Nobody here doubts this aircraft will be highly effective in reality, zanthrus.

Agreed 100%

Well said Nev:-)
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!

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.

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!!

TQ,
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!!

Get Wally S out of retirement. His 30 hrs in the F100 simulator gives preeminent jet experience to pass onto the lads....

18-24 months of ICUS, are you f***king kidding me?! :ugh:

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?

from the website
PERFORMANCE

Speaking of dick swinging, I read this commentary on the arrival of a new jet type into Australian service and instead of all the above discussion I find myself wondering why we have to buy it at all. We used to manufacture things in this country, like appliances, automobiles, etc, and yes even aircraft. Maybe nothing amazing but rather than develop it towards greater things the fledgling industry was abandoned in favour of lazy alternatives. When jungle jets are coming out of South America and being bought here there's something wrong. Countries the size of Switzerland and Sweden proudly manufacturing their own air, land and sea transport and exporting it to relative goliaths such as Australia - good on them but it makes me feel embarrassed at this end.

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(?).

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!

You could try a Nomad again.

Well said!!
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.

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:-):-)

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.

Machtuk,
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!!

Morno,
That reminds me of years ago, the then head of training at China Southern, the airline (CSWAFC having been instructed by CASA that their cadets could not do an initial twin endorsement on their Citations, only an old C-310) ask very very senior CASA bloke:" Why do my cadets have to fly a twin engine aircraft with Otto Cycle engines, when they will never again, in their career, fly other than a turbine??".

Does it surprise you that CASA had no answer, not even a bulldust answer.

That chap from China Southern eventually became Minister for Civil Aviation in China, the CASA chap ---- well, that is another story, and China Southern moved their major training investment to Canada.

Back to the thread --- I have no doubt the PC-24 will be a highly successful aircraft, it can virtually go anywhere the PC-12 can go, and will undoubtedly be as nice to fly as all other Pilatus aircraft --- I have only flown the PC-6, both piston and turbine versions.

Tootle pip!!

So why weren't RFDS allowed to fly the current jets - Hawker 800 series?
Two crew safety in the deal.

Don't say swept wing...
When flown within the proper envelope the swept wing had nothing to do with it.

It is my understanding, not an aircraft owned by the RFDS but more a sub-contract with flight crew to the RFDS. So not possible for RFDS crew to staff it and possibly why it was located at Perth airport (not a RFDS Base).

Yes but why?

Would need to read the contract between RFDS and the 800 owner/s to answer that.

It appears you esteemed gentlemen are talking more about the training that would be required of the typical RFDS PC-12 pilot. Yes, the typical candidate could indeed be trained in 3-4 weeks, but how many of you would then be prepared to send him out on a back-of-the-clock trip, as a single pilot operation, in poor weather?

There is a certain amount of "jet like" experience you would want him to have gained first. Experience comes from mistakes, but mistakes take time.


Merry Christmas, by the way, to you all.

"Do Aussies like to make everything aviation sound hard?"

Ever heard of CAsA??

Ronny RAAF has been sending pilots aloft in single engine jets solo with less than 200 hrs then into solo night flying and cross countries. Two things keep an aircraft flying: it's the attitude and the attitude!

Stop deriding people's efforts and look for the positives...

A turbo prop is a lot easier to control profile in than a jet. This is widely known.
Profile management Is one of the main focuses of jet training for a good reason.
Let's mot be making rash statements.

Yep requires the very big watch to follow the profile.

The funny part is I just watched a house hunters TV show.

He told me he was an "Airline Pilot" more than 4 times!

Still not sure if he fly's a C402 or a A380 but can not get into a hammock.

VLJ's are doomed as we need astronauts to fly them- never could a PPL ever handle one.

I will pipe in here.

Attitude.

That is a very under rated ingredient.

The RAAF, and for that matter, many military operations do send young candidates out in high performance jets.

There is a major difference between military (government) and civilian operations.

The military will have a good handle on the personality and formative training and discipline of the candidate before said candidate even arrives at the controls of a high performance jet or turboprop.

The candidate operates on their own (CRM deficiencies will NOT be exposed at this point) and any cockups are on them alone with no one else to blame. Military discipline and management of poor discretion should be blunt and final.

Civilian training rarely, if ever, would have such discretion to offer the amounts provided by the taxpayers of any country involved in military training, or the latitude to unilaterally scrub a candidate at any point along the syllabus.

It may be said that some single pilot only jocks from the military, do not often make the most pleasant or efficient operators in an airline (commercial) environment. Indeed even some who have multi crew experience can also be a less than ideal fit into commercial operations. There are those who transition extremely well.

Of course the flip side is also true of civilian operators. Many a competent, efficient and safe pilot was not backed by the military. One reason possible is rate of learning. Of course, there are also terrible outcomes from this avenue also. Military products generally have better tactical handling ability. This basic skill is fundamental and well ingrained.

As far as China Southern et al, it comes down to having a citation instead of a C310 and the money to throw at it. I would not suggest that one outcome is better than the other. That comes downs to delivery and final outcome of the product and inherent skills. The pilot.

Having competent and effective delivery of training is fundamental. The candidate must be competent and highly motivated. A lack of either ingredient is often displayed on these forums, or indeed the statistics of many operations.

It does cost more and is less forgiving to conduct any form of training in a higher performance and more expensive, less forgiving platform.

FGD135,
Serious question --- do you actually have any experience on "jet" aircraft?
As to the question you ask, my answer is YES.
As for one of you worried about "profile control" --- your problem is?
Tootle pip!!

If you're not happy to send the individual out it means the training was far less than required. You only release a competent person to the line.

That's a very naïve comment !
Nobody knows how a new released to line pilot will handle the job, the day you check someone to line means no more than his/her perf on the day!
Welcome to the real world!!!!!

Too true CS. Chap with beaucoup night turbine time gained a position with an outback medical provider. Got through the training no sweat, until doing the supervised introduction to the line. Had difficulty doing night visual approaches to the typical cattle station strip on black nights, to the point the operator had to let him go. His previous night work had been flying between two ILS equipped airports located in major urban areas, so even a night visual approach still had the T-VASI for guidance. machtuk, I'm well aware there are operators who, perhaps for financial reasons (I've flown with some of their products), pencil whip training. That's the real world, but not as it should be. As to the performance on the day you mention, training should encompass far, far more than a day, my last job took two weeks of flying and ground school to get checked to line, and that having thousands of hours already in the aircraft, and it was a single engine VFR job. Some do it properly, some don't. In my naïvety am I to assume you don't?