Pilatus PC-12 crash, Netherlands

[Avman]

A Pilatus PC-12 crashed near Weert, in The Netherlands, not long after departure from Budel Airpark yesterday morning. Sadly, both persons on board died in the accident. No emergency was declared to ATC. Local press questioning the safety aspect of the PC-12 with regard to it's airliner-like complexity, but being flown by private pilots.

Perhaps some PC-12 pilots could comment.

[IO540]

Local press questioning the safety aspect of the PC-12 with regard to it's airliner-like complexity, but being flown by private pilots.

Uninformed nonsense, typical of the press.

[Blue Albatross]

WX here was decidedly IFR as I had a VFR flight planned myself yesterday which I had to scrub due to the poor viz and heavy winds. The winds were quite strong yesterday also.

Depending on how much time they had on type, either in IFR conditions or with dealing with strong cross-winds, my guess is that the poor weather here yesterday could have played a part.

But we shall have to wait and see what the investigators findings are.

[IO540]

I think a PC12 is capable of flying in IFR conditions.

It is extremely unlikely to be flown on a plain PPL - the utility value would be close to nil. The minimum likely pilot profile is a CPL/IR with loads of hours.

[Avman]

I too personally doubt that the pilot, a company CEO whose a/c it was, only held a PPL. He may well have been an experienced CPL/IR. The a/c was 4 months old.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, IR is a good measuring stick for pilot skill in that type of aircraft, in poor wx. I disagree, however, that the PPL vs CPL is as good a tool for measuring pilot skill. Generally, perhaps, but I know a lot of very experienced and well disciplined PPL's with whom I would much rather fly in tough conditions, than many less experienced CPL's I have known. Yes, the CPL has demonstrated a greater skill set upon examination (how to fly), but may not have yet accumulated that wealth of experience to instinctively know when and where to fly...

I flew yesterday in the company of a highly experienced, very well disciplined PPL, in his more than 1M$ privately owned aircraft, and I very much doubt that many newer CPL's could teach me what he did.

If we must judge people at all, let's do it based upon the demonstrated skill and judgement they exhibit, not the letters after their name...

Pilot DAR

[ILblog]

First of all PC12, especially new generation models, ale so easy to fly. It is easy to takoff, easy to fly, easy to land aircraft. EFIS is very intuitive, much more better that G1000, or Avidyne Entegra.

I am PPL/IR pilot flying my own PC12. Before I started to fly my own plane, I used services of charter companies a was flown as a customer in Piper Meridien. Since we were flying as a fractional ownership I could act as a PIC with safety pilot on right side. I wish you witness how many times, these "safety" pilots almost killed me. Even the fact, that some of them were not able to simple SHUT UP, when we were established, was distracting. So I am flyng alone, with my own personal WX minima, fully concentrated on my task.

And if we talk CPL vs PPL. CPL pilots fly usually with clients or on a delivery flights. I fly my PC12 also for fun. Just flying into countryide and doing touch and goes on small airfields.

[CessnaCJM]

Whilst the causes of this have yet to be established, there is an interesting article in Flyer this month from Brian Lecomber in which he also talks about single engine IFR operation.

I probably wont be popular in this forum saying this but I do worry about single engine IFR operation - it doesnt matter in my book whether you have an expensive turbine or piston they do go wrong and normally at the most inappropriate times (I have had failures with both) and in my view some the weather in europe just isnt good enough for long term safe single engine operation particularly with aircraft that can take a considerable number of PAX like the PC-12 (not in this case but in Montana a PC-12 crash killed 14 - half children).

I know that I am also going to upset the Cirrus, Meridian etc etc guys but I personally do have serious concerns over this even if it may be unfashionable to mention it.

My sympathies to the families

[Sir Niall Dementia]

ILBlog;

The simple Shut Up! you want goes against the training of almost every commercial pilot I know. The "sterile cockpit" concept is to stop people talking about the football etc when they should be concentrating on the job in hand. The non-flying pilot should be calling out heights/distances/deviations etc.

