Pilatus PC-12 crash, Netherlands
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new v. old argument will run for ever
3.5 Mill on fuel and extra maintenance? should soon cover the other engine.Being serious Yes if you buy new and stay with the same aircraft the depreciation should even out a bit but then after those ten years you will probably be faced with rebuilding a turbine and having a more maintenance older aircraft.
The higher you are the further you have to fall. Not sure a TB20 new over 10 years would follow the same pattern as a PC12 at $5 Mill
Manufatcurers will make figures read what they want to get new sales
Pace
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Your experience is better than an aquaintence of mine who seems to have had a few issues with his glass cockpit in a Cessna.
I have also noticed a few reports of blank screens in both spam cans and larger aircraft in the publications, all of which admittedly have landed without further incident. I think my reticence to move to a glass panel (if I could afford the STC for my twin) is that you dont just lose one instrument if things go blank, but all of them (OK second screen excluded)
However going back to the single engine issue, I fear that it is only a matter of time before a couple of serious accidents happen in big and fast single turbines in IFR before this is bought to the attention of our friends the CAA and they will try take steps to ban all (not just commercial) IFR single engine flights.
Your experience is better than an aquaintence of mine who seems to have had a few issues with his glass cockpit in a Cessna.
I have also noticed a few reports of blank screens in both spam cans and larger aircraft in the publications, all of which admittedly have landed without further incident. I think my reticence to move to a glass panel (if I could afford the STC for my twin) is that you dont just lose one instrument if things go blank, but all of them (OK second screen excluded)
However going back to the single engine issue, I fear that it is only a matter of time before a couple of serious accidents happen in big and fast single turbines in IFR before this is bought to the attention of our friends the CAA and they will try take steps to ban all (not just commercial) IFR single engine flights.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that it is only a matter of time before a couple of serious accidents happen in big and fast single turbines in IFR before this is bought to the attention of our friends the CAA and they will try take steps to ban all (not just commercial) IFR single engine flights.
IFR (airways) flight is nearly 99% in VMC and is the safest way to fly. The most dangerous flight is VFR, squeezed between terrain and cloudbase. Loads of people get killed doing that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point you make is a fair one, however (and I hope I am wrong) there is a perceived difference between it happening to a smallish single and a much larger aircraft i.e. PC-12 with say 10 people on board
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will give this thread a peak at why I like two engines My film New twinstar me flying her and filming her 
A doddle on one you cannot do that with a single
Picasa Web Albums - pace
Pace
A doddle on one you cannot do that with a single
Picasa Web Albums - pace
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/E Ops
It's very simple. In any single engined aircraft, never fly outside gliding distance of land! (Which presupposes that you must be able to see for the landing.)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: HOME
Age: 66
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi turbines have also been known to suffer catastrophic failures, check out the Gimli Glider for Details Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So you can never say your'e 100% safe. But you can argue any angle using selective statistics. In the end it just comes down to "Do you feel luck punk?", to quote one of my favourite lines
.
.
Beacon Outbound
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: "Home is were the answer machine is"
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi turbines have also been known to suffer catastrophic failures, check out the Gimli Glider for Details Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So you can never say your'e 100% safe. But you can argue any angle using selective statistics. In the end it just comes down to "Do you feel luck punk?", to quote one of my favourite lines
The Gimli glider did not have any catastrophic failures. It simply ran out of fuel.
No matter how many engines you have (there s always the 4 v. 2 debate regarding oceanic crossings), completely running out of fuel is going to turn any aircraft in a glider.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the accident stats show running out/unable to use fuel causes a substantial fraction of engine failures in both singles and twins. Twins also seem to come to grief more often than comparable singles (i.e. BE58 vs BE 36) due to system failures. However, if my mission profile was night ops over water, I would still go for the piston twin vs piston single. However, the stats I have seen suggest the in-flight shutdown rate for turbine singles is lower than the double engine shutdown rate for piston twins - so the piston twin might be an illusory comfort blanket vs. a turbine single.
All of which is a bit odd in a thread about a PC12 going down where we have no indication at all of an engine failure.
All of which is a bit odd in a thread about a PC12 going down where we have no indication at all of an engine failure.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't there been three double engine-failures in commercial jets in about the past year? There was the Airbus into Heathrow and the Hudson river landing. Wasn't there a third?
The desire for a second engine appears very rational, even if it's not backed up by real-world reality shown by the accident statistics. The stats are very clear though. Whether or not you have a second engine, a second alternator etc won't make much difference to your overall risk exposure. Where the safety really improves is when you have a second pilot. It's clear you'd be far safer with two pilots and one engine than the other way around. Yet it's interesting that we don't hear many people admitting how unreliable a single pilot is and saying they wouldn't fly without a backup.
The desire for a second engine appears very rational, even if it's not backed up by real-world reality shown by the accident statistics. The stats are very clear though. Whether or not you have a second engine, a second alternator etc won't make much difference to your overall risk exposure. Where the safety really improves is when you have a second pilot. It's clear you'd be far safer with two pilots and one engine than the other way around. Yet it's interesting that we don't hear many people admitting how unreliable a single pilot is and saying they wouldn't fly without a backup.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't there been three double engine-failures in commercial jets in about the past year? There was the Airbus into Heathrow and the Hudson river landing. Wasn't there a third?
You mention the Hudson River. They had the extreme bad luck of a large flock of birds taking out both engines.
Follow that through and there are scores of occasions where an engine has had to be shut down for a number of reasons including bird ingestion.
Had these all been single engine jets there would have been a mass of accidents with them falling out of the sky!
even if it's not backed up by real-world reality shown by the accident statistics.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where the safety really improves is when you have a second pilot.
I would bet that for an average GA PPL/IR pilot an AP improves safety far more than a second engine.
This is a very interesting and current discussion.
I have flown many hours IFR/IMC on a single engine although usually, but not always, with a Martin Baker seat strapped to my back side. I have also flown world wide with 4 engines, 2 engines but never 3 unless one of the ones I took off with stopped working (which has happened!).
The PC12 argument is emotional not rational. It is statistically safer than most twin pistons and, to asnswer pace, very good at short field performance and mountain flying which is what is is designed for.
I have operated and love flying the King Air but have on several occassions declined a trip which a PC12 would have been perfect for.
Each to their own, but know your tools and make sure you use the right one and do not try to use a chissel as a screw driver or oyu will hurt yourself.
Stay safe
MM
I have flown many hours IFR/IMC on a single engine although usually, but not always, with a Martin Baker seat strapped to my back side. I have also flown world wide with 4 engines, 2 engines but never 3 unless one of the ones I took off with stopped working (which has happened!).
The PC12 argument is emotional not rational. It is statistically safer than most twin pistons and, to asnswer pace, very good at short field performance and mountain flying which is what is is designed for.
I have operated and love flying the King Air but have on several occassions declined a trip which a PC12 would have been perfect for.
Each to their own, but know your tools and make sure you use the right one and do not try to use a chissel as a screw driver or oyu will hurt yourself.
Stay safe
MM
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
May I just add that yes an autopilot is a must have especially for SP but if the pilot is relying on an autopilot to cover a pilots lack of ability then that is asking for trouble.
Even the best autopilots break down or go wrong and then the pilot is reliant on himself to handle everything.
Pace
May I just add that yes an autopilot is a must have especially for SP but if the pilot is relying on an autopilot to cover a pilots lack of ability then that is asking for trouble.
Even the best autopilots break down or go wrong and then the pilot is reliant on himself to handle everything.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PC12 argument is emotional not rational. It is statistically safer than most twin pistons
Thats not something to Brag about
Is it statistically safer than a twin Turbine its engine comparison?To compare against a light piston twin is not a fair comparison.
A turbine is far more reliable than a piston. A light piston will not climb well engine out unless conditions weight etc are good. Throw in low time twin pilots who are not totally current and they are accidents waiting to happen.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the pilot is relying on an autopilot to cover a pilots lack of ability then that is asking for trouble.
Every pilot has a greater ability / safety when his workload is drastically reduced by appropriate automation. I think the % of hairy-chested hand-flying-an-NDB-hold-inside-a-CB supermen is much lower than most would suppose.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure you would want to test that hypothesis on say 100 randomly chosen airline pilots
I and I am sure many have had occasions when George has either died or is not playing ball.
When I was flying as a co on a Bravo Citation my Captain a TRE always insisted on hand flying short routes for maintentance positioning ie no pax below RVSM airspace. it was good for the soul
He had the habit of giving you the aircraft as SP just to load you, radios too 
Flying as a Captain that training was excellent for the real thing at FL360 where the air was thin. Trust nothing !
A number of times in twins a doddle compared to the twice as fast Citations.
Dont rely on anything but yourself and that includes wives
10540 I am sure you are the hairy chest variety too Pace
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To compare against a light piston twin is not a fair comparison.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would often be the most relevant comparison... The same amount of money (purchase and operation) would buy a single turbine or a twin prop of similar size and age, but not a twin turbine, right?
You could buy 7 new light piston twins for the price of 1 PC12. Infact you could buy yourself a small jet for less too.Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, TPs are very expensive.
New TBM700/850 is about $3M.
A brand new big piston twin... are any made today?? A new Seneca is still being made, just about, which costs a small fraction of the TBM cost. Same for a couple of other piston twins in production.
However, the direct operating cost, excluding depreciation, is much closer. A piston twin like a 421 (somewhat comparable to a TBM in payload and range) costs a comparable amount in fuel and IFR route charges and landing/handling costs to a TBM, but the TBM gets there in less time.
Turbines are unfortunately an order of magnitude step in purchase costs...
A halfway house is a Jetprop type conversion. You can buy say a 2002 JP for $1M which is only a "bit" above a new piston twin. But you don't get the payload or a range of a 421 that way - nowhere near.
New TBM700/850 is about $3M.
A brand new big piston twin... are any made today?? A new Seneca is still being made, just about, which costs a small fraction of the TBM cost. Same for a couple of other piston twins in production.
However, the direct operating cost, excluding depreciation, is much closer. A piston twin like a 421 (somewhat comparable to a TBM in payload and range) costs a comparable amount in fuel and IFR route charges and landing/handling costs to a TBM, but the TBM gets there in less time.
Turbines are unfortunately an order of magnitude step in purchase costs...
A halfway house is a Jetprop type conversion. You can buy say a 2002 JP for $1M which is only a "bit" above a new piston twin. But you don't get the payload or a range of a 421 that way - nowhere near.