RFDS and the PC-12....
 

Re The RFDS.....

I guess this means that the PC-12 is the 'new' standard for RFDS ops....

From the AvWeb site,
"
PILATUS HAS BEST YEAR EVER
There are exceptions to every rule and while most of the aviation industry endured a brutal year in 2010, Swiss-based Pilatus says it had its best year ever. The company said revenues and profits were up by 11 percent over the previous year ($730 million and $98 million respectively) and it took $400 million in new orders. It also delivered its 1,000th PC-12; the year's deliveries included repeat orders from early customers like Australia's Royal Flying Doctor Service, which took its 33rd PC-12, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which added three PC-12s to its fleet. The new deliveries are all the NG model with Honeywell glass panels and other improvements. More...

33 PC -12's.....That's not a bad fleet 'all over'.....I guess that means that 'youse guys and gals' have got used to the 'single engine' concept....

Cheers:ok::ok:

Hardly...:E

B-350 will be the 'new' standard for RFDS ops starting next year!:ok:

Have to wonder why the Broken Hill section of the RFDS opted to upgrade to BE-350's instead of getting the PC-12's.

DF.

Have an uninvited gearbox failure in a PC12 over the Blue Mountains at 2am in the morning and you will probably work it out for yourself.:ugh:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/808954/...006_prelim.pdf

Thankfully, the Johnny Howard inspired drive for the bottom line does know an end - hopefully before a crew in wiped out.

Adelaide to Melbourne, Hobart, and, from memory, Sydney also, do not take the aircraft outside of gliding range of a lit emergency airfield.
It's a pleasure to fly, especially the NG.

Could definitely do with a landing weight upgrade though.

As I said in another thread, it has less than half (through improvements to design) the chance of an engine failure of a Kingair. Thats less than half the chance of some kind of unfeatherable failure or fire.

In the real remote areas at night is the only time a Kingair would really appeal, although FLIR may well just change that part of the equation too.

Not much use if the airlfields are unusable due to fog!;)

There is a God afterall
 

..............oh goody my fav subject, just when I thought the Mods where getting to me:E

S.E. Section ALWAYS use multi airframes, not all of the RFDS sections are stupid/dangerous !Fortunately contractual req's makes sense sometimes.

I love it when some say within gliding range etc.............sure they would be most of the time at ALT but what about down in the circuit area or during a non prec App. Yr outbound on an NDB, 30 kt tail wind, it's night, raining cats & dogs with cloud expected to be on or about the min. & yr 'fan' goes quiet, prop seized not feathered?............what you have is a couple of "pre made patients" right there within the airframe & ya don't even have to land at the strip to pick up the arranged ones!!!:ugh:

Sure ya have twice the chance of a donk failure in the old Beech (& getting killed due poor handling but that's a humans fault ) but at least ya have a choice/options if that does happen, no choice but DOWN in the PC !:E

It's about economy, pure & simple. Ya can't beat the PC for that no argument there!

So how's it going there 'HH"? Looking fwd to the big Beech? Would have loved to have a drive of one but a stupid Govt decision put paid to that!


Wmk2 ................always believed safety in numbers.

I just KNEW that would GETCHA 'Wal'......

Welcome back!!!

Cheers:ok::ok: :}

(Hook...line....and...)

HH. With the B350 MTOW > 5,700 kg (6,804 kg?) are two pilots required and will it be restricted from many of the bush strips currently serviced by the B200?

Wally. "The PC-12 had, by the end of 2007, only three previous fatal accidents in the US/Canada combined fleet of 556 aircraft after an estimated total of 1.39 million flight hours. One was a training error, while another was engaged in a round-the-world attempt. The only one in normal service occurred on March 26, 2005 in Pennsylvania, where six people on board perished when the plane crashed after experiencing a loss of control during the landing approach."

Pilatus claim 1,000 + PC-12 deliveries by June 2010.

I can not find one PC-12 accident which is the result of premature engine failure.

What about the RFDS PC12 out of Derby a year ago? Engine failure after take off, at night, Young lady managed to glide it back I think.

Well done to her but could have been a different outcome if happened a few minutes later or an hour later over the rugged Kimberly terrain.

Here is the link:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-approach.html

If I remember correctly, was flying from Derby to Kunners, was about 30nm out and returned safely back to Derby. Great outcome, outlining the strong capabilities of the PC12;.......and while I don't have any strong concerns about C208 or PC12 ASEPTA ops, the RFDS probably should still be using Kingairs if flying at night.

I looked up accidents only, not incidents.

No argument with that. And two pilot operations if the Mt Gambier RFDS accident in December 2001 is any guide.

Hi Taily, B350 is certified for single pilot operations and will be operated as such, I do live in hope that two crew will become common place in aeromedical ops (in this country) sometime before I retire.

B350 will be excluded from some airports, but not a significant number, B200 will still be available for those operations!:ok:
Hi Wally, very much so, I've even seen them up close, but nobody will let me touch one yet!:{

PS: With regard to the higher probability of having an engine failure in a twin, I think am willing to manage that risk...;)

I know you where 'fishing' there 'Griffo' but with bait like that how could I not go for a bite:E

'taily' oh I understand that the PC well more the PT-6 actually (the airframe is irrelevant really)is very reliable but the whole reason for 2 donks is safety nothing else. The PC is a prime Eg of the fact that you don't need 2 donks to haul around an airframe the size of the old Beech.

Back in the old days when Piper where putting 2gether a 10 seat job (PA31) am sure the main reason for putting two 350 HP donks on the airframe was because they needed twin redundancy, back to that word safety due regs etc. 700 hp would have been achievable with just one large radial thumper up front(using piston donks that is, ugly comes to mind!) but that was never gunna happen. That's all changed these days due the reliability of turbine engines (HP /weight is excellent) but the same underlying reason is still there, safety, whether it's achievable using one or two engines is purely how the risk is mitigated.
It's at the end of the day all about choice & risk. You can have either (2 versus 1) to do the same task/job.

As for two pilot Ops in Aero Med work? Sure that would make it safer again. Two engines, two pilots can't beat that but that concept but it's ALL about cost on that score.

I know which airframe I'd rather be in when an engine goes quiet, no contest there for me:ok:

Wmk2

Just to throw some fodder into the ring.......:E

When you have a double flame out...don't say it can't, which would you rather have?

How many EFATO's have speared in due not handling assymetric thrust in King Air's?

Given the PC12's crash survival engineering, which would you rather have, a single engine out and a easily controlled ditching (yes some terrain will be worse than others but think Charleville) Vs a mishandled B200.

I think the risks are different, and the risk comparisons almost impossible to compare. I actually think the risk overall is pretty close to minimum and equal, just spread in different areas.

Have fun and play nice :ok:

Hey 'jaba' who's side ya on buddy?:ok:

Spearin' in due poor handling in a twin is one thing, that can be controlled with good training. I did over 4500 hrs on the old Beech alone & many Sim sessions where we did some ugly things at rotate & we still flew away on one donk, again training & discipline there.
Having an engine up front ahead of you is not good for yr health upon impact so SE planes are dangerous just for that alone:-)
I recall going to collect a drunk driver who slammed into a tree after he fell asleep. The Dr said if it where not for the engine coming to join him in the front seat he might have survived (brain dead sadly, body donation candidate)
Double flame out? sheeeeez Jaba what about a piece of space junk falling on ya head just as ya walked outside the hanger?.........now ya really havin' a bad day:E
And as for the PC's survival ability? Yeah sure the seats are rated at 24 g's I believe...........are you?:E

Now get back to work there 'jaba' & stop goofing off:ok:


Wmk2

Will it still climb away if the failed engine won't feather for some reason Wally? Genuine question.

Just for interest. When I did my B200 endo (at CKN in mid-summer) the training pilot briefed the first assy session thus:

'When we take off, I will introduce a practice engine failure. I want you to do nothing except fly the aeroplane following the FD. Do not attempt to identify, verify, feather or apply rudder."

So we took off, and through about 500AGL he said 'Simulated engine failure' and pulled the power on the left engine.

I did nothing except follow the FD.

The rudder boost kicked it straight and the live engine climbed it out at about 800fpm without ANY further input from me. (This was a 3-blade; the 4-blade needs autofeather to do the same thing. U/S autofeather on a 4-blade is a no-go item)

This demonstrated pretty clearly to me that a B200 is quite hard to crash as a result of Engine Failure After TO.

With respect Jamair, that shows a lack of understanding of how the aircraft was certified in the first place. It might be hard for you to crash from 500', but equally well, down lower it could be in a situation of wanting to crash and there ain't nought you can do...

The B200 is not a transport category aircraft. It can legally put you in a position where it can have an engine failure at a point that it cannot fly, but it's going to go through the fence rather fast.

Jaba's comment is the most sensible thing I have heard in this debate :ok::ok: which incidentally seems to bring out the same old dusty broken records onto the gramophone each time.

Regards

CS - Who used to happily fly either the PC12 or B200 - whatever was in the hangar at the time.

Here's another angle for you. Say the RFDS replace all their PC12s with Kingairs in the interest of safety because the PC12 has a slightly higher risk of engine failure. However due to the increased cost they have to run fewer aircraft to do the same work as the PC12 could do for the same $$ available to them. Now lets say someone is in a life threatening condition somewhere and needs to be urgently airlifted out, but because there just arent the number of aircraft available, said person dies as a result of not getting the care they need in time. Where is the safety in that? Now I know what some of you are going to say, what if they get picked up in a PC12 and the engine quite and they die anyway killing the whole crew? Good point, but the chances of this happening are considerably less than the risk of not having enough aircraft. Its a risky business, and there has to be a balance of risk against cost. You need to get the maximum number of aircraft out there with the $$ you have available. Cost, Speed, and reliability are all issues. As much as we all dont like it, $$ talk, there is risk in everything and there is never going to be a perfect solution.