Pilot and crew walk away after plane suffered engine failure over sea ice
When a single engine turboprop loses power over Arctic sea ice, there is almost no room for error. On 7 May 2024, a Kudlik Aviation Pilatus PC 12 lost engine power near Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, and still all three people on board walked away. The Transportation Safety Board investigation reveals the pilot and crew did a lot of things right that saved their lives.
The warning signs were subtle. The day before, on another leg in Nunavut, the crew heard an “unusual bang.” Maintenance, including a ground run, “revealed…the engine’s parameters remained normal, and the noise could not be reproduced. It was determined that the noise was possibly caused by a momentary bleed-off valve fault.” With no concrete defect found, the aircraft returned to service.
Two flights the next morning were uneventful. Then, on the short hop from Chesterfield Inlet to Rankin Inlet, the situation changed quickly. The TSB found that “Shortly after starting the descent from 4000 feet above sea level (ASL), the engine emitted a series of bangs with flames appearing from the exhaust ducts followed by a sharp reduction in power.”
Power could not be recovered. The crew declared MAYDAY and set up for a belly landing on the sea ice. “At 0951, the aircraft landed on the sea ice approximately 5 nautical miles (NM) east of CYRT with the landing gear in the retracted position.” Despite the harsh environment and the sudden loss of power, the Board reported, “There were no injuries.”
What went right when things went wrong
From a survivability standpoint, the fundamentals were in place. “The aircraft came to rest upright and intact.” All three occupants were belted in with shoulder harnesses, cargo was properly restrained, and “the occupants egressed quickly and safely through the main cabin door, onto the sea ice.”
The TSB’s safety message is blunt and broadly applicable: “The correct use of safety belts and cargo restraints can improve survivability outcomes during forced landings.” For safety leaders, this reinforces the value of simple but enforced controls such as proper restraints, secure loads, and realistic emergency planning for remote or hard to access worksites.
Rescue systems also functioned, though with the delays typical of the North. The emergency locator transmitter did not trigger automatically but was activated manually and its signal relayed to federal authorities. Police and local fire services reached the site by snowmobile roughly an hour and twenty minutes later.
When robust systems still fail
On the technical side, the investigation shows how well-maintained systems can still fail without a clear root cause. The Pratt and Whitney PT6A 67B engine had been overhauled in 2020 and was operating within a Transport Canada approved time extension.
Post occurrence inspection found severe internal damage. “The engine did not rupture and remained intact with the exception of the 2 power turbine stages, in which all the blades had experienced midspan fractures.” After a full teardown and lab work, “The results of the metallurgical analysis showed fracture by tensile overload. The cause of the power turbine blades fracture could not be established.” Data from the engine condition monitoring system also fell short of prediction: investigators reported it did not reveal “any anomalies that could suggest an imminent engine failure.”
For health and safety leaders, the message is pragmatic. Some failures will remain unforeseeable, even with compliant maintenance and modern monitoring. That makes resilience and emergency preparedness as important as prevention. Unexplained anomalies warrant structured follow up and documented, risk-based decisions, particularly in remote operations, because when the unexpected happens, those basics often decide whether everyone goes home.
