I don't have a dog in this fight (sorry PETA) but I think the whole torque roll thing is generally oeverstated. While I don't have any TBM or Mustang time, I do fly a 1400hp single and a "torque roll" just doesn't play into the equation.

Robert

Don, I know where your mind is going.....
Sub 1 mil for a great, newish TBM, hmmmmmm.

We have a voluntary pilot safety program at POPA. Involves a mid-year flight training event like a flight review (in addition to annual recurrent training) plus 2 wings credits for the ground portion. Pretty simple. We have tried different incentives in addition to the insurance discounts, but unfortunately participation is low.

If industry or regulations requires additional training, that would decrease participation in GA which would drive up costs. At some level, we must accept the risks and safety records.

Perusing the list, that does not seem to be all that common for TBMs.

Of the 19 fatal crashes:

2/18/2018: preliminary, crashed in low IMC.

8/14/2017: came apart in midair.

7/29/2015: damaged propeller and crashed on go around

9/5/2014: apparent hypoxia, pressurization problem

8/6/2014: spatial disorientation

3/22/2014: stall on approach

11/19/2013: loss of control from altitude

8/8/2013: loss of control on approach

12/20/2011: loss of control due to icing encounter

11/9/2011: crash on approach

9/5/2011: fuel unporting due to yaw trim

7/15/2008: stall during S turns on final

6/3/2008: stall on takeoff

2/2/2007: loss of control on missed

12/6/2003: loss of control on go around

4/24/2003: runaway engine, shutdown, hit utility pole

3/1/2003: stall on approach

3/26/2001: disorientation after takeoff

8/4/1998: mishandled circle to land in low ceilings

A few of these could be torque roll issues, but it doesn't seem to be a big part of the accident history.

Mike C.

It is getting harder and harder to not justify a type rating for turboprops. The turboprop is every bit as complex, if not more so, than the jet. Private and insured operators are getting insurance mandated yearly type training anyway, so it wouldn't be that much of a burden to the owner/operators to do it.

Some countries already do this for turboprops and have a far better accident record than the US.

Having a bunch of SFARs is stupid, let's normalize the turboprop training requirements.

Mike C.

I think you have this backwards.

Training costs less than the accidents and fewer accidents would increase GA participation.

We're talking about planes that cost $millions and operate at about $1K/hour. Do you really think a $3K recurrent training session would curtail usage?

Mike C.

Perusing the list, that does not seem to be all that common for TBMs.

Of the 19 fatal crashes:

2/18/2018: preliminary, crashed in low IMC.

8/14/2017: came apart in midair.

7/29/2015: damaged propeller and crashed on go around

9/5/2014: apparent hypoxia, pressurization problem

8/6/2014: spatial disorientation

3/22/2014: stall on approach

11/19/2013: loss of control from altitude

8/8/2013: loss of control on approach

12/20/2011: loss of control due to icing encounter

11/9/2011: crash on approach

9/5/2011: fuel unporting due to yaw trim

7/15/2008: stall during S turns on final

6/3/2008: stall on takeoff

2/2/2007: loss of control on missed

12/6/2003: loss of control on go around

4/24/2003: runaway engine, shutdown, hit utility pole

3/1/2003: stall on approach

3/26/2001: disorientation after takeoff

8/4/1998: mishandled circle to land in low ceilings

A few of these could be torque roll issues, but it doesn't seem to be a big part of the accident history.

Mike C.

We have a voluntary pilot safety program at POPA. Involves a mid-year flight training event like a flight review (in addition to annual recurrent training) plus 2 wings credits for the ground portion. Pretty simple. We have tried different incentives in addition to the insurance discounts, but unfortunately participation is low.

If industry or regulations requires additional training, that would decrease participation in GA which would drive up costs. At some level, we must accept the risks and safety records.

I think you have this backwards.

Training costs less than the accidents and fewer accidents would increase GA participation.

We're talking about planes that cost $millions and operate at about $1K/hour. Do you really think a $3K recurrent training session would curtail usage?

Mike C.

I just got back from Simcom for the NG. 4995 for the 2 day recurrent (after discount). Plus airfare, hotel, food, call it 6k and 4 days away from home including the trip to Orlando. This year I had a good instructor and learned a few things, I felt like it was worth it. Other years it's been a guy with zero PC12 time reading a powerpoint to me... not so much. As with everything, "it depends".

I don’t believe there is anything inherently dangerous or unique about a TBM. Therefore, I don’t think a SFAR makes sense. It’s just a higher performance airplane, and it probably pushes some pilots beyond their capacity. However, I think a formal type rating would fix it.

I know a few Mustang pilots that really struggled getting their type ratings. They just didn’t have the skill set developed to perform within the tolerances of the program. They had to step back, take additional training, and learn how to fly safely by the book. A couple of them took a year to finish. How have they done since? Just fine. They do their annual recurrents just like everyone, and their self assessment and self awareness is much better than it was before. A humbling experience for them.

I mention this because I can envision guys like that buying a TBM instead of a jet, possibly to avoid the type rating, and getting themselves into trouble. The performance profiles aren’t much different, and the required airmanship isn’t much different either. It doesn’t make sense to excuse one airframe from a type rating and requiring it for the other. Undoubtedly, there would be tremendous resistance from the SETP owners and manufacturers, but if they really want to improve their safety to jet standards, that’s the path to take.

Clint - I spent time in the TBM world and now the Mustang world - I think you hit everything on the head perfectly with one exception - I firmly believe the TBM is a more demanding and difficult aircraft to fly than the Mustang. I have instructed a fair amount in both, pilots and non pilots (companion training). The TBM sales people actually promote the fact that no type rating is required. If a type rating were required at a 142 school such as FSI or CAE the accident rates for the TBM would plummet.

Doug, I don’t doubt the TBM is more challenging to fly in several aspects. Propeller and single engine are just two factors, but they introduce several others. Formalized TP type ratings would solve a lot of issues.

sorry for the thread drift- I need some help. a while back I got the discount from SimCom for the initial, but it had a 12-month time limit. I'm outside that window and cannot make it to SnF this year. anyone know how to get the discount on the initial? it's substantial- like 30% !

sorry for the thread drift- I need some help. a while back I got the discount from SimCom for the initial, but it had a 12-month time limit. I'm outside that window and cannot make it to SnF this year. anyone know how to get the discount on the initial? it's substantial- like 30% !