Find me a Baron video where someone cuts a throttle at rotate.

http://youtu.be/sdjONqubZso

This is trivial due to ample performance. The workload of the jet pilot with an engine out is WAY less than the workload (and criticality of action) of a piston twin pilot.

Mike C.

no it's not. I'm not comparing the hardware, i'm comparing my ability to get to my destination at the time of my choosing.

you're leaving out all the ancillary airline BS that ruins the experience (time changes, crew rest timeouts, gate reassignments, lost baggage, etc). I've had more 121 air carriers fail my trips for mechanical than i've had on my own. and when your flight get's cnx'd, you're now competing with 180 other people for rental cars and hotels.

that's my experience. not saying my personal airplanes were designed better, but the way I utilize them (and train in them) has made my experience more reliable than my airline experience.

no it's not. I'm not comparing the hardware, i'm comparing my ability to get to my destination at the time of my choosing.

you're leaving out all the ancillary airline BS that ruins the experience (time changes, crew rest timeouts, gate reassignments, lost baggage, etc). I've had more 121 air carriers fail my trips for mechanical than i've had on my own. and when your flight get's cnx'd, you're now competing with 180 other people for rental cars and hotels.

that's my experience. not saying my personal airplanes were designed better, but the way I utilize them (and train in them) has made my experience more reliable than my airline experience.

Find me a Baron video where someone cuts a throttle at rotate.

http://youtu.be/sdjONqubZso

This is trivial due to ample performance. The workload of the jet pilot with an engine out is WAY less than the workload (and criticality of action) of a piston twin pilot.

Mike C.

The workload of a jet with both engines functioning properly immediately after takeoff is exponentially greater than a piston twin with speed changes, force changes, and cleanup. This is less true on FADEC equipped jets, but on legacy jets it can get busy. I've seen new high time pro pilots overspeed down low on their first level off transitioning to new planes and I've seen owner pilots get WAY behind.

There have been numerous crashes in citations alone just after takeoff, not to mention TBMs, PC12s, and King Airs where the workload and speeds got the best of them.

Three examples: CJ4 out of BKL, low time owner pilot. Legacy Citation in Indiana, gets overwhelmed with the speed of the plane after takeoff, pulls throttle to idle, stalls and spins it in. Legacy Citation out of Nashville, lower time pilot lost control after initial level off.

I'm not saying it's not possible, we mentored a 500hr pilot in who bought an M2 out of a T206. He salaried us for 1 year, we got him to 1000 hours then he started some solo ops.

A meridian seems like it'd be a good step up if it meets your needs. In any case, you'll need some good mentoring in the transition.

All three are spatial disorientation, pilots not ready to fly on instruments when they enter the clouds.

There was no workload issue. You've made a connection there that I don't think the facts support. The only workload on the jet is gear up, flaps up after takeoff, just like any other plane. What is missing is all the manipulations that occur when going from takeoff power to climb power in a piston aircraft.

Mike C.

The problem with a rotation speed engine cut in the baron isn't lack of performance its lack of rudder. (tried it once at altitude - never again) once you are at 110 kias, its a piece of cake, and climbs fine on one.

Of course a jet is a more capable plane but at 3-4X the fuel burn and 3-4X the purchase cost.

I'm still surprised older jets are that easy to fly. If we are comparing a $5M modern jet with a $300K 30 year old baron, sure, but does an model <$1M jet have enough automation to make it easy to fly?

I think jets also require a lot more formal recurrent training, so for pilots who can only spend <100 hours total in plane + simulator (time limited, not money limited) that becomes a big issue.

Still, if I could afford one, and if I weren't on basic-med, I'd love to own a jet.

Not quite Mike C.

Power setting on a non fadec jet can be tricky. More so than a n/a twin where you put the throttles to the firewall.

The CJ/CJ2 non fadec takeoff flow is:

Positive Rate: Gear Up

400':
Flaps Up
YD On
Engine sync on
Ignitors off
Climb power set
Landing lights to recog

That's a lot happening, in the CJ2 you are trying to keep speeds under 200 in the D or C airspace, or trying not to exceed 250 or redline in any of them if you get a low level off. This isn't a factor in the Baron or Meridian.

Those crashes may have been in part spatial d, but it was combined with the speed of a jet in BKL and likely TN too.

Indiana was in VFR, not spatial D, by a 3500hr pilot who could not keep up with the citation and pulled power back too much. (You are dead wrong on this one, again).

A jet will punish you much quicker for your lack of basic airman skills, or your skills that have yet to develop.

Interesting re: Indiana crash. Does anyone have the NTSB report by chance?

Seems strange, 3500 hours doesn't seem very low time to me.. and that's an interesting sequence of events, concerned about going too fast while leveling out, then stalling.

Fuel, yes, purchase cost can be sometimes quite low, though.

Jet fuel is also significantly cheaper and more widely available than 100LL, and is unleaded naturally.


The intrinsic ease of a turbine engine is the primary advantage.

If turbines were first and someone came along advocating for piston engines, and they explained all the pilot required interactions to fly it properly, we'd all think that was insane. Magnetos, mixture, cowl flaps, alternate air/carb heat, etc. Witness the extensive discussion over lean of peak. No such equivalent for a turbine.

My favorite piston twin engine control example, the L-200D:

Throttle, prop, mixture, alternate air, cowl flaps, primer, fuel, etc. There are 14 controls, 7 for each engine shown here, and they are helpfully all the same color and shape, too. What could go wrong?

So this is an extreme example, but there are a lot of controls and the pilot is the person responsible for managing them properly in a piston airplane. In a turbine, you basically have only one. You want more or less thrust, move on lever and you don't have to worry about anything else.


As I said, don't confuse thoroughness of training with complexity of operation. Jet pilots train more thoroughly, but that isn't because the jet is more complex, it is because that's the expectation for that level of aircraft. Safety is and has always been tied to money, the more expensive the airplane, the more safety is expected.

In reality, to achieve the same pilot performance, piston twin pilots should be getting yearly simulator training as well. We just accept their training to a lower standard for cost reasons. It is definitely not because piston twins are safer or easier.

Mike C.

3500hr pilot couldn’t keep up with a citation??? Was this a citation X or something?

I've flown with a 9000 hour pilot who couldn't pass TBM initial, and I washed out a 4000 hour retired F18 pilot who couldn't keep with a TBM.

Total time often means nothing. 5000 hours in a 182 does not qualify you for a turbine.

Only one of the above is material to flying, the flaps.

If the above list challenges you, then you shouldn't be flying a piston twin, either. Turning a few electrical switches should not be a pilot overload, and 4 of the steps above are switches.

The list for a piston twin is as long and involves far more finicky things like pulling the engines back to climb power which might involves 6 levers, maybe more. You can also have boost pumps, landing lights, engine sync, and YD, too, so perhaps not any less switches.


You need to be more specific which crash you are talking about. I thought you were talking about N525EG which entered clouds at 800 ft.

Mike C.

And a 400 hours pilot might do fine.

Those TBM wash outs would not be safe in a piston twin, either.

Mike C.

N525EG did not lose control at 800'. He made it to 6000'. The crash was almost certainly caused by a malfunctioning tamarack winglet.