FL PC-12 Accident Kills Family of 6

Looks like investigators are thinking the a/c broke up in weather ...

http://www2.tbo.com/news/business/2012/jun/19/report-plane-broke-up-avoiding-bad-weather-ar-418015/

It looks like (from the video provided of the stalls) that the aircraft was typically rolling left as it spun. In the video the test pilot had to maintain significant right aileron to maintain wings level as he slowed and increased pitch attitude. Having never flown a turbine single I'd imagine there are significant left turning tendencies that must be counteracted. Could what would otherwise be a docile stalling wing get "nasty" due to the amount of aileron needed to maintain wings level almost guaranteeing a break to the left?

One would imagine an autopilot would do something similar however would disengage as the shaker engaged. Is there even a shaker on the PC12 or does it go straight to pusher?

Shaker then pusher. But as noted above, this was not a stall/spin.

I love one of the Facebook commenter's thoughts on the PC-12:

(Edited to mention that she later on called the PC-12 an "experimental single engine turbo prop plane...")

Yeah, well. As a general rule, I'm a reluctant defender of the PC-12. It's incredibly efficient, simple, and flies as well (meaning easily) as anything I've ever gotten my hands on. That said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to have another fan out there, particularly on an IFR night flight. And why people buy them like they're going out of style (particularly with the new overkill-FMS) when there are perfectly servicable MU-2s out there for 1/5th the cost, is beyond me.

That said, it seems pretty likely that this accident didn't have anything to do with shortcomings in the aircraft's design, of which, as far as I can tell, there are few.

Yeah, that was mostly my point. She goes off on a rant about never stepping foot in a single-engine (experimental!) aircraft, despite the fact that by all indications, this crash had very little to do with the number of engines it had. Could have been a glider, for all that matters.

Ya because a second engine would have mattered here.... That lady clearly has no clue what she's talking about.

People argue about wanting a second engine on an aircraft that has a more reliable engine on it than piston twins. There is not this crazy issue of single engine turboprop planes crashing from engine failures.

And an MU-2 has a horrible track record. Its a hard sell for non-pilot buyers when they can google statistics. Plus the operating costs and maintenance costs overtime would outweigh a Pilatus.

You're twice as likely to experience an engine failure in a twin engine aircraft, so there's that.

I've HAD a PT-6 engine failure. Luckily at that time I had another one. Never seen a Garrett so much as burp. I did shut a Garrett down, once, for a false fire indication. MU-2 flew and landed just fine on the other. 2>1.

The 2010 Nall report shows 19 accidents in SE turbine vs 17 in ME turbine(these were non commercial numbers). Pretty evenly matched. SE turbine was 13% more fatal in those accidents. Personally ME turbine gives me the warm fuzzies, but in reality if you plan more carefully SE turbine is almost equally safe.

We all like to defend our airplanes till the end and have little regard for folks that say anything other than glowing remarks or agree with us. I'm sure the PC-12 is a great airplane and so are MU-2's....in the right hands. I would love to own either one just has soon as I win the lottery.

Bottom line is...most folks identify safety with numbers. Two or more engines, generators, vacuum pumps (they still use those?), hyd systems, pilots etc..are better than one. Over the BIG pond, in the weather or at night....I personally want all the redundancy and backups I can cram into or on an airplane! One engine now makes me nervous, I don't care what the safety record or stats say. I've flown PT6's, Garrett's, RR's, GE's and Pratt's along with piston Lycomings and Continentals. I'm here to tell ya.......the more the better.

If you're twice as likely to have an engine failure with a twin, 3 times more likely with a 3 engine aircraft and 4 times as likely on a 4 engine aircraft, I can tell you that if you lose an engine on a single......you ARE on final approach and you WILL be landing soon!

You won't be telling alone.

Dito

I have no MU-2 flying experience, only what I've heard and read, so if what I'm about to say is totally wrong then I'd love to be corrected.That being said, from what I know about an MU-2, I'd rather see the owner operator in a PC12 any day. I hear the MU2 has a rough track record. I totally agree with "the more fans the better", but I don't think I'd trust and owner/operator MU-2 if something like a PC12 is an option. The PC12 is just so easy to fly, and has so much automation that someone with very little experience could easily learn it.

At the same time, I feel like the owner/operator turbine airplanes are just a bad idea in general. The PC12 isn't some crazy jet that NEEDS a crew, but the fact that most of these accidents are attributed to lack of pilot experience is telling enough. If you have the millions to be bombing around in your own personal jet, the smart choice would be to hire a professional pilot, who should only have one thing on his or her mind, and that's getting you to your destination safely. These single pilot jet owners always tend to have meetings or other things on their mind that clouds judgement, that and the fact that they simply do not fly as often as they generally should to stay current. In fact I just read an NTSB article in Flying magazine that talked about an Eclipse jet flown by the owner, took off knowing that his flaps didn't work. When he attempted to land he forgot the gear and immediately went around when the belly hit the ground. He came around and landed safely. The next day he decided to test fly it and ended up aborting the T\O because of severe vibration. Never say never, but I feel that is just NOT something a professionally paid pilot would ever do.

You know, I'm amazed by the number of blank stares I get when I tell this to people ...

The long MU-2 would make a good ambo plane! And I happen to know several places you could get them on the cheap! I'm sure BankAir would throw in a free Lear if you buy a few MU2s too.

Preliminary NTSB report
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=066c7dfd-eab1-4f94-938b-ef10278a01bc

Oh, I'm sure they would! "I give you special price! Throw in Learjet 35 with uh zero time engines, yes?"

The Cannucks still have a few MU-2 air ambos running around, although I'd imagine their days are numbered. Back in the day, it was not at all uncommon, even down here (although never in the numbers of *spit* King Airs, of course).

Since the SFAR came out, the MU2's record has improved considerably, has it not? Just too bad it took so long to get a grip on it. Now they are all pretty whipped.

All fatal PC12 crashes have been due to pilot error of some sort. Yes, there have been a few engine failures, but there have been no fatalities due to the failures. I'll be the first one to say the only thing the airplane needs is another engine, but to say its unsafe because it's a single is a little over the top. I don't have the reports in front of me, but haven't there been a few king air fatal crashes due to a poorly handled engine failure?

My theory on this crash is he got the airplane slow, and got the pusher and reacted improperly. He either yanked back on the yoke, which put him into a full aerodynamic stall and led to some sort of spin, or pulled too hard during the recovery and ripped the horizontal stab off.

Whatever the outcome is, it's a tragedy.