PC12"s for Broken Hill RFDS
 

Heard on the vine that the RFDS South Eastern section is intending to place PC12's in Broken Hill to replace the two ageing B200's. Any truth here? Anyone? :cool:

Rumour Confirmed!!!! Heard the news this evening.

I was not aware that the Broken Hill aircraft had achieved 35,000 hrs TT, so I guess thay are not aging aircraft, but merely too expensive to operate in comparison to the PC-12.
We've been thru the arguments of economics before and nothings changed.
One day when a RFDS crew is killed in a PC-12 then they will say and I quote from Dick Smith "law of averages" and "afordable safety"
Safety is less of a concern than it it with High capacity RPT followed by low Capacity RPT then Charter and then AirWork ops. Enjoy your PC-12 (its a fine aircraft) but when the next thunderstorm and lightning strike imobilises your s/e aircraft engine reflect as you glide towards the pitch black ground with your 26g high impact crew seating that the insurance company will have a cheque on the bosses desk the next day. Pity about you!

PS: Scary thought, PC-12's for Air Ambulance at Essendon, you bet just wait and see, regardless of contracts it will happen. The $$$ sign always wins.

crystal ball, I couldn't agree more about the PC12. The RFDS will have this aircraft come up and bite them on the Arse!!!
It's a great plane, I've had a look around one but having a PT6 fail on me once in a kingair I was mighty glad for engine number two still making the correct sounds on the other wing.

With recent Press about safety with Ansett( I would still fly Ansett over QF any day) why is the RFDS taking the safety out of the operations where the pax are less helpless, in some cases, than the normal RPT pax? :(

"your 26g high impact crew seating" is a selling point of the PC12 but pitty your dead after the 15G stage of the accident. :confused:

The RFDS has had several unexplained engine failures on the B200. I would be getting Pratts to justify these before approaching the PC-12, a single engine landing on a B200 is tamer than a deadstick in a PC-12 into the white sand at Moomba or the Stoney Desert at Tibooburra!

Try flying a Single Engine Piston at night in cloud for a living. Ahh those were the days. :eek:

Gentlemen
I think you'll find the Pratt in the PC12 and C208 is a different animal to the B200 one.
Now if they put a Garrett in them they would really be stonking. :cool:

Time-Bomb-Ted: They still ARE the days for some of us!! :D

The Lycoming O-470 is a lovely donk but since I only have one noise maker I wish I had the option of a nice new PT-6 with all the trend monitoring etc......

All things are relative; the PC12 may not be the be-all and end-all, but 'there are worse things in heaven and earth Horatio' (with profound apologies to The Bard) :D

Regards

Soup Nazi, You're going to put us in an early grave with these rumours of yours. :(

It's a sad day when a PC 12 is seen as a good replacement for the King Air and financial forces win out over safety.

I'll believe this one when I see it :rolleyes:

[ 23 August 2001: Message edited by: Bargearse ]

Has been said before and needs to be said again - shame that the ones who bag the PC12 have usually never flown one.

Hi Soup Nazi
Sounds like wishfull thinking from the PC12 ditributor to me.
As far as we know they are to be replaced with B200's.
As far as Vic Air Ambulance the government specify the aircraft type in the contract.
As i was told there are two words which stop Victoria going over to PC12's on air ambulance.
"BASS STRAIGHT"

Last time I looked Bass wasn't strait! :eek:

Doesn't having two engines double your chances of having an engine failure?

Desert Duck
Realistically, I don't believe the PC12 is being "bagged". It is a well made and sound aircraft. Over a piston twin, I'd take the PC12 any day.
However,l it doesn't really exceed the performace of a B200, and is not overly cheaper than a good second hand B200, and quite simply adds another operational concern - it has only one engine.
All the statistical points that might excuse this are really only to help overcome the obvious- It absolves the bean counters conscience.
Patients who might need to travel in these a/c are subjected to limitations without the ability of raising their objections. There hardly likely to say "no" in their condition.
Affordable level of safety and risk minimisation by choice rather than by imposition would be a fair argument here.

My 2 cents (+gst) worth:

I hear your arguments about 2 being better than 1 when it stops, plus I think this argument has already been had on another thread, but it seems to me that the concept in use for the newish turboprop singles is reliability leading to an acceptable level of risk.

You can always crash and die in an aeroplane, so at some point you must decide what you're willing to accept in terms of risk factor when you get in one.

The same sort of idea is behind the approval of ETOPS for 2 engine airliners, isn't it; the demonstration of so many flying hours with no shutdowns?

If a PC12 is demonstrably and statistically as safe as a B200 (fatalities per flight hour over many hours) then it's probably a good solution, if it's economically attractive.

The old leveller that I say to my wife when she says flying is dangerous is that I'm probably at 10 times more risk in the car on the way to work than I am flying, but it still doesn't stop anyone driving. :)