Planesense
#471
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
Looks like they had a bad day last week
WTOC : FAA investigating after small plane crash at Savannah-Hilton Head Int'l Airport
#474
Pilot
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: Large cabin Bizjet
Posts: 448
Last I heard was that the engine was on fire before they hit the ground, but you know how it goes with eyewitness reports....
I'm glad they are ok too. Say what you will about the PC-12, no one has died in it as result of an engine failure.
I'm glad they are ok too. Say what you will about the PC-12, no one has died in it as result of an engine failure.
#475
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
I have several thousand hours in the PC12 and the King Air and I was always happier operating the King Air in marginal conditions. If I was sitting in the back I would want to be in the King Air or a Jet.
I think they've been pretty lucky, to date, given the conditions they ask their crews to operate the plane in.
#476
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
#477
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 49
Kind of "low rent" but what I've come to expect of these guys.
Looks like they had a bad day last week
WTOC : FAA investigating after small plane crash at Savannah-Hilton Head Int'l Airport
Looks like they had a bad day last week
WTOC : FAA investigating after small plane crash at Savannah-Hilton Head Int'l Airport
You're right the PC12 is a great airplane but it only has one engine. I was never comfortable flying it in low IFR conditions down low or over water for that reason. The PT6 is a great engine but it has had a number of failures. Even worse are all the FCU failures that were occurring a few years back. Planesense had 2 of those alone. In one case the crew turned the plane into a glider and the other occurred on rollout so it was a non event. I've lost track of the total number of PC12s that had that particular problem and never once has a crew successfully recovered the engine with the MOR. Even Pilatus over-temped the engine on a test flight when simulating FCU failures.
I have several thousand hours in the PC12 and the King Air and I was always happier operating the King Air in marginal conditions. If I was sitting in the back I would want to be in the King Air or a Jet.
I think they've been pretty lucky, to date, given the conditions they ask their crews to operate the plane in.
I have several thousand hours in the PC12 and the King Air and I was always happier operating the King Air in marginal conditions. If I was sitting in the back I would want to be in the King Air or a Jet.
I think they've been pretty lucky, to date, given the conditions they ask their crews to operate the plane in.
Wow you felt you had to create a second "fake" profile just to come in and rag on Planesense? I don't care what you said, some of it I even agree with, but don't be a little pansy hiding behind a fake profile.
#478
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,327
You're right the PC12 is a great airplane but it only has one engine. I was never comfortable flying it in low IFR conditions down low or over water for that reason. The PT6 is a great engine but it has had a number of failures. Even worse are all the FCU failures that were occurring a few years back. Planesense had 2 of those alone. In one case the crew turned the plane into a glider and the other occurred on rollout so it was a non event. I've lost track of the total number of PC12s that had that particular problem and never once has a crew successfully recovered the engine with the MOR. Even Pilatus over-temped the engine on a test flight when simulating FCU failures.
I have several thousand hours in the PC12 and the King Air and I was always happier operating the King Air in marginal conditions. If I was sitting in the back I would want to be in the King Air or a Jet.
I think they've been pretty lucky, to date, given the conditions they ask their crews to operate the plane in.
I have several thousand hours in the PC12 and the King Air and I was always happier operating the King Air in marginal conditions. If I was sitting in the back I would want to be in the King Air or a Jet.
I think they've been pretty lucky, to date, given the conditions they ask their crews to operate the plane in.
Planesense is a safe company. Their maintenance is top notch and they know they need to be. 1 engine or 2 engines. Doesn't necessarily make it safe. 2 engines just gives the guy/gal a chance to screw up or get it right. (Look at the atr the decided to shut down the good engine) 1 engine gives you a chance to just get it right.
Lets face it, no matter how reliable an engine is. It's going to happen at one point. It's a machine built by a human being.
These two, one of which I know. Did the best they could to save themselves. So anyone that's ragging on a company for one engine failure that ended in what I would consider good terms should really, think before they do.
And just curious, what conditions do you think that Planesense pilots are asked to work in? I worked there for a number of years and I'm just curious as to what "conditions", might be, dangerous, or therefore, life threatening? And your credibility is extremely low on the shear fact that you say your uncomfortable operating a single engine airplane in low visibility or over water, but only "happy" flying a king air in marginal conditions...
Im making the assumption that you operate in >3 miles and 3,000' at all time. Or you just operate a 4 engine beast at all times for those "below marginal days"
Check your facts. The company has some of the best pilots from all walks of avaition including the two that were in that cockpit at the time. One of them a seasons PSI guy and the other from a big 3.
#479
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
Not sure what's going on or who this celebrity profile is. I have thousands of hours in PC12's and working for this company. and plenty of time in king airs. Last king air was a junk box. I'd gladly step into a pc12 again and fly it over and over again, without a question. That king air. Not so much.
Planesense is a safe company. Their maintenance is top notch and they know they need to be. 1 engine or 2 engines. Doesn't necessarily make it safe. 2 engines just gives the guy/gal a chance to screw up or get it right. (Look at the atr the decided to shut down the good engine) 1 engine gives you a chance to just get it right.
Lets face it, no matter how reliable an engine is. It's going to happen at one point. It's a machine built by a human being.
These two, one of which I know. Did the best they could to save themselves. So anyone that's ragging on a company for one engine failure that ended in what I would consider good terms should really, think before they do.
And just curious, what conditions do you think that Planesense pilots are asked to work in? I worked there for a number of years and I'm just curious as to what "conditions", might be, dangerous, or therefore, life threatening? And your credibility is extremely low on the shear fact that you say your uncomfortable operating a single engine airplane in low visibility or over water, but only "happy" flying a king air in marginal conditions...
Im making the assumption that you operate in >3 miles and 3,000' at all time. Or you just operate a 4 engine beast at all times for those "below marginal days"
Check your facts. The company has some of the best pilots from all walks of avaition including the two that were in that cockpit at the time. One of them a seasons PSI guy and the other from a big 3.
Planesense is a safe company. Their maintenance is top notch and they know they need to be. 1 engine or 2 engines. Doesn't necessarily make it safe. 2 engines just gives the guy/gal a chance to screw up or get it right. (Look at the atr the decided to shut down the good engine) 1 engine gives you a chance to just get it right.
Lets face it, no matter how reliable an engine is. It's going to happen at one point. It's a machine built by a human being.
These two, one of which I know. Did the best they could to save themselves. So anyone that's ragging on a company for one engine failure that ended in what I would consider good terms should really, think before they do.
And just curious, what conditions do you think that Planesense pilots are asked to work in? I worked there for a number of years and I'm just curious as to what "conditions", might be, dangerous, or therefore, life threatening? And your credibility is extremely low on the shear fact that you say your uncomfortable operating a single engine airplane in low visibility or over water, but only "happy" flying a king air in marginal conditions...
Im making the assumption that you operate in >3 miles and 3,000' at all time. Or you just operate a 4 engine beast at all times for those "below marginal days"
Check your facts. The company has some of the best pilots from all walks of avaition including the two that were in that cockpit at the time. One of them a seasons PSI guy and the other from a big 3.
#480
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post