From PC-12 FO to King Air FO - tips?

[koopdogg]

Good day,

Im in the beginning stages of starting a new job in manitoba. I was doing pc-12 sked for about a year / 750hrs and it looks like i’ll be moving on to medevac on a king air 200. Any tips from king air guys on starting to fly this bird? Obviously medevac will be extremely different then sked but im more so looking for tips on learning to fly and operate the king air. I only have about 15 hours on a multi haha.

Thanks

[digits_]

No need to worry, it's a pretty docile airplane. Most models handle ice very well and have lots of power.

[Cherokee12]

Fly good, don't suck

[Jean-Pierre]

It take forever to start the thing

[tsgarp]

Best advice I ever got was from an old Voodoo pilot; “It’s a plane, you fly it”. Don’t be intimidated, grab the POH, learn the systems. The engines are still PT6s, so not much more to learn there. As was said above, a well behaved airplane with straight forward systems.

[goingnowherefast]

You'll need a good amount of rudder pressure to keep the thing straight with an engine out. Know the engine-out procedures like the back of your hand. You'll be trying to run the drill while helmet fire is going on just trying to fly the thing. The better you know the engine failure SOP means less brain power is devoted to memory recall.

That basically goes for any multi though. Other than that, all Beechcraft turbine twins are well behaved and honest airplanes. I have yet to meet a pilot who doesn't like the King Air.

[Prodriver]

Take a look at this throttle movement issue, it was a cause in the last few King Air accidents:

https://kingairnation.com/blog/understa ... _TV6DLWivQ

[Prodriver]

Read the comments and watch the Addison TX video.

https://jetcareers.com/forums/threads/k ... 463/page-2

[‘Bob’]

I'm not sure why the King Air is of particular interest for roll backs. Pretty much every airplane in existence will do that. That's why you or PM as appropriate should be holding the power levers, setting friction, and monitoring power. Even levers that remain perfectly set will result in engines losing power if anti ice is selected or you're climbing into an inversion.

The main danger of the King Air highlighted by the Addition TX incident is it's one of the largest and most powerful single pilot multi-engine aircraft there are, and unlike a Citationjet SP, a power rollback is going to have a huge effect on climb performance and controllability without the second pilot to set the power (the one in TX did have a second pilot but IIRC he was untrained and uninvolved in the flying the aircraft).

People forget it's just another multiengine aircraft... control... POWER... oh, problem fixed!

[SpyPilot]

Not quite.

Control, Power, Drag, Identify, Verify, Feather.

[‘Bob’]

Not quite.

Control, Power, Drag, Identify, Verify, Feather.

Are you really going to feather an engine that responded positively to power?

That’s the thing about that mantra.. it’s what’s to be considered, not necessarily done.

Please don’t go full power and pull the gear and flaps up if an engine fails on short final.

[SpyPilot]

I'll clarify my post.

The intent was to list the immediate action items to respond to an EFATO.

I see now that the thread was referring to the Addison, TX crash where the precipitating cause was suspected to be the uncommanded roll-back of the left engine, also at take-off, followed by the pilot throwing in a boot-full of left rudder, into the idling engine and pretty much snap rolling the plane to the left and over onto it's back.

Barely enough time to say "holy shit".

[‘Bob’]

Point is.. even in that case, power would have solved everything. You did two steps and solved the problem.. even leaving gear out isn’t an issue at this point.

[goingnowherefast]

Or...ya know...follow the company's SOP.

[digits_]

Or...ya know...follow the company's SOP.

Depends. Most of the time that's an excellent idea, but there are some SOPs that are an over reaction to previous incidents that just don't make sense or even make matters worse.

There was (is?) at least one turbo prop operator that tells you to go around when an engine fails on final, regardless of the cause. It's one (and the only one I've ever encountered) SOP that I would personally not follow.

[‘Bob’]

Or...ya know...follow the company's SOP.

Most SOPs say exactly this.

SOPs are not exhaustive and don’t replace the POH/AFM, basic airmanship, or common sense.

Another thing about “control” that isn’t explicitly defined or mentioned or rarely trained.

If you are below Vmc or the airplane is rapidly rolling uncontrollably, the reaction is to close throttles, opposite rudder, and push the nose down. You are going to crash, but it will at least have a chance of being survivable. That’s why aircraft control is the first item.

This is also why for most pilots either single pilot or private pilot, a single engine aircraft is probably safer.

[goingnowherefast]

It's been a while, but IIRC, Beechcraft has a memory item checklist for engine failured below Vmc. And yeah, it's basically what you said.

[SpyPilot]

Why would any competent ME pilot allow their airspeed to get anywhere near, much less below VMC in the first place?

[Prodriver]

Yikes!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 89033.html

[co-joe]

Why would any competent ME pilot allow their airspeed to get anywhere near, much less below VMC in the first place?

The King Air will leave the ground below Vmca in some cases, if you need it to because of field length. The caveat is that if you lose a stove you have an unflyable aircraft. Your only option is to reduce thrust on the good engine and probably die. Welcome to 703 aviation.

[‘Bob’]

Why would any competent ME pilot allow their airspeed to get anywhere near, much less below VMC in the first place?

That’s what I ask myself too as I read report after report of twins augering in after a VMC roll.

My guess is a lot of ME pilots think they are competent until it actually happens.

[digits_]

Why would any competent ME pilot allow their airspeed to get anywhere near, much less below VMC in the first place?

That’s what I ask myself too as I read report after report of twins augering in after a VMC roll.

My guess is a lot of ME pilots think they are competent until it actually happens.

Probably a lot of causes. Some might freak out and either freeze or shut down the wrong engine. Not much we can easily do about that. For others, I'd like to think that more realistic training would be a big help.

I remember having an engine failure in cruise in a piston twin (a fuel delivery issue). I was half expecting the plane to dramatically try and kill me. But here's what happened: nothing. A little bit of yaw, but not nearly as much as you'd expect. But that was for the first 10 seconds. The 'nothing' that happened gave me a false sense of security. I was in cruise, flying along, nicely trimmed out and started to trouble shoot the issue. Until I realized I was a couple of knots above the stall speed. That's when the drill kicked in to feather it and keep flying.

The problem here is that nobody ever tells you that initially during an engine failure in cruise, nothing really happens. We're always trained with the drill and the need to act somewhat quickly. There's a bit of a simulated VMC demo where instructors often might get nervous and it's a half assed exercise with lots of simulations going. But we never give students the time, or as students got the time, to just sit there and see what the plane would actually do if you didn't do anything. Heck, most students never bring a twin up to normal cruise settings at a normal cruising altitude anyway.

[rigpiggy]

If the KA has auto feather, it won’t AFX unless the power levers are up. Max power, positive rate, gear up confirm failed, feathered. Climb to 400 or 1000’ then do the drill. Squeeze, freeze, 8 degrees. Rudder to centre ball , lock it in, 8 degrees nose up