Hmm, I seem to be doing that. What am I doing wrong?

Mike C.

Total thread drift, and I’m admitting my ignorance here, but what does FIFY mean?

As for the original post, I’d go Baron. Enough of a budget to get a relatively well equipped recent one.

Ken

Fixed It For You

I would just say that you have a piece of equipment that requires a higher than average commitment to training, support and workload and is just a little scary for us mere mortals. A couple of our recent BTr's I personally think would still be alive if they were flying their friends or family in a modern P46T, TBM or PC12. The 2 I am thinking of would likely have taken issue with my statement, but sadly cannot respond. You can safely fly an MU2, but it is a lot easier to safely fly a more modern integrated single pilot airframe.[/quote]

Charles,

Let me get this straight. You are saying that arriving alive is more important than arriving early?

I'm going to have to ponder that a mite.

I can see one big advantage to flying a MU-2. I'd be a lot more religious.

Jgreen

That's probably the best answer. Otoh, putting it on a certificate drives up insurance and maintenance cost and reduces availability for it's primary mission. Between three spine surgeons with business and conference travel, there should be reasonable utilization. It may get to the point that it makes sense to recruit a captain/manager rather than contracting management and flying to the FBO/135.

Under that model, it's going to be a King Air or PC12.

This was the general gist of my point...

Rules are changeable in face of enough stupidity, though. Perhaps FAA will be motivated enough to make some tweaks. Won’t hold my breath, but fingers crossed.

I know tons of Commander owners who fly their old stuff year in and year out on airframes much less than $750K with total reliability. In fact, every 690A or 690B falls in this category. Probably every MU-2 and every Conquest as well.

Missouri (if that is the base) area has good support for Merlins. Perfect aircraft for this size of group and budget. The group can quit commercial flying all together for NA and sunspot desitnations.

Wow, glad to hear I’m immortal. Might change the way I do a number of things.


Hmm. In one case, Nathan, we really have no clue what actually happened and a likely scenario is flying into a t-storm. In the other, Pascal, it was also a flight into significantly stormy and low weather. So it is your contention that in a P46T a pilot can fly into a t-storm or bad weather and the modern cockpit layout will make that safer?

I think the details matter and it’s not clear to me that the details of these accidents support assigning blame to the machine. Other aircraft types fly into weather and crash, you apparently just don’t pay attention to them because it doesn’t support your pre conceived notion about them.

Not trying to pick a fight, but systems failures, loss of control in IMC and loss of control maneuvering are the nemesis of small GA. Complexity leads to distraction and also leads to likelihood of systems failures. More systems, more failure points, more things to remember, more things to do right. Some planes are more forgiving, or easier to make stop flying than others. Stalling a PC12 with a pusher or a P46T without a pusher is hard to do. If you manage to do it, you don't have to be Chuck Yeager to recover it. Hard to get disoriented in IMC when the PFD in front of you looks just like the world you would see out the window if you could see out the window. The latest generation of aircraft, will nudge you back into the aerodynamic envelope if you try to stray. Some of them like the M series Pipers will even automatically engage the AP to take over if it detects that you are out of control. Smart Gear tied to TAWs not just dependent on throttle settings, Radar that alerts you to severe weather ahead even if you aren't monitoring it or even have the window up. Pressurization systems that automatically pressurize you if you inadvertently defeat the system. Clear voice CAS messages instead of buzzers and beeps. Sensors that CAS if the plane is out of trim. AOA's that adjust stall logic for icing conditions. The newer aircraft don't just have cosmetic upgrades, they have better systems. We will still see accidents, but we will see fewer. The type of accidents will change. There are always geniuses out there when it comes to defeating systems. All this technology has come about as a result of NTSB reports. For the first time the GA fatal rate dipped below 1/100K. I think that is due to a lot of things, training, people migrating to turbine aircraft, but also technology.

Charles is making really sound, common sense, points. Arguing against them is stubbornness or defensiveness not thoughtfulness. It reminds me of a lot of Cirrus debate from three to four years ago.

Chuck and Tony, in both your posts I sense a fear of the unknown or a need to defend your reasoning for your particular purchase decisions without much thought to what the OP was asking. Have either of you owned/operated the type of aircraft you are opining against?

Suggesting that three good sized physicians squeeze into a SR22 just because you personally are uncomfortable with the actual aircraft types that fit the bill is doing the OP a disservice.

No one is arguing that the latest "stuff" is not great and it "might" lead to safety improvements but these missions have been and still are flown safely every day by numerous types that mactch the OP's requirments.

Not at all. In the first place I doubt that three would be a squeeze in th Cirrus. Certainly not as comfortable as your plane to be sure...

Rather, what I see here a great deal is advocacy for what one flies or can afford, or a lack of thoughtfulness about the total costs of ownership of a given airframe including capital, operating, training, dispatch, etc.

Your assertion about fear of the unknown isn't correct either. I've owned and flown quite a few different airframes including very old as well as new. I've carefully analyzed the true cost of a lot of others, including most of those mentioned in this thread. I prefer to make decisions based on reasonably reliable numbers not fantasy or wishful thinking.

I don't care what they do but suspect that buying an old airframe because it's cheap won't have a lot of appeal to the type of customers discussed after a few problems us crusty old pilots find inconsequential to endure.

There are a number of actual owner/pilots of the types of aircraft that match what the OP enquired about on this board. To my knowledge none of us fly our ships on fantasy or wishful thinking. There are remote airlines and medivac running these types precisely because of reliability and low costs.

Actually, if you do stall a PC12, you DO have to be Chuck Yeager to recover it. It flips upside down pretty much immediately. That's why it has a pusher, because it couldn't be certified under Part 23 without it.