Single Engine Hard IFR

[El Comat]

By regulation and certification, all certified single engined airplanes have a Vso of 61 Kts. or less....

Isn't a PC12 64KTS?

67.

64 KIAS is what my POH says...are you flying a new -47 model perhaps?

Pilatus got away with the 64 KIAS stall speed because they demonstrated a higher crashworthiness in the certification process. The seats are rated to 24 Gs rather than the 17 Gs required if Vso had been 61 KIAS.

EC

[Four1oh]

So the seat will survive the crash, but I don't know too many 24G humans out there.

[Ogee]

clunckdriver said:

made by Lucas!

Please, it's a family forum, kids may read this, TRY to keep it clean, will ya!

<sheesh>

Yes, never speak the name of the Prince of Darkness.

[seniorpumpkin]

I must say that yes, it is ridiculous to involve the passengers in the go/no-go decision making. They have no clue, and I'm sure in many cases don't want to know if their flight is compromised in any way.
I've had passengers question the safety of flying with me because I flew a small single engine plane. I always told them the most dangerous part of the flight is already over... you drove here, in a car!

[shimmydampner]

They're out there, SAR! They will noodle around in weather unfit to drive home in and think they're Heroes of The North. Too bad you don't get paid by the hour to find 'em.

So, your leetle engine, she go poof! and you just turn around and land? Right.

The PT6 I had that baked, puked all its oil out...but I had three more of them tiny engines and they weren't in front of my window.

And after that racism thread, here we thought you had just experienced enlightenment and so much personal growth with regards to judging people and baseless blanket assessments. How sad to see it was all a sham. I'm sure after all your experience you are aware that quite often in the north VFR guys can be out flying quite safely without the benefit of even one turbine and without "noodling around" when ceilings cause you IFR jockeys to go missed. And I don't know anyone who thinks that they're a "hero of the north." Just guys and gals doing their jobs safely and doing them well. No need to be an asshole about it.

[tailgunner]

180 degree turns back to the runway??? Sounds great on paper..., but put yourself in Kelowna for example. Which direction are you going to turn. West towards the rapidly rising terrain, or east towards the rapidly rising terrain ? What about a departure from YXD rwy16. Do you turn left into the higrises downtown, or do you turn right into the apartment buildings along Jasper Ave?? If TC doesn't have the mandate or will to abolish SEIFR flight, at the very least they should alter the departurew wx. requirements . Perhaps a 1000 and 3 sm minimum should be employed. OUT.

[RatherBeFlying]

It seems that the Seneca that flew into a Richmond condo had an engine problem shortly after takeoff.

Reports also indicate that the gear was down which may explain that he only had about 100'.

I guess a PC-12 in the same situation would at least have had the river near the shore for a survivable landing option.

[Doc]

Just another thought re. 100' and 1/2 departures in singles.
I think people having lunch at Burger King have the right not to have a Swiss cruise missile to come through the window in mid Wopper?
Persons on the ground in general have the right not to be rear ended by said projectile, simply due to over inflated egos (due to a sense of false security), Kelner's salesmanship, and Transport Canada's stupidity? Why not, just for a change, amend the departure limits of single engine aircraft BEFORE a death occurs. Why not give the pilots the option to get back to the departure airport when a chip light comes on, rather than have them fly a hundred or more miles? These guys will never make the move on their own(after all, they've been trained at SimCom...so they know more than everybody else)so, I'd like to see a change "premortem"?
Bottom line.....how many days would you really miss if your departure limits were circling minimums?

[Snowgoose]

Just another thought re. 100' and 1/2 departures in singles.
I think people having lunch at Burger King have the right not to have a Swiss cruise missile to come through the window in mid Wopper?

And the seneca with TWO engines in Richmond is a better situation how?

Why not give the pilots the option to get back to the departure airport when a chip light comes on, rather than have them fly a hundred or more miles?

Chip light can come on in flight or on the ground. As well all series 10 and greater PC-12 have particle counters in addition to chip detector so that you have a warning even before a chip big enough to turn on the light is in the oil.

Persons on the ground in general have the right not to be rear ended by said projectile, simply due to over inflated egos (due to a sense of false security), Kelner's salesmanship, and Transport Canada's stupidity?

Got some numbers to support that statement? Last time I checked I can't remember too many PC-12's falling out of the sky.

These guys will never make the move on their own(after all, they've been trained at SimCom...so they know more than everybody else)so, I'd like to see a change "premortem"?

Have you flown a Pilatus? You're so shit hot to complain about it but do you know it's capabilities? Why do you have such a hate on for the PC-12? Kelner turn you down for a job?

[Northern Skies]

...is irrelevant when you're talking descending towards a known safe landing point, i.e. the runway. I'm talking about hundreds of miles of Canadian Shield in every direction. Apples and oranges.

Look, I really don't know much about IFR. I have never flown IFR before. But when you're talking about flying under 1000 agl in the canadian shield, you're in my world.

