Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3353
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Fri May 15, 2020 4:56 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I don't see the urgency to permit higher pax number allowed with single pilot operation.
The pilot shortage is gone. Pilot wages will go down, thus 19pax flights with standard duo pilot operation will become more profitable. Besides fuel cost are low.
But max pax in a Tecnam P2012 is 11 but 9 is more standard.


19 seat is not profitable, period, under 121. Simply can't be done.
From my cold, dead hands
 
MO11
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Fri May 15, 2020 5:13 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this but here goes - might it be time for the FAA to upgrade the regulations on single pilot operations to say 14 or 15 passengers?


So FAR 121 required two pilots since its inception. The requirement for commuter airlines to operate under FAR 121 eventually slid down to operators of 20+ seat airplanes, then 10+ seat airplanes (in 1996). The FAA cited "a single level of safety" for airline operations as the reason. How would the FAA justify "upgrading the regulations" (as you put it) to permit single pilot operations under FAR 121?

Add to this the fact that some corporations require its employees to only fly on airplanes operated by two pilots.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Fri May 15, 2020 6:18 pm

drdisque wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I don't see the urgency to permit higher pax number allowed with single pilot operation.
The pilot shortage is gone. Pilot wages will go down, thus 19pax flights with standard duo pilot operation will become more profitable. Besides fuel cost are low.
But max pax in a Tecnam P2012 is 11 but 9 is more standard.


With what 19 seat aircraft?

Do228's or Twotters with their no pressurization?
B1900's which have been sitting for years and are no longer supported by the manufacturer?
Metros that have been flying auto parts for the last 20 years and anyone taller than 4'9" has to bend at the waist to get to their seat in?
Jetstreams that have literally like one operating certificated MRO in the whole world left?

The most modern pressurized 19 seater is the B1900D which is now an over 30 year old design.

Well, Cessna is developing a 19 seater, the SkyCourier. It's not pressurised, though, just like the other 19-seaters in production (Do228NG, DHC-6-400, Let L-410NG). None of them are selling particularly well; only the Twin Otter achieved over 100 deliveries in 10 years.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Fri May 15, 2020 7:18 pm

Technology should allow much safer operation of single engine including a jet for more passengers. Just look at the safety record of the ERJ's and CR200. Absolutely amazing - I don't think a ERJ has had a fatal incident in the states. When I was younger 19 to 48 seaters were lawn darting on a regular basis. This great record is all due IMO to an incredibly forgiving, easy to fly jet with enough automation to keep the young crews out of trouble. Surely you could design a modern 14 to 19 seat version the could do the same. But it needs to be a jet and comfortable. And at a reasonable CSM (thats why a design speed of maybe 250 kts is not an issue on flights 200 miles or less). I say look at the Cirrus jet as a prime example of a breakthrough technology opening a new and large market. Single pilot, single engine, low risk technology.
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    User avatar
    VirginFlyer
    Posts: 5571
    Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

    Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

    Fri May 15, 2020 8:02 pm

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    But it needs to be a jet

    Why does it need to be a jet?

    V/F
    It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
     
    MohawkWeekend
    Posts: 242
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

    Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

    Fri May 15, 2020 8:47 pm

    I think there is a perception in the States that a prop is not as safe. The King AIr /J41.Metroliner safety record vs the ERJ fleet backs that up. IJT it's just a way nicer ride. There are still a lot of people who are uncomfortable flying and that rumble from a prop just reinforces the fear. I've flown in numerous King Airs and prop jets over the years (see my list below). I love flying but a jet is just smoother and quieter. Modern small jet engines are just so reliable now and the fuel burn is much better than in the past. I think that's why the Cirrus Jet is doing so well - it's not fast, doesn't have a high ceiling and limited range. But there is a long waiting list.
      300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
       
      MohawkWeekend
      Posts: 242
      Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

      Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

      Fri May 15, 2020 10:00 pm

      In regards to updating regulations for single pilot operations, technology is just getting better. The pilots in the 1960 to 1990 era (pre-ERJ/RJ) weren't bad but they had a terrible habit of CFIT and weather related crashes. Those aren't happening now. Insurance companies will recognize the risk mitigation. Not in my lifetime, but you'll see pilotless cargo and perhaps passenger aircraft by 2040. Heck if a Predator can nail a cave 8000 miles away and land safely, a single pilot is just the added check airman for the computer.
        300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
         
        CFRPwingALbody
        Posts: 372
        Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

        Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

        Sat May 16, 2020 9:23 am

        I don't see the relevace of single pilot Part 121 oparation, in relation to Tecnam P2012.
        The planes MohawkWeekend listed, all are low wing designs with wing mounted engines. I view this as an unsafe plane configuration. The Tecnam P2012 has a high wing and wing mounted (piston) engines. The P2012 has fixed landing gear. This is safe configuration.
        This configuration also used on: ATR, An-28/PLZ M28, BN-2/3, DHC-4,5,6,7,8, Do228(NG), Do328, L-410 and more. I think Embraer could also look again to the Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector, as sibling to the ERJ's.

        Have more P2012 been delivered or have still only 3 been delivered?
        Are they already in operation, and how reliable are they.
        Might there be interest in folding landing gear and European engine options?
         
        MohawkWeekend
        Posts: 242
        Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

        Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

        Sat May 16, 2020 10:51 am

        I think his point was the 9 passenger limit of Part 121. I would argue that if 9 is safe why not 14 or 18?
        There was a time when you needed 3 engines and 3 flight deck officers to cross the ocean.
          300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
           
          DiamondFlyer
          Posts: 3353
          Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

          Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

          Sat May 16, 2020 2:26 pm

          CFRPwingALbody wrote:
          I don't see the relevace of single pilot Part 121 oparation, in relation to Tecnam P2012.
          The planes MohawkWeekend listed, all are low wing designs with wing mounted engines. I view this as an unsafe plane configuration. The Tecnam P2012 has a high wing and wing mounted (piston) engines. The P2012 has fixed landing gear. This is safe configuration.
          This configuration also used on: ATR, An-28/PLZ M28, BN-2/3, DHC-4,5,6,7,8, Do228(NG), Do328, L-410 and more. I think Embraer could also look again to the Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector, as sibling to the ERJ's.

          Have more P2012 been delivered or have still only 3 been delivered?
          Are they already in operation, and how reliable are they.
          Might there be interest in folding landing gear and European engine options?


          You're kidding right? You're implying that the placement of the wing and the fact that it's got fixed gear, makes it a safer airplane? What a freaking joke. I'd take a 1900/J31/SA227 well vefore I'd get on any of the AN-28 or L-410 death traps.
          From my cold, dead hands
           
          mxaxai
          Posts: 1813
          Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

          Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

          Sat May 16, 2020 3:05 pm

          MohawkWeekend wrote:
          I think his point was the 9 passenger limit of Part 121. I would argue that if 9 is safe why not 14 or 18?
          There was a time when you needed 3 engines and 3 flight deck officers to cross the ocean.

          It's a question of how many fatalities per year you're willing to accept. If 18 are okay, why not 50? Or 180? 550? You have to draw a line somewhere.

          There's a certain risk of pilot incapacitation per flight, as well as some other benefits of two pilots. Similar to the case single-engine vs. twin-engine. Engines are powerful enough that any aircraft smaller than an A320 could run on a single engine. Twin-engine oceanic crossings only became acceptable when their reliability was high enough; single engine passenger operations remain limited to small aircraft as long as engine failures remain relatively common.

          But how are you going to increase the reliability of pilots? Or alternatively, how are you going to convince the society (and the regulator) to accept more passengers on a flight with a single-point-of-failure? Large crashes continue to get plenty of media attention. Smaller aircraft crashes usually don't even get nationwide coverage, or only for very limited time. The dividing line appears to be ~10 passengers. So IMHO, the only option is to provide an electronic backup pilot.
           
