NT Aeromed

[rcoight]

Good for you, you're a bunch of legends and dinosaurs.

Does that change anything I've said? Please state...

Stat's for, say last 13 years, King Air accidents v PC12 accidents in AUS?

No?

Not interested?

Thought so...

I suspect you're more worried about modern technology than you are about flying the aircraft....

As I said, it's OK.

You haven't got long to go...

[maxgrad]

With due respects to all concerned, pull your heads in and discuss the subject, not attachment size.

I am interested in the subject and for some strange reason interested on what you mob have to say on NT areomed and the two a/c types in question.

OK shoot me

[Howard Hughes]

Stat's for, say last 13 years, King Air accidents v PC12 accidents in AUS?

Why don't we wait until PC-12's have been around for forty years to make a fair assessment!

I suspect you're more worried about modern technology than you are about flying the aircraft...

There is nothing in a new PC-12, that is not in a new Kingair, however there is ONE thing that's not in the PC-12!

And finally one last thing...

Wally, how many PC12 hours have you got?

You don't need to stick your hand in a fire to know it burns now do you?

[the wizard of auz]

rcoight read back a few pages........ I was one of the guys rooting for the SE aircraft. I do believe I will be around for sometime yet, as I am a long way from being a dinosaur. (yes, I have PC12 time too... not a lot admittedly, but I have flown it)

Maxgrad, Mate, I am happy to keep to the thread subject. I was simply pointing out that a comment made was not justified.... as for attachment size...... well, I didn't see that mentioned........ but I don't wear a watch.
some people take themselves far to seriously and make comments I am sure they wouldn't make if we were all down the pub having a beer and discussing the same subject.

Why don't we wait until PC-12's have been around for forty years to make a fair assessment!

Fair point. but until then, they are a safe, reliable aircraft with the record to back them up. maybe in time that will prove to be different, but while they have the advantage of a good record, why not make use of it?.

WRT the Caravan. It was a comment I made tongue in cheek, but for the acquisition cost being far lower than either lower than the PC12 or B200, why not use them for the non critical flights, like the clinic runs, Patient repatriation and jobs where a sea level cabin is not required, and use the Kingair for the other jobs involving WX and night ops?. hell, you could get two and change for less than a PC12. It wouldn't be all that different to what the contractors with Chieftains, seneca's and the other pile of Piston twin that get used for those rolls.

[maxgrad]

Fairnuff Wiz just didn't want the mods to strike the thread.

Watch.....no I can't comment.

Never flown a PC12 but have time on King Airs. Must admit I prefer 2 engines to one after having to shut one down in anger.

Like the cargo door set up on the PC12 though

[the wizard of auz]

The Van has one too. not quite as big, but certainly adequate.
I agree with having two engines as well (as long as they don't have pistons), but surely there has to be some form of rationalization WRT cost Vs safety, otherwise we would all be getting around in 4 engined jets and helicopters wouldn't get a mention.

[Wally Mk2]

'max' you can do one simple thing if you don't like the posts that are coming think & fast here, pass 'em over after the first few lines I do just that when I read other posts that have diverged & I am no longer interested, works for me It's obvious that ANY subject drifts off in other directions eventually & that's mainly 'cause most threads tend to have a life span. You get contributors that post a few relevant details to the core subject straight away then after a while the 'hooligans' take over 'cause there's little else to add to the subject other than perhaps some humor or other non related points as we see amongst these pages all the time. Then the Mods step in & slam 'em shut. Funny you know I reckon that half the reason why people come on here is to see who's reving up who & how far it will go b4 it's closed, & that my friends is what commercial advertising is all about ( & this site is now no different) , getting noticed !

Now 'rc' yr right I have zero hrs on the PC12 & ya know what? I'm so
'safely' happy about that!

I was just talking to the med team just last night enroute over tiger country at 1am in the morning (you know hills nasty terrain nowhere to land etc etc ) happly cruising along in the flt lvls when we hit some rough air & entered cloud with ice. The Dr in the back mentioned I don't like this (scaredy bum I thought ) ride but at least we have 2 engines, I had a quite chuckle to myself that's for sure as I listened to the sweet sound of safety in numbers


Wmk2

[the wizard of auz]

Hooligans indeed.

[Hasselhof]

It wouldn't be all that different to what the contractors with Chieftains, seneca's and the other pile of Piston twin that get used for those rolls.

Not to mention the 25 000 hour C210's and C206's that still do patient travel runs all over Arnhem,.

[bushy]

Or the sixty thousand hour 737's that thousands of pax fly in.

[Alice Kiwican]

Never flown a PC12 or B200 but would much rather be banging around in one of these (or a C208 come to think of it) than a clapped out piston on a medivac! And yes I have operated PA31's and C402's in this type of environment!

[Howard Hughes]

Like the cargo door set up on the PC12 though

Me too, it would be great to have two doors...

Perhaps they could stick another engine in the tail, then it would be purrrrfect!

[Towering Q]

Wally, another plus for the PC12 that you probably haven't thought of....the testing officer won't fail an engine whilst you're turning inbound on the NDB during your renewal.

[Wally Mk2]

'Q' I like the way you think, but am sure the ATO's would have plenty of other tricks up their sleeves Then again under test conditions & in VMC he/they might fail an engine just after turning inbound on an NDB anyway to practise the very thing as to why I wouldn't be flyng one in the first place, an off airport ldg. This scenario plus many others is the exact reason it's too dangerous in my mind, it takes 1 accident like the above & then we will see you goes running for cover! It's only a matter of time.

Anyway back to the original posters subject.........."old medical planes putting patients lives at risk"................. it's almost laughable that statement if they even consider using SE planes but more laughable is the fact that the statement is referring to twin turbinesl!!

Wmk2

[Under Dog]

Wally

Havin plenty time on both I would have to agree with you cos as I said before I wouldn't want to have to ditch on the way to lord howe in the 12 althought the technology is light years ahead of the B200 .

Towering Q
Thats so true that the testing officer not failing an engine in an NDB but I still wouldnt want to try one of those cloud break procedures
for real cos it would leave a nasty brown stain in my pants.
P.S are you still in Meeka


Regards The Dog

[xxgoldxx]

its all numbers really..

If you weigh it up and feel the risk is acceptable then life is grand..

would I do it middle of the night/knowhere etc in a 210.. NO, in a 402.. maybe, in a PC-12 no drama, in a kingair of course..

taking all else in consideration though.. if the 210 was near new, great maint, known history etc etc and the kingair had 30000 hrs with questionable maint near timex eng and dodgy maint history the scales start to tip..
these things quite often aren't in our control..

so RFDS PC 12/45 or busted arse kingair.. give me the PC 12 anyday...
If a low hour, well maintained PC 12 doesn't cut it for you then maybe you should reconsider the airline gigs..

if you want to be 100 %safe...take a sickie and stay home ....!!

[Wally Mk2]

'xxx' fair comments re questionable maint etc. Such antics does exist in that industry for sure. And yes you could boil this debate down to numbers. Risk is all about numbers. BUT it's more re an engine failure in either the PC12 or the B200 as being the core story-line here now. If like you say you are faced with flying a 'busted arse' B200 as against a well maintained PC12 you would rather be in the PC12. Okay then lets say that yr poorly maint B200 does have an engine failure due engine close to time ex for Eg. (that's a furphy anyway esspecially with turbines) you HAVE options as in SE climb for Eg.in the old 'busted arse' B200. With the PC12 there are NO options other than down should you have a single engine failure 'cause you only have one if the first place. To me I'd rather have two crappy turbines on my wing than one good one up front unless of course you loose both turbines in yr B200 then I guess you really are sh1t out of luck & should have done as you suggested, stayed home having a sickie with 100% safety



'UD' the thought of ditching in a SE plane sends shivers up my spine. But that same thought over terrain at night in IMC belies belief that's it's allowed in this country, wasn't once & for good reasons.

Interesting note here though notice how this thread has gone as far as 5 pages or so & it's still running mostly now for the old twin V SE. Just goes to show that this subject is still very much a sensitive issue & is alive & well despite others of the same content being closed by the Mods in the past.

Wmk2

[maxgrad]

WallyMK2
Have to agree with you there. Even if it is a busted arse frame, the availablity of the second engine even in a possibly "busted arse state" will give you options.

Like the Be200GT with add ons, something like 315KTS.

[Wally Mk2]

yeh 'max' it aint rocket science here but it is too some I believe the B200GT is the only version Beech are producing now in the STD airframe. 1700 gee gees all thye way to the top, now that's gotta hurt those SE jobs

I know this will be a thread drift but hey am guilty as sin for that
Would someone who flies the PC12 like to describe a cloud break procedure or how one goes about (via the Co SOPS) conducting an NDB App with the ONLY fan failed? Genuine question for safe reading by us non believers


WMk2

[morno]

Once I tell you Wally, you're gonna wanna go and do one, .

The cloud break procedure. One of my favourite maneouvers to do during our proficiency checks, . Although, I think if I had to perform one for real, I dunno if it'd be my favourite part of the ride down! I'm very confident it would be successful though, unless you had absolute rubbish conditions (ie. below 700ft).

The whole idea of the cloud break is to obtain maximum speed (up to Vne) and hopefully come out the bottom below the cloud, and then use the inertia to fly a circuit and land.

The SOP for the company I work for would be pretty similar, if not the same for everyone else who operates the PC-12. After all, we learnt it from another section.

Ok, let's say you're cruising along at FL180 and your engine has failed, you've feathered it, and you've started with the normal engine failure procedures (ie. GA mode on the FD activated, with the autopilot engaged, so you can pitch the nose up, obtain some more height, and obtain your glide speed of 114kts at MTOW). Next step is to find the nearest airfield. As a good practice, we put as many airfields into our GPS' as possible, around the area's we fly, should this event ever occur. Direct To the nearest airfield, and let the autopilot fly the aircraft. It's always going to do a better job at it than you are at this point.

Typical ROD with a failed engine in the PC-12 is around 800-1,000fpm. And from FL180 down to the ground (assuming ground is at MSL) would give you a glide range of pretty close to 45nm's, if not a bit more. Pilatus have always said that it glides even better with the prop in feather, compared to the zero thrust setting we use during training.

Ok, so you're on autopilot, captured on your best glide speed, and tracking direct to the nearest airfield. Next step is to set up the aircraft's Altitude Alert and RADAlt. We set the Altitude Alert to 1,200ft above the aerodrome, and the RADAlt to 700ft above the aerodrome. The idea being you get the alert passing 1,200ft, and are starting to level out to be level at 700ft if you're still in cloud. Continueing below this at the speed's you're doing the cloud break, could end in certain tragedy (yeah yeah, I know, the engine's already failed, but what would you rather, hit a hill at 236kts or hit a hill at 80kts? ).

The main part of the procedure of course is to set yourself up on a 7nm arc from the aerodrome. Continue around on the arc until you are 7,000ft above the aerodrome, and then disconnect the autopilot, turn direct to the airfield, and point her down on a 1:1 descent profile, which will bring you up to near Vne (236kts). Pop out the bottom of the cloud, up near Vne, and then use the inertia to fly yourself a circuit and land. It's hard to believe how well the PC-12 does really glide until you try it for yourself, but you will find even doing this procedure, you'll often find yourself higher than you think on final, and side slipping to get the thing down. I was doing one of these one day in training, and once I 'broke visual', I had to swing around and join crosswind. Up on a 45 degree AOB turn, and still doing 220kts, ohhhhhhh yeah, .

So if that's scared a few of you, then that's ok, I'll keep my PC-12 to myself, .

morno