I would never wish upon my worst enemy to have to break out in a glide over this terrain at 100 agl. The notion of "it's just trees, rocks, and lakes" seems to me like a resignation that nothing can be done. Northern ontario looks as flat as a pool table from 2000 feet, but once you get below 300 feet you can find some very vertical terrain above you, and the principles of mountain flying are just as important as in the rockies: ALWAYS BE ABLE TO TURN TOWARD LOWERING TERRAIN. There are plenty of opportunities for landing in the wilderness without serious injury. Breaking out at 100 feet in a -12 or 208 could result in a steep rocky hillside filling the windshield. That's the difference between dying and sliding up into a cedar swamp. That 500-1000 feet extra can make the difference between a rescue or a body recovery. And I don't know about retractables much, but I would never go for liquid water in a 208 on wheels!

[Doc]

Snowgoose.....you just keep on smoking whatever it is you're smoking. I'm not down on the PC12. I suggest a way to make the operations safer, and everybody dumps on me for it. No,k I've never flown a PC12. Don't want to. But you keep on smelling those roses. A PC12 will have an engine failure on take off some day. Then, we'll talk.
But, by all means, when it's 100 and a half, have at it! I don't think I could make a one-eighty at three hundred feet and glide back when it's 100 and a half....and I'd be willing to bet, I can fly at least as well as you.
Oh, and you'll never catch me as a passenger on one, the way they're operated today...or any of my family members...or friends.
How are the cotton socks working for you?

[Widow]

I always told them the most dangerous part of the flight is already over... you drove here, in a car!

Not according to this article:

The growth of the air taxi and air shuttle industry has put more planes into the air, creating more work for air traffic controllers - the vital link connecting pilots with the all-seeing radar on the ground. Smaller commuter planes and private planes also have a higher incident rate than commercial aircraft - a statistic that turns the old standby of four-times-safer-than-a-car on its ear. To wit, you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

We've had quite our share of fatalities here in Canada this year.

[Snowgoose]

A PC12 will have an engine failure on take off some day. Then, we'll talk.

It's happened. In Illinois I believe. I know because I trained for it in the sim. Engine failure at 700'. The pilot did a 180 landed on the runway and went off the end. They crashed through the airport fence. Everyone walked away. The reason the went of the end was they had a 20kt headwind.

I don't think I could make a one-eighty at three hundred feet and glide back when it's 100 and a half....and I'd be willing to bet, I can fly at least as well as you.

Thank goodness it's never happened to me in real life but I did it in the sim. Clouds were at 200' though. Engine failure below 800' to 1000' feet you're going straight ahead by the way. You can make it back from 400' only if you are ready for it.

Oh, and you'll never catch me as a passenger on one, the way they're operated today...or any of my family members...or friends.

They way I read that is that you are calling me and all the other folks on here who have flown Pilatuses chumps. Thanks for supporting aviation and your fellow aviators. Heard of VLJ's? How many of those have 1 engine? Last I heard thery're going to be everywhere. OMG the sky is falling in there chicken little.

Here's a little scenario for you. What is you have a cockpit fire in a twin on take-off? Weather is 100' and 1/2. Like someone else said before, what if it's in BC with rising terrain all around. Bet you're going to want to a 180, eh? Do you think about that before you go spouting off. Did you train for that in a simulator to see what your and the airplanes capabilities are?

The fire is about a likely as the SE engine failure by the way. Oh and the 2 companies I flew Pilatuses for the emergency return was briefed so that there was no thinking if it had to be done. Do you do that in your mighty twin? Maybe I shouldn't let my family fly on your airplane for your company paying your paycheck. Doesn't sound like your twin is flown safe to me.

How are the cotton socks working for you?

Same as always, Wonderful, thank you for asking

[xsbank]

Shimmy, don't get personal - I KNOW you would never do anything unsafe, so why the attitude? I must have struck a nerve - were you THINKING of doing something unsafe? Does "50' off the trees..." sound safe to you? Read the vis rules for VFR lately? If some nimrod is going to ADMIT to breaking the rules, maybe it'll be you who notices next time?

[Cat Driver]

And the seneca with TWO engines in Richmond is a better situation how?

Then lets discuss this seeing as someone is using it as an example.

For a starter the Seneca 11 " will " fly on one engine with only one person on board.

There seems to be a consensus among all the witnesses that the gear was still down when it hit the building.

There seems to be a consensus that the airplane flew for some distance from the airport before hitting the building.

There seems to be a consensus that the airplane for some reason lost directional control and the ability to maintain at least level flight.

Now may I ask a question?

Was the pilot taught to leave the gear down until there was no runway ahead to land on in the event there was a power loss that gave no other choice than to land straight ahead?

I am not stating that this in fact was part of the reason that he could not maintain control but I never could figure out why there is this mindset that leaves the gear down during the initial climb out rather than retracting it as soon as sufficient air speed and a positive rate of climb is attained.

[Phileas Fogg]

Anywho...

Same old thing here - the ones against SEIFR are the ones that have never flown a PC12 or a Caravan.

Their opinions need to be read with healthy skepticism.

[Doc]

Phileas Fogg, I have about 1500 hours on Caravans. FSI, even. I'm not advocating a ban on SEIFR flight. I AM advocating higher departure minimums. Big difference.....huge difference.
And Snowgoose, how's the ESL course going? I never called pilots who fly PC12s "chumps", I'm simply calling for higher departure limits. If that makes PC12 pilots "chumps", it's news to me.
BTW, I am talking about departure limits in single engine airplanes, not cockpit fires in twins. Nor are we talking about catching STDs at the local brothel......but that would make a great thread!

