I know, we've traveled this road before. I'd just like to know why people are so willing to forfeit their lives on a gamble that one engine will not quit after a 100' departure. I had a pax ask me, what happens if an engine quit. I must admit, I haven't given it much thought of late. The last day or two, I've been operating in and out of YQT, and it's been one hundred feet overcast, the last couple of mornings. The local single engine boys have been departing as long as they have a half a mile. Okay, it is legal....but is it very bright. While I know as well as you, how bullet proof these big Pratts are, but, what if...? You are gambling your life, and the lives of your passengers. There is no way around the simple fact, that if that engine departs the fix, you will die. Even a ceiling of a few hundred feet would give you some hope...but at 100 overcast....? No Hope at all. Do you brief your passengers of this fact? That they are putting their lives at risk? That a simple engine failure WILL result in their deaths? Of course you don't. We need higher take off limits for these single engine aircraft.
Thoughts?
Single Engine Hard IFR
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
sickofstupidity
- Rank 0
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:55 pm
I'm wondering why engine failure would necessarily mean death? It would of course mean a forced landing but I think your assumption of guaranteed death might be a little much. Any facts or statistics to back that assumption up? Also, let's not kid ourselves, with many light twin aircraft at MTOW, an engine failure after rotation results in nothing but driving to the scene of the crash. This is documented. This is only made worse by the general inexperience of pilots flying these aircraft. I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the limits, we should. But they should be raised for more than just the pilatus or caravan.
I'm also curious as to what kind of limit you might think is safe. It's my opinion that would probably be just as screwed with a 300' ceiling as you would a 100' ceiling.
I take issue with the fact that you think the PC-12 is dangerous because it has one engine. You are like the people who said ETOPS was dangerous and you need 4 engines to go over the pacific. Guess what? You don't, and you don't need to have 2 engines to be safe either. The PC-12 has a proven record of reliabiltiy and a safety record that Raytheon would love to have for the King Air. It is certainly many times safer than say a clapped out POS Navajo. I probably shouldn't even get you started on the single engine VLJ stuff. You asked for thoughts, those are mine.
I'm also curious as to what kind of limit you might think is safe. It's my opinion that would probably be just as screwed with a 300' ceiling as you would a 100' ceiling.
I take issue with the fact that you think the PC-12 is dangerous because it has one engine. You are like the people who said ETOPS was dangerous and you need 4 engines to go over the pacific. Guess what? You don't, and you don't need to have 2 engines to be safe either. The PC-12 has a proven record of reliabiltiy and a safety record that Raytheon would love to have for the King Air. It is certainly many times safer than say a clapped out POS Navajo. I probably shouldn't even get you started on the single engine VLJ stuff. You asked for thoughts, those are mine.
as far as i'm concerned, if TC was so friggin worried about safety, they could have clamped down on SEIFR and 'single engine multi's-IFR' instead of raising the approach ban and punish the rest of us.
To add to your point, Doc, I'll say how is it a good idea to be flying these planes SEIFR in the arctic?! Those fools going Rankin-Coral Harbour for instance in the PC12 giving no thought as to where they'd be if the shit hit the fan.
No matter how reliable, engines fail, and it's just a matter of time. So who's next?
To add to your point, Doc, I'll say how is it a good idea to be flying these planes SEIFR in the arctic?! Those fools going Rankin-Coral Harbour for instance in the PC12 giving no thought as to where they'd be if the shit hit the fan.
No matter how reliable, engines fail, and it's just a matter of time. So who's next?
Drinking outside the box.
-
GroundSpeed
- Rank 1
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:06 pm
The aircrafts that are approuved for single engine operations while carrying passengers are powered by Pratt&Whitney. We all know that Pratt is a canadian company making great reliable engines.But sometimes I wonder if any lobbying was involved in that approuval.
As for ETOPS operations the airlines have severe regulations for routes and alternates to respect. I don't think any restrictions are required for that type of operation.
I wonder how many twin-otter and king-air pilots had shut down an engine either for precaution or failure.
If i'd have to choose an airplane to fly my family,it would be a King Air before a Pilatus...But that's just my opinion.
As for ETOPS operations the airlines have severe regulations for routes and alternates to respect. I don't think any restrictions are required for that type of operation.
I wonder how many twin-otter and king-air pilots had shut down an engine either for precaution or failure.
If i'd have to choose an airplane to fly my family,it would be a King Air before a Pilatus...But that's just my opinion.
Doc the planes you fly don't have balanced field up north, so that said you're putting yourself at risk every time you take off too. It's all a matter of what level of risk your comfortable with.
Even if the king air could meet balanced field out of 3500' of gravel with full load without sim training there would be very few pilots out there that would do everything right. Having taught guys coming off king airs in the sim they all say "thank god this never happened to us in real life or we would be dead".
