I think you misunderstand me. I am not advocating anything here. I don't fly these aircraft. I am just trying to find out what people who do fly them think about what they would do under similar circumstances, and what is realistic to expect of a pilot confronted with the same. I appreciate your thoughts. Frankly, yours thoughts are the same as my own. I am curious though if others disagree, and if so, why.
Multi-engine turboprop pop quiz
- Thread starter PPC1052
- Start date
The main difference would be the annunciation panel lights would not be the same for that type of failure, and rudder boost would not kick in.
Good grief, I give up. There is no annunciator that is going to tell you that a sun gear failed or that an input shaft broke, or output shaft broke or.... It does not matter why you had a sudden and complete engine failure on TO, procedure is the same. The rudder boost does not care why the engine lost power. What I am trying to get you to see is the procedure is the same for ANY failed engine on TO. The why it failed is of no concern in your particular example. But, you know, just believe whatever blows your skirt up.
Sorry that you are frustrated. Again, I am not advocating anything. I am not saying you are wrong. I am just asking questions. Please don't be frustrated. I am NOT arguing with you. Frankly, I agree with everything you are saying.
Yeah, fortunately for me I wasn't in the helicopter. I just was involved in the aftermath.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Perhaps it's your characterization of this thread as a "quiz". "Quiz" implies that you know, or think you know, the answer.
Perhaps. Not intended to, though.
Now that this matter is well and truly over, I just want to thank you guys for your thoughts. It was helpful sanity check for me to help me evaluate what to make of what the pilot involved was telling me. Sorry if some people thought I was arguing with them. I was really just trying to bounce arguments off of disinterested but knowledgeable folks to find out if the guy's story held water.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
So what was the pilot involved telling you?
That when the sun gear failed, he didn't recognize it as an engine failure (nor could he be excepted to be recognize it as an "engine failure"), so he made the decision to put the aircraft down on the runway despite having passed V1 (resulting in the obvious consequences) and that he could not possible have been expected to follow the POH for an "engine failure." (There was no engine failure annunciator!) He was trying to blame my client for the loss as opposed to his own piloting decisions. I was looking at trying the case to a jury, and just wanted a sanity check on what my experts and I had concluded.
Last edited:
I was always troubled by the rudder boost issue. With a sun gear failure, rudder boost won't kick in. Rudder boost in the King Air works on differential in bleed air pressure. Since the turbine still is generating gas pressure, the sensing valve won't sense a differentiation in pressure, and therefore rudder boost won't activate. On the one hand, that means its going to take a huge effort to push the rudder pedals to maintain control, which means the pilot has to know he has an "engine failure." On the other, given the tremendous pressure required, maybe it's reasonable to think simply flying off is not the safest course of action. This was further complicated by a number of short cuts prior to take off roll that also reduced his options.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just for education's sake, did the "obvious consequences" result in an NTSB report?
No. Did not occur in the U.S.