As for the PC12 I have about 1500 hrs in them. You are right about the cockpit, it is superb to use, but it is very hard work when it goes wrong, or is set up incorrectly. One instructor I know says that in the event of a major avionics failure the situation is beyond the capabilities of most PPL holders (this guy trains them)

The investigation will eventually discover what has gone wrong in this case, doubtless we will all learn from it.

[Pace]

CessnaCJM

I often wonder what the PC12 is trying to achieve. It is a Multi $million aircraft to purchase yet only has the one engine? When you look at the depreciation going into $100s of thousand dollars a bit of fuel saved on having one engine seems ridiculous.

The single engine brigade quote statistics but all I know is that when I am flying over water, over fog banks, at night, over high mountains, in weather where the cloudbase is nearly on the ground, I get a high level of comfort hearing two engines purring away.

My passengers who know little about aircraft and see the second engine as a spare are often alarmed at the sight of one engine. "What happens if that stops"? " Oh we can glide". But glide to where and into what?

A lot in aviation is to do with perception instilling passengers with a sense of security not only in the aircraft flying them but in the crew.

One pilot!!! "What happens if you have a heart attack or pass out, have a stroke etc"? That is a difficult one to answer.

PPL doesnt sound good to passengers.

PPL sounds like a hobby pilot. CPL, ATPL professional pilot. A lot in aviation is to do with perception.

Single engine, 14 people carrier flown by one solitary hobby pilot ??? No wonder the media jump on that. Unfairly maybe but understandable.

Pace

[IO540]

Pace - there is a risk in everything. Driver incapacitation can kill one's family just as easily, yet driving one's family around on motorways is commonplace.

Interesting point about the SE cost saving relative to the DOC of the whole aircraft including depreciation. It is probably still significant though... a PT6 costs a small fortune. I am sure Pilatus can come up with comparative figures for a PC12 v a King Air (which one could then take apart) ;) And ME operation requires a whole lot of other kind of currency and if you get it wrong, you kill yourself very fast, whereas an engine failure in the PC12 just means you look for a field straight away.

I probably wont be popular in this forum saying this but I do worry about single engine IFR operation

I don't agree. There is a vast spectrum of planes from a 1970 C150 to a well equipped IFR tourer with all the automation, to something like a PC12 with state of the art bizjet-level avionics. The pilot workload will vary massively across this spectrum. Obviously the more complex machine will need more technical knowledge. But the complex machine is also far more capable and in the right hands much safer.

These arguments will carry on for ever. I recall reading, years ago, some writeup from somebody in the UK CAA, expressive grave concern about the widespread use of electrics (yes electrics) in light aircraft, operating things like landing gear and flaps. Gosh whoever wrote that piece was really up to date...

And I am sure a PC12, with its Vs of about 60kt, is perfectly easy to fly conventionally.

I must admit the PC12 is aimed at a rather specific market but then so are most planes in that price range. It has a helluva long range / payload capability, similar to the TBM700, a bit slower, but you don't have to deal with the French and their Gallic shrugs and that has to be worth at least a million :)

[Pace]

10540

I am not expressing my opinion on single engine V multi other than yes I do feel more comfortable in the situations I posted above with two engines.

It maybe correct re the multi /single stats although I would guess they refer more to the light piston twins rather than turbines.

Re the pilot quality YES there are some very experienced, capable PPLs but the public dont know that!

The public regard the PPL as unprofessional, a hobby pilot, part time, uncurrent, low houred. While they regard a CPL/ATPL as a professional pilot who flies for a living. Its his/her job full time current high houred. Not my opinion but observation of those perceptions.

Especially with the public we are fighting a battle that on the whole most are nervous of flying and it is only too easy to press the wrong button with them and increase their fears.

I hold to it that a PC12 would be seen as a single engine, 14 person light aircraft flown by a solitary hobby pilot by the press. The press, media love having a field day scaring mr Joe public at every opportunity.

Cirrus were very clever with their BRS shute system. Single engine? so what we have a shute that will lower you to the ground safely. What a Marketing angle?

Pace

[BabyBear]

The public regard the PPL as unprofessional, a hobby pilot, part time, uncurrent, low houred. While they regard a CPL/ATPL as a professional pilot who flies for a living. Its his/her job full time current high houred. Not my opinion but observation of those perceptions.

Pace, I disagree, the general public don't have a clue what a PPL is never mind, CPL, ATPL or any of the detail of flying privileges. Your observations may be correct re the non flying public with an interest in flying, but they make up a very small minority and are not representative of the general public.

[Pace]

Baby Bear

Pace, I disagree, the general public don't have a clue what a PPL is never mind, CPL, ATPL or any of the detail of flying privileges. Your observations may be correct re the non flying public with an interest in flying, but they make up a very small minority and are not representative of the general public.

They dont know the terms PPL, CPL, ATPL but they do refer to Private Pilot and Commercial pilot/ professional pilot. I have flown quite a lot of different groups of people in corporate aviation so am just passing on my observations of how they regard the aircraft, single pilot ops and qualifications from assurances I have had to make a lot of the time.

Pace

[CessnaCJM]

The whole idea of 'whereas an engine failure in the PC12 just means you look for a field straight away' is OK in good weather, and I have had the opportunity to avail myself of similar situations. However, it is the operation of single engine IFR over fog, poor terrain or at night etc and then when the donkey quits where do you look - your GPS?

Having nearly had to put my toe in the water after a break up of a cylinder going to Jersey many years ago making the front page of the Jersey Post for getting there is no comfort against two engines.

IFR flight with TV screens also needs back up steam driven systems to help in the event of failure (of which there seems to be a few).

My view for what its worth is that if the only justification of single engine IFR is cost or indeed 'I can because it has a turbine and they dont fail' (believe me they do!!) then its a pretty poor one.

I accept there is a risk in everything including twins, but if you cant fly a twin in an emergency you perhaps shouldnt be in one and that is surely the same arguement for a single? The real difference is that in a single you are commited to landing irrespective of the weather/conditions whereas hopefully in a twin (if you havent run out of fuel) you should have at least some options. If I had £2m plus to spend on a machine (which sadly I dont) would REALLY make me think twice about having only one engine.:)

[IO540]

IMHO none of this matters because the right for a PPL to fly a PC12 is safeguarded by the ICAO system.

Obviously a PPL can't fly 14 people on a charter - not even where single pilot single engine PT is allowed.

Also I don't think many privately owned PC12s are configured for 14 seats and actually flying 14 people. Every one I have seen (and I see a fair few) are flying 3-4 people, and more often than not if the owner is the pilot he also has an instructor or a copilot in the RHS. It's a hard lifestyle for the copilot, flying to Cannes, Malaga and other horrible places all the time, and get paid for it :)

I don't know the owner-pilot % for a PC12 but it will be a lot higher than for light jets which according to the dealers come in at around 2% of sales. But I suspect a good half of the owner-flown PC12s have a semi permanent copilot (CPL/IR/ retired ATP).

Risk is an individual decision. Yesterday I flew straight across the middle of the Pyrenees, FL140 and about 4000ft above the terrain. I'd say the chances of a forced landing were worse than crossing the Alps anywhere (the Alps have a lot of huge canyons) but I wasn't worried. The power setting was about 50% so low stress on the engine... and my DOC (TB20) is about 1/2 of what a twin IO540 engines plane would be costing, for virtually the same speed.

[Pace]

Interesting point about the SE cost saving relative to the DOC of the whole aircraft including depreciation. It is probably still significant though... a PT6 costs a small fortune. I am sure Pilatus can come up with comparative figures for a PC12 v a King Air (which one could then take apart)

10540

The Kingair has hardly changed over the years. Do you spend nearly $5 million on a single engine PC12 and take the massive depreciation? (its a semi detached house at the end of the day) Or buy a Kingair a few years old which has just had fresh engines for 1/3 rd the price.

The Kingair will have got to a low depreciation point the PC12 wont.
Comparing new for new your arguement stands up but I know what I would do ;)

Pace

[englishal]

If one can afford to spend $5mill on a PC12 to go flying for fun, who cares about depreciation? In the US anyway many of these toys are used to offset taxes so these people buy the biggest they can afford.

IFR flight with TV screens also needs back up steam driven systems to help in the event of failure (of which there seems to be a few).
So what backs up the steam driven gauges in most aeroplane, the ones with a mean time between failure of 800 hrs? The G1000 has a MTBF of > 2000 hrs and also has a set of steam driven gauges as backup.

Present case excluded at the moment, but has there ever been a case of a SE turboprop suffereing engine failure and killing everyone? I seem to remember a Piper turbine failed in the USA, but as they were at FL300 they glided for ages and made a perfectly good landing on an airport.

[IO540]

So what backs up the steam driven gauges in most aeroplane, the ones with a mean time between failure of 800 hrs?You mean like the wonderful KI-256 vacuum horizon which will fail; not if but when, and I am not talking about the vacuum pump, either (which will fail even sooner, not if but when) :) And this wonderful KI-256 product costs a cool $11,000, or $3,000 as an exchange refurb from the USA.

Glass cockpit planes have conventional gauges too. I think most new glass cockpit pilots tend to fly them on the backup instruments ;)

The new v. old argument will run for ever. I am firmly convinced that for most metal planes, assuming a 15 plus year ownership, the total costs over the ownership period are not very different, with the extra huge bonus that the new one will have spent a lot less time collecting dust in hangars. I bought a brand new TB20GT in 2002 and (apart from the fraught warranty politics etc) have not regretted it for a moment. I'd never do the long trips I do in a plane which has as much downtime as so many I see around the place. The reason the picton GA scene is dominated by old metal is because there is very little capital around, but some of the unscheduled maintenance I hear about is eye watering.

The build quality of a PC12 (I see them regularly, close up) is a world away from "our" el cheapo piston powered spamcans :)

[Pace]

Present case excluded at the moment, but has there ever been a case of a SE turboprop suffereing engine failure and killing everyone? I seem to remember a Piper turbine failed in the USA, but as they were at FL300 they glided for ages and made a perfectly good landing on an airport.

Englishall

Rather than engine failure only maybe the better question would be have there been fatalities due to single engine?
What i am getting at here is that there have been a number of documented TBM700 Torque induced spin fatalities as for actual engine failure I have not checked :O

Pace

[Pace]

The new v. old argument will run for ever

You can buy a heck of a lot of fuel and maintenance on a 1.5 mill Kingair comapered to a 5 mill PC12 :rolleyes: 3.5 Mill on fuel and extra maintenance? should soon cover the other engine.

Being serious Yes if you buy new and stay with the same aircraft the depreciation should even out a bit but then after those ten years you will probably be faced with rebuilding a turbine and having a more maintenance older aircraft.

The higher you are the further you have to fall. Not sure a TB20 new over 10 years would follow the same pattern as a PC12 at $5 Mill
Manufatcurers will make figures read what they want to get new sales :rolleyes:

Pace

[CessnaCJM]

IO540

Your experience is better than an aquaintence of mine who seems to have had a few issues with his glass cockpit in a Cessna.

I have also noticed a few reports of blank screens in both spam cans and larger aircraft in the publications, all of which admittedly have landed without further incident. I think my reticence to move to a glass panel (if I could afford the STC for my twin) is that you dont just lose one instrument if things go blank, but all of them (OK second screen excluded)

However going back to the single engine issue, I fear that it is only a matter of time before a couple of serious accidents happen in big and fast single turbines in IFR before this is bought to the attention of our friends the CAA and they will try take steps to ban all (not just commercial) IFR single engine flights.

[IO540]

I fear that it is only a matter of time before a couple of serious accidents happen in big and fast single turbines in IFR before this is bought to the attention of our friends the CAA and they will try take steps to ban all (not just commercial) IFR single engine flights.

That is impossible without making a mockery of ICAO. It will never happen.

IFR (airways) flight is nearly 99% in VMC and is the safest way to fly. The most dangerous flight is VFR, squeezed between terrain and cloudbase. Loads of people get killed doing that.

[CessnaCJM]

The point you make is a fair one, however (and I hope I am wrong) there is a perceived difference between it happening to a smallish single and a much larger aircraft i.e. PC-12 with say 10 people on board

[Pace]

Will give this thread a peak at why I like two engines My film New twinstar me flying her and filming her ;)

A doddle on one you cannot do that with a single :D

Picasa Web Albums - pace (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Flh%2Fphoto%2FWt7GJCi dLlaUHxR9N9X6uw%3Ffeat%3Ddirectlink)

Pace

[Neptunus Rex]

It's very simple. In any single engined aircraft, never fly outside gliding distance of land! (Which presupposes that you must be able to see for the landing.)

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/fly3.gif

[alistairP]

Multi turbines have also been known to suffer catastrophic failures, check out the Gimli Glider for Details Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider) So you can never say your'e 100% safe. But you can argue any angle using selective statistics. In the end it just comes down to "Do you feel luck punk?", to quote one of my favourite lines:}.

[IRRenewal]

Multi turbines have also been known to suffer catastrophic failures, check out the Gimli Glider for Details Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So you can never say your'e 100% safe. But you can argue any angle using selective statistics. In the end it just comes down to "Do you feel luck punk?", to quote one of my favourite lines

alistairP,

The Gimli glider did not have any catastrophic failures. It simply ran out of fuel.

No matter how many engines you have (there s always the 4 v. 2 debate regarding oceanic crossings), completely running out of fuel is going to turn any aircraft in a glider.

[mm_flynn]

Also, the accident stats show running out/unable to use fuel causes a substantial fraction of engine failures in both singles and twins. Twins also seem to come to grief more often than comparable singles (i.e. BE58 vs BE 36) due to system failures. However, if my mission profile was night ops over water, I would still go for the piston twin vs piston single. However, the stats I have seen suggest the in-flight shutdown rate for turbine singles is lower than the double engine shutdown rate for piston twins - so the piston twin might be an illusory comfort blanket vs. a turbine single.

All of which is a bit odd in a thread about a PC12 going down where we have no indication at all of an engine failure.

[Wrong Stuff]

Haven't there been three double engine-failures in commercial jets in about the past year? There was the Airbus into Heathrow and the Hudson river landing. Wasn't there a third?

The desire for a second engine appears very rational, even if it's not backed up by real-world reality shown by the accident statistics. The stats are very clear though. Whether or not you have a second engine, a second alternator etc won't make much difference to your overall risk exposure. Where the safety really improves is when you have a second pilot. It's clear you'd be far safer with two pilots and one engine than the other way around. Yet it's interesting that we don't hear many people admitting how unreliable a single pilot is and saying they wouldn't fly without a backup.

[Pace]

Haven't there been three double engine-failures in commercial jets in about the past year? There was the Airbus into Heathrow and the Hudson river landing. Wasn't there a third?

Jets are far far safer with multi engines!

You mention the Hudson River. They had the extreme bad luck of a large flock of birds taking out both engines.

Follow that through and there are scores of occasions where an engine has had to be shut down for a number of reasons including bird ingestion.

Had these all been single engine jets there would have been a mass of accidents with them falling out of the sky!

even if it's not backed up by real-world reality shown by the accident statistics.

The airlines would save a fortune if they could get hold of your statistics think a solid case for One engine airlines? :ugh:


Pace

[IO540]

Where the safety really improves is when you have a second pilot.

Or an autopilot :)

I would bet that for an average GA PPL/IR pilot an AP improves safety far more than a second engine.

[Miles Magister]

This is a very interesting and current discussion.

