auto) and hit start. Start is a spring loaded rocker switch with Gen-off-Start. The instructor was pointing out that if you proceed with the start sequence and forget to place the ignitor in either on or auto, push condition levers forward to introduce fuel then realize you forgot ignition DO NOT reach up and turn ignition on with out first clearing the burner can. My only point was that different applications have different ways to screw up the engines.
Your explanation is spot on and I screwed the pooch by typing King Air instead of Cheyenne in my post.