PC12 Drivers

[Cat Driver]

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

You forgot to mention that with a multi engine airplane if you lose one you at least have lots of time to keep it under control.

[knockedupnorth]

One thing that everybody has failed to mention in this stimulating debate is the fact that almost none of you had a choice of which kind of aircraft you are going to fly in the industry. If you target a company that pilots PC-12's or King Air's then you are going to grab anything you can get your shifty little hands on. Pride or no pride.

Know your aircraft, its limitation and yours, regardless of 1 or 2 engines. If you don't you and the folks in the back are dead whether you land right side up or right side down. For non PC-12 drivers, know that the SOP engine failure proceedures are just a little more complex then when all of you were up with your instructors completing your PPL in buck 52's.

Yes I fly a PC-12, and no I'm not crazy and reckless foaming at the mouth and neather are my passengers. Flying in itself is a measure of exceptable levels of risk and flying a PC-12 over the rocks, within safe, comfortable, ice or no ice gliding distances from paved 5000' runways is excepatable. If you're flying some clapped out 90 or Navajo and you think that's safer, well your living in a dream world.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing the new kid on the block aircraft targeted by pilots that really know nothing about them and the basic philosophy of a flameout at 28,000' besides what they read in flying magazines.

[Cat Driver]

We all agree that engines do quit, now here is a question I would like to ask you.

Suppose you were over the rocks in your PC12 and the engine quit, regardless of the altitude.

Would you wish you were flying a twin?

Cat

[KAG]

[quote=".
I guess I'm just tired of seeing the new kid on the block aircraft targeted by pilots that really know nothing about them and the basic philosophy of a flameout at 28,000' besides what they read in flying magazines.[/quote]

I can assure you the majority of responses on this thread come from pilots that have a little more experience than your giving credit for.

Besides, whats not to know about the PC12? it's a loaded up, tweaked out single engine version of the King air that can glide with the best of em... that about sum it up?


Cheers.

[Cat Driver]

Knockedupnorth :

So if you think that most of us do not understand the philosophy of a flame out at FL 280 please enlighten us.

When you post with that amount of arrogance I hope you can explain to us the great unwashed out here what we don't know that you do.

[knockedupnorth]

Cat if you consider passion about ones beliefs to be arrogance then right back at you.

To answer your question about an engine failure over the rocks. Well it would have to depend on whether I'm flying a twin that can mantain the MOCA as a single engine service ceiling or not. A J-31 at max weight is going to have a very hard time due to the increased sink rate a higher minimum operating speeds and it may just present a more hazardous situation than a commited forced approach and landing. If the multi could maintain altitude, then yes I would prefer to be in that situation. I don't know why I would answer any differently.

My point is, the debate is not so black and white as "a twin is more superior to safety than a single." There are a lot more variables invloved.

In order to elaborate on the philosophy of a flame out from FL280 and a successful landing I ask a couple of honest questions. How many have tried it,(besides Cat) either during initial type training or for real? I so how were the results? Does anybody have some real life stories flameouts in twins compared to real life flameouts in singles from altitude.

[Cat Driver]

Knockedupnorth :

It is not my intention to insult you, however I do try and analyize the risk factors when making decisions on what I feel comfortable flying.

Lets ask the question in reverse.

At what passenger load do you decide where single engine aircraft can not be flown IFR, and over water in airline operations. Do we allow ten, 100, 200 passengers or some other number?

Remember ETOPS is not an option with a single engine aircraft.

Cat

[KAG]

knockedupnorth...Say your in a HO, near max cross over the rocks. You lose your engine and cannot maintain MOCA. Now if this was a PC12, you’re going down. The HO you will drift down at a reduced rate until you reach your single engine service ceiling – I do not know what it is as I have never flown one.
In both cases your going to be looking for the nearest runway, say it’s down the valley 50 miles, and due to winds you wont make it. Lets be nice and say it’s day VFR. Now with the 12, since you can’t make it, you’re back to your PPL training days and looking for a suitable place to land. You have lots of time, but I’m sure it’s still pretty hard to pick something and make it from that altitude. Back to the HO, you’ve drifted down same valley and can now maintain 5000’ on one engine, your in the clear and now you can make the field.

