banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 05:23 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 13:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/18/13
Posts: 460
Post Likes: +77
Company: Gray
Location: Lexington, KY
Aircraft: C-210N
Looking to supplement our King Air 350 with a TBM 850, but some of our non-aviation folks get hung up on the whole single vs twin thing. So looking for some comparative data to ease their minds.

Suggestions on the best place to look?

Thanks


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 13:50 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Avoid the single vs twin debate.

One problem with this comparison is that the TBM tends to be owner-flown (single pilot), and because of those pilots, it doesn't have a stellar safety record. Compared to the PC-12 (which tends to be corporate flown, and more likely to have 2 crew), I would bet the PC-12 does better from a safety standpoint, but they are very largely similar airframes. So now you've introduced a bias into your data.

One of the issues has been fast approaches and flat landings, resulting in prop-strikes and runway excursions. On the ground, the prop has 8.25" clearance, and doesn't tolerate a flat landing. For the speed of the airplane (304-318), the approach (85 kts on short final) is eye-wateringly slow. It took me a long time to get comfortable being that slow.

Daher and TBMOPA have taken a lead role in changing the image, both in the interest of safety and maintaining the brand's image. the new airplanes upload approach data after landing to Daher, who analyzes it, and can give you feedback on your approach attitude. They have a fantastic amalgam of 1000's of approaches to show you where the "danger zone" is relative to prop strike.

The King Air has the most flight hours, and is clearly a safe platform. However, poor pilot technique has shown us sensational King Air accidents in the past few years.

Finding one airframe to be safer than the other, while removing stupid pilot tricks is probably difficult. As mentioned in other posts, many (if not all) engine failures in twins go un-reported, so the data looks "better." however, the TBM can also easily out-climb its glide back to the field.

As to your answer- I'd reach out to P&W, and Daher, to see if you can get real stats on engine shutdowns for the PT6. it's an incredibly rare event.

the attached article shows a 32% fatality rate in the King-Air crashes from 2000-2016, and a 42% fatality in the TBM for the same time period. What I did not see where total flight hours by platform. that may help- if you could overlay this with fleet data. but again- it's stupid pilot tricks not airframes....


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 14:16 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/10/14
Posts: 1730
Post Likes: +828
Location: Northwest Arkansas (KVBT)
Aircraft: TBM850
Username Protected wrote:
As to your answer- I'd reach out to P&W, and Daher, to see if you can get real stats on engine shutdowns for the PT6. it's an incredibly rare event.

the attached article shows a 32% fatality rate in the King-Air crashes from 2000-2016, and a 42% fatality in the TBM for the same time period. What I did not see where total flight hours by platform. that may help- if you could overlay this with fleet data. but again- it's stupid pilot tricks not airframes....

On the TBMOPA forums there was a post in 2014 from a P&W rep which indicated there were 0.000 basic in-flight shutdowns in TBMs and PC12s for the previous 12 months.

In that same thread, there was a comment to improve overall safety by "saving the money on a 2nd engine and using it for a 2nd pilot."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 20:37 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/02/09
Posts: 8415
Post Likes: +8303
Company: OAA
Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
There is someone who publishes detailed information on turbine aircraft safety including by hour, mile, etc. and it seems like someone posted it here a few years ago. Sorry I can't point to it.

But my memory is that TBM looked pretty bad in comparison to PC12's and King Air was also much better. I don't think you're going to find data to ease their minds based on comparative accident and fatality rates.

Perhaps dealing with the fact that most accidents are caused by the pilot(s) and that the mitigating factors there are: more (2 pilots instead of one), training and time in type would be more helpful. The TBM itself is an inherently safe aircraft: well engineered, robust systems with adequate duplication, built like a tank, etc. and the reliability of P&W engines is stellar.

Given the choice between riding in the back of a TBM with two well trained, proficient pilots and a King Air with one I'd take the TBM. I think whatever data you can find will support that.

