RFDS Pilatus PC24
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.
I feel for the guy/ girls there. Poor management decision IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 01:17.
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!!
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!!
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😀
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.
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😀
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 06:02.
Seasonally Adjusted
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.
....4500kg ISA Sea Level: 85 KIAS
I think the 24 might be a little faster!
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!!
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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(?).
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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!
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!
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 21:38. Reason: PS added.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:-):-)
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 02:51.
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!!