Another big factor in that correlation pot is that professional high achievers tend to be unwilling to take advice from what they see as “lesser” people i.e. flying instructors.
May be you are right, Peter. The pilot-in-command of the Citation that crashed in dense fog, flying from Shoreham to Trier, was a lawyer in his main profession.
It was the pilot who crashed the plane, not the lawyer, wasn’t it ?
The pilot was lawyer in his first profession – the aircraft owner and passenger was businessman
(sorry didn’t get that sarcasm…)
No, I know. I meant it that way. It was the pilot who crashed the plane, not the lawyer !
Good topic.
Does anybody have some data so we can punch some numbers? I am following those videos and I want to change my career and become a PC12 driver (I’d happily skip on Locher field departures with 10 pax aboard though)! That plane is amazing! I don’t know the pilot so cannot comment on his proficiency. The flights do seem a bit risky – that is strictly the feeling I get from those youtube videos.
Locher Field: Length, Slope, Elevation, Surrounding Terrain
VS
PC12 Performance: MTOM, TO distance, Climb rates etc…
Boscomantico overflew it in his very good Bolzano trip report, so he may have some info. As w_n pointed out the AFM can’t be extrapolated for what is an off piste airfield, let alone apply the usual public transport factors.
The PC12 is a beautifully engineered, well built aircraft with very predictable and good flying characteristics. Owner/Passengers just need to pull down the blinds so as not to see the business jets overflying them, especially when you have a 92 knot headwind at FL280.
I suspect the typical PC12 veteran has dedicated more neuron capacity, than he/she cares to admit, to whether he goes to FL280 (most are non RVSM) and battle the headwinds and fly at Navajo speeds, or chose FL180 and the vagaries of ATC sending you through the low enroute alleyways with the inertial separator and de icing services on. Groundspeed having edged up 20-30 knots for around another 100 lbs/hour Jet A1 and the enjoyment of turbulence and ice in the mid levels. Conversely, sometimes, but statistically less often, they get to fly at Citation groundspeeds with a tailwind, and can land on the short cross wind runway when the jets may be out of limits.
RobertL18C wrote:
Conversely, sometimes, but statistically less often, they get to fly at Citation groundspeeds with a tailwind
But the Citation get’s the same tailwind!
RobertL18C wrote:
can land on the short cross wind runway when the jets may be out of limits
A CJ2 has a demonstrated crosswind figure of 26 kts
A PC12 has a demonstrated crosswind figure of 10 kts with full landing flap
The PC12 has a figure of 30 kts with flaps zero, so a touch higher than the CJ2, but then you are approaching at 110kts which is around or above Citation speeds
I guess both can handle above the figures published, I know from experience that the CJ2 can.
The PC12 may have several advantages over the jet, but I don’t think crosswind capability is one of them.
Neil typical Vref for the PC12 with the icing services not engaged, for a visual approach, is 90 knots and 80 knots at the threshold. Flaps 15 demonstrated crosswind is 25 knots, reducing to 15 knots for flaps 40. Most operators use Flaps 40 for crosswind preferring to keep the torque up on approach and minimising time in the flare. The PC12 likes to float if brought in fast and with flaps 15.
My point is that the PC12 can use a much shorter runway than a jet, and the crosswind runway therefore may not be available to the Jet. LFMD’s 22 is an example, also relevant yesterday due to strong winds.
This is interesting to watch – there are quite a few hazards right after take off – or just before landing. Just look at the cables…
After watching that video I have decided I am a coward. You need bigger balls than I have for that approach.
