PC-12 Engine Shut Down

anonymity · Post by **anonymity** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:19 am

I would support the ballistic chute Single enigine IFR, but not the moving map without the chute. As detailed as the maps are they will never show you vehicles on say a road you're aiming for, and if you pop out a 300' and discover is rush hour you don't have time to react and choose another suitable landing area.
I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.

MrWings · Post by **MrWings** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 am

anonymity wrote:I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.

And we don't?

anonymity · Post by **anonymity** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:42 am

I didn't think so, but maybe we do.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:08 pm

anonymity wrote:I would support the ballistic chute Single enigine IFR, but not the moving map without the chute. As detailed as the maps are they will never show you vehicles on say a road you're aiming for, and if you pop out a 300' and discover is rush hour you don't have time to react and choose another suitable landing area.
I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.

Sure we do. If you want to go IFR in your 150, you go girlfriend! Totally legal!

How can anyone without the very basic knowledge of whether or not we can operate, say a 182 IFR, privately in Canada, have an intelligent, informed opinion on the use of ballistic chutes for single engine piston IFR in commercial operations????

Single engine, piston, IFR commercial ops with a ballistic chute......that's just RETARDED???

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:10 pm

anonymity wrote:I didn't think so, but maybe we do.

Bloody right we do! Do some homework, or get some dual. That's pretty basic knowledge.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:12 pm

Of course you can fly (private) single-engine, single
pilot IFR in Canada. What else would there be a
Group Three Instrument Rating for?!

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:55 pm

Hedley wrote:Of course you can fly (private) single-engine, single
pilot IFR in Canada. What else would there be a
Group Three Instrument Rating for?!

This is what is really starting to piss me off. These guys will argue the price of eggs, without knowing eggs come from chickens! And, we're supposed to take their opinions seriously?

Red Line · Post by **Red Line** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:24 pm

this thread just took a very interesting turn...

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:55 pm

It certainly has. 182 posts. Maybe three of us have ever had to bring an airplane home on the remaining engine. And, it's the three of us who would not venture IFR in a single....because we were really glad to have that other engine! Yet, we have all these bone headed expert opinions on how to fly a single engine aircraft IFR. These closet aces telling us how it can be done in 100 feet and half a mile. Makes me puke. If these children ever had their only engine pack it in this way, they'd be giving birth to brown bricks! And now, we have some knob suggesting we use piston singles with ballistic chutes?
To quote Cat Driver.....the dumbing down of aviation.
Flame away.....I've been there.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:03 pm

Red Line wrote:this thread just took a very interesting turn...

Your Welcome

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:15 pm

I love the Bi-annual multi VS single argument we have.

Anyway, I had the same thought DOC put to writing. I’m willing to bet anyone on here that is arguing in favor of the new PC12 over an old multi as being just as safe, has never lost an engine before.
Talk to me about how great the 12 is after suffering some engine issues north of Big trout, and if your still comfy flying in the North or the mountains after that point.
I’ll bet you’ll have a change of heart.

As for single engine piston IFR in commercial ops

now thats just a funny notion.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:14 pm

anonymity wrote:I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.

Private single-piston-engine IFR is permitted. The turbine restriction applies solely to commercial operations with passengers.

Bushav8er · Post by **Bushav8er** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:34 pm

Why the fight with the PC12?
How come no ones mentioned the Caravan? Gotta be that the often single pilot, low level, cloud running, ice bucket is an even worse choice.

Enough already.

anonymity · Post by **anonymity** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:07 pm

We edit personal attacks on this site. Against anybody...even me. Read the rules.

ipilot54 · Post by **ipilot54** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:52 pm

Bushav8er wrote:Why the fight with the PC12?
How come no ones mentioned the Caravan? Gotta be that the often single pilot, low level, cloud running, ice bucket is an even worse choice.

Enough already.
Why the fight with the PC12?
How come no ones mentioned the Caravan? Gotta be that the often single pilot, low level, cloud running, ice bucket is an even worse choice.

Enough already.

Well… for the most part, the 208 is operated on cargo. Yes, not always, but that is the norm. Now we have PC-12s with the "paying pax" on board on sked flights. They do not have the knowledge that you (as a commercial pilot) do. That is, to make an informed decision (risk management) as to their personal risk to take a particular flight. I think this has already been said on this thread though.

It is not “if”, it is a matter of “when”. I just hope it is not too bad.

anonymity · Post by **anonymity** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:02 pm

we have some knob suggesting we use piston singles with ballistic chutes?

anonymity wrote:I would support the ballistic chute Single enigine IFR, but not the moving map without the chute. As detailed as the maps are they will never show you vehicles on say a road you're aiming for, and if you pop out a 300' and discover is rush hour you don't have time to react and choose another suitable landing area.
I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.

Sure

we do. If you want to go IFR in your 150, you go girlfriend! Totally legal!

How can anyone without the very basic knowledge of whether or not we can operate, say a 182 IFR, privately in Canada, have an intelligent, informed opinion on the use of ballistic chutes for single engine piston IFR in commercial operations????
Single engine, piston, IFR commercial ops with a ballistic chute......that's just RETARDED???

"Some knob, retarded", seems like a personal attack to me. I didn't like the insinuation that because I didn't know we could fly single IFR in Canada that somehow makes my comments on this forum, uninformed, and unitelligent on whether or not ballistic chutes were safer than not.
If they weren't safer they wouldn't exist, and if you read my previous post on this subjet, I completely and fully object to single engine IFR in any catagory of aircraft.
Someone posed a question on whether anyone would support such an idea.The fact that you don't see ballistic chutes as a safer alternative makes me question your intelligence. They are working on whether or not they would be feasible for use in larger aircraft, so people smarter than you or I see the practicallity of such. Last I heard the weight of these was the biggest setback. So you edit everything I wrote but I'm still able to quote you referring to the knob suggesting ballistic chutes, frankly this is not the first time you've degraded someone on here and I suggest you edit your own personal attacks and set an example...

bbb · Post by **bbb** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:36 pm

before everyone gets their panties in a knot about "personal attacks", someone several pages back talked about blasting off in single-engine ifr (in a pilatupus, i believe) in "100 and 1/2". last time I checked, you need an ops spec commercially to depart in weather below the lowest usable approach minimums at the departure point. the ops spec has requirements including a departure alternate in case of engine failure during takeoff among other things. do any of the pc12 experts here know how that applies to an aircraft like theirs? is such a departure legal, given that the aircraft is instantly a glider with NO HOPE of reaching an alternate, and VERY SLIM chance of returning to the departure airport?

as another one who's had to rely on the 2nd "unreliable old piston engine" to get me and the pax home, i will not fly ifr single engine. period. period. no ifs, and , buts. period. its bad enough to have 1/2 of your power quit. will not be in the situation with passengers of the only engine quiting.

and like ipilot said, most pax don't have the knowledge that pilots do (should have). but then again, heard a lot of stuff that makes me doubt a lot of pilots have that knowledge either.

wasn't even gonna say anything in this thread, its too much.... but perhaps if some people seem to see the experienced guys we read on here saying their valid points against this, they may think twice. yes, imprtant stuff to dealing with piston twins, but at least there's a second powerplant.

Bushav8er · Post by **Bushav8er** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:01 pm

Well… for the most part, the 208 is operated on cargo. Yes, not always, but that is the norm. Now we have PC-12s with the "paying pax" on board on sked flights. They do not have the knowledge that you (as a commercial pilot) do. That is, to make an informed decision (risk management) as to their personal risk to take a particular flight. I think this has already been said on this thread though.

It is not “if”, it is a matter of “when”. I just hope it is not too bad.

Agreed but the discussion seems to be broken down to the more basic - is single engine IFR safe which is why my point is raising the 208. That said, even cargo has rules under the CTA where a customer has a certain expected level of service. 'Unsafe' IFR, where Goods do not get through, would seem to qualify.

Invertago · Post by **Invertago** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:06 pm

You can do single engine piston IFR in a commercial operation if it is flight training, because when we train all the rules change... landing lights at night... duty days, you name it.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:25 pm

anonymity wrote:
we have some knob suggesting we use piston singles with ballistic chutes?

anonymity wrote:I would support the ballistic chute Single enigine IFR, but not the moving map without the chute. As detailed as the maps are they will never show you vehicles on say a road you're aiming for, and if you pop out a 300' and discover is rush hour you don't have time to react and choose another suitable landing area.
I think they're nuts in the US, because they do in fact allow private flight, single piston engine IFR.
Sure
we do. If you want to go IFR in your 150, you go girlfriend! Totally legal!

How can anyone without the very basic knowledge of whether or not we can operate, say a 182 IFR, privately in Canada, have an intelligent, informed opinion on the use of ballistic chutes for single engine piston IFR in commercial operations????
Single engine, piston, IFR commercial ops with a ballistic chute......that's just RETARDED???
"Some knob, retarded", seems like a personal attack to me. I didn't like the insinuation that because I didn't know we could fly single IFR in Canada that somehow makes my comments on this forum, uninformed, and unitelligent on whether or not ballistic chutes were safer than not.
If they weren't safer they wouldn't exist, and if you read my previous post on this subjet, I completely and fully object to single engine IFR in any catagory of aircraft.
Someone posed a question on whether anyone would support such an idea.The fact that you don't see ballistic chutes as a safer alternative makes me question your intelligence. They are working on whether or not they would be feasible for use in larger aircraft, so people smarter than you or I see the practicallity of such. Last I heard the weight of these was the biggest setback. So you edit everything I wrote but I'm still able to quote you referring to the knob suggesting ballistic chutes, frankly this is not the first time you've degraded someone on here and I suggest you edit your own personal attacks and set an example...

You have a problem with me? I can deal with that. Send me a PM. Or you can continue to bitch and whine on a public forum, like a ten year old. It's your choice.

stef · Post by **stef** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:52 pm

bbb wrote: do any of the pc12 experts here know how that applies to an aircraft like theirs? is such a departure legal, .

Yes

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... tm#723a_30

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:03 pm

FWIW zero/zero takeoffs are perfectly legal in the
USA under part 91, and I have done so privately,
single pilot, in a single engine aircraft.

Heck, in the USA, you used to be able to get
Cat II ILS certification, hand-bombing a Category
A aircraft (eg 172).

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:23 pm

Buddy Holly died in a single engine airplane flown under part 91 at night

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:31 pm

2R wrote:Buddy Holly died in a single engine airplane flown under part 91 at night

You're RIGHT! A single engine airplane flown IFR at night killed Buddy Holly! What more do you people need to convince you? Let's bring an end to Single engine IFR commercial operations! I'm in.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 pm

2R wrote:Buddy Holly died in a single engine airplane flown under part 91 at night

Several members of Lynyrd Skynyrd died in a multi-piston crash! During the day VMC even!

Of course running out of fuel is bad whether it is single or multi engine. Good thing that doesn't happen anymore.

PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down

Re: PC-12 Engine Shut Down