Single Engine turboprop crossing the North Sea
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Engine turboprop crossing the North Sea
Whilst playing with flight radar with the Kids I noticed that on many occasions we would se a PC12 flying between Scotland and Norway straight across the North Sea. Now perhaps I'm too old school (I remember ETOPS being a major discussion ) but single engine at night over the North Sea would give me the collywobles. id be interested what you younger aviators feel about single engine ops over the water imc at night etc.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...what you younger aviators feel about single engine ops over the water imc at night etc.
Personally, I can not imagine that I will ever be desperate enough for flying time and/or money to do that myself. And flying privately even less so. But then, what do I know about the future?
And about day or night I really don't know if that makes any difference in these waters. You either wear a full immersion suit and carry a raft for the least chance of survival or you will drown a either way.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Land of Ice and Fire
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown 217 across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, I might not be the right one to ask......or I am. Scotland to Norway.....Nome to Kyoto, St Johns to Azores, Goose to Reykjavik and California to Hilo Hawaii, the longest overwater stretch you can find.
It can happen at any time on any engine, but the statistics have convinced EASA that AOC, single-engine turboprop is now permitted. So......I don't want you to lose sleep, so not a word about the single-engine pistons! ;-)
It can happen at any time on any engine, but the statistics have convinced EASA that AOC, single-engine turboprop is now permitted. So......I don't want you to lose sleep, so not a word about the single-engine pistons! ;-)
this is 2017, not 1917
A young lady at night and her experience.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3483038/ao2010006.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...but the statistics have convinced EASA...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know about this incident having discussed a ton of scenarios with my buddy before he flew RTW in his PC-12 last year. Nice to know that its proven possible to ditch one safely in real world IMC at least once: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17025
Why is that ?
The PC12 is an impressive aircraft by all accounts but still a single and if your one engine fails you're just in an expensive glider.
I flew some ancient clapped out Barons in another life, single Pilot night freight but I'd still prefer its extra engine compared to your chances in a single across the north sea.
The PC12 is an impressive aircraft by all accounts but still a single and if your one engine fails you're just in an expensive glider.
I flew some ancient clapped out Barons in another life, single Pilot night freight but I'd still prefer its extra engine compared to your chances in a single across the north sea.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I flew some ancient clapped out Barons in another life, single Pilot night freight but I'd still prefer its extra engine compared to your chances in a single across the north sea.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reliability of the PT6 is easily comparable to a piston twin, if not better, so no trouble for PC12, TBM8/9xx to take these routes. If I would have to choose, I'll take the PC12 over a light twin. And, I prefer quick death in North Sea over lingering illness as well ;-).
Last edited by ChickenHouse; 7th Feb 2017 at 14:43.
Over water, at night ? In SEP, even ? Been there, done that, many times transAtlantic .. and got away with it 
! I don't do it any more these days though.
But it is quite routine : just Google 'OTTspotters' that monitors North Atlantic ferry traffic. There's usually a sprinkling of singles the year round crossing lots and lots of water. Twins are more common though.
! I don't do it any more these days though.But it is quite routine : just Google 'OTTspotters' that monitors North Atlantic ferry traffic. There's usually a sprinkling of singles the year round crossing lots and lots of water. Twins are more common though.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the moment your colleague shut down the engine, they were effectively flying a single across Europe in the middle of the night, and one with less performance than most. IMO a questionable decision not to land at the nearest suitable airfield.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing SET to MEP:
A PT6 may have a MTBF (including prop, fuel, etc.) that is 10 times higher than that of a well maintained piston engine, which would result in 20 times better engine reliability in a SET than in a MEP. It is very difficult to get good data, so this is just a very rough guess looking at accident data.
So for initial climb, which is critical in most cases in a MEP, you are safer in a SET, especially if pilot skills are not excellent and climb out is difficult. However, for long flights over water, mountains or remote areas or in bad weather, especially at night, a MEP will offer much more safety if handled by a professional pilot and by the book. Most turbocharged MEPs will provide sufficient single engine performance after initial climb, at most places.
If MTBF on a piston is 1 per 10,000 hours, the probability to lose the second engine when within 1 hour of an alternate in average is 1:5,000 (OEI) * 1:10,000 (second engine out within one hour). This, of course, requires to save the good engine.
A Seneca III will keep you OEI at 14,000 ft on an ISA day with full tanks on departure and 4 pax. A Cessna 421C with the same loading will maintain 20,000 ft on one engine. At MTOM, which is full tanks and 500 kg of crew + pax on the C421C I fly, the ISA single engine service ceiling is 15,000 ft. In most cases, 70 % MCP will get you a good single engine cruise above all you want to clear.
I would not frequently do flights in a SET in conditions where an emergency landing would probably be lethal for me or my passengers. Evacuating a child or older persons after ditching and getting them in a raft would be a nightmare even if it is the Mediterranean Sea in summer. I feel SET - either new or used - are way overpriced compared to MET (e.g. a new King Air or a used Conquest) or MEP.
Reliability on many piston engines is largely affected by maintenance and pilots. Turbines are seeing professional handling and pilots in most cases. The engines are not guilty if the owner doesn't care and the pilot doesn't either.
A PT6 may have a MTBF (including prop, fuel, etc.) that is 10 times higher than that of a well maintained piston engine, which would result in 20 times better engine reliability in a SET than in a MEP. It is very difficult to get good data, so this is just a very rough guess looking at accident data.
So for initial climb, which is critical in most cases in a MEP, you are safer in a SET, especially if pilot skills are not excellent and climb out is difficult. However, for long flights over water, mountains or remote areas or in bad weather, especially at night, a MEP will offer much more safety if handled by a professional pilot and by the book. Most turbocharged MEPs will provide sufficient single engine performance after initial climb, at most places.
If MTBF on a piston is 1 per 10,000 hours, the probability to lose the second engine when within 1 hour of an alternate in average is 1:5,000 (OEI) * 1:10,000 (second engine out within one hour). This, of course, requires to save the good engine.
A Seneca III will keep you OEI at 14,000 ft on an ISA day with full tanks on departure and 4 pax. A Cessna 421C with the same loading will maintain 20,000 ft on one engine. At MTOM, which is full tanks and 500 kg of crew + pax on the C421C I fly, the ISA single engine service ceiling is 15,000 ft. In most cases, 70 % MCP will get you a good single engine cruise above all you want to clear.
I would not frequently do flights in a SET in conditions where an emergency landing would probably be lethal for me or my passengers. Evacuating a child or older persons after ditching and getting them in a raft would be a nightmare even if it is the Mediterranean Sea in summer. I feel SET - either new or used - are way overpriced compared to MET (e.g. a new King Air or a used Conquest) or MEP.
Reliability on many piston engines is largely affected by maintenance and pilots. Turbines are seeing professional handling and pilots in most cases. The engines are not guilty if the owner doesn't care and the pilot doesn't either.
Last edited by AndiKunzi; 8th Feb 2017 at 07:33.