PC-12 Engine Shut Down

[Cat Driver]

of course it is safe just more risk there fore takes better judgement in managing that risk.

True, so based on the risk factor is a single engine airplane an acceptable risk to fly passengers in IMC weather over hostile terrain?

[ipilot54]

of course it is safe just more risk there fore takes better judgement in managing that risk.

True, so based on the risk factor is a single engine airplane an acceptable risk to fly passengers in IMC weather over hostile terrain?

Exactly. Not to mention that the passengers do not get a chance to manage the risk as they do not understand what risks are involved. Our government is suppose to do that for them.

[trey kule]

226 Posts...227 including this.

Has anyone changed their opinion? This discussion reminds me of one of religion, or polotics, or who has the ugliest baby.

1. There are those who feel SEIFR (note the IFR part) in IMC is ultimately to risky.
2 There are those who feel that it is all about understanding, minimizing, and accepting risk.

Now, if you look at those who rationalize 2. above, they are ultimately admitting that more risk exists, and that they can someone eliminate, minimize, or accept it....you gotta wonder sometimes about the human thought process

My experience in aviaition life, is that engines are really not the issue when it comes to failures. And the other failures lead to the accidents. Read some of the CADORS and threads...Pilot had smoke in the cockpit...in a twin..did a 180 and flew the plane into the ground. Captain thought he heard the engines running rough after a takeoff so stopped flying the plane and fiddled with the throttles while the first officer watched and....flew the plane into the ground..

I could go on and on. The point is that the whole argument when it comes to SE vs. ME is the actual no. of accidents that result is a very limited scenerio from engine failures is , maybe, as some of the single engine folks argue, really quite insignificant, and compared with the accidents that happen from the ability challanged pilots who bump perfectly good planes into the ground because they lose it all when a little problem occurs. There is just so many veriables.

As to the government jumping in to protect the poor, uninformed passangers. Just an observation, but Canadians, like no others I have seen, run to mother government to solve every problem. Perhaps someone, before they cry for government intervention should have a look at the adjusted stats (excluding heavy 705 ops which will skew it), and look at the number of pax hurt/fatalled (my word...not spelled wrong) per mile flown..I think you might just find pax are actually safer in the PC 12s..just a guess.

[Red Line]

trey kule: I think you summed it up nicely. Those who fly SEIFR think those who argue against it are idiots. Those who are against it think those who fly SEIFR are idiots. What's the point of arguing it further? One side has an extremely valid concern, the other side has the fact that there hasn't been a single fatality attributed to a PC-12 engine failure. (yet)

As for the government thing, for the record the regulatory authorities in Canada and the US have applied stiffer rules for SEIFR approved aircraft. They've restricted the stall speed and required higher g-loading on the seats. So the PC-12 is, and I hesitate to say this, is arguably more crash-worthy than a BE20.

[Cat Driver]

Those who are against it think those who fly SEIFR are idiots.

I don't think they are idiots, if they feel safe flying single engine IFR it is quite legal and they are free to fly single engine IFR all they want.

We all have choices in life and we all base our decisions on how we view the risk factor.

I chose not to fly SEIFR during my career because that is just my personal way of assessing risk and weighing my choices.

I have had to shut down several engines during my career over terrain that was very hostile the second engine always flew me to an airport to land on.

Based on my own experience as a pilot I am quite happy with my choices as I am sure I would not be here now had I not had the other engine when I had to shut one down.

[Flybaby]

In the last year in the US there has been one fatal accident involving a BE 200 ("a mechanic who was attempting to board the airplane was struck by the airplane's entry door and fatally injured") and there has been three involving the PC 12 that all seem like low level spins, which killed a combined 17 people.

[trey kule]

there has been three involving the PC 12 that all seem like low level spins,

low level spins eh....well that settles it in my mind.. PC-12 pilots are inordinate risk takers by practising aerobatics at unsafe altitudes.

Where is TC in all this? Why are they not doing anything to stop this shameful practice? They deserve to all be fired.
I understand perfectly, now, why Cat is so against single engines. Damn TC management. Bet they are not even enforcing SMS which, if implemented, would completely eliminate all accidents. And dont give me that old....these are FAA stats.
Foreign stats are valid...PC 12 itself is a foreigner. Unsafe...not like one of thos Canadian made, animal named singles that are obviously safe. From now on, no singles for me.. I am going to start a petition demanding the flight schools stop using single engine airplanes...that ought to eliminate all the accidents in flight schools....well except for the ones that are caused by a flight school not implementing or following an SMS..but again ,...thats a TC issue.

[Cat Driver]

I understand perfectly, now, why Cat is so against single engines.

Now, now, now treykule you are jumping just a bit to high with that assumption.

I fly lots of single engine airplanes but I do try and restrict flying beyond gliding distance of land on wheel equipped singles and I also avoid night X/country in them and I never have flown in IMC in one.

Just my own personal thing and so far it has not caused me any problems.

[Doc]

I'm not against the PC12. If I owned one, I'd fly IFR all over the place. My problem is with the way they are operated. Skeds. Low vis and ceiling departures. And....."We just HAVE to get to YTL...!"
It's a very capable airplane. For personal, or perhaps corporate use. It's just NOT an airliner.

[ipilot54]

It's just NOT an airliner.

I agree. I don't think that there was ever the intention but I may be wrong. The thing is, SEIFR commercial pax ops is not allowed in Europe so why here?

Myself, I too would not hesitate to fly the thing around IFR but it would be MY decision when to go or not.

[The Hammer]

there has been three involving the PC 12 that all seem like low level spins,

Foreign stats are valid...PC 12 itself is a foreigner. Unsafe...not like one of thos Canadian made, animal named singles that are obviously safe.

I would have no problem flying the PC-12 if you put it on floats. The planes you refer to don't fly SEIFR for commercial ops. The pilots are given the oppurtunity to understand the risks but the pax are not.

[Pratt X 3]

I'm not against the PC12. If I owned one, I'd fly IFR all over the place. My problem is with the way they are operated. Skeds. Low vis and ceiling departures. And....."We just HAVE to get to YTL...!"
It's a very capable airplane. For personal, or perhaps corporate use. It's just NOT an airliner.

Sounds like someone applied for the adventurous PC-12 job!! Do you really want to see Europe that badly, Doc?

[trey kule]

guys, guys, I was joking. Please read my post again.

I guess I made the mistake of assuming that when I made the illogical conclusion that PC 12 pilots were doing low level spins, and ran with it, people would see the post for what it was.....boy was I wrong.

[xsbank]

Did I get a post bumped off here, or did I forget to press 'send?'

[Jastapilot]

You could justify just about anything to get your hours, eh?

It's easier if I just quote myself.