          User avatar
          william
          Posts: 3325
          Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

          Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

          Sat May 16, 2020 3:38 pm

          mxaxai wrote:
          MohawkWeekend wrote:
          I think his point was the 9 passenger limit of Part 121. I would argue that if 9 is safe why not 14 or 18?
          There was a time when you needed 3 engines and 3 flight deck officers to cross the ocean.

          It's a question of how many fatalities per year you're willing to accept. If 18 are okay, why not 50? Or 180? 550? You have to draw a line somewhere.

          There's a certain risk of pilot incapacitation per flight, as well as some other benefits of two pilots. Similar to the case single-engine vs. twin-engine. Engines are powerful enough that any aircraft smaller than an A320 could run on a single engine. Twin-engine oceanic crossings only became acceptable when their reliability was high enough; single engine passenger operations remain limited to small aircraft as long as engine failures remain relatively common.

          But how are you going to increase the reliability of pilots? Or alternatively, how are you going to convince the society (and the regulator) to accept more passengers on a flight with a single-point-of-failure? Large crashes continue to get plenty of media attention. Smaller aircraft crashes usually don't even get nationwide coverage, or only for very limited time. The dividing line appears to be ~10 passengers. So IMHO, the only option is to provide an electronic backup pilot.


          The technology is already here to deal with an incapacitated pilot and will auto land an aircraft. So why not 19 single pilot ops?

          Changes the profit equation of 19 pax aircraft.
           
          mxaxai
          Posts: 1813
          Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

          Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

          Sat May 16, 2020 3:56 pm

          william wrote:
          The technology is already here to deal with an incapacitated pilot and will auto land an aircraft. So why not 19 single pilot ops?

          The technology isn't certified yet for 19 seat aircraft (or larger); at least not as full backup for a real pilot. You could do that but it's gonna cost. It's not so much a technological challenge but you need to provide lots of documentation, testing, etc. You'll also need to convince the regulator to change the Part 121 regulations, again you'd need to provide analysis and lots of paperwork in general. Remember how difficult it was to create ETOPS regulations. Is that really worth it for an aircraft that will sell 100, maybe 200 units at US$ 2-3 million each?
           
          MohawkWeekend
          Posts: 242
          Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

          Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

          Sat May 16, 2020 6:45 pm

          How much does it cost on a Cirrus Jet? The march of technology is relentless - it's going to come for cars, trains, ships and yes even aircraft. The government regulations wiped out an entire class of aircraft. Ironically I believe they were put in place not because the aircraft were flawed but because the 2 pilots flying those airplanes kept crashing. Just watch enough "Air Disaster" episodes where incompetent pilots crashed 19 to 30 seaters. Wings didn't fall off, engines didn't fail, pilots didn't pass out. They made mistakes that killed them.
            300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
             
            Av8rNut
            Posts: 2
            Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:20 pm

            Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

            Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:34 pm

            Hello All,

            Long time lurker, first time poster. Does anyone have any insight in the lack of activity of the Cape Air P2012's?
            They have 5 frames currently sitting in STL, and they haven't flown in 5 days. 4 frames are currently at their headquarters-HYA,
            and only 2 have flown for training purposes in the last week. Thanks for any info
             
            N6168E
            Posts: 35
            Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:57 am

            Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

            Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:34 pm

            2 more P2012's on their delivery flights. N833CA and N929CA are northbound out of BHQ (Biggen Hill). Typically the next stop is ABZ (Aberdeen). There are another 2 Cape Air (registered to Hyannis Air Service) P2012's, N949CA and N969CA in Italy.
             
            Av8rNut
            Posts: 2
            Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:20 pm

            Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

            Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:55 pm

            N949CA has been delivered to HYA-Hyannis,MA on July 16,2020
            This is the 12th P2012 delivered to Cape Air's headquarters

            Popular Searches On Airliners.net

            Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

            Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

            Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

            Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

            Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

            Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

            Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

            Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

            Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

            Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

            Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

            Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

            Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

            Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

            Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos