What is wrong with aviation?

[Cat Driver]

Rather than side track other threads I will start a new one.

What is wrong with the industry when we have so called aviation experts claiming your survival rate is as good after an engine failure in a single engine airplane in IMC as it would be in a twin?

They claim your survival chance will be no better in a twin with an engine failure in IMC because the pilot/'s lose control and crash more violently in twins?

When did aviation get that dumb ed down?

[Driving Rain]

Geez! I had an engine failure in 215 3 months ago, I guess I'm lucky to be alive. Of course I'm no "aviation expert". That must explain my extraordinary luck in surviving.

Cat could you post a link to this so called aviation expert?
Cheers
DR

[Beefitarian]

It's called natural selection Cat. Most of us are not supposed to fly into our 70s. Stop interfering.

[Cat Driver]

Here you go Driving Rain.

As a consumer, I don't like SEIFR. As an experienced aviation professional, I know that statistically I'm about as safe on a PC-12 as I am on a light twin when it comes to engine failures.

An accident several years ago comes to mind. A commercial flight using a Queenair crashed inverted into a single story office building after one engine failed. The flight crew mishandled maneuvering with a single engine and lost control. You could say that scenario is as inevitable as a PC-12 crashing after an engine failure except that the PC-12 has a much higher probability of going in straight, level and in control.

Yes, I don't like launching IFR into the wilderness in the winter on PC-12. Now ask me if I like getting on a Navajo any better in similar circumstances.

[Driving Rain]

Wow based on one accident ... several years ago. Get that boy a job at Stats Canada!

[Cat Driver]

This is why Avcanada is such a valuable asset to aviation Driving Rain, it is a place where the young uns and the older ones can come to learn.

You and I have got it all wrong for some weird reason.

The lesson to be learned from reading these aviation " professionals " is before you get into a twin engine airplane you have to understand clearly that if you lose one of those engines you can expect to lose control and crash at high energy into the ground and die......but if you are getting into a PC12 or some other single engine airplane and the engine quits you can crash in control wings level and walk away from it and the company will just get you another airplane and everything is good..

[robertsailor1]

I understand what your getting at but not all twins and singles are equal during engine failures, on average twins should be much safer but not always. Loosing an engine on takeoff with a grossed out twin Commanche in Calgary on a summer day and short strip would not be my idea of fun. On the other hand if I lost an engine in a Piper Cub I know I could put that little bugger down on a postage stamp so there are two examples of the extremes of singles and twins. Having said that on average twins are safer in engine outs.

[Beefitarian]

In my opinion any twin that can't fly* on one engine should be cut up for scrap.

*Climb at gross.

[trampbike]

Here you go Driving Rain.

As a consumer, I don't like SEIFR. As an experienced aviation professional, I know that statistically I'm about as safe on a PC-12 as I am on a light twin when it comes to engine failures.

An accident several years ago comes to mind. A commercial flight using a Queenair crashed inverted into a single story office building after one engine failed. The flight crew mishandled maneuvering with a single engine and lost control. You could say that scenario is as inevitable as a PC-12 crashing after an engine failure except that the PC-12 has a much higher probability of going in straight, level and in control.

Yes, I don't like launching IFR into the wilderness in the winter on PC-12. Now ask me if I like getting on a Navajo any better in similar circumstances.

Nowhere did this guy said he is as safe once the engine fail on a PC-12 as he would be on a light twin.
He said he felt about as safe on a PC-12 as on a light twin when speaking about the risks presentend by possibility of an engine failure.

I'm pretty sure nobody here is disputing the fact that it is safer, once at a safe airspeed/altitude, to have an engine fail on a powerfull twin (one that does not have to lose altitude with one engine feathered) than to have the engine fail on a PC-12.
What they are saying is that OVERALL, it might be safer (or just as safe/un-safe) to fly a PC-12 than to fly a good old light-twin. When you have 2 engines, you almost double your chances to have an engine fail on you, and as robertsailor1 pointed out, in some situations, having one out of two engines to fail is almost just as bad as having your only one to fail.

You also have to take into consideration the probability of an engine failing. Of course everybody here would rather be flying an aircraft with 2 PW PT6 instead of one, but it is possible thant one PT6 is actually safer than 2 old underpowered piston engines. We would need statistical evidence to come to any valid conclusion about this. No amount of flying experience or "common sense" can be a proof of what is safer and to what degree.

[ea306]

I would take the Navajo with an engine failure IMC flying over the wilderness over a PC-12 with an engine failure anytime. Even if I would have to go through ten engine failures on a Navajo as opposed to one in a PC-12.

Stating the obvious: training is key....as well as a mindful assessment prior to pushing the throttles up that you will likely be in a phase of flight once airbourne where pulling the throttle back on the good engine might just be the best option if the other one has failed.

This is not a statistically based opinion .... Just common sense.

[BTyyj]

Nowhere did this guy said he is as safe once the engine fail on a PC-12 as he would be on a light twin.

I would look again:

Now ask me if I like getting on a Navajo any better in similar circumstances.

[ea306]

I check that...

Just saying.

[trampbike]

Yeah I read that. What are the engines on the Navajo he is talking about? If it's so underpowered (and way less reliable than a PT6) that he has to descent fast when one fail, he might be right to feel just as un-safe as on a PC-12.

In no way do I mean that I feel SE IFR is a good idea. I think it is a bit crazy in fact, but I feel the same way about some crappy multi-engine aircrafts that operate IFR too.
I just want to say that 2 engines is not always a sure way to be safe. Engine out performance and engine reliability are crucial too.

[mcrit]

Here's the thing, most light twins, (Geronimo, Seminole, etc) are really just singles......with half the engine on each wing.

[jpilot77]

Whats with compairing a multi million dollar aircraft with Comanches, Seminoles etc... or even Navajos.
Compare a PC-12 with its real competitor the King Air.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Everyone always takes this debate to compare a pc12 to a navajo or whatever piston twin you choose, and compares them after the engine failure. I think a better comparison is comparing them with engines running, what the odds of completing the flight without any engine failures is. Obviously the pc-12 has a low enough chance of failure that it is deemed acceptable. Sure, once it fails you are going down, but that is statistically less likely to happen.

Out of curiosity, how many twins have lost one engine and been unable to maintain altitude on the overworked/underpowered second one. Be that due to pilot mishandling or outright inability to fly...how often does the second engine only serve to increase your glide?

[Cat Driver]

Over the last fifty nine years that I have been flying I have had around ten engines fail, some of them in very harsh environments such as the high arctic.

Most of the failures / shutdowns were in piston engine twins from the Piper Apache to the DC3.

Two of them were PT6's in the Twin Otter and only one was a single engine airplane.

In every case I was able to fly to an airport and land with zero damage to either me or the airplanes.

I have had engines fail in all phases of flight from just after lift off to cruising along at high altitudes.

When flight planning an airplane that will not maintain altitude on one engine I always factor in drift down when making the decision to fly the trip.

Oh, by the way I have some risk management limits that to some may seem a bit to conservative......but here I am after all those years killing time here rather than killed because I made the wrong decision.

[Cat Driver]

Be that due to pilot mishandling or outright inability to fly...

That has nothing to do with the airplane, it is a pilot failure......the question should be who would allow someone that is not qualified to fly any airplane in the first place.

[flyinthebug]

Some people suggest that a PA31-350 @ gross cant maintain alt on one engine. This is true, but with an addendum. It happened to our CP in real life. Our 350 had a VG kit and MTOW was 7468. 8 Fishermen on board and the crew handled it professionally and very well. They lost the left fan at 8000 ASL and lost 3000 ft over 80 miles. In other words, far better than a glider would do. They made YVC and could have went alot further. Even a "Ho" is better than a PC12 IMHO. The extra engine will at least keep you in the sky while you figure out where to land. This "expert" is referring to the lose of control accidents that occured recently...not as a general statement. Hence his apprehension to get on a twin.


When people refer to single engine, they think PC12, C208. I think of DHC 2/3 etc which when you lose one of them, you`ll be wishing you had another radial hangin on the airframe! You are always using the PC12 as the single engine example....what about all the piston singles? Would you take one over two? The PT6 fails too. ALOT less often than a radial piston or piston period...but they do still fail. Its two engines over one in almost any instance (for me anyways).

Fly safe all.

[flyinthebug]

Whats with compairing a multi million dollar aircraft with Comanches, Seminoles etc... or even Navajos.
Compare a PC-12 with its real competitor the King Air.

A Big +1

And yes a King Air A100 can maintain on one engine at gross with the upgrade from -28 to -34

[Cat Driver]

Many things affect overall safety in flight.

For instance during the last thirty or so years of my career I never flew single pilot IFR, I always like to have at least two of everything...including pilots.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Cat,

Maybe all is not lost... I just read the editorial page of a well respected airline training magazine suggest that all airplanes over 12,500 should be equipped with an AOA indicator... This of course in reply to the Air France disaster.

As for the single Vs. Twin debate... Well, what's there to debate? Its like having a woman sharing your bed... I'd always rather have two... three... Ah shuwks, I'll take four please!

[Beefitarian]

Oh, by the way I have some risk management limits that to some may seem a bit to conservative......but here I am after all those years killing time here rather than killed because I made the wrong decision.

See, this here is one of the things that makes me think you're a good guy I could hang out with even if you go all paranoid and crabby sometimes. ~high five~

Obviously the pc-12 has a low enough chance of failure that it is deemed acceptable.

To whom? Forget that noise.

[jpilot77]

Its like having a woman sharing your bed... I'd always rather have two... three... Ah shuwks, I'll take four please!

[CID]

Cat Driver, my comments were based on statistics, also known as facts. They were never meant to be personal or directed towards anyone in particular. Yes, you are an aviation god who can dead-stick a Beaver on floats on glassy water and in the middle of the lake and walk to the dock without getting wet, but I digress.

People often enter the discussion of commercial SEIFR by comparing PC-12s and Caravans with Kingairs without considering there are many other light twins that are eligible for commercial IFR. And many that aren't. To be eligible for commercial IFR a twin has to be capable of maintaining MOCA after you lose an engine. That disqualifies quite a few twins and prevents loading up the 'ho to max gross in many cases. One has to ask then, if a PC-12 should be prohibited from operating commercial IFR because of engine reliability and safety following an engine failure, why should a Navajo be allowed? It's just a question, and I stated my opinion.

So have you personally bent any twins after an engine failure? According to the mini-resume you posted, apparently not. Are light twins flying IFR statistically more dangerous after an engine failure than singles? Sorry, it's true.

What is wrong with aviation? Plenty, but I don't think any of my comments on this topic add to the problems. You're just using this as another soap box to expound on your superior piloting skills while trying to belittle someone. Nice try.