Another Caravan engine failure

No question in my mind but that flying a Kingair (pitooie!) is safer than flying a PC-12. But on a cost basis, the PC-12 is more in the complex piston twin department, and I suspect that it gives them a spanking.

I think your first sentence should be "A king air with a well trained crew is safer than a PC-12". In theory, the King Air should be safer post engine failure, but there have been quite a few crews that handled the failure poorly, and led to a crash.

The 402 vs PC-12 argument is bunk, but not a surprising view point considering the source :)
 
Ok, so why does it seem like you hear about C208 PT-6 failures way more often than Kingair failures?

First off, most KingAir (or TwOtter, Chyenne, ect) engine shutdowns are precautionary, not actual total failures.

Secondly, these incidents don't typically make the news. If you don't know the people involved, you would likely never hear about it. The media just doesn't care about a GA airplane landing with the engine feathered.
 
Oh, I started this thread. I think you will find that this one wasn't an engine failure. Preliminary indicates otherwise.

Ok, so why does it seem like you hear about C208 PT-6 failures way more often than Kingair failures?
I think when a KingAir has an engine failure, the plane usually lands safely at an airport; nothing to write about here. When a Caravan has an engine failure, most end up with an off-airport landing; this is news.
 
Affirmative. Granted most of those aren't necessarily the airplane's fault, but unless it's a transport category twin, you aren't guaranteed to survive canning one at rotation.

While that's true, having flown 2 part 23 multi turbo props, both of them will climb away from a V1 cut. In my current airplane I could fly to SFO and back on one engine and be in no more danger than stepping into a pc12 to begin with.
 
While that's true, having flown 2 part 23 multi turbo props, both of them will climb away from a V1 cut. In my current airplane I could fly to SFO and back on one engine and be in no more danger than stepping into a pc12 to begin with.
Noted. I'd like to lay hands on one of those twins someday, but for now...
 
I think you will find that this one wasn't an engine failure. Preliminary indicates otherwise.
I guess anytime the engine becomes inoperative (except for maybe running out of fuel) is considered a failure of the powerplant.

"The engine examination revealed a failure of the engine gas generator initiating from a compressor turbine blade separation. The compressor turbine wheel, power turbine shaft housing, and oil-cooler/heat-exchanger were retained for additional metallurgical examination. "

Makes ya wonder right?
 
Statistically, you're a lot more likely to "fly to the scene of the accident" in a multi piston with one caged than have a turbine stop in the first place. Plus, a fair number of engine failures (not this one, obviously), come from feeding the engine either nothing or stuff it can't burn, which would presumably affect any number of piston engines in just the same way as a turbine.

Now, with that said, do I feel a bit of "whistling past the graveyard" when flying a turbine single at night in low IMC? Guilty. Which is pretty funny, because I don't think I had a care in the world when I used to do it in a PISTON single with like 20,000 hours on the clock. I guess it's all a matter of Perspective. ;)
Nah, your just sissified.
 
I guess anytime the engine becomes inoperative (except for maybe running out of fuel) is considered a failure of the powerplant.
My point exactly! In this accident, this wasn't a factor......
My guess is the final report will be of interest to you then.
 
Back
Top