Air Med Seneca Down
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put my 2 cents worth in:
I agree with some of the points made with regard to climb performance of a light twin piston compared to flying jets or turbo props (twins), but not with all the points made. Granted though, in principle, I am much happier now flying jets than I was with the pistons.
As for the point plinkton made about : "Plus they are generally crewed by pilots in their first job, flying to get the multi time and using the job as a stepping-stone." I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Whilst I am not able to comment on all operations I can say that the majority of the pilots with AirMed are experienced pilots with thousands of relevant flying hours and are not just using the job as a stepping stone. This includes the pilot whose accident has sparked this thread!
Since to fly single pilot IFR charter the pilots need a minimum of 700 hours total, and 100 IFR (40 hours MEP) and this legal minimum is often much lower than the hours AirMed look for I don't see the relevance of his point?
Anyway.....Christmas Eve, and that's an end to my opinion on it.
Merry Christmas to all.
PS, for anyone actually interested in the more important point, the pilot is making good progress in his recovery.
I agree with some of the points made with regard to climb performance of a light twin piston compared to flying jets or turbo props (twins), but not with all the points made. Granted though, in principle, I am much happier now flying jets than I was with the pistons.
As for the point plinkton made about : "Plus they are generally crewed by pilots in their first job, flying to get the multi time and using the job as a stepping-stone." I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Whilst I am not able to comment on all operations I can say that the majority of the pilots with AirMed are experienced pilots with thousands of relevant flying hours and are not just using the job as a stepping stone. This includes the pilot whose accident has sparked this thread!
Since to fly single pilot IFR charter the pilots need a minimum of 700 hours total, and 100 IFR (40 hours MEP) and this legal minimum is often much lower than the hours AirMed look for I don't see the relevance of his point?
Anyway.....Christmas Eve, and that's an end to my opinion on it.
Merry Christmas to all.
PS, for anyone actually interested in the more important point, the pilot is making good progress in his recovery.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charterguy
You are talking out of your backside, to put it bluntly but fairly.
For a start your bizarre idea for a precondition would not stop most of the PA34 operators I know of, who can perfectly well afford turboprops and jets. It is just that there is a market for light twins, and that market is fairly strong, and people can make money out of them so will operate them. Secondly there is no basis for calling the Seneca a "widow maker" or for talking of "Seneca sorry stories". It is not an especially dangerous aircraft. I've flown one on one engine and it does so perfectly well.
I suspect when you do talk of Seneca sorry stories you are talking about flights outside AOC operations. People who can afford a private turbine aircraft often operate them quite well, or even get professionals to operate them. However light pistons are often used privately, flown by inexperienced pilots, or for training, or even chartered on a very suspect basis (have you seen the recent leaflet from the CAA?).
There is no objective reason to restrict public transport flying to turbines. Today's light charter operations are safer than in the past.
chinchilla
Those are not actually legal limits for flying single-crew in a piston. However many companies have them in their operations manual. We all insist on certain experience, ability and very high standards from our crews. If I wouldn't trust my pilots to fly my girlfriend (who is scared of flying) or my young nephew, then I would not sign their line check.
You are talking out of your backside, to put it bluntly but fairly.
For a start your bizarre idea for a precondition would not stop most of the PA34 operators I know of, who can perfectly well afford turboprops and jets. It is just that there is a market for light twins, and that market is fairly strong, and people can make money out of them so will operate them. Secondly there is no basis for calling the Seneca a "widow maker" or for talking of "Seneca sorry stories". It is not an especially dangerous aircraft. I've flown one on one engine and it does so perfectly well.
I suspect when you do talk of Seneca sorry stories you are talking about flights outside AOC operations. People who can afford a private turbine aircraft often operate them quite well, or even get professionals to operate them. However light pistons are often used privately, flown by inexperienced pilots, or for training, or even chartered on a very suspect basis (have you seen the recent leaflet from the CAA?).
There is no objective reason to restrict public transport flying to turbines. Today's light charter operations are safer than in the past.
chinchilla
Those are not actually legal limits for flying single-crew in a piston. However many companies have them in their operations manual. We all insist on certain experience, ability and very high standards from our crews. If I wouldn't trust my pilots to fly my girlfriend (who is scared of flying) or my young nephew, then I would not sign their line check.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charterguy and Plinkton,
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and I believe AirMed have IIIs, with 10% more power than the II.
Plinkerton
Trend monitoring is actually rather nicely done by flying a small number of aircraft with a small number of crew who know them really rather well, and fly them regularly, and care about the aircraft and each other, in a small team. This is usually the case in a small piston fleet.
Plinkerton
Trend monitoring is actually rather nicely done by flying a small number of aircraft with a small number of crew who know them really rather well, and fly them regularly, and care about the aircraft and each other, in a small team. This is usually the case in a small piston fleet.
Those are not actually legal limits for flying single-crew in a piston. However many companies have them in their operations manual.
Am I mistaken believing the III's 220HP reverts to 200HP after 5 mins (?)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetscream 32:
There is no need to be unpleasant. Most of the posts so far have been the writers own opinion, can't you see that. This is clearly an emotive issue and to attack others won't drive the debate any further forward.
I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.
Life's a Beech:
This is actually a good point, I have worked in a team like this and it does work but it's not the type of trend monitoring I mean, having said that the only time I did have an engine failure in a piston twin it probably couldn't have been predicted by any type of trend monitoring.
Most of what I said in my original post refers to that fact that when put together the factors mentioned are not positive or complimentary but could add up to a less safe situation than with a single tubine (for example).
Charterguy and Plinkton,
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
You are the most uninformed and inexpereinced sky gods i have come across recently on this forum to come up with utter drivel you have let pour....
When was the last time either of you were blue line speed in a Seneca either for private flying or AOC ops - no, no please let me guess - it was when you were at Oxford on your way to your shiny 738 that you were sponsored for - yes that must be it...
The Seneca series are all fine, especially the II - if you are current, keep current, and have to or used to fly one for living, you would know they are a workhorse, and will happily trundle around Europe at FL80 all day long, rain, snow, ice, hail, sunshine, - organs, camera films, data tapes, AOG spares for 747's into LUX.....grass strips, Jeremy Clarkson, Tom Cruise.....!!!
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying - you will realise what an utter ar$e you have made of yourself - spouting such horse crap...!
I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.
Life's a Beech:
Trend monitoring is actually rather nicely done by flying a small number of aircraft with a small number of crew who know them really rather well, and fly them regularly, and care about the aircraft and each other, in a small team. This is usually the case in a small piston fleet.
Most of what I said in my original post refers to that fact that when put together the factors mentioned are not positive or complimentary but could add up to a less safe situation than with a single tubine (for example).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selfin
You are right that 220 is the take-off power. Still very useful in the event of an engine failure. Not flown the II, but I assume that the 200 hp is also a take-off power, as stated power is with most engines (even a C152 has max continuous of 100, but lack of turbo-charging makes it kind of irrelevant!).
1.960 does not apply to a PA-34.
I don't have JAR-OPS in front of me at the moment, but I think the relevant part is the appendix to 1.980. The hours requirement is actually far below what any operator would accept for typical air-taxi operations!
plinkton
Indeed, the most likely time for a failure is in the first 50 hours after rebuild. No time for trend monitoring!
Statistically piston twins are less safe than single turbines. However that is probably because there are a lot more flown by inexperienced pilots and in difficult conditions, and they are actually harder to fly. In AOC operations, with line training and close monitoring of experienced CPL holders I don't think that would apply. We won't see single-engine AOC operations (except day VMC) in the UK for a long time yet. Anywhere that a single failure can cause a crash the CAA will avoid if at all possible.
You are right that 220 is the take-off power. Still very useful in the event of an engine failure. Not flown the II, but I assume that the 200 hp is also a take-off power, as stated power is with most engines (even a C152 has max continuous of 100, but lack of turbo-charging makes it kind of irrelevant!).
1.960 does not apply to a PA-34.
Originally Posted by JAR-OPS 1.960
A Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) holder does not operate as a commander of an aeroplane certificated in the Aeroplane Flight Manual for single pilot operations unless:
my emphasis
my emphasis
plinkton
Indeed, the most likely time for a failure is in the first 50 hours after rebuild. No time for trend monitoring!
Statistically piston twins are less safe than single turbines. However that is probably because there are a lot more flown by inexperienced pilots and in difficult conditions, and they are actually harder to fly. In AOC operations, with line training and close monitoring of experienced CPL holders I don't think that would apply. We won't see single-engine AOC operations (except day VMC) in the UK for a long time yet. Anywhere that a single failure can cause a crash the CAA will avoid if at all possible.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plinkton,
[quote]
There is no need to be unpleasant. Most of the posts so far have been the writers own opinion, can't you see that. This is clearly an emotive issue and to attack others won't drive the debate any further forward.
I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.
[quote]
Plinkers, you will need to be able to take a bit more flak then i have given you - if your posts are going to be so uniformed and factually wrong - post good stuff and personal expereinces for all to share - gets a thumbs up from me - post rubbish as you have done and expect to get the odd flame thrown at you- as all you did was unpleasant to those who have many, many SAFE hours driving around in them. - touche - and hey dont get offended....
[quote]
There is no need to be unpleasant. Most of the posts so far have been the writers own opinion, can't you see that. This is clearly an emotive issue and to attack others won't drive the debate any further forward.
I would suggest you have drawn attention to your own personal issues rather than the subject.
[quote]
Plinkers, you will need to be able to take a bit more flak then i have given you - if your posts are going to be so uniformed and factually wrong - post good stuff and personal expereinces for all to share - gets a thumbs up from me - post rubbish as you have done and expect to get the odd flame thrown at you- as all you did was unpleasant to those who have many, many SAFE hours driving around in them. - touche - and hey dont get offended....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly Senencas - then I grew up. How long before UK operators start to realise that the Seneca is a 'widow maker' ?
I flew the II and III doing rural ambulance operations in very mountainous terrain , in remote areas, and from rough fields including dirt airstrips illuminated with automobiles and flare pots. Of the light piston twins, the Seneca II and III have some of the highest published single engine service ceilings, and can hold about eight thousand with passengers and fuel on one engine. This is considerably different than many light twins that can't hold altitude at all on one engine.
I flew frequently at night in Senecas into rough places to pick up and move medical and trauma victims. While I'd rather have a King Air, the Seneca did just fine. Widow maker? Such melodrama.
As for beating it down because of inexperienced pilots and the like...those aren't airplane issues and one can't blame the airplane.
So far as trend monitoring...that's an operator issue, and has nothing to do with the airplane.
The airplane doesn't have twice the opportunity for an engine failure...you have the same opportunity every time with every powerplant; it's very simple; either it will, or it won't.
Piston pilots aren't trained for try to wrangle a bad situation any more than anybody else. Light piston twin pilots are drilled on the need to pull back the good engine rather than trying the impossible during an engine failure, where the case merits. If you received training to the contrary, then you received incorrect training, and certainly didn't receive what's commonly taught.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy
Agree, and in my experience it ain't necessary. OK I'm flying light, but in all single-engine drills (and reality) have never needed max continuous to climb away on one in commercial twins (unlike the twins I trained in!). I even left the gear down in training to fly one with a big hydraulic lever instead of the little electric switch I was used to.
Agree, and in my experience it ain't necessary. OK I'm flying light, but in all single-engine drills (and reality) have never needed max continuous to climb away on one in commercial twins (unlike the twins I trained in!). I even left the gear down in training to fly one with a big hydraulic lever instead of the little electric switch I was used to.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EGGD KFXE EGBJ
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO
Sorry Guys BUT
We have been operating PA34s for a lot of years the Aircraft does what it says on the tin and has launched thousands of pilot careers and certainly not made any widows on uk aoc work that I am aware of
The problem is the lack of medium time (500 hrs plus ex flying instructors)
to fly them safely.
