P-3 nearly crashes after recovering from 5-turn spin
 

For any former P-3 guys out there, incident occured earlier this week, here's the info I received:

Aircraft departed Whidbey Island (BUNO 161331) for a FCF flight. They were at 160 KIAS, approach flaps during a prop fails to feather check on #1 when #2 started surging. They bagged #2, but while doing so got to 122 KIAS. When they added power, they were way below VMC, and departed controlled flight. About a minute later, just before impact, they recovered.


45 consecutive rivets were pulled out on the starboard wing during the 7G pull out (rolling pull), after peaking at negative 2.4g's as well. It’s reported they did five spin rotations from 5500 ft - they bottomed out "between 50 and 200 ft"!! The inside of the fuel tanks were visible from pulled panels when they landed. This being categorized as a Class-A mishap.

Outstanding skills for the flight crew regarding the spin recovery!

I cant imagine doing that in the mighty war pig, I've done the VMC demo in that thing, and that alone was scary enough for me.

Wow!
Did they report any poo-poo in the seats?

The seat cushions have not been located. A poo-poo test will be conducted once they are retrieved. The investigating officer expects the test to be positive.

I bet their fun meters were pegged! Is there a "P3 Experimental Test Pilot" badge?

Good job, folks!

I'm coordinating numerous P-3's at RIMPAC,...they sure have a lot of squawks and gremlins. I hope they hurry up with the P-8.

Wow, what's the immediation action for that?

I'm thinking "controls release, feet off rudders..." probably wouldn't have worked for them.

Particularly impressive that they started at 5500 ft.

It was reported that some of the pax on the recent Quantas flight vomited after landing. Wonder how the P-3 crew managed. Poo-poo on the seats is proabably an understatement. I'm thinking poo-poo, pee-pee, vomit, and a handle of Jack Daniels, followed by more vomit.

a freakin' Orion? I can't even imagine how that would've looked :s

what exactly is the recovery procedure.... just get the nose down, idle power, hope for vmc, opposite rudder?

Seats
 

I'm thinking more like "seat cushions had to be surgically removed from all aboard!" If this is true, the fact that they recovered at all is amazing.

If an Orion did anything around 7gs I'm glad it didn't break apart on the recovery (sort of like that C-130 fire fighting aircraft did a few years back). Like ExAF said - if the facts are accurate in this story I'm glad everyone walked away from this experience with nothing more than a damaged airplane!

USMCFLYR

Wow! Great job by the crew. I flew Herc's for 10 years before this assignment. I can't imagine doing a 5 turn spin in P-3.

I would rather be lucky than good anyday.

Nope
 

Nope, not really skeptical. I just think I know where my seat cushion would have been! Right below my larynx. I can't remember if it was tweet spin or F-4 training where we used 1K' per turn for altitude loss. I figured a P-3 would be about the same. 5 turns from 5500' = amazing recovery. Just glad everyone is OK.

Tweet & Phantom
 

ExAF:

Tweet was 1000; Phantom was 10,000 minimum to recover from entry.

I never flew hard-wings, so I never got that close....but had to unload many times to prevent it!!

I saw some pics forwarded through channels today. HOLY...!

Stick forward, Maintain 3-8 units AOA...
 

I wasn't talking recovery altitude, just ft loss per turn. At 5K in a Rhino (the real Rhino, not today's poser) you would have had enough time for an "unload" and that's about all. Can't wait to see the pics if they ever surface.

pics
 

First Pictures, Report of Near Loss of US Navy P-3

cheese and rice...

Shamu - Thanks for posting the pic's, I been meaning to do it but had little time these last few days. What started as a 4-day trip turned into 6 thanks to ASA scheduling.

Sorry - I'm confused about two things. First - what was the mission? NATOPS check or FCF? I know the community does NATOPS checks in the airplane but I wouldn't imagine they do one in conjunction with a FCF.
Second - P-3 guys please chime in here (or any heavy pilot) - if you had #1 secure for some reason having to do with either training (NATOPS) or FCF (engine shutdowns) and #2 started to run rough or act up in some way; wouldn't you normally restart #1 before shutting down #2?

USMCFLYR

(not an airline guy, 2 tours in P-3s, PPC) no speculation, just rusty NATOPS memories:

The narrative posted with these photos is contradictory. Odds are, they were either on an FCF or a NATOPS check, not some weird mix of the two.

USMC, the engine loiter brief states that if you have one engine shut down (in this case #1) and a malfunction occurs on another engine that requires immediate shutdown (in this case #2), you shut it down (#2) and THEN restart the loitered engine (#1). The concept being that certain malfunctions specifically require immediate shutdown to avoid catastrophic failure that would preclude the time required for a restart on the loitered engine.

