Ok, let?s start by getting to the nub of the matter. Whenever the subject of single-engine turboprops in business, commercial or even private, operation comes up, the issue of safety always looms over the discussion like a wooly mammoth.
As we observe in B/CA?s last single engine turboprop report in August 1997, we are conditioned as pilots or experienced air travelers to think in terms of redundancy especially regarding engines. From the cockpit graybeard to the most aeronautically ignorant passenger, everyone knows that multiple engines are better, right: Would you (or your insurance company) even think of putting your CEO on a single-engine airplane? Well, five years later - and two decades after the first Cessna Caravans went to work for Federal Express - how safe is the current single-engine turbine-powered class of light airplanes? What is the in-flight failure rate, and what have been the consequences of in-flight shutdowns in terms of occupant safety?
We turned first to Robert Breiling Associates, Boea Raton, Fla..trackers of aviation safety data, for the most recent single-engine turboprop accident statistics. ?For the combined Cessna C208 Caravan, Socata TBM 700, Pilatus PC12 and Piper PA-46 (Meridian) fleet, 4.3 million hours have been logged through 2001? reported Bob Breiling, the consultancy?s founder and president. The class of four aircraft types has experienced a total of 96 percents, 58 of which resulted in fatalities, for an overall accident rate of 2.2 per 100,000 hours and a fatal accident rate of 0.88 per 100,000 hours.
By way of comparison, twin-engine turboprops have logged a total of 39.5 million hours and have experienced 918 accidents, including 321 fatal during the same period, for an accident rate of 2.33 overall and 0.81 for fatal accidents. ?So? Breiling said, ?both categories are very close?. So, again, statistically you are as safe in a single-engine turboprop - at least one powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada?s venerable PT6A engine, which dominates the category - as you are in a twin.
In terms of in-flight engine failures among the single-engine turboprops, five have occurred in the United States and Canada, involving three Caravans, a PC-12 and a Meridian. In addition, a PC-12 experienced an in-flight shutdown and ditched in the Sea of Okhotsk in July 2001 for unknown reasons (the rescue crew which was attempting to set a round-the-world class record, refuses to talk about the incident).
The previous April, a piper Meridian experienced an engine failure taking off from the Vero Beach, Fla..factory and successfully returned to the field. The incident is under investigation by the NTSB, and the New Piper refuses to comment on it. (Reports of an in-flight breakup of Meridian are incorrect, a New Piper spokesman told B/CH. The aircraft in question was actually a turbine-retrofitted Piper Mirage developed by an after-market modifier and was not a production Meridian.)
Cessna Aircraft?s Caravan sales director, Brian Willett, was fairly frank in talking about the Caravan?s in-flight shutdown incidents. ?We did a report in the winter of 2000, which surveyed the entire NTSB accident database for Caravan accidents or incidents that were the result of a power-plant failure for any reason? he told B.C4. The survey covered 15 years of data on the Caravan, representing more than 4.5 million flight hours. ?In this survey, there were only nine cases where the power plant had stopped spinning,? Willett noted. ?Only two cases (both over 16 years ago) resulted in fatalities. In these two cases the number of engines was not a factor. One was the result of fuel contamination; the other was a result of the pilot taking off with both fuel valves in ?OFF?. This may have been survivable if the aircraft was not over gross and out of c.g. By the way, Cessna has since installed both an aural warning and caution light to warn the pilot if these valves are both off.? Of the remaining seven accidents, five were attributed to improperly stowed or repaired oil dipsticks. ?This resulted in a total loss of engine oil and engine failure,? Willett continued. ?None of these situations resulted in a fatality, and most resulted in no or minor injuries. In 1996, we issued a service bulletin to place an anti-siphon value below the dipstick. We have not seen a report of this type of problem since that SB. That leaves us with a total of two situations where the power plant itself failed - in 4.5 million flight hours. Both situations are suspected to have been the result of the aircraft being operated outside of the engine limitations that lead to a power turbine failure? Willet concluded. (Breiling attributed them to an oil scavenge pump failure and a turbine disk failure). Willet credited the Caravan?s 8,700 pound weight and 61 knot stall speed as contributing to the aircraft?s safety record. ?In the very unlikely event of a forced landing, this slow speed coupled with lighter weights results in a less energy on ground contact as compared to a heavier, faster aircraft? he said.
