Posted on 01/10/2014 1:52:43 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty
A month after a small plane crash in Hawaii, a surviving passenger shows GoPro footage and even a selfie taken during the ordeal.
Would you have done the same? Ferdinand Puentes was one of nine passengers in a 2002 Cessna Grand Caravan which suddenly suffered engine failure off Kalaupapa, Molokai in Hawaii last month. As he heard the engine fail and saw the plane heading for the water, one of his first instincts was to turn on his GoPro camera and film what might have been his own demise. As KHON-TV reports, Puentes knew the danger he was in, yet the decision to film as much as possible might perplex a few. He managed to get out of the plane alive and survived the crash. However, while he was floating on a seat cushion and wearing his life raft, he took a selfie.
Was the impulse to record just a natural reaction? After all, any bystander or news organization would have likely done the same thing. And these days everyone is using their phones to film just about everything they see. But wouldn't one's first instinct be to try to contact family and friends to say goodbye? Perhaps that did happen. The footage reflects a quite stunning lack of panic. The passengers behave in an orderly manner. There is no screaming or pushing. No one seems frantic at all. Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's 65-year-old state director of health, died in the crash, despite managing to leave the plane. In watching Puentes talk to KHON-TV, though, it's evident that the footage brings back painful memories. Would everyone want to have such ready access to a reminder? Or would some prefer to forget? "You could have died," Puentes told KHON-TV. "There's so much variations that could have happened for the worse."
About the door, could it have been in back of Puentes?
And didn’t Puentes film somebody with blue pants going out before him?
I was trying to figure out what the black thing sticking out into the aisle was - if it was somebody’s leg, or what. Hard for me to see. Let me know what you come up with.
The door was in back of Puentes. What was on the video had Puentes by his seat digging for the life jacket and showed people in front of him, and then it goes to people going out of the plane. But if it was a continuous video it would have shown people going past him to get to the door in the back. In fact, Jacob Key would have had to go around him to get to the door to open it.
“In 34 years of NTSB investigations they had 2 Cessna 208 engine failures - both due to operational issues such as water in the fuel and the flight conditions.”
Here are some more Pratt Whitney PT-6 engine failures caused by turbine blade failures. Several of them are in the Cessna 208 and several more are in the engine that the 208 uses PT-6A114. Many of them have the same description - loud bang followed by loss of engine power.
1994
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001206X01229&ntsbno=CHI94LA147&akey=1
“...inspection revealed, “One C.T. blade had fractured through the airfoil in high cycle fatigue. The nature of the origin could not be determined. The remainder of the C.T. blades had fractured in tensile overload.”
2004/2005
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=MAY2005
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED COMPRESSOR TURBINE AND POWER TURBINE BLADE DAMAGE.”
2005/2006
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=JUL2006
11/29/2005
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED FRACTURED POWER TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A66
1/22/06
“PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION HAS REVEALED TURBINE BLADE DISTRESS.” PT6A114A Cessna 208B
03/02/06
“INSPECTION REVEALED THAT THE COMPRESSOR TURBINE BLADES HAD SUFFERED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. 12 CT BLADES WERE FOUND DAMAGED TO VARYING DEGREES OF THE BLADE SURFACE MISSING. ANOTHER 12 BLADES EXHIBITED FATIGUE CRACKING EMANATING FROM THE TRAILING EDGE OF THE BLADE.” PT-6T
04/05/06
“SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION REVEALED FRACTURED COMPRESSOR TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A34AG
4/7/06
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED FRACTURED POWER TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A25
4/29/06
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED DAMAGED POWER TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A67D
05/08/06
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED DAMAGED POWER TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A67D
5/30/06
“UPON INVESTIGATION BY MAINTENANCE THE RT ENGINE SEEMS TO HAVE SUFFERED A POWER TURBINE BLADE FAILURE.” PT6A67D
5/31/06
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED FRACTURED POWER TURBINE BLADES” PT6A67D
Also in 2006 (03/05 and 03/09) there were two Cessna 208Bs that suffered sudden engine failure but the cause had not been determined at the time the report was written.
2006/2007
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=JUN2007
12/20/2006
“SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION REVEALED FRACTURED POWER TURBINE BLADES.” PT6A27
01/25/07
“THE BLADE WHICH FAILED AT THE FIRTREE SHOWED EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE WITH AN ANOMALY AT THE ORIGIN.” PT6A65B
2009
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=JUN2009
4/21/09
“CT BLADE FAILURE” PT6A27
4/29/09
“POWER TURBINE BLADE FAILURE” PT6A114
5/5/09
“A VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ENGINE REVEALED THAT IT EXPERIENCED AN OVERTEMP CONDITION AND THE TURBINE BLADES WERE MELTED. PARTS OF TURBINE BLADES WERE FOUND ON THE RUNWAY WHERE THE PILOT HAD JUST LANDED.” PT6A114 Cessna 208
2010
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100905-0
“The accident resulted from the creep rupture of one or more blades of the turbine compressor leading to failure of the engine in flight.” PT6A-114A Cessna 208B
1/20/11
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=JUN2011
Catastrophic engine failure on Cessna 208B with PT6A114 engine. Caused not determined at time of report.
Looks like a plastic covered padded notebook.
Over and over again...a Cessna drops out of the sky through metal fatigue of the propeller and there's no enquiry? Those aircraft should be grounded until the fault is rectified. If that was a motor vehicle recall notices would have been issued long ago.
“a Cessna drops out of the sky through metal fatigue of the propeller and there’s no enquiry?”
Technically not the propeller.
There are two types of turbines in the PT-6A engine a compressor turbine (CT) and a power turbine (PT). The power turbine turns the shaft on which the propeller is bolted.
Page 15 of this guide to the PT-6A has a cut away view of the engine.
http://www.pwc.ca/files/en/Know_your_PT6A.pdf
You might be interested in this Australian government bulletin
Apparently they sometimes use after market turbines when they overhaul these engines.
Not a good idea.
Abstract On 31 December 2009, a Cessna Aircraft Company model 208, registered VH-UMV, was engaged in parachuting operations from Cairns Airport, Queensland. While climbing through 12,500 ft in preparation for a parachute drop, the engine failed. The parachutists exited the aircraft and the pilot completed a glide approach and uneventful landing at Cairns Airport.
The failure of the Pratt and Whitney PT6A-114 engine was probably precipitated by fracture of the compressor turbine blades. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) parts manufacturing approval information indicated that part number T-102401-01 compressor turbine blades that had been installed in the engine during the most recent overhaul were not approved for the PT6A-114 model. As a result of this occurrence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released Airworthiness Bulletin AWB 72-005, alerting all operators and maintainers of PT6A engines, of the potential for installation of these compressor turbine blades in unapproved PT6A engine variants, and to raise awareness of the restrictions placed on the use of approved after-market blades.
------------
Excellent contribution to the thread. Butter, you need to see this. Images in report clearly show damage to Compressor turbine blades...
The mechanic who repaired the engine put the wrong part in. User error.
The only relevant incidents are with the PT6A-114A. Show me the NTSB reports on engine failures for Cessna 208B’s having a PT6A-114A engine.
I did stipulate at one point, as my source did, that the statistics used were for engine failures of commercial aircraft that were investigated by the NTSB. The reason for that stipulation is that there is a world of difference in the maintenance and repairs by commercial airlines, as opposed to non-commercial aircraft. As in the case where the mechanic put in the wrong part, user error in one case does not explain engine failure in a case where the protocols and recommendations are followed to a T, to protect against lawsuits. Makani Kai says they did their maintenance to HIGHER standards than are required for commercial planes.
Some flying conditions will also wear out parts more quickly, as is alluded to in some of these cases. But Makani Kai just made short passenger flights in good weather at low altitudes, where there wouldn’t be icing or some of the aircraft stressors that come from longer flights. That’s my understanding; if somebody knows otherwise they can point it out to me.
Ok, so now there's one honest person in Hawaii...lol..he probably feels safe saying that, after all, he had that engine in his possession for a week, didn't he? It's going to take an awful lot of persuasion to convince me there was no hanky-panky going on in that time. Do you think we'll ever see the findings from the manufacturer?
I bet we'll be left in the dark like mushrooms again and fed our nourishment one drip at a time.
I should also point out that Mokulele Express, which had an engine failure 3 days after Doug Vogt filed his lawsuit naming Loretta Fuddy as a defendant, also did short commuter flights in good weather at low altitudes, which would eliminate some stressors as the cause for engine problems.
The NTSB has had that intact engine to look at since Oct 22nd, the day after the crash, and in those 100 days or so hasn’t yet found anything in the engine that they say caused that engine failure.
In that case also - as with the Fuddy crash - the NTSB did not seal off the evidence as would be required for a crime scene, in accordance with their own requirements for fatal accidents or accidents involving fire, sparks, etc, but allowed the evidence to potentially be contaminated.
The Makani Kai mechanic will be on the team that works with the NTSB and manufacturer to figure out whether he tampered with the engine...
That, right there, says it all.
...and I suppose when push comes to shove, they’ll have their own little beerfest and sort it all out, and we’ll never know what happened or why.
The insurers will pay and life goes on.
Wouldn’t that be normal to have the people who serviced the engine be there so any questions could be answered as to the engines maintenance record?
It’s not like the guy will be doing the breakdown, that will be by the Pratt and Whitney engineers with the NTSB or FAA there as observers.
You are not suggesting that P & W are in on it too are you?
Schuman said that the mechanic would be part of the team taking apart the engine.
You tell me whether that’s appropriate.
Probably not necessary, given that the engine was taken from the fuselage before any of it was lifted from the ocean, but does this even give the APPEARANCE of integrity?
One person on the island may know the truth:
“Father forgive me for I have sinned ...”
I’m not sure I understand what you think he is going to be doing there. Him being part of the team that takes the engine apart does not mean that he will ever touch a wrench to the engine. He will be an observer and he will be asked questions.
Pratt & Whitney has a very strong interest in the outcome of this investigation. Especially as there is a fatality involved. If I was the airplane owner, I would pretty much insist that my mechanic was part of the team.
So no I see nothing inappropriate about him being part of the team.
OK so nobody right behind the photog.
Question then is,
how many seats are on the left side, one opposite the door and one back?,
and if there is a seat on the right, behind the door.
We see in the beginning of the video 6 people, add photog & pilot, and didn’t see the guy that swam to shore. So that makes 9 so far.
About the gap in vid and who went in front of the photog:
There’s a video capture still that shows Rosa’s shirt arm and lifejacket, and another persons legs; they are standing up presumably getting the jackets on.
Maybe the photog let Rosa & jacob get by and the guy that swam was in back most seat so he got out ahead of everyone else?
And the reason for the gap in the vid is because photog had to put camera down in order to get his lifrjacket on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.