I do like the event in Africa where a Bizjet was hit by a SAM which blew off the engine pod completely. The crew thought it was just an engine failure and didn't even realize they had actually 'lost' the engine until landing and inspection.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....204bfc82a9.png

I seem to recall that the accident rate and fatality occurrence in light twins was higher than singles since the light twin was invented. When doctors got tired of killing themselves in Bonanzas they went on to Apaches and Twin Comanches.

Anyway…I would rather be flying a new single turbine than a clapped out PA-31. When I got my first know-nothing twin job it was flying a scary 30 year old museum piece. I don’t imagine that time is any less damaging to aeroplanes these days.

In any event, light twins are good for providing inexperienced pilots with quite a lot of experience quite quickly, as in this case.

I know you're in the med line of work flying PC-12 and -24. Safety is a blend of aircraft systems (eg twin v single), pilot and maintenance training, standards applied by the company. Flew helos for years over Bass Strait single engine IMC, 60+ knot winds, a ditching in those conditions was going to result in the deaths of all, operation only ever had one engine failure which resulted in a ditching in benign circumstances, aircraft recovered and back on line a day or two later, such was the state of the art at the time. State of the art improved over the years where we flew twins with RADALT, radar, coupled autopilot, GPS, had two hot end disintegration engine failures myself, and still had many systems where a single point failure could result in a ditching, main transmission/tail rotor. Emotions/feelings do come into it, you have to recognise the inherent risks associated with the task, only the most unreasonable would fail to understand a pilots desire to fly a B200 rather than a PC-12 over the GAFA at night. Question for you, when are the regulators going to allow an airline to operate a single engine 200 pax jet, we have the technology and suitable engines available, please list the variables as to why not?

I was recently medevaced (a patient) at night from a remote area. I had no choice in aircraft type. Would have been grateful whatever turned up: PC12 fine, PC12 with a FlightSafety or similar current pilot even better. As it was, I felt very comfortable strapped in the back of a KingAir knowing that the pilot was trained and regularly practiced flying scenarios to a logical conclusion in a decent B200 simulator.

I was certainly in better hands than when I was airframe-driver (aeromed) C441 & B200 or PC12 (private) having never seen a simulator.

Megan, the risk of a medevac operation is not just the binary single vs twin. Additionally may I suggest:

1. Certification design date (think grandfathered parts.. 737). When was the B200 certificated? PC12? The TCDS are enlightening, especially cross referencing safety protections. (and don't get suckered in by the brochures' modern certification with the new variants. It's only the mods that are certified to modern standards, not the whole aircraft)
2. Crashworthiness (see 1)
3. Maintenance Checks and procedures on SEPTA
4. Operators' cloud break procedures in the PC12 dead stick. IIRC you can make a runway at every stage of flight over land in WA.
5. Safety in Extra Range on PC12 vs KingAir. I used to fly whichever was in the hangar on Aeromed when I turned up to work. In the summer GAFA storm season, in my "patch" if I had the B200, I had an extra black hole landing for fuel. And if the return had a tempo, I might need a second. No such issue with the PC12. Out stopping all stations and return plus an hour. Admittedly not an issue in the J curve.
6. Sure, if the PC12 donk quits on takeoff it's going down. If an engine quits on a B200 (not a B350) at a bad time, you're also going down and there's bugger all you can do about it unless you have a bloody long runway and no trees. Hopefully you stay upright on the descent. See (2).

To which wing is the No. 3 engine fitted on the 727-251?

How do you have the TR in these aircrafts?

Skyguardian88

All my training in the GA world for type endorsements (it wasn’t called a Type Rating) and IR renewals back in the 80/90s was done in the aircraft. There was no Conquest or PC12 simulator here then. I think there was a B200 simulator in Australia, but my employers didn’t use it, nor were they required to.

Things have changed a bit since then.

CS, many thanks for the insight, had always been lead to believe the B200 always had the accountability performance wise, my only FW experience has been 500 hours single engine back in the 60's. Despite the B200/PC-12 performance elements you point out, I as a possible patient would prefer to see a B200 turn up on a dark stormy night. Most impressed with the standard of training of our local EMS, until a simulator was available in Oz they traveled to Europe, taking along their own instructor rather than using the simulator provided instructors.The point of the question is...........? You'll need to look at a photo of a 727-251 to see which wing, when you find out let us know.

The middle wing - duh :bored:

I was confused by the relevance, of a toilet seal taking out one of three turbine engines, to a forced landing in a piston twin. I obviously haven’t been keeping up with the thread.

This thread has gone from twin prop drive to a 3 holer jet.
I must be in the wrong bus.

The single v twin debate has been interesting .
an element i have not seen mentioned is speed (not vertical speed).
i believe singles hit the ground at generally lesser speed than twins .

The pilot of this aircraft was properly trained and qualified to operate the aircraft. She also has reasonable experience, previously flying charter in the NT.

I know nothing of the operator but have found with many general aviation charter companies that, when a pilot is deemed competent, all mentoring and development stops. They're then surviving, or not, based on their awareness of their own limitations. Too often we have seen young pilots die through making simple errors that were not captured in time to prevent disaster.

If this young woman made an error she will learn and apply the lesson in the future. I hope she'll also pass it on, through mentoring, to the young pilots she flies with in the future. Regardless of the causal factors, she did well to take the action required to survive.

It don’t matter if it’s a POS or a brand newy. If she’s outta go juice then gravity will do the rest. They mustn’t teach how to check fuel on the farm these days.

I may have seen a picture of the cockpit post accident, with both fuel selectors on the Aux tanks. Make of that what you will :rolleyes:

Ah yes, if the thing is under control, the lower stall speed of the single could work in its favour. But depends what you hit and how. Wearing a hot engine in your lap might not be as desirable as having the engines out on the wing where they may absorb some of the forces before breaking off. Or ditching a single in rough water to have it go very quickly nose down, versus the twin maybe floating just long enough to get out. In that regard, having a crew door helps, whereas twins with only a rear door could be at a disadvantage.
In a crash situation there are too many variables to claim one to be safer than the other.
Most of the fatalities that the aforementioned doctors and lawyers who traded up from singles to light twins had, were likely due to ambition exceeding ability.
Most light twins - including B200 King Airs - have a segment on take-off and late final approach where engine-out climb is not possible. It does not help that Beechcraft erroneously talk about 'V1' in their manuals, which implies that this is a speed from which an engine failure can be carried into the air maintaining a positive climb gradient. The split between this so-called V1 and 'blue line' is about 25 knots. Fortunately, with both engines operating the aeroplane will accelerate to blue line in a matter of seconds, as will most properly rigged and maintained piston twins. The main problem with the piston twin is that it may not be able to out-climb the surrounding terrain, whereas if the turbine twin is operated conservatively there are only a few places in Australia where it possibly wouldn't be able to.

holy crap, this thread went downhill faster than HJE did. Definitely not a lack of fuel here.

Ixixly

Sorry to add fuel…


Jumping into a simulator does a lot to build confidence and recalibrate perceived performance expectations. It seems to be a thing with every generation of pilots who fly them to have unrealistic expectations of the performance of light twins.

I’ve heard pilots say that, with seven hours of fuel in a C404, it’s possible to suffer an engine failure on rotate with Flaps T/O, accelerate, gear up, etc, etc, etc, fly away and everyone goes home.

The DCA RPT operations (Reg 203) takeoff charts of the day, might have said so too, but we didn’t have a sim and never trained for it in the aircraft. I expect that said pilots, most having never flown the manoeuvre, would change their tune after having a go at something similar in the old Ansett B200 box.