This is a weird one. A DHC-2 Mk III Turbine Beaver, engine shut down in flight, it was not mechanical failure or pilot error. The information has not been released to the public. I'll post the NTSB report number when it is released. Anyone care to guess what happened?

http://www.adn.com/2012/07/08/2535422/n ... eeing.html

It's rather pointless to think about it too much, given the lack of information. However, bad fuel might be one scenario that would fit within those constraints.

tralika wrote:This is a weird one. A DHC-2 Mk III Turbine Beaver, engine shut down in flight, it was not mechanical failure or pilot error. The information has not been released to the public. I'll post the NTSB report number when it is released. Anyone care to guess what happened?

http://www.adn.com/2012/07/08/2535422/n ... eeing.html

So this is a quiz?

A few years back I was flying from Cortez CO to Los Lunas NM. It was a typical beautiful fall day in NM just about dusk. I was flying along just enjoying life and feeling really smug that I could fly instead of drive to my work. It was one of those beautiful days where the air was cool and calm and no turbulence. Out of the blue my engine just quit. I don't mean coughed and sputtered and then quit, it just quit. No warnings and absolutely no indications that something was coming.

I was near home and I was pretty low to the ground, so I didn't have much time to diagnose the problem. Fortunately I was over some pretty flat ground so after trying to restart and calling center, I picked out a spot and put it down (I can say that a lot more calmly now). The 180 took the sage brush and sand well and came to a safe landing.

Once on the ground we determined pretty quickly that the ignition switch had given out. Had corroded and just gave away (not sure how that happens in NM climate). Put a new one on and it fired right up.

I have added to my emergency checklist really trying to wiggle and jiggle (that is official aviation lingo) the starter switch to see if there is a short.

As stated previously, hard to say what caused it, I have personal experience to say that is one possibility.

Larry

Not mechanical or pilot error? First question I would ask is who was in the right seat? If it was a passenger, there is your answer. I am not familiar with the layout of a Beaver, but I can say that I have had an occasion where a passenger accidentally moved the fuel switch in my 170A.

My guess is the fuel was turned off.
It happened to a cub we built for a guy. He was flying around and turned off the fuel.
He had only 3 hours in it after rebuilding his cub. We get to build it again.
He has a L6 that was restored as well. He never got that one in the air.
He noised it over.

Dirt in the fuel would be a sort of mechanical failure, wouldn't it?

My bet is on a passenger, if we're to play this as a game show

Any of you "participants" in this game show ever fly a Beaver?? Pax are NOT going to turn off that fuel valve....

Good on the driver for getting the thing on the ground without hurting anyone or breaking the airplane bad.

That is really all that matters. Mechanics will figure out what happened soon enough.

This is the second McKinley air tour Beaver with an off airport landing this season. Good drivers both....nobody hurt.

MTV

mtv wrote:Any of you "participants" in this game show ever fly a Beaver??

Nope. I just found it to be an odd report, and figured I'd make a lighthearted guess in the spirit of the odd report.

Pax are NOT going to turn off that fuel valve....

Okay, if you say so.

Good on the driver for getting the thing on the ground without hurting anyone or breaking the airplane bad.

Yup. Noone was hurt, hence it ought not ruffle any feathers that we are a bit light-hearted when talking about it.

That is really all that matters. Mechanics will figure out what happened soon enough.

Yes, they will. Boohoo on everyone trying to have a little fun. Let's take everything so serious that we can't have a little fun even when an odd situation was saved. Let's not have any fun along the way.

This is the second McKinley air tour Beaver with an off airport landing this season. Good drivers both....nobody hurt.

Yes, and why not have a little fun with odd reports?

It seems someone's skin is a little thin.

Double

Twoupfront wrote:

mtv wrote:Any of you "participants" in this game show ever fly a Beaver??

Nope. I just found it to be an odd report, and figured I'd make a lighthearted guess in the spirit of the odd report.

Pax are NOT going to turn off that fuel valve....

Okay, if you say so.

Good on the driver for getting the thing on the ground without hurting anyone or breaking the airplane bad.

Yup. Noone was hurt, hence it ought not ruffle any feathers that we are a bit light-hearted when talking about it.

That is really all that matters. Mechanics will figure out what happened soon enough.

Yes, they will. Boohoo on everyone trying to have a little fun. Let's take everything so serious that we can't have a little fun even when an odd situation was saved. Let's not have any fun along the way.

This is the second McKinley air tour Beaver with an off airport landing this season. Good drivers both....nobody hurt.

Yes, and why not have a little fun with odd reports?

It seems someone's skin is a little thin.

Holy shit, whenever I read anything you post its like you are trying to get in an argument with everyone..... trying to get another thread locked?

Interesting you said that Rob...I was thinking the very same thing...

Somehow I see nothing funny about any forced landing. That seems to be a bit too warped, even for me.