_________________
Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120
Never enough!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 21:41 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/19/09
Posts: 1355
Post Likes: +810
Location: Wright Brother Award
Aircraft: BE300 LR-JET DA-50
Username Protected wrote:

As to your answer- I'd reach out to P&W, and Daher, to see if you can get real stats on engine shutdowns for the PT6. it's an incredibly rare event.


I've had two PT6 engines shut down. They were pulled into the Seattle Flightcraft hangar, where the fuel control unit was replaced.

P&W would not have any data on those two. One was on a 65-A90, the other a Straight 200. Both at cruise and it was a "non-event."

_________________
Gami Serial# 0019
https://www.ebay.com/itm/333888896163 ☜☜☜Battery charger for Garmin® 496


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2021, 22:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I've had two PT6 engines shut down. They were pulled into the Seattle Flightcraft hangar, where the fuel control unit was replaced.

P&W would not have any data on those two.

P&W doesn't count failures of engine "accessories" as being part of the "core" failure rate of the engine. So fuel controllers, fuel pumps, etc, don't count in their numbers.

Engines fail for a large variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the engine itself.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 00:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
As I posted recently, we’ve had a -21 PT-6 fail during climb-out; not an accessory, the turbine itself. I don’t think the TBM “easily out climbs its glide rate” in all situations since planes are often kept low by departure control initially after takeoff. Also, once you fly away from the airport and cross the mountain next to the airport, you’re not gliding back.
But in the end, I completely agree that most fatal accidents in both singles and twins are caused by pilot error of some kind. At least in a twin if you do everything right after failure, you can fly back and land and there is no accident to report.
And aside from mountains and dark nights, there is the issue of water crossings.
I fly a single and a twin, but I definitely don’t use the single in the same environments or in the same way as the twin. That much said, I’ve had a Lycoming 540 eject a cylinder and 6 months later puke all its oil and both were in twins. Never lost an engine in a single, just a turbo. Maybe the engines in singles are more reliable? :scratch:

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 00:16 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
I've had two PT6 engines shut down. They were pulled into the Seattle Flightcraft hangar, where the fuel control unit was replaced.


Nearly all SETP's have a manual override lever... so those failures wouldn't result in an engine failure in the single. Notable exception is the PC12NGx which ditched the MOR lever in favor of dual controllers managed by the EPECS system. :bugeye:

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 00:22 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/12
Posts: 6479
Post Likes: +4522
Location: Portland, OR (KHIO)
Aircraft: 1962 Bonanza P35
Username Protected wrote:
Never lost an engine in a single, just a turbo. Maybe the engines in singles are more reliable? :scratch:



Just twice as likely to fail. :D

_________________
Paul
I heart flying

ABS Lifetime Member
EAA Lifetime Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 08:04 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Username Protected wrote:
As I posted recently, we’ve had a -21 PT-6 fail during climb-out; not an accessory, the turbine itself. I don’t think the TBM “easily out climbs its glide rate” in all situations since planes are often kept low by departure control initially after takeoff. Also, once you fly away from the airport and cross the mountain next to the airport, you’re not gliding back.
But in the end, I completely agree that most fatal accidents in both singles and twins are caused by pilot error of some kind. At least in a twin if you do everything right after failure, you can fly back and land and there is no accident to report.
And aside from mountains and dark nights, there is the issue of water crossings.
I fly a single and a twin, but I definitely don’t use the single in the same environments or in the same way as the twin. That much said, I’ve had a Lycoming 540 eject a cylinder and 6 months later puke all its oil and both were in twins. Never lost an engine in a single, just a turbo. Maybe the engines in singles are more reliable? :scratch:


the OP did not ask for a single vs twin debate. there are loads of threads for that.

but why aren't the seas and mountains covered in single-engine airplanes carcasses? it's because a true, total, catastrophic engine failure in the SETP is a vanishingly rare event. possible? sure. so is getting struck by lighting.

you have to play statistics in life, and stats don't show that the KA is safer.

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 08:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:

But my memory is that TBM looked pretty bad in comparison to PC12's and King Air was also much better. I don't think you're going to find data to ease their minds based on comparative accident and fatality rates.



If you review the last 8 or so incidents in the PC12 most are commercial ops with commercial pilots.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2021, 21:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/23/09
Posts: 1067
Post Likes: +560
Location: KSJT
Aircraft: PC-24 Citabria 7GCBC
I don’t have the TBM info but a King Air and PC-12 have similar mission profiles. I’d suspect the owner flown ratios are similar as well.

PC-12 has zero fatalities due to an engine failure in almost 9m flight hours.

The question they should be asking isn’t single vs multi, it’s how much have we invested in pilot training in the last 24 months and what the pilot training resumes look like.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2021, 08:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
Gary Mullen wrote:
the OP did not ask for a single vs twin debate. there are loads of threads for that.

but why aren't the seas and mountains covered in single-engine airplanes carcasses? it's because a true, total, catastrophic engine failure in the SETP is a vanishingly rare event. possible? sure. so is getting struck by lighting.

you have to play statistics in life, and stats don't show that the KA is safer.[/quote]

The OP asked for comparative safety data between a single engine turboprop and a multi engine turboprop because the people for whom he's considering an aircraft are "hung up on the whole single vs twin thing." How is that NOT asking for a single vs. twin debate?

I agree on the statistics. Both the TBM and the KA are very safe. But as others have written, it probably depends a lot more on the pilots than the plane. And it also depends on the environment in which they fly (terrain, number of suitable landing sites within gliding distance etc.) My point was basically that mechanical things can and do fail even if it is rather rare. Having a well trained pilot is the best guarantee. Having two well trained pilots is even better. But having a second engine for the well trained pilots to utilize after one fails (very, very unlikely, but still quite possible) retains an option that singles just don't have. Airlines and the FAA's Part 121 elements are all about efficiency and risk mitigation, that's probably why the airliners crossing our nation and oceans have two very well trained pilots, engrained safety procedures and more than one engine.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2021, 10:20 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
PC-12 has zero fatalities due to an engine failure in almost 9m flight hours.

That's not the same as zero engine failures.

Some accidents have come very close to being fatal, like the PC-12 down in the sea where it was lucky a Russian freighter found them.

A factor here is that a single is not asked to fly the same missions as the twin, so there is an exposure difference. You can find people who insist on a twin (like the bone doctors in Wyoming), but you will rarely find someone who insists on the single for safety reasons.

The training and competence of the pilot make more difference than the engine count in the safety stats. But once I control that for myself, I want a twin. In the turbine class airplanes, the singles simply aren't the economic win that they are in the piston world, and the turbine twin has far better performance engine out than the piston twin.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Safety Data Comparison King Air vs TBM?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2021, 10:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
PC-12 has zero fatalities due to an engine failure in almost 9m flight hours.

That's not the same as zero engine failures.

Some accidents have come very close to being fatal, like the PC-12 down in the sea where it was lucky a Russian freighter found them.

A factor here is that a single is not asked to fly the same missions as the twin, so there is an exposure difference. You can find people who insist on a twin (like the bone doctors in Wyoming), but you will rarely find someone who insists on the single for safety reasons.

The training and competence of the pilot make more difference than the engine count in the safety stats. But once I control that for myself, I want a twin. In the turbine class airplanes, the singles simply aren't the economic win that they are in the piston world, and the turbine twin has far better performance engine out than the piston twin.

Mike C.


This is very reminiscent of the chute debate.
Twins fly in worse weather/terrain than singles because they have an extra engine.
That being said their safety stats for an engine failure are abysmal.
Pilot training is money better spent. :D

And no way a king air is less to run than a TBM or a PC12.
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.