Unstable 9 #1 August 13, 2007 Okay - I heard a 'rumor' and I was hoping some aircraft savy DZ.com'ers could help me out here. I heard that Pratt & Whittney was at the PIA Symposium, and they were pretty negative about their PT-6 Engine being used so frequently for skydiving operations....Kind of a "Well, you SHOULDN'T use our Engine for your operations, but if you are going to do it anyways, then THIS is how to do it safely." Attitude. Is this true!?! I assume that if this is true, they are saying it for Liability...=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #2 August 13, 2007 Wonder if that was an engineer or a lawyer.Turbines last longer and wear less if you just turn them on and run them. The on-off, climb/descend nature of skydiving is not conducive to engine longevity, either turbine or piston. I believe that one start is equal to about one hour of operation in regards to overhaul requirements. Those days that the turbines run non-stop for 6-7 loads helps make up for those days where they fly one load, then shut down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #3 August 13, 2007 There is/was a lawsuit I believe the Sullivan Twin Otter crash where the lawyers were sueing everyone including Dehaviland (and or P&W), stating that the PT6 is not suitable for skydiving... I would be surprised if P&W made a statement opposing the use of there engines for skydiving. Island hopping, which twin otters are often used for have very similar flight profiles and skydiving, take off, short trip, land shut down, repeat.... As far as I know as an A&P PT6s (and turbines in general) are suitable for skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #4 August 13, 2007 Hi John At a minimum a LAWYER from P&W was pulling the strings.!!! R.I.P.One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #5 August 13, 2007 i smell some one fishing for a rotten fish ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #6 August 13, 2007 Quote i smell some one fishing for a rotten fish Huh - That's a dumb accusation. I'm not fishing for rotten fish or some muck raked around by any of the PT-6 crashes or their associated losses. Does anybody know what P&W's official position is? Did they say anything to the Operators at the PIA meeting?=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #7 August 13, 2007 FWIW, I didn't hear anything like that, and I shot vid for a fair amount of the DZO's meeting. Dunno if it really got said or not, it would have pricked my attentions if it had been said, but there were times I was totally tuned out, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #8 August 13, 2007 >Island hopping, which twin otters are often used for have very similar >flight profiles and skydiving, take off, short trip, land shut down, repeat.... Island hoppers do not descend at the sort of rates seen during skydiving operation, and no part-135 or part-121 passenger operator in the world will cycle three times an hour. >As far as I know as an A&P PT6s (and turbines in general) are suitable for skydiving. You can certainly claim that PT6's have been proven to work OK for skydiving (although you could make a good argument that some Garretts have been shown to not work well.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybeergodd 0 #9 August 13, 2007 I'm very well aware of the lawsuit from the Twin Otter crash in Sullivan that did generate a law suit naming Pratt Whitney among several others. PW did send a letter to Gary Robb(the piece of shit lawyer who drummed up the lawsuit) stating that the PT-6 was never ment for the kind of use that skydiving operations impose on them. The multiple shut down and restarts along with all the takeoff and landings, went outside the realm of what the engine was designed for.....This was PW's attempt to cover their butt in the lawsuit and try to pass the buck onto someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jewels 0 #10 August 13, 2007 DON'T take this the wrong way, because I really don't know, but why are you so sure that the plane was meant to handle multiple shut downs and restarts, etc., when PW says it wasn't? Did they market it for skydiving use in other contexts?TPM Sister #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybeergodd 0 #11 August 13, 2007 There are alot of them in use today in the skydiving industry. There have only been just a couple crashes with them. Pilot error is the big reason, in the case of Perris Valley it was contaminated fuel and in Our case(Sullivan's) there was a another reason that because of the lawsuits it's not appropriate for me to discuss here in a public forum but it was not engine failure that caused the fire and resulting crash. The Twin otters and PT-6's have proven themselves over many years of skydiving use to be a good and reliable engine and aircraft.....To my knowledge there was only 1 aircraft designed with skydiving in mind, the Pac750...so if you want to follow PW argument that the PT-6 and otter was not designed for skydiving then all Cessnas, Cassa, Caravan Ect. Ect. should be replaced with Pac750's....and the otters were mostly made before skydiving was popular..60's and 70's so I'm sure skydiving use wasn't even a thought to them just as skydiving use wasn't even a thought for Cessna. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jewels 0 #12 August 13, 2007 Thanks for the information. I was just curious and have no real frame of reference with respect to jump planes, engines, and their appropriate uses. TPM Sister #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #13 August 13, 2007 The PAC is powered by a PT-6 -34 so even then P&W might agrue anything. The current fleet of jumpcraft out there in just the US is pushing 150-200 PT-6's that are mounted on planes right now. Cost of a PT6-20 (smaller one then on most jump planes) is upwards of $160,000 per engine ($200000+ for a PT6-34). Thats $24+ million in engines that P&W knows are in the field flying those type of operation cycles. Is a small segment of P&W's over all business though.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutejump 0 #14 August 13, 2007 I was at a meeting at one of the PIA symposiums 10 plus years ago that was offered by a representative of Pratt&Whitney. The meeting was started by the representative stating that they had visited many of the skydiving operations using their powerplant on jump aircraft, (the aircraft types, Otter, Kingair, Caravan makes no difference) and had reviewed the maintenance programs and procedures use by the jump operations with reference to Pratt&Whitney required maintenance programs. He stated that no jump operation that they had visited utilizing Pratt&Whitney Turbine aircraft engines met the minimum inspection and part replacement schedule requirements as established by the manufacture. Where people get lost in this statement is the catagory in which we as jumpers utilize these engines, Pratt&Whitney assumes that these engines are used and maintained by standards set and required in part 121 and part 135 aircarrier operations, we on the other hand operate under part 91, where in reality all requirements are off (pubic and private use) In part 91 you are only required to perform an annual inspection of the entire aircraft and powerplant. Many jump operations have chosen to perform 100 inspections as they feel that they are considered commercial operations and "should" perform these inspections, most "Clubs" hide under the guise of 91 and do not perform these inspections, as they claim to not be commercial in their use. So in reality we have for all time in sport skydiving been slipping under the FAA and Manufacture radar of inspection requirements by being allowed to operate as Part 91 operators. I believe that in court if it is brought to light that the aircraft and powerplant are in reality being used in a commercial business operation under the guise of part 91 that Pratt&Whitney or any other provider would possible be found less responsible or liable as the end user is deceptive in the nature of the use of the equipment. What are they going to get in a law suit against a DZ? no insurance, no profit, only debt. Time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #15 August 13, 2007 Not to mention helicopters with P&W engines used for off-shore/EMS ops that sometimes have similar cycles put on them as jump planes.. I remember years ago at a boogie that Mike Mullins wouldn't even crank the King Air's engines unless something like 3 loads were manifested and ready to jump. Wonder if he still has same policy cause it surely made sense.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #16 August 13, 2007 Thank you, that is Just the information I was looking for...=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #17 August 13, 2007 isnt the PAC750XL an adaptation of the Cresco, a 1970s aircraft. It irks me when it is billed as an aircraft purpose designed and built for skydiving. At best, it is factory adapted for skydiving but not designed for skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #18 August 13, 2007 QuoteDON'T take this the wrong way, because I really don't know, but why are you so sure that the plane was meant to handle multiple shut downs and restarts, etc., when PW says it wasn't? Did they market it for skydiving use in other contexts? Actually, yes, the original design had dropping jumpers in mind. You could even buy a factory made inflight door that automatically opened at the push of a button if installed. And P&W knew the Twin Otter was being built and their engines were being put on the DHC-6. This really sucks as Twin Otters are great jump planes. And PT-6s are awesome engines when RUN and MAINTAINED correctly. They will last a long, long time. It's when you get less than good care that things go bad and stuff happens. Put a plane and pilot in the corner and even a lightly loaded plane can crash. Was it the engine's fault? Well, how was it run and maintained after it left the factory? Not run to manufacturer specs (and I doubt any twin otter jump plane is) then no fault on the part of P&W. Lawyers would hate to have me on that jury.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jewels 0 #19 August 13, 2007 ROFL--Depends on which lawyer. Only one of them would hate to have you on the jury. Interesting background. The maintenance issue is an ongoing one, anyway. It's a big deal. TPM Sister #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #20 August 14, 2007 Guess what powers the PAC750XL? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybeergodd 0 #21 August 14, 2007 I know....but there is no such thing as common sense when dealing with lawyers...all they know is $$$$ in their pockets Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #22 August 14, 2007 QuoteI know....but there is no such thing as common sense when dealing with lawyers...all they know is $$$$ in their pockets Bingo. If put in the same position, I would expect Cessna, Continental, or Lycoming to say that none of their products are suitable for skydiving. The dirtbag ambulance chaser is the one to be upset with here. I hope a cat shits on his briefcase.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybeergodd 0 #23 August 14, 2007 wow...only shit in the brief case....your letting them off easy compared to what I want to see happen to the low lifes....I'd say it but then the mods would lock this thread Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #24 August 14, 2007 Quote wow...only shit in the brief case....your letting them off easy compared to what I want to see happen to the low lifes....I'd say it but then the mods would lock this thread Again, bingo.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #25 August 14, 2007 Quote Quote I know....but there is no such thing as common sense when dealing with lawyers...all they know is $$$$ in their pockets Bingo. If put in the same position, I would expect Cessna, Continental, or Lycoming to say that none of their products are suitable for skydiving. Well, I have a skydiving helmet that came with a sticker saying it was unsuitable for skydiving.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