Take the same situation in a B200, you will only drift down to FL210 ish, you will spike the cabin but still maintain a cabin of 10’500 (personal experience flying on one flowpack at FL210) and flying along at 174 KTS TAS (as per the manual, for arguments sake lets say 150 KTS for a clapped out 200) no problems.
Having shut down both pistons and turbines (not at that altitude), I would take any twin over a single any day.

No matter how you look at it, you have more options (and more time) in a twin than any single engine. The only thing one has to worry about in a twin is VMC, and as I’ve mentioned before if you control it, it’s manageable.

Cheers.

[split s]

Cat, KAG,
You are A young man starting your career full of piss and vinegar, you get offered a job on a PC12 would you take it? In your decision would you be thinking about single engine IFR and maybe hold out for a twin job? I would rather a twin job myself but for the obvious reason of furthering my career, if offered the single engine job flying IFR, no problem for me personally, they are a good engine. KAG you say you have shut down turbines before and i'm sure Cat has as well, have you ever had one shoot the shit so quick that the time to shut down was right now. The only ones i have heard of say that it probably would have went for some time longer(which is good if your in a 12), but as you mentioned you have another one to rely on so of course shut it down, in a single your decision is not to difficult let it shut itself down basically I guess. It does not piss me off that some people would not fly one, whatever the reason. What does piss me off is the people who fly them, bitch about other people not mantaining glide distance and how foolish it is and then fly empty over buddy's camp at 100' having a great time.

[Axial Flow]

If I was in a fully loaded clapped out Navajo with an engine failure over the rocks in IMC and possbile icing or a PC12 in the same situation, I would rather be in the PC12 because I would come to terms with the fact I have to point my toes because where goin in deep.

My friends that used to fly the 402 would always make jokes about how I had one engine (C208) like they were more safe. I just remarked that I know I am going down with an engine failure but they will be in denial till the second engine takes em to the crash site. I don't care anymore now back to having 2 PT6's so its all good.

[Cat Driver]

split s :

I did not say that I would not fly a single engine turbine, I am only pointing out that there are more options with a twin if you do have an engine failure.

I was just thinking that I have only ever flown one turbine single engine fixed wing airplane IFR, a C208 in South Africa and of course found it to be a nice airplane. ( I have not flown it IFR in IMC conditions at departure or landing. )

However compared to single engine turbine helicopters the fixed wing generally does call for more caution as to where and when you fly it.

Anyone want to comment on my question regarding how many passengers would be the deciding factor for airline IFR over ocean flying?

[split s]

Cat or anyone else,
Have you ever had a turbine just quit without notice for whatever reason? I've been lucky myself, no troubles at all.
A friend of mine crapped his pants once,when we both had just started our first jobs, the engine started running quite rough, he started back to the field and realized after he got his(secret) girlfriend/coworker off his lap, that she had accidentally hit the key to one mag. He kept that a secret for quite a while.

[Cat Driver]

Twice, PT6's caused by fuel controller failure...

..unlike a piston pounder they quit without any shaking or warning, the fire just goes out.

Oh, and I even had a Garrett " refuse " to quit on a 690 B Turbo Commander when I tried tried to shut it down it just kept on running, really took me by suprise as I wanted to go home and the f.ckin thing just kept running.


Another fuel controller problem, a woodward controller that time...

Cat

[Vickers vanguard]

At what passenger load do you decide where single engine aircraft can not be flown IFR, and over water in airline operations. Do we allow ten, 100, 200 passengers or some other number?Cat

did all you guys miss that statement ?........I was going to post something in support of the single engine comm IFR operation when I read the above. Put yourself in the passenger seat and think about it again. How soon do you think the regulators around the world will give way in the face of the largest industry's players, and allow single engine extended range operation ???? sooner than you think...despite the still strong opposition from the old continent.
Who would have thought 20 years ago that Etops will go from 60 minutes to a whopping 210/240 minutes...........courtesey of the FAA with a lot of lobbying from Boeing.......not to say that the other manufacturers would not have done the same...
Let me remind the readers of the following :
Right now, turbine engines ( mostly turbofans ) must demonstrate an In-flight shutdown rate of 0.02 or lower per thousand flight hours to gain ETOPS certification. In other words, that's one IFSD per 50,000 hours !
This last number will probably have to be doubled before single engine extended range operation is ever authorized.......and that won't be difficult to achieve.
I personally wouldn't like to be sitting in the back, when that sole engine will call it a day......even if the regulator, the industry and the public think that the loss of 100/200 or 300 people once every 10 years is acceptable !!

[Vickers vanguard]

yeh, yeh.......I will probably sit behind the controls of that PC12 because like most other pilots, I will convince myself that in the case of an engine failure beyond gliding distance of an airport, I'll be able to pull it off and crash-land the thing.....and hopefully walk away without much injuries..... or at least alive.......

[leftyxl]

O.k.
Here's my two cents.
The avionics in the PC -12 are very good...all one has to do is hit nearest apt on the KLN 90b and "pop" there it is. Set the OBS to runway heading (read track). Put your self 3 miles back and do the "bow tie" manuver we all learned in the private licence. when you are about 1000'agl turn in.
Hold the gear and flaps until you have the field made. Piece of cake.
And yes I have practiced this manuver in the sim and in the plane, it really works. I flew both the King Air and the PC-12. Both very good machines.
For what it's worth

[KAG]

I can honestly say that I have never had one just flame out. In 2 companies we had both 100, and 200 flaming out due to loss of High pressure fuel pump or the CT wheel flying apart (I hear that one is more of an explosion). I’ve had slow failures (hot section failing right after T/O, but still only had to power to power back), terrible compressor stalls in flight (and I mean bad), and false fire indications, but as of yet (knock on wood) no sudden failures.

Split S - if I was a low timer and someone offered me a job on the PC12, I would jump on it in a second!!! It's great experience, and it's comes with alot of bells and whistles.
It's not that I’m against single engine; it's just now my preference is to have 2 engines, someday I'll whine about only flying 4...


Cheers.

[knockedupnorth]

Sorry for the delayed response. Cat to answer your valid question about the amount of passengers that might eventually fit on single engine aircraft.

As for right now the reliability of turbine engines far outweight the reliability of pistons. With the increasing cost of oil, there is definately a cry for fast, quiet, high flying and fuel efficient aircraft for the short haul buisness traveller. Large coorporations are selling off there air divisions and either chartering or flying their employees on sched. I'm sure none of this is news to anybody.

The general public consensus is that 2 engines are better than one. Sir Richard Branson was asked why he chose the more expensive 340 over the less expensive 777. His answer was" It was purely phsychological. The 777 is just as safe and efficient as the 340 but the general perseption is that passengers would preffer to fly on an aircraft with 4 engines rather than 2." Virgin Atlantic is as we all know a very succesful coorporation. So this would lead me to believe that large scale aircraft construction is not leaning towards the single engine turbine type nor will it ever...I think.

Hypothetically speaking there should be size and passenger limations that are goverened only by the laws of physics and engineering reliabilty, not heresay.

The industry would have to be totally un-recognizable from what we have today in order to see the quantities your talking about on single engine aircraft. It would definately be a different ball game if aviation were to ever reach that point either phsycologically or technologically.

[flynbutcher]

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

Good old Rusmir, one hell of an instructor!

[Brew]

You couldn't pay me enough to fly a PC-12 IFR. I would still take a light twin over a single in IMC any day of the year turbine or not. I think it is completely unethical to put passengers lives at risk as is being done when this a/c is flown IFR. It gives them a false sense of security-they think they are safe because of the flashy equipment, and all the advertising where ppl are telling them all the great assets it has and how that ONE engine is SO reliable. I see it all the time in charter requests, where the client demands a turboprop, and they will take that PC-12 over the navajo without a doubt. It's been proven enough in the posts that engines can and do fail; why are PC-12 pilots so confident that it won't happen to them, or that they will always be able to make the landing successful.

If one engine is safe why do we need redundancy with everything else such as flight instruments, etc. In some areas, operators are required to have two adf's, yet one engine is acceptable in IMC??? I just don't get the logic. When an engine quits on the PC-12 battery power only takes you so far...in a light twin even in a constant descent, electrical power will still be available to power emergency equipment such as windshield heat. Maybe the PC-12 is too new yet for the stats to prove just how dangerous they are.

