Put it this way, I had an engine failure after departure a few years ago in a twin in hard IFR. While the bottoms were only at 500 feet or so being that there were no ILS around I will consider the weather to be poor. My good engine managed to get me from where I was (about 4000 feet) back around to do the approach to minimums and land. It was not a PT-6 but at the end of the day I sure as hell appreciated that second engine. So much so that I turned down a job offer that week from a place I was trying to get to for a while. It really makes you think!pelmet wrote:Your whole rant on this thread seems to be that flying a single engine airplane departing with a takeoff alternate is somehow too dangerous for you to be willing to do. Why is that? All kinds of twin engine aircraft do it, why not on a PC-12 or Caravan? All you have said is that it is dangerous but not given any specific detail why.
PC-12 off runway in YTS
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
[quote="ZBBYLW"][quote="pelmet"]Your whole rant on this thread seems to be that flying a single engine airplane departing with a takeoff alternate is somehow too dangerous for you to be willing to do. Why is that? All kinds of twin engine aircraft do it, why not on a PC-12 or Caravan? All you have said is that it is dangerous but not given any specific detail why.[/quote]
Put it this way, I had an engine failure after departure a few years ago in a twin in hard IFR. While the bottoms were only at 500 feet or so being that there were no ILS around I will consider the weather to be poor. My good engine managed to get me from where I was (about 4000 feet) back around to do the approach to minimums and land. It was not a PT-6 but at the end of the day I sure as hell appreciated that second engine. So much so that I turned down a job offer that week from a place I was trying to get to for a while. It really makes you think![/quote]
Congratulations on the well handling of your emergency. Now imagine that someone is in their Caravan at 4000 feet on the climb and they lose their engine. Would they have been able to make it back to the airfield. Your argument is definitely a logical one for using a multi-engine aircraft versus a single engine aircraft, but that is not what I am talking about.
Single engine flying is here to stay and has been around since 1903 and well accepted. However, Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits.
Put it this way, I had an engine failure after departure a few years ago in a twin in hard IFR. While the bottoms were only at 500 feet or so being that there were no ILS around I will consider the weather to be poor. My good engine managed to get me from where I was (about 4000 feet) back around to do the approach to minimums and land. It was not a PT-6 but at the end of the day I sure as hell appreciated that second engine. So much so that I turned down a job offer that week from a place I was trying to get to for a while. It really makes you think![/quote]
Congratulations on the well handling of your emergency. Now imagine that someone is in their Caravan at 4000 feet on the climb and they lose their engine. Would they have been able to make it back to the airfield. Your argument is definitely a logical one for using a multi-engine aircraft versus a single engine aircraft, but that is not what I am talking about.
Single engine flying is here to stay and has been around since 1903 and well accepted. However, Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Single engine flying is here to stay and has been around since 1903 and well accepted. However, Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits.
ummmm....if you have another engine you can do an approach as published or with the aid of the other engine...or fly to an alternate?
With no engine you can only glide to earth based on the height you lost your engine?
-
mag check
- Rank 7
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:24 am
- Location: Drink in my hand, feet in the sand
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Are you seriously asking this, or are you just a troll?Single engine flying is here to stay and has been around since 1903 and well accepted. However, Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits
You do realize that a comparable twin to a pc12 or caravan doesn't necessarily have to return to the below minimums airport that it just departed from?
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Do you ever proof read your drivel before you hit the "submit" button?pelmet wrote: Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits.
I'll try to type this real slow, so you will understand. If you depart when the weather is below approach limits, and you have an engine failure, you must proceed to your "departure alternate", on your remaining engine, because you can't land at your original departure airport....due to the fact it's below approach limits.
If you do this in a single engine airplane......well, do you really need me to draw you a picture?
You seem to have a "bone to pick" with me on this subject. I don't care. I couldn't give a rat's ass if you want to depart in 50 feet and an eighth of a mile. The fact of the matter is, an alternate departure airport is REQUIRED when your departure airport is below approach limits.
Learn to use the "quote" feature. It's really very simple.
P.S. I used 100 and a 1/2 in my example for two reasons. 1/2 mile is the minimum vis for departure. If your departure airport had an approach limit of 200 feet, you wouldn't need a departure alternate, now would you? If you feel it's safe to fly hard IFR in a single, please don't take passengers with you. You obviously have no idea about that of which you pontificate.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
[quote="Doc"][quote="pelmet"] Doc seems to feel that if you takeoff in a single when the weather is below limits for an approach, that it is dangerous. I would like to know why that is compared to departing in any other aircraft when the weather is below limits.[/quote]
Do you ever proof read your drivel before you hit the "submit" button?
I'll try to type this real slow, so you will understand. If you depart when the weather is below approach limits, and you have an engine failure, you must proceed to your "departure alternate", on your remaining engine, because you can't land at your original departure airport....due to the fact it's below approach limits.
If you do this in a single engine airplane......well, do you really need me to draw you a picture?
[/quote]
O.K. now I'll type real slow for you and others to understand. If you decide to take off in your single engine caravan from an airport and you lose your engine, you likely won't make it back. You will likely crash-land somewhere off airport. It doesn't matter if it is nice and clear or if it is zero/zero at your departure airport although admittedly in daytime with higher weather you can probably choose a better off place to crash land.
Either way you are almost certainly not going to your takeoff alternate and most likely not back to the airport of departure. So the risk factor for crashing after an engine failure in your single engine aircraft are similar if it is a nice clear day or after a takeoff from an airport requiring a takeoff alternate. Either way you are crashing if that engine fails for the majority of the route of your flight. It amazes me that there are several recent posters, some of whom claim to be highly experienced who obviously have not figured that out and somehow seem figure that all or much of the risk of a single engine aircraft takoff risk suddenly disappears if the weather is higher than a certain limit.
Do you ever proof read your drivel before you hit the "submit" button?
I'll try to type this real slow, so you will understand. If you depart when the weather is below approach limits, and you have an engine failure, you must proceed to your "departure alternate", on your remaining engine, because you can't land at your original departure airport....due to the fact it's below approach limits.
If you do this in a single engine airplane......well, do you really need me to draw you a picture?
[/quote]
O.K. now I'll type real slow for you and others to understand. If you decide to take off in your single engine caravan from an airport and you lose your engine, you likely won't make it back. You will likely crash-land somewhere off airport. It doesn't matter if it is nice and clear or if it is zero/zero at your departure airport although admittedly in daytime with higher weather you can probably choose a better off place to crash land.
Either way you are almost certainly not going to your takeoff alternate and most likely not back to the airport of departure. So the risk factor for crashing after an engine failure in your single engine aircraft are similar if it is a nice clear day or after a takeoff from an airport requiring a takeoff alternate. Either way you are crashing if that engine fails for the majority of the route of your flight. It amazes me that there are several recent posters, some of whom claim to be highly experienced who obviously have not figured that out and somehow seem figure that all or much of the risk of a single engine aircraft takoff risk suddenly disappears if the weather is higher than a certain limit.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Are you serious? I guess I don't understand your thought process!
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
There is NO thought process to understand.chesty wrote:Are you serious? I guess I don't understand your thought process!
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
what Pelmut is saying (although I'm sure he doesn't realize it...) is that ALL single-engine flight is going to end in a "crash" if there's an engine failure, therefore there should be NO single-engine flying for hire with passengers...in VFR or IFR because the outcome is going to be the same.
actually, what everyone else is in an uproar about is that in hard IFR you don't have the option for that very important #2 (or is it #3) step of engine failure in a single: find a suitable landing spot and get set up for it. how are you supposed to do that when you can't see anything until potentially 100ft or less above the ground? THATS what Doc and the others are so upset about - you limit your already really limited choices down to nothing, no choice at all. thats not an "acceptable level of risk", thats called leaving it to chance. Think everyone gets the bit about descending at the best glide and not having the options that a second engine give you.
I didn't realize that you could get an ops spec for lower-than-standard-takeoff in a single, that just flabbergasts me.... how the heck do they figure you are going to get to your take-off alternate (or anywhere other than hopefully your max distance glide based on altitude when it calfs) on NO engine???? Maybe, if you were already at a fairly high almost cruise altitude when it quit.... i don't get tc's logic (thats almost an oximoron....) on that at all.
I'm thinking that crew thinks they are pretty darn lucky that all happened when it did, that must have been real cause for some adrenaline.