A Mid-Atlantic Freight Caravan crew operating a Model 208B Cargo master out of San Anelo, Tex.. one night learned the hard way about the Caravan?s forced landing safety margin when the PT6A?s engine driven fuel pump packed up and the gas turbine quit. Butch Baxter, Mid-Atlantic?s vice president operations for the Greensboro, N.C..carrier, picks up the story from there: ?Fortunately, the second pilot, who was deadheading at the time, knew the area really well and realized they were a half a mile from Ballenger Airport. They tried to make the airport but couldn?t and dead-sticked it into a cotton field.? The aircraft was virtually undamaged. The crew hand-carried the small amount of freight on board out of the field, the girlfriend of one of the pilots was cell phoned and brought a car to the location, and the cargo was transferred to Ballenger. Meanwhile, another Caravan was dispatched to Ballenger, and the freight was carried on to its final destination at DFW. Air Methods maintenance personnel installed a new pump on the PT6A, the aircraft was towed to the nearby airport, and Baxter flew it to Abilenc. Swiss OEM Pilatus Aircraft claims no fatalities have occurred aboard its cavernous PC-12 aircraft due to engine failure. ?There have been four accidents, two of them fatals blamed on pilot error? Pilatus Vice President of General Aviation Ignaz Gretener told B/CA in a telephone interview from his office in Stans. Switzerland. ?In Canada, there was an engine-out failure attributed to the crew for not monitoring an engine oil light. The engine failed and the aircraft was glided to a landing, and everyone walked away?. Gretener said there was ?no official reason? for the oil failure.
The PC-12 is questioned, operated by V.Kelner Airways, was en route to Goose Bay, Labrador from St.John?s Newfoundland, in May 1998 with a pilot and nine passengers aboard when the aircraft?s PT6A-67B engine had to be shut down because of intense vibration. The Canadian Transportation and Safety Board?s report on the accident (number A98A0067, available on the TSB Web site,www.tsb.cg.ca attributes the engine?s failure to ?an interruption of oil flow to the first-stage planet gear assembly; the cause of the oil flow interruption could not be determined. There is no history of a similar type failure?. According to the report, the aircraft went down in a bog a mile and one-half from an airport the pilot was trying to reach, and the pilot and two passengers ?sustained serious injuries?. The TSB?s probable cause conclusions for the accident are interesting: ?The pilot did not follow the prescribed emergency procedure for low oil pressure, and the engine failed before he could land safely. The pilot?s decision-making was influenced by his belief that the low oil pressure indications were not valid. However, the report says, ?The indications of low oil pressure were genuine, but were not considered valid by the pilot, this was an error trap (unsafe actions taken as a result of wrongful assumptions, unsafe conditions or practices) that the pilot did not recognize. Thus, he did not follow the ?land as soon as possible? instruction called for in the Emergencies section of the (PC-12) POH?. Socata?s TBM700, as of this writing, has not experienced an in-flight engine failure in 300,000 hours of fleet operation. ?As one of the first single-engine turboprops designed specifically for corporate or executive operation, Socata engineered it appropriately with modern systems?. Michel De Villiers, vice president sales and marketing, said from Pembrook, Fla..Headquarters for the French manufacturer?s U.S division. ?Also, the P & WC PT6A-64used in the aircraft is derated (actually flat-rated) from 1.580 shp to 700 shp, so it isn?t working very hard?
The PC-12 is questioned, operated by V.Kelner Airways, was en route to Goose Bay, Labrador from St.John?s Newfoundland, in May 1998 with a pilot and nine passengers aboard when the aircraft?s PT6A-67B engine had to be shut down because of intense vibration. The Canadian Transportation and Safety Board?s report on the accident (number A98A0067, available on the TSB Web site,www.tsb.cg.ca attributes the engine?s failure to ?an interruption of oil flow to the first-stage planet gear assembly; the cause of the oil flow interruption could not be determined. There is no history of a similar type failure?. According to the report, the aircraft went down in a bog a mile and one-half from an airport the pilot was trying to reach, and the pilot and two passengers ?sustained serious injuries?. The TSB?s probable cause conclusions for the accident are interesting: ?The pilot did not follow the prescribed emergency procedure for low oil pressure, and the engine failed before he could land safely. The pilot?s decision-making was influenced by his belief that the low oil pressure indications were not valid. However, the report says, ?The indications of low oil pressure were genuine, but were not considered valid by the pilot, this was an error trap (unsafe actions taken as a result of wrongful assumptions, unsafe conditions or practices) that the pilot did not recognize.
Thus, he did not follow the ?land as soon as possible? instruction called for in the Emergencies section of the (PC-12) POH?. Socata?s TBM700, as of this writing, has not experienced an in-flight engine failure in 300,000 hours of fleet operation. ?As one of the first single-engine turboprops designed specifically for corporate or executive operation, Socata engineered it appropriately with modern systems?. Michel De Villiers, vice president sales and marketing, said from Pembrook, Fla..Headquarters for the French manufacturer?s U.S division. ?Also, the P & WC PT6A-64used in the aircraft is derated (actually flat-rated) from 1.580 shp to 700 shp, so it isn?t working very hard?
After studying the production single-engine turboprop class since its inception, Breiling concludes that ?Overall, the single-engine turboprops have done extremely well, and in the case of the engine failures, they were largely survivable with the aircraft able to glide to a landing?. Perhaps the validation of that conclusion is that the airworthiness authorities of Canada, Australia and the United States have all been sufficiently convinced of the safety of single-engine turboprops that they?ve approved them for carriage of passengers for hire under night IFR conditions. When the FAA approved commercial passengers IFR in 1997, Cessna?s Willett believes, the agency - long a holdout on the issue - was swayed ?by the overwhelming evidence that single-engine turboprops are one of the safest and most reliable modes of transportation. Additionally, by allowing these (or any aircraft for that matter) to fly in the controlled and monitored VFR in marginal conditions (i.e. Scud-running), is an obvious safety improvement?. Actually, the FAA did allow limited single-engine IFR (both turbine and recip) with fare-paying passengers aboard prior to 1997, but not in such a way as to be practical in the real world, according to Katherine Pertietti at FAA Flight Standards in Washington D.C. ? Previous to 1978 we had a requirement for a ?buffer zone? that essentially allowed descent to VFR and required a 1,000-foot ceiling? she noted. ?This requirement was changed in 1978 (so that) passenger-carrying IFR required descent under VFR (no restrictions to all cargo IFR in single-engine airplanes)?. Among the stipulations for operating IFR was that flight be conducted in weather conditions allowing descent in VMC in the event of an engine failure. As Perfetti pointed out, in order to make this work the weather ?essentially had to be VFR or scattered ceiling for route of flight?, or if the weather was un-forecast the flight could continue to the destination ?and fly approach under IMC.? This was the change again five years ago (via amendments to a compendium of FARs affecting single-engine operations), allowing unrestricted commercial IFR operations for single-engine aircraft, because ?basically?the old rule was unenforceable and not practical from an operating standpoint. (Operators) could not plan for unrestricted IFR operations. Plus, IFR offers many safety benefits (especially in Alaska) over VFR (like) flight following, higher altitudes, planned versus unplanned IFR operations, search and rescue, obstacle clearance, etc.?
The record of the PT6 gas turbine, too, cannot but have helped influence the FAA?s decision to allow single engines in commercial service to play with the big boys in IMC operations. The engine, in various derivatives, has been in continuous production since 1965 and has been refined to the point where it?s nearly bulletproof. As of late summer, P & WC had delivered 30, 772 PT6?s. Some 4,500 of these engines are in service in single-engine aircraft, including myriad ag planes and re-engined bush chariots like the de Havilland Beaver and Otter, as well as the production airframes featured here. P & WC lists the in-flight shutdown rate of the PT6A in single-engine applications as 0.3 per 100,000 hours. So, it would seem that the issue of single-engine turboprop safety has largely been proven moot and that when properly maintained and flown, you are as safe in a single-engine turboprop as you are in a twin. As Pilatus? Gretener put it. ?The statistics will tell you that if you?re ruling out a single-engine turboprop, you?re better adding a second pilot than a second engine.? Another recognition of changing attitudes toward the single-engine safety issue might be seen in the state of Wisconsin?s decision to purchase three Pilatus PC-12s for transportation of state officials. Insurance companies seem to be recognizing this, too, looking more at the caliber of the operation and less at use of single-engine airframe. ?They are certainly insurable? said Mike Sweeney, president of United States Aviation Underwriters in New York. ?We are concerned about the experience of the pilot and the training, for obvious reasons. We like to look at (the SF turbo-props) as a class of airplanes generally flown by people who behave as professional pilots?..There are several (insurance) markets that will do them?. Rates are adjusted based more upon the operation than the aircraft. Sweeney said. ?If a commercial operator, the insurance rate is based on the number of hours of operations, the areas where a company operates, the type of operation (e.g. charter, medevac etc.), and the qualifications of the crew, especially experience and training. All have factors in pricing, but the key is the crew members and the training they?re taking. As far as (an insurance) rating goes, it?s no different from other classes of business.?
The yield of 20 years of successful service with a stellar safety record is growing acceptance of the single-engine turbine in both FAR Parts 91 and 135 areas of operation, among ranks as well as charter and regional airlines. Use of the aircraft as a regional freight hub-feeder - the single-engine turboprops? groundbreaking entrée into commercial service - continues to expand. However, with approval for commercial IFR passengers carriage in the United States, new markets for the type have opened up as low-cost airliner, charter aircraft and emergency medical services (EMS), or medevac, platforms. The utility versions of the class, Cessna?s Caravan and Pilatus? PC-12, are especially successful in semi-bush applications requiring shot and rough field performance, and the Pilatus aircraft and Socata?s TBM700 have carved out niches for themselves as high-speed (300mph), long distance regional passenger and cargo transports sort of mini ?long thin route? haulers. Piper?s promising Meridian, which flirts with the 300mph mark, is also being considered by some operators as an executive charter aircraft (along at press time, none were flying in this role). If it could be argued that it took an engine like the PT6 to make the single-engine turboprop class possible, then it could also be argued that it took a major demonstration by a committed large-scale fleet operator to prove the viability and safety of the type in the daily arena of rough-and-terrible commercial service. That demonstration, of course, was provided by overnight small-package carrier Federal Express, which in the mid 1980?s happened to be looking for a cost-effective, reliable, purpose-built, turbine-powered light hub-feeder to replace the rag-tag fleet of first generation piston and turboprop powered freighters used by its regional contractors. This need just happened to coincide with the introduction of the Caravan. Cessna forecast primarily bush and utility markets for the aircraft, which it saw as essentially a replacement for senior work-horses like the Beaver, but the Memphis based express carrier took a look and liked what it saw.
United States Aviation Underwriters (USAU) President Mike Sweeney agreed to provide B/CA with an insurer?s perspective on the single-engine turboprop class. Here are Sweeney?s answers to the slate of questions submitted to the New York based insurance executive:
B/CA: What is the position of both the USAU and the aviation underwriting industry on insuring single-engine turboprops? Sweeney: The aviation insurance market can and does provide all risk physical damage and liability cover for single-engine turboprops, for operation under FAR Part 91 or Part 135. The rating for this category is a function of an underwriter?s evaluation of the risk. Standard underwriting analysis by the underwriter contemplates a thorough review of the exposure before any rating is considered. Single-engine turboprop operators are rated based upon the experience of the pilot(s), the training program for the flight crew and maintenance support staff, the location where the aircraft is hangared/stored, the normal area of operation, load factors, hours flown and, of course, loss experience. There is normally a difference in the liability premium depending on the use (Part 91 versus Part 135), as commercial operations create a potentially greater liability exposure. In most cases a turboprop flown by a professional pilot will receive preferred rating over a similar aircraft flown by a non-professional owner/operator.
B/CA: What percentage of your insured customers, represent single-engine turboprop operators and do you see this segment growing?
Sweeney: The single-engine turboprop aircraft represents less than one percent of our general aviation aircraft. We have much greater opportunity for growth in the piston single-engine models. Most underwriters prefer to see two pilots in twin-engine aircraft for charter operations. With respect to commuter operations, except for remote locations such as Alaska, we do see single-engine turboprops as the aircraft of choice for this market.
B/CA: What is the aviation insurance industry?s position on single-engine and do you feel it?s worth the risk to insure these aircraft for owner-flown market? Sweeney: Single-engine turboprop aircraft can be operated safely provided the pilot approaches the task as a professional pilot. Often when underwriting a risk, we find a non-professional pilot who meets or exceeds the training level and aviation skills of a professional pilot. However, a problem for an underwriter is the situation where a pilot moves from less sophisticated piston aircraft to the turboprop. In many cases, the pilot does not have a significant amount of high-performance, high altitude environment experience. In those cases, the underwriter may require a specific amount of dual time upon completion of factory initial training. To accept the risk of a high value turboprop and substantial liability units, the underwriter needs to feel comfortable that the pilot (professional or non-professional) meets a high standard.
B/CA: How can operators of these aircraft keep their insurance costs down?
Sweeney: Annual recurrent training is essential. When available, simulator-based training is preferred by underwriters. With a properly qualified, well trained pilot with no accident history, insurance costs can be obtained at competitive levels. A two-pilot operation will normally receive preferential treatment with respect to rating, coverage?s and limits of liability.
Since FedEx began buying Caravans in 1985, the aircraft have been leased to their contracting operators seven in the United States and one in Canada. Once in place they are flown and serviced under the contractors operating certificates and approved maintenance programs. FedEx vendors operate an average of 450 Caravan flights daily carrying those little purple and orange envelopes and parcels, logging a total of 120,000 flying hours a year at an average dispatch reliability of 99.8 percent. This level of utilization quickly established the Caravans - and single-engine turbo-props in general - as aircraft that could hold their own with both their twin-engine counterparts and the heavy iron in daily commercial service at unprecedented savings in purchase and operating cost. As Willert put it, wryly, the FedEx experience gave the Caravan ?credibility.?
Based on that credibility, the airplane?s ability to make money for its operators and its utility, Cessna has placed 1,300 Caravans in the field to date. ?Historically, the majority of these aircraft went to commercial operators,? Willet said. ?Recently, though, our sales have strengthened in the personal use and corporate markets.? Customers respond to the Caravan?s large, box-like cabin, simplicity of operation and reliability, according to Willett.
The airplanes are operating in 70 countries in roles as various as military special operations, police surveillance, jump ship (The aircraft can carry up to 18 sport parachute jumpers in full gear), geological survey platform, scheduled airline, air ambulance, refugee and missionary support, in addition to the traditional assignments of freighter and personal transport. ?Now that we are going on 17 years of production. ?Willet said, ?where our Caravans are and how they are being operated becomes harder to determine. We can say, though, that we have seen a big increase in the owner/operator use of the Caravan. Over 60 percent of the new Caravans retailed this year went to that owner/operator segment of the market.?
Caravans are also being sold as ?stable-mates? to business jets in a handful of corporate flight departments, Willet claimed. These operators generally have a recurring need to move people or cargo over 200- to 300-nm distances. The Caravan can haul two tons of payload at DOC?s claimed to be less than $200/hour, and the cabin is a true ?combi,? able to convert from a passenger configuration to freight hauler in 15 minutes. This is one of the reasons why some corporations engaged in the use of high-capital machinery - petroleum drillers, corporate farming operations or manufacturers - have purchased Caravans for their flight departments. If a costly operation has been halted because of the breakdown of a critical machine, the ability to get a part or a repair team on-sit ASAP can mean the difference between profit or loss.
The Caravan has been successful in the Part 135 charter role, as well, Willet said. ?We have seen several operators move out of older piston twins and into the Caravan.? Hawaiian commuter airline Pacific Wings, for example, was scheduled to take delivery of three Caravans this fall. Claiming to service more inter-island routes than any other Part 135 operator in Hawaii, Pacific Wings was motivated to move to a single-engine turboprop because of the type?s lower operating cost in comparison to twins.
And the Caravan continues to excel (pardon the pun) at the role that established it, as a freighter with the overnight small package express industry. At Mid-Atlantic Freight, cited earlier, 17 Caravan operated by some 20 pilots are harnessed in nocturnal service under contract to Airborne Express and DHL. Mid-Atlantic bought its first ?straight? Caravan, a standard Mode 208, 16 years ago when the company was founded and since has logged almost 10,000 hours on it. With the fleet of three 208s and 14 208B Cargomasters, Mid-Atlantic is averaging 11,00 hours annually servicing the Airborne and DHL contracts.
?It?s a great airplane,? Mid-Atlantic?s Butch Baxter enthused, despite its one engine failure. ?Economy and reliability is the Caravan?s strong suit. A fixed-gear airplane driven by a PT6A - you can?t get any simpler than that. The cabin is squared off and so lends itself well to cargo.? Baxter said the company?s maintenance costs for the Caravan hover between $62 & $64 per hour. Because it has been operating the Caravan for so long and puts hours on it so fast, Mid-Atlantic has been able to incrementally extend the TBO of the PT6A-114A engines in its airplanes to 8,000 hours.
Cessna currently sells three versions of the Caravan. The Model 208, the original Caravan frame that?s been in continuous production since 1985, offer 254 cubic feet of cabin volume and a 2003 base price of $1,322 million, or approximately $1,6 million equipped. Sitting high on Wipaire amphibious floats (you get a nosebleed just sitting in the cockpit at the dock), the seaplane slides down the boat ramp at, typically, $1.75 million.
For only $24,000 more over a stripped Caravan, the space-conscious operator can have the 208B Grand Caravan with its four-foot-longer fuselage providing a cabin with 340 cubic feet of volume. Not surprisingly, then, the Grand Caravan is Cessna?s biggest seller. And what you can?t carry in a cabin that large can be hauled below in optional under-fuselage cargo pod that adds 111 cubic feet to it?s capacity.
The Super Cargomaster is the blue-collar Caravan, a purpose-built freighter equipped with a plywood floor, no cabin windows (the ?slick? version), and a cargo door that will swallow a full-size pallet. ?This is a special, one-purpose, all-inclusive aircraft,? Willet said. ?We have added many options as standard in a value-priced package on the Super Cargomaster, giving the freight operator a ready-to-go aircraft from the factory.? The 2003 price for the Super Cargomaster is $1,391 million, including equipment and certification for flight into known icing.
If you want to learn the secrets of an aircraft - whether under the aluminum and composites it has the heart of a Belgian plough horse or is really a hangar queen - ask the mechanics who maintain it day in and day out.
Eric Lugger, general manager of Aircraft Structures International of Enid, Okla.. would place the Cessna Caravan in the plough horse category. One of the largest independent repair stallions in the United States specializing in Caravan maintenance and structural repair. Aircraft Structures has been working on the Model 208 for more than a decade for about 50 repeat customers. ?The hangar can accommodate up to seven Caravans,? Lugger said, ?and on most days, it?s full.? Most customers are commercial operators using their Caravans as freighters. ?The issue for them is picking up a lot of stuff and moving it from A to B.
The Caravan was designed for low maintenance and easy repair, Lugger said. Only a small number of life-limited parts are used in the airframe. ?In the landing gear, for example, the only component that is cycle-limited is the axle, which must be removed and magnafluxed every 10,000 cycles. Ant it?s very easy to remove, inspect, and replace, averaging an hour per side. From a maintenance point of view Cessna did a good job, with low preventive maintenance requirements.
And of course, the Caravan type is cheaper to maintain because of its solitary engine, the maintenance chief pointed out. ?Doing an HIS or cold section on the Caravan saves you $300,000 over a comparably powered twin (where overhaul costs obviously double.) Then there are the props - a new one is $22,000. Now, double that for a twin.? On the other hand, a prop overhaul for the Caravan is about $2,200, ?assuming the blades are passable,? Lugger said.
Because of their box-like cabins and favorable operating numbers, some turboprop singles have become the darlings of the emergency medical services (EMS) community, especially among companies serving rural markets requiring short-field performance on rough surfaces.
Native American Air Ambulance is a case in point The Mesa, Ariz, EMS contractor operates four Pilatus PC-12?s and a Cessna Grand Caravan on behalf of the Navajo and Apache Indian nations. A fifth PC-12 is contracted to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to perform all of the clinic?s fixed-wing transportation. (Native American also operates nine EMS helicopters based at rural-area hospitals and a Cessna Citation V business Jet.) ?Our SE?s are used for quick-response aeromedical service in the rural areas of the Southwestern United States.? Native American?s CEO Rick Heap told B/CA.
Heap, who started Native American Air Ambulance in 1995 with his and his father-in-law?s money, is sold on the current crop of single-engine turboprop utility aircraft as EMS platforms. ?The Pilatus and Cessna with their big doors are exceptional.? he said. ?Where the PC-12 comes into play with its higher speed (270 knots) is over the longer distances we frequently have to fly. The Caravan is bulletproof; its only drawback is it?s not pressurized, and occasionally for that reason, it?s not an appropriate aircraft for some medical conditions we have to transport.
Each aircraft in the Native American Southwestern fleet flies about 100 hours a month, ?all five of ?em,? Heap said. ?We cycle them an average of three times and hour in our operations, which is quite high. We have used them so much that all four PC-12s are coming up for engine overhauls at about the same time, and the Caravan will be coming up soon. We expect the PT6A engine to increase our TBO and are asking for a time extension between overhauls, as we understand that the Flying Doctor Service of Australia is approaching 6,000 hours between overhauls with their PC-12 engines.
Pratt & Whitney Canada has been ?exceptional? in its service and support of the engine, Heap claimed. Since all five of the aircraft were purchased and put on line at about the same time, they?ve all logged about 3,500 hours each and three times that number in cycles. ?We?re experiencing about 98.2 percent dispatch reliability,? he said.
It?s company policy to shoot for a five-minute response time. ?We?re off the ground in less than 10 minutes and have to have the engines turning within five minutes of receiving a call,? Heap said. ?We use real time weather reporting services, as weather is about the only thing that will delay us. A lot of what we do requires us to fly into unimproved strips with no nav aids. In many cases the fields are unlit. We?ve created our own approaches. At night we?ll GPS to a position, and if we can?t get a visual on the runways, we don?t try to land, however we always have a ?plan B? ready to go to the nearest field that?s open.
Density altitude is not an issue with the Pilatus or the Caravan, even in 7,000-foot average terrain on the Colorado Plateau, Heap said, since their flat-rated PT6As are larger than they have to be and they therefore offer plenty of margin. ?The only problem with the Caravan is icing,? Heap said. ?It doesn?t like ice too well, but otherwise it?s a solid performer.
Concerning operating costs, Heap reported that ?in the beginning? when the PC-12s were still in warranty, ?we could program for what they advertise at the time, which was about $290 per hour. Now, out of warranty and with higher fuel prices, we?ve raised them to close to $400 per hour. We also program in twice the rate for the propeller, due to the number of rocks on the fields where we fly. This is an environment-related issue; normal operators wouldn?t have to do this.
Heap had only one thing to complain about concerning the Pilatus aircraft. ?The paint on them has ?died? and we?ll have to repaint them this year. Also, the soot from the PT6A exhausts pits the paint along the fuselage. We dry-wash them a lot, because you want an EMS aircraft to look clean. Pilatus has offered to do a wax of one in maintenance, and if that doesn?t work, we?ll have another go-round with them. We have not had the same problem with either our Caravan or Citation Bravo, so Cessna has its paint issues worked out
Over in Denver, Heap?s biggest competitor, Air Methods Corp., has also discovered the virtues of the single-engine turboprop as a flying ambulance. The EMS operator fields a fleet of six PC-12s alongside its eight Raytheon Beech King Air twins and a diverse fleet of helicopters spread all over the country. This fall, Air Methods was also engaged in merger talks with Rocky Mountain Helicopters, which, if successful, could result in creating the largest EMS operation in the Western Hemisphere, based on revenues and a combined fixed and rotary-wing fleet of more than 160 aircraft.
Neil Hughes, Air Methods? vice president and director of operations, told B/CA that the company put its first PC-12 on line in 1998 at Bend, Ore. That aircraft the high-timer in the fleet has since logged 2,400 hours. Today, three of Air Methods? PC-12 are assigned to Air Life in Bend and La Grande, Ore. Two more are with the University of Utah?s Air Med program in Salt Lake City, and one is assigned to Air Care in Farmington, N.M.
We have had no systemic problems with the PC-12,? Hughes said, ?just some little hiccoughs that have been overcome. Overall, it?s a dependable aircraft. We were going through brakes for awhile and changed to Cleveland wheels as a solution. There was a problem, too, with the flap actuators, and a mod was issued by the factory to fix it. I have to say that Pilatus has been responsive to customers? needs. We continue to see the PC-12 as a viable aircraft for this market.
