AirMed PA-31 VH-HJE down south of Archerfield
Morno, it is my understanding that the pilot was the only person on board this flight.
no pax, just a bunch of eskies in the back (willing to be corrected).
so, in this case, a piston twin was the best (cheapest) option.
re pilot experience (yes, I know, thread drift).
A pilot with thousands of hours of experience on twins can still make a rock solid effort to monumentally FTU in a B200. Google Desert Dick, KingAir, Mount Gambier, and ask yourself how TF he managed to fly a circuit AFTER installing Q tip props in flight.
Pratt & Whitney should use photos of that particular accident to advertise how robust their engines are.
no pax, just a bunch of eskies in the back (willing to be corrected).
so, in this case, a piston twin was the best (cheapest) option.
re pilot experience (yes, I know, thread drift).
A pilot with thousands of hours of experience on twins can still make a rock solid effort to monumentally FTU in a B200. Google Desert Dick, KingAir, Mount Gambier, and ask yourself how TF he managed to fly a circuit AFTER installing Q tip props in flight.
Pratt & Whitney should use photos of that particular accident to advertise how robust their engines are.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2016-072
The PDF has pictures of the bent blades, it was a decent effort.
PS; How that B200 was able to fly with props/gearbox in that condition is stuff that makes you believe in divine intervention...
Last edited by 43Inches; 8th Apr 2023 at 02:14.
[QUOTE=Global Aviator;11416312]This is oh so true. It is all about the $, the gubmint may say they are looking at xyz yet…
There are replacements but they are $$$$$. Before my time but in the 70’s didn’t the gubmint bring in a huge tax incentive to buy new? Time to do it again? The US of A has had a huge tax deal on buying assets, well it was the Trump regime, not sure if Gramps has repealed it yet.
Yes there were tax incentives here back in the late 70's and 80's known as an "investment allowance". These were attractive to those who had big tax liabilities in another area to buy new equipment and offset the costs against those liabilities. As an example I once worked for an outfit whose directors bought 3 brand new MU2s and offset the costs against their Moree cotton farms profits, win win for everybody. Off course when the allowance timed out back to the US they went. It also applied to lots of other industries too, like farming, fishing etc. etc.
There are replacements but they are $$$$$. Before my time but in the 70’s didn’t the gubmint bring in a huge tax incentive to buy new? Time to do it again? The US of A has had a huge tax deal on buying assets, well it was the Trump regime, not sure if Gramps has repealed it yet.
Yes there were tax incentives here back in the late 70's and 80's known as an "investment allowance". These were attractive to those who had big tax liabilities in another area to buy new equipment and offset the costs against those liabilities. As an example I once worked for an outfit whose directors bought 3 brand new MU2s and offset the costs against their Moree cotton farms profits, win win for everybody. Off course when the allowance timed out back to the US they went. It also applied to lots of other industries too, like farming, fishing etc. etc.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
43Inches
As does this event….
bounce….low level, limited panel, recovery…..loiter…..land…..thank God.
RFDS CFIT accident - all survived.
PS; How that B200 was able to fly with props/gearbox in that condition is stuff that makes you believe in divine intervention...
bounce….low level, limited panel, recovery…..loiter…..land…..thank God.
RFDS CFIT accident - all survived.
Here's a Navajo that did it a year or so later.... and I've heard of other PA-31s that have installed QTips in low passes and went around to land normally.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2016-072
The PDF has pictures of the bent blades, it was a decent effort.
PS; How that B200 was able to fly with props/gearbox in that condition is stuff that makes you believe in divine intervention...
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2016-072
The PDF has pictures of the bent blades, it was a decent effort.
PS; How that B200 was able to fly with props/gearbox in that condition is stuff that makes you believe in divine intervention...
I'll see your Q tips and raise you a 1.5 eng landing in a 4 engine aeroplane. The Electra gear warning was conditional on Altitude and power lever position. When flying an efficient approach at idle it would become a nuisance and be cancelled by the flight Eng almost automatically.
Those that needed more than idle hadn't planned their approach properly.
Them be the days aye.
The pilot of this Navajo and the crew of the above Electra both spent their time concentrating on flying the aeroplane post mishap. Both groups got to walk away without hurting anybody. That's an important learning point. ECAM, EICAS. ECCL. Warning Panels etc are all secondary to flying the aeroplane (and I will include feathering a prop or reducing drag in the flying the aeroplane group).
Getting within walking distance use to be joked about for some American airlines in the 70s and 80s. They all seem to be doing fine mow. I hope this pilot has the same progression
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Also not mentioned is cam shaft failures on chieftains, these engines rarely make TBO of 1800 hours any more because the lobes on the cam shafts break down causing the engine to not produce full power.
For that to happen is really one of two things, manufacturing error, or re using parts in cheap overhauls or just cheap overhauls.
The following users liked this post:
He might how ever it is a common occurrence, and before you mention cheap parts you can only buy lycoming camshafts. It also is something that affects other lycoming piston engines. It has nothing to do with maintenance either it’s the material in the camshaft.
