Single Engine ops - pc12

[ARCID]

Hello

Wondered what you guys thought about the PC12 operating public transport, its a nice aeroplane and l dont buy this crap the CAA spout about it being a single engine, its a darn site safer than some twins.

Any chance on the relaxing rules like they have done in US or NZ, or will it be kept to operating privately??

Thanks
ARCID

[Daifly]

Great cabin - fantastic cargo door, good range, not bad speed and cruise alt, cracking donkey on the front.

Nice aircraft - but will be restricted even if the CAA finally see the light - at least for the first few years until it proves itself in action (not that it really needs to after all this time...)

MTBF 346,000 hours on the PT6... rather better than my car!

[SR20flyDoc]

I don't know anymore where I read the studies (ASF ?)
that concluded that single engine turbines where safer than multi engine piston's and multi engine turbine's.

The rule of thumb I remembered is that on engine failure the second engine only will get you to the accident and in cruise it will add to your fual and maintanence bill so there is no real argument against commercial night IFR ops in single engine turbines.

I think it's a great plane and if you are ever around and need a FO , anytime :)

[Delta Echo Bravo]

Absolutely fantastic machine. I'd drop my job to fly one in a second, and believe it or not, I would to fly a caravan too. Both outstanding machines and a testiment to the donkey. Having seen both in action quite closely, both impressed.

If anyone wants to give me a job on one.... he he!!! :=

[spider123]

I'm lucky enough to Captain a PCXII, FAA part 91, based Southern England. It's undoubtedly a good aircraft, the best part is the overall reliability we've experienced. I have no quarms about operating over mountainous terrain or at night, and there is nothing to compare with this aircraft's operating costs/payload/cabin size with a decent toilet! We have very occasional requirements for a "first officer", perhaps more accurately a "good safety pilot who can also make coffee as well". It's not loggable, but if anyones interested please send me a PM back, giving some details of your licence details, flying experience (min PPL/200 hrs), general availability, location and a contact number. We'll pay limited expenses (i.e. lunch and a airfare transport home if it's one way). So if you interested please send a quick PM (don't call and don't send CV's as there's no permanent job!). Please don't chase me, as we've only got one spare front seat and that's only occasional!

:D

P.S. This PCXII would be ideal for Charter should the CAA ever have the sense to back out of the corner they are in, and relax their restrictions on single engine operations for Charter. I am convinced that their position is not actualy safety related, but legal, based on the premise that if they do permit Single Engine Charter IFR, and there is an accident in the future, that they would become partially liable for claims. Very hard for them to undue legislation!

[compressor stall]

Yep, the PC12/45 is a nice machine - especially with that extra bit of payload. Great range, especiallly in the part of the world I operate them in. Bit slower than a new B200, but you don't have to stop as often for fuel on a return medivac flight into a remote place in the desert 590 nm away.

My only gripe is that it drives like the QE2 landing in crosswinds....

[bobknowledgy]

For anyone interested I have the FAA and CASA statistics confirming single engine turbine safer than twin piston.

[haughtney1]

From what Ive read in Flight International, the JAA soon to be EASA are split on SE IFR Ops....The UK dont want it, neither does Germany, and I think one other mayby France. I read an article in another magazine a few weeks back that had an editorial from a guy at the UK CAA explaining their position...essentially he said the CAA dont believe that statistics alone amount to a case to change the rule, as in the UK there are few CFIT incidents, and even fewer VMCA or loss of control in IMC with an engine out accidents. He didnt however give a reason why the rule shouldnt be changed, just more excuses..even implying that an act of parliament would have to be passed!
It honestly seems to me that there are a few "special interest groups" at work here who are clogging up the system, the weight of evidence is very strongly in favour of SE IFR..even if just initially limited to Cargo Ops on turbine A/C.
One way or another the rule has to change..and lets not forget both the PC XII, and the TBM700 are made right here on our doorstep....bloody beauracrats!!!

:mad:

[Angel´s One Fife]

Whilst you have your flight international open check out just how many caravans have crashed this year so far in the world. It is bad statistics to say that SET is safer than MEP. Perhaps better regulation of MEP operations in the USA would make for more balanced statistics. Bad flying is no excuse for getting rid of two engines for public transport.

[haughtney1]

As they say you can make statistics do anything you want, however in this instance, check out the global accident statistics of caravans, and then look at how many of those accidents occured in IMC or on an IFR flightplan. I think you will be surprised to notice that the majority of accidents occured VFR in VMC.

There are however a very small proportion of accidents that have occured on IFR flightplans, however once again poor airmanship rather than technical or powerplant failures were the root cause in the vast majority of cases, just as you would find in most light piston twin accidents.

Its all there in the statistics.


Cheers


H

A slight amendment to my previous...when I said VFR in VMC...that was loose terminology, a large proportion of accidents have occured whilst under VFR when clearly the conditions where wholly unsuitable or marginal, and further to that point, this very reason (get-there-itus...commercial pressure...etc) was one the stand-out reasons that the FAA plus a host of clear thinking ICAO member states now allow SE IFR. The real problem has come in understanding the A/C limitations, understanding the operational environment, and as I said before....the role that airmanship takes in the causes of these accidents. I know I certainly wouldnt be flying below cloud base..or even in it..if freezing rain was about!


Cheers

H

[Angel´s One Fife]

haughtney1


You are obviously in the SE IFR is no problem camp and yet you have no true knowledge of how reliable the engines are. Pehaps you believe the myth that a certain engine is solid as a rock; but they are not; and they do fai;l and when that one powerplant fails the aircraft is only going one way. Even if you do land on a convenient road below and put road users at risk maybe one of them will hit you. Turbines do surge and and valves do fail and people who continue a myth that they don't are just sticking their heads in the sand.

[haughtney1]

Actually 1..5 just for your information....I am probably the biggest sceptic of SE IFR ops on this forum....the difference is...IVE DONE THE RESEARCH....and rather than sit back and take a pious viewpoint that all things being equal 2 is better than 1..I am prepared to be open minded. My personal viewpoint is that SE turbine A/C are perfectly fine for Air freight, or any number of aerial work type scenarios,as a matter of mindset it is still my PERSONAL preference that I would travel with my family on a twin engined aircraft. However I am able to deduce the facts..and they are not in dispute...single engine turbine A/C are by a factor of 10(or more depending on where you get the information from) less likely to be involved in a fatal accident, in comparison to a piston twin...there is no arguement.

Do the research..its all there.

H :ok:

[Angel´s One Fife]

The point should be that the MEP that appear to have the poorer safety record were poorly flown. Just because pilots were not able to keep the aircraft flying is not a reason for making the public have to put up with SET IFR . Pehaps a much more strict operating enviroment in the USA would lead to better safety rather than a poorly regulated area of public transport that leads to people to conclude that 1 is better than 2. The same is true in the case of pilots.

And why differentiate freight? The aircraft still cause as much damage on the ground whether they be packages or SLF.

And I do hope you are not making the assumption that I have not done the research.

[haughtney1]

No inference to say you havent done the research...more highlighting that I have I guess..

With regards to aircrew standards in the US; in my experience US pilots on the whole are very well trained, but like here there are those individuals that are a danger to themselves and others, its also worth noting that most of what we do these days is driven by the US, and in piloting terms I can see merits on both sides of the arguement. In terms of the statistics, again I think its important to realise that there is an element of poor airmanship in most accidents...not just confined to MEP Ops and the case can be argued that if this were improved, the standards would be raised across the board.
One point I do accept is that a falling plane is a hazard..but again that goes both ways.
I dont think we are ever going to agree on a common perspective, but my original thread was bemoaning that very thing.....the authorities are too entrenched in their collective ways to have a reasoned and sensible debate about this issue.
The statistics for the present day scenario (poor standards & ill trained pilots..as you suggest) show SET is by a factor 10 a better bet than MEP, and that is from an SE IFR sceptic.

Cheers

H

[SR20flyDoc]

Wasn't there a Air Safety Foundation experiment that showed that 9 out of 10 pilots could not handle an engine failure on T/O ?

Only the just trained "survived" the experiment.

This showed a more reliable powerplant is more important than two engines.

This is why the Adam Aircraft A500 (piston) is build with symetric trust, and the A700 (jet) not.

[poorwanderingwun]

This is a topic that appears to polarise the pilot community...once sitting in one camp people appear reluctant to revise their opinions....for what it's worth I've been operating twin turbines for the past 14 yrs...in that time I've shut down one engine on 3 occasions due to fire warnings, lost all the oil from one engine while making a max weight IFR approach to minimums at Dublin with a full load of passengers (due to an oil return pipe connection coming adrift )... and had to shut down an engine due to a computer malfunction causing huge uncontrollable surges that threatened to get completely out of control.

There's no doubt that turbine engines themselves are hugely reliable... but the ancilliary equipment bolted to them..including propellor gearboxes... are a potential problem. Another factor not being considered is that of age.... single turbine aircraft are still relatively new....there's nothing to my knowledge flying around that's 30 years old...

As these aircraft pass into the hands of the less wealthy operators maintenance will inevitably be carried out to the legally required minimums....

It may be that in time a revision of the current rules will result in wider use of SE turbine aircraft but it's not something that should be entered into lightly...

[JoeCo]

This is what I do not understand. If I arrive in Europe flying IFR in a single engine aircraft, nobody seems to have a problem with that. No authority or ATC unit will reject a request to fly in their airspace, or over their towns, or land at their airports, BUT if someone wants to register that exact same aircraft in that country, THEN there is a problem. I don't get it!?!? I can fly in and around the UK, all over the country in the worst weather you can find, but as soon as I want to put a G reg on the side of it, or carry a passenger for hire, ...well, all of a sudden that plane just ain't safe enough.

On top of that, a number of single engine aircraft are being built all within Europe, all in seperate countries. Germany builds the Extra 500 and Grob G160, France the TBM 700, Switzerland the PC-6,7,9,12 and 21 and the new aircraft being built in the Czech Republic. Funny thing that is that the countries that apparently do not support Single Engine IFR have some of the largest single engine aircraft manufacturers.

My head is getting sore trying to figure this one out. :rolleyes:

[jerseymilkman]

small confusion here methinks...

If you have your own private single engine turbine, you can indeed buy it and fly it anywhere in Europe, IFR at night, basically wherever you want.

What you CANNOT do is to charter said aircraft, or charge other people for the trip. In other words it is not seen as safe enough for public transport flights.

JM

[JoeCo]

Ah ha, understood. Just the same, seems silly to be building all these airplanes in Europe when one cannot capitalize on the full potential of said aircraft.

Another point, what if I charter an airplane from a company based in a country that supports SEIFR and arrive in, for example, the UK which does not support SEIFR. Any objections to that??

[jerseymilkman]

...good question....to which I have no answer!!!

I would 'guess' that if the charter originates in a SEIFR state and is legit there, it can terminate anywhere. The problem would be the origination for the return...you may have to walk back!!!

interesting thought though

[Leo45]

The answer should be simple: the most stringent regulation will prevail.

If you fly into the UK on a public transport flight with, say, a Swiss registered PC12, you'll be limited to VMC by day operations in the UK airspace. Theoretically, it would not prevent you from flying airways provided you remain VMC whilst being on a IFR flight plan.

But strangely enough, the UK ANO allows public transport in IMC (day only) provided the cloud base is more than 1000ft agl and the vis is 1NM (if my memory serves me correctly), in contradiction with JAR-OPS.

So, strictly speaking, a UK registered a/c can fly in IMC on public transport operations as the ANO prevails in this instance.

[JoeCo]

Leo45,

I would have to agree with you that the most stringent rules will govern, but who's there to police this? Can all single engine aircraft expect to be ramped if they arrive in a country that does not support SEIFR if they arrive on a IFR day, or on an IFR flight plan?

As for the UK ANO's, as I am not familiar with them I'm affair I cannot comment on that aspect of the scenerio.

Regardless, I still think that flying a single engine a/c in IFR regardless if it's for private ops or for commercial ops amounts to the same thing and i think it very strange that it's ok for one, but not for the other.

[haughtney1]

just to throw a little more mud so it sticks.......there are several operators in the southern UK who sell "fractional ownership" of single turbine aircraft...thereby circumventing the public transport regulations...where theres a will..there is a way!

:}

cheers

H

[JoeCo]

I know they do the same in Switzerland. I guess then it is dependant on what the regs say regarding fractionals. I know that in the States, the reason Fractionals are so popular is that they can operate under private ops (I think that is part 91) where as in Canada they recognize fractionals as commercial ops. Hence why the obviousness of fractions in the US is far greater then in the Northern Half. I would have thought the the UK CAA would have a simular view as Canada on fractionals. I know the NetJets Europe seems to be making a go of it, but am unaware if they are private or commercial. Goor point though haughtney1.

[haughtney1]

Just got back from flying the van across Europe..........another faultless performance, although having to hold 15 left or so to stay on track was a bit novel..as well as the seeing 200kts on the good ole' GPS. Oh and with 8 others on board.

cheers H