for a fair comparison of single vs multi, seems like you need to exclude jets since the asymmetric thrust seems to surprise METP pilots with an engine loss (we have seen this over and over).

jets are obviously safer because of 1) systems redundancy, 2) massive insurance-required training (relative to SETPs, but that is narrowing), 3) (nearly) centerline thrust.

if SETPs are more dangerous than METPs, where are all the mechanically-related crashes? they are exceedingly rare.

Let's not forget jets tend to have way more excess thrust available, generally mandatory balanced-field takeoff requirements, and FAA mandated type rating and yearly recurrent training.

Ironically some of those items are seen as negatives by prospective buyers.

I also would not discount the fairly compelling economics of single-engine CAPEX and OPEX. So much so that I would not be surprised to see the SEJ market continue to grow, especially if they can find a solution to pressurisation loss due to engine failure in the high FL's.

how could a single-engine jet be any safer than a single engine turbo-prop? those differences, if they exist, would be incredibly small and only based on engineering and piloting.

I agree with Ciholas that money and safety are inexorably linked. I don't agree that the number of engines is a primary factor (i.e. single engine and 2 pilots has proven to be incredibly safe).

how could a single-engine jet be any safer than a single engine turbo-prop? those differences, if they exist, would be incredibly small and only based on engineering and piloting.

I agree with Ciholas that money and safety are inexorably linked. I don't agree that the number of engines is a primary factor (i.e. single engine and 2 pilots has proven to be incredibly safe).

I agree with you in principle, but my bet is that the data will not bear this out. Mishaps will be over-represented by the takeoff/landing/approach portions of the flight making the altitude capability moot.

I'm a new jet pilot flying a Citation V. My insurance does not require anything more than what is already legally required by the FARs, namely 61.58. There is no extra "insurance mandated training".

The only restriction is that the training provider be on the underwriter's approved list.

For my MU2, it had special training requirements that were basically what jets require. The insurance added nothing extra to that, either. Other turboprops have lesser rules, but here insurance does level the playing field often and requiring yearly type school.


Mechanically caused crashes are exceedingly rare in turbine aircraft. When it does happen, good chance it was a maintenance error, too (like the Gulfstream in Dominican Republic recently).

Mike C.

I've been flying a TBM 700 professionally for 7 years, I don't lose sleep over flying a SETP. I brief the departure, turn back options, and mentally note the MOR lever is available. After that, I accept the minute risk on departure, as every plane has.

Enroute, the glide ratio is fantastic. We've done some in aircraft training and we feather the prop and glide around for a bit (with the engine still running) and it's quite impressive.

There are very few engine failures in a TBM that I'm aware of. I recall reading a report about 2 years ago where one failed enroute and the pilot landed in IL. The NTSB seemed to prod heavily as they thought it had to have been pilot error, but it was in fact mechanical.

That all said I've been trying to get the owners to upgrade to a Mustang for years, as our maintenance is continually less than the TBM, faster, smoother, quieter, and safer.

-The Citation Jet Exchange

My plane partner and I did in-aircraft recurrent this past weekend. First time in the aircraft we have done the MOR lever, turnbacks, and engine out from altitude.

It was a lot less stressful than I imagined. Turnbacks from 2000 AGL were very easy. Glide from 7500 and High Key/Low Key were much like they are in the sim.