As for the remarks about how we all did those night xctry in our 172's, or worse, IFR xctry in the same type, and didn't think twice then...well how many ppl can look back at things they did in the past and realize "what the hell was I thinking"-It's over, we survived but won't be doing that again. In other words, with experience and knowledge we learned what the risks were. My theory is that pilots are so desperate for employment that they will take these jobs and then convince themselves that they are safe (maybe it is the only coping method that works) . I just can't see how someone in their right mind can put so much faith in one engine and in their ability and assume that they will have no problems bringing the a/c to a perfectly safe landing on a runway if their engine quits in solid IMC.

[Ray-Ban]

What about us float drivers that fly the turbo otters and beavers.

Should we quit our jobs to fly a twin just to feel more secure or passenger safety?

I have complete faith in the furnace up front that gets me home every night.

Why is everyone ragging on the PC-12?

You don't like the the single engine, don't fly it and let the people who do like it fly it. Stop arguing over who has the better toy in the sandbox.

Brew Wrote

My theory is that pilots are so desperate for employment that they will take these jobs and then convince themselves that they are safe (maybe it is the only coping method that works) . I just can't see how someone in their right mind can put so much faith in one engine and in their ability and assume that they will have no problems bringing the a/c to a perfectly safe landing on a runway if their engine quits in solid IMC.

Obviously Brew, you must of put alot of faith in one engine to get you pilots license. So what your saying is it would be better for people to get a pilot's license on twin engine from the getgo?? Imagine the cost!

Sorry bud, but don't contradict yourself. At what point in your pilot career did it become unsafe to fly single engine A/C. Your first Fam flight or your first twin job??

My 2 cents

[scabber]

Brew, with an attitude like that, I wouldnt pay you to fly any airplane IFR.

pilots get paid to fly airplanes.......and flying any airplane is about managing risk to yourself, and your passengers.

A PC12 is no more dangerous than any other type. Look at the statistics. The PC12 does however, require different procedures to assure that that maximum level of safety is reached during all phases of flight.

As does a king air, or a navajo, or a concorde.

Dont fly a PC12 over the rocks at night and expect it to be 100% safe. Obvious. Dont fly a navajo over the rocks at night and expect it to be 100% safe. Dont put a less than average pilot in a 200 and expect his engine out performance to be 100% safe.

In addition, the PC12 is getting a lot of abuse here. What about caravans? and all the high performance singles out there. I think this thread is all about penis envy. I know the 200s and Dash8-100 guys hate pc12s.

[Brew]

[quote]What about us float drivers that fly the turbo otters and beavers.

Should we quit our jobs to fly a twin just to feel more secure or passenger safety?[/quote]

Not unless your flying them single engine IFR in IMC (that was the main condition in my last post). I have no problems flying single engine aircraft during the day in VMC, and like Cat Driver expressed earlier, night flights no further than the circuit.

[quote]Sorry bud, but don't contradict yourself. At what point in your pilot career did it become unsafe to fly single engine A/C. Your first Fam flight or your first twin job?? [/quote]

I don't believe that I contradicted myself: I admit that I was ignorant to the risks and yes, I did have too much faith in the engine up front. I didn't think much about it back then, but I definitely have my doubts now about how successful a forced approach on a night VFR flight would be. My first engine failure got me thinking about a lot of "what ifs".

[quote]A PC12 is no more dangerous than any other type. Look at the statistics. The PC12 does however, require different procedures to assure that that maximum level of safety is reached during all phases of flight. [/quote]

Again, I don't think its been around long enough to accumulate stats that would seriously question what all PC12 lovers have been advocating regarding its safety. As for the assessment of risk to ensure safety; great and hope those procedures work out if you lose your engine in IMC. My basic sentiment is that I don't want to be in a PC12 in IMC where the engine could fail, and along with having to deal with the emergency itself, also have to fear what I will see if I break out at 400 feet.

[quote]In addition, the PC12 is getting a lot of abuse here.[/quote]
It is the only single engine turbine getting all the attention because it is the one aircraft that we keep hearing how great it performs and how far it glides from FL???, etc...

[Cat Driver]

Just to stir up some debate here can anyone tell me why TC will not allow commercial operations at night in single engine piston airplanes, yet they force instructors to fly with their customers x/country at night while training them?

Cat

[Forest Gump]

Bottom line? How many times has the second engine brought the bird home after one quit? Thousands. (Twice for me, both in jets, ironically.)

F.G.