So if you had the choice in jobs between an older twin turbine (no glass panel or fms) and a spanking new palatapus with full glass/fms, which would you choose? why?
actually, what everyone else is in an uproar about is that in hard IFR you don't have the option for that very important #2 (or is it #3) step of engine failure in a single: find a suitable landing spot and get set up for it. how are you supposed to do that when you can't see anything until potentially 100ft or less above the ground? THATS what Doc and the others are so upset about - you limit your already really limited choices down to nothing, no choice at all. thats not an "acceptable level of risk", thats called leaving it to chance. Think everyone gets the bit about descending at the best glide and not having the options that a second engine give you.
I didn't realize that you could get an ops spec for lower-than-standard-takeoff in a single, that just flabbergasts me.... how the heck do they figure you are going to get to your take-off alternate (or anywhere other than hopefully your max distance glide based on altitude when it calfs) on NO engine???? Maybe, if you were already at a fairly high almost cruise altitude when it quit.... i don't get tc's logic (thats almost an oximoron....) on that at all.
I'm thinking that crew thinks they are pretty darn lucky that all happened when it did, that must have been real cause for some adrenaline.
So if you had the choice in jobs between an older twin turbine (no glass panel or fms) and a spanking new palatapus with full glass/fms, which would you choose? why?
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
[quote="bbb"]what Pelmut is saying (although I'm sure he doesn't realize it...) is that ALL single-engine flight is going to end in a "crash" if there's an engine failure,....[/quote]
Actually, that is exactly what I said as is obvious in my last post. Some seem to feel that there is no thought process in what I am saying and are foolish enough to believe that somehow, if the weather at the departure airport in such aircraft is above minimums that they are somehow safer.
Guess what boys, you are not. If taking off in a single when the weather is 100 and a half is dangerous, it is no safer at 200 and 3/4. Yet the original statement to this article was that only if below minimums takeoff is attempted is it dangerous. Same risk in both(in terms of engine failure results) even if the wether is slightly above...or well above takeoff alternate requirements and aircraft can still get into the departure airport.
As for whether single-engine IFR commercial ops should be allowed....separate issue.
Actually, that is exactly what I said as is obvious in my last post. Some seem to feel that there is no thought process in what I am saying and are foolish enough to believe that somehow, if the weather at the departure airport in such aircraft is above minimums that they are somehow safer.
Guess what boys, you are not. If taking off in a single when the weather is 100 and a half is dangerous, it is no safer at 200 and 3/4. Yet the original statement to this article was that only if below minimums takeoff is attempted is it dangerous. Same risk in both(in terms of engine failure results) even if the wether is slightly above...or well above takeoff alternate requirements and aircraft can still get into the departure airport.
As for whether single-engine IFR commercial ops should be allowed....separate issue.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
This has to be the most stupid discussion on this forum in a long time.
I am getting paranoid every time I think about some of the pilots who might be flying commercially and hope I never end up in any airplane they are flying........
There should be a new forum for one brain cell discussions.
I am getting paranoid every time I think about some of the pilots who might be flying commercially and hope I never end up in any airplane they are flying........
There should be a new forum for one brain cell discussions.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
[quote="Cat Driver"]This has to be the most stupid discussion on this forum in a long time.
I am getting paranoid every time I think about some of the pilots who might be flying commercially and hope I never end up in any airplane they are flying........
There should be a new forum for one brain cell discussions.[/quote]
Well thank god the guy who has spent the last many years telling us how great he is as a pilot has shown us again how it is done...with another insult.
What a hero.
I am getting paranoid every time I think about some of the pilots who might be flying commercially and hope I never end up in any airplane they are flying........
There should be a new forum for one brain cell discussions.[/quote]
Well thank god the guy who has spent the last many years telling us how great he is as a pilot has shown us again how it is done...with another insult.
What a hero.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Pelmet, you have a problem with me there is a better way to vent your thoughts, I use my real name here and am easy to find.
Here it is . . 250-758-3693.
Give me a call and let's sort out your problems with my opinions on flying.
By posting anonymously your credibility leaves a lot to be desired for me personally.
Here it is . . 250-758-3693.
Give me a call and let's sort out your problems with my opinions on flying.
By posting anonymously your credibility leaves a lot to be desired for me personally.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
[quote="Cat Driver"]Pelmet, you have a problem with me there is a better way to vent your thoughts, I use my real name here and am easy to find.
Here it is . . 250-758-3693.
Give me a call and let's sort out your problems with my opinions on flying.
By posting anonymously your credibility leaves a lot to be desired for me personally.[/quote]
How about we just refrain from insults. I'll start right now.
Here it is . . 250-758-3693.
Give me a call and let's sort out your problems with my opinions on flying.
By posting anonymously your credibility leaves a lot to be desired for me personally.[/quote]
How about we just refrain from insults. I'll start right now.
-
Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
My vote goes to locking this one, there has hardly been a useful post since page 1.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
I have never flown the PC12, probably never will.... HOWEVER,
I do know that it has about a 12:1 glide ratio (ie it can glide about 12000 feet for every 1000 feet of altitude), but it can climb much steeper than that, so unless you have some serious wind, if you have an engine failure after takeoff at a couple of thousand feet, you can glide back to your departure airport. Now, if the Wx is crap there, then life will be significantly crappier!
I do know that it has about a 12:1 glide ratio (ie it can glide about 12000 feet for every 1000 feet of altitude), but it can climb much steeper than that, so unless you have some serious wind, if you have an engine failure after takeoff at a couple of thousand feet, you can glide back to your departure airport. Now, if the Wx is crap there, then life will be significantly crappier!
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Last month we (company) had a precautionary shutdown on a -67. oil pressure below 60, lights on, torque fluctuations etc.... they don't pay me enough, I don't have enough insurance to fly SEIFR
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Engine malfunction in a SEIFR aircraft, handled very well and all walked away. Now the usual suspects like "CAT" and "DOC" are saying it was luck. Seriously? So it's luck when a twin has an engine failure and it's handled correctly? Once again proof that SEIFR is not a death trap. Failure occured, handled according to the emergency procedures and everyone lived. I will ONCE AGAIN say the stats once again even after this incident prove that SEIFR is IS safe. Malfunctions happen and if handled properly there's a good chance everyone can walk away.
FYI when taking off in adverse weather (ie low ceilings) the EHSI is set up with the reciprical runway OBSed so a 180 can be carried out IMC using the instruments. This works very well and you're trained for it and waiting for it just incase.
FYI when taking off in adverse weather (ie low ceilings) the EHSI is set up with the reciprical runway OBSed so a 180 can be carried out IMC using the instruments. This works very well and you're trained for it and waiting for it just incase.
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
Okay, I'm calling you on this one, "teacher". So, you consider not "lucky" that this occurred within gliding distance of an airport? Try the same problem somewhere between Churchill and Baker Lake.teacher wrote:Engine malfunction in a SEIFR aircraft, handled very well and all walked away. Now the usual suspects like "CAT" and "DOC" are saying it was luck. Seriously? So it's luck when a twin has an engine failure and it's handled correctly? Once again proof that SEIFR is not a death trap. Failure occured, handled according to the emergency procedures and everyone lived. I will ONCE AGAIN say the stats once again even after this incident prove that SEIFR is IS safe. Malfunctions happen and if handled properly there's a good chance everyone can walk away.
FYI when taking off in adverse weather (ie low ceilings) the EHSI is set up with the reciprical runway OBSed so a 180 can be carried out IMC using the instruments. This works very well and you're trained for it and waiting for it just incase.
You say it's not "lucky" that the weather at YTS was not a Hell of a lot lower than it was?
Your point about turning around and landing on the other end of the runway is just "window dressing" pounded up your butt by Sim Com of FSI. Try it in the real world after you've departed in weather below approach minimums....or even close to minimums. The fact that this crew "got away with one" in no way makes SEIFR "safe". You really scare me. One crew got very lucky, and you feel that negates all the negatives involved with SEIFR? Sure.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: PC-12 off runway in YTS
They were fortunate the engine problem happened with an airport within reach with the power they had available.Now the usual suspects like "CAT" and "DOC" are saying it was luck.
Teacher you may brand me in your mind as a " suspect " whatever that means but at least I am a " suspect " that has flown over thirty thousand hours in the past fifty nine years all accident free.
However during that time I did have to shut down engines on several occasions and fly long distances on the other engine twice in the far north and once over water.
Had those engine failures been in single engine airplanes how would my accident statistics be now?
Would I even be here?
