What is wrong with aviation?

[Doc]

There are twin engine aircraft that I would not take more than 60 min. from a suitable place to land because of their inability to transfer or cross-feed fuel after and engine failure. The CL-215 comes to mind.

I did not know that. Serious design flaw there? Of course, you'll never fly them with paying passengers either. Isn't there a temp limit? Can't fly below 5 degrees C?

[Doc]

SEIFR is more inherently dangerous than MEIFR in a comparable turbine-powered small aircraft. The big difference is pilot mindset and training.

I find it disturbing that some people are saying "average" pilots are having more problems in small multi-turbine aircraft when an engine quits. When did it become acceptable that "average" meant a burning wreck on a highway? If all of these pilots that have piled in King Airs, etc, are all decent, "above-average" pilots as is always stated here and elsewhere, then why could they NOT handle the "one" CRUCIAL COMPONENT of their multi rating? Perhaps its their mindset during the emergency, and thats where the industry needs to focus. The older pilots here stress multi-engine flying, because as they came up through the industry there was not a prevalence of highly reliable turbine-powered aircraft available to lower time pilots. Guys spent time in piston-pounders, constantly waiting for a radial to pack it in. You sit there with the nagging voice in your head that you 'could' have an engine failure at any time. Most SEIFR pilots I talk to approach each flight the same way. The guys flying twin-turbine are sitting there thinking they've got two highly-reliable statistically safe turbines, and they don't have that same level of preparedness. Its all about complacency.

Part of the problem is the "bullet proof" PT6/turbine mentality. Nothing is perfect, and we need to stop jokingly treating turbines like they are impervious to failure. Treat every powered aircraft in the same way and pilots will maintain a decent respect/apprehension about engine failures and keep their minds where they need to be.

Dealing stritcly with an engine failure, an "average" pilot should not have a problem getting that aircraft to a suitable landing site. Thats the whole point of having the multi-rating, or the individual type-rating.

Who are these "average" pilots everyone speaks of? Engine failure in a modern(twin) turbine aircraft, like a King Air or similar. Max power to the good, drag check, feather the bad, spin in a turn or two of rudder trim, run check list, readjust power to the good as deemed necessary, re-engage auto-pilot, continue reading paper back.
Engine failure in a modern single engine turbine powered aircraft. Find nearest airport function on GPS, enter direct to. Run checklist, Do the math, pray......are there still questions?

[JMACK]

Whats with compairing a multi million dollar aircraft with Comanches, Seminoles etc... or even Navajos.
Compare a PC-12 with its real competitor the King Air.

BINGO!!! +++++1

And that queen air accident was like 3 decades ago????? Does anyone operate a QA commercially in Canada anymore with those nasty old geared engines like a PNavajo?

Compare apples with apples please!

J

[JMACK]

Just wait till the wrong people die in a SEIFR crash, then things will change.

MmmmmI don' know. Mr and Mrs KennedyJr. seemed like a fairly "important" people.

Don't think he had an engine failure he just lost control in IMC, very sad case!

I was out of Boston that day wx was the shits!

[Driving Rain]

I did not know that. Serious design flaw there? Of course, you'll never fly them with paying passengers either. Isn't there a temp limit? Can't fly below 5 degrees C?

Hi Doc Happy New Year.

I don't know about a "serious design flaw" as it's of little consideration where they do most of their ops. They did address it in the 415 as there is now a transfer valve and boy does it transfer fast. The Temp limit is 10 C in visible moisture and that was most likely put in there by the lawyers. Its a pain for the operators. They're a summer airplane for sure as they've very little to none in the way of ice or rain protection. Alcohol for the front windows on the 215/415 and boots on the intakes for the T & 415.

[CID]

Doc, I would take the Kingair!

In the scenario, it states that an engine quits. You know that an engine is going to quit. You'd still pick a single?

MrWings, you're missing a significant detail in that scenario. Namely, the turbine engine in a PC-12 is much less likely to quit than the piston engine in a Navajo. So what's the probability that one would find himself in that predicament in each of those airplanes?

The answer is in risk management. You can't take this issue and just fast forward to the potentially catastrophic event. Part of the equation is the probability of the engine quitting in the mean time. And how much farther will a PC-12 with a dead engine take you than a fully loaded Comanche with one dead engine? Let's see, glide from 290....

Cat, I don't even bother trying to preach to you. After all, you know everything. I'm just writin' it as it is. Maybe others can learn from it.

Jmac, no, I don't think anyone operates Queenairs in Canada commercially but if they wanted to, they could do so legally. And I don't think the type of engine matters if you chose to turn steeply in to the dead one.

[MrWings]

MrWings, you're missing a significant detail in that scenario. Namely, the turbine engine in a PC-12 is much less likely to quit than the piston engine in a Navajo. So what's the probability that one would find himself in that predicament in each of those airplanes?

I didn't miss that detail at all. Go read the original post.

[CID]

My apologies Mr.Wings. I retract my statement.

[ruddersup?]

Okay, you dragged me in. A gentleman named Frank Robinson back in early 80's wanted to design and manufacture a new helicopter and he had to make a choice on piston or turbine after determining which had the most reliability. His study proved that the piston had less failures. I would agree with his study BUT there is a caveat. There appears to be more failures of piston aircraft engines than turbine but here is my thinking. Most of the failures of piston engines is due to poor maintenance and not so much on chance failure of components. It is more difficult to maintain a piston engine "properly" than a turbine. Given the "proper" maintenance, the currency of flying, the proper training of pilots, the gentle handling that a turbine gets and I'm sure this argument is at least a stale mate. For me number one cause of any engine failure, other than fuel starvation, is poor maintenance.
With this thinking how can you compare the two.

[teacher]

A few years ago a single engine turbine airplane had an engine failure just a few miles west of where I live, as I recall three people died and as near as I can recall the weather was crap and he could not find a safe place to land.

Oh by the way it was a commercial flight with paying passengers on board.

That's righty I forgot about that Cessna Carvan accident with Sonic or whatever that company was called. Your point is still invalid. Still waiting for you to comment on banning float flying as it kills people every year as opposed to SEIFR commercial ops which does not.

[Cat Driver]

Sure we can ban float flying because it kills people every year.

True SEIFR does not kill people every year, but could it have anything to do with comparing the number of float plane flights to the number of SEIFR flights?

I got my float plane rating in 1954, and am flying a company float plane now during all those years I never wrecked one and hope to never have my first accident.

Before every flight I plan in in my mind based on that flight and the conditions that are to be dealt with...hopefully that will get me through the next five years when I plan on retiring again.

[185_guy]

I'm just referring to commercial SEIFR.
Turbines are very reliable, piston engines are very reliable. However on a single engine, you only have one prop, one prop gov., one FCU, one generator, one oil pump, the list goes on. Who knows how the overhaul shops are rebuilding these sort of things. Counterfeit parts were found on Air Force One for pete's sake.
I won't fly my R/C airplanes with cheap Chinese counterfeit radio gear, although I'd hope overhaul shops are trying to rid the system of fake parts but even the best get fooled or lulled into saving $$.
It's not just an engine failure that could make for a bad day in a single. Just sayin'

[Doc]

Are "counterfeit" parts ALWAYS inferior to "approved" parts? I have my doubts. In some cases, I'm sure they are. In others they just haven't coughed up the "tax" required to be marked "aircraft"?

[teacher]

I'm just referring to commercial SEIFR.
Turbines are very reliable, piston engines are very reliable. However on a single engine, you only have one prop, one prop gov., one FCU, one generator, one oil pump, the list goes on. Who knows how the overhaul shops are rebuilding these sort of things. Counterfeit parts were found on Air Force One for pete's sake.
I won't fly my R/C airplanes with cheap Chinese counterfeit radio gear, although I'd hope overhaul shops are trying to rid the system of fake parts but even the best get fooled or lulled into saving $$.
It's not just an engine failure that could make for a bad day in a single. Just sayin'

Actually "185" the PC12's engine has 2 generators, 1 FCU AND a manual over ride lever which is like a second FCU if the first one fails, full time engine monitoring of engine oil debris (with a warning light inside the cockpit to alert the crew of any issues) so as to detect any problems within the engine well before they actaully become a problem and a torque limiter along with a highly derated engine that keeps wear and tear on the old burner down a lot compared to other turbine engines.

[Cat Driver]

Most of us understand the progress that has been going on with regard to better engines.

We agree that the engine in the PC12 is more reliable than the PT6-20's a lot of us started our turbine flying with.

Therefore common sense dictates that if the PC12 is very reliable even though it only has one engine it would be even more reliable and thus safer with two of those engines.

Because if one of its very reliable engines happened to quit you would be able to fly to an airport and land which would mean in IMC it would be safer with two engines instead of only one.

[flyinthebug]

Are "counterfeit" parts ALWAYS inferior to "approved" parts? I have my doubts. In some cases, I'm sure they are. In others they just haven't coughed up the "tax" required to be marked "aircraft"?

I`ve asked this question many times Doc. When you can get a turbo rebuilt at the local truck overhaul shop for $600 and Aero Recip wants $4500 for a re-cond one, it sure makes you stop and think. A turbo in itself is a very simplistic device. It could easily and competently be rebuilt by people who do it every day for a living. I approached TC about this particular issue and they said although they agreed with me, it lacked the "green tag".

On the flip side...I tried saving money (once) going with a cheaper rebuild at TBO with an IO540 and it went through jugs like crazy and the engine never quite seemed right (we nicknamed it blacky because the oil would be black after one run up). It is worth the extra few grand to go with a quality (piston) rebuilder, with a solid reputation for reliability. One that also uses quality parts that matter most (piston, rings, seals, bearings, cam, crank, push rods etc). A good rebuild business will tell you where it is safe to save a few $$ using after market parts and where its not. I trusted my rebuilder to help me make the best, safest, and most cost effective decisions when it came to engines. Aero Recip btw is a great facility with very good people.

So once again, its a famous gray area. In some instances its perfectly safe to use "after market" lower end parts, but in other cases money does buy quality & more importantly, safety and peace of mind.

My 2 cents.

PS... teacher...it is still just a single engine. I conceed it is a very well built aircraft with back up upon back up...but its still a single engine aircraft and when that single fan stops spinning, trust me, you`ll wish you were in a twin anything at that point. I love the PC12 and its by far the best single engine aircraft in commercial service in Canada. SEIFR no matter how many safety precautions are taken, is a dangerous game of russian roulette and one day, the gun will fire. I would never allow my family to fly SEIFR even with me as PIC. I think many feel the same way as I do. But there is no disputing the safety record of the PC12 is something for Pilatus to be proud of. Keep em VFR and ill bet we will never be writing about a PC12 CFIT accident or engine failure with bad results. IMC=2 engines IMHO.

[ragbagflyer]

Everybody reading this thread should check out this link.

Evaluation-Single-Engine Turbine Airplanes Transporting Passengers in IFR Flight or Night VFR
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... e-3772.htm

Like CID has stated, it really comes down to risk assesment and management. It's not just as simple as asking "are you better off after an engine failure in SEIFR than you are in MEIFR". There's other factors at play. Risk is part of flying. Many of the same points in favour of MEIFR could justifiably be used in the VFR theatre as well. My IFR experience is very limited but there's been PLENTY of times where I've been VFR that I wished I had a second engine and it could successfully be argued that having a second engine would have been safer. It all boils down to the balance between risk and economics. Humans are capable of designing a float plane that hauls the same load as a beaver but has two turbine engines, two crew, synthetic vision, a ballistic recovery system and a protected passenger area designed to dissipate the forces of a crash. It's just not economical. So is it wrong to allow beavers to keep hauling people around? The answer is it's neither right or wrong, but the passengers, operators, pilots and the regulator deem the risk acceptable. We should frame the SEIFR debate the same way. I found the above article interesting because it talked about the reasons that SEIFR was proposed and what types of accidents they were trying to prevent. I do believe that policy decisions should be based on analysis of statistics and accident history and not on opinions and anecdotes. So far the statistics seem to support the arguments for implementing SEIFR. The article is from 2007 though; I would be interested in seeing an assessment of statistics up to the present day.

[Cat Driver]

Interesting read ragbagflyer.

After reading it I made a mental note to remind myself the same people who came to these conclusions also think SMS will make 703/704 operations safer.

Another question comes to mind, there are some who claim a turn back onto a runway after departure in IMC is quite doable in a PC12..............but the same people will argue that losing an engine in a twin engine airplane under the same conditions carries the high risk of the crew losing control and crashing at high speed.

So.....are PC12 pilots trained to a higher skills level than multi engine pilots?

[ragbagflyer]

Interesting read ragbagflyer.

After reading it I made a mental note to remind myself the same people who came to these conclusions also think SMS will make 703/704 operations safer.

A similar thought crossed my mind. I also wondered about the involvement of any lobbyists from Cessna and Pilatus. Still, the article presents some interesting information and analysis.

[Cat Driver]

It is all about politics and power ragbagflyer.

[teacher]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good thing the law sees it the way I do. There are countless more dangerous things in aviation that should be addressed from outdated and antiquated aircraft to flight and duty time limitations. SEIFR is here to stay because when regulated and done correctly with factory built turbine aircraft with proven safety records it IS safe. The "what if" is all fine and dandy to bring up but it doesn't add up. This country has had 2, count them 2 ETOPS certified aircraft have to dead stick a landing (yes I know fuel starvation, swiss cheese model etc). Yup, ETOPS certification is sure safer isn't it.

Russian roulette, I don't think so, goose accident at Pasco, NT Air recently and Aero Pro in Quebec City all show that multi engine turbine aircraft are not always safer during an engine failure.

Check out this list while you're at it, found it looking up something else. Lotsa engine failures followed by a crash.........

http://www.avioconsult.com/downloads/Li ... ailure.pdf

[The Hammer]

Compare apples to apples. Fatal accidents per hr of flying related to engine issues. There are more TEIFR flights made per day (eliminate any type certified after 1992 ie 1900D/Metro 23 and larger) than SEIFR flights.

As the Caravan & PC12 age it's the secondary systems (oil coolers, fittings, lines, oil/fuel heaters, etc. and the multiple overhaul engines) that will be the problem similar to the older 2-engine a/c.

TC/FAA can be bought. Read the S-76 30 minutes run dry gearbox exemption, it reads like a Soprano's episode, it's the only helicopter in that class that needed the exemption, 5 other manufacturer's have engineered/certified such a gearbox. Since it came into service it hasn't demonstrated the required #'s to even meet the requirements It short by a factor of 100 times. (1 in 100,000 hrs vs 1 in 10,000,000 req'd).

I hate this debate but some one has to determine why avoidable accidents happen and if the certification standards are being met as time passes.

[CID]

Doc, a bogus part is just one without proper documentation. It isn't necessarily "good" or "bad" but without traceability, the line of culpability stops abruptly at the guy who installed it or the operator who allowed it to be installed.

With proper paperwork, the maintainer has reasonable assurance that the part meets the regulatory requirements.

Lack of traceability doesn't necessarily translate to catastrophic failure like in the case of alternators in light single engine aircraft. But how about the bolts that secure the vertical stab on a Convair propliner?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394

I think a reasonable person would consider proper documentation a requirement and legal protection. The administrative cost, just an insurance premium. Those that have a "half empty" glass will imply it's an arbitrary tax that adds no value.

[Cat Driver]

Teacher reading your faith in the safety factor comparison between single engine airplanes and twin engine airplanes got me to thinking about risk management and the risks we accepted doing ferry flights above gross allowable take off weights.

In my mind I looked back at some of the routes and am truly thankful I never lost an engine in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The worst place on the planet for a forced landing that I have flown has to be the north Atlantic route, maybe because it looked so cold down there with all the ice flows and such.

So here is my question to you, if all your future flying was to be only on the north Atlantic route would you still choose the PC12 over a turbine twin?

[complexintentions]

As to my comments on ETOPS I stand by the simple fact that if flying on one engine posed no significant risk there would be no ETOPS rules.

Fair enough. But the ETOPS certification has until recently allowed with certain types, up to 207 minutes, and as of December 2011, 330 minute ETOPS for the B777. In other words, they deem it safe to consider the failure of one engine and then allow you to be five and a half hours flying time away from a suitable airport. One one engine. With hundreds of passengers on board. So I'm not sure ETOPS certification standards are a good argument against the reliability of turbine engines.

Frankly I think the ETOPS argument is only muddying the waters of the debate between small piston twins and turbine singles. Of course I would always prefer more of anything whether it be engines, pilots, or fuel (unless I'm on fire). And I don't think SEIFR over high terrain or water is the greatest idea. But it's got nothing to do with ETOPS, which is describing a non-normal situation where a twin has become a single...