Just along the lines of being a conscientious SETP pilot, when over the Rockies, I do file airways particularly when going over areas I know are remote like the central Idaho wilderness, and even over water on the East coast. When ATC, trying to do me a favor, gives me direct, I simply reply, thank you, but would like to stay on my current routing for single engine operations. I always get a nice OK continue current routing or some such. If routed out over cold water, I am sure you could also ask for another approach including a circle from an approach in the opposite direction if weather allows.

Notwithstanding, your chance of an engine failure on a 10 minute approach, using Pratt's MTBF of 1:350,000 hours, (which has recently been revised upward by Pratt) gives you odds of 1 in 2,100,000 of an engine failure in that segment. Play the Lotto According to Dr. Google, your lifetime risk of getting struck by lightning is 700 times that..... Just saying.

I’m making trips to Nantucket to bring guys to see the Modular house factory off the end of the runway at AVP. Working on house development on the island just NW of the airport in the old asphalt plant. Its interesting the logistics getting modular house boxes to Nantucket. They need to get them shipped before summer gets in full swing to have room at the dock for the barges.

I have not spent much time on Nantucket before this. Looked up the realestate prices and had major sticker shock.

I’m lucky in that I get to fly a lot of different airplanes. I have a little airport 76N and a maintenance / rebuilding shop. I rent hangar space to a busy avionics, maintenance and paint shop on the other side of the runway. Griggs Aircraft Refinishing. I get to test fly almost everything that comes in or out the doors. It’s odd but the insurance co for the shop has me insured for any type as long as it’s coming or going for shop work. Sometimes I’ll jump in 8-10 different types a week, all models, all brands, I never know what might show up. Frequently very short multiple flights just to check fuel flows, AOA calibrations or check approaches. Plus fill in occasionally with 5 different Kingairs. All different avionics, and engines, props, years. All single pilot. I have the E90 on the profile because well... it’s Beechtalk. And I get to move old airplanes around the country or go to work on them when they break in odd ways. Mainly Stinson Gullwings but sometimes other types. I think the early Kingair 200 handles better than the early 90’s airplanes and I didn’t care for the Rasibeck leading edge for short field work even though it is supposed to be better. I didn’t like how the Pilatus felt mainly in the yaw axis. It just reminded me of a European airplane which it is. I guess it’s old twitches from flying the early LSA’s and homebuilts. The E90 with Raisbeck propellers flies ok but not as nice as the early 200. The E90 landed much better once I started keeping the props back 50 RPM for landing. The aileron centering in the E90 is odd. The 200 is much better. The 200 T tail elevator effectiveness in the flare is superior to the E90 even at forward CG. But the E90 filled a purchase price and fuel burn niche.

Interestingly at Boise there was a Pilatus with a vertical fin extension a couple feet tall above the horizontal tail. It looked like an early airplane but I have never found any information about it. Park a Pilatus next to a 200 or 300 Kingair and look at Vertical fin and rudder size vs amount of airplane ahead of the CG. Yes I know it needs a big tail for engine failure but still compare.

Of course I’m weird because I like Piper Apaches, B80 Queenairs, old ugly motorhomes and recently developed a taste for Linie Aquavit so if your happy with your Pilatus by all means continue.

As far as the routing and treatment of a SE Turbine. when I’m in the 421 I identify to the controllers as a “Golden Eagle” They will handle me differently than if I identify as “Twin Cessna” in the 414, 340, T303 or 310.

I think the people who want two engines know that.
But, they can do something about the odds of suffering an engine failure in a SETP.

But they can't do much about lightning strikes and car accidents falling meteorites, if they want to continue with a normal life.

Not speaking for anybody, but I think it is always in the backs of some peoples minds.

Charles,

That's all I was getting at in my first post on the subject, that I wouldn't do anything in the Vision Jet that I wouldn't do in any other single engine aircraft. Just make choices in the risk profile for things like routes and weather in the unlikely event of some sort of power plant failure.

Not just the loss of thrust that's a concern, but other things like electrical power generation, availability of pneumatic power for things like boots or heated leading edge systems, pressurization capability, and so on. Heck, even a failed de-icing brush on the prop is a different story in a single than it is in multiengine planes.

I made a conscious decision when I went from a FIKI, turbocharged twin to a very capable not-FIKI turbocharged single. A big part of that was picking where and when I fly to reduce risk exposure.

I don't think I'd do any different in a TBM, Meridian, Vision Jet, or the completely fail-proof PC12.

Back to the SF50, the windshield TKS anti-ice seems like a less than optimal solution. I’ve flown planes with windshield anti-ice fluid as a BACKUP, but never used it and was told in training if you do, don’t plan on seeing much. Is TKS fluid different? Any Pireps on a TKS protected windshield?

I have a TKS spraybar for the windshield of my A36. Works just fine. On a clean windshield the spray quickly spreads and thins so any distortion is short-lived. When there's ice on the windshield it soaks into it so doesn''t spread as quickly, then it comes off in chunks. The ice is a way bigger impediment to vision than the TKS fluid.

On the FIKI piston Cirrus there is a limitation on when you must turn it off, because it does obscure the windscreen. Kind of hard to see out when it is on. I am a fan of heated windscreens in ice..... Not so much a fan of replacing them when they fail

Here is a FIKI Cirrus with TKS on in clear air prior to entering a cumulosnowconemaker. Can obscure your vision, PUN intended.

I'd also question your statement that there are no records of single engine failures with a safe outcome, I think virtually every one of those get's recorded somewhere but perhaps that data isn't readily available from a database like the crashes are.[/quote]

I can assure you 100% that this is NOT an accurate statement.

I can assure you 100% that this is NOT an accurate statement. [/quote]

Ed: What makes you think those are all recorded? I know folks that landing with an engine problems, got it resolved, and flew it out without reporting it to anyone. Lots of folks flying from uncontrolled airspace that never contact controllers.
When we lost an engine in the P-Baron, we were IFR. So, center was aware. Landed without incident (my partner was flying). FSDO did call to see if we needed help or wanted to report anything. We said we were good and that's the last we heard of it.

I can assure you 100% that this is NOT an accurate statement.

Oh sorry if I misunderstood. In our case, FSDO did some report, but said they closed it out when we landed uneventfully. They probably had to respond to a report from center. We had three King Airs come into Addison one year with an engine shut down and land uneventfully. No report that I know of.

Double post

Already being discussed in this thread.