Given that eighty percent or so accidents are attributed to human error (similar in medicine BTW) Carl’s points around time and focus likely dominate. More issues than just engine failure to consider. A glider is best if that were the only thing to worry about. (Not much range and IMC might be a problem though.)

I opted for SETP over Baron. Still more complex than my wonderful Bonanza but a ME has too much to keep up with, given flying is a passion not a profession and muscle memory fades quickly.

Ed

I wonder what percentage of departure accident pilots did a verbal takeoff briefing, “If this, than that…”

IMO, in a notable percentage of these accidents the engine gave the pilot a clue something was amiss where an abort would have resulted in bent metal only on the airport property. I think many pilots are like, “Wow, that is weird and then fly on into the failure.” YMMV.

I do it out loud at least twice a year (61.58 and 6 month interim tune-up with an instructor) and otherwise in my head before every flight. It is beaten into you pretty well during jet type ratings (at least the 2 I have).

Although the overall fleet numbers are somewhat low, there's certainly enough fleet hours between these platforms to gain a LOT of respect for this overall safety record in this category. It's VERY impressive.

I think you begin splitting hairs when you talk about modern SETP vs. owner flown jet safety statistic comparisons but clearly both are a substantial step forward from the most modern SEP and twin piston birds.

If you're looking in these categories and your criteria is the best overall combination of safety / economy / range / dispatchability I conclude that the M600 comes out on top by a wide margin. That said, I'd still love a Mustang someday...

I brief it out loud verbally every single takeoff I perform. What makes you think having it in your head and talking about it once a year is going to be sufficient?

I'm going to pick on Rudy here just a bit, not out of any animus, but because I think his post illustrates a concept just as central to safety as whether or not you have one engine or two. Or eight.

Mindset.

I crossed a pretty large body of water yesterday in a turbine twin. Just about everything involved with my flight planning was heavily based on the worst case scenario of getting halfway across the body of water, having several malfunctions and either continuing on to the nearest airport or turning around to the nearest airport. The critical point was graphically depicted on our nav displays, and my flying partner and I carefully reviewed both alternate airports' latest weather forecasts once airborne, then went so far as to discuss driftdown procedures. Both our ASI's were bugged for that exact speed.

Here's my point:

Having a second motor does not excuse you from the responsibility of KNOWING exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there when - not if - one or both of your motors quits. He is wisely preoccupied with where is he going to go and how is he going to get there post engine failure. When it happens, he'll be ready and will have a good chance of a successful outcome.

Contrast that with a twin engine pilot who doesn't worry about engine failure. What's your single engine service ceiling right now, at today's weights and temps? Whats the MEA of the airway you're on? If you're off airway direct, what's the grid MORA? Many of these single pilot jets are not capable of terrain clearance in many parts of the western US. I know this for a fact because I fly a transport aircraft with the highest thrust to weight ratio of any airliner except Concorde, and even we're not capable of always clearing terrain enroute over the rockies between certain cities at certain weights. And there's a divert airport on our flight plan when that happens.

What makes you think it isn't?

Btw - I said twice, not once.

Because performing emergency procedures, even twice a year, isn't always sufficient for you to be able to successfully perform those actions under stress, in the real world. Those actions haven't been performed enough to become part of your long term memory at the level required to perform.

By briefing our EP's prior to takeoff or landing, we create and then reinforce strong neural pathways that help take things learned at the training center from short term or working memory and get them firmly into your hippocampus forever.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20et%20al.

Here's a real world example. At my employer, back in the early 2000's we had no requirement to brief a missed approach procedure beyond mindlessly reciting what was printed on the chart. Our safety reporting systems showed a high incidence of totally screwed up go-arounds. Missed callouts, confusion, flap overspeeds, altitude busts. It was UGLY. Even worse, the folks at the training center noticed that out of all the maneuvers our crews were evaluated on during continuing qualification in the simulator, going around produced the highest degree of retraining and failures.

So we changed or SOP's and required our crews to brief the physical actions required on every go-around, every single approach we flew. Here's what it sounds like:

"If we have to bail on this one, it's going around, flaps twenty, check thrust. Positive rate, gear-up, set missed approach altitude. at 400 feet, we'll go heading select and at 800, I'll call for set clean maneuvering speed, flaps five. Flaps one. Flaps up. Flight level change, set clean maneuvering speed. Autopilot A to command, and I'll call for the after takeoff checklist. Then we'll analyze our fuel and discuss plan B."