If you are just out of flight school with 200 hours, why not get an instructors rating and learn to fly marginal aircraft ! you might find it useful one day
Happy New Year to you all
We have been operating PA34s for a lot of years the Aircraft does what it says on the tin and has launched thousands of pilot careers and certainly not made any widows on uk aoc work that I am aware of
The problem is the lack of medium time (500 hrs plus ex flying instructors)
to fly them safely.
If you are just out of flight school with 200 hours, why not get an instructors rating and learn to fly marginal aircraft ! you might find it useful one day
Happy New Year to you all
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Citation - migration
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, are you saying you cannot get pilots with the right hours to fly your Seneca’s?
What would the right hours and mix of Multi/single/P1 time be?
Also, and I know this is an emotive subject, but is there a way you could get around this with two crew? (Obviously not with two low hours pilots though).
There must be at least one person with the right time.
Also, is it possible to employ a low hour pilot for just one route, therefore offsetting the inexperience against the fact they are only cleared for say Cov-IOM, for example?
What would the right hours and mix of Multi/single/P1 time be?
Also, and I know this is an emotive subject, but is there a way you could get around this with two crew? (Obviously not with two low hours pilots though).
There must be at least one person with the right time.
Also, is it possible to employ a low hour pilot for just one route, therefore offsetting the inexperience against the fact they are only cleared for say Cov-IOM, for example?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you have had a real job, flying a real aircraft, that requires to be hand flown - and done a few thousand hours of that type of flying
Plinkton has a point, Jetscream. By making such bluff remark it would appear you have personal issues to address. All aircraft are "real"; those that fly other types do not necessarily have inferior skills to yourself which is what you imply.
Plinkton has a point, Jetscream. By making such bluff remark it would appear you have personal issues to address. All aircraft are "real"; those that fly other types do not necessarily have inferior skills to yourself which is what you imply.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accident aircraft was a PA31T and appears to be pilot error. Very experienced driver. Pilot was critical but understand he is making progress. Came down in trees, lost the wings and contacted the ground inverted. It's a miracle the pilot is alive. Let's wait and see what the AAIB report has to say on the matter.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South East
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The accident aircraft was a PA31T and appears to be pilot error. Very experienced driver. Pilot was critical but understand he is making progress. Came down in trees, lost the wings and contacted the ground inverted. It's a miracle the pilot is alive. Let's wait and see what the AAIB report has to say on the matter"
Speedbird, I'd be interested to know where you got your info from as it was certainly not a PA31T, it was a PA34 as per the previous messages and at this stage it is not clear what the cause was so lets not start pointing the finger at the pilot.
Speedbird, I'd be interested to know where you got your info from as it was certainly not a PA31T, it was a PA34 as per the previous messages and at this stage it is not clear what the cause was so lets not start pointing the finger at the pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 67
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Am Good At
Keeping my gob shut in debates where I cant make a positive contribution but it amazes me how many people talk such "factual" boll.
Thanks to the rest of you who at least keep to the facts even if your opinions differ to those of others.
Regards to the Pilot and hope he makes a full and speedy recovery .
.Thanks to the rest of you who at least keep to the facts even if your opinions differ to those of others.
Regards to the Pilot and hope he makes a full and speedy recovery .
Good shout radicalrabit - even the good old BBC got it wrong by saying that he was found by a "police helicopter". The local police chopper couldn't get airborne for the search owing to fog at Benson. The ARCC scrambled the SAR heli from Lee On Solent and they found the crash site.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the braying and crying about the Seneca, people quick to rush to conclusions...and here a report is provided which shows the pilot simply let down early. Ban the seneca, some said. All the airplane's fault...don't fly light twins...they're dangerous.
Once again we find that the most dangerous thing in the airplane is the pilot.
Hopefully nobody starts beating their chest and calling for banning pilots.
Once again we find that the most dangerous thing in the airplane is the pilot.
Hopefully nobody starts beating their chest and calling for banning pilots.
Yes, and now that the AAIB report is out I don't suppose we shall see any posts from the anti-Seneca brigade admitting that they were too hasty in condemning the performance envelope of a perfectly safe aircraft type.