PC-12 Operators East or West Coast Oz
Seasonally Adjusted
WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens
It's true that they recruit internally and it is in spite of a coroners recommendation that they recruit externally to access a higher experience pool of pilots. This was after one of their 310's run out of fuel at night killing everybody.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Wally mon vieux,
In FAR23 terms I'll stand by what I said, on balance I'd rather be in a PC12 than any of the other types in any condition of flight, because n one of them including the King Air are required or certified to show anything other than a OEI positive rate (>+50fpm) after TO and the ability to maintain level flight (+/- 50fpm) in ISA at 5,000ft.
Any other gradeints including the ones you mention are required by operational regulation (charter or public) flights not by design.
Ergo an airframe and seating system that is designed to be crash tolerant because it is a single, is in this context safer. And moreover, completely removes the temptation from the pilot to chance his arm. He must concentrate on doing what he should be, i.e. flying the aircraft safely all the way into the crash site until all the noise stops instead of trying to keep the twin aircraft upright. The end result for both is all likely events going to be the same, the PC12 is way in front in survivablility. VFR and IFR.
In FAR23 terms I'll stand by what I said, on balance I'd rather be in a PC12 than any of the other types in any condition of flight, because n one of them including the King Air are required or certified to show anything other than a OEI positive rate (>+50fpm) after TO and the ability to maintain level flight (+/- 50fpm) in ISA at 5,000ft.
Any other gradeints including the ones you mention are required by operational regulation (charter or public) flights not by design.
Ergo an airframe and seating system that is designed to be crash tolerant because it is a single, is in this context safer. And moreover, completely removes the temptation from the pilot to chance his arm. He must concentrate on doing what he should be, i.e. flying the aircraft safely all the way into the crash site until all the noise stops instead of trying to keep the twin aircraft upright. The end result for both is all likely events going to be the same, the PC12 is way in front in survivablility. VFR and IFR.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......lovely day outside today..........NOT !(down this neck of the woods)
Ah the sound of out of synced props, nothing like it !
CW
Ah the sound of out of synced props, nothing like it !
CW
Last edited by Capt Wally; 1st May 2008 at 05:27. Reason: God couldn't even get the spelling right on those few words !
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens
I think hundred's might be a slight exaggeration.
WA police wont accept, there are literally hundred's of internal applicants in the ranks who already have a pilot licens
I think hundred's might be a slight exaggeration.
Capt Wally, you're changing the argument to suit your point of view.
You say
Well you've given 100% probability that you are in that situation by phrasing the question like that. Of course it would be better to have two engines when one fails. However what percentage of the flight time are you actually in that particular situation you've described? Now multiply that over thousands of missions.
This is so the aircraft integrity is not compromised and you are not killed by a flying seat having survived a forced landing. (you did know this didn't you or have I read your comment too literally?)
The PC-12 is niche aircraft - they have flogged over 700 of them, 75% in the US. Its v.v.good at what it does and can do. If twins were as cheap, there wouldn't be a PC-12. Why not leave the debate at that?
Check out http://www.planesense.aero/
You say
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 ?
Aside to all that the other day when I was chatting to the PC12 driver he mentioned that the cockpit area & seats are rated to something over 20 G's, great & yr body can stand what? maybe 10 or so..............hmmmmm yep that make me feel all warm & cosy !
The PC-12 is niche aircraft - they have flogged over 700 of them, 75% in the US. Its v.v.good at what it does and can do. If twins were as cheap, there wouldn't be a PC-12. Why not leave the debate at that?
Check out http://www.planesense.aero/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Auckland
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks chaps
Cheers Under Dog,
Such a simple answer, but probably a bloody good idea, glad I thought of it!
I love the intellectual debate going on, I do agree with you Wally,
1 super safe turbine + 1 super safe turbine = super duper safety
well that may not be so intellectual, but it is fairly logical I spose. Two engines should be better than one.
I'm bailing out!
Such a simple answer, but probably a bloody good idea, glad I thought of it!
