Compared to what? The decisions pilots make in Non turbo jet aircraft?

Agree... I had wondered how fast he had to land to have the energy to tear it up that bad. A late go around answers that.

With one engine shut down, what is the max altitude you could maintain at a mid-weight?

If you weren't able to stay as high as you were previously, that might negate savings from flying single engine.

Also, at whatever speed you could maintain single engine, what would fuel flow be if you had both running?

Got ya. But if you are prone to make risky decisions in a SE or piston twin you’d be better off in a jet as those decisions become less risky. I think jets reduce the “risky decision” set. That said...if you do happen to make a risky decision in a jet it’s going to be expensive on a number of levels if it doesn’t work out.

OK, I will play.

Two other factors to consider:

1) What is your weight and what altitude can you maintain OEI?
2) Do you have enough O2 for crew and passengers?

You have the data in your OM. Using 550 data:

At FL410 you use 2.2lbs fuel/NM with both engine, normal cruise. (Page 7-34) Edit: FF at FL410 is less than that as the table I pulled it from is entire flight planning. Bottom line, likely little to no benefit compared to OEI FL350 performance below.

Highest altitude OEI at 11,000 lbs is FL350 and you will use 1.73lbs/NM at LRC 253kts TAS and 1.83lbs/NM at MCT 281Kts. (Page 7-105)

If you are OEI at 13,000lbs then your max altitude is FL290 and you will use 2.27lbs/nm 266kts. (Page 7-102)

So if you are light and already high then maybe you can extend range with one engine. But if you are light and high you need to be descending and looking to land soon anyway.

That's my point!

OK, I will play.

Two other factors to consider:

1) What is your weight and what altitude can you maintain OEI?
2) Do you have enough O2 for crew and passengers?

You have the data in your OM. Using 550 data:

At FL410 you use 2.2lbs fuel/NM with both engine, normal cruise. (Page 7-34)


Highest altitude OEI at 11,000 lbs is FL350 and you will use 1.73lbs/NM at LRC 253kts TAS and 1.83lbs/NM at MCT 281Kts. (Page 7-105)

If you are OEI at 13,000lbs then your max altitude is FL290 and you will use 2.27lbs/nm 266kts. (Page 7-102)

So if you are light and already high then maybe you can extend range with one engine. But if you are light and high you need to be descending and looking to land soon anyway.

Once trained, any given pilot is safer in a light jet than he is in a piston twin. They are more simple to operate, with similar approach and landing speeds. This assumes that the pilot is instrument proficient. Just the loss of an engine at any phase of flight is a big difference in the safety factor.

Once trained, any given pilot is safer in a light jet than he is in a piston twin. They are more simple to operate, with similar approach and landing speeds. This assumes that the pilot is instrument proficient. Just the loss of an engine at any phase of flight is a big difference in the safety factor.

Once trained, any given pilot is safer in a light jet than he is in a piston twin. They are more simple to operate, with similar approach and landing speeds. This assumes that the pilot is instrument proficient. Just the loss of an engine at any phase of flight is a big difference in the safety factor.[/quote]

Training and proper decision making are two different things.

There is a lot about turbojet operation decision making they do not teach at Flight Safety. I think you get a lot more decision making training in the 135/121 world.[/quote]


Any worthwhile training program involves decision making as to the operation of the aircraft, such as flight in icing conditions, contaminated runway operation, etc., but it can't teach judgement or magically instill experience.

When working, I spent 8 hours a year in the simulator, 4 hours every six months. In addition to that we had a whole manual full of operating procedures. On top of that was a week of recurrent ground school every year. I think Part 91 jet training and operations falls way short of that.

Part of the philosophy of doing emergencies so frequently in the sim is to instill a practically instinctive reaction to the emergency, and does a lot to eliminate the fear or startle factor or "swimming in glue" syndrome that can happen when a real emergency occurs without a lot of frequent and repetitive training.

I used to do Flight Safety recurrent training in the Lear and Citation every year, and I do agree with you, it's just the basics, requiring you to have your nose in the books to get better value.

I think we are agreeing.

Much time is given to OEI and other emergency scenarios. Little time is given to contaminated runway decision making and as we see that is where turbojets are injured every winter.

Some random thoughts...jets vs pistons.

Most things in life depend on perspective. Let’s assume for the moment that jets were invented first. Hence all of GA was jet based. Imagine that a couple of enterprising entrepreneurs decided that they can introduce a whole new group of people to aviation by introducing piston aircraft at a lower price point. How would that conversation go with the various constituencies (i.e. the FAA, bankers, investors, insurance companies, buyers)

“We want to bring the freedom of aviation to the masses at a lower price point. We are proposing a twin engine propeller airplane using piston engine technology. The positives of what we propose will be an airplane that can seat up to 6 people. Travel at 200 miles an hour over 600 miles at 20% of the capital cost of a jet and operate at 80% of the cost per seat mile.”

“The downside is that the engine technology will 1)need a more expensive fuel 2) will require more frequent overhauls 3) won’t be as reliable 4)will be louder and have more vibrations 5) will be far less powerful. Additionally because of the propellers the engines won’t be centerline thrust and hence there will be all sorts of asymmetrical thrust issues that will require pilots to be proficient to fly when OEI. In fact, some of these aircraft will only be able to manage a 200-300 feet per minute climb assuming the pilot does everything right. There will be a substantial risk of a Vmc rollover if not performed correctly. The engine management system will be 3 times as complex as, aside from power, the pilot will need to control mixture and props. When an engine is lost some pilots will actually shut down the good engine. While a problem, we think it is an acceptable risk.

“We will build these machines under a separate FAR certification that will lower cost by having far less rigorous testing. The performance required and data provided to the pilot will be far less than required for jets.”

We are going to make non turbo charged versions that will spend most of their life at the altitudes where weather and terrain can be an issue. To lower the price point even further by selling versions that have no deicing equipment nor radar.

“We are going to make this machine single pilot certified...in fact, few if any, will fly It multipilot. We won’t require nearly as much training to fly it...initial or recurrent. The good news is we have a group of very seasoned professional pilots who will endorse flying it single pilot and swear that flying jets REQUIRES two pilots. What does that tell you?”

“We project the overall fatality rate will be several times higher. Best of all it will be cheaper to insure!”

“As a follow up we will build a single engine version of this airplane too. And while it is true that there will be no engine redundancy it won’t matter. In fact legions of pilots will argue that single engine flying is safer than twin engine flying and fatality stats will prove that to be true we think.”

So how about investing?

How we think about flying and safety is as much about how we got here vs anything else. I suspect had we started with jets the piston twin and single would have never been invented. In fact, those proposing it would have been laughed out of the room and been called certifiably crazy.

All moot at this point but still interesting to think about.

We had that fork in the GA road in the 1970's when Cessna innovated with the Citation 500 Fanjet. Cessna bet on turbojets taking over GA; Beech bet on turboprops; Piper & Mooney and others bet on pistons. Where are they now?

The Thurman Munson accident really derailed Cessna's plans that the Citation could become everyman's aircraft. It took 30 years for the SP turbojet to recover from that.

Ironic that another baseball player may have done that for the ICON.

I think the Cirrus jet is today's game changer.