DD

So a PC12 is an obscene swear word. So what do you call all of us who fly them day and night. So what are we. And how many of these obscene swear words are flying in Aus.

PC-12 rich man's Cessna C182 or a poor man's Beechcraft B200.

So that means if you got offered a job in one you would say no. A 208 is a rich mans 182.

I reckon Lester is on the money. I am surprised no-one else can see the difference. :ugh:

A B200 can easily find itself in a position like the C90 in Tawoomba. A B350 will not.

Thanks TKSF. Im with you.

The PC V B200 is purely personal choice, that argument ends there:-):)

"LS" in regards to the Toowoomba accident well there where Co. & pilot errors there (read the report)leading to that sad end result. You can't really use that as a yard stick as to what the B200 is or isn't capable of when talking about comparing the 200&350 airframes. Besides any airframe can end up a pile of smoking rubble when not handled correctly inc the B350.
The B200 @ MTOW & rotating at 94 kts (even better @104 kts balanced field length) with auto feather U/S & rudder boost inop (both you wouldn't intentionally go without operating) is still capable of flying at or above Vtoss (providing the pilot is well trained) until the pilot can clean the craft up then it will fly away at Vyse easily. ( I know it does we pratice this in the Sim). Oh & just for the record the PC12 can't do anything like that regardless of how flash the SE girl is:ok:

I still stand by my comments, the B200 & the B350 (with it's 20.7 so called protection) have little difference between them for what they are intended to do with regards to the Aeromed work here in Vic.

Wmk2:)

Well summarised LS.

Wally, the gulf in certification and guaranteed performance between B200 and B350 is huge. The company and pilot errors at TWB aside, a FAR23 certificated aircraft operated to the flight manual figures can easily end up in a position on takeoff whereby it does not have enough room left to stop, but does not have the performance to keep going if one fails, autofx, rudder boost or not.

If operated according to the flight manual, a FAR 25 certificated aircraft cannot.

This Wally, is a large increase in safety. You are now being poked by the same stick that you use with so much glee and enthusiasm at PC12 drivers. :8

Regards

CS ex PC12, B200 and now FAR25 driver

Yeah, you tell him Stallie! :E

So what is the climb performance in PC-12 like with an engine failure after take-off?

If the PC-12 is so good, why then do the NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian governments all require a multi-engine turboprop for their air ambulance contracts? Their consultants must be aware of the advantages of the PC-12 but for some reason don't put it up a viable option to the various state governments, I wonder why?

Nice for the RFDS boys that choose to fly the PC-12 to tow the company line.

Plenty of Pprune experts seem to bag the old technology B200 and its poor single engine climb performance. Get a B200 maunual and you will see that it still has a reasonable climb figure after t/o of around 500 fpm at MTOW provided you fly it right like any twin engine aircraft. Fortnutely for me I did my B200 endorsement many years ago with Flight Safety in the USA, so plenty of EFATO etc. Not like a lot of you guys who get the good old Ozzie GA B200 endorsement with some expert who knows 3/10 ths of sweet FA about the aeroplane etc.

A few years back talking to a guy who was consulting to a state health department his personal belief was that a two crew Cessna Citation certified to FAR23, pilots sent to Flight Safety every twelve months, was the only thing that he would actually recommend as it ticked all the boxes and didn't leave him or the agency exposed to legal action in case of an accident.

(gee never heard that one before)

No-one knows. It's never happened. Marginally better than an upside-down kingair?

Who knows? Flat earth?Too efficient maybe?:E

CLX,

PC12 engine out performance has nothing to do with trying to explain the difference between B200 and B350 certification. :ugh::ugh:

If your comment "Pprune experts seem to bag the old technology B200 and its poor single engine climb performance" was directed at me then:

1. thanks for calling me an expert :}
2. I am not bagging the B200. I used to happily fly them. (As I used to happily fly a PC12). However no matter what training you got, no matter how much of a top gun you are, you cannot go past the fact that a B200 can operate out of strips that leave it with nowhere to go or stop in case of an engine failure. This is legal and happens.

