**I'm hearing knee jerk stuff here, I am typed on single, two and four engine aircraft. Anybody care to discuss it without the two-engines-always-good prejudice?**
Now I could very well be wrong here but you don't happen to *work for OR sell PC12's do you?
**Not so long ago the industry wisdom was that long haul flying was strictly a four engine business. Three engines maybe, but ETOPS and B767 had the manufacturer's really pushing the regulators.
Now long haul services in 'mere' twins hardly raises an eyebrow, so maybe a few of we 'old school' thinkers for twins in airwork should take a fresh look.
There is a lot to be said for considering the total safety package.**
Absolutely no argument there
**We have seen Ppruners bemoan the continually falling pilot training standards and general level of ability in new pilots, due to all sorts of reasons.
We have also seen operations like Aeromed change dramatically over the last 20 years as very capable, pressurised, turbine aircraft started replacing piston twins as the standard Aeromed mount.
Fr'instance, the proportion of night flying (in sectors and hours flown) as a proportion of an Aeromed pilot's workload has gone way up. Pressurisation, PT6's and weather radar has seen to that.
You could make the case that the biggest safety factor for Aeromed now is not equipment failure, but human factors. Fatigue, low training budgets, high pilot turnover, all night all weather ops, CTA/OCTA, primary control zone to bush strip, etc.**
No argument there either
**The best answer for safety may not be a slick Kingair with redundant everything. It may be many times safer considering all factors to dispatch a latest generation single engine airplane with a much better pilot interface, much lower workload in normal and emergency ops.**
Bugga and you were going so well
The argument I pose here is that 2+ engines will ALWAYS be better than 1 engine. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE me that that engine WILL NOT FAIL under ANY circumstances.
Single engine airplanes are a fantastic cost saving device for the private operator who does not commit the lives and safety of other people to that fact. IMHO safety above all else should be placed before cost, no argument no debate. Have PT6's failed before? YES, will they ever fail again? YES. Until someone can tell me that I can SAFELY fly a PC12 accross Katoomba on a dark and stormy night or to Lord Howe Island with ABSOLUTELY no chance of the engine failing then I will always feel safer with redundancy.
**Although the findings are not yet out, the only operator that uses both single and twin turbine aeromed had a fatality recently -- in the twin at Mt Gambier.**
Bzzzzzzzt sorry, you are now comparing apples and oranges. It would not have matterd if he were flying the space shuttle, (appologies to his family if they are reading this post). The issue here is a pilot that actually flew the aircraft into the ground with both engines turning. I'm not even going to bother asking how single engine aircraft would have made a difference
**I'm not saying I have the answer. But I reckon it needs to be discussed like professional aviators, not like trained monkeys repeating the old wisdoms of their first chief pilot**
Or perhaps as I eluded to in the opening somebody with an avid interest in the propagation of PC12's in Australia.
**Ok, flame suit on. Have at me!!**
No need for the flame suit if as you suggested it is discussed like professional aviators
