PC-12 is it good time?

[black metal]

Just curious if time on this a/c is worth it and a stepping stone to something better not a side step? I've heard of people being on this a/c and then going 705 with no multi time and then off to the majors! Just wondering, thanx.

[KAG]

You have heard correct. While personally I'm a fan of multi time, the PC12 has a great avionics package, performance and it will open doors.

[iflyforpie]

Don't know too much about it but I've always wondered what the big deal was with multi time. You can fly your whole multi career without an engine failure and all you are doing is matching parameters on each engine when operating it normally.

The PC12 gets you turbine time, into the flight levels, glass time, and typically more destinations than the Ho going to BFN. Lots of systems and redundancy that light twins don't have.

Unless it is SIC in a King Air or perhaps PIC in a Navajo, go with the PC12.

[trey kule]

My opinion:

PC 12....PIC time of at least 500 hours on type...Gold. That and over 1000 TT, and step into FO jet position without any trouble.
PC-12...SIC time...not anywhere near as valuable as the variances in companies make it hard to judge the actual level of experience gained. But if right seat leads to left seat, then the first applies when PIC time gets to about 500 hours.

The only issue that I see is the way some companies handle things like SOP's etc, and use FO's as right seat sandbags to make the customer happy.
That is not good experience from either seat. If you are moving up CRM is critical, and a company that flies with two crew , but actually only one pilot, tends to ingrain some bad habits in both their Captains and their FO's. I have read just too many CADOR's where when something went astray the Captain took over all the flying, and in the two examples we use in training, flew perfectly good aircraft into the ground while the FO sat on their hands.

I agree with the whole twin engine thing, particularily as if you are moving up, an engine failure is not the same thing it is in the smaller piston twins.

[Doc]

I hope the twin (Navajo etc.) vs. Turbine single (ie., PC12 etc) feelings are changing. The only REAL difference between flying something like an older King Air, and a PC12, is the simple fact you've "played" around on one engine a bit while training. Really, when's the last time anybody has ever had to bring one home with one feathered? The PC12 gets you up in the flight levels, gets you used to a glass cockpit. Just try and make your PC12 time PIC. Then your ONE engine quits and you die. But until that happens, the Turbine PIC time should look pretty good in your book.

[flying4dollars]

Then your ONE engine quits and you die. But until that happens, the Turbine PIC time should look pretty good in your book.

Now that's just morbid Doc

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The chance of an engine failure is small, but if you do have one in a single engine airplane you need to get visual before you land if you want a chance of survival...and therein lies the decisions each pilot must make when flying them.

[black metal]

Thanx for the input, I have 1000 pic moutain vfr and 700 multi turb cojo so sounds like a good direction for me and I'll try to keep one turning Doc.

[pilohock]

Absolutely, turbine time is important and the PC-12 looks like a phenomenal aircraft to fly on. If someone was dangling a PC-12 at my nose I would take it! Thats just me

[LEAFS SUCK]

The chance of an engine failure is small, but if you do have one in a single engine airplane you need to get visual before you land if you want a chance of survival...and therein lies the decisions each pilot must make when flying them.

Really....if you loose an engine you have to get visual before you land? You mean you can't fly an ILS with no engine? Where did you do your training?

[KAG]

If anyone on here knows about engine failures it's ..

[TopperHarley]

The chance of an engine failure is small, but if you do have one in a single engine airplane you need to get visual before you land if you want a chance of survival...and therein lies the decisions each pilot must make when flying them.

Really....if you loose an engine you have to get visual before you land? You mean you can't fly an ILS with no engine? Where did you do your training?

Most glidepaths are 3 degrees. You wouldn't be able to maintain a 3 degree descent angle (or the necessary Vertical Speed) with the proper IAS while gliding.

[Doc]

The chance of an engine failure is small, but if you do have one in a single engine airplane you need to get visual before you land if you want a chance of survival...and therein lies the decisions each pilot must make when flying them.

Really....if you loose an engine you have to get visual before you land? You mean you can't fly an ILS with no engine? Where did you do your training?

You're kidding, right? He was giving instruction LONG before you were even born. If you really think you can get yourself on a localizer, slide down a glide slope and land with no visibility, dead stick, you sir, are on drugs!

[ch135146]

The chance of an engine failure is small, but if you do have one in a single engine airplane you need to get visual before you land if you want a chance of survival...and therein lies the decisions each pilot must make when flying them.

Really....if you loose an engine you have to get visual before you land? You mean you can't fly an ILS with no engine? Where did you do your training?

Guys, I think his tongue is planted-firmly-in-cheek! lol

[. ._]

Yeah. He did put a little laughing emoticon in there.

Come to think of it, I wonder what .'s angle of descent looked like when he had the double engine failure in the Navajo.

(I think I remember him saying that happened to him.)

[Colonel Sanders]

Everyone knows that after engine failure, everyone on board is as good as dead.

That's why everyone on board AC Flight 143 died on July 23, 1983 after 767 double flameout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

That's why everyone on board TACA 110 on May 24, 1988 died after a 737 double flameout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

That's why everyone on board Air Transat Flight 236 died on August 24, 2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That's why everyone on board US Airways Flight 1549 died on January 15, 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

That's why this F-16 pilot is dead now, after an engine failure in IMC:

[TopperHarley]

Nobody's saying you can't deadstick an airliner to a successful landing. The poster made it sound like you could fly an ILS with no engine. THAT's a different matter altogether.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yeah. He did put a little laughing emoticon in there.

Come to think of it, I wonder what .'s angle of descent looked like when he had the double engine failure in the Navajo.

(I think I remember him saying that happened to him.)

ISTP my angle of descent was quite steep as I was turning down through a hole in an overcast at night....probably around four or five thousand feet per minute as I started at eleven thousand feet, things were happening quite fast and I was so shocked at having lost both engines my eyes were sticking out like a bull dogs nuts.

[teacher]

Having flown it, the PC12 is an amazing machine and there is no difference between it and multi engine aircraft of the same size and performance. PIC time is gold especially in ANY turbine aircraft. You will learn a HELL of a lot more in the left seat of a PC12 than the right seat of any other plane.

[2.5milefinal]

I guess I am on drugs...
The last 4 703 crashes (in Canada) in the past 12 months or so where twin engine machines.
Doesn't seem to matter how many engines you've got.

Another thread gone way off track.
Porter seems to like the 12 drivers, they hire a lot of them.