Interesting that he notes the damage. I practice using the MOR lever every 3-6 months when I get some inflight training. Spoken to many a PC12 mentor and if used correctly, ie don't jam the damn lever, there is no way to hurt the engine.

I'll investigate further.

Agreed. after all, you only need to make 12% power to hold 120 knots true. No reason to jam it forward.

Interesting that he notes the damage. I practice using the MOR lever every 3-6 months when I get some inflight training. Spoken to many a PC12 mentor and if used correctly, ie don't jam the damn lever, there is no way to hurt the engine.

I'll investigate further.

It is with great trepidation that I wade into what has devolved into a classic single versus twin debate. That said I think the discussion is healthy. I'm the reluctant veteran of 5 piston engine failures (two of which single engine at night one of those IFR) a turbojet shutdown and a turboprop temporary rollback. The failures in twins were non-events. I was lucky to survive the single engine failures. Had they occurred at different times/locations they would have been fatal or at best cased major injury.

I would MUCH prefer a twin but due to the overwhelming economy of owning (20% share) and operating my PA32-300 (Cherokee Six),that is the craft in which I fly my family. Plus it makes the most sense for our mission. LOVE the airplane! However, I don't do night, overwater, mountains, or low IFR. When the time comes I could definitely see us upgrading to SETP but the single engine aspect still plagues my thoughts.

I know what the statistics are but I believe that if you were able to limit the data to pilots who received quality twin-engine training in the first place and regular twin recurrent training and practice while adding in all the unreported engine failures in twins that result in an uneventful landing on an airfield.....the data would lean heavily in the the twin-engine airplane's favor.

Millions of hours of trouble-free operation not withstanding, nothing is perfect and PT6s do fail. This video, which I'm sure has appeared elsewhere on BT, is a chilling example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knJ54JNtcJc

I mitigate the risk of single engine operation to the maximum extent possible and have largely come to peace with it. However, if I'm being completely honest, it is a financial decision. If fuel was $1/gal and engines were $10,000 instead of $50,000+ I'd have a twin....no question. Actually if they were MUCH more affordable to own and operate I'd have a turbine twin...no question.

When we’re your engine failures?

Interesting that he notes the damage. I practice using the MOR lever every 3-6 months when I get some inflight training. Spoken to many a PC12 mentor and if used correctly, ie don't jam the damn lever, there is no way to hurt the engine.

I'll investigate further.

Wait, what? On your cropdusters? I thought those were required on every SETP. Then who decides which installations get a MOR; Pratt, the plane OEM or the operator? Is it an extra cost option?

Spread out over my last 28 years of flying. Though admittedly concentrated in the early years when I was flying a wide variety of aircraft over which I had no control of the maintenance or operational practices of the other pilots.

1.) ground fire in C152
2.) Lost one jug in PA38
3.) Lost Left engine, spinner, and prop PA34
4.) Lost right engine different PA34
5.) Lost three of six cylinders at night in C173E, landed KPDK at night
6.) Lost engine Rockwell 112 Commander night IFR, deadstick to runway with no runway lights. South Central Alabama. Eventually VFR but most of event IFR.
7.) In-Fight shutdown of CFM-34 in CL65 due to lost of oil pressure
8.) Prolonged rollback in SAAB 340B
9.) One engine at idle power approach and landing in MD88 in Punta Cana
10.) Electrical Failure C210, manual gear drop, lost comm/light gun signals, etc.

There are other events I'm forgetting. Anyway, I currently fly my family in an SEL airplane, will likely upgrade to SETP at some point...but I do so without the sanguine/cavalier attitude some one the SE side of the discussion seem to possess. Not throwing stones, the discussion is educational.

Spread out over my last 28 years of flying. Though admittedly concentrated in the early years when I was flying a wide variety of aircraft over which I had no control of the maintenance or operational practices of the other pilots.

1.) ground fire in C152
2.) Lost one jug in PA38
3.) Lost Left engine, spinner, and prop PA34
4.) Lost right engine different PA34
5.) Lost three of six cylinders at night in C173E, landed KPDK at night
6.) Lost engine Rockwell 112 Commander night IFR, deadstick to runway with no runway lights. South Central Alabama. Eventually VFR but most of event IFR.
7.) In-Fight shutdown of CFM-34 in CL65 due to lost of oil pressure
8.) Prolonged rollback in SAAB 340B
9.) One engine at idle power approach and landing in MD88 in Punta Cana
10.) Electrical Failure C210, manual gear drop, lost comm/light gun signals, etc.

There are other events I'm forgetting. Anyway, I currently fly my family in an SEL airplane, will likely upgrade to SETP at some point...but I do so without the sanguine/cavalier attitude some one the SE side of the discussion seem to possess. Not throwing stones, the discussion is educational.

Then don't be pessimistic or uneducated then. Twins can most certainly be more safe and most certainly more dangerous. We know of quite a few turbine twins that were uncontrollable by the PILOT when one failed. Result was not a pleasant one.


What the PC12 has to it's credit is:

- a very good engine in the 67P

- a very good pilot environment that assists the pilot whilst flying (NG model)

- a very good glide ratio

- a very slow stall speed

If you want truly great stats for flying, go commercial. If you are reviewing stats, review the safety record of SETP vs TETP. Pistons are a different conversation.

Wait, what? On your cropdusters? I thought those were required on every SETP. Then who decides which installations get a MOR; Pratt, the plane OEM or the operator? Is it an extra cost option?

I thought balanced field was a requirement for jets.
For turboprops it is optional.

Tim

Piston failures were in the 90s. Turbines in 2000-2010. I would guess that your lack of hiccup is primarily due to the fact that most of your time has been in new or turbine aircraft? Nothing wrong with that, good on ya'. In the 90s I was flying dozens of aircraft types the maintenance and operational history of which I had little control of. Trainers, delivery, or contract work. My point was, for me based on my experience, my choice (and likely future choice) of a single engine aircraft for personal use was a financial decision with calculated risk. I freely admit that I would prefer a twin and believe that when the pilot is properly trained and current, a twin is the safer option for a wider spectrum of missions.

Or maybe all my failures were before the availability of high quality engine monitors and before the gospel of LOP ops came down on stone tablets from the mountain top....and we were all flying ticking time bombs 50 deg ROP.

Seriously though, engine failures happen. Turbine engines do fail. Having been without propulsion at very inconvenient times, I prefer a twin. My current and likely future choice of a single engine aircraft is a financial decision.

Sorry for the thread drift. If I decide to continue single/twin discussion I'll move to an appropriate thread.

I can assure you I am neither.