It would be much more interesting to see the fatal record of single pilot owner flown biz jets versus single pilot owner flown SETP's. Part 91 pro-flown and part 135 pro-flown usually with 2 pilots comprise the vast majority of biz jet flight hours and heavily skew the data. To think a single pilot flying 150 hours per year as a jet owner operator will enjoy the safety benefit of a 2 pilot pro-flown biz jet is a little silly. There have been quite a few owner flown single pilot fatals in biz jets in the last few years. WE have seen fatals in the Eclipse, Mustang, P100, and several Citations. Hour for hour, not sure there really is a difference in single pilot SETP and single pilot biz jet owner operators, especially matched for mission. In fact the turbine accidents all have the same thing in common. The pilots usually killed a perfectly good plane. That is because for the most part, turbines aircraft rarely completely fail. In fact with more pilots stepping up into biz jets as the prices come down, I expect the accident rate to increase.

There is a lack of good data, but it is absolutely clear to me that SP jets are flying with a better safety record than SP turboprops.

The jets have the following advantages:

Pilots are type rated and pass a check ride every year.
Jets are intrinsically safer in design, less to go wrong, less severe issues when they do.
Jets are flown to very specific procedures and numbers.
Jets flown as to always have an out, such as balanced field length takeoff numbers.
Jest are not asked to do some dangerous jobs turboprops are, such as bush flying, seaplane flying, ag work, and so forth.

There are a *lot* of jets flying around and they have *very* few accidents. Only 2 fatal jet accidents in the US last year (we've had 2 this year already, alas).

Mike C.

AIN put together these fatal accident stats for turbine aircraft a couple of years ago. They are for Part 91 operations, eliminating the "121 effect:"


[Fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours]

Ken

To bad they didn't differentiate between SETP and METP. Would be interesting.

Speaking only for me, I feel that if I could upgrade from my Baron, it would be a M500/600, however my goal would be a Mustang.

Sales people must think so too as i get way too many sales info/leads on M500/600 and CJ & Mustang aircraft.

Since my mission is 1450nm one way east then return west, not sure any will reliably do the distance non stop. Baron does this with one stop.
Brenda

Cessna 441.

Will do that trip 99.99% of the time, in very strong headwinds. Nice airplane.

Mustang, M600, SF50 won't do it in zero winds, much less with any headwind.

New planes tend to be less range, they trade fuel capacity for weight they added somewhere. So "new" means sometimes "less".

Mike C.

Doesn't differentiate between SP and two crew, though.

A lot of "part 91" is fractional ops which operate basically to 121 standards, including two crew and pro dispatch.

This year, all fatal accidents were SP part 91 operations. The CJ4 at Marion hit by a Cessna 150, the CJ that hit a mountain in Virginia. Both are "weird".

Last year, there were two fatals, one was a 500 in Georgia likely being flown illegally SP, and the other was a Lear 35 at KTEB with a pro crew that messed up a circle.

So last 1.5 years, 3 of 4 jet fatals are SP.

Mike C.

That's true. There are many reasons why jets turn in a far lower fatal accident rate than turboprops. That jets are often flown by a two-pilot crew is one of them, however it is *not* true that all turboprops are inevitably flown single-pilot nor that all jets are inevitably flown two-pilot. Alas, that makes it a difficult item to factor out entirely.

In any event, the argument was that the jet stats were "extremely padded by the 121 2-crew numbers," and AIN's data eliminates that factor.

Ken

I will be the first to admit I am a huge Cirrus fan - I know most following these threads are shocked.... I also find the discussion on the 2 Cirrus SF50 threads entertaining as many of us who have never even sat in one have strong opinions. If you take the time to watch the 3 videos that were evidently filmed at a local EAA meeting you get to hear from an actual owner, not a Cirrus sales person, not a journalist or test pilot, but a customer. Many of the topics being discussed in this thread are spot on - the videos are going to support some of the banter, also parts of the videos are going to put more accurate numbers around operating costs, finally some things we've debated are going to be demystified.

To wet your appetite - you will learn lots about fuel burn, landing distances, weight and balance, Cirrus apps, automation, the CHUTE, insurance, training, operating costs....

[youtube]https://youtu.be/ZgM_MeJKahg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/g2G-4KumvXM[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/Z0VAyaXVlFE[/youtube]

Peace,
Don

I am sure windmilling prop produces some drag at 85 kts. How much is debatable, because it does not take much to make things interesting on a twin with engine out. And that drag is going to drop dramatically as the plane slows down.

Not to mention that the prop isn’t really windmilling, the engine is still spinning it. At some point in the rollout, it’s going to change from net drug to net thrust.

The question is, how much thrust? In the posts below, Mike says 50 lbs on a modern engine. 50 lbs won’t even move the plane.

No, its a matter of well known engineering. A rotating prop interacts with a *lot* of air which is why a stopped prop is *way* less drag than a windmilling one.


The vast majority of the energy is when the plane is fast.


At about 10-15 MPH, when it no longer matters. And the prop thrust is trivial at that speed.

To give you some idea just how strong prop drag is, to simulate zero drag, I have to operate my engines at 16% power, 115 HP per engine, to overcome the prop drag. Think about that, 115 HP to get net zero thrust.

If you ever fly a single with a feathering prop, you will be AMAZED at the drag reduction versus letting it idle.

Mike C.

Ken,

You are flying an Eclipse, so you have the numbers we need for this debate. What minimum runway lengths do you use for wet or ice/snow contaminated conditions?

That's true. There are many reasons why jets turn in a far lower fatal accident rate than turboprops. That jets are often flown by a two-pilot crew is one of them, however it is *not* true that all turboprops are inevitably flown single-pilot nor that all jets are inevitably flown two-pilot. Alas, that makes it a difficult item to factor out entirely.

In any event, the argument was that the jet stats were "extremely padded by the 121 2-crew numbers," and AIN's data eliminates that factor.

Ken

Eclipse didn't publish landing distances for contaminated runways--it wasn't a requirement of Part 23 certification--but the company suggests doubling the published landing length for a contaminated runway.

Our mountainous home field has a 5000-foot runway at 4500-foot elevation, and we've landed here with snow on the runway without worrying much about it.

Ken