PC-12 Engine Shut Down

[jetflightinstructor]

Still no link, no numbers, no data to prove I am wrong? Weird...

De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver

Total of accidents between 2000 & 2009 25
Total of fatalities between 2000 & 2009 56
Worst accident between 2000 & 2009 16AUG2007 with 6 fatalities
http://www.baaa-acro.com/Types%20d'avio ... 0-2009.htm
56 fatilities between 2000-2009...

[Jastapilot]

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.

My hero. You really think you can keep it together after shitting your pants to do what would have to be an almost perfect maneuvered turn and land with a tailwind? BTW how often do you even do a feathered-engine approach to land with a tailwind, hero boy?

[Cat Driver]

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.....

Yes, I met one of the crew members in Mojave when I was down there giving a guy a type rating.

maybe you were flying it?

No.

[AuxBatOn]

Allright, we'll take your website as a "source", even though I do not consider that as a credible source.

Let's go with the Beaver first. Most airframes are older. There have been 1657 produced. 25 accidents between 2000 and 2009, for a total of 56 fatalities. I know this is not accurate, since not all 1657 Beavers flew between 2000 and 2009 , however, with the limited information available on that website, we'll go for that.

That means that there was 1.5 crash per 100 aircraft and 3.4 fatalities per 100 aircraft.

Pilatus. Most aircraft are newer, therefore, more reliable. There have been 700 aircraft produced. There has been 6 accidents between 2000 and 2009, for a total of 13 fatalities.

That means that there was .85 crash per 100 aircraft and 1.8 fatalities per 100 aircraft.

Now, you'll say "I told you guys, bush flying is more dangerous". However, you're only taking a very small sample size and you're not taking into account the age of the fleets you chose (Maybe C208 vs PC12 would give you more accurate results? But then again, we would only be taking a very small sample size), the causes of the accidents, etc, etc.

Therefore, we can safely say that trying to compare bush flying vs SEIFR the way you are doing it (and the way I did it) is completely useless.

[trey kule]

Jetflight instructor.

Weird??? The onus is on you to prove you are correct. If you take the time to read my post again,,slowly, take your time; you will see specifically that I stated I could not say you were wrong, nor did I. Your claim was in dispute because you made that claim with reference to some stats....and still have not produced them. You have proved nothing, so disproving it is not necessary.

Not sure what to make of the Beaver stats. How exactly, does the figures from one type of plane (mostly US registered), demonstrate a comparative analysis to support your conclusion?

The sense I get is you have backed yourself into a corner on this issue and now are lashing out with comments like weird.

Like many others I would like a sense of your experience in aviation. Many of the experienced posters here are not backing up their opinions with stats...but then they are not making the claim you did that the stats supported their opinion. If you have a great deal of multi and single engine experience, and stop quoting stats you simply dont have, you might get more respect for your opinions.

If you do or dont want to fly in, or drive a PC-12, that is your business, but please spare us the claim that your opinion is backed up with some solid stats..Just does not seem so.

[Doc]

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.

My hero. You really think you can keep it together after shitting your pants to do what would have to be an almost perfect maneuvered turn and land with a tailwind? BTW how often do you even do a feathered-engine approach to land with a tailwind, hero boy?

With the wx at 100 and a half....IN YOUR DREAMS!!! Ever even had a ride in one yet??

[SuperDave]

jetflightinstructor,

Perhaps you don't realize that comparing the PC-12 with the Beaver is like comparing apples against oranges. The only thing the two have in common is (ironically) that they are both a single-engine aircraft. Even so, a comparison cannot be made by accident figures alone since the types of flying the two different aircraft do is vastly different. Hopefully, I can help.

The Beaver is a 'bush-plane', operating in often very challenging conditions, over sparsely settled areas and/or mountainous or coastal terrain. 'Bush-flying' in itself is statistically more risky than controlled IFR flight, but like with everything in aviation; it's all about risk management.
Know the limits of your aircraft, yourself, the terrain, the weather, (you know, the usual flying stuff) stick to them and plan your flight accordingly. More often than not things will work out.

