Thank you, airman1, for that interesting article.
However, I don't reach the same conclusions that you appear to.
What is patently obvious from the article is that that accident (like most) occured because of very poor decision making by the pilot.
Had he immediately turned back on the first indication of low oil pressure (like we are trained to do), he would have been well within gliding range of his departure airport and that article wouldn't exist.
There are also a number of references to Canadian reg's that are not relevant in Aust., or at least in the context that we operate where I fly them.
eg. We have enough oxygen on board to swan around for hours if necessary!
We also have more than enough electrical power for a reasonably long glide, as long as correct procedures are followed.
I note that despite the very ugly scene in the photo's, no-one was killed.
Kind of makes the point re the seats, and "survivability" of the aircraft.
PC12's have been operating (IFR) in this country for almost 13 years now.
How many
fatal accidents have there been in that time?
How many
accidents have there been that can be attributed to it having only one engine?
How many fatal King Air accidents have there been in that time? (Sadly, I can think of at least 3 without even trying)
There are a lot more factors in determining the "safety" of an aircraft other than just how many engines it has. That is simply old-fashioned thinking that is going the way of the dinosaurs.
Is a B747 twice as safe as a B777, or just twice as likely to have an engine failure?
I say again; The accident in that report happened due to poor decision making. Fortunately it appears that everyone survived.
