Since I fly an SETP and have couple thousand hours in type, I have though about this quite a bit. Honestly, I don't worry about engine failure in the SETP much, but should be trained for and have a mitigation strategy. One can do the math and make a pretty good case that the cross-country SETP's Meridian, M500, M600, PC12 have an engine related safety record that is probably better than the comparable METP's, certainly no worse.

I fly in a pretty challenging environment from an off-field standpoint, being based in the Rockies, I have done innumerable mountain crossing, day, night, IMC, night IMC, so like I said, I have thought about this quite a bit. Typically I am very rarely out of glide of at least one suitable airport, with the glide range of the Meridian/M500/M600 being almost 3 miles for every 1000 ft. altitude AGL, there is a lot of glide in these planes. Couple that with the climb gradient being substantially higher than the glide gradient, you can almost always glide back to the departure airport from a low of 500 AGL, if properly trained, all the way up to FL300. So the climb segment is easy. Return to field is always an option, unless a better option exists.

The problem with the mountains, is that the terrain and weather are hostile. I was and to some degree still am an avid Biker, Hiker, and skier. Biking, hiking and skiing this terrain can be dangerous if not impossible, and landing a plane off field, even under parachute has absolutely no appeal for me. If the terrain doesn't kill you, the weather might, and rescue can take days or longer if the weather is bad. Took a couple of months to find that Bonanza that went down with a family onboard years ago, even though they had radar hits to under a mile from where the went down. Even if they had survived the crash they would not have survived to be rescued. So for me, engine out, has to be an airport to ensure a reasonable chance of injury free survival.

In the US, it is extremely rare to be out of glide range to at least one suitable airfield from typical flight profiles. Keeping the nearest window up, so that select enter enter will draw a magenta line to the selected airport. The nearest window on the Garmin even gives the rwy length, distance, orientation, main instrument approach if available. Coupled with synthetic vision, even a 0/0 landing is at least theoretically possible. Seems to work in the Sim anyway.

But I do some little tricks to improve my odds. When crossing the mountains, I usually stay on airways, which happen to usually be co-located with towns, airports and lower terrain. Caution with GPS direct in the mountains, there are some remote areas out there off airway. I fly a plane with synthetic vision, and quadruple redundant avionics. If I were flying lesser avionics, I would have lesser confidence, but have sim'd a meggit 530 GPS engine out to minimums more than once. It can be done, using a circle over field, and the GPS map and elevation to plan the entry.

Now problems can arise out of country. 2 of the most remote places I have flown is the coast up into alaska, and down into Mexico. Airports are farther apart, is more remote, and finding an airport can be tough. So landing on a frozen lake, edge of water, risky if cold, safer if warm may be the best bet if an airport is not in glide.

Thought about this a little on my trip to Mexico this week. Airports in MX are really far apart in places, and the terrain is remote and uninviting. Lots of water in places. Interesting on my flight from Cabo to the Salt Lake City area, I actually was never out of glide of an airport. Leaving Cabo, I could easily glide back all the way to my cruising altitude of 26,000 feet. The next big challenge was the overwater crossing, almost 100 nm of water. Just as I left glide range on the peninsular coast of the gulf of California, I came into glide to a couple of airports on the Eastern side of the Gulf, and then a couple of airports before making the US with ample choices.

Just in case, I did have readily accessible marine quality life vests, a 6 man ocean quality life raft, an Inreach device, and continuous contact with ATC. A warm water ditching should be a high probability event, but would not likely be needed even if the engine quit at the worst possible time over the gulf.

Just thought some might find my though processes interesting. Of course flying a PC12 or Piper M with a very good glide ratio, is a little different from a TBM with a lesser glide ratio, and lot different from a Kodiak or Caravan that glide a little brickish and normally fly low.

Picture of climb out of MMSL. 42 nm away from departure airport MMSL approaching FL260, with a 70++ nm glide range.



Near midpoint by winds over the gulf. 70 nm no-wind glide range, with nearest airports 57 behind and 64 ahead. With the push, I would take the airport 64 nm straight ahead with this worst case scenario.



Foreflight will give a glide range for your aircraft, and even add in winds aloft which is not perfect, because winds can change with altitude, but gives a pretty good idea. Unfortunately in Mexico, no datalink down there, so no winds aloft to calculate, only gives the rings no wind.



