The end of the Caravan/PC-12

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:03 am

I've been hearing rumblings that TC is seriously discussing the future of Single-Engine IFR in Canada.

Esentially because of the Caravan's record in ice, there is a movement to pull the Caravan/PC-12 'ticket'.

Has anyone heard the same??

If it's true I find it bazarre because statistically the 'Van is one of the safest aircraft in the skies!

G

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:15 am

That would be a typical reaction to "nothing" by TC. Never flown a PC12, but the Caravan is a wonderful aircraft! These morons would pull a stunt like this, but allow IFR operations in a Beech 18!!

N2 · Post by N2 » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:20 am

I have total confidence in the system....to screw things up and make the wrong decisions that is!

monkeyspankmasterflex · Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:19 am

Knee-jerk reaction, probably, but at the same time I wouldn't feel so great about sending my wife and youngins off in a Caravan with the slightest chance of ICG. I can't see TC making the move, but...

unregistered · Post by **unregistered** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:33 am

The only thing wrong with the C208 in ice, are the pilots who fly them. I have bags of time in the C208 (and other types) both summer & winter and it's fine.

Would be a shame if they put a lid on the machine, its very capable.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:06 am

They are too STUPID to do a 180 degree turn!

ninjacrumb · Post by **ninjacrumb** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:19 am

I heard that Cessna may revoke the "Flight into Known Icing" status of the Caravan. Which may make the ole van obselete. As far as the PC12 goes I've heard nothing, except for the installation of a dual battery system as at altitude the PC12 can glide longer than the battery can deliver power.

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:10 am

The only thing wrong with the C208 in ice, are the pilots who fly them. I have bags of time in the C208 (and other types) both summer & winter and it's fine

I would have to agree, however you might also want to add that the owner/operators of these aircraft put a lot of pressure on these pilots to fly when they probably shouldn't.

wha happen · Post by **wha happen** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:14 am

ya, they do put alot of pressure on these guys, ussually cause they are on the lower end of the time scale and they dont want to get fired/suspended/piss off the boss, whatever. So they go. Its not the airplanes fault...

AOA · Post by **AOA** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:56 am

I think we should re-name this topic... The idea of Transport limiting or restricting SIFR is crazy.. I think what Greenwich was getting at is the possibility that the FAA whats Cessna to re-design its "ice" systems..

As for the PC-12 its a great airplane for all the tasks required. Your in and out of the ice in a flash.. and when you are "in it" she just plows along....

jumperdumper · Post by **jumperdumper** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:32 pm

The Van is a nice airplane to fly, sometimes forget its a single. Would be dissapointing to allot of operators if its true.

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:45 pm

Seems as though TC is using a sledge hammer approach to a problem in which a rubber mallet would due.

scubasteve · Post by **scubasteve** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:07 pm

Even if they felt the a/c were unsafe...it would cost a tremendous amount to do this. Operators would have to be reimbursed somehow as they wouldnt get a good price on a plane that is seen as obsolete and they would have to replace them with something that is accepted as safe.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:38 pm

I haven't heard anything about TC changing the SE commercial IFR rules but I never thought it was a good idea. There was never any guarantee that they would retain the rule that allows it so it was a gamble for the operators from the start.

As a personal choice I avoid these operators. I feel that TC has lowered the level of safety in commercial ops without providing the general public with adequate information.

I would feel very uncomfortable launching into the cold arctic winter night in a single engine airplane. When I'm paying for the ticket, give me a twin anytime. By the way. When I say "twin" I don't mean Twin Comanche or Travelaire! I mean a 1900 or a Twin Otter for example.

try north · Post by **try north** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:02 pm

That is total bull, I have been around caravans at various airlines around canada. The most recent Caravan operator I worked for was Tindi. They have at least 3 vans. They seem to do fine all year long. It hits -45 on the ground. They are true performers those vans

R1830 · Post by **R1830** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:29 am

