Stay out of my aircraft and I'll stay out of yours. Problem solved.
However: Don't you think that throughout the greater than 10 years and over 1 million hours gained on the PC-12's that there would be a little bit of an oppurtunity for some stat gathering. In fact if you had taken the time to research you would have found quite a bit of usefull information on the PC-12 or any other single turbine availaible today. Or after all is that all just propaganda?
Well, why stop there? Why don't we just scrap ETOPS and go back to nothing less than four engines. Hell, let's throw on eight! (Actually, that'd be pretty cool. )
My take on this: I've flown with one engine, two engines and three engines. Would I prefer to have more than one? Yes! Am I antsy with only one? No! I've flown right and left seat in the PC-12, and it's a terrific little airplane. It is not unsafe!
As for the claim that they haven't been out there long enough to have accurate enough stats... well, neither did they come out only yesterday. In over ten years of operation, any major issues would have surfaced by now.
The above is true. In the life of the PC 12 (11 years i believe) there have been NO fatal accidents resulting from engine failure. There have been ditchings, forced landings, flap problems, and a couple that smoked straight in. With over 500 in operation, I would say that that is a pretty safe aircraft.
I have flown it, and would fly it again. Great aircraft.
In evaluating an aircraft, you have to evaluate the whole thing. Not just the engine. We all know that we pilots are the weekest link in the plane. With well designed systems, and a fantastic cockpit, how many times has the PC 12 allowed a pilot to make a better decision...have better situational awareness...thus avoiding and incident/accident.We don't keep stats on this because it would be impossible.
Is it safer with two enignes? On some aircraft, yes. Does a single with TCAS, GPWS, EFIS, give you a better chance in the overall fight to survive? I don't know, but interesting points none the less.
One will go in one day with a prop stopped. People will die...but despite the negative attitude towards it becaue it is lacking propulsion redundancy, statistics still show that they are as safe or safer than the competetors on the market of the same size.
gelbisch wrote: Hell, let's throw on eight! (Actually, that'd be pretty cool. )
/just waiting for a trans-atlantic flight in the bomb bay of a buff...
j/k
In 6 months working in thompson, I've seen more pilots that I'm worried about than single engine planes that I worry about. Fortunatly, both numbers are REALLY low. And I definately won't name names/planes.
---------- ADS -----------
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
The weather is bad, below landing limits. A twin on takeoff, with a failure will fly you to another airport, any single will take you to the crash site. Having said that a PC12 is a great airplane for what it was intended to be used for. Ir's cheap to operate and easy to fly.
For all the oldies out there, remember the single engine failure procedure in IMC try and leave controlled airspace and -- well you know the rest.
King Air Guy, you seem to well above everybody. I never crashed the sim even if it was surprising the first time. what I say is what statistics show it that the survival rate is higher on the 12 than twins due to a high rate of "loss of directionnal control". And you seem more on the internet than in the air.
" what I say is what statistics show it that the survival rate is higher on the 12 than twins due to a high rate of "loss of directionnal control". "
And loss of directional control is natures way of pointing out that someone got through the learning process without knowing how to fly.
Loss of directional control after an engine failure is only one of many mistakes that pilots make, even a single will stall, spin, run out of fuel, smack into something in IMC and on and on...
...what I'm saying is loss of control after engine failure on a normal twin is a pilot skills issue, not an airplane issue.
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver wrote:
...what I'm saying is loss of control after engine failure on a normal twin is a pilot skills issue, not an airplane issue.
Cat
nicely said .........sick of learning of a new wreck due to a loss of directional control following an engine failure on a twin-engine A/C, and then hearing justifications like : it was a tech problem.....lost an engine ! what a big deal !
If you can't handle that, what are you getting paid for ?
It is worth remembering that it is not a certification requirement for piston twins to be able to maintain a positive rate of climb with one engine failed, under all conditions.
Think about that for a moment. If it's hot and you're heavy, and your piston twin with two tired 4-bangers coughs right after takeoff, you're landing in the next few seconds, one way or another. It doesn't matter if you're . Yeager or Bob Hoover.
Also, if you're 'way above the single engine service ceiling and you cage one, you're descending. Hope there's no mountains in your way. Again, this is not a matter of piloting skill after the engine failure, rather of physics.
Sometimes, it's not about how fast your hands are in the cockpit, but how well your brain works beforehand.