When you’re carrying people who have no choice in the type of aircraft that they’re going in (patients), then I’m a firm believer in that you should be carried in the safest option that is currently out there on the market in terms of aircraft, and you should also have a minimum experience requirement for the person operating that aircraft.
So basically it should be a pressurised twin turbine...
So basically it should be a pressurised twin turbine...
Suggest you check out the accident stats comparing your favourite twin turbine to PC12s, TBMs etc. and come back to us.
100% agree on experience / skill level of the pilot, though. That’ll have far more bearing on safety than the number of turbines.
The following users liked this post:
I can’t be stuffed going through the stats, but let’s just roughly approximate that there has been 4 King Air (200, C90, 350) accidents in the last 30 or so years in Australia (Toowoomba, Mt Gambier, Moomba, Essendon). I say Australia because the majority of King Airs in Australia are commercially operated, a better comparison than putting private pilots in the mix with little recency etc.
Toowoomba was mainly put down to maintenance management and a lack of engine data monitoring (basically every turbine has that now). Mt Gambier could have been any aircraft type, the number of engines appears to be irrelevant in that accident. Moomba was an engine failure followed by mismanagement compounded by bad training. I’ll agree that had it been a single engine turbine, it wouldn’t have occurred (unless the one and only engine failed). Essendon, the verdict is still out on what the exact cause is on that. Plus training was likely to be lacking compared to a modern aeromed environment. Granted, it’s possible that the number of engines played a part in this.
PC-12, I’m scratchy on the number of engine failures that there have been in Australia, Derby definitely, but others I don’t know. Yes they made it back to the field, but that was a lot of good luck!
Had it been over inhospitable terrain, what’s the outcome then? At least in a twin, you feather it and keep going. And it’s that last line that provides more comfort to me. Sure the PC-12 as an example has a great track record, but I certainly don’t want to be the one on the first one to have an engine failure with no options below.
And there’s no doubt lots of cases where a B200/C90/350 has had an engine failure and shut it down and kept going successfully.
Toowoomba was mainly put down to maintenance management and a lack of engine data monitoring (basically every turbine has that now). Mt Gambier could have been any aircraft type, the number of engines appears to be irrelevant in that accident. Moomba was an engine failure followed by mismanagement compounded by bad training. I’ll agree that had it been a single engine turbine, it wouldn’t have occurred (unless the one and only engine failed). Essendon, the verdict is still out on what the exact cause is on that. Plus training was likely to be lacking compared to a modern aeromed environment. Granted, it’s possible that the number of engines played a part in this.
PC-12, I’m scratchy on the number of engine failures that there have been in Australia, Derby definitely, but others I don’t know. Yes they made it back to the field, but that was a lot of good luck!
Had it been over inhospitable terrain, what’s the outcome then? At least in a twin, you feather it and keep going. And it’s that last line that provides more comfort to me. Sure the PC-12 as an example has a great track record, but I certainly don’t want to be the one on the first one to have an engine failure with no options below.
And there’s no doubt lots of cases where a B200/C90/350 has had an engine failure and shut it down and kept going successfully.
Fair enough if you can’t be bothered going through the stats.
But I can tell you for a fact that the PC12 has a lower fatal accident rate than the King Air.
I suggest looking up an article published only last year in Air Facts Journal titled “What’s wrong with Pilatus PC 12 Pilots?”
But if you can’t be bothered doing that either I’ll draw your attention to just one sentence:
“There has not been a single fatal PC-12 accident caused by engine failure in the US - ever”, and that’s over several million hours flown.
How many fatal accidents have there been in turbine twins when an engine failure has been mishandled? Plenty.
But I can tell you for a fact that the PC12 has a lower fatal accident rate than the King Air.
I suggest looking up an article published only last year in Air Facts Journal titled “What’s wrong with Pilatus PC 12 Pilots?”
But if you can’t be bothered doing that either I’ll draw your attention to just one sentence:
“There has not been a single fatal PC-12 accident caused by engine failure in the US - ever”, and that’s over several million hours flown.
How many fatal accidents have there been in turbine twins when an engine failure has been mishandled? Plenty.
The following 2 users liked this post by rcoight:
43Inches
As does this event….
bounce….low level, limited panel, recovery…..loiter…..land…..thank God.
RFDS CFIT accident - all survived.
As does this event….
bounce….low level, limited panel, recovery…..loiter…..land…..thank God.
RFDS CFIT accident - all survived.
As for the Multi vs single engine. Its more of an obvious comfort factor than a real safety feature with modern engines and yes, many times the pilot has been caught out and crashed due to asymmetry, so you have to think how many single engine craft would have crashed given the same flying and hours. And then if you have two or more are pilots/engineers more likely to accept ageing/poor engines with lower margins that could fail more often. There is so many variables, however the flying public will always see more engines as better insurance and jets better than props (regardless of whether its a turbine driving the prop).
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a fair comparison you would have to factor in the number of twin turbine hours flown versus those in a PC-12. I'm willing to bet those in the former far outweigh the latter rendering a straight like-for-like comparison meaningless.
And there’s no doubt lots of cases where a B200/C90/350 has had an engine failure and shut it down and kept going successfully
It compares accidents per hours flown (usually 100,000). So the comparison is entirely fair.
Have phone video taken by the flight nurse of an engine failure during enroute climb, brand new B200, if you can call 1,000 hours total airframe/engine brand new. Returned for safe landing. Some aeromed who fly the GAFA express gratitude in leaving the PC-12 for a twin and the implied safety enhancement,
You feel safer in the twin, so therefore you are (even though the fact is you’re not).
Got it, thanks!
The following users liked this post:
Doesn’t your PC-24 have 2 engines rcoight? Why didn’t they just fit it with 1?
We train and we plan for the worst case, so why not plan by having an extra engine.
Training by way of simulators these days certainly cuts down the chances of a mishandled engine failure in a twin, but you can’t really do anything more than engine monitoring for a single.
We train and we plan for the worst case, so why not plan by having an extra engine.
Training by way of simulators these days certainly cuts down the chances of a mishandled engine failure in a twin, but you can’t really do anything more than engine monitoring for a single.
I agree with Morno to a point, which is in a perfect world where pilots don't make mistakes and are perfectly competent the Multi Engine turbine should offer a noticeable level of safety benefit. However the stats prove that being multi engine in itself adds an extra element of danger in the real world where pilots do err and are not trained well and crash when the aircraft should have performed.
But then you go into things like pressurization. An unpressurized PA-31 is not going to suffer a depressurization event and loss of crew or hull, does that make it safer than the King Air, where several have been lost to pressurization issues just to achieve a more efficient, comfortable ride. That's where the comparisons between types get complicated and only rates of incidents over long term usage in like for like operation will tell the story. X has more engine failure accidents, but Y balances out because it has more handling accidents but Z is worse because of system failure accidents and so on....
Look at the ATR it has an appalling record of safety vs the Dash-8, SAAB and Jetstream, only the Braz comes close to it, because of the early propeller issues. I think even the Russian built turboprops have a lower loss rate than the ATR and those things are flown in horrendous conditions by questionable crews.
But then you go into things like pressurization. An unpressurized PA-31 is not going to suffer a depressurization event and loss of crew or hull, does that make it safer than the King Air, where several have been lost to pressurization issues just to achieve a more efficient, comfortable ride. That's where the comparisons between types get complicated and only rates of incidents over long term usage in like for like operation will tell the story. X has more engine failure accidents, but Y balances out because it has more handling accidents but Z is worse because of system failure accidents and so on....
Look at the ATR it has an appalling record of safety vs the Dash-8, SAAB and Jetstream, only the Braz comes close to it, because of the early propeller issues. I think even the Russian built turboprops have a lower loss rate than the ATR and those things are flown in horrendous conditions by questionable crews.
It's not those odds that we should worry about. It's whether or not the airframe will still maintain a safe flight path with one of those engines failed, (or two in the case of the quad), and just as important, whether the driver-airframe can make the thing maintain a safe flight path.
Comparing a clapped-out 50 year old light twin powered by early iron-age engines with a relatively new turbine powered single, of course one would expect the reliability of the turbine to win. Especially when we factor in the pilot of the beat-up old twin could well be inexperienced, whereas someone trusted with a multi-million dollar turbine probably has a bit more time at the controls.
But comparing the turbine single with an equally modern turbine twin, and assuming that the pilots of both are competent, the twin wins on every count.
Applying statistics to compare, say the PC12 with the King Air, or ATR 42 with Dash 8, does not (and how could it?) consider factors on an equal basis - e.g. operating environment, the maturity of the operators, maintenance, pilot training, pilot experience on type and within that environment, regulatory over-sight etc. Stats are useful for setting insurance premiums and filling glossy sales brochures with nice pie charts, but little else.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 9th Apr 2023 at 02:24. Reason: spelling
The following users liked this post:
As above, having two engines just means you’re twice as likely to have an engine failure. 
And then the consequences of mishandling it can be (and often are) far more severe than they are in a single.
Granted this can be largely mitigated by good training, experience, and recency.
An engine failure in a bizjet is almost a non event. The performance margins are such that you’d have to be trying very hard to bugger it up after a failure. Apart from standing on the correct rudder pedal (and even that you don’t have to do in the latest version) there’s virtually nothing else to do except fly it.
Different story in a prop aircraft where the margins are much smaller and you have (potentially) the drag of a windmilling prop to deal with as well.
All I have done here is point out the fact that the accident stats are clear when it comes to single engine turboprops.
It is a myth that twins are safer. Sure they probably should be safer, but for some reason they aren’t.
And then the consequences of mishandling it can be (and often are) far more severe than they are in a single.
Granted this can be largely mitigated by good training, experience, and recency.
An engine failure in a bizjet is almost a non event. The performance margins are such that you’d have to be trying very hard to bugger it up after a failure. Apart from standing on the correct rudder pedal (and even that you don’t have to do in the latest version) there’s virtually nothing else to do except fly it.
Different story in a prop aircraft where the margins are much smaller and you have (potentially) the drag of a windmilling prop to deal with as well.
All I have done here is point out the fact that the accident stats are clear when it comes to single engine turboprops.
It is a myth that twins are safer. Sure they probably should be safer, but for some reason they aren’t.
The following users liked this post: