PC-12 Operators East or West Coast Oz

[pressed_on]

Hi all,

I've been researching the net and looking for all the owners of PC-12s in OZ via CASA.

After spending a couple of hundred hours flying a factory new model around most part of the globe last year, I'm looking to get back into flying one in the next year to come. It was just too much fun!

Anyone with the inside word on operators, NGs on order or anything helpful in regards to getting a position on one on the east coast (or west for that matter) is much appreciated.

I know so far:

RFDS
western and NT police force
redcliffe aero
Alice springs operator alongside a 208

Cheers

Preston

[morno]

I'm not sure that there is an operator in Alice other than RFDS that utilise them. Are you thinking of Aboriginal Airlines? If so they went out of business a year or 2 ago, and they sold the PC12 even longer ago than that. NT Police took them over.

morno

[Skystar320]

WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens........

Its been the trend for many years to recruit internally

[havick]

Which is all well and good unless they have about 2000 hours, and 1000IFR and 500 multi.. I know pretty steep for a single gig but hey.

[Howard Hughes]

Which is all well and good unless they have about 2000 hours, and 1000IFR and 500 multi..
When did the PC-12 grow another engine?

Has Capt Wally heard about this?;)

In answer to the original question, you seem to have most operators covered!:ok:

[complane]

Skystar
"WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens"

Dream On !!!

[havick]

Howard Hughes,

Well that came from the horses mouth (the hirer and firer for the NT air wing).. Plus when I did my time out in Central Aussie land, they had a Chieftain burning around.. Maybe they still have that bad boy on the back burner somewhere?

** and that was IFR multi, not just multi time in general.

That's a tall ask for 80 odd K a year flying a single, they are nice new machines on the upside flying into some interesting places.

[Howard Hughes]

In the current climate, what people 'say' and what people 'accept' are sometimes very different...;)

PS: VH-NAD is long gone, CASA register shows GWA as owner.:ok:

[Capt Wally]

Wally's here 'jaba':) I've been keeping an eye on you here just waiting for you to say sumfin':E
how sweet of you to be thinking of me (Dr too no doubt:)), having trouble keeping the dooner on at night are we 'jaba'?:E
I was chatting to one of my asteemed work colleges just the other day when he turned up in a PC12 (ooohhhh i hate saying that:)) I took one close up look at it & just thought, NOWAY! Nicely decked out inside tho.

Why do they put 2 engines (at least) on 99% of IFR charter A/C?......for SAFFFFFFETY!:)

Soz guys for the thread drift, back to the subject at hand, what was it again?:E


CW

[airman1]

Pegasus Air at Bankstown operate a PC 12.

http://www.pegasusair.com.au/index.htm

[pressed_on]

ok, thanks for that guys, much appreciated. They are a nice piece of kit alright. I've been over the north and south atlantic in one and so obviously have a lot of repsect for them and their safety record. Hail the God of Pratt!

[hurlingham]

Preston

Meet Capt Wally - and his view on the PC12.

I agree with you - a magnificent aircraft. I would fly one anywhere


HH

VH NAD is flying 'rig pigs' out of Brisbane.
Still looks good, but rapidly deteriorating.

[PLovett]

One of the pastoral companies based out of Brisbane has just got one as well.:ok:

[gaunty]

Those who have been around here a fair bit know my views on FAR23 types, which include King Air and Conquest as well the rest of the pistons twins included.

On balance and if I had no other choice I would back a PC12 for overall safety against ANY of those types. You could probably add the TBM 700 to that.

Why do they put 2 engines (at least) on 99% of IFR charter A/C?......for SAFFFFFFETY! hmmmm, you will live a fair bit longer if you view any of these FAR23 twins as single engine aircraft with dispersed power and operate them as such. The it's "twin engined for safety reasons" routine has become and always was a self fulfilling myth.