If it is a malf that does not require immediate shutdown, then you restart the loitered motor and then address the issue with the malfunction.

The narrative is also open to interpretation, being on just 2 engines is not what caused the stall (if in fact that is what happened, who knows who did that write up and released the pics), the plane flies fine on 2 (when in parameters).

Thanks zab. The highlighted part above is where I would be careful; but you guys have been doing this for a long time so I defer. In my community we have been battling the 'fast hands in the cockpit' scenario for a long time obviously. As I say in one of the first single engine briefs new RPs get - the Hornet doesn't have a history of exploding in mid-air. My question is what necessitates an "immediate" engine shutdown - or how long does it takes to get that operative engine (that was shut down for training) back on-line? I agree that it depends on what the problem is with the second; but this story makes it sounds like it started running rough or something else that said that there was a possible problem but not like it exploded or was a raging fire.

I remember a scenario in my sim training for the PMCF qual when I had one engine secured and was slow and he gave me a fire on the other engine. I immedaitely shut down that engine without a second thought - of course losing all power now - talk about fast hands!

I didn't think that being on 2 engines would casue the OCF condition by its' own merit. I figured that two out on one side is much more serious then one on each side.

Whatever the speculation and whatever the real story here - I'm glad the crew got the plane on the ground without further injury.

USMCFLYR

Well, as you've noted, the issue is that that the details aren't there, but the training specifies what does and does not warrant an immediate shutdown, as well as mitigating factors to consider if there are any gray areas in the situation.

Sure, depends on the situation, inputs, regime...in a benign environment, it can just be a managable, minor pain in the ass.

Everyone is alive, so a bad day didn't get any worse.

My guess is the OCF wasn't a function of being on two right side engines but more a function of holding the nose back as airspeed was decaying and the ensuing stall/departure. Glad they were able to save the crew and the airframe(although from the pictures looks like it may be stricken anyhow)

Hello all!
I just wanted to chime in on your discussion about the mishap as I work with one of the pilots that was on board. Just to clarify things the investigation is still ongoing so a lot of the information you are reading about is not true. However, some of it is true but i'm not going to divulge anything. It is a mystery to a lot of us in the command how the information was disemenated especially the pictures. Well the pictures are not that hard to figure out but someone apparently did not understand the importance of keeping that information to themselves until the investigation was complete. Long story short, nothing in written text is the "final word" so keep that in mind. The good thing is that we still have all crewmembers onboard at the time with us safe and sound.

That's easy, someone broke the rules. I dont think anyone in this particular forum was doing anything other than speculating on some information that was passed along this thread. That would include those of us that are on active duty and understand the principles of the AMB and how it works. That said, this is a PUBLIC forum and information on here whether its correct or not is probably free game to comment on.

Marine Herk out of Pax River got the split S check in the box 3 years ago. This was due to liferaft departure inflight. From what I heard it started at FL240 and ended at 9,000'.

Having been part of an accident investigation recently, this day and age of the internet will have to change the way the investigations are conducted. Unfortunately, everybody wants to be the first to be the "reporter"! It actually hurts the investigation process at times.

This incident is not the first time in the P-3 history of this happening.

Well...the FEs got two hands, left hand pulling out on the #1 feather button (we'll bypass the PCO pressurizing just this once!), with the right hand pulling the confirmed #2 E-handle.

For me, with #1 shut down, simply an engine vibration nomatter how bad, short of 'whirl-mode' developing on #2, I would restart #1 first!

'nuf said...

My two cents. Plane flies fine on two engine out scenario. Doesn't fly fine when you get behind the power curve with airspeed. These guys did a great recovery and deserve a break! Remember they all walked away.

Why shut two first?
old sea story: Vibrations in the number 4 engine, resulted in the prop seperating, taking out the number three engine, #3 prop fragments cut through the fuselage. It ended up being a power off gust locked ditch and everyone survived.

Vibrations evident means quick action so that the prop might stay on the aircraft.

CenterSeat FE.........Dougherty?

Fresh underwear to the front office please.

pmcf or pilot trainer?
 

Guys...

From the narratives I have read sent to me by active duty sources, there were 7 crewmembers onboard. From my recollection (vp44/vp1) and being pmcf and ip in both, pmcf is minimum crew. Has this changed? The makeup of this crew indicates pilot trainer (IP, two pilots under instruction, IFE, fe under instruction, and two observers). While the crew did an admirable job in the recovery, just wondering why timely power was not added on the operating engines (with corresponding rudder). Things that make u go hmmmm...

