Yes, and apparently the pilot and pax survived: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17025

I count seven engine failures in that database. Not sure if that is a lot or a little considering the PC-12 hours flown, but it's definitely not zero.

Takeoff engine failures are dangerous in both single and twin and I'm sure that topic has been beaten to death here before. For a long trip offshore, I maintain a twin is MUCH safer. In theory, an engine failure in cruise in the flight levels in a twin is much less of an emergency. Shutdown and feather the failed engine, descend, and fly to the closest airport on one engine. From anecdotal evidence I know engine shutdowns (precautionary or otherwise) in twins happen occasionally without even an emergency being declared.

The longer and the more remote the trips, the bigger the safety advantage of a twin using that logic.

Given where and how we use the plane, that was one of my reasons for getting an MU-2 instead of a SETP despite the higher operational cost.

Not sure I want to know if there's a flaw in my reasoning!

Nathan

Yup.... and that ditching was off the coast of Japan or something and it was a long time ago.

Flying right now on Flightaware:

PC12 - 51
MU2 - 1
441 - 9

Not totally germane to the topic at hand, but your comment made me think of a book I just finished reading entitled "Round the World in Seven Four November" by Norman Schwartz. Mr Schwartz was part of a RTW trip of a fleet of planes back in the 1990's. At the beginning of the book he told the story of a flight in his 421 prior to the RTW trip. He was crossing the pond westward and lost an engine enroute to Goose Bay. He was talking to Gander radio, having declared an emergency, and was given priority to land. However, arriving at the same time was Prince Phillip and the pilot of Prince Phillip's jet was miffed about not being given landing priority, even though Schwartz had declared an emergency.

Complete non issue in the Merlin. Like flying a pattern in a C172

And yes I know, you are talking real ocean here not island hugging.

What I don't understand is the PC12 is not that much, if at all, less complex than the MU2 from the pilots seat. I have flown both, the workloads are remarkably similar. Its not like doing the engine start sequence twice at the beginning of the flight is harder. You train gliding, we train flying on one.

If anything, the MU2 is easier in many areas (fuel system failure modes, trim system, engine management (at least with SRL -10s). I don't think the PC12 is that simple. I think they all have good panels, autopilots and the pilots are generally well trained. Everyone keeps acting like a PC12 is a 172!

What I don't understand is the PC12 is not that much, if at all, less complex than the MU2 from the pilots seat. I have flown both, the workloads are remarkably similar. Its not like doing the engine start sequence twice at the beginning of the flight is harder. You train gliding, we train flying on one.

If anything, the MU2 is easier in many areas (fuel system failure modes, trim system, engine management (at least with SRL -10s). I don't think the PC12 is that simple. I think they all have good panels, autopilots and the pilots are generally well trained. Everyone keeps acting like a PC12 is a 172!

ahh geez, where you been hiding, skiing I bet...........

Forgot about the Merlin............you have more risk that something goes wrong, being two engines and all that...........

what's the stall speed on that there Merlin?

ahh geez, where you been hiding, skiing I bet...........

Forgot about the Merlin............you have more risk that something goes wrong, being two engines and all that...........

what's the stall speed on that there Merlin?

ahh geez, where you been hiding, skiing I bet...........

Forgot about the Merlin............you have more risk that something goes wrong, being two engines and all that...........

what's the stall speed on that there Merlin?

Engine failure on takeoff is a bad thing in any plane, and we all train for it. I don't want to argue single versus twin in that context.

What about enroute? If I'm cruising along at FL 250 at 200 KIAS and 250 lbs per side and suddenly an engine fails, it seems like a fairly benign event in a twin. With the NTS system I might even survive if I was asleep. At worse I'd have to descend and head to the closest airport. I'll bet it happens every day in multi-engine aircraft of various types and the vast majority are never reported.

If it happens in an SETP it's a serious emergency and the aircraft is going to land somewhere in the next few minutes. If I'm 300 or even 50 miles offshore I'm landing in the water.

Similarly if it happens at night.

Thankfully engine failure in a turboprop is extremely unlikely but it does happen. I feel like flying over long stretches of water is much safer in a twin than a single turboprop.

Nathan

Yup.... and that ditching was off the coast of Japan or something and it was a long time ago.

Flying right now on Flightaware:

PC12 - 51
MU2 - 1
441 - 9

Tom, do you let the "market" make decisions for you? I never have and never will. The "market" is average (or below) and quite frankly a joke. Maybe that is why there is no "Merlins owner group". None of us give a rats ass about the market or other derived averages.

The market in this case means Planesense, who operates ~60 PC-12's. I bet 40 of those planes are Planesense birds.

I stand corrected, not many are Planesense planes.

If I'm at 25-28k (my normal altitude, how far can I glide? PC12 that is.....


Around the US I'm always within gliding distance, would much prefer it to be daylight if something happened though.



There you go feeling again

and Klaasen is actually a ex kgb guy!!!