Obviously you've never had the pleasure! In any case we are diverging off thread and there are other places for this discussion. Lets get back to what this thread is about hey.

SN

SN

you started the diverging -

If the taxpaying patients requiring aeromed transfer in NSW get dragged around in 'lowest bidder' 30-year-old piston twins, I guess its OK to do the same in NT.....:yuk:

When was the last time The Woodpecker or any State Premier was flown in anything less than a late-model ME turbine? Of course, their safety is more important than Joe & Jane Citizen.:rolleyes:

~95% of patients in the NT are not tax payers. Exactly how much of a difference that makes who knows, but I recon it is significant.

Care Flights biggest problem was getting into bed with Aus Jet and naively expecting that bucket of leaches to honour their contractual obligations. If the roumers are true, then Aus Jet will loose their cash cow. I wonder what a Lamb with a face like a slapped arse looks like? I guess we will find out soon enough. Bring on the Nomads :E

DD

Havent heard any new developments. What rumors have you heard DWD?

Obviously you've never had the pleasure!

SN i have had many pleasures in life and flying and the pleasure i have in flying now is the best ever. Maybe one day you might find that. !!!

And isn't this all about what aircraft to use in the NT

Of course, you're not doing that at all.:hmm:

PC12 Fact - engine failure with only one engine = forced landing by necessity, regardless of wx, height or anything else. Examples of SE turbines forced landing following engine failure in Aust:
VH-NOW, PC12 29 January 2010
VH-NTQ, C208 14 January 2010
VH-UMV, C208 31 December 2009
VH-PSQ, C208 14 January 2008
VH-KLP, C208 5 February 2006
VH-CYC C208 8 February 2004
VH-URT, C208 21 August 1998
VH-FMC, PC12 20 October 1998

B200 Fact - engine failure with two engines = making choice from range of options which does not by necessity include forced landing. Examples of B200 forced landing following one engine failure in Aust: None.

Gidday Wally :ok:

Add PC-9/A at Sale:rolleyes:

Add the RFDS PC-12 over in W.A. last year:

VH-NWO, PC-12, 29 January 2010

Al

B200 at Toowoomba - 1 engine fail - 4 dead

Check facts-was a C-90 and in all likelihood the actual crash was caused by pilot incapacitation (albeit from engine failure). NOT A B200!

Was still a twin turbine. Type is irrelevant.

morno

Advance airlines Sydney. b200 ( I think ) all killed.

Thanks Al,

can you enlighten us all to the engine failure of VH-FMC that you have listed above. According to the ATSB report issued for the incident on the 20th October 1998 this was to do with an oil pressure indication fluctuation, from which the aircraft made "an uneventful landing".

Investigation: 199804687 - Pilatus Aircraft Ltd PC-12, VH-FMC

Of course you may have other information that the ATSB is not aware of. I'd be very glad to hear this as I am sure RFDS would also like you to bring them up to speed on the engine failure that occurred of which you are the only person who knows about it.

Out of curiosity, of the in flight shutdowns listed above how many fatalities were recorded?

Also while you're at it can you just clear up the following incidents for me seeing that we are now generalising all single engine turbine aircraft types into one category:

The 16th Sept 1995 accident in Tamworth:

ASN Aircraft accident Swearingen SA.227AC Metro III VH-NEJ Tamworth Airport, NSW (TMW)

The 22nd March accident at Darwin

ASN Aircraft accident Embraer 120ER Brasilia VH-ANB Darwin Airport, NT (DRW)

Every time this argument comes up the normal armchair experts always state that with appropriately qualified crew and proper training a multi engine aircraft will fly away after an engine failure.

Both aircraft mentioned above were being operated by appropriately trained personnel / crew and these crew are no longer around to share their story. Please help me out here as the old multi engine turbine aircraft are safer than single engine turbines argument isn't quite adding up when you look at the real facts as opposed to the inherent emotion that is still driving the old argument.

edit: spelling.

FGD135, Al had that one at the top of his list. It was incorrectly recorded as VH-NOW, a typo I'm sure.:E

Oh goody, another pointless argument about how safe it is to depend on one engine in all circumstances. :D:D:D It is always fun to watch the usual suspects start foaming at the mouth with any possible slight on their personal icons.

All those singles (yeah, lets chuck the PC9 in too!) had no other option than to land, once the power stopped (or in the case so charmingly referred to by the PC12 legend) to follow the QRH direction for failing oil pressure and land.

The twins that crashed in the referenced examples, may have been as a result of pilot error (or incapacitation in the C90 case), or poor choices from the available options, but they were not as a result of no option by design.

Why do the PC12, B200 and every other IFR aircraft have two sets of primary flight instruments? In case one fails, as mechanical things are wont to do.

As Wal said, lets hope this stays a hypothetical and we never end up contributing to a thread about the tragic loss of a SE that had a failure when landing safely without power was not possible. Unfortunately, the more they are used in all-weather, all-hours operations, the more likely it becomes. The decision of RFDS WestOps to go back to a twin airframe for higher-risk (ie all-weather, all-hours) operations says something too.

Regarding the Tamworth Metro crash, a crew member survived.

Let me take a step back before the spittle starts flying:p and make a minor redirect: The NT Aeromed contract has (I believe) called for B200s so the whole PC12 thing is moot.

A couple of points in relation to this statement:

The new CEO is a former board member for Central Section, possibly wont have issues with the PC12.

The word around WestOps at the moment is that the older PC12's which are soon to be pensioned off, are to be replaced with 4....you guessed it...PC12's!

Hey Al,

Thanks for the emotive response, very nice. If you could address the points that I raised in my previous post with some hard facts rather than just your personal opinion that would help the discussion all round.

I operate both multi engine and single engine aircraft and personally don't have a problem with either. Based on the facts I am just as safe in the single as I am the twin.

Correct, and this just highlights the fact that despite having two engines there is no 100% guarantee that you will walk away from an engine failure in a multi just as there is no 100% guarantee that the engine won't fail in a single. Both of the accidents I referred to involved aircraft that were "designed" to fly away with one engine inoperative. The fact is "the design" didn't help and the crew (albiet one member in the Tamworth accident) payed the ultimate sacrifice. This gets me back to my original question, of the single engine turbine failures you listed how many resulted in fatalities?

Still waiting on the evidence from you that VH-FMC experienced an engine failure as you stated above; or are you happy to make up the story to support your argument that you "feel" safer in the multi?

Also if you can back this statement up with some facts that would be appreciated rather than just some hearsay from your mates at the local aero club / legend aviators bar.

pc12togo: You have your opinion, I have mine. I ain't interested in changing mine based on yours. I believe that for the NT Aeromed role, a B200 is a safer aircraft with two engines than a PC12 is with one. Two engines is not a 100% guarantee of safety, but it is decidedly less likely to be forced to land due to 100% power failure. Having looked at the circumstances of the incidents raised, I see nothing to change my views.

The info in this thread has indicated that Westops is heading back to twins. Take it up with those posters. The inclinations of the new CEO are fine and will remain so up until the dreaded event finally occurs.

I am not in an aeroclub. I have flown a PC12, so perhaps I am not an expert but nor am I in an armchair.

Two crew died at Tamworth.

There has so far been a large element of luck that no SE turbine forced landings have been fatal, NWO, PSQ & KLT particularly so.

FMC had an engine oil pressure indication problem that required a landing. Nothing made up about it. He didn't have the option of shutting down the suspect engine and continuing on the other. His options were limited by design.

You're happy having limited options? Good for you. I prefer otherwise.

Fantastic, do you all feel better now you've got that over and done with? :ok:

Now that the thread drift/hijack is complete and you all have made your inept points would you all mind sodding-off if you want to keep your ME v's SE debate going ad infinitum and do it somewhere else? This thread is about the NT gov'ts pi$$ poor planning and the never ending muppet show going on up there, not the stupid dick measuring exercise that has just gone on for the last two pages which has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand (sure... aircraft type, but not the in's and out's of them all).

One person trolls a comment and you all had to bite.....:hmm: