Not in jets.

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

You're not going to die from an engine failure in a jet. You're going to die from runway overrun or you're gonna stall short.

Really? It seems lackluster to me.

Looking at the longer flights (which presumably are nearer gross weight):

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... A/tracklog

Took 21 minutes from 3,400 ft to FL270. Average rate 1123 FPM.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... L/tracklog

Took 19 minutes from 5,400 ft to FL250. Average rate 1031 FPM.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... V/tracklog

Took 16 minutes from 8,000 ft to FL280. Average rate 1250 FPM.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... F/tracklog

Took 28 minutes from 10,300 ft to FL280. Average rate 632 FPM.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... H/tracklog

Took 14 minutes from 11,000 ft to FL280. Average rate 1214 FPM.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... H/tracklog

Took 16 minutes from 12,500 ft to FL280. Average rate 969 FPM.

Those were long flights with a reasonably unabated climb. The starting points were often well above the ground on the FA tracks, which pessimizes it a bit, and they are doing various tests. We don't know if these test were at gross weight, either.

But still, you'd expect at least ONE flight with a good climb rate in the past 7 months, no?

The published profile says:

20 minutes from 0 to FL280. Average rate 1400 FPM.

Doesn't seem like they have demonstrated that with this particular example, and the profile is not particularly exciting, either.

Best initial climb rate I saw was 1900 FPM and that was one of the shorter flights, so perhaps not at gross. Most were 1500-1800 FPM.

For comparison, an Eclipse, which is the same weight, but with 100 pounds less total thrust, climbs at 3,424 FPM all engines (and nearly 1000 FPM one one!). If you normalize for thrust, the Eclipse climbs twice as fast.

I knew the SEJ aerodynamics were bad, but I didn't think it was THAT bad.

Mike C.

Example?

I think runway overruns are generally hull damage and not fatal.

Mike C.

Example?

I think runway overruns are generally hull damage and not fatal.

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.

Do this also go for 40 year old prop twins?

10 minutes from 10,900 to 26,900. It was not zooming but established at 10,900.

No idea of weight, but its not a total dog...

Do this also go for 40 year old prop twins?

Over the last five years, Gulfstream G-IV jets have had about one accident for every 600,000 hours flown. In contrast, the industry wide rate for all such business jets is 2.6 accidents per 600,000 hours aloft.

I believe it is.

Read through the 10 PC12 fatals and 12 TBM fatals since 1/1/2007. Loss of control recurs quite a lot. Here are the PC12s:

1/16/2013: "The pilot's failure to maintain airplane control due to spatial disorientation during the initial climb after takeoff in night instrument flight rules conditions."

6/7/2012: "The failure of the pilot to maintain control of the airplane while climbing to cruise altitude in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) following disconnect of the autopilot. The reason for the autopilot disconnect could not be determined during postaccident testing. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of experience in high-performance, turbo-propeller airplanes and in IMC."

7/5/2009: "The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane while in instrument meteorological conditions following a reported instrumentation failure for undetermined reasons."

3/22/2009: "(1) the pilot's failure to ensure that a fuel system icing inhibitor was added to the fuel before the flights on the day of the accident; (2) his failure to take appropriate remedial actions after a low fuel pressure state (resulting from icing within the fuel system) and a lateral fuel imbalance developed, including diverting to a suitable airport before the fuel imbalance became extreme; and (3) a loss of control while the pilot was maneuvering the left wing-heavy airplane near the approach end of the runway."

1/11/2009: "The pilot's loss of control due to snow/ice contamination on the airplane's lifting surfaces as a result of his decision not to deice the airplane before departure."

9/29/2008: "The pilot's incapacitation due to fatigue resulting in an in-flight collision with terrain."

Of the 7 fatal PC12 accidents with a probable cause listed in the NTSB database since 1/1/2007, 6 of them are related to loss of control with no defect in the airplane. 3 are foreign, no cause listed.

To me, that is an abnormally high rate of loss of control, representing the overwhelming majority of the fatal accidents.

Or do you think that predominance of loss of control is "normal"?

Mike C.

Yes, have read them all.
Same applies for all the twin engine turbo-prop. Loss of control is the leading factor too.

Link to your referenced flight:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N252 ... /KSUW/KMSN

It was a 49 minute flight. Unlikely to be have been at gross given how short it was.

METAR:

KSUW 171935Z AUTO 30006KT 10SM CLR M19/M26 A3017 RMK AO2 T11951263

Temperature was -19C, or ISA - 34.

Light and cold, it had better damn well perform well under those circumstances! Testing turbines in those temperature will make anything look great!

But even so, well under Eclipse which would probably have achieved 5000 FPM under the same circumstances of weight and temperature.

For a jet, this is a dog.

Are they having trouble getting the engines to make expected power?

Mike C.

We don't know weight, but that was very cold.

What would a TBM700 do in those conditions?