Ins and outs of air cargo

[skydisaster]

Now you're comparing apples to oranges. A pc-12 does not replace a navajo. It's comparable to a king air in cabin size, weight and mission application.
Also, a navajo does actually fly on one engine despite it being certified pt 23. The pc-12 only glides on 0.
The pc-12 is also a relatively new airplane. Let's see how it's doing in 40 years when we get some of them with hours on them, and enough time for those statistics to catch up. Mean time between failure is what it is... and eventually a pc-12 will come down due to engine failure... at night, in unfavorable terrain and everyone's going to die when the king air would have made it home.
Further if the pc-12 was so reliable, why doesn't it have an exemption for gliding distance from shore? 135.183. There's a lot of approaches, missed, hold etc on both costs that the pc-12 can't even legally use under 135 with pax.

Now, all that said... I would fly one, but not with LIFR prevailing. It get's treated like a C210 with de-ice

Well, let's see, if you are comparing cabin size/volume, yes, I would compare the PC12 to a King Air 200. However, if you are comparing cost to operate on similar stage lengths (which is what a cargo company is comparing) then the PC12 is very comparable to a Piper Navajo. Their cost per mile is almost the same. The cost per pound per mile is cheaper on the PC12 than the Navajo. There is a higher percentage of PC12s flying cargo than King Airs. The cost to operate the Pilatus combined with the factory cargo door make it a more desirable airplane for cargo than the King Air. There are plenty of old King Airs that are cheap now that could be converted to cargo, but I don't see that happening. I also don't see any number of PC12 positions going unfilled because pilots don't want the job.

Show me an PC12 accident due to engine failure with a Commercial or ATP rated pilot at the controls. I may be wrong, but I don't think that you will find one. It may not be 40 years, but 17 years is a pretty good set of data. I am not arguing that it will not eventually happen, but the safety record of the airplane speaks for itself.


Would I rather have a King Air at night in unfavorable terrain, of course I would, but that does not make a PC12 unsafe. As I already said I don't believe that in the cargo market that these are comparable airplanes. Although the POH says that 40 year old Navajo is going to fly on one engine, my Navajo experience says that it might under the right circumstances, but most of the time it is going to be stuck barely hanging out with no options. I would rather be in the PC12 cruising at FL270 when bat engine quits over the mountains at night and have 60+ miles to decide where I am going to land.

I would love some examples of "approaches, missed, hold etc on both costs that the pc-12 can't even legally use under 135 with pax".

 

[Roger Roger]

Also, IMO, you're going to have a hard time finding a whole lot of pilots willing to fly a pc-12 imc and night. It's a fine airplane, just like the 208, but when it really comes down to it, if the pt6 was really that reliable, you wouldn't do oei in king airs and cheyene's etc. If I'm flying night in night out through the , give me 2 or keep your freight on the ground.

Nah, I think you're incorrect. The 208 has, I would hazard a guess, a significantly worse safety record than the PC12 and there is absolutely no shortage of pilots lining up to fly freight in those.

 

[z987k]

Pick a random airport on the coast and check and see where the approach and hold are, chances are they are over water, outside glide distance.
Off the top of my head, the ILS to OTH and CEC is out of the question for single engine airplanes... which means you can never go there in the summer. Most of the approaches to BFI have you go hold over the Puget Sound for the missed. Can't do that.
Again, comparing similar airplanes, the BE99 is the king air that is the freight airplane, and I've venture there's more of those hauling freight than pc-12's flying.
In my experience flying navajo's you should be able to get at least 2000' out of them at max gross. It's a pita, but it takes you home. The drift down to SE service ceiling is considerably slower than just gliding as well.
And if we really want to compare pounds per mile cost, well the 737 kicks the pc-12's ass...so why don't freight companies just fly those?

How are you going to land anywhere in the mountains at night with LIFR? You're not. The twin will.
I'd like to see a serious passenger operator that flies pc-12's mountains, night, lifr. I know omni flies them, but I don't think they fly them out west.

 

[Roger Roger]

How are you going to land anywhere in the mountains at night with LIFR? You're not. The twin will.
I'd like to see a serious passenger operator that flies pc-12's mountains, night, lifr. I know omni flies them, but I don't think they fly them out west.

I wasn't aware that twins got lower landing minima at night than singles.

Pretty sure seaport goes to some mountainous destinations, probably at night and IFR. Also people all over Alaska, even occasionally in PISTON singles not turbines.

Now, as a pilot I'd sure rather have two than one, but if the operators decide that the pros to PC12s outweigh the cons (which I'm not at all sure that they will) then you and I, the worker bees, are kinda just stuck eh?

 

[skydisaster]

Pick a random airport on the coast and check and see where the approach and hold are, chances are they are over water, outside glide distance.
Off the top of my head, the ILS to OTH and CEC is out of the question for single engine airplanes... which means you can never go there in the summer. Most of the approaches to BFI have you go hold over the Puget Sound for the missed. Can't do that.
Again, comparing similar airplanes, the BE99 is the king air that is the freight airplane, and I've venture there's more of those hauling freight than pc-12's flying.
In my experience flying navajo's you should be able to get at least 2000' out of them at max gross. It's a pita, but it takes you home. The drift down to SE service ceiling is considerably slower than just gliding as well.
And if we really want to compare pounds per mile cost, well the 737 kicks the pc-12's ass...so why don't freight companies just fly those?

How are you going to land anywhere in the mountains at night with LIFR? You're not. The twin will.
I'd like to see a serious passenger operator that flies pc-12's mountains, night, lifr. I know omni flies them, but I don't think they fly them out west.

Last time I checked an approach was part of taking off and landing. Even without that, the PC12 glides 2.6 NM FOR EVERY 1,000 feet of altitude.

Drift down in the Navajo from cruise of 10,000 feet to the 2,000 feet you mentioned would take 40 minutes at 200 feet per minute in the PA31. Glide down in the PC12 from FL270 to 2,000 feet would take about 41 minutes at 600 feet per minute. Looks like the time from engine failure at cruise to your drift down altitude. We train for low altitude turn backs and for no engine approaches. I would rather be gliding down in a PC12 than trying to hang out in the valleys single engine in a Navajo!

Omni flies the PC12 in multiple western US bases. AirSprint flies them out of Scottsdale into mountainous area all over the Western US in addition to their Canadian bases. Seaport flies PC12s in the Pacific Northwest. That is one air ambulance example, one 91k passenger example, and one 135 example for you, but your original complaint against them was that no one wanted to fly cargo in them. I am not sure why you are now asking about passenger operations.

 

[cmill]

Simply put, I'll take a single turbine over two pistons any day of the week. Thats just my opinion though.

 

[z987k]

I wasn't aware that twins got lower landing minima at night than singles.

Pretty sure seaport goes to some mountainous destinations, probably at night and IFR. Also people all over Alaska, even occasionally in PISTON singles not turbines.

Now, as a pilot I'd sure rather have two than one, but if the operators decide that the pros to PC12s outweigh the cons (which I'm not at all sure that they will) then you and I, the worker bees, are kinda just stuck eh?

No, we're not stuck. We can simply not fly for them. That's easy. Pilots will fly them though, because I could offer a pilot $15k a year to fly a 172 through ice and snow and I promise someone would take it.

Not many pilots go to these cargo places for a career, they go to move on, and the simple fact is, single engine time, turbine or not is not really that great career wise. I know if my current employer told me I'd be flying a 208 tomorrow, I'd turn around and walk out because I don't want to fly it out over the Pacfic or across the cascades or sierra's at night.

As far as 135.183 allowing for over water during take off and landing, sure, but for a hour long hold? I don't think so. The water won't much care what the regs say when you're 10 miles off shore at 2000' for the approach when the engine quits either.

Ultimately the point is 2 engines, especially turbine are safer than one. IF and operator ACTUALLY cares about safety in mission critical environments, they will not fly single engine airplanes. If they deem the loss of life an acceptable risk then safety is not their first concern.

There's also a reason than the twin to single ratio in commercial flying is probably in excess of 100-1.

 

[skypilot6]

Simply put, I'll take a single turbine over two pistons any day of the week. Thats just my opinion though.

agreed! and for the FedEx C-208, FedEx owns the planes and leases them to the operators, our fleet at Wiggins was just upgraded with G-600 glass panels and TKS deice systems. Amazing systems, adds a new dimension to situational awareness.

 

[z987k]

Simply put, I'll take a single turbine over two pistons any day of the week. Thats just my opinion though.

Depends. In the midwest and south, the pistons are incredibly safer, because again, they're going to get you home regardless of one of them failing. Also, some piston twins do really well on one engine, maybe not 10k' well, but not in the ground regardless like a single.

In fact if these turbine singles are so safe, I think we should propose boeing make the 797 a single engine turbine. How many orders do you think they'll get?

 

[cmill]

agreed! and for the FedEx C-208, FedEx owns the planes and leases them to the operators, our fleet at Wiggins was just upgraded with G-600 glass panels and TKS deice systems. Amazing systems, adds a new dimension to situational awareness.

How well does the TKS work on the van? I've heard its pretty much the silver bullet. Then again, I'd give anything to go back and not have to carry full power to the runway all the while hitting the boot switch like a crack head hitting the pipe before rehab.

 

[z987k]

How well does the TKS work on the van? I've heard its pretty much the silver bullet. Then again, I'd give anything to go back and not have to carry full power to the runway all the while hitting the boot switch like a crack head hitting the pipe before rehab.

You know what carries ice really really well and safely? Every turbine twin I know of.

 

[cmill]

Depends. In the midwest and south, the pistons are incredibly safer, because again, they're going to get you home regardless of one of them failing. Also, some piston twins do really well on one engine, maybe not 10k' well, but not in the ground regardless like a single.

In fact if these turbine singles are so safe, I think we should propose boeing make the 797 a single engine turbine. How many orders do you think they'll get?

Honestly, I think either way you're going to be pretty safe. Even after 3000 hours of piston time, I've never completely lost an engine.

I get the argument about one engine. Its just i would rather have one turbine than two pistons, because i think the one is more reliable than two put together. All those damn moving parts. After all, having two engines just doubles your chance of having an engine failure.

On a side note, our insurance writers were back in town the other day, and one of them told me there is a higher percentage of fatalities in twins than in singles. Then again, these are the same guys who fly a bonanza into our base instead of a pilatus.

 

[cmill]

You know what carries ice really really well and safely? Every turbine twin I know of.

Yeah, i get it. Turbine twins are the cat's pajama's, but we cant all be super cool and fly them. The rest of us subservient peons are just trying to do the best with what we have.

 

[z987k]

Honestly, I think either way you're going to be pretty safe. Even after 3000 hours of piston time, I've never completely lost an engine.

I get the argument about one engine. Its just i would rather have one turbine than two pistons, because i think the one is more reliable than two put together. All those damn moving parts. After all, having two engines just doubles your chance of having an engine failure.

On a side note, our insurance writers were back in town the other day, and one of them told me there is a higher percentage of fatalities in twins than in singles. Then again, these are the same guys who fly a bonanza into our base instead of a pilatus.

I know they're correct when it comes to light twins, and it's almost always the pilot's fault. If the pilot is not competent enough to fly a twin, then by all means, put them in the single. We're assuming people know how to operate a twin with an engine out.

As far as chances of failure go, the MTBF of a pt6 is X. So statistically, after X hours in a pc-12/208 you're going to lose an engine, and after X hours in a BE20/99 you're going to lose an engine. The difference is, you have another to take you home.

 

[skypilot6]

How well does the TKS work on the van? I've heard its pretty much the silver bullet. Then again, I'd give anything to go back and not have to carry full power to the runway all the while hitting the boot switch like a crack head hitting the pipe before rehab.

its quite amazing, Its almost like set it and forget it (not really but its much better than the boots) it has great deicing and anti icing properties, Ive danced with an inch of ice on the radar dome and have the protected areas of the aircraft completely free of ice. There are 3 settings, normal, high, and max airframe. Normal will handle most ice encounters, anything more then high usually takes care of it, over this past winter in ice every day i think i hit max airframe once or twice. But in closing its amazing IMO made the van 100X safer than before.

 

[z987k]

Yeah, i get it. Turbine twins are the cat's pajama's, but we cant all be super cool and fly them. The rest of us subservient peons are just trying to do the best with what we have.

I don't fly turbines. I have 0 turbine time. I have more single engine piston time than I'd like to admit. I've probably crossed this country in single pistons more times than most. You know what I never did in them? Go over the rockies at night or in IFR. Not safe.
My point is simply this - IF and operator ACTUALLY cares about safety in mission critical environments, they will not fly single engine airplanes. If they deem the loss of life an acceptable risk then safety is not their first concern.
A caveat to that would be something like single engine over water on floats. Lose the engine, you're a boat, you call for help, everyone still goes home. Or single engine VFR in general. Neither of those are the same category as ifr, night mountain flying.

 

[Roger Roger]

No, we're not stuck. We can simply not fly for them. That's easy. Pilots will fly them though, because I could offer a pilot $15k a year to fly a 172 through ice and snow and I promise someone would take it.

Not many pilots go to these cargo places for a career, they go to move on, and the simple fact is, single engine time, turbine or not is not really that great career wise. I know if my current employer told me I'd be flying a 208 tomorrow, I'd turn around and walk out because I don't want to fly it out over the Pacfic or across the cascades or sierra's at night.

Or, we can make a decision that flying them is worth the money and QOL in exchange for the (slight) risk like all the guys do who fly FedEx feed in vans. Most of them aren't in the "just doing this for $15k a year to get some sweet turbine PIC" crowd. Just the same as how for you putting up with the Amflight BS is worth it because you get some sweet, sweet multi time. Different people, different risk/reward matrices.

 

[cmill]

I know they're correct when it comes to light twins, and it's almost always the pilot's fault. If the pilot is not competent enough to fly a twin, then by all means, put them in the single. We're assuming people know how to operate a twin with an engine out.

As far as chances of failure go, the MTBF of a pt6 is X. So statistically, after X hours in a pc-12/208 you're going to lose an engine, and after X hours in a BE20/99 you're going to lose an engine. The difference is, you have another to take you home.

Well, even a competent pilot can find themselves up a creek in a twin under the wrong circumstances. Short rwy, heavy load etc.

I'd actually really like to see some MTBF numbers for a given engine. I've never seen them published, but im certainly curious if those statistics are even kept.

I don't fly turbines. I have 0 turbine time. I have more single engine piston time than I'd like to admit. I've probably crossed this country in single pistons more times than most. You know what I never did in them? Go over the rockies at night or in IFR. Not safe.
My point is simply this - IF and operator ACTUALLY cares about safety in mission critical environments, they will not fly single engine airplanes. If they deem the loss of life an acceptable risk then safety is not their first concern.
A caveat to that would be something like single engine over water on floats. Lose the engine, you're a boat, you call for help, everyone still goes home. Or single engine VFR in general. Neither of those are the same category as ifr, night mountain flying.

First, I really dont want to sound like a cowboy, but safe operates on a sliding scale. I'm a flat lander now, but I spent a lot of time flying 172's in the Sierra Nevadas at night in IMC. Given the option, I'd love to not have to do it, but its what the job was.

I'm pretty sure most operators (at least the one i work for,) doesnt want to see anyone die. It cost a lot of money when people die. I mean, im sure you're not really trying to say that an operator doesnt care about safety if they fly single engine planes. As far as losing an engine in a float plane, you're right. Thats the only reason Exxon and Conoco made an exemption to fly with us with no turbine equipment.

 

[z987k]

Or, we can make a decision that flying them is worth the money and QOL in exchange for the (slight) risk like all the guys do who fly FedEx feed in vans. Most of them aren't in the "just doing this for $15k a year to get some sweet turbine PIC" crowd. Just the same as how for you putting up with the Amflight BS is worth it because you get some sweet, sweet multi time. Different people, different risk/reward matrices.

Trust me, if there was enough money in flying singles, turbine or otherwise I'd not be putting up with it. I'll go back to a vfr 172 tomorrow for something in the 70 range. I'd do what cmill does for less.

 

[USMCmech]

I don't fly turbines. I have 0 turbine time. I have more single engine piston time than I'd like to admit. I've probably crossed this country in single pistons more times than most. You know what I never did in them? Go over the rockies at night or in IFR. Not safe.

My point is simply this - IF and operator ACTUALLY cares about safety in mission critical environments, they will not fly single engine airplanes. If they deem the loss of life an acceptable risk then safety is not their first concern.

Ah, yes the eternal "IFR in a single is inherently dangerous" argument. I spent 4 years flying a 208, and other than the vans marginal performance in ice, I never had any serious reservations flying it in IFR, at night, over rough terrain, or even over water. I agree totally with the consensus that 1 turbine is better than 2 piston engines.

The fleet-wide operational record of the PT-6-114 has more flight hours than you have been on this earth. Total engine power loss is so rare that I'm more worried about having a mid air with falling space debris. The only engine failure my company ever had was due to ingesting a bird on takeoff.

If a Caravan does lose it's only engine, it glides very well and has a very good survival rate from controlled crash landings. Twins OTOH, are prone to Vmc rolls when operating single engine, which are almost always fatal.

A caveat to that would be something like single engine over water on floats. Lose the engine, you're a boat, you call for help, everyone still goes home.

I'll defer to cmill on float flying, but that is a very naive view of the ability of a float plane to land on any given sea state. In many cases, a float plane can't safely land on the water.