PC-12 Operators East or West Coast Oz
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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?
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!
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
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
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!
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: near a lake, need I say more
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The PC12 is quite possibly the best machine I have ever flown.....other than the 727-200.
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.
The PC12 is quite possibly the best machine I have ever flown.....other than the 727-200.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As most catastrophic failures occur on T/O
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...
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
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 !
CW
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 !
CW
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I thought I was supporting you...
Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again!
Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again!
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.
"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.
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
Its been the trend for many years to recruit internally
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.
If PC-12's are so great how come the SE RFDS section don't have them??
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry 'HH', plz 4give me, it hurts doing this 
all the time with these guys but from now on the PC12 rules..............providing the suns out & I can see for miles & miles & miles
'nev' yr right how come the RFDS don't use them, see my previous post, it's so obvious as to why not!
...................."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
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
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
all the time with these guys but from now on the PC12 rules..............providing the suns out & I can see for miles & miles & miles'nev' yr right how come the RFDS don't use them, see my previous post, it's so obvious as to why not!
...................."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
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
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
And what are we going to do if the worst should ever happen they (RFDS SE section) get PC12's?.........where unemployed
& two ENGINES are better than one you can't refute that no matter how hard you try!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Safety can be achieved with less than two engines, Wally - ask any glider pilot.
And I've never seen one depart in 0/800M either, nor a PC-12 for that matter!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why do they put 2 engines (at least) on 99% of IFR charter A/C?......for SAFFFFFFETY!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ CloudBase!
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Safety can be achieved with less than two engines, Wally - ask any glider pilot."
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
"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
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!
"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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
CW
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
CW
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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!