I love the intellectual debate going on, I do agree with you Wally,
1 super safe turbine + 1 super safe turbine = super duper safety
well that may not be so intellectual, but it is fairly logical I spose. Two engines should be better than one.
I'm bailing out!
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
Did someone say that already....echo ..... echo...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah sorry Dr
plz 4give me for I was only trying to be "safe"
It's been a great debate but am sure all our heads are
.
The thread has runs it's course for me, tnxs for the debate.
ahhhh what's that I hear outside the office window??? the sound of TWO turbines & in this case a Helo.........ahhhh but that's another thread hijack right Dr?
Feel free to continue guys, I know what keeps me all warm & fuzzy & it ain't a log fire either!
CW
plz 4give me for I was only trying to be "safe"It's been a great debate but am sure all our heads are
. The thread has runs it's course for me, tnxs for the debate.
ahhhh what's that I hear outside the office window??? the sound of TWO turbines & in this case a Helo.........ahhhh but that's another thread hijack right Dr
?Feel free to continue guys, I know what keeps me all warm & fuzzy & it ain't a log fire either!
CW
Seasonally Adjusted
Nope........ hundred's
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No offence to your 'mate' in the force who is in the police airwing.
I remember talking to a senior sergent who did a stint in the police airwing up until a year ago, before moving back to traffic - when they advertised internally they received somewhat over 192 applicants......
Drawing from all over WA
[although deduct 40 of them who didnt qualify]
Hey I dont want to get into a slanging match, but WA police prefer to recuit internally over pilots in the police air wing. [sorry to mods - that had a thread drift]
I remember talking to a senior sergent who did a stint in the police airwing up until a year ago, before moving back to traffic - when they advertised internally they received somewhat over 192 applicants......
Drawing from all over WA
[although deduct 40 of them who didnt qualify]
Hey I dont want to get into a slanging match, but WA police prefer to recuit internally over pilots in the police air wing. [sorry to mods - that had a thread drift]
Seasonally Adjusted
when they advertised internally they received somewhat over 192 applicants
CW, your continuing references to "being safe" sounds like something CASA would say.
ie. as long as we say the word "safety", we can follow it with any old rubbish we like!
It is an interesting debate, and I don't want to have a go at anyone personally.
Nor will I question their credentials or right to comment or have an opinion, but it does seem that there is a fair bit of uninformed bias against the modern single turbine by those who are going only by their "gut feeling" and not by reality.
I would be very interested to see the accident stats for these aircraft types and compare them to similar types (ie. aircraft performing a similar role, including the King Air).
I suspect that the PC12 is proving to be a very safe aircraft indeed.
I must take issue with the contention that impact speed has nothing to do with surviveability. Surely you can't be serious?
This is one of the main reasons for the "61kt" rule, and single engine aircraft that do not meet this rule must have extra crashworthiness built in(such as higher rated seats etc.)
I know I would rather hit something at 40 or 50kt than 100kt!
I understand that the statistics show that an engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in a fatal accident than in a single.
As someone else has pointed out, this is because pilots continue to try to fly the aircraft away in the twin, often with disastrous results!
Whereas in the single there is only one choice, and one can concentrate on doing the best possible job of it. That combined with the lower approach speeds mean you can squeeze the single into a relatively small space, and if you do a half reasonable job you've got a good chance of walking away.
No doubt there are some situations where having two engines is a definite advantage, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as some believe it to be.
Anyway, thanks all for an interesting debate.
Remember, CW, we are all on the same side, and not everyone in here is a 16 year old drooling over pictures of PC12's and King Airs!
All I can say is after thousands of hours tooling around in just about every piston twin made and now a fair bit of time in the PC12, I know what I feel more comfortable and "safe" strapping myself into!
No comparison!
Safe flying to all.
Oh yeah, and to the original poster, as I said before there will be a number of the NG model PC12's arriving in Oz over the next couple of years.
I'm certainly looking forward to getting my hands on one!
ie. as long as we say the word "safety", we can follow it with any old rubbish we like!
It is an interesting debate, and I don't want to have a go at anyone personally.
Nor will I question their credentials or right to comment or have an opinion, but it does seem that there is a fair bit of uninformed bias against the modern single turbine by those who are going only by their "gut feeling" and not by reality.
I would be very interested to see the accident stats for these aircraft types and compare them to similar types (ie. aircraft performing a similar role, including the King Air).
I suspect that the PC12 is proving to be a very safe aircraft indeed.
I must take issue with the contention that impact speed has nothing to do with surviveability. Surely you can't be serious?
This is one of the main reasons for the "61kt" rule, and single engine aircraft that do not meet this rule must have extra crashworthiness built in(such as higher rated seats etc.)
I know I would rather hit something at 40 or 50kt than 100kt!
I understand that the statistics show that an engine failure in a twin is more likely to result in a fatal accident than in a single.
As someone else has pointed out, this is because pilots continue to try to fly the aircraft away in the twin, often with disastrous results!
Whereas in the single there is only one choice, and one can concentrate on doing the best possible job of it. That combined with the lower approach speeds mean you can squeeze the single into a relatively small space, and if you do a half reasonable job you've got a good chance of walking away.
No doubt there are some situations where having two engines is a definite advantage, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as some believe it to be.
Anyway, thanks all for an interesting debate.
Remember, CW, we are all on the same side, and not everyone in here is a 16 year old drooling over pictures of PC12's and King Airs!
All I can say is after thousands of hours tooling around in just about every piston twin made and now a fair bit of time in the PC12, I know what I feel more comfortable and "safe" strapping myself into!
No comparison!
Safe flying to all.
Oh yeah, and to the original poster, as I said before there will be a number of the NG model PC12's arriving in Oz over the next couple of years.
I'm certainly looking forward to getting my hands on one!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CW,
The human body can sustain 30G without permanant damage and 60 G instantaneous without permanant damage. Ejection seats are deisigned to these limits, although modern ejection seats have a peak acceleration of somewhat less than 30G. Therefor 20G seats are indeed s safety feature.
The 61kt rule actually comes about from a risk analysis which takes into account loads during a crash etc. It isn't just plucked. IIRC for every five knots above 61kts that you "crash" at the risk of serious injury/death doubles. (It might be ten knots, I can't quite remember way back to my course on certification and crashworthiness, although I am sure someone here can correct me if I am wrong!) Suffice to say this is one of the reasons why military aircraft have ejection seats. The military only accepts a slightly higher risk of death of aircrew in the event of engine failure than civilian certified aircraft, thus you will notice most single engined military aircraft (and all modern single engine military aircraft) which have a stall speed greater than 61Kt have bang seats. Transposing this into the civilan certification, 20G seats mitigates the higher stall speed of a PC12 (or other aircraft) and in effect the body in one of these seats will be subjected to the same forces as a "regular" seat at 61Kts.
Cheers
Mr B.
The human body can sustain 30G without permanant damage and 60 G instantaneous without permanant damage. Ejection seats are deisigned to these limits, although modern ejection seats have a peak acceleration of somewhat less than 30G. Therefor 20G seats are indeed s safety feature.
The 61kt rule actually comes about from a risk analysis which takes into account loads during a crash etc. It isn't just plucked. IIRC for every five knots above 61kts that you "crash" at the risk of serious injury/death doubles. (It might be ten knots, I can't quite remember way back to my course on certification and crashworthiness, although I am sure someone here can correct me if I am wrong!) Suffice to say this is one of the reasons why military aircraft have ejection seats. The military only accepts a slightly higher risk of death of aircrew in the event of engine failure than civilian certified aircraft, thus you will notice most single engined military aircraft (and all modern single engine military aircraft) which have a stall speed greater than 61Kt have bang seats. Transposing this into the civilan certification, 20G seats mitigates the higher stall speed of a PC12 (or other aircraft) and in effect the body in one of these seats will be subjected to the same forces as a "regular" seat at 61Kts.
Cheers
Mr B.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bunbury
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunbury Aeroclub - PC 12 on-line?
Thats bollocks. A private owner of a PC12 was getting some instruction there. But said plane has not been seen in Bunbury for 2 months