The PC-12 is designed for a whole other mission completely and therefore is exposed to a different risks (generally speaking) in day to day operations than a Beaver would be.
Hypothetically, were a PC-12 equipped with floats, wheels or skis, no WX radar, a piston engine that was not able to climb to FL250, steam gauges, and operated in the conditions Beavers are exposed to daily, etc...I'm sure the 'statistics' you speak of would not be so different.

Anyway, the original topic here was not about the Beaver so...

As a side-note:

Still no link, no numbers, no data to prove I am wrong? Weird...

Life (or aviation) is not always about being right or wrong, or 'my dick is bigger than yours'. Those are just ego-based emotions, it's all about learning from another and trying to make this whole game a little safer. Perhaps I'm 'wrong', but I hope this helps.

Dave

[ScudRunner]

Since this is all about Engines.

Anyone Know the TBO on the PT6A-67B Engine when strapped to a PC-12? Off the top of my head 3600 comes to mind., I understand that its basically replaced and cannot be put on condition or a special maintenance program.

Now Compare that to King Airs, whats the TBO's Wich brings me to the other question how much time does your PT6 have on each side of you in your King Air????

[2R]

Since this is all about Engines.

Anyone Know the TBO on the PT6A-67B Engine when strapped to a PC-12? Off the top of my head 3600 comes to mind., I understand that its basically replaced and cannot be put on condition or a special maintenance program.

Now Compare that to King Airs, whats the TBO's Wich brings me to the other question how much time does your PT6 have on each side of you in your King Air????

I think you might be suprised at how far single engine PT-6 equiped aircraft are run "ON CONDITION" way passed the original TBO used for certification, especially those with engine monitors.I heard some guys running their single engine PT-6's on condition for a bonus way past the original approval .Almost forty percent past the Original certification was one rumour.

Why is it they do not operate these machines where they are built if they are so safe ?Are european doctors and nurses more valuable than Canadian medical crews and patients ?

Is it just another form of Rascism because most of the humans transported are northern residents ? Are they not worthy of safer transport ?

[2milefinal]

"Why is it they do not operate these machines where they are built if they are so safe ?Are european doctors and nurses more valuable than Canadian medical crews and patients ?
Is it just another form of Rascism because most of the humans transported are northern residents ? Are they not worthy of safer transport ?"

2R
You have got to be kidding.

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/PC12
and
http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttyp ... ;sort=DESC

[jetflightinstructor]

Pilatus. Most aircraft are newer, therefore, more reliable.

So what do you want? Make them older?

Yes they are more reliable, that is why I would put my family in.

Alright, all the link, the information, the documents I have paste on this thread, all say the same thing. And each time there is somebody to say: yes but they are newer, or not enough airplane produced, they are not safe when IMC till the ground with a 1500 hours captain... What else again I forgot. What else will you find? if you have a fuel leak and the crew is drunk the PC12 is not safe???
If you do some research, on your own this time, you will find out that the number of beaver operating is much less than what it has been produced. In addition if you do some more research, you will find out that each PC12 flies more than the beaver per year. Aux baton, you found yourself that the PC12 is 2 times safer than the beaver for each 100 aircraft, now you can imagine that in reallity it is more than 2 times.

The onus is on you to prove you are correct.

A lawyer here? The onus is not on me, because we first heard on this forum that some persons would put their family on a bush aiplane but not in a PC12, in order to accuse the PC12 of being not safe, and that without even being able to prove that the bush airplane is safer than the PC12. I brought several documents, links, saying that bush pilot is one of the most dangerous job in north America, that a PC12 is safer than a king air per each 100,000 hours flown, and that the beaver (safer than C185...) has killed much more (several times more) than the PC 12 at the same period of time.

jetflightinstructor,

Perhaps you don't realize that comparing the PC-12 with the Beaver is like comparing apples against oranges. The only thing the two have in common is (ironically) that they are both a single-engine aircraft. Even so, a comparison cannot be made by accident figures alone since the types of flying the two different aircraft do is vastly different. Hopefully, I can help.

The Beaver is a 'bush-plane', operating in often very challenging conditions, over sparsely settled areas and/or mountainous or coastal terrain. 'Bush-flying' in itself is statistically more risky than controlled IFR flight, but like with everything in aviation; it's all about risk management.
Know the limits of your aircraft, yourself, the terrain, the weather, (you know, the usual flying stuff) stick to them and plan your flight accordingly. More often than not things will work out.

The PC-12 is designed for a whole other mission completely and therefore is exposed to a different risks (generally speaking) in day to day operations than a Beaver would be.
Hypothetically, were a PC-12 equipped with floats, wheels or skis, no WX radar, a piston engine that was not able to climb to FL250, steam gauges, and operated in the conditions Beavers are exposed to daily, etc...I'm sure the 'statistics' you speak of would not be so different.

Agreed!!! Completely! My point is that some are ready to put their family or themself (or fly) in a bush airplane in the situation you describe above, while they won' t put them in a PC12.
It has always been about the PC12. I just show that in this forum, there is no thread concerning safety issue about beavers, or C185... But I regularly read something against the PC12, which is safer.


Do you think I will get some money from Pilatus? I was not that bad right?
Anyway I hope that you don' t misunderstand me, bush flying is one of the best flying ever.

Cheers to the bush pilots and PC12 pilots. Be safe.

[SinkRate]

Rotate,positive rate gear up,yaw dampener on,landing light off, flaps up.............oh shit engine failure. Turn to the airport (Alt permitting) Message enter, direct enter (if you dont already have the dep airport up) , obs scaled to .3 of a mile with runway heading ...ride it in like a localizer. If Alt and time permit set up a VNAV. If not she glides 2 miles for every 1000 ft. Wouldnt hurt to have a little luck at this point. lol Thats your engine out scenario in a nutshell....it works but wouldnt wanna try it in a minimum ceiling and vis scenario. Now let the ridicule begin...lol
So in a king air in this scenario shut er down and you have some time to plan your approach if you dont roll her over or do something stupid.....I can honestly say at that point id rather take my chances with the king air...at least it buys you some time.
On the topic of bush plane/piston Id rather have 1 turbine than 2 pistons....Much more reliable because of 2 factors. The Pilot and the age of the piston twin fleet. Most piston twins are over 20 yrs old and how many navajos and 421s have cracked cylinders because of improper heating during descent. Im not gonna check the cadors but i bet pistons have 10 fold the emergs and abnormals of a turbine.
I have a question seeing is I dont feel like searching the cadors....Rumor has it on a turbine engine the gearbox and prop are the mst likely cause for a shut down, and it causes some nasty stuff......
I heard vibrations will shake an engine from its mounts. If so and assuming catastrophic malfuction (which is what everyone seems to talking about here) i think youd have your hands full with both machines...that second engine could do nothing but drag you down ... on the other hand in the pc12 you could be watching the fire lickin at your toes.... We could go on with what ifs for ten more pages...This is why we use stats and calculated risk. I also think human factor is big with both airplanes...If your skipper is a fuckstick then your gonna have problems both sides of this coin. If you dont like the pc12 then buy a b200. its simple. lol. I dont think the pc12 is going away any time soon.
Personally i dont have the problem of making the choice...not till the lottery fairy pays me visit .

[Cat Driver]

If your skipper is a fuckstick then your gonna have problems both sides of this coin.

That is a problem that any good chief pilot can fix real easy, get rid of the " fuckstick ".

What the industry should concentrate more on is not letting " fucksticks " ever get anywhere near having control of any commercial aircraft.

[FICU]

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.

Ok then so no night VFR out of YXD because it's too scary?

