The end of the Caravan/PC-12

Surly Joe · Post by **Surly Joe** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:33 pm

Obviously TC should make another law...

No Engine out Ops or approaches in IMC in a single engine aircraft.
( and this is ok to some of you?????

)

I cant believe some of you are doing this, maybe this is why the 'Van has a bad rep with some.....

Not me...

I'm with Cat I think, I am lacking those same skills....

oldncold · Post by **oldncold** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:09 am

lets see gas prices going thru the roof (67bucks a barrel)

no twin cant touch the pc12 for range except a canso Right Cat.

efis for situational awareness most excellent. glide range at very high alt
oxy- bottle will be on the low side by the time 10000 ft arrives and
25 miles in zero wind still to go. anybody with enough smarts will glide
with the wind if the stove goes. in winter in the north most lakes would make a suitable although rough strip with the gear up and below gross
weight no faster than a car at hiway speed and not the 401 at rushhour.
23 g seats and full harness will live .

Ice lets see in the 12 climb at over 2500 ft intially steady 1500 to 2000 up
to 15000 and 1000 ft /min until 25000 full gear and the high speed helps shed it too.

caravan LOADED CLIMBS BUT NOT A space shuttle tHE WING WILL HOLD LOTS but THE TAIL SWEET F--- ALL and that is its nemesis. it is what
you cant see that will get ya. most van drivers I have met always watch the oat gauge for the rate of collection and if it is quick they get out of dodge soon. it is a good indication for the tail.

As for tc they local tc folks know the van and the operators tc's focus is bigger704/705 ops/ and a ottawa burecrat could not tell you a hsi from a histerectomy. (sorry gals) but is true. most mean well then a lawyer gets involved and then all hell breaks loose. for its not about right or wrong but winning a point of law and power.

in the meantime with fall and ice season around the corner carry the ice pack (20liter)piss pump full of the approved fluid and read up on the poh of your bird re ice is the best prevention against becoming a statistic that forces the hand of tc. / fly safe and if the ice is really bad
just say no and will be able to laugh over a cold one at christmas instead of reading an obituary

Coastal Cowboy · Post by **Coastal Cowboy** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:12 am

Hi All,

it's been a while since I been on here and found this post interesting. The deal is as Far as I can tell (So my opinion only not looking to start a fight) that the PC-12 and Caravan a proven and reliable aircraft. The single engine concept works and is cost effective.

As far as Caravan operating in Icing we all know that it barely passed cert into known icing anyway and steps are being taken to improve it's performance in those conditions so that it can continue to operate in "All Weather". Such as the Hot Wings version being developed in Kelowna by AOG.

The Pilatus is Exceptionally good in ice, in fact it performs much better in it than a King Air as I have flown both.

Engine Failures are inevitable and WILL happen there's no denying that. If you loose one in a Twin there is VMC which can make control difficult and in heavy icing loss of alltitude is probably assured and there are a good number of accidents that result from mis-management of the aircraft and loss of control.

The PC-12 has glide procedures for Engine out in IMC that work very well and it can glide very very well. In fact an engine failure in that thing will likely find you gliding safely to an Airport ( Or BOG as has been the case so far

). but the fact is you are only going one place in an engine failure in a single and that is about 50-60 miles in the case of the PC-12. also I should point out that the stall speed with full flap is very slow making even a crash situation a very survivable one.

As for engine failure in Mountainous terrain there is also procedure set out for that situation aswell. A last ditch effort would be to use WX radar to paint the ground, find a valley and glide into it, select full flap when the rad alt reads a couple hundred feet and just let the thing fly to the ground.

The last thing that I will say is that in a crash the Trailing link on the PC-12 can handle an aircraft almost twice it's size and combined with the slow stall speed would again help the chances of walking away.

I think that this is likely just a rumour as some operators would be doomed if these aircraft were "pulled from the shelves" and you can bet both Pilatus and Cessna would have a lot to say about it.

Just my 2 cents,

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:25 am

I guess the only way to prove this argument is statistics.

How many accidents in C208's/PC12's per hour/mile?

How many accidents in similar sized twins? KingAir/Navajos etc.

How many deaths per accident caused by engine failure in both types?

I think that I read one report that had the single's being far superior in these statistics, but I can't find it now, so it's just an opinion.

I think it's kinda like that car vs planes argument. It clearly seems safer to travel in a car, but statistics show that it's way more dangerous.

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:56 am

I think that I read one report that had the single's being far superior in these statistics, but I can't find it now, so it's just an opinion.

Most sources will tell you that there is insufficient data to declare single engine superiority with respect to accidents. The accident rate for single engine IFR ops is expected to rise.