Hughes said that Air Methods was drawn to the PC-12 first because of its cabin size, then for ?the large cargo door on the left side, making it more convenient to load and unload patients, the fact that it was pressurized, the airplane?s operating costs, a history of operating the PT6A, primarily in our Bell 412?s, and also performance in terms of accessibility to some of the more rural areas we serve. The airplane?s short-field performance is exceptional?(and) range and endurance were selling points, as well. Health care companies and operators are looking for a more-efficient and cost-effective solution to operating aircraft without compromising safety, and this was the logical way to go.
Since certification of its PC-12 in 1994, Pilatus has also enjoyed market acceptance with the single-engine turboprop type. As of late summer, the Swiss OEM had placed 375 PC-12s, distributed among almost every continent. ?Long range, high speeds and low operating costs sell it, ?Pilatus? Gretener said. ?In the United States, it?s used primarily in corporate operations (where) 65 to 70 percent are owner-flown. The aeromedical industry likes it, too. We estimate 10 to 15 percent of PC-12s sold are operating in multi-aircraft flight departments in the United States.
This fall, Pilatus will be targeting companies that fly turbine aircraft in a sales push to corporate flight departments. ?We?ll be emphasizing low acquisition and operation costs and addressing the single-engine issue by pointing out turboprops? good or better safety record, getting real facts out into the field,? Tom Aniello, president of Pilatus? U.S. operations in Denver, said. ?We know we have a big hill to climb, and we?re not trying to position the aircraft as a replacement for a twin but as an adjunct. One corporation we?ve penetrated in the Northeastern United State operates a PC-12 alongside a Gulfstream IV.
With its 330 cubic feet of cabin volume, the PC-12 is often thought of as ?a single-engine King Air 200,? and Pilatus banks on this comparison by claiming the PC-12?s operating cost is two-thirds that of the Raytheon Beech twin. ?We sell operating cost, the big cabin, short-field performance, speed and range,? Aniello said. The standard cargo door - which many operators initially say they don?t need but that, in practice, they wind up liking - allows mixed operations, passengers and cargo. It?s an SUV with wings.? In Europe, in one of the airplane?s more esoteric applications, Sauber Petronas uses a PC-12 in logistical support of its Formula 1 racing team.
The most popular PC-12 configuration is the executive version, Gretener said, offering six to eight seats and outfitted like a business jet. Exec interiors account for 80 to 90 percent of PC-12 sales. The other configuration is the commuter airliner, with nine forward-facing seats that are quickly removable for cargo ops. Pilatus also sells and STCcd aero medical kit for the commuter. The standard gross weight of both versions is 9,920 pounds.
Base price for the PC-12 commuter is $2,7 million; a typically equipped exec version goes out the door at $3,2 million to $3,3 million. Pilatus exhausted its factory backlog in 2001 but is building it back up again, staying ahead of production, Gretener said. ?New orders thus far for 2002 have exceeded all orders written in 2001. And the ?concept: marker - people who have no experience with a business aircraft - has been good for us.
At a time when one would think the single-engine turboprop market would be approaching saturation, new entrants continue to be proposed and to appear. The canard-configured JetCruzer executive single may be gone, but a partnership of a venerable Czech Republic firm, Aero Vodochody, and the AIDC aerospace conglomerate of Taiwan, is developing Ibis. The aircraft it has proposed, now flying in the Czech Republic and claimed to be only a year from certification, is the Ac270, a low-wing, PT6A-powered visual knockoff of the PC-12.
The similarity ends there, said Jett Conrad, Ibis?s vice president of marketing at the Ibis Aerospace offices in Kerrville, Texas. The 8,380-pound MTOW utility airplane is a cheaper alternative to the Pilatus aircraft that can generally equal its work. He describes the Ac270 as ?a large cabin, pressurized aircraft designed to carry up to 10 people - two crew and eight passengers - over stage lengths up to 1.300 nm with NBAA IFR reserves.? The Ibis aircraft will equal the PC-12?s high-speed cruise (270 knots) and is claimed to better its runway performance at gross weight. Its cabin volume cubes out at 264.