I see your point, and from a statistical point of view, I agree wholeheartedly. That said, for those of us who have the skills honed by flying often (I think that's you), and go for training (you seem to bright for that not to be you), there is a much greater chance of surviving. Asymmetric thrust

Here's a question: when you compare the safety record of the Pilatus in terms of occurrences of forced landings per 100,000 hours of flight vs. the same thing on MU2s since the advent of the SFAR, which airplane comes out on top?

I'm sure Mike will have the answer...wait for it...

Every twin pilot that's killed himself thinks he has the skills honed. If not true then why do twins crash?

The other flaw in your argument is that "2 engines is safer than one" without also considering "2 engines is twice as likely to have a failure". You can't have one without the other.

Like I said, ALL new airplanes have abandoned systems that are on "older" planes. New planes are very different from planes built pre-2005. So it's not just engines that are being tossed out. Everything is on the chopping block.

They crash because many of the pilots' self assessment is wrong. You'll get no argument from me on that score...

...but...

...as I pointed out earlier, I believe the accident rate among well trained pilots to be significantly lower. In fact, the SFAR has turned the MU2's record into an astounding success in just a few short years.

Again, I'm interested to see what the numbers say about the safety record of your Pilatus vs. the safety record of the MU2 since the SFAR. That will tell the tale.

Let's define "well trained".

You also have a fraction of the MU2's flying compared to PC12. This is a futile exercise. Hop on Flightaware now and tell me how many PC12's are flying and how many MU2.

Right now:

PC12 - 47 flying
MU2 - 4 flying

C'mon man.

Nope. Not futile if you normalize the study. Yeah, there are a lot more Pilatus, but if you look at accident records per unit flight time you normalize the data and then can compare apples to apples.

I really wish I knew what database people pull these bits of info from. If anyone knows where this data is located, please, post it.

Well trained: an individual is "well trained" when he's passed a type rating or SFAR initial and or he's within one year of passing recurrent training of the same AND flys minimally 200 hours/year.

FWIW, I whole heartedly agree with you that if you don't meet that criteria of well trained, you're better off in a single. I want to see the data before I can it fact, but I'd bet a nut on it. That said, I bet the stats for the well trained pilot are better for the twin. Again, I'd really like to see the data.

If I'm right, you and I are both safer in a twin.

Just for grins today I took my weekly ride in the A* and shot an approach with the critical engine off. Still here, lol.

Ahhhh! Help! An engine out! Hahahaha...

http://youtu.be/g1uNKmVQTr0

Nothing much as changed on planes since 2005 beside avionics, please elaborate.
That as nothing to do with safety.






Every twin pilot that's killed himself thinks he has the skills honed. If not true then why do twins crash?

The other flaw in your argument is that "2 engines is safer than one" without also considering "2 engines is twice as likely to have a failure". You can't have one without the other.

Like I said, ALL new airplanes have abandoned systems that are on "older" planes. New planes are very different from planes built pre-2005. So it's not just engines that are being tossed out. Everything is on the chopping block.

How do avionics have nothing to do with safety?

A well trained pilot on G4/530w and king HSI is just as safe as flying a G1000.

Marc, I'm a six pack pilot from years ago too, and I'm flying one now in the Mits, but I've got to say, the synthetic vision stuff does accord a certain level of safety with respect to terrain awareness and obstacles that you just don't have without it.

Everything went digital 2005-2006.

Many planes built before this can never be upgraded. Therefore many planes built before this will end up as boat anchors. 2005-2006 was pivotal.

Has nothing to do with "safety". Why did you go off in that direction?

Pivotal for that decade
the 90's had GPS
the 80's had INS
the 70's had auto land, RNAV
the 60's had..... I dont know something, the point is this has been evolving and will continue to evolve.

The airplanes seem to survive and safety is increased.

I'm basing my statement 100% on what I see on controller. It's totally based on values?

Why are so many large and mid sized jets that are hardly 10-15 years old so cheap? Because they can't be upgraded to the "new new".

I'm not talking about 421's btw. I said "many".... Not "all".

They have a great safety record already, without a chute! Basically, not worth the expense and hassle. Why would they want to copy Cirrus, or even associate themselves in any way with chutes, given the Cirrus track record which has not been very good?

I looked at Cirrus airplanes, and chutes before I bought. After studying the data I decided against a chute for safety reasons. Safer without it!

I'm basing my statement 100% on what I see on controller. It's totally based on values?

Why are so many large and mid sized jets that are hardly 10-15 years old so cheap? Because they can't be upgraded to the "new new".

I'm not talking about 421's btw. I said "many".... Not "all".