This just shows a segment over Lake Tahoe, and shows how foreflight in the US will populate winds aloft, and also look at terrain to give you an idea of glide. If you look close, you will see there are numerous usable airports within glide, even over the relatively remote mountains there.



For those that want a cross country turbine, and are deciding between a SETP and METP, the metrics of engine safety may not quite as straight forward as one might think. Will see how the Denali plays out against the B250 once available. I assume its glide will be in the ballpark of the Piper M's and Pilatus given its appearance.

Interesting post Chuck. The PA46 does have very impressive glide capability.

But here's an interesting counterpoint - I happened to do a very similar flight last week, from Puerto Vallarta back to the US in the Citation Mustang and I really didn't spend any time thinking about an engine failure.

I remember making that point on the board here and got some rather objecting feedback.

Honestly, I wouldn't do anything in a single-engine turbine (prop or jet) that I wouldn't in a single-piston. Do a lot of flights between Silicon Valley and Las Vegas (where we have another home). I have flown the IFR route over the High Sierras and even at FL210 and a 13:1 glide ratio, there's a lot of very hostile terrain to think about. Even if one made a landing there safely, you'd probably be bear food long, long, before anyone could come help.

So I pick the VFR route through the Trona Gap for my FL250 capable piston plane. Less hostile terrain, more airports, more people and roads. I might reconsider in a pressurized aircraft that's cruising FL280, but I'm still thinking about the "what ifs" when route planning.

Hard to not love the Mustang. But then again will the Mustang do Ogden UT to Puerto Vallarta 1327 nm non-stop WITH a headwind....

FWIW that day the winds in the Southern US were really high with blowing dust, in oppressive heat so even a fuel stop in the Southern US would have been unpleasant.

Seriously, do love the Mustang.

Hard to not love the Mustang. But then again will the Mustang do Ogden UT to Puerto Vallarta 1327 nm non-stop WITH a headwind....

FWIW that day the winds in the Southern US were really high with blowing dust, in oppressive heat so even a fuel stop in the Southern US would have been unpleasant.

Seriously, do love the Mustang.

I agree. I think about the terrain that I have hiked, biked and ski'd and it is really something. Even flying a parachute equipped plane I figured if I ever pulled in IMC over the Rockies, I would land here (lone-peak mountain outside Salt Lake) just long enough for my chute to deflate and then spend the next 2000 feet tumbling There needs to be some luck involved, something I don't seem to have much of. So for me... It is going to be an airport over the mountains.

No.

It won't do it in still air, either. At least not with safe reserves.

SETP safety is somewhere between piston and multiengine turbine. I would MUCH rather have an engine failure on a twin.

Nothing is safer than a twin jet. Safety and money are inexorably tied together. The FARs are basically sorting out the requirements based on how much money is perceived to be available to comply.

Mike C.

That is pretty good range with the Mustang. Not going to get direct FL410 out of Ogden, though until well south of SLC, and iirc going into MMPR they do drop you down a ways out. Even at that, pretty good range.

No doubt the twin jets are safe. I would be curious about the stats for single pilot owner flown as a comparison though. Much of the twin jet record is a legacy of the dual crew, pro-pilot, business part 91/135 and 121 data which historically was the vast vast majority of hours flown. We have seen many owner flown and part 91 pro-flown biz jet accidents over the last several years. That population has less stellar data. That of course is with a mandatory type rating. If you just look at the primarily single pilot owner flown jets, not sure there is a big difference. The Mustang with G1000 came out in 2007, designed for and mostly flown single pilot and often owner flown, as it was built that way. Piper transitioned to GX000 in 2009 in their turbines, almost exclusively single pilot owner flown. The number of airframes built 480 Cessna, is pretty close to the Piper turbines, Meridian, M500, M600 with similar total numbers. There have been 2 Mustang fatals, and this week was the first Piper GX000 turbine fatal out of OJC. There has been 1 or 2 fatals in the P100, and one fatal in the Eclipse. All similar avionics and missions. At least in that quasi apples to apples comparison of modern airframes, the difference does not appear to glaring.

Hard to not love the Mustang. But then again will the Mustang do Ogden UT to Puerto Vallarta 1327 nm non-stop WITH a headwind....

FWIW that day the winds in the Southern US were really high with blowing dust, in oppressive heat so even a fuel stop in the Southern US would have been unpleasant.

Seriously, do love the Mustang.

It’s not a new trend though, confirmation bias is strong with SETP crowd

We are all subject to confirmation bias, but it is on both sides. There is ? 10 million hours in the PC12, TBM, Piper-M fleets and the body count related to engine failure hasn't materialize as predicted. But does a year go by where a twin turboprop KingAir, Cheyenne, 441, doesn't lose and engine and auger in? Those birds aren't flying millions of hours a year. And everyone points to the pilot(s) and says oh they were an idiot, or poorly trained, or this or that, but it keeps happening.

Just makes sense that 2 engines in a turboprop should be better to mitigate an engine related crash, fatality etc. EXCEPT the data doesn't support it. There are reasons to fly a twin, more carrying capacity, less likely to go swimming on long overwater flights (still not guaranteed. Its there a fresh 737 in the pacific off the coast of Hawaii). Less boredom for the pilot

So I fly a single. Personally, I think with my limited skills, experience, the fact that I have a day job that is not being a pilot, I am safer in an advanced SETP than I would be in a much more complex METP. But I think my confirmation bias is heavily laden in data.

I agree with Chuck, as evidenced by my ownership of a Meridian. Is a SETP infallible, no but compared to the alternatives it places pretty well.

I'm sure we all agree that a SETP is safer than a SEP.

There may be a few that think a MEP is safer than a SETP, but I think that is the minority and definitely dependent upon mission. For example, I fly out of hot and high fields about half the time. The climb gradient required is usually over 300'/NM That 2nd piston engine is only going to get me to my crash site faster and maybe inverted.

The contrast gets much murkier between a SETP and METP. I've chosen (for now) that a SETP is safer than a METP for me because of the following: 1) Cost. For the $1M or so I have invested in my 2006 Meridian, what could I buy? A C90 that is 10 years older with inferior avionics and greater potential for mechanical failure? 2) I log between 100-150 hours per year. Will I have the currency/competency to perform perfectly in that engine out scenario upon takeoff, or will I roll it over inverted. Keep in mind a METP is still probably only going to get about 300'/minute in the climb and that isn't adequate in the mountains. After 1000'agl (I'm not as good as Chuck and able to do it in 500') I'm returning to the departure field. After that initial 1,000' climb I'm in glide range of an airport at all times except when being vectored for the approach (if VFR I'm always in glide range). 3) If for some reason the METP experiences a dual engine failure you're not getting very far on it's glide range comparatively speaking. 4) If an off airport landing is necessary the 61kt (stall speed) sudden stop is a lot more survivable in the SETP than the 80kt sudden stop in the METP. It is not clear cut to me that a METP is safer than a SETP for my operation.

Now as for jets. Yes, they are damn reliable and they fly really well on one engine, but they don't work great for my mission. I need thrust reversers for the contaminated runways in the winter and I need an abundance of power for the hot and high departures out of short fields. That leaves me with a CE500 series. I'm not sure about a 501's performance on hot and high days, but the newest one I could buy is nearly 40 years old. Sounds like a lot of things ready to break. A 560 would perform the mission well and greatly expand my capabilities, but a comparable age and hours 560 would cost 2.5x more than my Meridian and operating costs would be about the same 2.5x. It's a consideration, and something to maybe someday aspire towards, but for now I can't afford it and it is way overkill for my 80% missions. If I owned a 560 I'd probably scrub half my flights due to cost. Would I be safer in a 560 flying 75 hours per year vs. flying 150 hours per year in my Meridian? Probably, but I'd be way less happy as that means I'd be spending a lot more time driving or on the airlines.

There is no silver bullet (other than lots and lots of money).

SETP crew delivers, two great additional examples of confirmation bias!

A paradigm exists that is being ignored- fast, affordable, safe, you usually only get to pick two

Right, we all need to compromise due to limited resources. For a given dollar amount one may determine airframe age is a bigger concern for safety than the benefit of the 2nd engine, or based on all sorts of variables. It gets more nuanced based on one's specific operation/mission. Horses for courses. Why get offended and not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion? Nobody is criticizing your choice. But the choice is not as black and white for all operations as you seem to believe. Your posts imply you don't believe a SETP can be safer than other airframe configurations in certain circumstances. I disagree.