PC-12 off runway in YTS

[pelmet]

ummmm.......cause you can see where you are going to have to execute a forced landing. If you were in imc that would be fairly hard to do! I have had an egine failure in a single engine airplane and guess what, I didn't crash because I could see!

You can't see a landing area any better at night when VFR than Day at 500 OVC. Single engine IFR is higher risk, but not very much.

You don't fly, do you? Or, you just don't get it? Or you're a Caravan/PC12 salesman? Most of us put night VFR in remote areas in the same boat as IFR flying. If you would spend more time reading some posts here, and less time just arguing with nothing to back you up, you might learn something. I'm not blowing smoke here. I've had two singles give up on me. Both in good VFR, and both with NO damage. I've also brought more twins home on one engine than anybody you can name. Some VFR, some IFR. You might also be interested in knowing that you can't fly "safe VFR" at FL220. Personally, I'm putting you on "ignore". You have added nothing to this, or any other thread. Your insistence that engine failures in a singles while IFR are no more dangerous than when they happen VFR "deep sixes" your creditability. This is the last reply you'll get form me. It's like talking to a four year old. Only difference is, a four year old, you can send to his room.
Before I go, I would suggest you take at least a "fam flight" in a 152, and read a couple of books by Ernst Gann.

Good old Doc. Says he is safe because he only flies his single engine aircraft VFR. When he gets caught in his own words about how you can't see much ground at night, all of a sudden he changes night VFR to being IFR. Any other stories to change?

Probably best if you do the ignore thing you can ignore me now in addition to reality. I suppose he wont reply as to why you can't fly safely VFR at FL 220 when 100 miles north of YFB.

Perhaps he will be on one of his cautious flights tomorrow in a single, day VFR with a ground temp of -30 and a good surface wind saying he never takes unecessary risks.

[hamstandard]

I'm not sure I understand you Pelmet. It sounds like you are saying that is is not particularly unsafe flying single-engine low IFR but then another post says that it is not wise to be taking off single-engine VFR.

[pelmet]

I'm not sure I understand you Pelmet. It sounds like you are saying that is is not particularly unsafe flying single-engine low IFR but then another post says that it is not wise to be taking off single-engine VFR.

Actually, much of what I am doing is pointing out the hipocrisy of Doc. He rants on earlier in the thread about how taking off on a single-engine flight is dangerous when a takeoff alternate is required, somehow reasoning, I suppose, that you can't get back in if there is a problem. Well you can't get back in in a Twin either. Is it dangerous because you could have an engine failure with your departure airport socked in. Who cares, you almost certainly can't make it back anyways and you can't make it to your takeoff alternate regardless of the weather conditions if you have an engine failure.

Somehow, he claims to be a safer pilot than many because he only flies single engine aircraft in VFR conditions. When I point out that there is less to see when it is night VFR that day IFR suddenly he changes the story that he includes night VFR as IFR. Mixed in with all this are insults which Cat Driver and Chesty piping in with supporting insults(mostly deleted now). After all his childish insults, he says that I am like a 4 year old.

Finally, he says I need a fam flight and wonders if I am a pilot because he feels that you can't fly VFR in Class G airspace at FL220 which is the class of airspace 100 miles north of YFB.

He seems to have been having these long-winded rants for years. What a strange man.

[polar one]

edited, as was slipping off topic

[hamstandard]

I'm not sure I understand you Pelmet. It sounds like you are saying that is is not particularly unsafe flying single-engine low IFR but then another post says that it is not wise to be taking off single-engine VFR.

Actually, much of what I am doing is pointing out the hipocrisy of Doc. He rants on earlier in the thread about how taking off on a single-engine flight is dangerous when a takeoff alternate is required, somehow reasoning, I suppose, that you can't get back in if there is a problem. Well you can't get back in in a Twin either. Is it dangerous because you could have an engine failure with your departure airport socked in. Who cares, you almost certainly can't make it back anyways and you can't make it to your takeoff alternate regardless of the weather conditions if you have an engine failure in a single.

Somehow, he claims to be a safer pilot than many because he only flies single engine aircraft in VFR conditions. When I point out that there is less to see when it is night VFR that day IFR suddenly he changes the story that he includes night VFR as IFR. Mixed in with all this are insults which Cat Driver and Chesty piping in with supporting insults(mostly deleted now). After all his childish insults, he says that I am like a 4 year old.

Finally, he says I need a fam flight and wonders if I am a pilot because he feels that you can't fly VFR in Class G airspace at FL220 which is the class of airspace 100 miles north of YFB.

He seems to have been having these long-winded rants for years. What a strange man.

I suppose it is safer to be VFR sometimes, if it had been a nice sunny dat in YTS they may have been able to land closer to the threshold.

[trampbike]

Good old Doc. Says he is safe because he only flies his single engine aircraft VFR. When he gets caught in his own words about how you can't see much ground at night, all of a sudden he changes night VFR to being IFR. Any other stories to change?

It's been known for a while that a lot of people (including Doc) consider night VFR in remote areas to be very similar to IFR flight. Many plead that regulations be changed to take into account this fact. Nothing new or hypocrite there.

Probably best if you do the ignore thing you can ignore me now in addition to reality. I suppose he wont reply as to why you can't fly safely VFR at FL 220 when 100 miles north of YFB.

Ever heard of class A airspace? I'll let the googling up to you.

Perhaps he will be on one of his cautious flights tomorrow in a single, day VFR with a ground temp of -30 and a good surface wind saying he never takes unecessary risks.

I fail too see your point here.

[sigi12345]

Good old Doc. Says he is safe because he only flies his single engine aircraft VFR. When he gets caught in his own words about how you can't see much ground at night, all of a sudden he changes night VFR to being IFR. Any other stories to change?

It's been known for a while that a lot of people (including Doc) consider night VFR in remote areas to be very similar to IFR flight. Many plead that regulations be changed to take into account this fact. Nothing new or hypocrite there.

Probably best if you do the ignore thing you can ignore me now in addition to reality. I suppose he wont reply as to why you can't fly safely VFR at FL 220 when 100 miles north of YFB.

Ever heard of class A airspace? I'll let the googling up to you.

Perhaps he will be on one of his cautious flights tomorrow in a single, day VFR with a ground temp of -30 and a good surface wind saying he never takes unecessary risks.

I fail too see your point here.

What class A airspace ?

FL 220 when 100 miles north of YFB is uncontrolled, saying that while sitting in YFB.

Cheers,
Sigi

[trampbike]

True, he would not be IN a class A airspace.
He would be a couple of feet verticaly and a couple of miles horizontaly from class A thought.

[pelmet]

True, he would not be IN a class A airspace.
He would be a couple of feet verticaly and a couple of miles horizontaly from class A thought.

Actually, you would be about 1000 feet below Class A airspace and about 60 miles horizontally from Class A airspace and if you went farther north, you would be 5,000 feet from Class A airxspace. VFR flying anyone?

I know Doc must know these rules as he has read his books by Gann, no doubt did his Cessna 152 intro a long time ago(and has suggested I now do one), and he says that he is a pilot but for some reason wondered if I am.

I would like to say something though, I do respect the man's decision to only fly VFR in single's. There is nothing wrong with this and overall, is likely a lower risk. I only got going in this thread because of these blanket statements about some of the day to day activities basically being dangerous. Yes there are increased risks in our profession, and when the weather goes down, the risk usually goes up. But aviation is fraught with certain risk elements but the reality is that the system is quite safe. There is increased risk in mountain flying and on contaminated runways and on WAT limited takeoffs among many other things.

Most accidents sadly have at least an element of pilot error.

[Brown Bear]

I'm not sure I understand you Pelmet. It sounds like you are saying that is is not particularly unsafe flying single-engine low IFR but then another post says that it is not wise to be taking off single-engine VFR.

I suppose, that you can't get back in if there is a problem. Well you can't get back in in a Twin either. Is it dangerous because you could have an engine failure with your departure airport socked in. Who cares, you almost certainly can't make it back anyways and you can't make it to your takeoff alternate regardless of the weather conditions if you have an engine failure.

Somehow, he claims to be a safer pilot he includes night VFR as IFR. he says that I am like a 4 year old.

You have a take off alternate in case something goes wrong, you have somewhere you can go. In a twin, no you can't land where you toke off, but you would proceed to your take off alternate. If an engine dies in a single you can't go anywhere else. With me, so far?
I've never actually seen Doc claim to be a "safer pilot" because he flies only VFR in single engine airplanes. Feel free to prove me wrong. Give us a "quote" where he states that?
In the case of VFR night flight in remote areas (like outside the GTA, for instance) it is treated in the same way you would treat IFR flight. After rotation (take off) you have no horizon and must rely on your instruments for both pitch (nose up/down) and bank information.
I wouldn't like being called a four year old either. Try posting some on topic, beneficial information, instead of picking fights. It's getting you nowhere.

[pelmet]

You have a take off alternate in case something goes wrong, you have somewhere you can go. In a twin, no you can't land where you toke off, but you would proceed to your take off alternate. If an engine dies in a single you can't go anywhere else. With me, so far?

Yes I am with you, except that I would delete a single word in your quote to "If an engine dies in a single you can't go anywhere." At least airport-wise. With me so far?

Admittedly, we are not exactly on topic. But then again, I didn't start the subject of single-engine no alternate IFR takeoffs.

You are probably correct that Doc didn't specifically say that he is safer(although he may very well be) in the many remaining and deleted posts here. If I remember correctly, he says that he does not take "unnecessary risks" implying that those who are doing these TC approved departures are taking unecessary risks.

[Brown Bear]

If I remember correctly, he says that he does not take "unnecessary risks" implying that those who are doing these TC approved departures are taking unecessary risks.

I think you knew very well I meant "airport" as not going anywhere.
A word of advice that might save your life some day. Just because something is "TC APPROVED" does not, in of itself make it either safe, or a good idea. Departing in a single engine airplane from an aerodrome that has weather below it's approach limits may, indeed be "TC approved", but you would NEVER catch me even thinking about it. Nor should you.

[CID]

Nobody seems to be using the statistics that the rules are developed from so I figure I'll give it a try. Let's say you're in a PC-12 at FL290 about 40 miles from the nearest suitable airport in VMC. The engine quits. Yes it sucks but there's a good chance you'll make the airport.

Now put yourself in a Navajo at the same distance in VMC but you're at 9,000 feet. And you run out of fuel. Would you be wishing you were in a PC-12 at FL290?

We can come up with all sorts of anecdotes and scenarios but the statistics (for now) don't change. All things considered, flying IFR in a PC-12 is statistically as safe as a piston twin.

[Brown Bear]

Nobody seems to be using the statistics that the rules are developed from so I figure I'll give it a try. Let's say you're in a PC-12 at FL290 about 40 miles from the nearest suitable airport in VMC. The engine quits. Yes it sucks but there's a good chance you'll make the airport.

Now put yourself in a Navajo at the same distance in VMC but you're at 9,000 feet. And you run out of fuel. Would you be wishing you were in a PC-12 at FL290?

We can come up with all sorts of anecdotes and scenarios but the statistics (for now) don't change. All things considered, flying IFR in a PC-12 is statistically safer than flying in a light piston twin.

Here we go again. Don't you ever grow weary of just being silly? We grow weary of seeing it in print, day in and day out. Seriously dude, get a life! WTF has running out of gas got to do with SEIFR????? You can run out of gas in a B52! What IS your point!
OFF TOPIC ALERT!!!!

[CID]

Yes, it is silly. That's the point. Many of the scenarios presented here are silly and off topic. A PC-12 is a single, yes. But's it's not inherently dangerous or even more dangerous than a light piston twin if you consider all the variables.

When discussing the suitability of a PC-12 for commercial IFR ops, many find it difficult to keep the oranges apart from the apples. Yes, we can all come up with specific scenarios where a piston twin or even a glider is the best equipment. But we can't just ignore the facts.

I went off on this direction after I read "Twin engine is safer". But I now see the poster realized the error in making such an absolute unqualified statement and deleted it.

[Doc]

Granted, it's an old one, but.....

On 18 May 1998, a Pilatus Porter PC-12 aircraft with a pilot and seven passengers on board crashed near Clarenville, Newfoundland,\par after its engine failed at altitude. The aircraft was certified and authorized for single-engine instrument flight rules (SEIFR) operations.\par The aircraft captain crash-landed the aircraft in a bog after gliding the aircraft approximately 15 minutes in cloud conditions extending\par near the ground. The Board issued six safety recommendations with respect to this occurrence, ranging from measures to allow the air-craft\par to glide safely from its maximum operating level to ground level during an engine-out condition, to aircraft modifications to ensure\par that aircrew will be provided with advance warning of impending engine malfunctions, to regulations, measures, and equipment that\par would minimize the risks associated with single-engine aircraft commercial operations in cloud.

It has happened.

[pelmet]

A word of advice that might save your life some day. Just because something is "TC APPROVED" does not, in of itself make it either safe, or a good idea. Departing in a single engine airplane from an aerodrome that has weather below it's approach limits may, indeed be "TC approved", but you would NEVER catch me even thinking about it. Nor should you.

My near midair collision a while back with a little transponderless aircraft on a reasonable above limits day and other situations with small aircraft nearby makes me feel a lot safer when the weather is low to be honest. It may just be safer when it is low IFR at these uncontrolled airports.

On 18 May 1998, a Pilatus Porter PC-12 aircraft with a pilot and seven passengers on board crashed near Clarenville, Newfoundland, after its engine failed at altitude.

Granted, it's an old one, but.....

It has happened.

Once.

An MD-11 also caught on fire , a 747 had its tail blow off in Japan, a DC-10 had its engine fall off and crashed, several 737's had rudder hardovers, a 767 engine went into reverse in flight, so did an F-100, a 727 had its tire explode due to a dragging brake. All crashed with all dead.

Granted, they are all old ones too, but they have happened.

[Brown Bear]

pelmed, what kind of "little transponderless aircraft do you fly? Putting a transponder in it will GREATLY reduce the likelihood of a repeat occurrence.
The last paragraph in your post was, true or not, exactly what I mentioned in my last post to you. Stop picking fights. That was just an uncalled for smart-ass remark. You know it. It's destroying any creditability you may have had. I just don't know why you're doing it? Do you actually know Doc?

[AUGER9]

Once.

An MD-11 also caught on fire , a 747 had its tail blow off in Japan, a DC-10 had its engine fall off and crashed, several 737's had rudder hardovers, a 767 engine went into reverse in flight, so did an F-100, a 727 had its tire explode due to a dragging brake. All crashed with all dead.

Granted, they are all old ones too, but they have happened.

Don't forget the 747 that lost ALL FOUR ENGINES!

This thread has become pointless. Obviously two engines is better than one. 4 is better than 2. What exactly are you getting at besides stating the obvious? Want PC12s to be VFR only? So you lose your engine in NWO and are visual- choose between dense forest or ice cold water to put her in. Awesome. Why not ban them completely then. How bout that TWIN Islander that lost an engine in Manitoba? Sure was lucky to be right over a road to land on cause one wasn't good enough to get anywhere.

[Brown Bear]

So did anybody talk to the crew? Did the engine actually fail? Were they unable to stay on the runway because they had no reverse thrust? Did they keep it hot and high on purpose? This thread is about a PC12 skidding off a runway? Isn't it? Or are we going to continue like children in the playground?

[AUGER9]

Someone from there told me they shut down the engine short final. The windscreen was fully covered in oil so they couldn't make out the runway/height too well and ended up being quite high, which is why they overran. Second hand info though.

[Brown Bear]

Thanks AUGER9. Great to get an on topic reply.

[pelmet]

pelmed, what kind of "little transponderless aircraft do you fly? Putting a transponder in it will GREATLY reduce the likelihood of a repeat occurrence.
The last paragraph in your post was, true or not, exactly what I mentioned in my last post to you. Stop picking fights. That was just an uncalled for smart-ass remark. You know it. It's destroying any creditability you may have had. I just don't know why you're doing it? Do you actually know Doc?

It was the other aircraft that had no transponder, not me. I have TCAS. Creditability(Sic) indeed, is an appropriate word to bring up.

I understand your desire to stay on subject. You will notice if you review posts, that mine are in response to other off-topic posts including my response just above to your question. Perhaps you should direct your critcisms at the initiators of "not exactly on topic posts". Or perhaps, it is only the ones you disagree with that you criticize.

That was just an uncalled for smart-ass remark. You know it. It's destroying any creditability you may have had.

Once again, another one of you criticizers that have been on this thread just crack me up. I'm not sure what remark I made you consider smart-ass, but here is your remark to CID just a few hours ago as quoted below.

Here we go again. Don't you ever grow weary of just being silly? We grow weary of seeing it in print, day in and day out. Seriously dude, get a life!

Anyways, to get back on topic, is the aircraft repairable?

[Doc]

Someone from there told me they shut down the engine short final. The windscreen was fully covered in oil so they couldn't make out the runway/height too well and ended up being quite high, which is why they overran. Second hand info though.

Thanks for that AUGER9. Pretty interesting outcome.

[oldncold]

lets end this one for now ok//

the seifr /twin debate is like having twins not identical ones but still related by a common experience // in this case we are all avaitors.

many moons ago doing my first ifr ride a tc inspector during the ground portion /plucked down the rutland departure kelowna b.c. infront of me and asked the following before ya flame me its probably been modified in the last 25yrs /'its 1 mile and 400 ft can ya go "? after some looking at the climb gradient for the aircraft (pa30B) and the procedure I said yes

next he said " alright ya take off and through 25hundred in imc the right engine quits . what happens now?" A few beads of perspiration start to appear on my forehead , cuz I see where this is going ..

Well I replied I declare the emergency and follow the departure procedure as best I can now but the pa 30 on 1 engine don't climb to sh.. hot and I may not make it .

With a smile as wide as the rising sun the inspector said " bingo you have just learned a major fact of ifr flying just because the procedure is stated to be safe one must always consider the operational varibles"

the pc 12 is very safe but one must always keep in mind the operational variables > fly the triangle ( must have 2 of 3 Corners always as a minimum in your favour ) before committing to launch . FLY SAFE