BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2019, 16:41

Username Protected wrote:

I would guess that your lack of hiccup is primarily due to the fact that most of your time has been in new or turbine aircraft?

I have 1000 hours in piston Cirrus. 1500 or so in piston Bonanza and over 2000 in PC12. 500-ish in Twins. So all 2008 or newer airplanes but not all Turbine.

I have a good friend who is a 15K hour 747 pilot who has never shut one down.

I also have a friend with a few hundred hours that pulled the chute on his SR22 a few weeks ago due to engine failure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2019, 17:07

Username Protected wrote:

Quote:

Then don't be pessimistic or uneducated then.

I can assure you I am neither.

Excellent. As noted in your post, the airplanes you flew had potentially suspect maintenance and no forewarning of something going awry.

I believe you stated that your decision to fly the single vs a twin was financial. Based on my observations running a baron was that it cost about 50%-100% more per hour to operate. Significant indeed.

I don't believe we can lump ALL singles and twins into a single group with regards to safety. I think knowing your airplane is a very good thing as small things will not go unnoticed if you are really paying attention.

My two engine issues were maintenance induced.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2019, 17:43

Username Protected wrote:

I believe you stated that your decision to fly the single vs a twin was financial. Based on my observations running a baron was that it cost about 50%-100% more per hour to operate. Significant indeed.

I don't believe we can lump ALL singles and twins into a single group with regards to safety. I think knowing your airplane is a very good thing as small things will not go unnoticed if you are really paying attention.

My two engine issues were maintenance induced.

This raises an interesting question. Has engine monitors in piston planes (along with oil analysis), and FADEC systems in turbines changed the engine failure scenarios/math?

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Apr 2019, 18:43

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 01:46

Always amusing to me when guys who fly around in 3m+ turboprops are fretting over the relative safety of flying turbine equipment at night, when meanwhile every CFI in the country is flying single engine pistons at night, with 30 hour student pilots in a beat up old piston Cessnas built in 1970's.. carry on gentlemen. lol :clap:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 08:32

Username Protected wrote:

Always amusing to me when guys who fly around in 3m+ turboprops are fretting over the relative safety of flying turbine equipment at night, when meanwhile every CFI in the country is flying single engine pistons at night, with 30 hour student pilots in a beat up old piston Cessnas built in 1970's.. carry on gentlemen. lol :clap:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 08:36

Username Protected wrote:

Always amusing to me when guys who fly around in 3m+ turboprops are fretting over the relative safety of flying turbine equipment at night, when meanwhile every CFI in the country is flying single engine pistons at night, with 30 hour student pilots in a beat up old piston Cessnas built in 1970's.. carry on gentlemen. lol :clap:

That argument makes a lot more sense directed at the guys in this thread buying $3MM+ twin jets because they are afraid to be flying a single.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 09:25

Jason C., and others,

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night, by noy flying in bad weather, over IFR....

Curious, if you effectively only fly day VFR; how to maintain night currency in case of need, or do not bother. And also, how do you maintain IR approach proficiency?

I personally have found simulated and view limiting devices are not the same as the real thing.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 10:07

Username Protected wrote:

, and others,

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night, by noy flying in bad weather, over IFR....

Curious, if you effectively only fly day VFR; how to maintain night currency in case of need, or do not bother. And also, how do you maintain IR approach proficiency?

I personally have found simulated and view limiting devices are not the same as the real thing.

Tim

I fly overnight over water. Jason's a pansy!!!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 10:19

Username Protected wrote:

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night

A previous thread link:

I choose to not fly at night.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 10:21

Username Protected wrote:

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night

A previous thread link:

I choose to not fly at night.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 10:44

Username Protected wrote:

Jason C., and others,

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night, by noy flying in bad weather, over IFR....

Curious, if you effectively only fly day VFR; how to maintain night currency in case of need, or do not bother. And also, how do you maintain IR approach proficiency?

I personally have found simulated and view limiting devices are not the same as the real thing.

Tim

Between annual recurrent flight training events, I do a flight review/IPC/engine failures in the sim so I'm getting a Flight Review/IPC every 6 months. Flight Safety has a "full service" option where you can schedule as much time as you want in the sim for anything you wish to do (or as many recurrents). The sim is located in Dallas and I'm there a lot for business so it isn't too inconvenient.

Full Service is expensive, but I think it's a better investment in risk reduction than a METP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 10:51

Username Protected wrote:

Jason C., and others,

There have been multiple people who say they mitigate some of the risk factors by not flying at night, by noy flying in bad weather, over IFR....

Curious, if you effectively only fly day VFR; how to maintain night currency in case of need, or do not bother. And also, how do you maintain IR approach proficiency?

I personally have found simulated and view limiting devices are not the same as the real thing.

Tim

Define "bad weather".

I'm a daytime pilot by default.... not because I'm really trying to be. I stay current by going and getting current. I fly several PC12's nowadays for "other people". I get a lot of time in all sorts of conditions.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 14:35

Did somebody say something about the SF50? I can't remember. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Apr 2019, 15:10

Username Protected wrote:

I would MUCH prefer a twin but due to the overwhelming economy of owning (20% share) and operating my PA32-300 (Cherokee Six),that is the craft in which I fly my family. Plus it makes the most sense for our mission. LOVE the airplane! However, I don't do night, overwater, mountains, or low IFR. When the time comes I could definitely see us upgrading to SETP but the single engine aspect still plagues my thoughts.

I know what the statistics are but I believe that if you were able to limit the data to pilots who received quality twin-engine training in the first place and regular twin recurrent training and practice while adding in all the unreported engine failures in twins that result in an uneventful landing on an airfield.....the data would lean heavily in the the twin-engine airplane's favor.

Millions of hours of trouble-free operation not withstanding, nothing is perfect and PT6s do fail. This video, which I'm sure has appeared elsewhere on BT, is a chilling example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knJ54JNtcJc

I mitigate the risk of single engine operation to the maximum extent possible and have largely come to peace with it. However, if I'm being completely honest, it is a financial decision. If fuel was $1/gal and engines were $10,000 instead of $50,000+ I'd have a twin....no question. Actually if they were MUCH more affordable to own and operate I'd have a turbine twin...no question.

I think you could easily make a SETP or SEJ every bit as save as any piston twin simply by avoiding long overwater flights and always flying conservative takeoff and landing profiles which permit landing on a runway if the engine quits before you reach a cruising altitude in the flight levels. That would leave your exposure to something well under a minute or two per flight. OTOH, I'm not sure how you could remain on such a profile while flying most instrument approaches so you'd probably have to add that window to the risk area.

TBM 850 vs Cirrus Vision Jet