The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

RFDS Pilatus PC24

Old 23rd Dec 2018, 09:11
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 659
Why don’t we wait and see how effective this aircraft will be in reality?
Nobody here doubts this aircraft will be highly effective in reality, zanthrus.
FGD135 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 11:35
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
Nobody here doubts this aircraft will be highly effective in reality, zanthrus.
Agreed 100%
Bend alot is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 12:55
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,528
Having flown RFDS westops and now T&C on an airliner, I would say that it would be easier to teach most of the experienced RFDS crew to fly a jet rather that to teach an experienced jet guy to fly and land on dark black nights in the outback with flares.

I feel for the guy/ girls there. Poor management decision IMHO.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 23rd Dec 2018, 22:16
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
I suggest you educate yourself a little. There is a big difference poling around at 18000' vs 45000'. Aerodynamics change, Depressurisation becomes a serious issue. Weather is different. Descent management and flight management are different.
The big step up for some will be doing recurrent check and training in a simulator. That may washout a few of the old guard if they haven't experienced it before.

In the end it shouldn't be that hard of a task the issue will be whether the RFDS are willing to spend the money on the training.
Well said Nev:-)
There is a large diff from the slower Turbo prop to the high perf jet in just about every aspect. Lots of decision making is needed when flying a jet with limitations such as the PC24, you need to be on your toes constantly!
machtuk is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 00:16
  #165 (permalink)  
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,126
All is not lost, Stallie. New CEO, who is brilliant BTW, keen to introduce ‘pathways’ for existing crew.
Towering Q is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 01:37
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 659
I would say that it would be easier to teach most of the experienced RFDS crew to fly a jet rather that to teach an experienced jet guy to fly and land on dark black nights in the outback with flares.
Don't agree, Stallie. For starters, the jet won't be landing in the outback with flares. As machtuk has said, it is a big step up from the slower and more forgiving turboprop.

Such training of the PC12 pilots would have consisted of at least 12 months ICUS, but they needed pilots much more quickly than that. And they will be single pilots. If it had been a two pilot ship, then it could have been a PC12 pilot in the RH seat virtually from day one.

I expect the RFDS will have their eye on a scheme where certain qualifying PC12 pilots (ATPL'd with sufficient multi-engine time) will, via 18-24 months ICUS, attain the standard for single pilot of the jet. It will take that long because these pilots will still be needed to fly the PC12 in the interim.

Last edited by FGD135; 24th Dec 2018 at 02:17.
FGD135 is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 05:05
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
As a matter of interest, what would an approach Vref at MLW be for PC-12 versus a PC-24 ---- anybody with the numbers handy.
As for other "high speeds", I imagine 250kt below 10,000 in the PC-12 is pretty much the same speed as 250 kt below 10,000 in G in the PC-24, same same for circuit speeds???
I would hazard a guess (not having flown either, but a lot of other aircraft) that anybody who is competent on the PC-12 will find the PC-24 a bit of old doddle.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 06:50
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,528
And I’d guess there’s a lot of commonality in the automatics between the two, so not much of the “what’s it doing now” mode confusion to new trainees on type as seen in pilots going on to Airbus and Boeing.

Without trivialising it, any half decent PC12 pilot should be able to adapt to the steeper profile of the jet, the lack of speed control with propeller and it being a bit slipprier, and a bit more inertia. And two engines, for which asymmetric training which can be sorted in the sim. And it won’t take 18 months. There is an undercurrent of bitterness/prejudice in some posters (or maybe they’re from the same IP address&#128512 towards the current of RFDS pilots as not being able to cope with the “big step.” One can only guess at that motivation.

FWIW I came to the RFDS KingAir from a 6 seater unpressurised piston twin. It was my first turbine and my first pressurised aircraft (and there was no sim) But I had bush time, which was obviously weighted accordingly. All things being equal, it is easier to to train a pilot experienced in an environment into an aircraft than to train an experienced aircraft pilot into an operating environment.



Last edited by compressor stall; 24th Dec 2018 at 07:02.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 07:39
  #169 (permalink)  
Seasonally Adjusted
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ...deep fine leg
Posts: 1,126
As a matter of interest, what would an approach Vref at MLW be for PC-12 versus a PC-24 ---- anybody with the numbers handy.
From the Pilatus PC12 App....