I have never said that the B200 is unsafe. However the B350 is more safe due to its certification criteria. What is the safest thing? Well not flying of course. :rolleyes:

Is the B200 safe for the operation? My opinion is yes. Does the government have the right to demand a FAR23 certificated aircraft? Yes it does.

As Iv'e said it before I'm scared of sharks and I can't swim that well so I'm quite comfortable cruising across to lord howe in the old B200.
B200 climbs quite nicely on 1 donk despite the certification crap.

The Dog:ok:

Wally MK2, I bet you a Mars Bar that the RFDS will continue operating the Victorian Air Ambulance contract way past 2011.

Like the idea of a Cessna Citation for air ambulance work.

Compressor Stall what basically is the difference in the B200 and B350, apart from the CAO20.7.1b compliance? Basically the same airframe apart from bigger engines, longer fuselage and the dual-feed inverter system. The actual airframe is still built the same and shares a large number of common parts with the B1900, B200, C90, Queenair series, Twin Bonanza and B18 aircraft.

CLX, made a valid point in relation to why the government departments request a twin turbo-prop for aero medical work. Must really irk the Pilatus agents in Australia.

Just keep in mind the original Beagle 206 that the RFDS operated in NSW, were certified below 5700kgs but came with charts and also certification to show a positive rate of climb with an engine failure after take-off, all happily accepted by DCA back in the late 1960's.

"UD" come & stand next to old Capt Wally, together we shall fight against evil & for common sense we shall be victorious:}

You guys can wave the 20.7 stick around all ya like I still believe that the diff between the 200&350 is little to be even bothering about 'cause the 350 is too limiting for our ops.due nonsense.
Look the only way the 350 airframe is "safer" is due the 20.7 umbrella. You can operate the 200 airframe the same way with regards to BFL etc & get the same 'safety' but we don't because it's a bit like the SE debate with regards the 200, we take a risk, a calculated risk (but not that big!!!):)
If we are talking about safety here and we obviously are re what an airframe can or can't do with a failure at the critical stage lets not even enter the PC12 into it:E
As for the PC12 debate? yeah lets get it re-lit here, been dull & boring in here for ages:E
Anyway at the end of the day we all fly what we are comfy with:-)


EDIT for "Desert Duck".......'self labeled experts who have lost touch with aviation a long time ago"........to that I say...........PHEWWWW!!! Thank God for them:ok:
Economics wise yr probably correct 'DD', safety wise, no contest:ok:


Wmk2

The main reason that Health Departments insist on twin engine aircraft ?

Most of the consultants that they employ,and who produce the tender documents, are self labelled experts who have lost touch, a long time ago, with the real world of aviation.

Up an at'em Wally you've got our support down there. By the way your spot on about the 350.

The Dog:ok:

Mr Duck, I think you will find it has more to do with the political clout of the the people who ride in the back!

I think the reason asnsw fly the b200 over the pc12 even though of the economic benefiets is the requirement to sometimes go to lord howe and norfolk. I vaguely remember talking to somebody from MRU about that issue.

Re the C90 at TWB I am given to understand there was some anecdotal evidence to suggest pilot incapacitation, which could not be proved or disproved due to the outcome. :sad:

That's ok "LB" no need to slip into the flack jacket no personal attacks from me:-)
Not everyone understands that the the diff between the 200 & 350 is little regardless of that 20.7 mythical umbrella:-):)Each to their own beliefs:-)

If yr in need of our services worrying about who or how the plane is operated will be the least of yr worries, you wanna get saved & go Med 1 don't ya?:ok:
The Vic Govt tender has been or will need to be modified to accept the 350 airframe & all it's limitations, that's the cokc up with it all!. I still maintain that the 350 is a total waste for our Ops.

Capt Wally (Wmk2 is having a rest:})

p.s...............Just for the record "LB" yeah been there done that with 2 crew 20.7 Ops even OS...........too easy, little challenge:-)