I would much rather have a back-up engine than a back-up parachute.

I don't think the chute is there to protect against an engine out. Somewhere I saw some marketing material for Cirrus that said, something to the effect of that one bad choice shouldn't kill you. Of course, that is implying pilot error, but it is a powerful marketing message. In a 4-6 person aircraft, you can mitigate that, to a large degree by taking a co-pilot. Unfortunately, you have just eaten up the majority of your useful load and it may be cost prohibitive to that type of operator.

PC-12 and larger jets (or turboprops) are different. Many of them are flown professionally and this eliminates the desire to have a chute by the passengers (which is the big reason to do it). My wife would love it if I would take a co-pilot at times. She worries about the whole incapacitation thing. These airplanes have the useful load for an extra person - then it comes down to cost for the pilot.

Maybe Crandall knows, but I thought I saw a survey somewhere that said that something like 60-70% of the PC-12 fleet was flown by a professional pilot/crew. That really mitigates the need.

First, there is ZERO data comparing "Owner flown turbine" to "Pro flown turbine".

Second, nobody has ever been killed in a PC12 due to "engine failure". So it's probably very low on PIlatus's list to add a parachute. But the chute is great to have. If they added it I imagine it would sell well.

Yes, most PC12's are flown by a crew but only because there aren't many guys like you and me with the desire to do this stuff.

There aren't many guys with the ability to fly a PC12 alone and who also have the MONEY to do so.

Ugh. I'm sure I'm going to get my ass flamed for this, but why do most guys with the money for a Pilatus not have the skill to fly it? It doesn't seem to me very hard to fly a single engine turbine; after some initial training, isn't it just stalk speeds and best glide with the usual stall recovery and unusual attitude training? It's not particularly economical over some turbine twins, and it's not particularly fast; I thought the reason people bought it was because it was simple to fly? What's the gotchas on a Pilatus?

Also, I think chutes on airplanes are ridiculous, but if they're going on anything, I think a great candidate would be a bird that sheds its wings at the slightest hint of trouble, namely a Matrix or a Meridian.

I'm a twin guy, I'm not trying to start a debate about it, I feel my way, I respect those who don't agree. I think we can all agree that if you've got a Va of 127 indicated and a turbine that lets you cruise at almost 200 indicated you could use a chute.

K, flame on.

I wasn't aware that this one incident was representative of MOST PC12 Pilots?

MOST PC12's are flown by a 2 man crew.

Shall we now post some MIts numbers?

My question is why do most guys with MU2s and Aerostars did not have the skill to fly them. A lot PC12 are going to have to crash before the body count reaches quarter of that of MU2 and Aerostar combined. And I think at this point more PC12 have been sold than MU2

I think you guys may have missed my point.

Someone wrote this earlier:

"There aren't many guys with the ability to fly a PC12 alone and who also have the MONEY to do so."

I've never flown a PC12, so I don't know the gotchas if there are any, but from an outsider looking in, it looks like it's so safe precisely because it IS so simple to fly. I'd imagine that the huge motor makes some crazy p-factor so full throttle at low air speeds would be interesting, but other than that, you fly normal unless the motor dies, in which case you feather and use best glide. With a Pratt on the front, you have a lot of reliability. Simplicity and reliability along with performance and rugged construction equals a great safety record. Why would a PC12 ever need two pilots? Why shouldn't it be owner flown? If there's a larger percentage of owners sitting in the back, it's because its a roomy and expensive plane and Mr. Big doesn't want to fly it, not because he can't I'll bet.

Aerostars are more dangerous. Mits are slightly less dangerous than Aerostars statistically, but still far more dangerous statistically than Pilatus. Here's my opinion as to why:
-the Aerostar is a LOT of airplane on the cheap. Cheap means lots of clowns can get in one and fly away. Mr. Big doesn't sit in the back of an Aerostar, with one or two pro pilots taking care of business, lol. The guy who buys an Aerostar is often a guy who just got a multi engine rating in a Seminole and now has a 265KTAS airplane at FL250, pressurized, fiki, 350HP/side, a hydraulics system, four turbos, wastegates, etc...when something goes wrong, you'd better know all the systems and you'd better know your business or you're dead. You have to fly as well as a pro to safely operate an Aerostar. If you do, you have a very high degree of safety. If you don't, the extra engine will kill you, just like it shows in the stats.
-the Mits has less complex systems, is easier to operate, and has more reliable engines and systems. It's also faster, climbs WAY better, and needs to be flown by a good stick who trims the airplane every time he changes power setting or control surface like it's second nature. If you do that, it is simply the most stable airplane in the sky. I hand fly mine to altitude (mostly either 270 or 280) because it's such a pleasure. That said, the airplane has a few quirks, and it is a handful on one motor if you don't know those quirks. It will also carry you home in pressurized, climate controlled comfort if you lose a motor, and it will climb if one fails on takeoff at gross with the gear and takeoff flaps down, IF, and only if you do it right. If you turn into the good engine with the yoke you'll fall. If you yank up the flaps before you build airspeed, you'll fall. Three seconds aileron trim into the good motor followed by five spins of rudder toward the good motor and you're golden. Build airspeed while you climb, gear up, gear is up, 150KIAS, flaps 5, speed is coming up while still climbing, flaps all the way up.

In a SETP, it would seem that less options equals less emergency workload. You simply don't have much to focus on but finding an airport and best glide. Presumably, you hang a mask around your neck above 12K and it's ready to flow just in case, so you have very little to think about except flying the airplane. In a TETP, the second engine makes you or breaks you, it's up to you. In a high powered piston twin, you have the same issues as in the TETP, but you have less power so you have to be quicker and still stay cool and keep flying the airplane.

I think the safety record of any airplane probably goes up if there are pros flying it. I think singles are easier to handle in emergencies, turbines are more reliable than Pistons, and expensive airplanes have more pro pilots. That's why the Pilatus is so safe statistically. I sure don't think it's an airplane that requires an advanced degree of skill to operate.

Is it? Because neither the Mits nor the Aerostar is, when everything is working correctly.

Let me ask you this: hypothetically, if you had an absolute guarantee that the asymmetrical thrust wouldn't kill you, let's say because an infinitely reliable system compensated for it immediately and with no error or need for you to do anything, would you feel safer with the extra engine?

They do now. Many didn't in the past.


Probably, though last 8 years, 10 fatal PC12 accidents and 2 for MU2. 8 years ago was when the special MU2 training was started. Prior to that, pretty bad.

Interestingly, none of the 10 PC12 or 2 MU2 fatal accidents in the last 8 years appear to be machine caused. All seem to be pilot caused.


PC12 about 1,300 units made, almost all still in service.

MU2 about 800 units made, about 400 still in service.

They were never sold at the same time.

Mike C.

Im the opposite i guess, all of our PC12s are single pilot operated. Everyone I know that operates a PC12 does it single pilot. Its got to be pretty damn boring/meaningless being a PC12 Copilot.

Craig,

Your assertation that PA46's shed wings is wrong. It is one of the most tested and stout airframes. It's low maneuvering speed is still a pain.

The Cirrus jet will likely be a hot seller. Not the same airplane as a Pilatus, but it still may hurt it's market.

How do you reconcile "stout" and "low Va"?

Va is a direct result of how strong the airplane is. Va is the speed at which a fully deflected control surface could break the airplane. If the airplane is stronger, Va can be higher before the plane would break.

Mike C.

Exactly. You think it's stout, you fly it. Not my cup of tea.

Of course. That's always been my position. Isn't this why "centerline thrust" twins were invented.

As it is now, you take the number 1 reason for aviation crashes (pilot) and make it in charge of the part most likely to fail. Real smart.

SETP equals "less emergencies" period. There's less to go wrong.

Look at all the new jets. They have a fraction of the systems that older jets have. This is true with every airplane. Why? "less to go wrong".