PC12 Drivers

[July]

Just wondering, do you guys really feel safe flying in IMC? I would seriously be on edge every flight.

[grounded]

Okay, I'll bite. Yes, I feel safe flying in IMC with the PC-12.

[greenwich]

20,000' agl

300-500fpm sink rate (feathered)

40 minutes to over an hour to sit there and figure out what you are going to do!

G

[KAG]

20,000' one feathered, one pulling. no sink rate , and cruseing to closest alternate at 173 KTS TAS...not to sound like a snob, but I like my second engine.



Cheers.

[scabber]

Vmc, gross weight, 400 ft, upside down... fireball.

its all about minimizing your risk. Different type of flying, different considerations. its not all black and white.

What is the king air fatality rate per hour flown, compared to a PC12?

[KAG]

Scabber, in (most) King airs, there is NO reason to be at 400' and be at VMC. If you've controlled the AC properly it's not an issue. Lose an engine in the 200 at gross weight on a hot summer day, it's a non issue. Lose your engine in the 100, you may or may not pull out. If not your going down at a slow rate if you control it (airspeed)...isn't that the same for the PC12?

Now, let me ask you this...

How long has the King air been around VS the PC 12?
How many King air's are out there VS PC 12?
How many VMC deaths are there for the King air series? (I honestly don’t know)…knock on wood.

Shear numbers my friend, and ANY plane that’s been around long enough will have its fatal accidents, and it's usually Pilot related anyway.

I’d take an engine failure any day in a twin over the PC 12, or any single for that matter. I don't care how good the glide is, how good the avionics are, if it will fly the approach and tickle your balls at the same time… if you lose your engine at night, or IMC or up north, or in the mountains and your beyond gliding distance from an Airport your screwed. VMC doesn’t look so bad now does it?

Also, how many successful (and by that I mean make an airport) forced approaches from 20,000 have there been? Have you ever practiced it yourself? How did you do? Do you test/practice it?

Not trying to start the ever-popular argument about single VS twin, but that feel good glide crap is something we tell ourselves to help us sleep at night.
Not knocking the PC 12 directly, the fact is the PC 12 is a sweet plane -- fast, economical, a pilots dream to fly... but it still has its issues (as do all planes), and the major one being it has only one engine. IMHO.

Cheers.

[flyin9]

King air guy I agree with you. I to like the pc12, and I would rather fly it over say a pa-31, where the second engin only takes you as far as the crash site.(in certian situations).So for sombody starting out I think it is a very nice aircraft. You are taking the chance with the singel enging, but i'm sure most of us have worked for companies where the aircraft and the conditions uped our chances of biting the big one . So in my opion, for what it's worth, get your time and enjoy flying , but leave the tabel while your up money !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[f404]

I have flown the PC-12 and really enjoyed it. I think one consideration that you must idenitfy is window heat. At 20,000 feet the window heat takes alot of power and the battery won't last that long under those conditions. I also had an oil line leak and when that oil covers the windscreen it's IMC all the way down and the taxi in aswell. Just something to consider.

[oldncold]

here is the another angle:
its 3am the weather is below takeoff limits for the 2eng king air -no problem in the 12. Doesnot have to comply with the balanced field requirements.
weather is ok to go in both aircraft but the mission today is long haul
and the weather after delays during the course of the day. the forecast
turns against the king air because it needs one thing alot more of
jet fuel. no problem in the pc 12 2700 lbs sipping 385 hr at 24000 or go real high and get is back to 325 . after the first hour.

if the stove does go on vacation well a 64 knot stall speed and 23 g seats . with any skill you will walk away. king air 90+ knots that is ?
the imc thing is mute because these aircraft are designed to operate in
in imc.

the only concession most 12 drivers I ever have talked to just avoid
flying over large bodys of water at low altitude.

by the way how come a 172 used in commercial ops for flight training
can fly over the middle of the straight of georgia beyond gliding distance from shore with life jackets but a pc 12 or caravan(wheels) cannot do that as an air taxi even if it has full survival gear including rafts?
never gotten the real answer to that one yet.

[KAG]

Oldncold, Balanced field requirements don't apply to the King Air either.

I will admit the 12 has superior range to the King air (any model, any situation) and any other turbo prop of comparable size. In terms of range, it is the king.

The IMC issue is very real, it's kind of hard to "pick a field" (assume your in the middle of no where) when you cant see the ground. Sure you can set up to min sink and hope and pray…personally I like no sink, landing on an airfield and not testing the G rating of my seats.

Here's a story...One night our company’s B200 and another company’s PC12 were both doing medevac's. We all knew each other and we chatting on 126.75 – and as usual they were going to beat us in…
On decent into YXL the PC12 crew had what I could sympathize as a bad situation. Every time they pulled the power back to slow down a “shower of sparks” would fly past their windscreens. Not good. Not knowing what was going on or why, they elected to land extremely fast – slow enough to hang the gear (not sure about flaps, I don’t know the speeds of the 12), and they had no problems with it. Turned out it was the ceramic coating that line the exhaust letting go all at once instead of over time. Lots of sparks, looks real bad, but no big deal. Good job done.
They were kept their cool, but you could tell it was pucker factor 10 in that cockpit…you have only one engine and it’s giving you grief.
It’s times like that; that I like my second engine…shut it down and keep on trucking.

Cheers.

[Caracrane]

Got it right OLDNCOLD. And who among those 100 or 200 drivers would go to the sim to practice V1 cuts. I'd rather land straight ahead with a 12 than ending upside down with a 70 degree angle into the ground, and statistics show it. Fatal accidents between twin turbine vs single turbine is surprising.

[Capt]

I cann't believe that people are writting this. You would rather lose an engine at 400 ft with a 12 rather then a kingair. Sorry, i will stick with my kingair's. The 12 has great specs, but it will not do well going into the tree's after take-off at 400 ft, nor will it do well dead sticking it in 200 ft and 1/4 mile. Have fun.

[wha happen]

for arguements sake, the same could be said for the caravan, or any other single turbo prop

[flyinhigh]

what i find funny is that when you do your flight training and more a less your first job your on a single engine A/C and no problems.
But after you get that twin job people are like, no way will I fly a single engine airplane to dangerous.
Some of my best memories are in singles. and personally I would fly the PC-12 in a heart beat.

[KAG]

In the King air VMC is 86 kts, which is below the rotation speed by 10-12 KTS. If we had an engine failure at VMC we'd still be on the ground depending on the runway conditions and pilot reactions, maybe off the side.
After rotation (there is no V1 in a king air) and low to the ground yes it would be a handful, but by no means unmanageable.
Worse case would be a 4 bladed B200, autofeather failure, and rudder boost failure. Then you only have seconds to identify and feather before you hit the trees inverted - even at blue line.


Caracrane, anyone who has gone to Flight Safety practices V1 cuts numerous times, untill you get it right. It's not something you practice in the plane, but enough simulated engine failures at the MAP at altitude gives you a pretty good representation of what it's like.



Not knocking the 12, just saying for my personal preference, I'd rather have 2 engines.

Cheers.

PS, having 3 engine failures in singles as a student, I figure I'm cursed. So thats the other reason Id rather have 2 - im cursed.

[tailgunner]

The fact is, most engine failures happen when there are changes to the internal temps or pressures within the hot side, or Prop failures in the hub when an changing load is being applied to the prop. Therefore having a 500' glide rate can be a very mute point when failures rarely happen at 20000agl. I would challenge the best PC12rivers out there to sucessfully dead stick into ..say Kelowna or Kamloops BC after an engine failure on climb out. They may " only" end up in the trees using their superior "23G" seats in flatbush Saskatchewan, but in the rockies the trees are 2 feet wide 75 feet up, and the granite protruding to 7800' tends to be unforgiving. At least with a turbine twin, if all goes for sh*t I have the option of turning it into a PC12 if I ELECT to shut off the remaining engine. With the '12 you are committed to the landing after a failure. Secondly, to fly a dead stick approach into any of the instrument approaches in the interior of BC would be practically impossible. If the failure happens at cruise, and all the valleys have low clouds ( happens a lot), then where does one go in the '12? What obstacle and terrain clearance do you have when you will be trying to just make it into the next valley hoping for a break in the clouds ? and if you do find a break you had better pray for a cutline because you are going in no matter what. OUT.

[rightseatwonder]

interesting debate. still on the fence...

..but its "MOOT"....not mute! (used twice so far)

just nitpicking

[scabber]

Like I said before, it is a different type of flying, so there are different considerations to be made.

The PC12 has a lot of fancy avionics, that allow a pilot to fly an ILS of sorts, to any field, the new series 10 airplanes have color moving map displays which shows roads, cities, lakes, rivers... anyway.

In a 200, there are certain things you dont do with that machine. (fly it slow, or attempt to fly it beyond a few hundred miles )In the 12, there are certain considerations and preparations when operating in "bad" circumstances for a single engine airplane. EG, dont fly in an area at an altitude which will not allow gliding to a landing surface. On take-off in hard IMC, tune in the ILS for the opposite runway, or OBS the opposite runway on 2.5 mile range.

There are situations, that give me a creepy feeling... 280 just west of rocky mountain house.... no airports for 50 miles. Just hard dark granite. But, as long as you are a good pilot, you see these inherinent dangerous of the type, and avoid them.

Again, risk management. And the fact the airplane is basically NEW, it doesnt break much. I have flown old king airs. they break. i would take a new, modern airplane any day, over an old rusty king air. but thats just me!

[Cat Driver]

Oh, what the hell I may as well chirp in here.

I am beyond having to get all anguished about the subject.

For me it is simple.

I do not fly anything single engine IFR in IMC.

I do not fly anything single engine beyond gliding distance of land.

I do not fly anything single engine at night outside the airport cuircuit.

And last but not least I do not fly single pilot IFR.

( Single engine to me includes multi engine aircraft unable to maintain flight on one engine in the conditions that the flight will be conducted in. )

Cat

[oldncold]

this is an intelligent debate lets keep it this way!

cat driver I can understand your reluctance being you have been around
as long as bailing wire and grade A COTTON. but try this one on,
it is 1967 and your in an piston S-55 helicopter over the Kildala pass between
Kemano and Kitimat. more moving parts than a slippery politician.

the stove quits the mountains etc. same thing yet the fling wing guys and gals to this type of flying all the time. I would suggest to all that it is
the quality of maintenance being performed and the trust that pilots
place in the engineers. the pilots they sign the release for the aircraft..
engineers sign for the quality of the work they did or supervised.

getting to know the maintenance crew on a more personal basis and some donuts or pizza is not a bad investment in your time. If you show genuine interest if the stove ever does quit you may have learned something to
assist saving the day.

In all fairness to you cat otter engines and the like do fail with more regularity than the blow and go of today. and if I had grown up flying
back in the day when dc3 ruled the skys id would probably sing the same song ( i do have round engine time)

Times change and technology improves with age too. The pc 12 has been around for nearly 10 yrs and there is now a wealth of expertise that continues to be built upon. Just as the vast knowledge of round engines slowly declines as experts in the field retire in increasing numbers.


A more clear example is I know of now only 4 licensed and CURRENT
bell 47 engineers. 30 yrs ago there were alot more.

eventually cost will drive as it always does the skeptics to the pc 12 and
similar a/c what happens when crude oil hits 70 80 90 dollars a barrel
and jet a hits 2bucks a liter . this is the same scenario that drove aircanada to replace its 727's with airbus 320's and time air to replace its
4engine dash 7 with 2 engine dash 8's.
the small operators will increasing look for ways to save money on operatiing costs and when the cost of operating exceeds the accquisition in a per mile basis or seat mile for the airliner types
cost of modern a/c then it will a no brainer until then I respect all opinions
about the 12 vs twin debate even if I disagree.

[KAG]

Scabber...don't get me wrong I too would take a new modern plane over an old one...it's just i'd take the "old rusty King Air" over the PC12 any day.

...sorry for dropping the maturity level of this thread, I couldn't help myself.
Next someone will chime in with a verse of "anything you can I can do better"...


on a serious note...
Oldncold...New engines fail. As the new engines become old worn engines, they too will fail with more regularity. I have shut down too many turbines to count on my mechanic doing his best (which by the way they all do), because sometimes it's completely out of their hands. No matter what people say, or how great the glide is, how wonderful the avionics are, at the end of the day when it all goes wrong, I like a plan B, and that doesn’t involve me praying I can glide to a field 50 miles away.
But that’s just me.


Cheers.

[pushyboss]

Friend killed in solid IFR conditions in Caravan. Gear box failed. Nuff said.

[Cat Driver]

Oldncold :

I understand exactly where you are comng from.

In 1967 I had only been flying helicopters commercially for three years and had not graduated beyond the Hughes 300 flying Ag work, but I would take an S-55 with an engine failure anyday, anywhere over a single engine fixed wing.

You must remember that I have formed my opinions from having been a mechanic/ pilot all my career and so far have managed to keep from having ever had an accident flying anything. ( well actually a few years ago we had a gear down lock fail on a Cat in France and the gear slowly retracted, fortunately there was very little damage except for about three feet of keel that ground off on the runway. )

But back to my reasons for the rules I have for me, I don't have to fly anything that I don't feel comfortable with so I don't.

And I also have had turbines quit on me, fortunately there was another one on the other side that saved my day.

Cat

[Caracrane]

King Air guy, I was in Downsview 4 times on the 1900 sim, with Rusmir most of the time.

[KAG]

Got it right OLDNCOLD. And who among those 100 or 200 drivers would go to the sim to practice V1 cuts. I'd rather land straight ahead with a 12 than ending upside down with a 70 degree angle into the ground, and statistics show it. Fatal accidents between twin turbine vs single turbine is surprising.

King Air guy, I was in Downsview 4 times on the 1900 sim, with Rusmir most of the time.

You say you've been to the sim 4 times (courses, or sim rides?) for the 1900 and your saying you’d rather land straight ahead with the 12, than fly out of it in a king air?
Either you didn't get a handle on the V1 cuts, didn't practice them, or have really clapped out planes. Given the fact you mentioned 1900's, I doubt there clapped out.

I really don't see the big deal with VMC. Most twins today rotate after VMC, if you lose an engine just after Take off you then have 2 choices: you fly it out, or you power back and land straight ahead. Both require you control the plane and make that decision based on AC performance.

If you cant control the plane your paid to fly, you shouldn't be flying it.


Cheers.