4500kg ISA Sea Level: 85 KIAS

I think the 24 might be a little faster!
Towering Q is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 08:14
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Towering Q View Post


From the Pilatus PC12 App....

4500kg ISA Sea Level: 85 KIAS

I think the 24 might be a little faster!
TQ,
From one source I saw, Vs at MLW ( I assume in the landing configuration) of 85 kt, so yes, V ref a bit faster, around Metro speeds, should not present a problem.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 09:04
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Get Wally S out of retirement. His 30 hrs in the F100 simulator gives preeminent jet experience to pass onto the lads....
illusion is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 12:29
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,581
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
Don't agree, Stallie. For starters, the jet won't be landing in the outback with flares. As machtuk has said, it is a big step up from the slower and more forgiving turboprop.

Such training of the PC12 pilots would have consisted of at least 12 months ICUS, but they needed pilots much more quickly than that. And they will be single pilots. If it had been a two pilot ship, then it could have been a PC12 pilot in the RH seat virtually from day one.

I expect the RFDS will have their eye on a scheme where certain qualifying PC12 pilots (ATPL'd with sufficient multi-engine time) will, via 18-24 months ICUS, attain the standard for single pilot of the jet. It will take that long because these pilots will still be needed to fly the PC12 in the interim.
18-24 months of ICUS, are you f***king kidding me?!

https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/dat...-Printable.pdf

Have a read. Pilatus have made the aircraft as simple to fly as possible going by what I read in that. The PC-12 was much the same, very simple operation and the NG's became even easier again.

I disagree with your statement about training any jet pilot to become an RFDS pilot, as opposed to an RFDS pilot becoming a jet pilot. I did several years of aeromedical and it's a very specific skill set to become a GOOD aeromedical pilot. Learning to fly a simple to operate jet, not going to take very long at all. It's not a very highly swept wing, so the 'jet specifics' will hardly be noticeable.

At the end of the day, if the RFDS are going to move with the times and keep advancing like they have in their 90 years of operations, jets is the natural next step, and the PC-24 appears to be a very good choice of aircraft. Well done to Western Ops and Central Section on making the move and getting them.

Do you work for Careflight at all FGD?
morno is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2018, 16:30
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 76
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Towering Q View Post


From the Pilatus PC12 App....

4500kg ISA Sea Level: 85 KIAS

I think the 24 might be a little faster!
from the website
PERFORMANCE
The PC-24 has the following performance under international standard atmospheric conditions:
Balanced field length
(MTOW, sea level, dry paved runway) 2,930 ft 893 m
Landing distance over 50 ft (15 m) obstacle
(MLW, sea level, dry paved runway) 2,375 ft 724 m
Max. rate of climb (MTOW, sea level, 200 KCAS) 4,070 fpm 20.70 m/s
Max. cruise speed (flight level 280) 440 KTAS 815 km/h
Range with 4 passengers
(800 lb payload, LRC, NBAA IFR reserves
of 100 nm + 30 min VFR)1 2,000 nm 3,704 km
Max. certified altitude 45,000 ft 13,716 m
Stall speed (landing configuration, MLW) 82 KIAS 151 km/h
WEIGHTS
Basic operating weight1 11,720 lb 5,316 kg
Max. take-off weight 18,300 lb 8,300 kg
Max. landing weight 16,900 lb 7,665 kg
Max. payload1 2,500 lb 1,134 kg
harrryw is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2018, 04:47
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by zanthrus View Post
I am disappointed that this thread has degenerated into a dick swinging contest between self appointed sky gods. Why don’t we wait and see how effective this aircraft will be in reality? The RFDS has good people and systems in place for it. I am sure that it will fit in nicely to the network. Give it a chance and keep the pontificating to yourself guys. Mods I think it’s time to lock this one.
Speaking of dick swinging, I read this commentary on the arrival of a new jet type into Australian service and instead of all the above discussion I find myself wondering why we have to buy it at all. We used to manufacture things in this country, like appliances, automobiles, etc, and yes even aircraft. Maybe nothing amazing but rather than develop it towards greater things the fledgling industry was abandoned in favour of lazy alternatives. When jungle jets are coming out of South America and being bought here there's something wrong. Countries the size of Switzerland and Sweden proudly manufacturing their own air, land and sea transport and exporting it to relative goliaths such as Australia - good on them but it makes me feel embarrassed at this end.

The PC24 isn't magical or ultra-secret technological innovation like the F117 was in its day. Nothing on it couldn't be brought in if we didn't want to do the fiddly parts ourselves and assembled here in a locally designed and built airframe, just like Embraer does. All the knowledge is out there.

Let's get the GAF building proper aircraft again(?).
Eclan is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2018, 05:29
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 48
As a long term trainer and checker on jets and turboprops I have to agree with Compressor Stall and Leadsled. Learning to fly a new aircraft is not an issue it is learning the task that takes time.
Wether you are an airline pilot going back to charter or vice a versa the type rating is not the hard bit.
In Australia we have lots of hangups about moving up to twins then turbine and onto jets; elsewhere in the world they just get on with it.
Having flown NTAMS in a bygone era I applaud the RFDS for moving into jet operations.
ps I think the last proper aircraft the GAF built was the Mirage!
ANCIENT is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2018, 13:37
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 76
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by ANCIENT View Post
As a long term trainer and checker on jets and turboprops I have to agree with Compressor Stall and Leadsled. Learning to fly a new aircraft is not an issue it is learning the task that takes time.
Wether you are an airline pilot going back to charter or vice a versa the type rating is not the hard bit.
In Australia we have lots of hangups about moving up to twins then turbine and onto jets; elsewhere in the world they just get on with it.
Having flown NTAMS in a bygone era I applaud the RFDS for moving into jet operations.
ps I think the last proper aircraft the GAF built was the Mirage!
You could try a Nomad again.
harrryw is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2018, 22:34
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by ANCIENT View Post
As a long term trainer and checker on jets and turboprops I have to agree with Compressor Stall and Leadsled. Learning to fly a new aircraft is not an issue it is learning the task that takes time.
Wether you are an airline pilot going back to charter or vice a versa the type rating is not the hard bit.
In Australia we have lots of hangups about moving up to twins then turbine and onto jets; elsewhere in the world they just get on with it.
Having flown NTAMS in a bygone era I applaud the RFDS for moving into jet operations.
ps I think the last proper aircraft the GAF built was the Mirage!
Well said!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: FGD 135, Some of the pilots you fly with must be a thick as Grandma's custard. Maye they would be better off in alternative occupational development.

Last edited by LeadSled; 26th Dec 2018 at 22:38. Reason: PS added.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2018, 22:52
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 493
This sure is an interesting thread. We have insults, we have myths, story telling time, dreams hopes & wishes all rolled into one, this most amazing jet better live up to all the hype otherwise there will be a few sad people in here:-):-)
machtuk is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2018, 03:00
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 76
Posts: 174
To what extent could top end weather contribute to the PC24 being useful in cases where the PC12 are limited?
Though PC24 optimin altitude is about 25000 ft (which also has a sea level cabin) it has a ceiling over 40000ft which would enable it to fly above most of the weather which
The PC12has a ceiling of 30000ft and I am not sure of cabin altitude. Does this add value to the jet.

Last edited by harrryw; 27th Dec 2018 at 03:51.
harrryw is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2018, 03:57
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by machtuk View Post
This sure is an interesting thread. We have insults, we have myths, story telling time, dreams hopes & wishes all rolled into one, this most amazing jet better live up to all the hype otherwise there will be a few sad people in here:-):-)
Machtuk,
Just imagine if the WRIGHT FLYER had been a turbine, and all of a sudden somebody invented the "much more economical TSFC" piston engine.

According to some of these blokes, only the greatest pilot since Pontius would be able to handle the vast complications of throttles and super/turbo chargers and over -boost, V-P props and runaways, cowl flap, multiple competing limiting temperatures, etc.,after years of ICUS, all the old dodders would be struck on the much more simple "jets".

Seriously, folks, why does Australia have such problems with an engine that has been around since the early 1940's, and fundamentally has single lever control.

And as for high level aerodynamics, forget it, modern aerodynamics has either designed out the problem, ( highest mach no. I have used is 0.98 on acceptance test) or, as here, it ain't fast enough to get into trouble.

And "jets" have been around longer then turbo-props!!
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.