RCMP accident Whitehorse Yukon

[medi-whacked]

Is there anymore info on this?

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/202 ... rport.html

[godsrcrazy]

Go to this topic. viewtopic.php?t=187308

[pelmet]

C-GMPX, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pilatus PC-12/47E, was operating on an IFR flight
from Whitehorse (CYXY), YT to Yellowknife (CYZF), NT with just the pilot on board. Shortly after
departure on Runway 32L, the pilot declared an emergency and returned to the airport. The aircraft
collided with terrain within the airport boundary. The pilot sustained serious injuries and the aircraft
was substantially damaged. There was no post impact fire. The Edmonton TSB office is deploying
to the accident site.

[Jean-Pierre]

I feel the no fatality record of the PC-12 from engine failure has been due to pure luck.

[TeePeeCreeper]

I feel the no fatality record of the PC-12 from engine failure has been due to pure luck.

Perhaps, but after having flown them for a couple thousand hours from South America to the Arctic I can say this:

It’s a very stable platform, handles ice very well, doesn’t have that nasty VMC roll that twins have and once the engine is secured glides incredibly well. 1000 AGL turn backs for the reciprocal are really non issues.

Now JP, do you know for sure that this accident was due to an EFATO?

Regards,

TPC

[55+]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... a0067.html

Remembering this one few years back, I knew the pilot personally and I don't believe he ever flew again as was injured badly.

[Airbrake]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... a0067.html

Remembering this one few years back, I knew the pilot personally and I don't believe he ever flew again as was injured badly.

Both are still flying. One at WJ the other at AC.

[55+]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... a0067.html

Remembering this one few years back, I knew the pilot personally and I don't believe he ever flew again as was injured badly.

Both are still flying. One at WJ the other at AC.

Been a long time since I was in that neck of the woods but thanks for that update. Certainly very glad to hear their flying careers continued despite it all.

[Donald]

Best wishes for a speedy recovery for the pilot. I've heard the voice of this pilot many times, always professional, I hope to hear them again on the radio soon.

[pelmet]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... a0067.html

Remembering this one few years back, I knew the pilot personally and I don't believe he ever flew again as was injured badly.

I remember that one. One main thing to learn was to keep one's altitude when in a single and there is a problem but the engine is still operating. Gives you much better options to get back to the airport in event of an engine failure. Interesting report to read.

[55+]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... a0067.html

Remembering this one few years back, I knew the pilot personally and I don't believe he ever flew again as was injured badly.

I remember that one. One main thing to learn was to keep one's altitude when in a single and there is a problem but the engine is still operating. Gives you much better options to get back to the airport in event of an engine failure. Interesting report to read.

Certainly agree with you . Don't think the company involved ever recovered from this accident as the service was later withdrawn. There was plenty of debate among the aviation circles about commercial pax operations single engine(PC-12) IFR in the Atlantic Region after that accident 1998.I am not at all familiar with that aircraft as never flown in it.

[‘Bob’]

I feel the no fatality record of the PC-12 from engine failure has been due to pure luck.

1800+ airframes flying all over the world in all kinds of conditions seems to be a lot more than luck.

Maybe it a because it’s half as likely to have an engine failure?

Maybe it’s because when it does, it’s not likely to roll over and impact the ground vertically?

Maybe it’s because when it does contact the ground, it does so at a slower speed?

And maybe having a cabin and cockpit that’s easier to get out of has something to do with it?

[Justjohn]

Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:30 pm
I feel the no fatality record of the PC-12 from engine failure has been due to pure luck.

1800+ airframes flying all over the world in all kinds of conditions seems to be a lot more than luck.

Maybe it a because it’s half as likely to have an engine failure?

Maybe it’s because when it does, it’s not likely to roll over and impact the ground vertically?

Maybe it’s because when it does contact the ground, it does so at a slower speed?

And maybe having a cabin and cockpit that’s easier to get out of has something to do with it?




-———

You seem pretty convinced that the single engine PC-12 is the way to go VS a KA.

In my 40+ years of flying I’ve had 3 engine failures, 2 pistons and 1 turbine. The turbine wasn’t even really an engine failure, the P2.5 line popped off. The engine was still running but not making any power and we shut it down.

Those 3 were all in twins so your logic seems to be valid. However the turbine happened in a B1900 on departure on a fairly crap WX day on the east coast climbing through about 3K.

If we had been in a PC-12 that day not only would we have come down in the rhubarb somewhere, we probably wouldn’t have seen the ground until maybe 30 seconds to touchdown. Maybe we would have been ok maybe not.

When it comes to professional flying it’ll be turbine and it’ll be 2 of them. I’d rather bet my skill than play the odds.

[porcsord]

The turbine wasn’t even really an engine failure, the P2.5 line popped off.

All single engine turbine IFR aircraft with a PT6 have an emergency power lever that bypasses the requirement for P2.5 air to the FCU by mechanically controlling the FCU. So in this instance, the PC12 would have in fact still had full control over it's engine.

But yes in the event of an actual total failure of the engine you would likely be more stressed in a PC12 than in a BE02

[Justjohn]

But yes in the event of an actual total failure of the engine you would likely be more stressed in a PC12 than in a BE02



……..

Or the failure of a prop or gear box. The engine itself can remain running and you have hydraulic pumps and generators. But no thrust.



Turbines and 2 of them.

Once you open the hangar door with the intention of going flying you’re starting to assume some level of risk. When it comes to things I can influence I’ll continue to bet my skills over just playing the odds.

[‘Bob’]

If you were that worried, you wouldn’t fly a turboprop at all. Jets are far safer by virtue of not having propellers or gearboxes that can fail and generate conditions where continued flight is no longer possible. Gearbox and propeller failures have indeed brought down multi engine aircraft.

Again, only having one of each makes it all the less likely.. and they are exceedingly uncommon failure modes.

[Justjohn]

Jets are not safer just different risks. The miracle on the Hudson is an example.