What would be interesting from John’s experience is the difference’s in maintenance and costs. KA’s lost all their appeal to me when I started computing all the scheduled maintenance. That and the idea of something like 13 items to do in order to deice the plane.

One of the arbitrary things in the FARs is the inspection rules are very different between a single engine turbine versus multiengine turbine airplanes.

The singles are subject to the ordinary annual inspection rules of 91.409(a). This means you can fly lots of hours and only have to inspect things once a year.

The multiengine turbine airplanes are subject to 91.409(e)(f). This requires that you put the plane on an inspection program and the default one is the one provided by the OEM.

The OEM program could be far more onerous or far less than an annual inspection, it all depends. I've heard the King Air one is rather onerous.

You can design your own program, but that takes FSDO approval and some effort.

For my Citation, I'm on a low utilization program that means my inspections occur every 3 years for phase 1-4 and every 6 years for phase 1-5. This is glorious since you spend a lot less time in the shop and have more up time. I don't know if such options exist from Textron for a King Air.


What part of a PC-12 can have ice on it that a King Air can't?

I'm not sure there is material difference in effort to deice one or the other. Given the PC-12 stall characteristics, I'd really want it to be ice free during flight.

Mike C.

At least on the GFC700, it will pitch to hold the selected airspeed, and the vertical motion of the airmass in which you are flying and excess (or not) power will determine your climb (or descent) rate.
-dan

There is an option for folks who fly less than 200 hrs in 24 months. If I recall correctly it doesn't help much.

At least on the GFC700, it will pitch to hold the selected airspeed, and the vertical motion of the airmass in which you are flying and excess (or not) power will determine your climb (or descent) rate.
-dan

[/quote]

The IAS/FLC mode of the GFC700 on the 90 seems to have an envelope limit of 2500fpm, in my direct observations on 200+ flights[/quote]

That may be. If I see 2500 fpm up or down in my piston single, I'm doing something wrong.
-dan

One of the arbitrary things in the FARs is the inspection rules are very different between a single engine turbine versus multiengine turbine airplanes.

The singles are subject to the ordinary annual inspection rules of 91.409(a). This means you can fly lots of hours and only have to inspect things once a year.

The multiengine turbine airplanes are subject to 91.409(e)(f). This requires that you put the plane on an inspection program and the default one is the one provided by the OEM.

The OEM program could be far more onerous or far less than an annual inspection, it all depends. I've heard the King Air one is rather onerous.

You can design your own program, but that takes FSDO approval and some effort.

For my Citation, I'm on a low utilization program that means my inspections occur every 3 years for phase 1-4 and every 6 years for phase 1-5. This is glorious since you spend a lot less time in the shop and have more up time. I don't know if such options exist from Textron for a King Air.


What part of a PC-12 can have ice on it that a King Air can't?

I'm not sure there is material difference in effort to deice one or the other. Given the PC-12 stall characteristics, I'd really want it to be ice free during flight.

Mike C.

Sincere question: when did power lever migration become an issue in Beech turboprop operations? I flew 99s, C90s, F90s, 200s, and B200s in the early-mid 1980s. My last flight department had King Airs through the mid 1990s. I never once heard about power lever migration. Since all the Beech turboprops I flew were CAR3/FAR23 aircraft, the pilot flying had a hand on the power levers throughout takeoff and initial climb. Unintentional power lever movement wasn’t something I ever worried about. Coming from Barons and Navajos, King Air engine-out performance was a revelation.

Greg

True but not true, the PC12 is a very fast cockpit for a experienced pilot, but it’s the sirens song for a inexperienced pilot for when those great systems have a hiccup at a bad time

Corey,

Wanted to address this.

The chances are high if the power levers on your airplane come back on their own. I’ve made a habit of checking, just on the ground without the airplane running. I’d guess that about half roll back on their own, a few snap back pretty quickly. Of course you have to factor in vibration and G forces that could make it worse at takeoff power.

If you check the friction locks before take-off then the chances are low to none.

It can’t be stressed enough that a King Air prop spooling down on takeoff without autofeather is a really big problem and it is not the same as a V1 cut.

King Air 300’s and 350’s are worse than 90’s and 200’s… now 5 blade props are the new thing, that will make it worse as well.

About 4 years ago the forums decided it was a major issue. I see this on all types of forums, some type of paranoia develops around an actual issue but gets blown way out of proportion.

I got back into flying King Airs in 2016 and became more active on BT around then. The boogeyman then was torque runaways on departure killing everyone (also proven not true). I brought this up with my instructors and they never heard of any credible reports of this. Now, torque runaways are a thing of the past and it's all PLM. I posted the 6 most recent accidents are NONE are attributed to that, rather mostly poor airmanship. I can't find any NTSB reports where that may be the case.

Chip, I'm not following you. "It can’t be stressed enough that a King Air prop spooling down on takeoff with autofeather is a really big problem"

The autofeather will NOT engage if a power lever has moved back passed the microswitch.

I agree with the friction locks set tight the chances are extremely low. As I, Greg, and most KA drivers have stated it's happened to them once or twice and not really a big deal. Probably the same frequency a student/pilot experiences it in a trainer. You experience it and tighten the locks and it doesn't happen again. If it does, you know what to expect.

The IAS/FLC mode of the GFC700 on the 90 seems to have an envelope limit of 2500fpm, in my direct observations on 200+ flights[/quote]

That may be. If I see 2500 fpm up or down in my piston single, I'm doing something wrong.
-dan[/quote]

Probably airframe dependent.

Here on the M600 I am climbing at 2850 fpm and the AP is still pulling the nose up to get the FLC number. I think VS in the M600 is limited to 3000 fpm. Light and cold, the M600 climbs pretty well. The Meridian/M500 GFC700 has lower limits.

Varies from airframe to airframe- we agree

Another thought I had on yesterdays flight, I think the FLC/IAS mode will not exceed the TOGA pitch setting, so in my case that’s approximately 7 deg nose up

I built a ton of speed at max torque, 14000ft, then rolled FLC to 140kts while indicating 200kts, it never exceeded 7 deg but VS varied from 2200-2500 until it settled in

The groupthink on this is that PLM causes the pilot not to realize he's behind the microswitch, which fails to enable autofeather on the affected engine.....so the pilot doesn't correct the power lever and the reduced torque engine does not autofeather

the whole thing is a bit precarious, because it assumes the pilot never touches the power levers when feeling asymmetric thrust on rotation

And unless the pilot is in a 300/350, why would they be taking their hand off the power lever at rotation? This is the part that I don't understand. In a two-pilot operation in any King Air other than a 300/350, the Pilot Flying (PF) would have no reason to remove their hand from the power levers. In a single-pilot operation, there are several valid reasons to do so after rotation (gear, flaps, radios, yaw damper, etc.), but only momentarily. Either way, the lack of awareness of a power lever moving back seems contrary to basic airmanship and multi-engine training. While I don't have a King Air checklist in front of me, I'm fairly sure the first item on the engine failure after liftoff checklist is "Power - Max Allowable" or something to that effect.

Greg