My type ride only had one takeoff V1 cut and one single engine landing. The vast majority was two engine. Engine out work is easy. The type ride was mostly procedures and systems. This was at FlightSafety in simulator.


An engine failure in an SF50 is vastly more complex than one in a twin jet. There are a lot of complex factors to assess and then make some complex and irrevocable decisions that need to be right. At times, there is no good answer, you are just fracked. This never occurs in a twin jet.

The emergency and abnormal sections of the AFM are dauntingly large, too.

I think all turbine airplanes, SETP included, should have a type rating, so I would go the other way than excusing the SF50 from one. I bet this would cut the accident rate in half for turboprops that don't presently require a type rating. The MU2 got what is basically a type rating, and the accident rate dropped immensely. Too many King Airs are biting the dust lately, too.

Mike C.

14 CFR 61.31
(a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft:
(1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air).
(2) Turbojet-powered airplanes.
(3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61/subpart-A/section-61.31

14 CFR 61.31
(a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft:
(1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air).
(2) Turbojet-powered airplanes.
(3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61/subpart-A/section-61.31

Pilatus does not have a type rating. Safety stats on that airplane are through the roof good.
That being said, our current insurance climate requires recurrent at least once a year.
Most of the owner flown pilots prefer every 6 months.

Do you not see the connection?

PC-12 safety is high because the hull values are high which causes the insurance to require annual training, and for the owners to have the financial means to accomplish this, often more often as you state.

A type rating would not change the actual behavior much for your type. Still yearly. So the impact to PC-12 would be minimal.

Meanwhile, there are those flying King Airs around without similar requirements.

Mike C.

Do you not see the connection?

PC-12 safety is high because the hull values are high which causes the insurance to require annual training, and for the owners to have the financial means to accomplish this, often more often as you state.

A type rating would not change the actual behavior much for your type. Still yearly. So the impact to PC-12 would be minimal.

Meanwhile, there are those flying King Airs around without similar requirements.

Mike C.

I don't believe that is the case. Boutique air has racked up a fair number of dockets and Surf Air ain't that far behind. Many 135 operations racking up issues.

I have flown both airplanes. I think that the PC12 is more pilot friendly and docile, especially in landing configuration.

I'm fairly confident that's not entirely true - I share my hangar with an SF50 and its owner - he's typed in the jet, and is not a SEATP. It's an option if you want to, but it's a second separate checkride.

Yes, that was my point. The type-rating check ride is to ATP standards. I could have written that more clearly. Getting a type rating doesn’t net you an ATP. It could though since it has to be flown to those standards.

It appears that Cirrus has taken that as a way to improve safety record. You don’t just get the rating because you had enough money to get the airplane.

Pc12 was exactly as hard to fly as MU2, everything just took longer. If pc12’s cost 300k, the accident rate would go through the roof.

Wouid be interesting to hear from Max CitationMax as he goes on YT. He has flown the Vision jet, then upgraded to M2, and now flying a CJ3.

I bet he has some good insight. I saw a YT video he posted about the VJ but didn’t watch it.


Mike

Sorry, Larry, I included your post for clarification, but my response was directed at the other portion of the post.

Thanks

Brad

I suspect not, but I haven't flown a PC-12.

In most regimes, the PC-12 will be easier. In a few select cases, the MU2 will be easier.


Accident rates do track economic environment the plane operates in. That is probably the best correlated factor than anything else since that tends to drive the quality and quantity of training the pilot gets.

Mike C.

This is all very good in principle, and I kind of agree that you can't have too much training, but we have to acknowledge that ultimately all this is killing aviation. So we might be safe in the sky, but we're well on our way to killing the golden goose. There's a reason a trillion more people are into boating, cars, etc - there is such a thing as too high a barrier and we've already passed it. GA is dying.

I'm hoping automation and technology can allow us to lower the bar for entry and sustain in the future. That's our only chance.

I suspect not, but I haven't flown a PC-12.

In most regimes, the PC-12 will be easier. In a few select cases, the MU2 will be easier.