Fedex Caravan down in Texas
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Fedex Caravan down in Texas
The pilot is OK, escaped with just a broken leg. Sounds like he did a hell of a job.
Apparently happened early Wednesday AM, saw some pics on the news tonight. Here is a link to an article, not alot of info, and typically not very accurate info.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... House.html
Apparently happened early Wednesday AM, saw some pics on the news tonight. Here is a link to an article, not alot of info, and typically not very accurate info.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... House.html
fedex caravan down in texas
And no one had better start the stuff about this Van like they did the last Van. They are rather safe aircraft but like everything else if nothing else has happened to anything else they get spotlighted just like every other type of accident ie car rail bus you guys know what im talking about
ULTOR UN UMBRIS
I'm afraid I can't respect your wishes. This is a good example of the risk of using a "Van" for SEIFR ops. It's not a question of "if" it's a question of "when".And no one had better start the stuff about this Van like they did the last Van.
It's a good thing the airplane wasn't full of passengers.
CID wrote:When you book a flight on a PC-12 operator that is about to launch into the arctic darkness in the middle of winter, the person who books you doesn't go out of their way to tell you that you are in effect participating in an experiment to see if commercial SEIFR is as safe as twin ops.Cause you know, planes don't lose engine power when they're VFR..
So you won't see me buying a ticket to fly on a Van or a PC-12 in Canada. I don't want to be part of that experiment.
Richard Collins (from Flying) regularly rails against this logic (twins safer than singles) and seems to have the stats to back it up, although he himself admits that the base stats themselves are not overly precise.
But given the frequency with which *piston* twins seem to pile in after a failure, I'd take a 208 or PC12 over a piston twin any day. Reliability is what I am considering, which is why I recommended my parents charter a PC-12 instead of a 414 in Africa. I'd tend to trust the reliability of the PT6 over the pilot of a 414 trying to stay upright after a failure.
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
But you will in other countries? Why do you hate Canada so much?CID wrote:
So you won't see me buying a ticket to fly on a Van or a PC-12 in Canada. I don't want to be part of that experiment.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
We recently had an engine failure on one of my navajos it was a 600hr engine. the pilot flying was over trees with no suitable landing sites for about 40 miles. Thank to christ that he was in a twin (my client has made mention of going to 206's) if he had been in a single I'm sure he would have been killed or at least hurt badly. As much as some people on this board think of me as an asshole operator I couldn't live with myself if someone died making me a buck. Anyway I took my concerns to my customer and I think I've conviced them to stick to twins. Singles are fine in their place. Over southern saskatchewan no worries there is a landing strip every mile. We have to remember that regardless of the plane you are flying you have to respect it's limitations. Don't fly a caravan into known ice and always have a way out. This shit's been drilled into us since we started flying yet shit still happens. We just have to try and minimize the risk.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
So if this is your opinion, I assume that you also agree that operators of old piston-twins like Navajo's, C-400's, Senecas, etc., should also inform their passengers "that the airplane they are paying hard earned cash to board enjoys a lower level of safety than similar technology twins".CID wrote:Unfortunatly, in my opinion, they failed to inform the public that the airplane they are paying hard earned cash to board enjoys a lower level of safety than similar technology twins.
Oh yeah, and if you actually do some research you will find that Caravans and PC-12's DO have a higher level of safety than ALL piston twins!
G
"Slow and steady wins the race"
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
Your Tree idea still has a good chance of hurting someone, in addition the plane is gonna be wrecked. With a twin you just go to a runway and land everyone is safe and after a quick engine change your back up and running. everyone is happy. the pilot's safe and making money, the customer is safe and making money. and last I don't have to make some horrible phone calls and I'm making money.hz2p wrote:Dust Devil makes a very obvious (and important) point: is a forced
landing survivable in the aircraft over the intended route?
Personally, a forced landing in the trees is no big deal - just remember
to hit the TOPS of the trees, which are skinny and bend easily, as
opposed to the BOTTOMS of the trees, which are thick and don't
bend much.