I'm not sure, but all of you seem to be experts in flying and knowing the issues of flying a single engine vers a twin engine. Here's some food for thought for you experts, do you think the US Airforce pilots have the same view point flying the single engine F-16 compared to flying the twin engine F-15??? Same shit, different plane, as far as your argument goes??? A plane is a plane, a job a job. I've been hiring pilots on PC-12's and 208's for years, not once have I ever had a pilot say"sorry, I'm not flying a Pilatus in IFR" or I only fly twins!!!". Any pilot would fly a PC-12 as fast as flying a King Air 100 or what ever.
My 2 cents
This discussion about single engine versus multi engine reminds me of a ferry pilot we were talking to in Luxor Egypt a few years ago, we got to talking about the ferry business and I asked him where he picked up the Cessna 172 he was delivering, he said at the factory.
So I said what was it like crossing the North Atlantic in it?
His answer really suprised me, he said it was real slow compared to the MU2 he had delivered on the previous crossing...
..so I said what I was driving at is what do you think of being over the North Atlantic in a single engine airplane, don't you worry about the thing quitting.. His answer was the same as The Bandit just said.
Quote:
" A plane is a plane, "
And went on to say they never quit so, no, he never worried about it.
So I guess its all in how you think about it, me I'm a real coward and wouldn't ferry a single engine Cessna 172 across the North Atlantic if you gave the thing to me when I finished the delivery.
So I guess we all have different ideas and are free to make our own choices in life.
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Someone should get Richard L. Collins from "Flying" on this topic, I'm sure he would put his two cents in.........
I have never flown a turbine spray plane however they are more reliable maintenance wise per hours flown than the old radials/pistons. But you don't hear of many if any stories of "turbine engines limping home" when something goes wrong. I have heard numerous tales (I'm sure CAT can vouch for this) of radials coming back on 8 cylinders or pistons coughing making half the power, and able to bring you to a road or airport for landing. (That's for all you float drivers out there)
I fly a twin turbine now and I have had two engine shutdowns and i can tell you that I was sure glad I had another fan turning. One shutdown was 5 min or so after takeoff and weather of 1- 3/4 mile and the other time was in vmc. Even though you still have an engine turning, when the weather is crap, you're hands still get all sweatty. Can't imagine what a pc12 driver's hands would feel like in that situation......
It's a horrible feeling when you know that you're going down.
I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that this is the first post I personally have ever seen go to three pages and actually stay interesting and intellectual. Right on!!
Just to satisfy my own couriousity how many pilots here would fly a single engine anything full time on the route from say St Johns N.F.L.D. to London England?
And to stay employed you must fly only that route?
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver wrote:Just to satisfy my own couriousity how many pilots here would fly a single engine anything full time on the route from say St Johns N.F.L.D. to London England?
And to stay employed you must fly only that route?
There is a place and a nich for every aircraft and the pc12 has its and its not flying over the pond. I have flown the 12, 208 and twins of all sorts and its true many of a good dhc6 has lost an engine, dam when it happens to the 12 and it most likely be with in 10 mins after take off and full load and two crew but many aircraft have and some fatal and some get to talk about in the bar. I have lost friends driving to work to fly and that what really sucks.
The industry is changing, round to turbine to what ever is next but I can assure you as a pilot I will fly what is there to fly and i hope its more than 3500 foot gravel on the moon.
It all start from one engine.
My 2 cents, all i have since i am a pilot.
In the PC12 sim it was really fun to practice engine out ILS to 0/0 weather. Might be a different tale for real but making it in is doable(if that's a word).
People ferry 12's, Socata's, Air Tractor's over the ocean and I would do the job as well too.(Wouldn't leave my current one though)
However, when you're over the north atlantic and IF that PT6 decides to quit (f*ckin amazing engine) and IF you make a successfull ditched landing and IF you survive the ocean waters, I think myself as well as anyone else would probably think twice on the matter of flying singles across the pond.
PC 12 drivers................I am so tired of all this bologna of the engine quiting at 20000 feet and staying aloy for 40 min to an hour etc....blah blah blah blah.....check your oxygen req at 20000 with 6-8 pax on board or how about at 29000' where the RCMP fly......if you belive something you will do what ever it takes to justify your point of view..........simple fact is that in the praries it's fine.!!!!!......but keep it in the praries . Please don't give me this BS about doing a wing over at 1000' in IMC and returning to the airport..............just wait till one has an engine failure in the rocks..............kiss em all good by baby!!!!!! Air Sprint will go tits up so fast It'll make your head spin.
)
.........sick of learning of a new wreck due to a loss of directional control following an engine failure on a twin-engine A/C, and then hearing justifications like : it was a tech problem.....lost an engine ! what a big deal !