Some people just don't get it.

[Cat Driver]

Anywho...

Same old thing here - the ones against SEIFR are the ones that have never flown a PC12 or a Caravan.

Their opinions need to be read with healthy skepticism.

Phileas I have never flown a PC 12, but I am sure with a check on type I could, and I bet I could even fly one IFR.

I believe what Doc is trying to say is one needs to consider where and how you fly one.

So tell me Phileas would you fly across Hudson bay on a regular sked in a PC 12 or a Caravan?

[Red Line]

It's nothing against PC-12s or C208s. Not against SEIFR by any stretch of the imagination. But by departing with 001VV out of a fairly isolated airport, you're severely limiting your options!




And yes, I do currently fly a PC-12 for a living.

[Mustard]

Why only higher depture minimums for singles? Why not twins as well?
I'm sure a lot of King Air pilots who depart with a 100' ceiling and lose an engine would just end up flipping upside down anyway.

[Cat Driver]

I'm sure a lot of King Air pilots who depart with a 100' ceiling and lose an engine would just end up flipping upside down anyway

Only the ones that are incompetent.

[Snowgoose]

So tell me Phileas would you fly across Hudson bay on a regular sked in a PC 12 or a Caravan?

Well I did that for a living for 3 years. We stayed within gliding distance of land. 40 miles or so from shore depending on wind direction and speed.

Doc, you're riding a high horse. Pilatuses are abundant because they are cheap to operate compared to the alternatives. If they were unsafe, customers (not unenlightened pilots) wouldn't fly on them. No one has died in one in Canada. The 2 fatalities in these numbers, I believe, are someone overriding a flap asymmetry situation and the other an unstabilized approach that went real bad.

Here's some interesting stats I found:

From the ntsb: All events between 1/1/2000 to 10/27/2005

Pilatus PC-12

Fatal Accident: 2
Non Fatal: 7
Incidents: 1
Engine Failure (Fatal/Non-Fatal/Incidents): 2

Active Worldwide: 564
Active in the USA: 370

Beechcraft BE 200

Fatal Accident: 11
Non Fatal: 21
Incidents: 3
Engine Failure (Fatal/Non-Fatal/Incidents): 2

Active Worldwide: 2,521
Active in the USA: 1,153

Since the beginning of 2000, for 1,153 BE 200 Aircraft there have been 2 accidents attributed to Engine Failure.

Which equates to:

BE200

2/370 = 0.0054 x 100 = 0.54%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having an Accident in a PC-12 due to Engine Failure equals 0.54%.

PC-12

2/1,153 = 0.0017 x 100 = 0.17%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having an Accident in a BE 200 due to Engine Failure equals 0.17%.


0.54/0.17 = 3.176.

Ok, 3 times more likely to have an accident due to an engine failure. But both airplanes still less than 1%

Consider this though,

Since the beginning of 2000, for 370 PC-12 Aircraft there have been 2 two fatal accidents

Since the beginning of 2000, for 1,153 BE 200 Aircraft there have been 11 fatal accidents.

Which equates to:

2/370 = 0.0054 x 100 = 0.54%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having a fatal Accident in a PC-12 equals 0.54%.

11/1,153 = 0.0095 x 100 = 0.95%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having an Accident in a BE 200 equals 0.95%

0.54/0.95 = 0.568

Therefore the likelihood of having a fatal Accident in a PC-12 is about half of that of a BE 200.

All very low numbers I agree, and I wonder how much crappy maintenance and shoddy training plays into this. Since you brought up the numbers. In Canada, I don't know of a Pilatus crash since the East coast incident where everyone survived. In fact I think that is the only Canadian Pilatus accident ever. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cat Driver]

Well I did that for a living for 3 years. We stayed within gliding distance of land. 40 miles or so from shore depending on wind direction and speed.

Snowgoose, I was not trying to belittle you or the PC12, I was only trying to point out that when flying single engine aircraft we should make decisions based on risk. And that is what Doc is saying.

You obviously are like me and many others here and prefer to be within gliding distance of land...which is good decision making...just in case it does quit.

[Snowgoose]

Snowgoose, I was not trying to belittle you or the PC12, I was only trying to point out that when flying single engine aircraft we should make decisions based on risk. And that is what Doc is saying.

Wasn't taking it as a slight. When Doc says he won't fly with a fellow aviator because of the plane he/she flies I consider than an insult. If the plane were a person it would be considered racist. I know there are exceptions, but not an airplane approaching serial number 1000.

You obviously are like me and many others here and prefer to be within gliding distance of land...which is good decision making...just in case it does quit.

It's also the law, unless everyone has a life jacket and rafts.

[Cat Driver]

It's also the law, unless everyone has a life jacket and rafts.

True, but they allow IFR over the mountains in IMC that gives you less chance of survival than going down in Hudson bay VFR.

And I do think we get to emotional in these discussions sometimes ( all of us. )