RCMP crash

[Prodriver]

"I always found it odd that RCMP chose to go with a single engine PC-12 in the North, not to hint this incident was because of that. I had the chance to fly one in Nunavut, many moons ago. Nope. No thanks. I'm glad I stuck to a King Air instead."




I love the King air as well, but it seems to have a checkered past, here is a quick look at some recent accidents. One only has to look at the Thunderbird YVR accident, the King Air training Academy school owner, the one that hit the Hanger in the US, the one that hit Flight Safety in KS, and the new GTI 90 that ditched on the way to South America to see they aare a complex AC and mutli crew made zero difference in the outcomes.

It is also an old design, from FAA Part 23 standards around and certed in 1973, its not designed to the newer cert standards that the PC12 currently meets in 1991.

I'd take a single pilot 12 anyday. I guess its a little hard on ones multi PIC time thou?

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0149.html

https://kingairmagazine.com/article/kin ... er-friend/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ng-takeoff

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/t ... board-die/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rry-flight

Be safe!

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

"I always found it odd that RCMP chose to go with a single engine PC-12 in the North, not to hint this incident was because of that. I had the chance to fly one in Nunavut, many moons ago. Nope. No thanks. I'm glad I stuck to a King Air instead."




I love the King air as well, but it seems to have a checkered past, here is a quick look at some recent accidents. One only has to look at the Thunderbird YVR accident, the King Air training Academy school owner, the one that hit the Hanger in the US, the one that hit Flight Safety in KS, and the new GTI 90 that ditched on the way to South America to see they aare a complex AC and mutli crew made zero difference in the outcomes.

It is also an old design, from FAA Part 23 standards around and certed in 1973, its not designed to the newer cert standards that the PC12 currently meets in 1991.

I'd take a single pilot 12 anyday. I guess its a little hard on ones multi PIC time thou?

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0149.html

https://kingairmagazine.com/article/kin ... er-friend/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ng-takeoff

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/t ... board-die/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rry-flight

Be safe!

In all fairness, I would argue that none of the accidents mentioned above had anything to do with the design of the King Air itself. Either mishandled engine failures/malfunctions or just plain fuel exhaustion.

As reliable as the PT6 is, I've personally had two of them fail on me without warning; one was an RGB failure causing the PT discs to grenade themselves, and the other was a torque limiter malfunction that kept cycling the engine in and out of min flow. Both of these happened up North in the middle of nowhere at night in IMC (also less than three weeks apart conveniently). Luckily on both occasions, I had a second engine to get me back on the ground. had I not, I'd almost certainly be dead.

Two is one and one is none. Just my two cents.

[rigpiggy]

Like the pc12 out of yzf that had the engine fail on departure that landed on the opposite runway(straight in arrival), or the brandnew<40 f2f pc12 that ended up in the sea of Japan. I don't really see how the far3/23. Standards made a difference on These accidents. The PT6 was.first designed when? 1958, flew in 1961,and the big pt6s were when 1980s sometime.

[cdnavater]

"I always found it odd that RCMP chose to go with a single engine PC-12 in the North, not to hint this incident was because of that. I had the chance to fly one in Nunavut, many moons ago. Nope. No thanks. I'm glad I stuck to a King Air instead."




I love the King air as well, but it seems to have a checkered past, here is a quick look at some recent accidents. One only has to look at the Thunderbird YVR accident, the King Air training Academy school owner, the one that hit the Hanger in the US, the one that hit Flight Safety in KS, and the new GTI 90 that ditched on the way to South America to see they aare a complex AC and mutli crew made zero difference in the outcomes.

It is also an old design, from FAA Part 23 standards around and certed in 1973, its not designed to the newer cert standards that the PC12 currently meets in 1991.

I'd take a single pilot 12 anyday. I guess its a little hard on ones multi PIC time thou?

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0149.html

https://kingairmagazine.com/article/kin ... er-friend/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ng-takeoff

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/t ... board-die/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rry-flight

Be safe!

In all fairness, I would argue that none of the accidents mentioned above had anything to do with the design of the King Air itself. Either mishandled engine failures/malfunctions or just plain fuel exhaustion.

As reliable as the PT6 is, I've personally had two of them fail on me without warning; one was an RGB failure causing the PT discs to grenade themselves, and the other was a torque limiter malfunction that kept cycling the engine in and out of min flow. Both of these happened up North in the middle of nowhere at night in IMC (also less than three weeks apart conveniently). Luckily on both occasions, I had a second engine to get me back on the ground. had I not, I'd almost certainly be dead.

Two is one and one is none. Just my two cents.

Hey guys, I’m wondering, should we get single engine fighter jets or twin engine fighters for defending the Artic? Discuss

[‘Bob’]

We already decided to get single engine fighters because engine failures are such an infinitesimal risk factor. Particularly for a fighter jet where things like mid-airs, CFIT, loss of control, and of course getting shot at are far greater. This isn’t the 1980s with memories of Starfighters impacting the ground (and even then engine failures were still the minority of causes).

[FL030]

or the brandnew<40 f2f pc12 that ended up in the sea of Japan

I didn't hear about that one before. Those people are incredibly lucky to be alive. I bet most operators wouldn't take passengers over the ocean with a PC-12. I wonder if northern Canadian terrain shouldn't be given the same respect we give the ocean.

[RoAF-Mig21]

Hey guys, I’m wondering, should we get single engine fighter jets or twin engine fighters for defending the Artic? Discuss

I would always argue that it would have been better to get two engines, but fighter jets are different. There are a few things that are substantially different with fighter jets:

1. They have ejection seats
2. Their pilots are generally more fit, have better gear and are better trained to survive the elements should the need arise.

The two are not really comparable. Flying a PC-12 from Iqaluit to Grise Fiord with 2 pilot and 4 pax is different.

But yes, the RCAF should have bought*** the F-35 to meet its NATO obligations AS WELL AS some sort twin engine (latest get F18s, Eurofighters, etc)

*** Not an expert... my opinion is like an a$$hole. Everyone has one

[cdnavater]

Sorry, guys, I posted that as a joke. The conversation about one versus two comes up all the time and the argument, reasoning stays the same on both sides, no new information has been posted here either, top it off we don’t know why this one did crash yet!

[Dry Guy]

Any updates on this? What caused the return to the airport? Did the girl end up being okay and return to flying?

[broken_slinky]

Doesn't look like any updates since the initial details.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inve ... w0040.html
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-p ... whitehorse
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/311104

[rigpiggy]

or the brandnew<40 f2f pc12 that ended up in the sea of Japan

I didn't hear about that one before. Those people are incredibly lucky to be alive. I bet most operators wouldn't take passengers over the ocean with a PC-12. I wonder if northern Canadian terrain shouldn't be given the same respect we give the ocean.

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/ ... tus-pc-12/

[rigpiggy]

WRT Prodriver FAR 23 was the newer standard. FAR 25 is Airliners

[‘Bob’]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

[rigpiggy]

an extra engine is like a firearm, better to have it and not need it than visaversa

[pelmet]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

Maybe we should give pilots a choice. Middle of the Arctic at FL290 in a PC-12 with no engine or middle of the Arctic in a King Air with one engine. Which is safer.

I'll take that more dangerous one thank you.

[Tbayer2021]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

This is true with some caveats. It only really applies to light twins and its mostly due to the type of pilot that flies them. In the hands of a proficient pilot - twins are inherently safer.

The danger of twins is that they arent safer in the hands of someone who occasionally flies and by extension isn't "proficient" in it. Its namely the handling of the One engine Inop scenario.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

You came in broken….

Say again?

[JL]

TSB final report
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0040.html

[Dry Guy]

A good reminder to all of us to fly the aircraft first regardless of distractions.

[Justjohn]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

I don’t know “Bob”. I’ve had 3 engine failures over 40 years. 2 were in piston twins and one was a B1900. To be fair the PT6 didn’t quit but the P2.5 cannon plug popped off and the engine kept running but wouldn’t make any power. Not being able to diagnose the problem in flight we ultimately just shut it down.

All 3 times we landed back at an airport. The B1900 was in 500’ and 2SM.

Statistically they all would have been impossible with 1 engine.

I’ll trust my training and experience over statistics.

[goingnowherefast]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

I don’t know “Bob”. I’ve had 3 engine failures over 40 years. 2 were in piston twins and one was a B1900. To be fair the PT6 didn’t quit but the P2.5 cannon plug popped off and the engine kept running but wouldn’t make any power. Not being able to diagnose the problem in flight we ultimately just shut it down.

All 3 times we landed back at an airport. The B1900 was in 500’ and 2SM.

Statistically they all would have been impossible with 1 engine.

I’ll trust my training and experience over statistics.

I'm with you on this one. I had a PW120 with a cracked oil cooler. We intentionally shut it down when the AFM/SOP told us to (showed up as low oil pressure once there was no oil left in the engine). The PW120 on the other wing brought us safely to an airport.

The big caveat is amature pilots. Professional pilots recieve significantly more training and typically fly a lot more. Would I feel comfortable in the back of a private pilot's Twin Commanche, that he flies 20-30hrs a year and can't remember the last time he practiced engine failure procedures? No, not at all. I'd rather go flying with that pilot in a Cherokee.

Do I feel comfortable in the back of an airliner, who's crew flies 700hrs a year and trains engine failure procedures twice a year? Absolutely!

[digits_]

Most pilots don’t want to admit that they will actually be safer in a single engine aircraft with no engine than a twin engine plane with one.

It’s like gun owners. Statistically, the biggest threat is accidental discharge or self inflicted gun shot wound.

I don’t know “Bob”. I’ve had 3 engine failures over 40 years. 2 were in piston twins and one was a B1900. To be fair the PT6 didn’t quit but the P2.5 cannon plug popped off and the engine kept running but wouldn’t make any power. Not being able to diagnose the problem in flight we ultimately just shut it down.

All 3 times we landed back at an airport. The B1900 was in 500’ and 2SM.

Statistically they all would have been impossible with 1 engine.

I’ll trust my training and experience over statistics.

I'm with you on this one. I had a PW120 with a cracked oil cooler. We intentionally shut it down when the AFM/SOP told us to (showed up as low oil pressure once there was no oil left in the engine). The PW120 on the other wing brought us safely to an airport.

The big caveat is amature pilots. Professional pilots recieve significantly more training and typically fly a lot more. Would I feel comfortable in the back of a private pilot's Twin Commanche, that he flies 20-30hrs a year and can't remember the last time he practiced engine failure procedures? No, not at all. I'd rather go flying with that pilot in a Cherokee.

Do I feel comfortable in the back of an airliner, who's crew flies 700hrs a year and trains engine failure procedures twice a year? Absolutely!

Part of it is the kind of training as well. Generally, pilots are trained to maintain altitude during an engine failure. Use the second engine to stay level and not crash. That's very valid for engine failures during takeoff, but mainly useless for engine failures during cruise. Even jets won't maintain cruise altitude single engine, but especially for piston twins, there should be no shame in losing altitude. If you accept that, the "rushed" sequence of events becomes significantly less stressful. Yet I haven't ever encountered an instructor who mentions that is an option during initial training. And only one that actually dove into it during 704 training ops. In most cases, it's such an easy way out while you figure stuff out, especially if you're a rusty private pilot.

[Rooster69]

Practice, practice, practice.


When is the last time most private pilots practice flying with one engine ‘shutdown’? At least the pilots flying professionally get recurrent training. We are only as good as our training and our mindset.

[Prodriver]

I find it odd in this report, that they don't mention any speeds at rotation and if she was in "Pusher Ice Mode" w/ the prop heat on! It requires a higher rotation speed, if you don't do that, you get rewarded with a STALL warning and a shaker and in her departure, low WX.

The TSB seemed to omit that technical data in all forms, but luckily found two broke belts in the AOA probes and no mention of "Pusher Ice mode" or rotation speeds. Odd to say the least on a very wordy report.

The SD accident with the hunters had all the speeds and the effects of an early rotation in "Pusher Ice Mode" were reported by the FAA.

[porcsord]

if you don't do that, you get rewarded with a STALL warning and a shaker and in her departure, low WX.

Would that set up give you a stall warning and shaker for the entire flight, regardless of airspeed? Or just initially and then subside once you were above the adjusted shaker speed?

It reads to me that the stall warning never went away, regardless of airpseed. Maybe it was omitted because the rotation speed was irrelevant due to the broken AoA belt?