Single turboprop commercial IFR
SE IFR
Old news the Aussies been doing it for years as with others.
ASETPA.
Still thing if prefer 2 donks!
ASETPA.
Still thing if prefer 2 donks!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future is here...
The PC12 and the Caravan are amazing aircraft. So, why not? Two engines across an ocean? OMG! If progress had not prevailed, we would today cross the pond in 10-engined turboprops like the SaRo princess.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 hours on multi engine aircraft with PT6 engines and I've seen 2 major failures.
hilarious!But back to the topic. This is bound to happen in certain areas. There has been very little development in the 8-12 pax sector in the last 35-40 years.
Lots of Navajos, Chieftains and C402s were flying domestic sectors when I was learning to fly in the late seventies. Some of these are still around, even in the USA Cape Air is operating close to 80 C402s.
There has been development in single engine turboprops, but less so in smaller twins in this size category and none in piston engined planes AFAIK.
Perhaps this will come to something http://www.tecnam.com/Traveller/P-2012-Traveller.aspx
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This idea was proposed by Dave Willmott and others at Emerald Airways in the '90s.
Didn't get anywhere with the authorities - irrespective of whether the routes were over land or sea.
The proposal was for a 'spoke and hub' arrangement with single-engine turboprops feeding into larger airports where (in those days) HS748s, F27s and Electras would carry loads further.
This would have made commercial sense, it was suggested, with lower operating costs on the shorter, lighter routes.
Apparently this arrangement is common in the US (?)
Didn't get anywhere with the authorities - irrespective of whether the routes were over land or sea.
The proposal was for a 'spoke and hub' arrangement with single-engine turboprops feeding into larger airports where (in those days) HS748s, F27s and Electras would carry loads further.
This would have made commercial sense, it was suggested, with lower operating costs on the shorter, lighter routes.
Apparently this arrangement is common in the US (?)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With just 1000hrs in a C208, all of it over inhospitable bush I'd have no hesitation in supporting this.
There must be a huge untapped market out there for this sort of thing as long as it isn't strangled by the bureaucrats, not to mention an excellent training ground for newbies and a big stir-up of the employment scene.
It us done safely and routinely all over the world, why not here?
But how many pilots? One or two? I expect a second "pilot" who is in reality no more than an employed passenger would knock the bottom line out of the balance sheet and cripple the whole thing. Else second pilots will be paid nowt which isn't progress. Even so that's a waste of 80Kg of payload.
FO Kite, that's the system FedEx have been using for decades. They operate hundreds of Caravans - see their website.
There must be a huge untapped market out there for this sort of thing as long as it isn't strangled by the bureaucrats, not to mention an excellent training ground for newbies and a big stir-up of the employment scene.
It us done safely and routinely all over the world, why not here?
But how many pilots? One or two? I expect a second "pilot" who is in reality no more than an employed passenger would knock the bottom line out of the balance sheet and cripple the whole thing. Else second pilots will be paid nowt which isn't progress. Even so that's a waste of 80Kg of payload.
FO Kite, that's the system FedEx have been using for decades. They operate hundreds of Caravans - see their website.
It us done safely and routinely all over the world, why not here?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's already being done in Scandinavia for cargo, in quite inhospitable environment. Winter, icing, open sea: Nordflyg Air Logistics | Nordflyg Air Logistics
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done in Finland also: Home - Hendell Aviation Oy
It doesn't have any relevance but AFAIK the scale of the operation is quite small.
It doesn't have any relevance but AFAIK the scale of the operation is quite small.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FO Kite, that's the system FedEx have been using for decades. They operate hundreds of Caravans - see their website.
Once again, safety takes a back seat to cost and convenience...
Safety is relative and in this case as in all aviation it's defined and codified in the regulations for one to read before getting out of your car and onto a plane.
The plane wasn't designed unsafe, it simply is now allowed to take willing passengers.
Populated area, just adds runways
Surprised no one has mentioned this incident. This guy landed his PC-12 on main drag in South Bend.
PC-12 Makes Remarkable Street Landing In Indiana | Aero-News Network
Hope that link works but if not it was a PC-12 , 22RG, in December 2004
PC-12 Makes Remarkable Street Landing In Indiana | Aero-News Network
Hope that link works but if not it was a PC-12 , 22RG, in December 2004
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North of the circle
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single vs twin
This is how it was in 2007.
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar | Aviation International News
And PC-12 vs Kingair and other TP aircraft
Single Engine Turboprop Safety | Western Aircraft
And single engine TP safety 2012
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...ss-utility.pdf
Personally wouldn't be concerned with it.
Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar | Aviation International News
And PC-12 vs Kingair and other TP aircraft
Single Engine Turboprop Safety | Western Aircraft
And single engine TP safety 2012
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...ss-utility.pdf
Personally wouldn't be concerned with it.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small turbo-props seem quite prone to shut-downs, don't they? Maybe it's because of the operating environment most work in.
My phone has rung twice in the small hours after double-engine failures in twin-engine aircraft I was responsible for, engaged in civil air transport operations.
By the way, "mean time between failures for the PT-6 is 346,000 hours" does not mean that each engine can be expected, on average, to operate for 346,000 hours without an unplanned shutdown (aka failure).
That statistic is perfectly consistent with various pilots' experiences described here of multiple failures in relatively small numbers of hours, presumably with all the PT6 variants.
I'm sure that there's someone here who can explain the interpretation of MTBF data, and its relationship to real operations, better than I can. All I know is that it makes me very wary about being in a twin over large expanses of water/inhospitable land. (See above re phone calls).
My phone has rung twice in the small hours after double-engine failures in twin-engine aircraft I was responsible for, engaged in civil air transport operations.
By the way, "mean time between failures for the PT-6 is 346,000 hours" does not mean that each engine can be expected, on average, to operate for 346,000 hours without an unplanned shutdown (aka failure).
That statistic is perfectly consistent with various pilots' experiences described here of multiple failures in relatively small numbers of hours, presumably with all the PT6 variants.
I'm sure that there's someone here who can explain the interpretation of MTBF data, and its relationship to real operations, better than I can. All I know is that it makes me very wary about being in a twin over large expanses of water/inhospitable land. (See above re phone calls).
Originally Posted by MrMachFivepointfive
The mean time between failures for the PT-6 is 346,000 hours.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A discussion of single engine IFR should include total engine failures for any cause, which isn't even tracked.
An engine event is considered an IFSD if it ceases to operate or is shutdown in flight for any unplanned reason (internal failure, icing, bird ingestion, etc.).
The mean time between IFSDs for PT6 is 125,000 hours. This is calculated for the population. E.g., if you have a fleet with 100 PT6s operating, then expect an IFSD over the entire population average 1,250 hr.
The 346,000 hours is actually not the MTBF of PT6s, but the mean time between engine failure accidents for PT6 equipped Cessna 208 Caravans.
This does not mean a particular Caravan will make it 346,000 hrs before an engine accident. In fact, only a minority (1/e = 1/2.71) = 37% of Caravans can be expected to reach this amount of hours without an engine accident.