PC-12 Engine Shut Down

[jetflightinstructor]

You guys are going nowhere.
With Cat saying he did some test flight on airplanes which he knew the engine will fail, and even flew in war zone blablabla what the link with the PC12???
With others saying they will put their family in a bush airplane with a floatation device when bush pilot is one of the most dangerous job in america with street fighter and the like... Meanwhile will never put them in a PC12!
With one asking a study to compare safety between the PC12 and bush airplanes
Guys, jeez! What is happening to you? We are in 2009, the period of time with numbers, observation, facts... Not hearsay, rumors, urban legend... Middle age is finished.
Ok some numbers and facts (in wich you will find the PC 12 is safer than twin turbine, and much safer than the MU2):
http://www.pilatusowners.com/imgs/breiling_apr_081.pdf
Source:
Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc.
765 N.E. 35th Street, Suite B
Boca Raton, FL 33431
(561) 338-6900 Voice
(561) 393 9127 Fax
rbreiling@bigplanet.com

[Hedley]

I'd love a moo-too! It's ugly, fast, noisy and has a
reputation amongst pilots as a fire-breathing dragon,
which like most aircraft reputations is 99.999% male
bovine excrement.

My kinda airplane

[yfly]

I wouldn't take such offence by my request jetflightinstructor. You made the claim that the PC12 was statistically safer than flying a bush plane. Asking for the source isn't to be unexpected and is not an unreasonable or confrontational request.

As it turns out, the info supplied doesn't make that comparison or draw that conclusion but it is an interesting read regardless. Thanks for posting it.

While I think everyone could agree that modern turbine engines are more reliable than radials, the working environment plays a larger role in bush flying accidents than does the equipment.

I would put my family on a floatplane with an experienced pilot in reasonable weather. I would not put them on a single engine turbine aircraft where IMC to the ground was expected or terrain was anything but flat. I would not send them out with a 1500 hour pilot. I wouldn't put them on any single engine at night. Yes, I did it to get my license but haven't done it since.

As for the twins, I would only speculate that experience level of the crew would be a factor. Any mariginal performing twin, piston or turbine can be a handful for an inexperienced crew when one engine fails. With the singles, your hands are tied, decisions are made. You are gliding to a crash. I just hope you are in a hospitable environment when you make visual contact. In many cases, the same decision is made for the twin, it is essentially gliding to a crash. Problems arise when the crew refuses to accept that.

Would I fly a PC12 in VFR conditions, absolutely. It looks like a fine aircraft. IFR at 200 and 1/2? Not a chance. There just isn't a lot of maneuvering that can be done that close to the ground. I am also at the other end of my career so I no longer have to accept higher risk. Perhaps that taints my view. Or perhaps Transport Canada and the FAA have buckled under the pressure of the manufacturers and private pilot lobby groups and approved something that is not in the best interest of safety.

[ipilot54]

Or perhaps Transport Canada and the FAA have buckled under the pressure of the manufacturers and private pilot lobby groups and approved something that is not in the best interest of safety.
.

Good question. So I say it again:

So why then, is the PC-12 NOT approved for SEIFR in Europe? Are these things not built there?

The European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), and now the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have not approved SEIFR.

[The Orillia kid]

As for the twins, I would only speculate that experience level of the crew would be a factor. Any mariginal performing twin, piston or turbine can be a handful for an inexperienced crew when one engine fails. With the singles, your hands are tied, decisions are made. You are gliding to a crash. I just hope you are in a hospitable environment when you make visual contact. In many cases, the same decision is made for the twin, it is essentially gliding to a crash. Problems arise when the crew refuses to accept that.

so its a crash after TO if you have an engine failure..............NO!!!
The PC12 can preform a 180 and land back on the runway it landed on.... flaps 15, prop feathered... after 800 feet and yes there is no reason that it cannot be performed in IMC.. terrain permitting!!

people, people, people there are some misinformed armchair critics making comments which are a bit beyond their aviation knowledge. yes engines do fail...

Cat Driver did you ever hear about the PBY that was being delivered to a group of New Zealanders about 10 years ago and they ditched in the pacific ocean somewhere. That 2nd engine never got them home.....maybe you were flying it?

After what happened on the Hudson river with the Hudson glider....I have reavaluated the safety of large twins and when the shit hits the fan, that second engine is not always bringing you home!!! I think too many twin drivers out there get too comfortable with the 2nd engine. With that said I am very comfortable hoping on a PC12 with my family.

[yfly]

As for the twins, I would only speculate that experience level of the crew would be a factor. Any mariginal performing twin, piston or turbine can be a handful for an inexperienced crew when one engine fails. With the singles, your hands are tied, decisions are made. You are gliding to a crash. I just hope you are in a hospitable environment when you make visual contact. In many cases, the same decision is made for the twin, it is essentially gliding to a crash. Problems arise when the crew refuses to accept that.

so its a crash after TO if you have an engine failure..............NO!!!
The PC12 can preform a 180 and land back on the runway it landed on.... flaps 15, prop feathered... after 800 feet and yes there is no reason that it cannot be performed in IMC.. terrain permitting!!

people, people, people there are some misinformed armchair critics making comments which are a bit beyond their aviation knowledge. yes engines do fail...

Cat Driver did you ever hear about the PBY that was being delivered to a group of New Zealanders about 10 years ago and they ditched in the pacific ocean somewhere. That 2nd engine never got them home.....maybe you were flying it?

After what happened on the Hudson river with the Hudson glider....I have reavaluated the safety of large twins and when the shit hits the fan, that second engine is not always bringing you home!!! I think too many twin drivers out there get too comfortable with the 2nd engine. With that said I am very comfortable hoping on a PC12 with my family.

With 20,000 hours, bush, military, medivac, cargo, heavy transport and corporate flight experience, I hardly think my comment is beyond my aviation experience. Grow up Kid!

What happens before 800 feet? What happens enroute over terrain?
You think you have all the answers which in my books, makes you a statistic in waiting.

Read my post again, but this time try to understand it. The english is plain but perhaps not plain enough. I think you will find I alluded to margianal performance twins.

[jetflightinstructor]

I wouldn't take such offence by my request jetflightinstructor. You made the claim that the PC12 was statistically safer than flying a bush plane. Asking for the source isn't to be unexpected and is not an unreasonable or confrontational request.

yfly, I thought it is obvious that flying a PC12 is much safer than a bush airplane. I am sure you won' t find a study in the world comparing a bush airplane with a PC12 because this is irrelevant. You will find studies comparing it with King airs, piper cheyenne... You wouldn' t think a bush airplane is safer than a king air right? And a PC12 is safer than the king air 200, 100, and 90. If I claim the statistics say the PC12 is safer than a bush airplane, it is because the statistics say the PC12 is as safe or safer than a twin turbine, and because bush flying is among the most dangerous activity in north America.

I would put my family on a floatplane with an experienced pilot in reasonable weather. I would not put them on a single engine turbine aircraft where IMC to the ground was expected or terrain was anything but flat. I would not send them out with a 1500 hour pilot. I wouldn't put them on any single engine at night. Yes, I did it to get my license but haven't done it since.

You are asking too much here. And you twist the reallity. You can compare only what is similar.
You compare "an experienced pilot" concerning floatplane, with a 1500 hours pilot concerning PC12
why not comparing both airplane with experienced crew? Remember, an experience crew concerning a PC12 most likely means 2000-4000 hours for the captain and 700-1000 hours for the F/O. 1500TT hours for the PC12 captain, and no F/O, who can say experienced crew?
You compare reasonable weather on a float plane, and IMC to the ground for the PC12. Why?
Remember, in air you cannot control the weather, escpecially in bush environment. If you want to really compare, and if you chose "reasonnable weather" for the float airplane, why not chosing "reasonable IMC" for the PC12? IMC to the ground???? That is not reasonable and means CAT 3c landing capabilities. Only few airport in the world are approved.

You say you wouldn' t put your family the night on a PC12, but you admit you did it on a piston...

Me if I had the choice to put my family in a PC12 the night, or in a bush airplane the day to go to the same destination..., I would choose the PC12.
Remember bush pilot is one of the most dangerous job, knowingly that they only fly daytime...

I want to say something here: I have nothing against the bush flying. I just show it is not rational to fear for the safety of its own family more in a PC12 than a bush airplane.

[ipilot54]

so its a crash after TO if you have an engine failure..............NO!!!
The PC12 can preform a 180 and land back on the runway it landed on.... flaps 15, prop feathered... after 800 feet and yes there is no reason that it cannot be performed in IMC.. terrain permitting!!

And if you are lucky enough to be above 800 feet and the wx. is 100 feet what then? Pick up the ILS into Sandy real quick? Landing off field, which is what will happen, is a “crash” in my books, even if it is real close to the airport so the CFR trucks can get to you. Oh, I forgot, there aren’t any.

I am sure if you departed 15 in YKZ and lost it at 600 feet, the people that witnessed your superior skills will say you crashed as they pick up the pieces on the 404 even if you were lucky enough to get out alive.

people, people, people there are some misinformed armchair critics making comments which are a bit beyond their aviation knowledge. yes engines do fail...

Are you serious? Who are YOU to say? I have been doing this for 30 years and have PC-12 time. As I said previously, I don't mind getting in the thing if the weather is good but I prefer the Lear.

[yfly]

I wouldn't take such offence by my request jetflightinstructor. You made the claim that the PC12 was statistically safer than flying a bush plane. Asking for the source isn't to be unexpected and is not an unreasonable or confrontational request.

yfly, I thought it is obvious that flying a PC12 is much safer than a bush airplane. I am sure you won' t find a study in the world comparing a bush airplane with a PC12 because this is irrelevant. You will find studies comparing it with King airs, piper cheyenne... You wouldn' t think a bush airplane is safer than a king air right? And a PC12 is safer than the king air 200, 100, and 90. If I claim the statistics say the PC12 is safer than a bush airplane, it is because the statistics say the PC12 is as safe or safer than a twin turbine, and because bush flying is among the most dangerous activity in north America.

I would put my family on a floatplane with an experienced pilot in reasonable weather. I would not put them on a single engine turbine aircraft where IMC to the ground was expected or terrain was anything but flat. I would not send them out with a 1500 hour pilot. I wouldn't put them on any single engine at night. Yes, I did it to get my license but haven't done it since.

You are asking too much here. And you twist the reallity. You can compare only what is similar.
You compare "an experienced pilot" concerning floatplane, with a 1500 hours pilot concerning PC12
why not comparing both airplane with experienced crew? Remember, an experience crew concerning a PC12 most likely means 2000-4000 hours for the captain and 700-1000 hours for the F/O. 1500TT hours for the PC12 captain, and no F/O, who can say experienced crew?
You compare reasonable weather on a float plane, and IMC to the ground for the PC12. Why?
Remember, in air you cannot control the weather, escpecially in bush environment. If you want to really compare, and if you chose "reasonnable weather" for the float airplane, why not chosing "reasonable IMC" for the PC12? IMC to the ground???? That is not reasonable and means CAT 3c landing capabilities. Only few airport in the world are approved.

You say you wouldn' t put your family the night on a PC12, but you admit you did it on a piston...

Me if I had the choice to put my family in a PC12 the night, or in a bush airplane the day to go to the same destination..., I would choose the PC12.
Remember bush pilot is one of the most dangerous job, knowingly that they only fly daytime...

I want to say something here: I have nothing against the bush flying. I just show it is not rational to fear for the safety of its own family more in a PC12 than a bush airplane.

As I stated earlier, YOU made the claim to having statistics backing up a comparison between "bush planes" and the PC12. If that comparison exists, I would like to see it. If not, then it debases your arguement.

Show me where I said I have put my family on a single engine airplane. It hasn't happened so I would not claim it has. Good lord, Cat Driver is worried about the flying skills of todays youth. I am just worried about reading comprehension. Slow the testosterone charge down and read and absorb before you write.

The danger in bush flying is the type of work they do. If you had a PC12 run around the coast low level VFR all day, the stats would change in a hurry.

When I say I wouldn't put my family on a PC12 in IFR conditions, that is a statement of fact. I won't do it. The fact that there have been no fatalities is better luck than quality of aircraft.

Until there is a loss of life, you supporters of SEIFR win the "safe so far " argument. But once that fatal accident happens, and it will, well, I guess I will just say I told you so.

Please show me the "twist in reality".

[trey kule]

jetflightinstructor wrote

I am sure you won' t find a study in the world comparing a bush airplane with a PC12 because this is irrelevant.

Then, I have to ask, why did you make the claims that there were stats that did exactly that?

This is obviously an emotional issue to many, but it is not helped when a claim is made that the "stats indicate"...when, in fact, the claim is just being made up.

People in Canada are going to continue to fly around in a PC 12. And a Caravan. And piston engined Beavers and Otters.
And some are going to claim that it is safer to fly with two crew, even if one of them has never flown in a cloud and has all the wisdom and experience 250 hours provides. And some are going to claim that flying in one is paramount to committing suicide. And the paying public, will never really know if it is safer or not.....until the flight is ended.

And pilots will continue to choose which side of the debate they wish to be on, and then rationalize it to suit themselves.

We can compare our regulations to other regulations but what does that prove? One of them is in error. No SEIFR in Europe should not lead automatically to the conclusion that it is unsafe here...It may be that their circumstances are different or there are other reasons, and it is perfectly safe..their regs are in error..And I am not debating the point, just pointing out that when people get emotionally attached to an issue they can pretty much "prove" whatever they want to.

I think everyone should make their own decisions whether to fly them, let their family fly them, or consider them a kevorkian appliance, but what I see in some of the logic posted here is truely scary from people who are supposed to rely on logic to analyze and determine critical and life enhancing actions from time to time.

Sunday morning rant.

[Flybaby]

Ok some numbers and facts (in wich you will find the PC 12 is safer than twin turbine, and much safer than the MU2):
http://www.pilatusowners.com/imgs/breiling_apr_081.pdf
rbreiling@bigplanet.com

Statistics are very easy to manipulate as Pilatus has just shown. If your looking for the most accurate scientific information, one needs to hold as many other factors constant as possible. So comparing accident history of the Twin Turbines from all the way back to the 60's, to the C208 back to 84, or the PC 12 back to 94 is not a fair comparison. So according to cadors theirs has been no accidents on the BE20 since 1994 due to engine problems and one on the PC12 (well two, but the RCMP doesn't really count.)

[Cat Driver]

You guys are going nowhere.
With Cat saying he did some test flight on airplanes which he knew the engine will fail, and even flew in war zone blablabla what the link with the PC12???

Jetflightinstructor, unless English is your second or third language you are deliberately twisting what I have said.

I never said I " knew " the engine would fail before I took off.

I have no problem discussing aviation and examining other peoples ideas and opinions however for some reason you seem to take every opportunity you can find to try and make me look like a unsafe pilot who has poor decision making skills.

So here are two questions I would like you to answer.

1. If I am such a poor pilot both skills wise and decision making wise what do you credit my having flown over 30,000 hours in 55 years accident free with no regulation violations on my record to? .......Statistics?

2. I have thousands and thousands of hours flying bush airplanes as well as every other kind of flying one can imagine so tell me what your experience is in aviation?

[jetflightinstructor]

jetflightinstructor wrote


Quote:
I am sure you won' t find a study in the world comparing a bush airplane with a PC12 because this is irrelevant.
Quote:


Then, I have to ask, why did you make the claims that there were stats that did exactly that?

Please quote me!!! Where did I say there is a PC12-Bush airplanes study??? lawsuit against wiches guys!!!
I remember yfly asked for a study.

I just find statistics saying a PC12 is safer than a king air for each 100,000 hours, and that bush flying is one the most dangerous activity. And I said I beleive in statistics.
Now if you cannot make any deduction.... AND YES I CLAIM STATISTICS SAYS PC12 IS SAFER THAN BUSH AIRPLANES
Please make the proof I am wrong. Me I gave you enough link and past enough information in this thread. What about you?

[jetflightinstructor]

Cat you just wrote:

Jetflightinstructor, unless English is your second or third language you are deliberately twisting what I have said.

I never said I " knew " the engine would fail before I took off.

But earlier in the thread:

The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

Coming from:

I have had two catastrophic failures on the Cats, both were kind of expected and both were on engines that we had serious mechanical problems with.

The first was in Gander on an engine we had just changed four cylinders on because it had been overboosted and logged as such.

The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

[Flybaby]

I just checked and according to cadors their has been no accidents on the Beach 90, 100, 200, 300, 350 due to engine problems since at least 1994 when the PC 12 was introduced.

[bob sacamano]

You guys are going nowhere.
With Cat saying he did some test flight on airplanes which he knew the engine will fail, and even flew in war zone blablabla what the link with the PC12???

Jetflightinstructor, unless English is your second or third language you are deliberately twisting what I have said.

I never said I " knew " the engine would fail before I took off.

I have no problem discussing aviation and examining other peoples ideas and opinions however for some reason you seem to take every opportunity you can find to try and make me look like a unsafe pilot who has poor decision making skills.

So here are two questions I would like you to answer.

1. If I am such a poor pilot both skills wise and decision making wise what do you credit my having flown over 30,000 hours in 55 years accident free with no regulation violations on my record to? .......Statistics?

2. I have thousands and thousands of hours flying bush airplanes as well as every other kind of flying one can imagine so tell me what your experience is in aviation?

Cat, I want you to answer me this question.

How many hand flown CAT III circling approaches have you done in your PBY on Mars (single engine)?

Cos I just did one yesterday night. I had 40kts on the tail till I started my circling, just when I lost my #1, then it turned into a 75kt x-wind from the south, which sucked, cos I was single pilot IFR and I couldn't see the strip anymore due to the crab and a low layer of fog that had just rolled in, but luckily once I turned final, my inner thigh was starring at the centerline, for a brief moment, cos the lights were out, till the winds veered off to my tail again, just when I lost my #2 engine and had to go around, but I did the approach a second time and greased her on. Passengers didn't even feel a thing. They thanked me for a pleasant flight.

But yeah, so the wasaya bird got a warning light and put it down in red eh...

[Doc]

Not a hell of a lot of you have any idea what you're on about. Orillia Kid had a thread going about weaseling out of a training bond. Now, he's a bloody expert on after take off crashes, and how they would never happen to a PC12. Got any PC12 time yet Orillia? Seriously doubt it.
It's a choice children. You want to fly a PC12? It IS a fine airplane. I just don't think it's a fine airplane for airline use. If I was rolling in dough, I might have one to complement my fleet of Boeing 757s! LOL! They are cheaper to operate than a King Air 200. That's their selling point. Their only selling point. And chances are good, that when one really does have the engine go south, it'll end up safe and sound on some frozen lake. I'll admit, if it came down to a choice of spending a weekend in YPM, or jumping a PC12 ride home....I'll be on the PC12. I've never seen the wx in YPM go below departure limits! Even for a single!

[bob sacamano]

I've never seen the wx in YPM go below departure limits! Even for a single!

LOL oh so true. At least the MTO building there had a dvd and a tv.

Funny thing is, they never got freezing rain there either. It was either rain or snow

[Cat Driver]

Quote:
The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

Exactly, that is exactly what I told the company.

The maintenance department on the other hand said the engine was safe to fly.

What we had was a situation where my observations of the symptoms of the way the engine was running led me to believe there was a problem in the supercharger on that engine.

Turned out I was right and maintenance was wrong.

Lets drop this now O.K.?

And Bob Sacamano maybe some day you also will live to have completed your career with as many years and hours as a pilot as I did and with as good a record of safety......meanwhile keep learning.

[bob sacamano]

Quote:
The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.

Exactly, that is exactly what I told the company.

The maintenance department on the other hand said the engine was safe to fly.

What we had was a situation where my observations of the symptoms of the way the engine was running led me to believe there was a problem in the supercharger on that engine.

Turned out I was right and maintenance was wrong.

Lets drop this now O.K.?

This just sounds wrong, but I don't care to get into it.

And Bob Sacamano maybe some day you also will live to have completed your career with as many years and hours as a pilot as I did and with as good a record of safety......

I'm busting your chops old man. I certainly hope that I live to be your age, period.

meanwhile keep learning.

Everyday man, everyday. Hope you're using your own advice as well.

But can you please answer my question?

[trey kule]

AND YES I CLAIM STATISTICS SAYS PC12 IS SAFER THAN BUSH AIRPLANES

I really cant say if your wrong or not. I dont have the "statistics" you have. Please quote the stats and the source and reference. I will have a look at them. Statements like "bush flying is unsafe"..are not stats. They are conclusions, and without a sound basis they can correctly be disputed.

So provide hard stats. Just the raw data. Not any conclusions.

Flybabe..your data was interesting. I have more than a passing familiarity with the 1999 RCMP incident in Yellowknife.
The subsequent deadstick return to the field (in solid IMC) was one of the most amazing pieces of flying I have ever heard of...and I think the folks at SimCom felt the same way about it as they did, at least a few years ago, incoporate it into their training program. Unfortunately, the pilot who performed that amazing feat has passed on so we cant hear a first person account of his skill.

[ipilot54]

I thought Category III approaches were only authorized "straight in" at suitably equipped aerodromes; like YYZ.

Like "Auto - land" or is just "otta - land" or yet "gotta - land"?

[FICU]

This thread is pretty comical...

Did I have a death wish because I flew C-152s out of the Edmonton City Center airport when I was training? Would those of you who wouldn't sit in a PC-12 SEIFR also not sit in a piston single if it operated out of this airport because if the engine failed shortly after take-off you'd have to land somewhere in a city? What about flying a single piston through the Rockies? Sounds dangerous to me!

There is risk anytime you take a machine into the air... statistically cleaning toilets is nice and safe... after reading many of the posts here it seems that maybe some of you should have chosen a different path?

[Cat Driver]

This thread is pretty comical...

you find discussing aviation and aviation safety comical?

Did I have a death wish because I flew C-152s out of the Edmonton City Center airport when I was training? Would those of you who wouldn't sit in a PC-12 SEIFR also not sit in a piston single if it operated out of this airport because if the engine failed shortly after take-off you'd have to land somewhere in a city? What about flying a single piston through the Rockies? Sounds dangerous to me!

Let me help you out because you seem to be having difficulty " seeing " the issue.

Landing a single engine airplane after an engine failure in daylight in VFR conditions gives you the ability to see where you are landing it and the option of picking the best spot to land.

Having an engine failure in a single engine airplane in IMC over the mountains is a far different issue.......because you can not see where you are going to contact the earth.

Same with flying single engine through the Rockies, as long as you have safe ceiling and visibility to be able to fly a route that gives you a reasonable landing area if the engine fails the risk is manageable.

[Cat Driver]

Cat Driver wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The second was in The Pas with an engine that had a supercharger problem, that one really came apart just like I told the company it would..the supercharger came apart and turned the engine into a boat anchor.


Exactly, that is exactly what I told the company.

The maintenance department on the other hand said the engine was safe to fly.

What we had was a situation where my observations of the symptoms of the way the engine was running led me to believe there was a problem in the supercharger on that engine.

Turned out I was right and maintenance was wrong.

Bob S. said:

This just sounds wrong, but I don't care to get into it.

Bob may not care to get into it with the reason being he does not care to understand.

However for those who may want to understand the answer is really quite simple.

I have spent all my career both flying and doing mecahnical work on airplanes, thus I have learned a bit about trouble shooting engines and it was my opinion with that engine that the problem I was having with it was a failing supercharger.

After writing the symptoms in the log book as required by law maintenance came to the conclusion that the engine was operating within the operating limits and the supercharger was not a problem.

When the airplane was returned to service by maintenance I reluctantly agreed to fly it, but I was still of the opinion the supercharger was progressively getting worse...knowing this I flew the airplane with as much safety margin as I could get should the supercharger decide to get worse...it did big time and I got the airplane back on the airport in one piece.

Now I am really finished with this issue.