JMO

Pilot7576

Sounds like a PT to me. For an FCF, you would not slow below 170. And you are correct, min crew only on a FCF.

Orion FE
Former P-3 IFE

been a while since being in the community, but couldnt you have more than min crew if others were getting their FCF qual?

As a once full-time and current part-time Orion jockey, I would agree there could have been more than four on an FCF, possibly, if there were some training going on. Don't know the FIRST THING about any inside info on this one, so I'm not spillin' any beans here; but here goes a little unsolicited insight.
The FCF deck NEVER has anyone shutting down engines at less than 190 KIAS. Actually, I believe the FCF deck specifically lists the airspeed for restart at 190-200 KIAS. Also, even for training, when we "simulate" loiter on an engine (actually it's really shut down) we run through the first several items of the Inflight Restart Checklist in order to prepare the aircraft for restart quickly in a bad situation. There is an airspeed call on that checklist. I simply can't imagine ANY pilot trainer scenario that would allow flight with an ACTUALLY FEATHERED engine at 160 KIAS. That's basically 1.35-1.6 Vs with approach flaps. We NEVER configure with flaps with an engine shut down unless it's real. As a matter of fact, we practice 3-engine ditch all the time, but we do it with ALL ENGINES RUNNING and simulate an engine shutdown with low SHP for training. I believe we do this for the very reason that you DO NOT want to get below the power curve in a turboprop with ACTUAL asymmetric thrust.
Having said all that, I really don't know anything official about what has happened. If it comes out that they got to 122 KIAS on two engines, they are very lucky to be alive. You just don't do that on purpose unless you're trying to get to Davey Jones' Locker.
As for the VMCair demo, we stopped doing that in the aircraft because of a myriad of reasons, mainly erroneous fire warnings on engines at high TIT and high AOA. But the best, and craziest lesson of that demo was that, when you want the altitude (backstick) and the airspeed (power levers) the most, you have to let them go temporarily in order to recover. A very non-pilot input needed, and a very bad place to be indeed. That the Orion was built like a brick $h!thouse is probably why we'll eventually talk with those involved. Thank heavens they all walked away...

As a former P-3 PPC, IP, squadron Safety O, and wing NATOPS O, I gotta agree with Leroy. They should NEVER have gotten that slow to begin with, certainly not with a loitered engine. Slowing below Vmc and then adding power on the good side without first trading altititude for speed set these guys up for an E-ticket ride with a too small chance of survival. That they recovered and survived is a testament of a good stick in the left seat. Maybe his head work was off in getting into this mess in the first place, but I gotta praise the subsequent recovery.

Here's my two cents on the "why" they shut down #2 before starting #1.

Remember that the T-56 engines on the P-3 are single spool. Engine RPM is TOTALLY controlled by prop RPM. The power turbine on a T-56 is NOT a free turbine as they are on most modern turbo prop engines. The upside is that there is essentially no spool up time because the engines are always at 100% RPM. Instant power lever response. The downside is that if there's a prop pitch control/governor problem, things can get very bad very fast. Also, the Hamilton Standard props are TOTALLY dependent on good hydraulic power for pitch control. If the hydraulic power is lost, the prop pitch will NOT "fail safe" toward feather as on modern prop systems, but will fail toward flat pitch and thus an overspeed. The pitch lock system SHOULD catch that and lock the prop pitch, but if the hydraulic or governor system loss is quick enough, the overspeed will happen before the mechanical pitch lock can kick in.

The engine was reported to be "surging" . Since engine RPM is controlled by prop RPM, a "surging" engine is actually a surging prop. Very bad news. If the prop pump 1 light of the surging engine illuminates, you want to get the prop feathered NOW, before the prop pump 2 light illuminates and you cannot feather. Or if the RPM surged above 104%, you want to feather the prop NOW because if at the next surge cycle it reaches 106%, the prop WILL leave the airplane and become a buzz saw that tears into the fuselage right about where the TACCO is sitting, which is not that far behind the pilot.

Shutting down #2 should NOT have resulted in the loss of airspeed. Apparently, the PPC was focussed on the bad engine/prop and the feathering opeartion instead of aviating. Had the PPC been paying attention to aviating while the FE bagged #2 (and/or had the 2P been properly backing him up with airspeed calls) they would have added power to the two good engines (and/or dropped the nose) before losing significant airspeed. But it's easy to second guess the PPC from the comfort of an armchair.

3 YEARS 2 MONTHS AND 13 DAYS


Is that a record?

Tick IP? LOL!

Or as they say in "The Untouchables,"

"Who would claim to be that who was not?"