Cessna will "respectively" decline sales of Cessna 208s in the US for use as commuter or air taxi ops as they are "sensitive" to the liability climate down there. Therefore, the use of SEIFR is sort of a niche market and comparing them to twin engine commercial IFR ops is still a bit premature.

There was an interesting finding in the PC-12 forced landing in the Newfoundland bog. They found that if you maximize your glide distance from the service ceiling, you would run out of battery power before you got to the end of your glide. Furthermore, when the engine quits, you have no pressurization, and have only a few minutes before you need to descend to keep the cabin inhabitable without oxygen. There goes your glide distance.

If you are unlucky enough to lose the engine in the right conditions, your windshield will ice up shortly after the engine quits. So even if you make it to the airport, you won’t be able to see out the window.

pinkus · Post by **pinkus** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:39 am

The newer 12's have 2 batteries that provide 35-40 minutes. They also have larger oxygen systems.

The truth is that NO PC-12 has caused a fatality as a result of engine failure.

They were predicted to fall out of the skys years ago. When is this gonna start? With over 40 in Canada, and 400+worldwide...

The newest 12's have have moving maps, TCAS, TAWS, EFIS etc. How much do you consider these cockpit tools in the safety of an aircraft? Is it safer in an old king air 100 with basic instruments..

Is it safer than a metro 2, king air 100, at gross weight losing an engine after takeoff? Is it more dangerous to limp off on one engine and hope that you can keep er right side up? Or, rather land straight ahead in a 12?

There are always more factors than the amount of engines. Every plane has a weekness. The truth is, the PC 12 is not killing people in mass numbers like everyone predicted...

The PC 12 gets alot of smack talked about it, but you can't argue its remarkable safety record...

On a side note, pulling SEIFR would heavily effect some companies. Can you imagine the lawsuits against TC?

Edited for Spelling

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:02 am

but you can't argue its remarkable safety record...

Concorde had a remarkable safety record. Until its first fatal accident. Then it was pretty dismal when you compare it to the total hours on type. That's the same for SEIFR. There isn't enough data to make a comparison.

With the relatively low numbers in service, even one fatal accident will tilt the stats quite dramatically.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:07 am

Alright if you want to compare apples to apples (read latest generation AC together) how about a new B200? EFIS, FMS, TAWS, moving map, and so on. 290 KTS TAS, lose an engine in a 200 it's just going to slow you down, even an old one. For fun I took one fully loaded at 10,000’ and simulated an engine failure, she was climbing at 500 ft/min, and this was a straight 200, serial #7 with it's engines on condition. Imagine a new one.

Of course the PC12 has better avionics than a king air 100/metro 2 - there old and cheap. The companies that buy them want cheap airplanes. But even a 100 would do OK fully loaded with an engine failure. Sure on T/O it would be a seat-cover inhaling experience (as would losing an engine in a PC12), but it probably pull it off. Even if it (the 100) couldn’t, if you control your airplane (not get too slow) then your going down in a controlled manor – THE SAME AS A PC12. Sure the 100 doesn’t glide all that well (more like a brick), but with the help of one good engine it doesn’t need to. The only thing it lacks is those 23 G seats. At altitude a 100 would continue to fly once it drifted down to its single engine service ceiling.

Personally I would rather have my family in a clapped out twin (turbine) with a properly trained and experienced crew than a PC12 any day.

Cheers.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:25 am

Out of curiousity KAG, who did you have on board BCN when you were 'fully loaded' and had a little fun?

I hope Cat's friends aren't watching.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:20 pm

No one except the FO and mechanic, it was a non revenue ferry flight.
Nor do I care if cats little friends are watching, I've nothing to hide.

Cheers.

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:30 pm

KAG answered to quick, therefor my answer is not needed

pinkus · Post by **pinkus** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:16 pm

Good points KAG.

I was not arguing that. I was just trying to point out that there are alot of aircraft types. All of them have good and bad things about them. Caravans don't like ice. MU-2's can be a handful in ice too. Metro 2's don't like one engine at gross. Navajoes are stuck in the muck all day....

The list goes on. I would agree that a well flown King Air, with the latest avionics is likely safer than a PC 12. The funny thing is how we all associate one engine with being the end all of safety.

There are many deciding factors in a fatal crash. Crew training, experience, weather, mainteneance....etc. My question then is: Is it safer on a twin from a company that lacks solid mantenance, lacks TCAS and GPWS with poorly trained crews...(I am not saying your company is like this as KBA is a good place)

I agree that SEIFR brings up concerns but years ago going over the pond with less than 3-4 engines was crazy!

The one thing we all focus on is the dreaded IMC, mountain engine failure...It would make anyone poop there pants...

If we fly in IMC about 20 percent of the time then 4 out of 5 failures in a single should happen out of cloud. Then we are left with a really high 172 doing a forced approach. We haven't banned low level, single engine vfr .. running in commmercial ops. It happens all the time. Is this less safe?

Anyways, I respect your opinion. But the long held belief that twins are inheritlantly safer is not black and white.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:31 pm

KAG,

I was just joking around really.

I just thought it was strange to get a 200 'fully loaded' with one pax.

Back to the argument, in my opinion everything in aviation is a trade off.

Is one engine safer than two - no.
Is a turbine safer than a piston - yes (generally)
Is a twin more expensive than a single - yes (generally)

Every flight is a trade off.

It'll always be safer to fly in a four engine turbine aircraft, with one pax and 4 crew, 28 hours fuel, in VMC, between two 15,000ft ruwnays at sealevel. But due to cost, that's not always an option.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:40 pm

Well said pinkus.

At the end of the day, as long as the machines are flown within their limits, MTCE is up to date, and crew properly trained, there safe. Sure
sh!t happens, but doesn't it always.

Jigglybus, it would sound funny having a 200 fully loaded with only one or 2 people on board, but it's a survey machine. and when we go anywhere we take everything and the kitchen sink!!!

Cheers.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:08 pm

I know I am a bit late, but I was out flying. Yes I have practiced engine out approaches, in the simulator mind you. From 210, on departure through 700 feet, while on a normal approach. Made it every time. When you fly the PC-12 you have to fly like you are going to have an engine failure. So you plan accordingly. I feel perfectly safe in the PC-12 as does everyone I fly with. Sure 2 engines are safer that one. But to what margin? If I quit eating bacon today I will have a .01% chance less of having a heart attack before 75.

If you are afraid to put you or your family in a PC12 I have to ask, have you always been afraid of flying? Back in training in the 172, it was SEIFR in a beat up old Cessna. You had no problem with it them. I've flown lots of singles before the PC12 outside gliding distance of an airport. That was what I had to do to go flying. Is there an increased risk? Probably, but to what extent.

Apples to apples, right. PC12 or King Air. I would choose which one's ready to go first. Because as far as I see it there is an extremely high probability that both will get me home safely.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:12 pm

If you are afraid to put you or your family in a PC12 I have to ask, have you always been afraid of flying?

That has little to do with it. When I climb in a 172, my expectation that I am not paying an air taxi or commuter or airline category operator to fly SEIFR in in all flying conditions . Never mind the fact that you won't be flying the 172 in all weather conditions.

Transport Canada's responsibility is to maintain a certain level of safety. That level of safety differs, based on liability and public expectations. Thats why there are different operating standards for the various operating categories.

Twin Engine IFR commercial ops was the norm adopted based on the computed level of safety. TC was pressured by various operators and single engine aircraft manufacturers to try this whole SEIFR experiment.

It is obvious that SEIFR commercial ops offers a lower level of safety, but TC neglected to make the public aware of it. For the most part, the general public figures the PC-12 they are climbing on today is just as safe as the Kingair they boarded before.

All it will take is one fatal accident caused by engine failure to see the entire SEIFR come to a head. I cringe to think of that legal battle. At very least, TC should make sure passengers are aware they are booking a flight on a single engine aircraft.

Comparing a 172 with a PC-12 in commercial ops? Apples and Oranges.

oldncold · Post by **oldncold** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:37 pm

ok i know this is a circular arguement but the air france airbus 340 has 4
ENG and it still went off the runway. glad no one was hurt too bad.

this is the same type of argument the pc 12 would have stopped in the available amount of runway. there is not one correct answer but shades of all correct answers. kind of like writing a t.c. test pickthe best.

my point is there will always be those who refuse to accept the march of
time and technology.

I have posted this before economics/cost will drive the market. when fuel prices
hit 2.00 a liter etc and up that king air will not be as attractive no matter how many engines it has and will be parked. it has been happening to the hs748's - still in use but the fuel burn and maintenance
costs are forcing them to the farthest reaches of the world ie africa.

CID · Post by **CID** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:37 am

my point is there will always be those who refuse to accept the march of time and technology.

Nope. Still not the point. Transport Category airplanes are designed so that any single failure of the powerplant system (and many more systems) won’t prevent the airplane from continued flight and landing.

For normal, utility and aerobatic single engine airplanes, you need only “minimize hazards to the airplane in the event of a probable malfunction or failure.”

For twins of the same category, you need to “prevent hazards to the airplane in the event of a probable malfunction or failure”.

For commuter category, you need to design systems to “safeguard against hazards to the airplane in the event of their malfunction or failure.”

As you can see, different airplanes are designed with different levels of safety.

