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.

Define "younger" first ;-)

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.

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! ;-)

And interestingly,a plan to use Cessna caravans out of the Channel Islands with two uk caravan engine failures in the last six months. I'm not a betting man,but.....

New TBM's are delivered to N. America from France all of the time, this is 2017, not 1917 !!!
f

A failure is a failure no matter the year. The PT6 has a good reputation but never the less. SIL had a PT6 spit the chips recently on initial climb, and it had only 1,000 hours since brand new, fortunately he had a spare to carry him home.

A young lady at night and her experience.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3483038/ao2010006.pdf

We just decided against this route recently, flying Finland to North England. Crossed south over Netherlands instead.. and yes, the flight was much longer.

Yes, maybe. But I am not a statistic and I don't want to become one. I am an individual and for me, the probability that the engine will fail on my next flight is exactly the same than as it will fail on my thousandths flight (at least this is what they taught me in maths back at school). A bit like 200hp motorcycles. Statistically they seem to be safe enough that that lawmakers allow them to be sold to anyone and driven on public roads. Yet my own sense of self-preservation tells me to do the smart thing and stay away from them.

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

Manual Reversion,

Do please provide us with the two examples in the UK.

Albus

I would rather do it in a PC12 compared to the seneca I used to go across there in!

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.

Same here. Back in those times, one of my colleagues once did a precautionary shutdown on one engine (in a C404 IIRC) over Spain and flew all the way home to Germany on one engine in the middle of the night. Try this with a single...

Piston twin or turbine single? No contest really.

PM

Flown both. I'd take a single turbine over a a piston twin any day.

From Ion B's Link:
 

"...upon breaking through the bottom of the last overcast layer, at 100 feet above the water..." :eek:

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 ;-).

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.

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.

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.