I don’t have the data on the other types but the PC 12 fleet has almost 10,000,000 hours and no fatalities due to an engine failure.[/quote]

Not fatals. Just all accidents due to power loss not just engine failure only. It always gets a bit heated debating what is an “engine failure” for a PT6 or other turbines.

But yes the non fatal track record is impressive and surprising to me. Still not comfortable with it hard IFR dark and trees, mountains, water. Seems to be fine though.

Will be debated till the single vs twin production rates and age eventually just phase the twins out.[/quote]

In the world of safety stats regarding twin or single, the safest airplane is one with one engine. Worst is 4-engine, meaning your are 4-times more likely to have an engine failure. In a twin, you are twice as likely to have an engine failure over a single engine. As far as fatal accident rate, single-engine aircraft win due to less energy being brought to the accident and required lower stall speed then better survivability.

At my carrier, we put all the old engines on the 4-engine airplanes and the best engines on the ETOPs birds. The carrier in-flight shutdown rate will determine your ability to fly ETOPs, thus keep the best, newest engines on the twins. I always say, keep the engine running even at idle, if possible, if nothing else for the in-flight shutdown rate.

In reality, SETP probably has a lower failure rate than the 2:1 METP, because of the higher level of prescribed maintenance and pilot vigilance of knowing you only have one.

I find this ongoing discussion of single vs. twin tiring. The reality is, none of us really want to acknowledge the real single vs. twin debate; how many pilots should be in the cockpit. We fail more often then engines do, yet, I think none of us want to talk about that. It would require us to be critical of ourselves instead of an inanimate object burning kerosene.

PS - I really do enjoy the feedback of user experiences of the King Air vs. PC-12 vs. Jet etc. Thanks to everyone who has done so far on this thread.

Regardless of number of engines, the Swiss just made an exceptionally well designed airplane. The pc12 I fly was purchased new in 2009 and I can count on one hand the number of off cycle maintenance events and nearly all of them were minor avionics annoyances. The plane just goes annual to annual with exceptional reliability. It's just extremely well built and sturdy through and through.

Planes don’t kill people; people (pilots) kill people.

Mostly.

Boeing MCAS, well...

Mike C.

Mostly.

Boeing MCAS, well...

Mike C.

I was in the back of a PC-12NG on a demo flight with one of our clients, he asked what would happen if we lost an engine on take-off. My response "we'll land and hopefully not hit anything"

He said "wouldn't we be better with two engines?"

I explained that in a loss of engine on take-off I would be much more comfortable in the PC-12NG, as much as I love my King Airs, too many loss of engine on take-off accidents have not only occurred, but ended badly.

Carl, where have you been we have been having this argument for days now. Simplicity of a SETP vs twin TP’s and even jets. Can’t get buy in on a single being simpler and easier for all the obvious reasons.

I would equate the safety of a PC12 to that of a DA20 and a 172: low stall speed. Da20 might be the safest plane ever built.

I do think Mike C has pointed out that yes the KA’s have some idiosyncrasies like the Mu-2 that probably haven’t been fully sorted out. Friction lock roll backs, Vmc differences without banking into the good engine? Carl would probably know but what happens when you take a jet jock and put him in a KA? Chances are at Vr his hands leave the throttles. And what’s the difference between leaving with a heading bug vs leaving with a flight director? Does one get the same rudder directional input? I know in the Baron all eyes are the simple little heading bug. And with rudder one automatically get the proper bank.

I just got back from my -350 recurrent training this week.
Handled numerous V1 cuts (and did right seat duty on a few more) to include KTEX on a moderate temperature day and didn't hit the ground once. I'll take my chances ina properly trained and executed emergency procedure over the 100% of hitting the ground and introducing many variables to the survival equation. Sort of like the pro athlete that wants the game on his back, her foot, my hands etc....I want that outcome in my hands.

I just got back from my -350 recurrent training this week.
Handled numerous V1 cuts (and did right seat duty on a few more) to include KTEX on a moderate temperature day and didn't hit the ground once. I'll take my chances ina properly trained and executed emergency procedure over the 100% of hitting the ground and introducing many variables to the survival equation. Sort of like the pro athlete that wants the game on his back, her foot, my hands etc....I want that outcome in my hands.

I’d have asked your client what would happen if he had a massive heart attack or stroke on take off?

Fear is some folks fetish

Whether you’re flying a Pilatus or King Air seems to be a real first world problem....what I’d like to hear is whether you would prefer to own all of a King Air, no scheduling conflicts or partnership issues, or 1/2 of a Pilatus and....

Carl, where have you been we have been having this argument for days now. Simplicity of a SETP vs twin TP’s and even jets. Can’t get buy in on a single being simpler and easier for all the obvious reasons.