[Capt Wally]

Keep it up boys, I love a good healthy debate but try not to get too nasty as some have shown before here:)

The day we see large scale domestic jets with just one engine carrying 100+ pax (which could be produced due to the large power output of high bypass engines)will be the day I say, fair enough, SE IFR ops are 'as' safe, but NEVER safer !:bored:

yes meet Capt Wally, just another view that's all!:ok:


CW

[Clearedtoreenter]

Hey Wally sorry for barging in on your little pet topic - but a clapped out 35 year old Baron Navajo or 310 having dubious single engine performance, flown 20,000 hours and outlived most of the LAME's who did god knows what to it is a safer IFR prospect than a PC12???? In IFR, there's piston singles and multis, with swings and roundbaouts as to which is safer but on balance really nothing in it, both rather scary in different ways when things go wrong! - and then there's PC 12's -magnificent flying machines....

[Capt Wally]

Feel free to barge on in 'CTE' but it's not my 'pet' topic I just don't happen to agree with SEIFR ops that's all. I've said it many times before, it'a all about choice! I mention SEIFR ops are unsafe (TO ME) along the way & bingo the next thing I know I'm singularly been made out to be the bad guy:E Good I like being the bad guy, we/they get all the attention:ok:

...................."but a clapped out 35 year old Baron Navajo or 310 having dubious single engine performance, flown 20,000 hours and outlived most of the LAME's who did god knows what to it is a safer IFR prospect than a PC12????" .
............Yes absolutely. Simple question here. the PC12 with an engine failure (it only has to happen just once for people ro realise it's unsafe) is going where ???? DOWN, with very few options if any! An old piston twin with an engine failure is going where? also down (I agree) BUT NOT always & certaintly not as fast! More options, & that's what SAFETY is all about !
Aside to all that the other day when I was chatting to the PC12 driver he mentioned that the cockpit area & seats are rated to something over 20 G's, great & yr body can stand what? maybe 10 or so..............hmmmmm yep that make me feel all warm & cosy !:bored:

yr turn!:E


CW

[rcoight]

The PC12 has sufficient climb and glide performance that an engine failure during any part of the climb above 1000' would allow a return to the departure airfield.
At normal cruise altitudes a glide of 50nm or more is possible.
There are very few situations where you would not be within 50nm radius of finding a safe spot to put down an aircraft that has a touchdown speed of less than 80kt.
And, yes, the seats are rated above 20G (23G I think) and the airframe is VERY sturdy.
So even if you did hit something at some point after touchdown, chances are very good that you will survive.

The PC12 is a magnificent machine, and arguments against it on the basis of its single engine are based more on outdated prejudices than reality.

It's not a cheap aircraft, yet the order book is full for the next couple of years at least. That suggests a lot of people / organisations have gotten over the "single engine" issue.

Re the initial question, RFDS Central now have 11 of them, and I believe the next ones to arrive will be the NG version. ;)

[solowflyer]

Bunbury Aero Club (WA) have one on line for charter work

[pressed_on]

Thanks Wally for your input, nice to have an mature debate!

It is an interesting topic to speak on, but it does seem that many people (especially USA and Europe) are warming to the idea of this aircraft especially when it means that they can land at an airfield closer to home and away from the main hubs where the citations et al would generally congregate. It certainly was a bonus for my previous employer.

One failure in every 100,000hours of service is one of the criterion it takes for the a/c to be fit for Air transport ops. Where I'm flying Lycoming twins at the moment (540's) there have been three in the last 3 months. I'll take the Single Pratt any day. These old twins are 60s and 70s technology compared to the precision of the swiss machine. I had a tour of the Pilatus factory in Buochs (SUI) and I was blown away with the machinery, staff, cleanliness etc and I can see how the final product is such a lovely thing, when it is concieved in such a factory. And needless to say P & W Canada is concurrent with the above.

As for the twin turbine debate for equivilant aircraft, say King Airs? (just to add my opinion). As most catostrophic failures occur on T/O, (max power settings) What would you rather at MCTOW? Be in a Single PT6, looking out the window and lining up the field/beach/pub road....or doing emergency checks etc while struggling to maintain +ve control and climb then find yourself already trimming the trees and in a lot of trouble.

Now I don't know the performance stats on a king air at MCTOW but if it's like most light twins, SE at MCTOW is a bad place to be at ISA let alone anything worse. PC-12 lst time I read the manual was 80nm from 280, there or there abouts. Plenty of time to get the togs and sunscreen on.

As for the PC-12 stats, ton of payload, 1700nm range (Azores - Halifax) 250KTAS, sounds better/similar to a king air for half the operating costs (twice the price admittedly)

This post took a turn for the worst, oh well once it starts typing....

(Awaits angry B200 driver rebuttal)

[Capt Wally]

'rcioght' I couldn't agree with you more on pretty much all of yr words, 'tis a great plane for sure, beats the B200 in many area's BAR ONE! the PC12 would be able to do all you say after an engine failure, IN IDEAL conditions, but we don't always fly in ideal conditions now do we?:bored:

The only reason as to why the RFDS (not all sections thank God!) are using them......is COST ! it's all about cost, & that's the bottom line!:bored:
The B200's are being replaced at certain sections due to cost, not 'cause you can't buy then anymore. At $8mill+ per B200 airframe set up as an aeromedical craft is big bucks!
The Sth E RFDS section when it aquired the current contract (all bases within) where allowed only twin engine types in the tender, why? because of SAFETY & the fact that the paramedics wouldn't fly in a SE anyway. I didn't make the rules I just happen to believe in the obvious!:)

"Two is better than one", that saying is so right it's everywhere. 2 arms are better than one, 2 legs are better than one, 2 eyes are better than one & two ENGINES are better than one you can't refute that no matter how hard you try!

typical scenario.

You depart at night from a shortish strip with say 20+ H/W & hills about then punch into cloud at say around 800 ft, yr going to do what in a PC12 when the engine fails?? ...........CRASH ! either on or off the airfield, no tnxs:bored:

Anyway look guys am not here to convince, I don't have to am just sticking up for what I believe is true. Others have the same right & I respect that (it's really a debate after all) but it's when some go beyond opinions & become nasty, this I have seen too many times in a lot of threads here.
CW

[112.3]

PC12 any day......

what other aircraft can do a 180 after 600 feet and land on the runway after an engine failure?
A PC12 can.... and doing it on the Simulator in Orlando was amazing.

What Pilatus put into this aircraft is a pilots dream. I can tell you going from flying a clapped out Navajo over the Rockies in Canada to flying the PC12 up in remote Northern Canada. The PC12 was f@*k7ng amazing. it made a hard day easy.:ok:

The PC12 is quite possibly the best machine I have ever flown.....other than the 727-200.

[Capt Wally]

No angry replies from me 'pressed-on' I don't do that.:)

Like I said in the previous the PC12 is a great plane., I don't think i've ever said it's not.
As for having an eng failure at T/off I think you will find that even at gross weight the B200 will fly away on one eng very well, in fact it only has to achieve 1.9% clb gradient (in chrt cat under 5700kg's )which is around 250 ft/min for a B200 as VYSE, the airframe will do 600 FPM easily at GW. A lot of people believe that with en eng failure at T/off in a twin it's all over, I agree most times due to poor pilot handling & other factors but providing that in the B200's case you have an operable auto feather an eng failure is no more than doing the 3 basic airmanship thingies........aviate navigate then communicate! Fly the damn plane!

I keep reading many comparing old piston twins here as Eg's against the PC12, again I agree these old buckets are suspect & don't have anywhere near the reliablity of a turbine but as I said before there are more options in one of those old crates upon an eng failure than a 'glider' version of a PC12.

Still am happy to read sensible posts that show good reasons for their existance (PC12's that is)


CW

[Howard Hughes]

As most catastrophic failures occur on T/O
WRONG! Most catastrophic engine failures occur at a power reduction! I only know one person who has had a catastrophic failure on take-off and that was at the 500ft power reduction, all the other people I know who have suffered engine failures, have had them on descent! I understand this is also reflected in the safety statistics!

As for performance comparison I don't think the PC-12 has an 'accelerate go' chart!;)

But I will concede that it does climb 'on one' better than a 'Kingair', but of course with one 'inoperative', there is no comparison...:E

Cheers, HH.:ok:

[Capt Wally]

hey "HH" come on buddy help me here, I think I'm the only one that believes safety can only be achieved with more than one !:bored:

And what are we going to do if the worst should ever happen they (RFDS SE section) get PC12's?.........where unemployed:{

Yr right tho, I too believe that eng failure mostly occur after the first pwr reduction, although I know of 2 that did occur at rotation or thereabouts & at EN.
Anyway I gotta go & prove even if just myself that 2 are always better then one, even out of bed !:E


CW

[Clearedtoreenter]

You're quite right Capt Wally. If a single engine turbine gives up on you, you'll crash. But if an aged piston twin loses one engine, even if you can maintain min control speed, it might well lose the other as it struggles to do twice as much (something it was never designed to do.) and you'll crash, probably in a much bigger way than you would in a PC12. (Was there not a 777 with a rumoured double engine failure recently - they happen.)

Its not about how many engines, its about risk. Having more crappy old 1930's designed unreliable engines does not reduce the risk. I don't have the stats but I'd guess the probability of losing one turbine engine is less than half of that of losing two piston engines, even on the same plane. I'd also bet that if you lose one engine on some old twin, especially at MAUW on take-off, you have more probability of a non-survivable crash than in a PC 12.

Best way to think of a knackered old twin is as a single because that's what it is really - it needs both much of the time and that makes it twice as dangerous.:O

[Howard Hughes]

I thought I was supporting you...:rolleyes:

Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again!:ok:

[rcoight]

I don't agree with the statement

"If a single engine turbine gives up on you, you'll crash."

I would say: If a single engine turbine gives up on you, you'll have a forced landing. Quite possibly on the same runway you took off on, or on another perfectly serviceable airfield.

Which is rather different to a crash.

How about: If a single engine turbine gives up on you at the worst possible time, you MAY crash.

And,

If an engine gives up on you in a twin at the worst possible time, you also MAY crash.

At least the touchdown speed in a PC12 is going to be far less than in almost any twin, and is therefore more surviveable.

[neville_nobody]

WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens........

Its been the trend for many years to recruit internally

It's true that they recruit internally and it is in spite of a coroners recommendation that they recruit externally to access a higher experience pool of pilots. This was after one of their 310's run out of fuel at night killing everybody. The accident report was a interesting read.

PC-12's are nice but you would want to make sure you didn't cut corners with your maintenance. When you have only have one engine you want to make sure it runs well.

would say: If a single engine turbine gives up on you, you'll have a forced landing.

There are plenty of places in Australia where I wouldn't want to be making a forced landing in IMC or night!! At least in B200 a freak engine problem just means you divert somewhere with a instrument approach and a nice runway.

If PC-12's are so great how come the SE RFDS section don't have them??

[Jabawocky]

Maybe its the old Horses for Courses arguement.

In Wally's example, 800' and intothe soup, at night and crappy wx and its a HAVE TO GO situation, which is what he and HH do for a living, I think two turbines is the best way to go.

For charter and other private ops and even some RFDS ops the PC-12 is a very acceptable option. You do not always HAVE to go, you can avoid as much as possible serious hard core IFR and lots of night flying and or a combination of both.

Worth remembering that one time due no fault of his own a king air pilot had an engine let go. He rotated just a fraction early and then bang! Lost control and he and 3 or 4 others were killed in the industrial estate west of YTWB.

J:ok:

[Capt Wally]

sorry 'HH', plz 4give me, it hurts doing this :ugh:all the time with these guys but from now on the PC12 rules..............providing the suns out & I can see for miles & miles & miles:):ok:

'nev' yr right how come the RFDS don't use them, see my previous post, it's so obvious as to why not!:bored:



...................."At least the touchdown speed in a PC12 is going to be far less than in almost any twin, and is therefore more surviveable".
WRONG, total nonsence, those qualified will know that the above statement is rubbish, but hey am almost out of puff here, I think I'm having an eng failure myself:bored:

So for now we wait, wait for the day (sadly) where I could say 'I told ya so'! I hope I never get to say it:bored:

Am bowing out of this now 'cause I think it's run it's course, sure some will get nasty & continue on am used to that but do yr worst guys, for me I want to feel safe & less than two simply doesn't cut it for me:) As always personal choice/opinions.


CW

[Lasiorhinus]

hey "HH" come on buddy help me here, I think I'm the only one that believes safety can only be achieved with more than one !:bored:


Safety can be achieved with less than two engines, Wally - ask any glider pilot.:ok:


And what are we going to do if the worst should ever happen they (RFDS SE section) get PC12's?.........where unemployed:{
I suggest a PC12 endorsement would permit you to keep your job.:ok:

& two ENGINES are better than one you can't refute that no matter how hard you try!Two engines burn twice as much fuel as one engine - therefore, one engine costs half as much to operate (let alone purchase) as two, therefore one engine is better than two - and you can't refute that, no matter how hard you try!:E

[Howard Hughes]

Safety can be achieved with less than two engines, Wally - ask any glider pilot.
Not too many IFR gliders...;)

And I've never seen one depart in 0/800M either, nor a PC-12 for that matter!:E

[Lasiorhinus]

Who said anything about IFR?

Wally claimed that safety can only be achieved with more than one engine.

[Howard Hughes]

Why do they put 2 engines (at least) on 99% of IFR charter A/C?......for SAFFFFFFETY!
Las, the whole debate has been about IFR capabilities, see post 10 onwards! :ok:

[go_soaring]

"Safety can be achieved with less than two engines, Wally - ask any glider pilot.:ok:"

Got that right! I've got myself 600hrs gliding, 350 landings and take-offs, approx 30,000km covered, and so far I've never missed the intended landing airport/paddock/cricket pitch :)

Although, on around a dozzen occasions I've had to make 'forced landings' into unknown paddocks, all without incident! Quite easy really, all in the planning and not getting yourself low over any tiger country (ie, where no safe options are left to land if your unable to find that climb/thermal).

Great fun, especially the competition side of things.


Safe Circles,
go_soaring! instead

[rcoight]

Mmm...

"WRONG, total nonsence, those qualified will know that the above statement is rubbish"

Does 1000hrs flying a PC12 for the RFDS make me qualified enough to have an opinion?

Those who say the RFDS doesn't use them need to get out more.
I'm prepared to be corrected but I believe more RFDS sections have them than not.

No-one said the B200 isn't a great aeroplane (it obviously is), but to suggest that flying IFR in a PC12 is unsafe is simply RUBBISH.

And I don't want to spoil anyone's romantic notions, but even in the RFDS there is no such thing as a HAVE TO GO situation.


Cheers!

[Capt Wally]

night boys, been fun but most have lost the whole concept of unsafe SE IFR ops & seem to argue with ref to gliders, glide ratios, stall speeds, airframe strength etc & how great the PC 12 is when the fan stops. Simply put, which would you choose to be in over tiger country low level (after T/off at night in cloud to the ground when a fan stops, B200 or PC12 ? I rest my case.

I'll have to leave it at that, FTDK,Jaba & myself have other threads to hijack!:}

like I said way back ...each to their own !

Thanks HH, we must stick together:ok:


CW

[Howard Hughes]

It's horses for courses really, on the East Coast where 'tiger country' is abundant and the weather 'changeable', the Kingair seems to be in the majority, in the Western States where it is a little more open and weather is arguably better, the PC-12 prevails!:ok:

[Jabawocky]

HH

It's horses for courses really

Did someone say that already....echo ..... echo...:ok:

J:ok:

[Towering Q]

WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens

I think hundred's might be a slight exaggeration.

It's true that they recruit internally and it is in spite of a coroners recommendation that they recruit externally to access a higher experience pool of pilots. This was after one of their 310's run out of fuel at night killing everybody.

Completely different outfit nowadays Neville....SOP's that are strictly adhered to and a rigorous C&T program that result in a level of professionalism as good as anything else out there. And no, I don't work for them.

[Under Dog]

Pressed on
If your interested still,give Pilatus Aust a call in Adelaide they know every body in this country that operates PC12,s.

Regards The Dog

[gaunty]

Capt Wally mon vieux,

In FAR23 terms I'll stand by what I said, on balance I'd rather be in a PC12 than any of the other types in any condition of flight, because n one of them including the King Air are required or certified to show anything other than a OEI positive rate (>+50fpm) after TO and the ability to maintain level flight (+/- 50fpm) in ISA at 5,000ft.

Any other gradeints including the ones you mention are required by operational regulation (charter or public) flights not by design.

Ergo an airframe and seating system that is designed to be crash tolerant because it is a single, is in this context safer. And moreover, completely removes the temptation from the pilot to chance his arm. He must concentrate on doing what he should be, i.e. flying the aircraft safely all the way into the crash site until all the noise stops instead of trying to keep the twin aircraft upright. The end result for both is all likely events going to be the same, the PC12 is way in front in survivablility. VFR and IFR.

[Capt Wally]

......lovely day outside today..........NOT !(down this neck of the woods):E
Ah the sound of out of synced props, nothing like it !:ok:


CW

[Skystar320]

Quote:
WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens

I think hundred's might be a slight exaggeration.


Nope........ hundred's

[Chronic Snoozer]

Capt Wally, you're changing the argument to suit your point of view.

You saySimply put, which would you choose to be in over tiger country low level (after T/off at night in cloud to the ground when a fan stops, B200 or PC12 ?

Well you've given 100% probability that you are in that situation by phrasing the question like that. Of course it would be better to have two engines when one fails. However what percentage of the flight time are you actually in that particular situation you've described? Now multiply that over thousands of missions.

Aside to all that the other day when I was chatting to the PC12 driver he mentioned that the cockpit area & seats are rated to something over 20 G's, great & yr body can stand what? maybe 10 or so..............hmmmmm yep that make me feel all warm & cosy !

This is so the aircraft integrity is not compromised and you are not killed by a flying seat having survived a forced landing. (you did know this didn't you or have I read your comment too literally?)

The PC-12 is niche aircraft - they have flogged over 700 of them, 75% in the US. Its v.v.good at what it does and can do. If twins were as cheap, there wouldn't be a PC-12. Why not leave the debate at that?

Check out http://www.planesense.aero/

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Wally, Wally, Wally - you hijacking threads again? :=

Dr :8

[pressed_on]

Cheers Under Dog,

Such a simple answer, but probably a bloody good idea, glad I thought of it!:ok:

I love the intellectual debate going on, I do agree with you Wally,

1 super safe turbine + 1 super safe turbine = super duper safety

well that may not be so intellectual, but it is fairly logical I spose. Two engines should be better than one.

I'm bailing out!

[Howard Hughes]

Did someone say that already....echo ..... echo...:ok:
Always a leader Jabba!;)

[Capt Wally]

yeah sorry Dr:8 plz 4give me for I was only trying to be "safe":E

It's been a great debate but am sure all our heads are:ugh:.
The thread has runs it's course for me, tnxs for the debate.

ahhhh what's that I hear outside the office window??? the sound of TWO turbines & in this case a Helo.........ahhhh but that's another thread hijack right Dr:8?:E
Feel free to continue guys, I know what keeps me all warm & fuzzy & it ain't a log fire either!:ok:

CW

[Towering Q]

Nope........ hundred's

Skystar320, I don't know where you are getting your figures from but I spoke recently to a mate in the WA Police Air Wing who confirmed that the number of serving officers who hold a Pilots Licence is definitely not measured in the hundreds.

[Skystar320]

No offence to your 'mate' in the force who is in the police airwing.

I remember talking to a senior sergent who did a stint in the police airwing up until a year ago, before moving back to traffic - when they advertised internally they received somewhat over 192 applicants......

Drawing from all over WA

[although deduct 40 of them who didnt qualify]

Hey I dont want to get into a slanging match, but WA police prefer to recuit internally over pilots in the police air wing. [sorry to mods - that had a thread drift]

[Towering Q]

when they advertised internally they received somewhat over 192 applicants

I don't suppose the Snr Sgt was getting confused with applicants for a 'Crewman' position....oops sorry, I mean 'Tactical Flight Officer'.:}

[rcoight]

CW, your continuing references to "being safe" sounds like something CASA would say.
ie. as long as we say the word "safety", we can follow it with any old rubbish we like! ;)

It is an interesting debate, and I don't want to have a go at anyone personally.
Nor will I question their credentials or right to comment or have an opinion, but it does seem that there is a fair bit of uninformed bias against the modern single turbine by those who are going only by their "gut feeling" and not by reality.
I would be very interested to see the accident stats for these aircraft types and compare them to similar types (ie. aircraft performing a similar role, including the King Air).
I suspect that the PC12 is proving to be a very safe aircraft indeed.

I must take issue with the contention that impact speed has nothing to do with surviveability. Surely you can't be serious?
This is one of the main reasons for the "61kt" rule, and single engine aircraft that do not meet this rule must have extra crashworthiness built in(such as higher rated seats etc.)
I know I would rather hit something at 40 or 50kt than 100kt!

I understand that the statistics show that an engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in a fatal accident than in a single.
As someone else has pointed out, this is because pilots continue to try to fly the aircraft away in the twin, often with disastrous results!
Whereas in the single there is only one choice, and one can concentrate on doing the best possible job of it. That combined with the lower approach speeds mean you can squeeze the single into a relatively small space, and if you do a half reasonable job you've got a good chance of walking away.

No doubt there are some situations where having two engines is a definite advantage, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as some believe it to be.

Anyway, thanks all for an interesting debate.
Remember, CW, we are all on the same side, and not everyone in here is a 16 year old drooling over pictures of PC12's and King Airs!
All I can say is after thousands of hours tooling around in just about every piston twin made and now a fair bit of time in the PC12, I know what I feel more comfortable and "safe" strapping myself into!
No comparison!

Safe flying to all.

Oh yeah, and to the original poster, as I said before there will be a number of the NG model PC12's arriving in Oz over the next couple of years.
I'm certainly looking forward to getting my hands on one!

[Mr Bomb]

CW,
The human body can sustain 30G without permanant damage and 60 G instantaneous without permanant damage. Ejection seats are deisigned to these limits, although modern ejection seats have a peak acceleration of somewhat less than 30G. Therefor 20G seats are indeed s safety feature.

The 61kt rule actually comes about from a risk analysis which takes into account loads during a crash etc. It isn't just plucked. IIRC for every five knots above 61kts that you "crash" at the risk of serious injury/death doubles. (It might be ten knots, I can't quite remember way back to my course on certification and crashworthiness, although I am sure someone here can correct me if I am wrong!) Suffice to say this is one of the reasons why military aircraft have ejection seats. The military only accepts a slightly higher risk of death of aircrew in the event of engine failure than civilian certified aircraft, thus you will notice most single engined military aircraft (and all modern single engine military aircraft) which have a stall speed greater than 61Kt have bang seats. Transposing this into the civilan certification, 20G seats mitigates the higher stall speed of a PC12 (or other aircraft) and in effect the body in one of these seats will be subjected to the same forces as a "regular" seat at 61Kts.

Cheers
Mr B.

[bycriminy]

Thats bollocks. A private owner of a PC12 was getting some instruction there. But said plane has not been seen in Bunbury for 2 months