I have a fair chunk of time in a Caravan, all up north and quite often in ice. It's not the greatest airplane in ice, no one will say it is, but if you respect the weather and the aircrafts limits you will not get yourself into trouble. The Caravan is a joy to fly and hauls an unbeatable load.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:25 am

CID,

Nice to see that you are an enlightened person. When Skyward was around in the arctic you had a choice of flying in a clapped out Bandit that TC grounded eventually or flying in a modern PC12. So much for 2 engines over 1. Given the choice I would have taken the PC12 any day. Excellent airplanes. I have 2000 hours in them and there is virtually nothing they can't handle. Up high and fast with the big boys and low and slow with GA crowd. Ice is never an issue and to date I think there are something like 3 or 4 PT6-67B engine failures. I have a hunch that one a was a couple guys screwing around with the MOR lever, but that's for the TSB to figure out.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:20 pm

Nice to see that you are an enlightened person. When Skyward was around in the arctic you had a choice of flying in a clapped out Bandit that TC grounded eventually or flying in a modern PC12. So much for 2 engines over 1.

Do you always talk about apples when the conversation is about oranges Snowgoose? I made no mention about my opinion of poor operators or poorly maintained or ancient airplanes. The topic is about single engine IFR.

So tell me. Would you rather fly in a well maintained King Air or a PC-12 with a wing missing. Or how about IFR in a Tiger Moth? Irrelevant? I agree.

Excellent airplanes. I have 2000 hours in them and there is virtually nothing they can't handle.

How about engine failure? I've flown in PT-6 variant powered airplanes that have suffered engine failure. Although the PT6-67B engine in the PC-12 is designed for maximum reliability, it's not "if" it quits. It's "when". And I don't plan to be in one in IMC "when".

Hey, you don't have to agree with me. It's my opinion as I stated.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:53 pm

So what if you have an engine failure in IMC. It can shoot an approach just fine without an engine. From altitude you can glide for 30min/50nm. That's why when we fly we go high and stay close to shore.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:06 pm

" It can shoot an approach just fine without an engine. "

That may be true, however I can't.

Cat

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:08 pm

" It can shoot an approach just fine without an engine. "

That may be true, however I can't.

Cat

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:11 pm

Snowgoose, you said there isn't anything a PC 12 can't handle, yes there is, an engine failure. Also have you or anyone you know ever shoot an approach without an engine? Is it something you practice? if so from what altitude? Ever do one from high altitude? How about IMC? You seem pretty confident about having an engine failure in IMC as being not a big deal, personally my a$$ would be inhaleing the seat cover.

Give me a clapped out twinn anyday.

As for the VAN as long as you know it's limits and adhear to them your fine. Get caught in ice turn around. I'd hate to see TC pull either certification. That being said, I'm not a fan of single engine anything, except VFR joyriding.

Cheers.

bus driver · Post by **bus driver** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:52 pm

I've personally shot many engine out approaches............in Orlando. I wouldn't say its something you get to practice all the time, but empty legs always make for great gliding drills. I guess the way you fly is dictated bv what you fly. Its the pilots responsibility to be as proficient as possible on every possible emergency. In the Pilatus that includes possible forced approaches.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:19 pm

" In the Pilatus that includes possible forced approaches. "

How do you practice engine out approaches in IMC?

Reading some of these comments here I have come to the conclusion that Iam lacking in flying skills, because I sure as hell do not know how to do an engine out approach in IMC in a single engine anything.

Cat

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:48 pm

Single engine Ops are a little sketchy in IMC anywhere, but they are downright dangerous in the Arctic. Snowgoose, your PC-12 can glide for 50 nm?...thats going to do you no good when airports are spaced over 500 nm apart up there! What about IMC takeoffs...anywhere for that matter. Engine out at 4-500 ft in IMC, I don't care who you are, you're dead in 20 seconds! I don't think TC should ban these Ops all together, but they should definitely show some leadership and guidance, possibly introduce some new regulations. It's ultimately up to the air operator to use suitable equipment for the environment and type of flying they do, and clearly many are not doing that!