The PC12 does fly in many ways as a nicer handling Cessna 182. It has a wide CG and a T-tail, with stick shaker and stick pusher functions. No real vices that I am aware of, but as with any high powered single engine, it requires caution near the stall regime where torque can cause a wing drop if the pilot is not proficient. A combination of stick shaker and attempting a stall recovery with power before eliminating symptoms of the stall might be exciting.
SOP is to fly it on automatics, but as it is also used to get into shorter, less controlled fields, most crew have reasonable hand flying experience.
I don’t know, and we may not know, what caused this in flight break up, but it feels like a mismanaged upset recovery. It could happen in any high performance GA aircraft.
SOP is to fly it on automatics, but as it is also used to get into shorter, less controlled fields,
There were several that used (probably still do) KPAO, 2400’.
The only time I’ve been in one was a local airline when I visited Churchill in Canada for a polar-bear spotting trip. I chatted with the pilot and he claimed they could get it into something crazy, 600’ I think. Obviously this would involve flying short final WAY behind the power curve and with very little stall margin.
It’s more laminar than C182 
as with any high powered single engine, it requires caution near the stall regime where torque can cause a wing drop if the pilot is not proficient
I gather very powerful engines with high power-to-weight ratio (+25% pitch gradient) with slippery slick wings on high glide-ratio (-6% glides), so requires lot of attention in turbulences due to disorientation or how quickly things can go south after wing drop on bumpy full power climbs
Here is how things looks like, it goes inverted every time the wing drops, in night IMC, that means two red chevrons displayed everywhere on PFD and death if power is not back to idle !
Quite interesting and impressive stalling characteristics indeed (kinda reminds me of the Falco 
)
Would warrant unusual attitude recovery training for sure… is it included in the type rating at all?
One thing to note is that video is done with the stick pusher disabled, so the chances of someone meeting that stall behaviour in reality are exceedingly small.
Dan wrote:
is it included in the type rating at all?
Good question as in the USA no type rating required, and in EASA it is a type specific SET Class Rating, note different to a type rating with more relaxed revalidation rules.
The rules today mean that for any new turbine type rating you have to have completed an A-UPRT training course.
The more agriculturally/sporty pilots will suppress the stick pusher when operating STOL – wouldn’t recommend it, dragging it in behind the power curve and even going to beta at the threshold strikes me a bit Tombstone Arizona like.
I think you have a PC12 TR in EASA land. SET is for custom turbine singles, such like cessna 210 turbine or jetprop. And yes, you have to have an aUPRT class before, and you have 1 sim session dedicated to UPRT on PC12 TR.
Dan wrote:
Why Pilatus PC 12s Crash
At the beginning he said that no engine failure was cause of any PC12 crash which is not true. The video looks more like commercial sales video than analysis.
No type rating in EASA land for this type of plane, but a class rating, with PC-12 the only plane in that particular class. (Same for a TBM.) UPRT only required for a jet.
greg_mp wrote:
I think you have a PC12 TR in EASA land.
dutchTraveler wrote:
a class rating, with PC-12 the only plane in that particular class.
Well, technically not but it in practical training requirements it is as if it were. Technically there is one SET class and one SET class rating, but the “difference training” requirements to go from one type (group) of SET plane A to another type (group) of SET plane B are the same training requirements as for initial issue of a SET class rating happening on B. Each of the individual type groups is evidenced by its own inscription on a Part-FCL licence, and each must be revalidated separately.
However, it is still one class and one class rating, which (in my understanding) means that recency requirements for day/night passenger carriage and other “per class or type” things still do carry across type groups within the SET class. Meaning, if one has all these type groups in one’s licence, and one did 1 sector in a PC6, one sector in a PC12 and one sector in a Cessna Caravan in the last 90 days, one can carry passengers in a TBM.
It is a class rating, so valid two years (one year for type ratings), etc.
SET is for custom turbine singles, such like cessna 210 turbine or jetprop.
No. For example, the Cessna Caravan and the Cessna 210 turbine conversions are in the same “type group”.
