NZFF

An Air New Zealand flight was forced to make an emergency landing at Palmerston North airport after an engine failed 10 minutes into a flight.

The Q300 plane, which had 33 passengers onboard, was flying from Napier to Wellington when one of the propeller engines malfunctioned just before midday.

The pilot shut the engine down and flew to Palmerston North with a single engine.

Passenger Mike Rodgers, of Gore, heard a bang when the engine shut down and saw oil seeping from the propeller.

No passengers were injured but a few were shaken by the experience, he said.

Fire fighters and St John ambulance crews were called to the airport but were not needed.

Palmerston North airport operations manager Roy Bodell said the passengers had alternative travel arrangements made by Air New Zealand


Eeek! I go on these regularly hope it doesn't happen again!

Nothing to worry about if you ask me, I'd be more worried in a bigger plane like a 737/320 etc than in a turbo prop.

Thanks that cheered me up a bit lol

Peppermint wrote:

QUOTE (Peppermint @ Nov 17 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing to worry about if you ask me, I'd be more worried in a bigger plane like a 737/320 etc than in a turbo prop.

Yeah no worries. Distances flown around NZ, you wouldn't even need to do a Point of no return calculation.
Theres always somewhere close. (other than weather probs)

I would be even more worried if it was a single engined aircraft. LOL

Wouldn't be too worried in one of these:

Reminds me about the old joke of a B-52 pilot requesting a priority landing due to an engine failure, and another pilot gets on the radio and says "ah yes, the dreaded 7 engine landing".

NZ255 wrote:

QUOTE (NZ255 @ Nov 17 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't be too worried in one of these

Ya think!
How about only 5/6 at V2 with 250,000kg on board??

air new zealand is my national airline and im glad there ok

I would be worried if I saw this:

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=364388

Na, its only the engine cover

FlyingKiwi wrote:

QUOTE (FlyingKiwi @ Nov 17 2008, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

B-52

That's the one!

Kelburn wrote:

QUOTE (Kelburn @ Nov 17 2008, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would be worried if I saw this:
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=364388

Inflight Passenger Education ... how the jet engine works

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Nov 18 2008, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inflight Passenger Education ... how the jet engine works

Anatomy of a metal bird....
Teacher : -And now children let's have a look what is a landing gear failure like....

Peppermint wrote:

QUOTE (Peppermint @ Nov 17 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing to worry about if you ask me, I'd be more worried in a bigger plane like a 737/320 etc than in a turbo prop.

It's not how big they are. It's if they can maintain MSA on one engine or not.

bestpilotindaworld wrote:

QUOTE (bestpilotindaworld @ Nov 18 2008, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not how big they are. It's if they can maintain MSA on one engine or not.

you mean vmca (minimum control speed after critical engine failure)? id be more worried in a smaller plane to be honest, something like a senica 5, they are heavy and pretty much will not climb on one engine! Anything big will climb and climb well. Long as you have a capable pilot who shuts down the correct engine then you shouldn't be to worried! a q-300 has an awesome climb rate on one engine, the beech 1900 has an even better one! however if the aircraft does go below vmca after an engine failure then you are in alot of trouble! unless the pilot is quick enough to shut off both engines and turn it into a glider.

Goose wrote:

QUOTE (Goose @ Nov 18 2008, 09:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you mean vmca (minimum control speed after critical engine failure)? id be more worried in a smaller plane to be honest, something like a senica 5, they are heavy and pretty much will not climb on one engine! Anything big will climb and climb well.

No I think he meant MSA, Minimum Safe Altitude, as long as the aircraft can remain level above MSA . Oh and a Seneca V will climb just fine on one engine , not very fast but you will get at least 300fpm on em. Same goes for a number of smaller piston twins. The big stuff climb so well due to the fantastic invention called a gas turbine

ZK-KAG wrote:

QUOTE (ZK-KAG @ Nov 18 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I think he meant MSA, Minimum Safe Altitude, as long as the aircraft can remain level above MSA . Oh and a Seneca V will climb just fine on one engine , not very fast but you will get at least 500fpm on em. Same goes for a number of smaller piston twins. The big stuff climb so well due to the fantastic invention called a gas turbine

oh ok, i couldnt think what msa meant. You sure about the seneca 5? i know a guy who owns one and he reckons it would really struggle to climb on one engine because of the extra weight added by the turbo's, plus it doesnt have..... i cant think what they are called... something accumulators, which move the prop away from full course, or back past feathered into fine so it can be attempted to be re started, i dunno, just what he was telling me. These days it is a legal requirement for all twins to be able to climb on one engine, but i didnt used to be, so id imagine there are a few old piston engine twins that can't climb on one engine, i dont know of any examples though.

Yep Ive just completed a ground course on em, and about to get my type rating. Our Seneca's climb at around 300fpm on one engine from a go around. And dunno about your mates 34-V, but we certainly can restart in flight, all the way from feather into fine. However this is not possible on the ground due to insufficient aerodynamic force to bring it out of feather.

ZK-KAG wrote:

QUOTE (ZK-KAG @ Nov 18 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I think he meant MSA, Minimum Safe Altitude, as long as the aircraft can remain level above MSA . Oh and a Seneca V will climb just fine on one engine , not very fast but you will get at least 500fpm on em. Same goes for a number of smaller piston twins. The big stuff climb so well due to the fantastic invention called a gas turbine

Your onto it

Glad you guys have so much faith in your piston aircraft performance. From experience your 300ft per minute will disappear through a bit of turbulence and not quite perfect pilot technique.
I had to shut one down in a Seneca a number of years ago, it didn't fly very well and fortunately I wasn't faced with any obstacles cause I certainly wasn't going over them. Same applies to the PA31 which is a pig on 1 engine...been there....
Also had to deal with 2 turboprop mechanical failures, now they were easier to cope with than the piston problems but I would rather have been in a jet.

The big advantage of a turbine over a piston in the multi department is that if a turbine fails then the 1st thing you do is sit on hands.

Top job by the Dash crew.

Thanks guys - made me feel a lot better reading these . Also the fact that i had uneventful flights to Auckland and back yesterday. I don't know much about aircraft so it's good to know they can nearly always land safely on 1 engine. Thanks