Bruce, my bad, I was talking about Turboprops.

I got zero jet experience, except for commercial.


...and we gotta work on your [quote] tag handling

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.

This line of discussion started with the "pilots won't get an ME rating". As noted, it is an easy rating to get, yet it was suggested this was a barrier for some. So a possible theory is that pilots of lesser talent may be more common in single engine aircraft. A self selection process.

The high number of loss of control accidents, which are pilot caused, suggests this may be a factor.


One of lesser performance so they aren't behind the airplane. A 10,000 lb, 1200 HP, ~300 knot airplane needs a pilot to match no matter how many engines it has.


While that seems obviously true, it may not be. Certain types attract certain kinds of pilots.

Loss of control in jets, for example, occurs very rarely (despite a recent example). Pilots have to get a type rating to fly a jet so any pilot who thinks they can't do that avoid a jet. So jet pilots are, on average, better. They've had more training, to higher standards, and passed a type rating check ride.

If I was an aircraft manufacturer, the last thing I'd want to do is promote my aircraft as being so easy an idiot could fly them. That means idiots will, and they will determine the type's safety reputation.

Mike C.

not only pistons. The last time I had an engine failure I remember sitting there watching it happen, I'd brought up power on the other engine, I knew which one had failed, but I sat there like a bump on a log and watched it (with the airplane climbing) for what seemed like an eternity thinking "criminey this autofeather is slow. Didn't I check it at the last stage check? I can't remember. What stage was that anyway" Finally it dawned on this numbskull "duh I'm in the 90 not the 200, I have to move a lever"

That's funny.



KW

I think the whole discussion on the ME rating is disingenuous.
Read the threads on ME training and currency.
It is not the initial training that is a barrier, it is the annual training requirements and the constant comments from other pilots about maintaining currency.

Tim

You are not flying a jet without recurrent training.

Thus, ME rating recurrency is a moot point. You are doing it anyways.

Buying a single engine jet didn't get you out of anything. You need a type rating, you need recurrency training.

Mike C.

You are not flying a jet without recurrent training.

Thus, ME rating recurrency is a moot point. You are doing it anyways.

Buying a single engine jet didn't get you out of anything. You need a type rating, you need recurrency training.

Mike C.

I think that day or two will be needed to get piston pilots to be able to fly a 300 knot, pitch sensitive, tail wagging, jet up to ATP standards. Going to be some bruised egos and broken dreams in that process.

Considering all the electronic related emergency procedures a TAA aircraft has, I don't think the emergency procedures section will be that much shorter. The Eclipse has over 200 pages of emergency procedures and very little of that comes from being a twin. A lot of comes from avionics and system related failures. AHRS failure, ADC failure, FADEC failure, and so on.

As for single engine climb gradients, they do need to study that! And they need to study zero engine glides, too.

As for balanced field, that is an interesting question on how the AFM is put together. Will the FAA require accel stop? Obviously there is no accel go, but there is no technical reason accel stop couldn't be required in the takeoff charts.

Mike C.

Everyone does, so no change there.


Look at something simple Cirrus did on the SR20 and SR22 which reduces pilot workload and for the vast majority of pilots does not have a material affect on the performance of the plane. They removed the prop control; it is determined by the throttle position. Now I am sure some of the best pilots can get a tiny margin more performance out of the plane at non-standard configurations, but that is the exception, not the rule.

By removing this lever, Cirrus shortened training. Five minutes here, five minutes there... it all adds up.

Tim

Beautiful. It's SR-22 on steroids. Exactly what market needs.

Those drugs don't seem very effective. Your pusher is watering them down.

Mike C.

Are there failure modes where the bleed air fails, but the engine runs? Like a valve closes, or a bleed air line comes off.

Could be interesting if that happens. Pilot would get sudden yaw, but no engine discrepancy, so may end up confused as to what is going on.

Mike C.

It probably has some sort of logic that knows if the loss of bleed air is from the engine or a valve failure. Then a check valve between the L&R would allow the bleed air to pass to both sides. I don't know for sure with the rudder bias, but typically, jets have a valve between the L&R systems in case of one source.

Are there failure modes where the bleed air fails, but the engine runs? Like a valve closes, or a bleed air line comes off.

Could be interesting if that happens. Pilot would get sudden yaw, but no engine discrepancy, so may end up confused as to what is going on.

Mike C.