I recently read an article in which the CEO of an airline operator was quoted as saying that the Pilatus PC-12 "is not well suited to high-frequency airline operations."
I am curious whether anybody who is experienced with this type can comment on the reasons. I note that Bearskin Airlines also used to be a PC-12 disposed the type.
Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Nothing to do with levels of frequency but I am aware that the life insurance policies taken out in the name of some high level execs have a prohibition against travel on single engine aircraft. That was a factor in at least one major corporate operator's decision in this country to dispose of a single engine turbine aircraft in their fleet. I know that clause is included in the policies of some folks in the senior ranks of the organization I work for.
I guess if an airline is dependent on the business traveller for a segment of their profit, it's something that needs to be considered.
I guess if an airline is dependent on the business traveller for a segment of their profit, it's something that needs to be considered.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
From what I heard about the early PC12s they did have frequency issues with flap (lotsa cycles and cold weather) and avionics (being turned on and off all day). Those were rectified YEARS ago. Not sure about the newer NexGen ones. BEfore this descends into a SEIFR scrap lets remember that the PC12 was designed primarily as a corporate, charter, medivac and speciality air service machine.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Here is the US, singles aren't allowed in "airline" ops. (121).
There is a company, Seaport, that uses them on a 135 scheduled runs. Perhaps have a gander at them to see their viability.
There is a company, Seaport, that uses them on a 135 scheduled runs. Perhaps have a gander at them to see their viability.
-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Nark, the quote I am citing was from the CEO of SeaPort.
So that is why I am wondering exactly what the issue is.
Your post it'sme, is interesting, yet I wonder how prevalent this prohibition is for high-worth individuals? After all, Air Sprint runs corporate charters on PC-12's. As far as safety, it seems safer in a PC-12 than a piston twin, and the real safety is not in 2-engines but rather 2 pilots.
So that is why I am wondering exactly what the issue is.
Your post it'sme, is interesting, yet I wonder how prevalent this prohibition is for high-worth individuals? After all, Air Sprint runs corporate charters on PC-12's. As far as safety, it seems safer in a PC-12 than a piston twin, and the real safety is not in 2-engines but rather 2 pilots.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Just to clarify, single engine aircraft aren't allowed to operate in the airline category (705) in Canada either.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
It could have more to do with the 20,000 hour life inspection of the PC-12. From what i've seen it can be a time consuming and expensive process. The life inspection of the PC-12 is due to Pilatus never having designed the machine for high cycles or time. I belive they had built it based on the idea that it would be used in a corporate or personal transportation role. That's my guess..
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
PJ
I'm not arguing the merits of single vs twin vs turbine vs piston (at least not on this thread
)....BUT this is a call by insurance underwriters when writing those particular policies and they tend to look long and hard at a number of factors when measuring risk. I just find it an interesting observation that for an industry that makes its bread and butter on risk analysis, these policies are written the way they are.
I'm not arguing the merits of single vs twin vs turbine vs piston (at least not on this thread
)....BUT this is a call by insurance underwriters when writing those particular policies and they tend to look long and hard at a number of factors when measuring risk. I just find it an interesting observation that for an industry that makes its bread and butter on risk analysis, these policies are written the way they are.-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Dear it'sme,
I am not argueing with you either. My question is on how prevalent this insurance prohibition is on high-wealth individuals? I simply do not know the answer to that, but it seems that if this is very common-place then eiher the business model of companies like Air Sprint are flawed or these high-worth individuals are willing to ignore the prohibitions of their insurance policies after making their own personal risk/benefits analysis.
I am not argueing with you either. My question is on how prevalent this insurance prohibition is on high-wealth individuals? I simply do not know the answer to that, but it seems that if this is very common-place then eiher the business model of companies like Air Sprint are flawed or these high-worth individuals are willing to ignore the prohibitions of their insurance policies after making their own personal risk/benefits analysis.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
We operated a Caravan for short while in our corporate flight department. We got rid of it because the insurance company for one of our bigger customers prohibited them from flying single engine. A lot of companies have no S/E clauses, or forbid VP's from flying together in the same aircraft, etc. They won't fly together, but they'll all get in the same car and drive off. LOL
-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Interesting, thanks NovaBoy. Yes, it is bizarre how that works sometimes.
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
I've seen them arrive in separate G4's, only to go fishing in the same steam Otter!NovaBoy wrote: They won't fly together, but they'll all get in the same car and drive off. LOL
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
The maintenance activities associated with a high time PC-12 aren't really any different than any other airframe. The simple fact is that as airplanes age, they are subject to more maintenance including the addition of inspections. Most of us are probably aware of the introduction of SID programs on airplanes we've been involved in and the associated operational cost increase.
These cots eventually put airplanes like HS-748s and 737-200s out of service once they become too expensive to maintain. CRJs aren't in that boat yet but they did have a mid-life inspection program that was pricey.
Cessna has recently gone through a massive exercise of applying SID programs on their product line. One particularly interesting victim of that exercise is the operator of high time Cessna 441 aircraft. In commercial operations, the SID requires it to be taken out of service at 22,500 hours. No mid-life, no extension, no additional inspections.
These cots eventually put airplanes like HS-748s and 737-200s out of service once they become too expensive to maintain. CRJs aren't in that boat yet but they did have a mid-life inspection program that was pricey.
Cessna has recently gone through a massive exercise of applying SID programs on their product line. One particularly interesting victim of that exercise is the operator of high time Cessna 441 aircraft. In commercial operations, the SID requires it to be taken out of service at 22,500 hours. No mid-life, no extension, no additional inspections.
-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Sorry, CID, I have so many 3-letter acronyms spinning around in my head. What is a "SID" program?
-
The Hammer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 446
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
I would compare the PC-12 and B200 (with hydraulic gear) vs the 1900/ metro. The mtc schedules on the former are not great for daily high utilization work. Their mtc schedule is designed for 2-3 days of work at a time with only snag rect. in between (ie the phase inspect. idea) vs a progressive mtc schedule where small bits of mtc are completed almost nightly (often at an out-station mtc base) but do not remove the aircraft from service the next day.
We utilize a 20,000hr 1900D an average of 1800 hrs/year. Good luck doing that in a 200.
Both obviously have their "bigger inspections" as they age.
(Note: anything with mechanical gear/flaps is not usually a good high utilization/long term a/c.)
IMHO
We utilize a 20,000hr 1900D an average of 1800 hrs/year. Good luck doing that in a 200.
Both obviously have their "bigger inspections" as they age.
(Note: anything with mechanical gear/flaps is not usually a good high utilization/long term a/c.)
IMHO
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
SID=Supplemental Inspection Document.
They are imposed on airframes by the OEM as problems arise or as the airframe ages due to in-service experience or damage tolerance analysis.
Some SIDs introduce modifications and/or new periodic inspections at a certain airframe age (cycles and/or hours but usually cycles) to allow the airplane to operate past the originally established service life.
They are imposed on airframes by the OEM as problems arise or as the airframe ages due to in-service experience or damage tolerance analysis.
Some SIDs introduce modifications and/or new periodic inspections at a certain airframe age (cycles and/or hours but usually cycles) to allow the airplane to operate past the originally established service life.
-
ScudRunner
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
Re: Pilatus PC-12 in Airline Operations
Speaking from a pilots perspective regarding "airline" operations on the PC-12, I flew one on a scheduled operations out of YTH for NAC Air back in 2008. We operated about 9 sectors a day during the week and off the top of my head 4 on the weekend,
turns where blocked at about 15 mins chocks to door closed. Most legs where short hops less than 30 mins all gravel runways excluding YTH. I thought it was remarkably reliable and only recall a few incidents where maintenance was required, these usually after the plane was left out all night in the cold needing a GPU start and one where the hub of the tire separated due to improper torquing of the through bolts.
The plane was left outside and of course plugged in during the winter, we only had contract mtc and where pretty much on are own not even a GPU all battery starts. As I said short hops and tight turns in and out of gravel strips little support and it performed just fine, no daily maintenance inspection other than the walk around and a run up.
The flaps I found the biggest issue was snow being flung up into the flap fairing canoes, it seamed the good people in Switzerland designed them at perfect angles to scoop slush and snow from tires to perfection and the resulting jamming of the flap. Avionics they didn't take long to spool up once warm, you just could not throw them all on cold and expect them to work out. Doors/seats etc the only thing that would keep getting wrecked where the paper type window shades getting abused by passengers. Give the PC-12 another ten years operating in those kind of conditions day in and out who knows how it will stack up but the swiss know how to make a plane I'll tell you that much.
I really think what limited the PC-12 was its price tag, I heard the number was around 40K per aircraft per month for insurance and lease (that may have included pilot salary, not sure) Operating cost burning 500#/hour for runs less than an hour its pretty close to the competition aircraft. I wouldn't put much weight behind the argument they are not a suitable aircraft for airline operation in terms of toughness or dispatch reliability and would look to maintenance cost per hour and the before mentioned insurance requirements.
Thats just my opinion I could be wrong...............
turns where blocked at about 15 mins chocks to door closed. Most legs where short hops less than 30 mins all gravel runways excluding YTH. I thought it was remarkably reliable and only recall a few incidents where maintenance was required, these usually after the plane was left out all night in the cold needing a GPU start and one where the hub of the tire separated due to improper torquing of the through bolts.
The plane was left outside and of course plugged in during the winter, we only had contract mtc and where pretty much on are own not even a GPU all battery starts. As I said short hops and tight turns in and out of gravel strips little support and it performed just fine, no daily maintenance inspection other than the walk around and a run up.
The flaps I found the biggest issue was snow being flung up into the flap fairing canoes, it seamed the good people in Switzerland designed them at perfect angles to scoop slush and snow from tires to perfection and the resulting jamming of the flap. Avionics they didn't take long to spool up once warm, you just could not throw them all on cold and expect them to work out. Doors/seats etc the only thing that would keep getting wrecked where the paper type window shades getting abused by passengers. Give the PC-12 another ten years operating in those kind of conditions day in and out who knows how it will stack up but the swiss know how to make a plane I'll tell you that much.
I really think what limited the PC-12 was its price tag, I heard the number was around 40K per aircraft per month for insurance and lease (that may have included pilot salary, not sure) Operating cost burning 500#/hour for runs less than an hour its pretty close to the competition aircraft. I wouldn't put much weight behind the argument they are not a suitable aircraft for airline operation in terms of toughness or dispatch reliability and would look to maintenance cost per hour and the before mentioned insurance requirements.
Thats just my opinion I could be wrong...............