Even if the king air could meet balanced field out of 3500' of gravel with full load without sim training there would be very few pilots out there that would do everything right. Having taught guys coming off king airs in the sim they all say "thank god this never happened to us in real life or we would be dead".
seems like its turning into a twin versus single thread again...... just drop it, company's fly Pilatus' up north, whoop dee doo, Im on both a B100 and the -12, which would you rather going up north? pilatus has a lot more space for loading cargo, it can fly with the same weight as the 100, it can land shorter, better on fuel.... and here's another one, the Pilatus can float on water.
Dont get me worng, I love the King Air but whenever one of these debates starts I cringe.
Basically, this is how I look at it, you get an engine failure in a -12, you know you're going down, you get an engine failure in a twin, you're going down you just dont know it yet.
-Note-
My opinion is solely based on experiences in a -12 and a B100
*fires a gun into the air*
Flame away my friends, flame away.
Dont get me worng, I love the King Air but whenever one of these debates starts I cringe.
Basically, this is how I look at it, you get an engine failure in a -12, you know you're going down, you get an engine failure in a twin, you're going down you just dont know it yet.
-Note-
My opinion is solely based on experiences in a -12 and a B100
*fires a gun into the air*
Flame away my friends, flame away.
So you go direct then? out of sight of land? wow, you're my hero!wingspan wrote:We are not fools, we have balls.Four1oh wrote:Those fools going Rankin-Coral Harbour for instance in the PC12 giving no thought as to where they'd be if the shit hit the fan.
Drinking outside the box.
Commercial SEIFR is just plain wrong. I think consumers expect a certain level of safety in commercial IFR ops and having no redundancy when it comes to engines isn't what I think most would be comfortable.
And before this turns into a big misinformed debate, don't bother talking about overloaded Navajos or Beech Travelairs. The rule is quite clear on this.
And before this turns into a big misinformed debate, don't bother talking about overloaded Navajos or Beech Travelairs. The rule is quite clear on this.
Therfore I beleive that the the commercial multi-engine air taxi rules are within the average consumer's expectations. SEIFR is not.703.32 No person shall operate a multi-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the weight of the aircraft is greater than the weight that will allow the aircraft to maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown.
Re: Single Engine Hard IFR
Are you authorized to takeoff if the ceiling is below the landing minimum? Do you have a take off alternate within gliding distance or something?Doc wrote:Even a ceiling of a few hundred feet would give you some hope...but at 100 overcast....? No Hope at all.
-
My Name is Earl
- Rank 1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 2:21 pm
Commercial SEIFR is just plain wrong. I think consumers expect a certain level of safety in commercial IFR ops and having no redundancy when it comes to engines isn't what I think most would be comfortable.
Well they don't have to get on if they don't want......
Doc seriously you need to learn how to "let go". Between your single engine blah blah and your stop buys jobs blah blah.... Geez Gimme Shelter
"I'm just trying to be a better person"-Earl Hickey
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I have had two P&W's quit on me in the Twin Otter.I wonder how many twin-otter and king-air pilots had shut down an engine either for precaution or failure.
As to this gem.
No where in my training courses both here in Canada or overseas have I been taught that the answer to safety is having balls. Is that a new PDM thing in Canada?We are not fools, we have balls.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
In my opinion, regulation is a balance between safety and operation cost. 100% safe is impossible. For small aircraft like a PC12, regulation is not as strict as for the Airline industry. You will not see a 300 passengers single engine airplane flying IFR commercially.
Personaly, I feel safer in a PC12 with pilots trained in a flight simulator, than a Piper Navajo with Vortex Generators loaded at MTOW with pilots who was never trained for a V1 cut.
PS: Once again same question, is there an Ops Spec authorizing takeoff below the landing minimum for a PC12 (OVC001)? Thanks
Personaly, I feel safer in a PC12 with pilots trained in a flight simulator, than a Piper Navajo with Vortex Generators loaded at MTOW with pilots who was never trained for a V1 cut.
PS: Once again same question, is there an Ops Spec authorizing takeoff below the landing minimum for a PC12 (OVC001)? Thanks
I thought you had balls, you pussy!wingspan wrote:No we always stay gliding distance from land.Four1oh wrote:
So you go direct then? out of sight of land? wow, you're my hero!
Seriously though, it wasn't that long ago I was flying up there, and the boys doing that run DID fly direct, which, up there IS a death sentence, floating planes or not.Drinking outside the box.
-
glorifiedtaxidriver
- Rank 3
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:03 pm
I know of a caravan that toasted an engine right after t/o just recently. Luckily he was vfr and landed immediately with power, but by the time he got back on the ground the engine was written off. If he was ifr I'm pretty sure he would have lost that engine completely before he could shoot an approach.Dockjock wrote:How many engine failures on takeoff- single or twin- have occurred during OVC 001, causing death, with mechanical failure as the sole cause of the accident, in the past 10 years, in Canada?
None. Can I go now?
