Orlando is the only option for PC12 for you?

Orlando is the only option for PC12 for you?

I got a quote from FS a couple years ago and it was like $24K.

I agree SimCom isn't the best but it's also inexpensive. We both fly the real thing all the time. I don't think it hurts to revisit the emergency procedures in their crappy sim. I'll be there next month.

For the very limited comparison of Mustang versus TBM, the ratio is roughly 10 to 1.

480 mustangs, 1 fatal.

930 TBMs, 19 fatals.

I did a cursory review of total times on controller.com for Mustang and TBM and I came away with the impression that the aircraft are used about the same number of hours and in similar kinds of service. Whoever suggested Mustang and TBM have similar use profiles seems to be pretty much right, looks like a lot of owner flown, not many over 200 hours/year, on what is likely personal/business trips.

So given all that, it really does appear like a Mustang is the safer option. Is that due to being a jet, or having two engines, or having higher training requirements? Probably a combination of all of the above.

Mike C.

If types for turboprops then why not piston twins? High performance piston singles? All airplanes? Where does it stop? I’m sure that we’d all be a lot safer if we trained in all planes to the level of a type rating and honestly my personal goal is to train to that level but do we need to mandate that? I think we will get to that point at some juncture. I’m not sure that’s a good thing but as long as we have the attitude that no accident rate is acceptable that’s where we’re headed. Im not saying we shouldn’t try to get better but we do have to understand that every requirement we put in place will hasten the demise of GA. How many planes will never fly again because they live near a class B airport and it’s just not worth it to put ADS-B in them. There’s a principal in many fields I think is applicable here. Any action you take whether it accomplishes your desired goal or not will have at least three unintended consequences and at least two of those will be negative.

When the cost/benefit analysis says to stop.

If we look at the cost as a percentage of a yearly flying budget, then the cost to have type ratings for turboprop airplanes is relatively small, under 5%.

To have them for piston twins probably gets close to 10-15%. That may not be worth it.

But that's really not the cost here. Most turboprop pilots are already getting type specific training mandated by insurance, so the cost adder to a type rating isn't that much extra. So maybe we are talking 2% more per year to have a type rating for a turboprop.

I believe the cost/benefit ratio works at that price quite nicely.

Mike C.

I got a quote from FS a couple years ago and it was like $24K.

I agree SimCom isn't the best but it's also inexpensive. We both fly the real thing all the time. I don't think it hurts to revisit the emergency procedures in their crappy sim. I'll be there next month.

Yeah that's way too much. I wonder who does go there for PC12?

They told me $9,880 for initial for the TBM. I asked them to honor the 30% discount, and he said 'no.'

Really? I dont believe so.

Its all about gross weight or if you have a jet engine.
A Piston twin is more complex to fly than a TBM and there is no type rating.
My C185 is harder to land than my TBM and there is no type rating.

I would have to agree with Charles, the newer Garmin G1000/G3000 TBMs are more integrated, have better autopilots and easier to fly in the landing / terminal area.

Its all relative to the pilot if a plane is easier or harder to fly.

It sounds as if y'all are caught in specialty aircraft training. In the King Air, I have many more alternatives. Insurer began only requiring every other year for formal school two years ago and there's a much wider list of approved schools. I go in Fort Worth for at a much more reasonable cost.
At one school I previously attended, an instructor would stand in a small class room and read the book they provided each customer for several hours. Didn't matter what you knew, same reading to all. Then, sim time.
Now, the instructor reviews material and asks questions, if I answer correctly, we go on to another area. Instructor is also and A&P, IA and we go to a plane and look at systems and discuss. Lots of discussion of actual issues encountered. Instructor flew for a large corporation many years. Same amount of time, but we spend much more on places I'm weak and skip through where I'm strong once that's known. I enjoy going much more. I learned each place because it was full immersion for two days, but I benefit much more now. Of course, I do training in between with an instructor, but it's not required.

Those parameters measure one thing: money.

When the plane is expensive enough (which correlates exceptionally well with weight and jet engines), then it becomes the right cost/benefit to have a type rating.

Basically, FAA requirements pile on to the extent there is money to pay for them.


I don't think difficulty is correlated to type rating requirements at all. I'm sure a Piper Cub can be more difficult to fly than an airliner.

Mike C.

And 100-150 knot tailwinds.

well that answer the "will it fly..." question.

28% over gross!

What was interesting were some of the verifications that were made as far as CG etc. with the extra weight. They actually tested all fuel on board, static, the plane in a nose up 5 degrees for take off and climb, max pitch planned rotation 120KTS. Verified the load did not shift among other things. FAA required Daher to prove one ton of fuel in the cabin, structure will support it at 9G's. I think they said it still climbed out at 1,000'/minute on TO with 9,200lb's on board.

Sure was exciting following online as their progress was posted. Over NY they hit the wake turbulence of a 777 and while the TBM was fine it sure added some adrenaline to the pilots systems...