[rigpiggy]

I checked the total # of PC12's 43 in the system right now. The KA 200 I stopped counting after 100. mind you those are only the ones airborne right now

[SinkRate]

yes "fuckstick"
lol
Ive flown with a few of them.


And FYI...On dep a pc12 will always outclimb its best glide dscent rate provided no atc intervention...thats the only warm and fuzzy you get in an engine failure situation.

[arctic navigator]

Since this is all about Engines.

Anyone Know the TBO on the PT6A-67B Engine when strapped to a PC-12? Off the top of my head 3600 comes to mind., I understand that its basically replaced and cannot be put on condition or a special maintenance program.

Now Compare that to King Airs, whats the TBO's Wich brings me to the other question how much time does your PT6 have on each side of you in your King Air????

I believe a private operator or a brand new turbine operator would have a 3600hr TBO. I do recall hearing about a conversation at a NATA conference in YZF a few years ago. The discussion was amongst 2 or 3 operators and Pratt regarding getting all their operating data to increase the base TBO for the PT6 series to around 5000hrs. The reply to Pratt's request was essentially "Why the f%#* would we provide our data that has cost us hundreds of thousands to acquire to save our competition hundreds of thousands in overhaul costs."

I would guess either Borek or Tindi have the highest TBO's for their PT6 fleet, somewhere in the 10-15000 hour range (JUST A GUESS), but I wonder what Tindi would actually run their Van's to before pulling them.

As far as I know their are no special requirements or differences if the aircraft only has one or 2 or more engines, just depends on the company's operating experience with the engine, common sense, and how much risk they're willing to take.

[Doc]

So in a king air in this scenario shut er down and you have some time to plan your approach if you dont roll her over or do something stupid.....I can honestly say at that point id rather take my chances with the king air...at least it buys you some time.
On the topic of bush plane/piston Id rather have 1 turbine than 2 pistons....Much more reliable because of 2 factors. The Pilot and the age of the piston twin fleet.

You would rather have a single turbine quit than have a second piston engine to bring you home? That's basically the gist of your statement?
Why would you "roll over" a King Air? Or do "something stupid"?
WTF would the pilot, or the age of a piston airplane have to do with flying a any twin home on one engine?
Do you FLY? Who trains you? I've brought home a "couple" of twins on only ONE engine....and I guarantee the airplanes were OLDER than you are.
Congrats....dumbest post on the subject to date.

[Cat Driver]

When did aviation get to here Doc?

[xsbank]

Looks like the consensus is: old and crusty (like me) SEIFR is an irrational act.
Junior (or no engine failures in your career yet) SEIFR is ok, love it, I believe the marketers, gimme a single, I can always turn back to the runway, no matter what the conditions.

Am I right?

Good luck reaching Cat's experience level.

[yfly]

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 can't figure out why it is gone from your post near the top of page 3. Oh, I see. It was conveniently editted! Fortunately, I had already quoted it so your claims that there were stats is near the bottom of page 4. The post where I politely asked you for the stats.

Nice try though brainiac!

[Cat Driver]

CNN is claiming a Pilatus PC12 has crashed in Butte Montana with 17 dead...do they have that many seats?

[Flybaby]

3. Invulnerability ("It won't happen to me.") - Accidents happen to other people, not to me. Therefore, I can take chances.

4. Macho ("I can do it.") - Always trying to prove themselves better than others. Take risks and try to impress others. Yes, women, too!

http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/r-hazatt.htm

[yfly]

Looks like the consensus is: old and crusty (like me) SEIFR is an irrational act.
Junior (or no engine failures in your career yet) SEIFR is ok, love it, I believe the marketers, gimme a single, I can always turn back to the runway, no matter what the conditions.

Am I right?

Good luck reaching Cat's experience level.

Statistics in waiting xsbank. They just don't see it because they are still in the indestructable stage of mental development.

[yfly]

CNN is claiming a Pilatus PC12 has crashed in Butte Montana with 17 dead...do they have that many seats?

I wonder if they were doing the coveted low altitude IMC 180 all while button pushing?