PC-12 off runway in YTS

[fish4life]

perhaps a good solution / compromise would be to make the parachutes that Cirrus has mandatory for any SEIFR operation that way in the event of an engine failure a simple pull of a chute is all you would need.

[bbb]

Actually, yes, that crew was VERY LUCKY. Not in that it appears they did their procedures properly, but in the fact that the failure took place where it did, very close to a suitable airport. That had nothing to do with their training or how well they flew/followed procedures. That was just plain old luck, they had NO control over that. Equating them making a landing at Timmons the same as a properly handled engine failure in a twin is comparing apples to oranges. If both a Pilatus and a twin had an engine failure much further out, we wouldn't be talking about how the crew of the Pilatus did such a good job landing at Timmons, we would be saying they had really bad luck.

We can go round and round and round about SEIFR being "safe", but as soon as you take off, you are trusting in one and only one powerplant to take you where you're trying to go. Even the best-trained and competent pilot can't make the mechanical failure go away, all they can do is make the best of the situation, which in the single won't change the fact that you are going to be gliding. If it fails, you want all the cards stacked in your favour. Altitude (you don't get to choose when it fails.....so that one you can't control), geographic area (airports within gliding distance during your entire flight - umm,,,, being used commercially in harsh, not very populated areas really lowers your odds there) and lastly weather (its kinda obvious to some here that if its decent weather you get to choose a good landing spot, not take what you get when you break out of the overcast, and also obvious the higher the ceiling the more you increase your odds of finding a suitable landing spot to glide to).

For reasons we can only take an educated guess at Transport has decided that its absolutely OK to take away the 2 main "cards" (geographic area and weather) that could be in your favour and say that it doesn't matter. This so totally goes against their preaching of safety and multiple back-ups that its absurd. Problem is, the paying public isn't educated in the risks involved like pilots are (or should be). And, Transport Canada is tasked with making air travel safe for the paying public. I really think they are doing the paying public a disservice allowing SEIFR with paying passengers to carry on with no restrictions (other than the PT6 requirement) just as if they had 2 engines. I think the Pilatus is a great airplane, but don't think it should be used in the same way a twin is used. And we as pilots should really be aware of the shortcomings and do everything possible to mitigate those shortcomings. I would not take a job flying one (or the Caravan either) if I knew I was expected to go in non-VFR weather or at night, I like to have way more options available to me if there's a problem, and am happy to say I'm a wimp. I find it shocking to see and hear so many pilots (not just here but out in the real world) that fly these machines and seem to not be fazed at all about what they are doing.

[Cat Driver]

Ones exposure to danger and ones fear factor varies all over the map when it comes to individual pilots.

During a ferry flight from Africa to North America we talked to several ferry pilots we met along the way.

One guy was parked beside us in Luxor Egypt and he was ferrying a new Cessna 172 from the factory to some place in the middle east, when I asked him how much he was worried on the north Atlantic portion of the trip he said he was not worried at all because new Cessna 172's never have engines quit.

Another ferry pilot we met in Wick Scotland said the same thing......the guy we talked to in Wick vanished on his next ferry flight in a Cessna 172 somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.

[teacher]

We're now comparing 172s to PC12s? OK, Now you're grasping at straws.

[Doc]

Ones exposure to danger and ones fear factor varies all over the map when it comes to individual pilots.

During a ferry flight from Africa to North America we talked to several ferry pilots we met along the way.

One guy was parked beside us in Luxor Egypt and he was ferrying a new Cessna 172 from the factory to some place in the middle east, when I asked him how much he was worried on the north Atlantic portion of the trip he said he was not worried at all because new Cessna 172's never have engines quit.

Another ferry pilot we met in Wick Scotland said the same thing......the guy we talked to in Wick vanished on his next ferry flight in a Cessna 172 somewhere between Iceland and Greenland.

I've done a couple of great trips in the 172, but you couldn't PAY me enough to fly one across the northern Atlantic! Now, before everybody jumps in to tell us a 172 is a "piston" engine, um, we know that. BTW, I'd trust an engine with 750-1500 hours on it way more than a factory fresh one. I've "punched out" several freshly overhauled engines! They're like wine. They're better with age.

[Doc]

We're now comparing 172s to PC12s? OK, Now you're grasping at straws.

From the man who doesn't believe in "luck". Believe me, these guys in YTS had Lady Luck in their corner! This guy in the 172, just didn't!

[Doc]

teacher, with all due respect (your posts are usually pretty "on") if you are "unlucky" enough to have an engine failure on a single engine airplane, a Hell of a lot that happens after that will depend to a varying degree on luck. Yes, a lot will depend on your training, presence of mind, situational awareness, etc. But if you don't have Lady Luck on your side, your experience could be very sour indeed. If your engine calfs on a high down wind. Yahoo! If it dies on an overshoot on a missed approach, things will most likely go south......unless you get LUCKY and just happen to break out over a frozen lake......then don't come and tell me how it was all your superior skill, and that luck never played a hand. Wake up!

[Cat Driver]

How is relating actual conversations I had with two individuals grasping at straws?

If you read what I wrote I was commenting on how different people relate to risk exposure.

[CID]

Years ago I recall that Piper was seriously considering changing their policy of ferrying aircraft across the pond due to losing so many airframes enroute. The airplane? The Aztec.

There are several factors to consider when flying transatlantic in small aircraft. Having a second engine doesn't help much if you stuffed so much fuel in ferry bladder tanks that you can't maintain on one and when one quits you don't have a hell of a lot of altitude to play with.

Now ask me if I'd rather ferry a PC-12 or an Aztec.

[Doc]

Years ago I recall that Piper was seriously considering changing their policy of ferrying aircraft across the pond due to losing so many airframes enroute. The airplane? The Aztec.

There are several factors to consider when flying transatlantic in small aircraft. Having a second engine doesn't help much if you stuffed so much fuel in ferry bladder tanks that you can't maintain on one and when one quits you don't have a hell of a lot of altitude to play with.

Now ask me if I'd rather ferry a PC-12 or an Aztec.

When they asked Charles Lindberg, why he didn't use a twin engine airplane, he replied...."Twice the chance on an engine failure...."
There is SOME truth to what you say.....HOWEVER.....other than trans ocean ferry flights, twins are not grossly over gross. Personally, I'd take a PC12 across the pond over an Aztec for the same reason.....BUT.....with a LEGAL load, the Aztec on one is FAR superior to the PC12/Caravan/ANY single on NONE!

[pelmet]

Are you serious? I guess I don't understand your thought process!

Bottom line....if you think that taking off in a single with the departure airport weather below landing limits is "Russian Roulette", in other words dangerous(and I suppose that is meant to include pilot decision making) but all of a sudden when it is VFR that you are a much safer pilot, you are quite mistaken. You are slightly safer admittedly in some cases. I'd say some guy takes off VFR only because he doesn't take "unnecessary risks" is deluding himself. What exactly is he going to do if the engine fails? How was it any safer being VFR once that very short time period(if it ever existed) when within gliding distance passes?

As for the how to properly quote portion of the thread, most of which was deleted by the mod, after a long post describing how to do it properly(thanks for the attempt), and several useless insults from Chesty,(no doubt because that is as useful as he could ever be), it turns out to be having the BBCode disabled. Whatever that is.

[Cat Driver]

How was it any safer being VFR once that very short time period(if it ever existed) when within gliding distance passes?

You are kidding, right?

You can't possibly be serious.

[chesty]

How was it any safer being VFR

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!

Glad you fiqured out the whole "quote" thing, lots to take in at one time. I was begining to think you caught the short bus to school.

[rigpiggy]

he was not worried at all because new Cessna 172's never have engines quit.

Like the PC 12 that crashed into the sea during the round the world race with only 40hrsTT

[Go Juice]

I heard a PC-12 enroute to Iqualuit tonight with some engine trouble... the driver didn't sound too happy!!!! i bet he would have loved a second fan!!

[pelmet]

I heard a PC-12 enroute to Iqualuit tonight with some engine trouble... the driver didn't sound too happy!!!! i bet he would have loved a second fan!!

I wonder if he was on a "safe" VFR flight plan. Perhaps at FL220 inbound from the north in uncontrolled airspace at night in pitch black conditions with only the stars above visible on a nice clear night. All perfectly legal.

Of course if he had happened to have taken off somewhere two hours earlier at a below limits airport, then and only then would he have been playing "Russian Roulette". In fact either way, he had similar risk on this flight and if the risk is similar, then why not depart with your calculated risk. No doubt TC thought of this risk factor when issuing Ops Specs for single engine takeoff alternate requirements.

[Sulako]

That was fun, I pruned about 20 posts from this topic, because they weren't about the topic. Before you post in this thread, please ask yourself "Is this post about the PC-12 off the runway in YTS"? If it isn't, then don't post here.

Also, let's try to keep the personal attacks down, ideally to zero. Strikes will be awarded if need be, but I see no need for that. Do you?

[pelmet]

How was it any safer being VFR

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.

[Doc]

How was it any safer being VFR

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.

[Doc]

I heard a PC-12 enroute to Iqualuit tonight with some engine trouble... the driver didn't sound too happy!!!! i bet he would have loved a second fan!!

That would have resulted in me taking the airlines home! After I changed my diapers! Just about the worst place I can think of to become a glider. There is nothing there.

[Go Juice]

I bet!! We heard him declare emergency and climb as high as he could on a rough engine... Just in case. Wx wasnt good wither i think. In a twin, rough engine shut down, take her home on the good one.

Do we really need to debate this?


It was a keewatin bird if i recall correctly FLA? I don't think it's he first time they have engine problems i think?

Not dissing the PC-12: but timmins, now iqualuit.. Seems like a lot of them have problems.. What -?? To they have? -67??

[Doc]

I bet!! We heard him declare emergency and climb as high as he could on a rough engine... Just in case. Wx wasnt good wither i think. In a twin, rough engine shut down, take her home on the good one.

Do we really need to debate this?

No debate. I would be scared shitless! Seriously. What a feeling! Wonder how high he climbed? Was YFB the closest? He must have been out of the Belchers? These beasts are starting to get longer in the tooth every day......

[Go Juice]

I think he climber to 280. About 100 NM out. Then we lost radio contact because we were pretty far.

We didnt know how it ended at that time and when we took back off we heard a couple medevac flight headed to Iqualuit. Inwas worried but i think it ended well.


I'm glad i'm flying and old king air!!

[The Hammer]

Even worse, Grise Fiord to Iqaluit. Pretty tough to get more isolated than Grise!!!

[Doc]

Even worse, Grise Fiord to Iqaluit. Pretty tough to get more isolated than Grise!!!

I've been to Grise....."isolated" is kind!