Water is a good example of a non-survivable forced landing, esp in
a larger aircraft with a faster touchdown speed. For flight over water,
one could argue that two pilots and two turbine engines would be the
minimum configuration, and that more engines would be a really
good idea.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
so far, i've tried not to comment on these types of discussions (single vs twin) but as a caravan driver, i have to now.
i think it ultimately boils down to this: use the airplane most suited to the job. and hand in hand with that, use the airplane the way it was designed.
example: from Dust Devil. flying in an area without any good forced landing areas. personally, i would want to be in a twin. if i were flying around over water, twin. flying around up north, twin (i dont like the idea of freezing to death).
but
where i am now, its nice and warm over night, there are lots of suitable landing areas. (and by suitable i only mean an area where i feel a forced landing would be successful) right now, i have no qualms about bombing arond in the 'Van. on the ferry down here, we got into some ice. i got, first hand, a look at how bad the plane is in ice. however, we had a plan, and it worked.
so yeah, just use the plane best suited to the job, and we can quit arguing about this... geeze.
k
i think it ultimately boils down to this: use the airplane most suited to the job. and hand in hand with that, use the airplane the way it was designed.
example: from Dust Devil. flying in an area without any good forced landing areas. personally, i would want to be in a twin. if i were flying around over water, twin. flying around up north, twin (i dont like the idea of freezing to death).
but
where i am now, its nice and warm over night, there are lots of suitable landing areas. (and by suitable i only mean an area where i feel a forced landing would be successful) right now, i have no qualms about bombing arond in the 'Van. on the ferry down here, we got into some ice. i got, first hand, a look at how bad the plane is in ice. however, we had a plan, and it worked.
so yeah, just use the plane best suited to the job, and we can quit arguing about this... geeze.
k
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
True DatVSF wrote:so far, i've tried not to comment on these types of discussions (single vs twin) but as a caravan driver, i have to now.
i think it ultimately boils down to this: use the airplane most suited to the job. and hand in hand with that, use the airplane the way it was designed.
example: from Dust Devil. flying in an area without any good forced landing areas. personally, i would want to be in a twin. if i were flying around over water, twin. flying around up north, twin (i dont like the idea of freezing to death).
but
where i am now, its nice and warm over night, there are lots of suitable landing areas. (and by suitable i only mean an area where i feel a forced landing would be successful) right now, i have no qualms about bombing arond in the 'Van. on the ferry down here, we got into some ice. i got, first hand, a look at how bad the plane is in ice. however, we had a plan, and it worked.
so yeah, just use the plane best suited to the job, and we can quit arguing about this... geeze.
k
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
O.K. I was going to stay out of this however some comments need to be clarified.
Quote:
" Compare that to what happens in a crappy old piston twin after
takeoff. The pilot holds the same pitch attitude, the airspeed bleeds
off below Vmc, and rolls upside down and everybody dies. "
This is not a fair comment because a properly trained pilot flying the twin with regard to its performance limitations will not lose control, the worst that can happen is the airplane will crash under control. The odds are way in favour of flying to a safe landing in a twin with one failed.
Conversely a single engine airplane with an engine failure will always be forced to land, regardless of the terrain under it.
As to trees well there are trees and there are trees. Try hitting the tops of the trees here on the wetst coast and then falling about two hundred feet to the ground. Sure landing in the trees outside of Moosonee Ont. might be survivable but I still wouldn't want to find out.
Quote:
" Compare that to what happens in a crappy old piston twin after
takeoff. The pilot holds the same pitch attitude, the airspeed bleeds
off below Vmc, and rolls upside down and everybody dies. "
This is not a fair comment because a properly trained pilot flying the twin with regard to its performance limitations will not lose control, the worst that can happen is the airplane will crash under control. The odds are way in favour of flying to a safe landing in a twin with one failed.
Conversely a single engine airplane with an engine failure will always be forced to land, regardless of the terrain under it.
As to trees well there are trees and there are trees. Try hitting the tops of the trees here on the wetst coast and then falling about two hundred feet to the ground. Sure landing in the trees outside of Moosonee Ont. might be survivable but I still wouldn't want to find out.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
It's kind of hard to wade through all the BS like the usual noise from hz2p. (he really needs to read the posts before he comments) But I have an issue with the following statements:
The data that is available is based overwhelmingly on non-commercial ops. So it's not really valid in this discussion to compare GA private ops to commercial ops.
After all, it can be easily proven that commercial twin ops is much safer than private twin ops or even private single ops.
When you finish reading Richard Collins' column, fast-forward to the incident/accident report section. It's full of reports of very affluent Americans who kill themselves in airplanes that demand greater skill and training then they are willing to commit to. In other words, there are alot of pilots down there with more money than brains.
With proper training on single engine ops, you would see far fewer accident statistics but the reality is many private operators just don't know what to do when one fan quits.