I have flown many hours IFR/IMC on a single engine although usually, but not always, with a Martin Baker seat strapped to my back side. I have also flown world wide with 4 engines, 2 engines but never 3 unless one of the ones I took off with stopped working (which has happened!).

The PC12 argument is emotional not rational. It is statistically safer than most twin pistons and, to asnswer pace, very good at short field performance and mountain flying which is what is is designed for.

I have operated and love flying the King Air but have on several occassions declined a trip which a PC12 would have been perfect for.

Each to their own, but know your tools and make sure you use the right one and do not try to use a chissel as a screw driver or oyu will hurt yourself.

Stay safe

MM

[Pace]

10540

May I just add that yes an autopilot is a must have especially for SP but if the pilot is relying on an autopilot to cover a pilots lack of ability then that is asking for trouble.

Even the best autopilots break down or go wrong and then the pilot is reliant on himself to handle everything.

Pace

[Pace]

The PC12 argument is emotional not rational. It is statistically safer than most twin pistons

MM

Thats not something to Brag about :ugh: Is it statistically safer than a twin Turbine its engine comparison?

To compare against a light piston twin is not a fair comparison.

A turbine is far more reliable than a piston. A light piston will not climb well engine out unless conditions weight etc are good. Throw in low time twin pilots who are not totally current and they are accidents waiting to happen.

Pace

[IO540]

if the pilot is relying on an autopilot to cover a pilots lack of ability then that is asking for trouble.

Not sure you would want to test that hypothesis on say 100 randomly chosen airline pilots ;)

Every pilot has a greater ability / safety when his workload is drastically reduced by appropriate automation. I think the % of hairy-chested hand-flying-an-NDB-hold-inside-a-CB supermen is much lower than most would suppose.

[Pace]

Not sure you would want to test that hypothesis on say 100 randomly chosen airline pilots

I would and if they couldnt handle it they shouldnt be there ;)

I and I am sure many have had occasions when George has either died or is not playing ball.

When I was flying as a co on a Bravo Citation my Captain a TRE always insisted on hand flying short routes for maintentance positioning ie no pax below RVSM airspace. it was good for the soul ;) He had the habit of giving you the aircraft as SP just to load you, radios too :ooh:

Flying as a Captain that training was excellent for the real thing at FL360 where the air was thin. Trust nothing !

A number of times in twins a doddle compared to the twice as fast Citations.

Dont rely on anything but yourself and that includes wives ;) 10540 I am sure you are the hairy chest variety too ;)

Pace

[bjornhall]

To compare against a light piston twin is not a fair comparison.

It would often be the most relevant comparison... The same amount of money (purchase and operation) would buy a single turbine or a twin prop of similar size and age, but not a twin turbine, right?

[Pace]

It would often be the most relevant comparison... The same amount of money (purchase and operation) would buy a single turbine or a twin prop of similar size and age, but not a twin turbine, right?

You are Kidding :) You could buy 7 new light piston twins for the price of 1 PC12. Infact you could buy yourself a small jet for less too.

Pace

[IO540]

Yes, TPs are very expensive.

New TBM700/850 is about $3M.

A brand new big piston twin... are any made today?? A new Seneca is still being made, just about, which costs a small fraction of the TBM cost. Same for a couple of other piston twins in production.

However, the direct operating cost, excluding depreciation, is much closer. A piston twin like a 421 (somewhat comparable to a TBM in payload and range) costs a comparable amount in fuel and IFR route charges and landing/handling costs to a TBM, but the TBM gets there in less time.

Turbines are unfortunately an order of magnitude step in purchase costs...

A halfway house is a Jetprop type conversion. You can buy say a 2002 JP for $1M which is only a "bit" above a new piston twin. But you don't get the payload or a range of a 421 that way - nowhere near.

[bjornhall]

Hmmmmm, yeah, seems I remembered wrong... The PC-12 is big; I was thinking something comparable, like a Meridian vs. a Baron 58 (similar useful load), but turns out the Meridian is still twice as expensive... :eek: