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...


:8

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

Why don't we wait until PC-12's have been around for forty years to make a fair assessment!:rolleyes:
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...
You don't need to stick your hand in a fire to know it burns now do you?:E

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. :}:E
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. :ugh:

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.

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

Watch.:D....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 Van has one too. :ok: 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.

'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:ok: 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' :Etake 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 !:ok:

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

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:E


Wmk2:)

Hooligans indeed. :}:E

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

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

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!:ok:

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

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

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.:ok:

'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!!:bored:

Wmk2

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

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 ....!!

'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:ok:



'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

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.

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:E

I know this will be a thread drift but hey am guilty as sin for that:E
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

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

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? :E).

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, :ok:.

morno

Thanks a lot 'morno' that's a great story to tell the grand kids, if you survive!:} Nah really terrific answer to what I asked. I thought that it might be something long those lines going to Vne & using what you have left, the only thing you have left the energy in the beast. I would use the same process in any SE to climb using what's available energy wise, those few extra feet might make all the difference.
Interesting thought the 7nm arc procedure. This I assume is only good if the AD you are attempting to land at has terrain flat ALL the way round & not hills round most of it.
You didn't mention however what procedure was adopted if you didn't break visual & the cloud/fog was on the deck. Min fwd speed wings level & if yr best mate is God (which it would have to be flying SE in IMC) pray like there's no 2moro 'cause there probably won't be!:)

Anyway again tnxs for that update 'morno'. I take my hat off to you guys who fly those PC12's in aeromed tasks in all wx to lots of dark nasty places & at night,I really do. I couldn't do it & that's by choice.
And may I ask when you get a chance what the procedure is for an engine failure after T/off that precluded a return the the departure AD? Being at high FL's & with open flat terrain in VMC is obviously the best chance for an off AD ldg but we have to take off & land sometime right & at night into cloud?:)
I hope the Mods don't slam this one closed just yet, this is now becoming a learning curve for a change.


Wmk2

Morno,
nice work.
When you are filling the GPS with airfields do you give any options, eg night rated strips with lighting?
On a dark and stormy night, engine failure and trying to get the man with the flares out in a hurry would be, I imagine a big case of fiddy cen ten cent on the pucka valve.

What? I make that a glide ration of about 15:1. Right up there with a V-tailed Bonanza. Ain't nobody in here gonna believe that!

Dr :8

Nicely explained morno! :ok:

I'm assuming that is QLD's procedure, where did it originate?

Hey there Wally, obviously this aint gonna work in 100% of scenarios, but you can either continue the glide to say 3nm:3000' or follow the arc in a direction (anti-clockwise is the SOP) that allows an approach from the most favourable direction. In any case the 6:1 profile is already reasonably steep. :hmm:

As for a return to the field: with a properly executed departure and appropriate adjustments to your climb speed, a return to the field would be available in the majority of instances (howling gales excepted) for almost all of your climb. This is no doubt one of the reasons that our SOPs here use a higher T.O. minima, which conincidentally is well above the 700' that morno speaks of. :ok:

Yes this is done, database size permitting. Some simply have a runway direction, others PCL etc. The downside is that this uses up memory that could be other strips that one might want in times of need.:ouch:

Any way you deal with it, Murphy is still going make your life entertaining at times! :eek:

Morno yer not serious...


Are you? :uhoh:

Towering Q
 

The testing officer will not fail an engine on an NDB approach in a PC 12??
Why not????
Is it too dangerous????
A king air can handle it.
Maybe a King Air IS safer.

Maxgrad,
We have KLN90B's in our PC-12's. We normally only put the runway length, runway directions, elevation, and whether it's hard or soft in the details. That then makes it appear on our EHSI in the Map Mode with Airfields selected. Helps give us a warm fuzzy feeling when we see aerodromes being displayed in our 40Nm ring, knowing we have a chance, :). Don't normally insert any other details (there is the option to though). I guess I figure it's an airfield, and at a time of need (ie. no engine), then any airfield will do!

Most of the time we'd be at a decent level that would enable us to have a reasonable amount of time to get ready for the forced landing. As I said before, the autopilot is a very big help in such a situation, as you can get settled, go through everything, and get out any airstrip details you need, without the need to concentrate so much on flying the aircraft. Airfields which are in the GPS are only one's which are in our company airfield directory, or in the ERSA. So we always have at least most details on the airfield.

Should you be stuck at night with a failed donk, and gliding to an airstrip with no lights, the nurses also have a procedure which they follow (great help those nurses, :ok:). That being, they ring up the owners of the strip we're gliding to, alert them to what has happened, and what we're doing. They can then talk them through how to set up car headlights on the strip, which will give us some runway lighting.

Wally,
Basically, if our donk fails below 1,000ft AGL, we're going straight ahead into the tree's/grass/whatever looks not too bad. Through 1,000ft though, then the PC-12 is more than capable of turning back to the airstrip. Yes, it's against everything you ever learnt flying piston singles, about turning back, but rest assured, done properly, it is a safe procedure, and you'll always find yourself high on the approach once you've finished the turn.

On climb normally though, it's just a matter of flying it as a single engine aircraft. Meaning that you climb it at such a speed that if your engine did fail, then you are able to turn straight back around, and glide back to the airfield you originated from. All a matter of risk management. Unfortunately I'm not the boss, so I don't get a choice in what aircraft we buy and don't buy, so if I'm given a single engine a/c, then you just need to minimise the risk of flying in that single engine a/c. So you do climbs which enable turn backs, you remain constantly alert to what your engine is doing, and you make a habit of getting to know as many airstrips in the area's you're flying. Basically, just fly it as though your engine is going to fail every time. Then you'll be in a better position should it ever fail, :ok:.

Reverseflow,
I'm not entirely sure where it originated from at the start (dare I say Pilatus themselves as a guess), but I'd say our section got it off Central Section.

morno

Reverse,

The procedure originates from the Military, the Australian Military use it.

There are questions about hitting a hill at 236 KIAS, on a one to one descent, there is not likely going to be terra-firma in that area, how would a aircraft out climb that in VMC ?, the only concern I could think about is from the west into YBCS.

Turn backs are relatively common in newer aircraft, Flightsafety teach it for the C208.

To expand on one point, 7,000 AGL and 7NM is quite critical, if you went to 10,000 AGL / 10nm, you'd bust VNE.

I'm with morno, its great fun, in training.

All I know is that watching the cloud break procedure from the ground is hellishly good fun. :ok:

I've watched both the RFDS Central mob and NT Police practicing it and its well worth the time. The scream as the PC12 belts overhead and then into the steep turns onto final is something to hear. :}

Geez Morno,

How am I suposed to remember all that? At what point does one 'assume the position'?:E

I think I'll just put the other lever up and head to the nearest 'suitable'!:}

PS: Does sound like fun though (not for real of course...);)

Great replies here guys, 'morno' I think we have started something here.

As 'HH' said though that's a lot to remember on top of all the other high work load (at times) aeromed brings.Excellent thinking that yr going to loose that engine the whole time yr flying, that way yr not caught out completly, but I bet you would still be stunned if it all went quiet at 500' after T/off:)
'Plovet' that scream you mention as the PC12 is going over head during a practice eng failure aint the plane itself it's the crew trapped inside their future coffin screaming their heads off! (No disrespect meant):)

I can recall when I was training for my CPL my instructor & I where a little bored one day during practise everythings so he pulled the throttle back to idle at 500' after T/Off in the old C150 & I practised turning around back to the field (Taree)to line up the dep rwy. We did it easily when I think about it now but I guesss that's a light weight plane but even so then to me it was a scarey event, can't imagine it being done at night in the PC12 for real, brave stuff:ok:

hey Dr:8 even the old girl (B200) will glide nil wind 36 nm's from FL180 but I figure if you are doing that then it's time, time to make a public apology over the radio to all the SE drivers out there who think it's as safe in a PC 12 for Eg. that paerhaps twins aren't that safe afterall:E I love you mum, part of the QRH under engine failure in PC12 perhaps?:E

So for now am enjoying this thread, some useful info coming from all corners of belief:)


Wmk2:)

Wally and others

Two engines did not help the poor buggers in the King Air at YTWB.

The medical professionals that sit in the back KNOW about this stuff? :uhoh:

'tinpis' that is so true, as I said elsewhere here I had this very conversation (SE v Twin) with the DR the other night enroute over tiger country when we hit nasty turbulence & he thought we where gunna die anyway. The Ambos down our way simply won't fly in a SE plane, their union got involved when the contract was originally set up I believe
.
'DD' yr right there but ANY A/C can go down even one with 4 engines, the core subject here now though is safety of a SE v twin if an engine fails.
Was that the one that crashed just after T/off at Toowoomba?
I never did follow it up as to the cause.


Wmk2

as said previously.. its all numbers..
I am a fan of SE turbine (PT6) aircraft.. but there is NO argument that a PC12 has as many options as a kingair should one fail..

If the question though is " do you consider the PC 12 sufficiently safe to fly in the AEROMED enviroment" then absolutely..

we all know the numbers regarding PT6 failure rates... yet in a twin enviroment life is lived on the assumption that the most critical will fail at the most critical time.. no arguments against that planning but.. ..
how many kingair drivers know the speeds/cloudbreak procedures/glide ratio required etc etc to get into an off track ALA after both fail..

surely if one is so likely to fail every takeoff then 2 must fail now and again.. and as we all know fuel starvation is much more common than eng failure in these aircraft.. having two aint gunna help that one..

so there is an awesome (and well practised) explanation of how the PC12 guys would handle it.. whats the plan for the kingair crowd...??

................how many kingair drivers know the speeds/cloudbreak procedures/glide ratio required etc etc to get into an off track ALA after both fail........'gold' I think yr drawing a very long bow now mate. As for answering some of yr somewhat 'off track' question. Glide speed for the B200 135 kts. Dist travelled per 1000 ft nil wind 2 nm. There is to my knowledge no procedure for doing anything other than what every pilot was taught at the very beginning of training for an engine out failure whether it be 2 or 1.You can argue that ANY flying is unsafe using the above statements but they build multi engined planes for very good sound reasons, one being to enhance the chances of survival should an engine fail.
Look nobody is denying that the PC12 for Eg. isn't a safe plane. It's probably one of the safest planes around in its class but that's just it, in it's class, it's simply not in the same class as the B200 for Eg. & could never be so by the very nature of it being a SE plane.

Can both types perform the same task? Well yes of course they can.
Can both types perform the same task with the same level of safety?
NO!
The story continues, I hope:ok:


Wmk2

p.s............I must thank the Mods for allowing this thread to continue, there maybe a glimer of hope in their hearts afterall:ok:
Wmk2

Wally, I thought they built'em with two cause they couldn't get off the ground with one!

Try it sometime! Fire up one only on the big Beech, and see how far you get!

Dr :8

PS: Do you think there is something in this thread for me? Now, how does it go again? Glide for a 7 nm arc by 7000' - and then dive for the runway at Vne!

Tinpis,
Certain medical staff are crew and thus a vital part of the whole sherbang. Like anything in the a/c, they are there to be used as needed. Many have been flying for long enough to know what sounds are normal and when things have changed shape.

Generally make good coffee too:)

As LHRT stated, the 'Cloudbreak Procedure' originated with the military but you have to bear in mind that its a bit different getting to the bottom (700'agl) not visual and using your inertia to grab altitude and then ejecting!! PC12s unfortunately don't have that option.

The CB Procedure, although a lot of fun and a real test of a pilot's raw ability, was generally regarded by most pilots (in the RFDS section I worked for) as a poor second option to gliding from altitude to overhead the field then high key, low key, final all the way to the threshold. Personally who cares if it takes 20 min to finally hit the ground?

On a side note I always wondered if it was possible for GPS manafacturers to design a standard High key, Low key, Final overlay for application on any (1000m or more) aerodrome in your GPS's database. Surely it would be simple trigonometry using the aerodrome reference point?

cheers

Sarcs

ps have over 1500hrs in the PC12 but I would always prefer to have my backside parked in the trusty old B200. The pucker factor is not quite so great when flogging around in the middle of the night over tiger country!

I wondered how long it would be for someone to state the bleeding obvious:ok: