I don't doubt the cumulative flight hours are accurate.

What I doubt is the 350 is so much safer than the 200 when it has 1/4th the cumulative flight hours. "Cumulative flight hours" is no way to look at this. Each flight has dangerous phases and not dangerous phases. IMO "cycles"(flights) would be the only way to draw an accurate conclusion. There are loads more 200's flying every day than 350's. There's a hell of a lot more opportunity every day for a 200 to have a crash than a 350.

An airplane flying has a much higher chance of crashing than one sitting in a hangar.

certainly, am sure a lot of very different factors play a role..

The King Air 350 though really seems to stand out with a beautiful safety record up to now ( and not just compared to other turboprops, but generally compared to all turbines.)..is it because the 350 from the start was very well balanced airframe / engine combination?..probably…is it the way they are operated?..probably..

last but not least, and there the 350 could be compared to the PC 12 maybe ( which also stands out as a very safe airplane..)..you have a relatively young "fleet age"..

Fleets with the highest hours probably have the most accurate information attached to them.

It's 7am right now and according the Flightaware there are 17 PC12's flying and 1 KA350. Those numbers will hold throughout the day.

Right now, the PC12 is 17 times more likely to have a crash. There are 17X more of them flying.

well. good question, Jason…

but a spotlight on Flightaware may not tell the whole story..

if you look at first service entry of both types (350 & PC-12) eary 90's and the numbers produced since then…those number are pretty close together..

I took delivery of a 350i ( FL-955) end of 2014…so do not know how many had been delivered since then..maybe they are at FL-1050'sh somewhere..and PC-12s..well maybe some 1350 or so delivered since then..so they are pretty close together..maybe even in regards to total fleet hours..but still an overall very young fleet..

Which plane is more likely to crash?

The plane on a 4 hour flight?

The plane doing 4-1 hours flights?

At any given moment during the day there are loads more PC12 flights than KA350 flights. It would be cool if Flightaware kept track of "total number of flights by type in a year". If the PC12 fleet has 17X the number of flights in a year compared to the KA350 fleet but has 2X the fatalities does that make the KA350 safer? NO

All I'm saying is I wouldn't make a buying decision based on the data posted on the previous page. That data tells 10% of the story.

interesting point…just as a side note..

If I remember well, Jason you will know better, but didn't Pilatus have a sales & marketing brochure ( it's sweet to be single..) where if I remember well they used pretty much the exact same figures as presented before in that thread..to differentiate between fact and fiction in regards to the single versus twin debate..( and I do not want to go into that…)?

BUT they pulled that brochure from their web-site..

I guess for purely psychological reasons..as legit it may be to use statistics in sales & marketing for planes..I do not think it is such a swell idea..because you are going "negative" doing that…and that is a touchy subject in aircraft advertising..

interesting point…just as a side note..

If I remember well, Jason you will know better, but didn't Pilatus have a sales & marketing brochure ( it's sweet to be single..) where if I remember well they used pretty much the exact same figures as presented before in that thread..to differentiate between fact and fiction in regards to the single versus twin debate..( and I do not want to go into that…)?

BUT they pulled that brochure from their web-site..

I guess for purely psychological reasons..as legit it may be to use statistics in sales & marketing for planes..I do not think it is such a swell idea..because you are going "negative" doing that…and that is a touchy subject in aircraft advertising..

well did not know that…

no, am not implying that at all…

I think Pilatus has answered these questions for their product and their customers..( excellent machine by the way..)

just say, and agree with you, those statistics do not tell the whole story..especially if you compare fleets that are close to 30 - 50 years "old" with newer models…

or let me just say, while we are very far OT now on that thread..

let's take the King Air 90 & 200 models..just because Jim Allmon was just stating some important facts in the Beech Turbine section..

do we know statistics in between older 90's and 200's that still have their original engines after the umpteenth overhaul on them versus the upgraded ( Blackhawk) birds..?

no, but I'd assume the upgraded birds will look a lot better..why?..well the most important component of the birds, the engines were replaced with NEW ones..means latest SB status, all new parts with the latest engine manufactuerer#s mods in them..…not thousands of thermal cycles on them..better performance ( performance also equals safety..)

so, yes I would agree to make sense of those statistics is a lot more involved than what they portray at first sight..

I disagree. It called Darwinism. May the strong survive.

Tim (could not resist that one)

I disagree. It called Darwinism. May the strong survive.

Tim (could not resist that one)

Didn't happen. MU2s held their value due to enough new buyers during that time.

Whatever value the SFAR was going to have was already priced in by the time they sold.

The new training was a positive for some buyers.


Approximately 70 on average.


As has been posted many times before, the MU2 has been reviewed very intently by the FAA and has no design flaw. Please search for those threads.

Mike C.

I think you've proven KA350 operators prefer privacy much more than PC12 operators.


Accident RATE normalizes for exposure.

Mike C.

Which is Darwinism?

Choosing to put yourself in a dangerous airplane with a terrible safety record?

Choosing to put yourself in a safe airplane with an outstanding safety record?

Flying right now (8am) according to Flightaware:

23 PC12
0 MU2

Then why the SFAR?

"Exposure" is the term in question right now. Define it.

What has more "exposure"? A plane on a 4 hour flight or a plane doing 4-1 hour flights?