Cary

Hey two up front...... Your post are a downer . You sound like my ten year old son when you try and argue.Dissecting a post and responding to each and every part is pretty irritating . Nobody really does that except for you.Your flying knowledge is minimal and it shows.Please stop trying to argue with everyone. Like Rob said are you trying to get another thread locked.? When a turbine engine quits for no apparent reason it makes people scratch their heads and want to know why.Good job by the pilot getting it down in one piece.

aktahoe1 wrote:Interesting you said that Rob...I was thinking the very same thing...

=x3

robw56 wrote:
Holy shit, whenever I read anything you post its like you are trying to get in an argument with everyone..... trying to get another thread locked?

With 50 posts he's going to re-form the organization. Probably just a frustrated 13 year old. Wistful with a fistful.

robw56 wrote:Holy shit, whenever I read anything you post its like you are trying to get in an argument with everyone..... trying to get another thread locked?

Hmm, no. I just found it ridiculous to chastise people for having what was obvious fun with no harm done.

Cary wrote:Somehow I see nothing funny about any forced landing. That seems to be a bit too warped, even for me.

Cary

Well, there's nothing funny in the situtation, but noone was hurt, and it resulted in an odd report.

low rider wrote:Hey two up front...... Your post are a downer . You sound like my ten year old son when you try and argue.Dissecting a post and responding to each and every part is pretty irritating . Nobody really does that except for you.Your flying knowledge is minimal and it shows.Please stop trying to argue with everyone. Like Rob said are you trying to get another thread locked.? When a turbine engine quits for no apparent reason it makes people scratch their heads and want to know why.Good job by the pilot getting it down in one piece.

"Dissecting" an argument/post is how you, well, dissect it. It makes sure that each premise is addressed. If you find it irritating, so what? I find it irritating that a lot of you have so thin skin that even obvious guesswork, that noone would take serious, somehow is too much - even when noone is hurt. That thin skin doesn't allow yourself to take the moral high ground.

Having a laugh and obvious guessing game show-style in this instance doesn't hurt anyone, and noone - except the thin skinned people - would take it for more than what it was. Noone poked fun at the pilot, nor were we negative about him setting the bird down. Noone questioned his skills.

In short, we thought it was an odd report.

Emory Bored wrote: With 50 posts he's going to re-form the organization. Probably just a frustrated 13 year old. Wistful with a fistful.

I have no intention of reforming any "organization", nor am I a frustrated 13-year-old. On the contrary, I, as well as the people posting in this thread before you lot, are able to conceive of nuances.

Having a laugh and obvious guessing game show-style in this instance doesn't hurt anyone, and noone - except the thin skinned people - would take it for more than what it was. Noone poked fun at the pilot, nor were we negative about him setting the bird down. Noone questioned his skills.

In short, we thought it was an odd report.

Interesting....as one who has had more than one forced landing, I can tell you that there's nothing "whimsical" about an in flight engine failure.

You think there's no harm "dissecting" an incident like this??? Really? So, you think that none of the speculation casts questions and aspersions on the subject pilot's skills and/or judgement? Trust me, when something like this happens, a concientious pilot DOES feel badly, even if he or she in fact pretty much did everything right. Further, there's obviously an investigation going on, and THAT is usually done by people who sorta know what they're talking about.

Finally, I didn't see anything odd at all about the report. There was no accident, nobody was hurt, and the media obviously didn't get much information. In fact, however, there's really not much to report. Actually, I thought as media reports go, that this one was pretty good. It gave the basic facts, and nothing else, no speculation, no sensationalization, nada.....facts. I like that in a media report, myself.

Call me thin skinned if it makes you feel superior.

MTV

Since it is obvious that everyone of us posting here about this incident was guessing with no knowledge of the incident and most posted saying just that - hence the remarks about gameshows and whatnot, there's nothing that would somehow make it bad for the pilot.

Your idea of us second-guessing the pilot would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous.

We are not second-guessing the pilot. Some of us thought the report was odd and couldn't quite figure out what to make of it. And since noone was hurt and it was a succesful (for want of a better word) forced landing, there's no harm done.

As for "whimsical": That's your word, not mine or anyone else. But I mentioned nuances and it seems your paranoia about what can happen when "second-guessing" springs right to the fore, without any concession for nuance. Any talk about any incident is bad in your view, regardless of the circumstances.

Further, even though we all make mistakes, and all get into situations that are serious (in all walks of life) where a little misjudgement or a little lack of skill could be fatal, I don't see why we can't laugh a little at it afterwards while we wait for the info to come to learn from it.

So, yeah, I'll continue to think of you as thin-skinned, because I think that "paranoid" and "monochrome" might be a tad too much for you to handle.

Two up front you are a masterdebater. That is not a compliment.All you want to do is argue . Guess you can't take a hint.