But since few piston twins are flown by two pilots as well trained as applies to the jets, accident statistics are definitely biased in favor of the jets.

Bravo guys. Almost 4 pages of Lear Jet and twin engine jet derailment on a single jet Cirrus thread. Beechtalk is keeping to its roots....

Well done,
Don

Bravo guys. Almost 4 pages of Lear Jet and twin engine jet derailment on a single jet Cirrus thread. Beechtalk is keeping to its roots....

Well done,
Don

Bravo guys. Almost 4 pages of Lear Jet and twin engine jet derailment on a single jet Cirrus thread. Beechtalk is keeping to its roots....

Well done,
Don

And to what Mike's says, if you want to remove the noise of professional vs non-professional crews, over time there are plenty of statistics related to transport category propeller twins flown by professional crews that have burned enough holes in the ground to show that propeller twins are more prone to accidents than jets in engine out emergencies.

This is a plane with two crew where it had two GOOD engines capable of producing thrust, and it crashed with ZERO of them doing so.

In a jet, you can't feather the wrong engine, so this accident doesn't happen.

That's a fundamental difference, prop planes require the pilot change the engine configuration, there's no such corresponding requirement in jets. Jets require you do only ONE thing, fly.

So saying jets are safer/easier when an engine fails is supported by statistics and by the intrinsic characteristics.

Mike C.

Pretty horrible example. In any transport category turboprop, you don't have to feather anything/change configuration. You only need to fly.

The accident you give as an example had nothing to do with prop vs jet. He would've had the same result in a jet.

Well, in the TransAsia 235 case, the computer mistakenly feathers a good engine, and then the pilots feather the other one.

Two good engines, zero thrust.

So the very system which was designed so that you didn't have to feather the engine actually started the accident sequence.

The jet engine has nothing to feather, so it doesn't have a computer to get it wrong, or a human to get it wrong, either.

It absolutely shows the jet versus prop issue.

The result would not have been the same in a jet. First, there is no need for an automatic system to feather the prop, and thus sometimes get it wrong. Second, there is no way a pilot can feather the remaining engine.

Mike C.

The jet engine has nothing to feather, so it doesn't have a computer to get it wrong, or a human to get it wrong, either.

It's not a good engine, if the computer controlling it is not letting you use it.

But since few piston twins are flown by two pilots as well trained as applies to the jets, accident statistics are definitely biased in favor of the jets.

The computer exists only because their is prop. No prop, no computer falsely feathering it.

Mike C.

Plenty of two pilot King Airs have crashed after an engine failure. Its hard to find any Citations that crash after an engine failure, including those with one pilot.

Mike C.

The NTSB is concerned that the design of the Citation’s aileron trim system allows for trim forces that far exceed those needed during an emergency, such as a loss of engine power. Additionally, because of the relative sensitivity of the small aileron trim control knob, even a small aileron trim adjustment could result in trim forces that would require excessive control wheel inputs to counteract and keep the airplane’s wings level. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that limiting the deflection of the Cessna Citation’s manually operated aileron trim tab to the deflection certification limit for powered trim tabs and reducing the Citation’s aileron trim sensitivity (the unexpectedly significant aileron trim deflection that results from a relatively small amount of trim knob input) would help pilots avoid sudden and excessive aileron trim deflections.