They got no business in a jet of any kind if they can't use rudder to center a ball.

In fact, they shouldn't fly SR22s either if that's the case.

Part of the safety success of the Eclipse was a difficult type rating course. The FSB wanted it to be hard, and it was. I expect the FSB is going to do the same thing here. They aren't stupid, they know the SF50 will attract some pilots with more money than qualifications.

Mike C.

I think that is essentially irrelevant to the success of SETP. An ME rating costs the same as 3 hours of operation of a TBM or PC12 and takes 2 days.

The reason SETP is successful is the performance you get for the money. Unfortunately, this doesn't translate to jets.

I believe most of the pilots flying PC12 and TBM have ME ratings already.

Mike C.

They got no business in a jet of any kind if they can't use rudder to center a ball.

In fact, they shouldn't fly SR22s either if that's the case.

Part of the safety success of the Eclipse was a difficult type rating course. The FSB wanted it to be hard, and it was. I expect the FSB is going to do the same thing here. They aren't stupid, they know the SF50 will attract some pilots with more money than qualifications.

Mike C.

Hello, do you know the difference between an Eclipse and an Embraer?

Maryland was an Embraer Phenom 100, not Eclipse.

Mike C.

Hello, do you know the difference between an Eclipse and an Embraer?
Maryland was an Embraer Phenom 100, not Eclipse.
Mike C.

Are you sure about that? I thought the NTSB report said the owner had been flying the plan for 8 or 9 months and had flown into GAI at least two previous times in the accident airplane?

If memory serves, he was also a CFI, had an ATP and several thousand flight hours. Far from the rich piston single pilot discussion...

The extra training a prop twin pilot must do to overcome the design flaw of his airplane does not make him a better pilot than everyone else.

Based on the longer flights, I'm assuming they were made heavy on fuel. The climb rate looks pretty good. It seems like their early performance predictions are realistic. I noticed one flight with an emergency decent so they are still putting it through its paces. Came down quickly.

You're about right - he bought it 7 months prior.

Adam, you are getting a beat down for this comment but it's absolutely true in some cases. Of course not all, but let's face it, some guys also can't step on the correct pedal on a V1 cut. And they know it. Simple as that.

I'm going for my Mustang type rating, in the plane, in two weeks. A 7 day program that will include a multi-engine rating. After the type rating I need 25 hours of mentor time in the plane and then will go to FSI for a 3 day recurrent.

The other option was to spend 5 days getting a multi-engine rating in a piston twin, then going to FSI for a 15 day type rating. I was accepted to the single pilot type rating program based on my experience, but would need a multi-engine rating prior to FSI.

I have a hard time seeing how a multi-engine rating in a piston twin relates to flying a twin turbofan. I have 900 hours in a SETP (TBM). No evidence, but I don't think most TBM pilots have a ME rating. Maybe more Pilatus pilots do since many are pro pilots.

Mike C: I see you on CJP forums now. Just curious where you are heading.

Scott

There are some quick groundspeeds on that jet. Look at the last few flights. That would appear to exceed what they have published unless there was a helluva wind blowing at 280 from Wisconsin to colorado which seems pretty unlikely. Climb groundspeeds and rates not bad either.

Not in jets.

When is the last time you heard of a jet having an engine failure and having loss of control?

Not that often in turboprops, either. It does happen from time to time, but it fairly rare. Most have autofeather or other automatic means to help.

In piston twins, yes, they are the most critical for proper pilot action, lack automatic features in most cases, and the pilots are often the least trained for it, few having sim training.

So what you may be noticing is mostly the level of pilot training, not an inherent issue with the plane itself.


That's BS IMO.

The chance a second engine fails is not greater than the first. At worst, the chance for an engine failure doubles per flight hour. In actual likelihood, the ratio is less than 2. For one reason, you have two engines to compare which alerts you to subtle but real changes in performance of one of them. For another, engines on twins work less hard due to the extra power a twin has.

Twins are also about systems redundancy. Two sources of electrical power, two sources of pressurization, two sources of hydraulics, two sources of instrument air, and so on. Many accidents have their root cause in systems and not propulsion.


You can manipulate the stats to make you feel safer in a single, but I don't think that is true in reality.

It might be the case that YOU are safer in a single, but that says more about you than the plane.

The PC12 and TBM suffer an unusually high number of loss of control accidents. This isn't the airplane's fault, of course, but suggests pilots may be thinking that "simple" means "I don't have to be as good".

Mike C.

I agree.

Get the ME in the Mustang.

All the piston twin training is essentially useless and may be negative training in the Mustang.


Laying the ground work for my next airplane, which might be a legacy Citation.

Mike C.

Mike, I agree with you wholeheartedly on training. I'm adamant about it myself now. I did not mention the TBM as I did not study their overall safety (per 100,000 hrs flown) as that airplane did not meet my requirements. Your statement about the unusually high loss of control accidents is not correct. The MU2 and King Airs have the same issue. The Inhofe was loss of control, the KA200 into the flight safety building was loss of control.

If you did review the stats on the PC12, you will see that systems issues have not been a factor in the accidents. PC12 has never had a fatality due to an engine failure either. I would wager a bet that there are more systems failures in twins than in the PC12 because they are complicated pieces of equipment designed many eon's ago.

I did not manipulate the stats to prop my own cause.

Across the spectrum of my flights the PC12 is safer. I needed short field capability, good load carrying and decent speed. I also land way, way slower than a turbine twin. As they say, speed kills