Oh yeah, and if you actually do some research you will find that Caravans and PC-12's DO have a higher level of safety than ALL piston twins!
As I alluded to earlier, if you do research using the available raw data you will find that single engine aircraft including PC-12s and Caravans have excellent safety records compared to piston twins. But, they are not operated to a higher level of safety.Richard Collins (from Flying) regularly rails against this logic (twins safer than singles) and seems to have the stats to back it up, although he himself admits that the base stats themselves are not overly precise.
The data that is available is based overwhelmingly on non-commercial ops. So it's not really valid in this discussion to compare GA private ops to commercial ops.
After all, it can be easily proven that commercial twin ops is much safer than private twin ops or even private single ops.
When you finish reading Richard Collins' column, fast-forward to the incident/accident report section. It's full of reports of very affluent Americans who kill themselves in airplanes that demand greater skill and training then they are willing to commit to. In other words, there are alot of pilots down there with more money than brains.
With proper training on single engine ops, you would see far fewer accident statistics but the reality is many private operators just don't know what to do when one fan quits.
- Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
It happened once I guess that means it's safe. come on man!hz2p wrote:
I remember reading about an accident report, years ago, about
a guy in a single-engine Piper Comanche. A death trap, according
to CID. He passed out, because he had a crack in the exhaust.
Certain death, right? Nope, he woke up in a cornfield with a broken
wrist. The autopilot held the wings level until he ran out of gas,
then trimmed full nose up to try to maintain altitude which of
course minimized airspeed. The comanche descended, entered
ground effect, flared and landed with the pilot unconscious. He
woke up after the effect of the CO wore off.
I guess 2 pilots could stand on the wings and flap their arms that should increase the surviveability of the gauranteed crash.Frankly, the pilot is likely to cause more trouble for you than
the engine. I'd rather have two pilots and one engine, as
opposed to one pilot and two engines, like CID wants.
I gotta say your logic seems somewhat flawed dude.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
If you read what Collins writes, he states that PILOTS of twin engine aircraft do a particularly poor job of handling engine failures which result in their higher fatality rates. Well trained pilots, like those mentioned by Cat and Dust Devil, will handle an engine failure to a non-event conclusion. The idea of a survivable forced landing from IMC out here in the rocks is nonsense. You hit a granite wall at stall speed, and you will die!! SEIFR in mountainous regions is suicide. I don't care what the MTBF of the engine is. Unless it is ZERO, you are taking an unmanageable risk on. You may get a dispensation from TC, but you will NOT get a dispensation from God when (not if as shown on several occasions with the PT6, which is by all accounts a GREAT engine) it does quit.
Last edited by Airtids on Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
I'll let everybody read this for themselves and draw their own conclusions...I've proved to be not very good at it.
Its an article that was written in 2001 and published in "Aviation International"
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar
by Gordon Gilbert
In the aftermath of July’s well publicized engine-out ditching of a Pilatus PC-12 in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Russia, industry observers are asking how this and other recent accidents have affected the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops and if sales of these aircraft are suffering.
Although production-built single-turbine airplanes used for business flying typically do not have the same speed, load capability or systems redundancy as twin-turbine airplanes, they have amassed a comparable safety record, according to statistics through last year compiled by accident analyst firm Robert E. Breiling Associates of Boca Raton, Fla.
Breiling reports U.S. turboprop-singles have had 1.99 total accidents and 0.80 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hr compared with 2.37 and 0.83, respectively, for U.S.-registered turboprop twins. These figures cover the period from initial aircraft certification through last year. Last year the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops was even played up by Pilatus in its marketing of the PC-12.
While accident rate statistics seem to back up that claim, the actual number of single-engine turboprop accidents is increasing as the fleet gets larger. This year to date, the NTSB reports that there have been 10 accidents, five of them fatal, involving four production-certified single-engine turboprops: the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian, Socata TBM 700 and Pilatus PC-12.
Nine of the 10 accidents are still under investigation, seven of the accidents were in Cessna 208s (by far the most numerous of all turboprop singles, with close to 1,300 in operation), and engine failure has definitely been determined as a factor in four accidents, (April 26, July 6, July 8 and July 10) none causing critical injuries. The Safety Board determined the January 31 crash of the Cessna 208 on floats was caused when the airplane hit a swell during a water landing. All production turboprop singles are powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 series.
Engine Problems
A Caravan flying for FedEx made a forced landing April 26 after an engine failure. The pilot (not injured in the accident) said that during climbout the airplane’s engine “spooled down, slowly and smoothly, like a loss of torque or the propeller going to feather.” Later, an examination of data from the power analyzer recorder system revealed that during the most recent takeoff the engine exceeded its torque limit of 1,980 ft lb for 99 seconds. The peak torque value over that duration was 2,649 ft lb.
On July 6, a Caravan on a repositioning flight operated by Maxfly Aviation ditched into the Atlantic Ocean 20 mi east of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., following loss of engine power. According to the pilot (who was not hurt), the airplane was cruising at 6,500 ft when the engine lost power and came to a “screeching halt.” The propeller made a “chow, chow, chow” noise, turned three times, stopped and feathered.
In the July 8 PC-12 ditching, the pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise at 26,500 ft when he felt a vibration followed by a rapid increase in the engine’s turbine temperature indication (TTI). He reported that the TTI reached 1,144 deg C, at which point there was a compressor stall. He shut down the engine, feathered the propeller and entered a power-off emergency descent. After spending 15 hr in a life raft, the pilot and all three passengers were safely recovered some 60 mi from the Russian coast in the icy Sea of Okhotsk.
Two days later, on July 10, a Cessna 208 of Bolivian registration (CP-2395), was substantially damaged during a forced landing following a loss of engine power during climbout from the La Paz International Airport in Bolivia. The pilot, the copilot and 11 passengers were injured. The flight crew reported a loss of engine power approximately six minutes after takeoff.
No Effect on Sales
According to comments from three manufacturers, sales of new turbine singles remain strong and the issue of single vs twin rarely comes up in conversation between sellers for the OEM and buyers.
Tom Aniello is just completing his first six months as v-p of marketing for Pilatus Business Aircraft in Boulder, Colo. He told AIN, “I have spent a lot of time with our dealers and that is one of the questions I had for them: how much marketing effort should I put on the single versus twin issue? And I was surprised that their answer to me was that it’s really become a non-issue. Even after the [July 8] ditching incident I was surprised by how few questions I’ve received. People have come to accept and understand that turbines are more reliable than pistons.”
Aniello thinks it’s still not an issue despite the 10 accidents so far this year, but he wonders about next year. These accidents “will skew the statistics for next year, and I don’t know whether that’s going to become a big factor or not.” A bigger factor, in Aniello’s opinion, is not the number of engines, but the number of crew. “For single versus twin, statistics don’t show an appreciable gap. But statistics do lead you to realize that you’re better off adding another person up front than you are adding another engine.”
In the U.S., more than 70 percent of PC-12 sales are to owner-pilots for personal and business flying. As might be expected, just the opposite is true for the Caravan, where 70 percent of its users are small package commercial operators, according to director of Caravan sales for Cessna John Doman. “In our experience with the Caravan–which has more than 15 years of service under its belt, flying in all sorts of different conditions–it has established an enviable safety record. The PT6 is a legendary powerplant in terms of reliability. So our reaction from the marketplace is one of acceptance of the safety inherent in the turbine single.”
A lot of Caravan air-freight customers are moving up from piston twins such as Beech 18s, Queen Airs, Navajos and Cessna 402s. “Statistics and just common knowledge tell you that a single-turbine airplane is going to be a safer, more reliable piece of machinery than the piston twin,” Doman said.
Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.
There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.
For the last five years Cessna has been working with other airframe manufacturers as a member of the Single Engine Turbine Alliance (SETA) to get the JAA to change the requirements in Europe to allow single-turbine IFR commercial operations. Such operations are currently prohibited for both carrying cargo and fare-paying passengers. “We think that the way things are headed, we should see a change by perhaps the end of this year,” Doman said.
A spokesman for Piper Aircraft in Vero Beach, Fla., echoed the statements on the quality, excellence, reliability and safety perceived by prospective and new owners of single turboprop airplanes. Indeed, P&WC statistics show the time between unplanned removals for the PT6 family as occurring once in every 142,817.14 hr and the time between in-flight shutdowns to be one in every 250,000 hr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation International News is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., P.O. Box 277, Midland Park, NJ, 07432. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission from The Convention News Co., Inc., is strictly prohibited. The Convention News Co., Inc., also publishes NBAA Convention News, HAI Convention News, EBACE Convention News, Paris 2003, Dubai 2001, Asian Aerospace 2002, Farnborough 2002, AIN Reports and AIN News Alerts.

Its an article that was written in 2001 and published in "Aviation International"
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar
by Gordon Gilbert
In the aftermath of July’s well publicized engine-out ditching of a Pilatus PC-12 in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Russia, industry observers are asking how this and other recent accidents have affected the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops and if sales of these aircraft are suffering.
Although production-built single-turbine airplanes used for business flying typically do not have the same speed, load capability or systems redundancy as twin-turbine airplanes, they have amassed a comparable safety record, according to statistics through last year compiled by accident analyst firm Robert E. Breiling Associates of Boca Raton, Fla.
Breiling reports U.S. turboprop-singles have had 1.99 total accidents and 0.80 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hr compared with 2.37 and 0.83, respectively, for U.S.-registered turboprop twins. These figures cover the period from initial aircraft certification through last year. Last year the statistical reliability of single-engine turboprops was even played up by Pilatus in its marketing of the PC-12.
While accident rate statistics seem to back up that claim, the actual number of single-engine turboprop accidents is increasing as the fleet gets larger. This year to date, the NTSB reports that there have been 10 accidents, five of them fatal, involving four production-certified single-engine turboprops: the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper PA-46-500TP Meridian, Socata TBM 700 and Pilatus PC-12.
Nine of the 10 accidents are still under investigation, seven of the accidents were in Cessna 208s (by far the most numerous of all turboprop singles, with close to 1,300 in operation), and engine failure has definitely been determined as a factor in four accidents, (April 26, July 6, July 8 and July 10) none causing critical injuries. The Safety Board determined the January 31 crash of the Cessna 208 on floats was caused when the airplane hit a swell during a water landing. All production turboprop singles are powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 series.
Engine Problems
A Caravan flying for FedEx made a forced landing April 26 after an engine failure. The pilot (not injured in the accident) said that during climbout the airplane’s engine “spooled down, slowly and smoothly, like a loss of torque or the propeller going to feather.” Later, an examination of data from the power analyzer recorder system revealed that during the most recent takeoff the engine exceeded its torque limit of 1,980 ft lb for 99 seconds. The peak torque value over that duration was 2,649 ft lb.
On July 6, a Caravan on a repositioning flight operated by Maxfly Aviation ditched into the Atlantic Ocean 20 mi east of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., following loss of engine power. According to the pilot (who was not hurt), the airplane was cruising at 6,500 ft when the engine lost power and came to a “screeching halt.” The propeller made a “chow, chow, chow” noise, turned three times, stopped and feathered.
In the July 8 PC-12 ditching, the pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise at 26,500 ft when he felt a vibration followed by a rapid increase in the engine’s turbine temperature indication (TTI). He reported that the TTI reached 1,144 deg C, at which point there was a compressor stall. He shut down the engine, feathered the propeller and entered a power-off emergency descent. After spending 15 hr in a life raft, the pilot and all three passengers were safely recovered some 60 mi from the Russian coast in the icy Sea of Okhotsk.
Two days later, on July 10, a Cessna 208 of Bolivian registration (CP-2395), was substantially damaged during a forced landing following a loss of engine power during climbout from the La Paz International Airport in Bolivia. The pilot, the copilot and 11 passengers were injured. The flight crew reported a loss of engine power approximately six minutes after takeoff.
No Effect on Sales
According to comments from three manufacturers, sales of new turbine singles remain strong and the issue of single vs twin rarely comes up in conversation between sellers for the OEM and buyers.
Tom Aniello is just completing his first six months as v-p of marketing for Pilatus Business Aircraft in Boulder, Colo. He told AIN, “I have spent a lot of time with our dealers and that is one of the questions I had for them: how much marketing effort should I put on the single versus twin issue? And I was surprised that their answer to me was that it’s really become a non-issue. Even after the [July 8] ditching incident I was surprised by how few questions I’ve received. People have come to accept and understand that turbines are more reliable than pistons.”
Aniello thinks it’s still not an issue despite the 10 accidents so far this year, but he wonders about next year. These accidents “will skew the statistics for next year, and I don’t know whether that’s going to become a big factor or not.” A bigger factor, in Aniello’s opinion, is not the number of engines, but the number of crew. “For single versus twin, statistics don’t show an appreciable gap. But statistics do lead you to realize that you’re better off adding another person up front than you are adding another engine.”
In the U.S., more than 70 percent of PC-12 sales are to owner-pilots for personal and business flying. As might be expected, just the opposite is true for the Caravan, where 70 percent of its users are small package commercial operators, according to director of Caravan sales for Cessna John Doman. “In our experience with the Caravan–which has more than 15 years of service under its belt, flying in all sorts of different conditions–it has established an enviable safety record. The PT6 is a legendary powerplant in terms of reliability. So our reaction from the marketplace is one of acceptance of the safety inherent in the turbine single.”
A lot of Caravan air-freight customers are moving up from piston twins such as Beech 18s, Queen Airs, Navajos and Cessna 402s. “Statistics and just common knowledge tell you that a single-turbine airplane is going to be a safer, more reliable piece of machinery than the piston twin,” Doman said.
Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.
There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.
For the last five years Cessna has been working with other airframe manufacturers as a member of the Single Engine Turbine Alliance (SETA) to get the JAA to change the requirements in Europe to allow single-turbine IFR commercial operations. Such operations are currently prohibited for both carrying cargo and fare-paying passengers. “We think that the way things are headed, we should see a change by perhaps the end of this year,” Doman said.
A spokesman for Piper Aircraft in Vero Beach, Fla., echoed the statements on the quality, excellence, reliability and safety perceived by prospective and new owners of single turboprop airplanes. Indeed, P&WC statistics show the time between unplanned removals for the PT6 family as occurring once in every 142,817.14 hr and the time between in-flight shutdowns to be one in every 250,000 hr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation International News is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., P.O. Box 277, Midland Park, NJ, 07432. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission from The Convention News Co., Inc., is strictly prohibited. The Convention News Co., Inc., also publishes NBAA Convention News, HAI Convention News, EBACE Convention News, Paris 2003, Dubai 2001, Asian Aerospace 2002, Farnborough 2002, AIN Reports and AIN News Alerts.
Last edited by Hot Fuel on Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:23 am
- Location: Unknown..
I was not going to comment on this either.. But after some grossly inaccurate comments have been made i must put in my 2 cents worth.
Cat and Airtids pretty summed it up before i had a chance to..
A marvellously safe forced landing technique in a (certified) single,
which Transport rather predictably strongly dislikes, is to slowly trim
all the way nose up, keep the wings level, do up the shoulder harness,
and wait.
Hz2p... That is the most rediculous inexperienced comment i have ever seen a pilot make. I hope you are not a professional pilot making comments like that. Please help those that will ever fly with pilots with this type of attitude.
And also please explain to me, how when you are flying between point A to point B, SEIFR, and your engine quits ( oh yeah, single engine turbines don't quit do they.. or so they tell us) (What was the initial topic of this thread??).. Anyways, between point A and B, and things go quiet, please explain to me how you will trim your single engine caravan or pc12 and just coast along and land when there is nothing but 8500 ft. mountains under neath you. Why on earth they allow SEIFR over mountainous terrain is beyond me. It was disallowed at first, and the lobbying approved it. I agree with Airtids, its suicide. If i want to die i'll go hang myself. If someone, anyone, can explain to me how i will land the caravan safely over mountainous terrain, in IFR conditions, with an egnine failure OR have to DESCEND DUE TO ICE, please explain..
Until then, i stand by my position to fly the caravan VFR ONLY....
Cat and Airtids pretty summed it up before i had a chance to..
A marvellously safe forced landing technique in a (certified) single,
which Transport rather predictably strongly dislikes, is to slowly trim
all the way nose up, keep the wings level, do up the shoulder harness,
and wait.
Hz2p... That is the most rediculous inexperienced comment i have ever seen a pilot make. I hope you are not a professional pilot making comments like that. Please help those that will ever fly with pilots with this type of attitude.
And also please explain to me, how when you are flying between point A to point B, SEIFR, and your engine quits ( oh yeah, single engine turbines don't quit do they.. or so they tell us) (What was the initial topic of this thread??).. Anyways, between point A and B, and things go quiet, please explain to me how you will trim your single engine caravan or pc12 and just coast along and land when there is nothing but 8500 ft. mountains under neath you. Why on earth they allow SEIFR over mountainous terrain is beyond me. It was disallowed at first, and the lobbying approved it. I agree with Airtids, its suicide. If i want to die i'll go hang myself. If someone, anyone, can explain to me how i will land the caravan safely over mountainous terrain, in IFR conditions, with an egnine failure OR have to DESCEND DUE TO ICE, please explain..
Until then, i stand by my position to fly the caravan VFR ONLY....
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." --Henry Ford