So as a ticket paying passenger who is about to launch into the arctic winter night, which airplane would you rather board? What would you consider a minimum level of safety? Transport Canada used to think it was a twin. Many passengers, including me would agree.

The A340 incident is irrelevant except in the unlikely event that it wasn’t a case of gross pilot error. No matter how you design an airplane, you can’t guarantee the guy behind the wheel (or beside the stick) won’t occasionally cause some aluminum to bend and twist.

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:24 am

Redundancies

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:59 am

A wise person once said that arguing over the internet is like winning the special olympics. You may win but you are still retarded.

CID, I will conceed because arguing with you any longer will give me a headache.

I remember the days when I had no flying job wishing I could get one. I got one on a PC-12 and haven't looked back. I and my entire family sleep well at night knowing that I am flying a safe modern airplane. Our in-flight crew is very competent and plan their routings and altitudes based on having one fan. 2100 personal PC-12 hours and 30,000 hours combined at my company says we're doing just fine.

Wanna fly with us, buy a ticket, don't want to fly, bye-bye

Caracrane · Post by **Caracrane** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:33 am

This topic subject should have been: PC-12 killed Raytheon beached 100-200 series... Asta la Vista Eric

chubbee · Post by **chubbee** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:47 am

The arctic is a nasty place to crash land true enuff, flying in real IMC conditions in much of the pacific time zone also seems a bit sporting. A forced landing without the ability to see the large vertical rocks you are descending into is risky. Two engines over inhospitable terrain is a more comfortable feeling.

CID · Post by **CID** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:03 am

CID, I will conceed because arguing with you any longer will give me a headache.

Whoooooooooooo! I won!

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:46 pm

I'm the first one to admit that I don't have the background (having flown none of the aircraft involved in this debate) to introduce new facts. However, let's take a look at what the changes in turbine powerplant reliability have done to "you need 2(or 3 or 4) engines to go here".

In the bad old days, a long commercial over-ocean flight called for four engines. The frequency of problems meant that "common sense" dictated that any less was foolhardy. Today, take a look at the 777. By switching from four smaller engines to two larger ones, you decrease your fuel burn. I don't think that there's anyone here that would contend that using a 777 on a trans-Atlantic route is foolish (unless they're an Airbus fan, but that's another issue

)

Another instance is the US navy. Ever since it became a feasible option from an engineering point of view, the USN has insisted that every single aircraft that they operate off of their carriers be powered by more than one engine. Until now. The USN's new F-23 will be a single-engined aircraft - they've decided that the reliability of the new engine is acceptable. Granted, this decision was driven by the combination of defense acquisition cost cutting and the performance advantages inherent in one larger engine over two smaller ones...but the fact remains that even institutions with deep-seated resistance to a single-engined concept are making the change.

I'm not suggesting that anything with more than one engine is a dinosaur - far from it. I'm simply saying that we're doing ourselves a disservice by automatically seeing fewer engines as a shortcoming in an aircraft.

Any aircraft has a set of conditions that will overcome it's engineered safeguards and capabilities. Pile enough ice onto an airframe, and a heavily loaded twin with one engine out is going to have a very limited set of options...just like a PC-12 will with it's engine out.

Part of being in an industry that relies upon mechanical devices (be they simple or complex) is the need for the people that operate those devices to keep up with the changes that advancing technology brings about. We shouldn't automatically embrace each change as it pops up, and immediately discard all of the standards and exepctations that have served us well in the past...but we also shouldn't turn our back on advancement. Perhaps the PC-12 hasn't logged enough hours in the air for an apples-to-apples comparison of accident rates...but if it's not used for SEIFR, what are the odds of it ever accumulating enough hours?

Fundamentally, we need to look at the aircraft as a whole, as opposed to a powerplant. If the other qualities of the PC12 keep it safer that a twin in certain circumstances, then that needs to be taken into account in any decisions that are being made. Don't ask "What happens when event X occurs" - ask instead about the entire package. Take a long hard look at the chances of a serious incident occuring during a flight of that aircraft, and compare those chance with the other aircraft that might fly that same route. That's when you'll get an accurate look at all the factors that should be influencing your decision.

CD · Post by CD » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:24 am

Below are some articles with some additional information...

Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar - October 2001

NTSB Identification: IAD05FA047
Accident occurred Saturday, March 26, 2005 in Bellefonte, PA
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12, registration: N770G
Injuries: 6 Fatal

NTSB Safety Recommendations A-03-58 through -61 - Role of Starter-Generator Failures in Causing Engine Failures in PT6A-60 Series Engines

The end of the Caravan/PC-12

revoke ifr single ops

The end of the Caravan/PC-12

seifr