Guess what maneuver our crews have almost no problems with anymore? When we brief that, the cadence of the callouts are slow and match what we'll actually do during a real go around. We point with our hands and touch controls and indicators, creating muscle memory.

Thinking about it isn't enough. What makes you think it is?

Because performing emergency procedures, even twice a year, isn't always sufficient for you to be able to successfully perform those actions under stress, in the real world. Those actions haven't been performed enough to become part of your long term memory at the level required to perform.

By briefing our EP's prior to takeoff or landing, we create and then reinforce strong neural pathways that help take things learned at the training center from short term or working memory and get them firmly into your hippocampus forever.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20et%20al.

Here's a real world example. At my employer, back in the early 2000's we had no requirement to brief a missed approach procedure beyond mindlessly reciting what was printed on the chart. Our safety reporting systems showed a high incidence of totally screwed up go-arounds. Missed callouts, confusion, flap overspeeds, altitude busts. It was UGLY. Even worse, the folks at the training center noticed that out of all the maneuvers our crews were evaluated on during continuing qualification in the simulator, going around produced the highest degree of retraining and failures.

So we changed or SOP's and required our crews to brief the physical actions required on every go-around, every single approach we flew. Here's what it sounds like:

"If we have to bail on this one, it's going around, flaps twenty, check thrust. Positive rate, gear-up, set missed approach altitude. at 400 feet, we'll go heading select and at 800, I'll call for set clean maneuvering speed, flaps five. Flaps one. Flaps up. Flight level change, set clean maneuvering speed. Autopilot A to command, and I'll call for the after takeoff checklist. Then we'll analyze our fuel and discuss plan B."

Guess what maneuver our crews have almost no problems with anymore? When we brief that, the cadence of the callouts are slow and match what we'll actually do during a real go around. We point with our hands and touch controls and indicators, creating muscle memory.

Thinking about it isn't enough. What makes you think it is?

I think the market has spoken in sales, that "they" (the buyers and users of aircraft) are OK with whatever risks SE aircraft may present.



I look at flying risks more than the plane itself. As many have pointed out, there is:
1. Topographical risks - mountains and water
2. Weather risks
3. Pilot experience risks
4. Maintenance risks - shop capability and deferred maintenance
5. Day and night risks

All of these risks and the aircraft in sum, determine the potential risk for any given flight. These risks are then weighted with a persons personal emotional risk.

Like many things in life - investing for example - every person has to determine their personal risk mins and max and stick to it. In the investing world they call it an Investment Policy Statement (IPS). The IPS is a written plan of how you are personally going to invest, to achieve your goals and objectives. The goal being to reduce the emotions and outside noise from swaying your investing decisions.

In the flying world, it would be a written personal minimums statement. A reference to remind you of what risks you are going to accept based on any given individual flight.

Following this thread, I think Chuck has done a good job of publicly sharing pieces of his personal mins and how he manages the risks. Do they apply to me? Probably not. I don't have the same experience in type, experience overall and possibly the same risk tolerance as Chuck.

If we were to apply the Sharpe ratio (from the investing world) to the aircraft world, we would probably see that it is higher for SETP than most alternatives out there. Not without risk, but risk adjusted great bang for the buck.

Show me the bodies.

Dumb pilot tricks in SETP ... easy to find bodies. EASY. 14 in a single PC12 once.

Zero-ETP ... much harder to find bodies.

That terrain you fly over is quite unforgiving. A successful landing there, with no injuries would still be a challenge as you have noted. I've flown over that terrain a few times in my SEPP Comanche. A lot higher risk than the M600. Much more comfortable with the extra engine the Aerostar provides. I pretty much stick to airways and roads. Thank goodness most accidents are not due to engine failures. Twin engine jet seems like it would be much safer over that terrain, at least in regards to engine failures and successful outcomes.

One of my buddies had a successful CFIT incident in the Colorado mountains. No injuries, and very fortunate to have a rescue team reach him within 24 hours. February/March timeframe, doubtful they would have survived much longer without a rescue team.

That terrain you fly over is quite unforgiving. A successful landing there, with no injuries would still be a challenge as you have noted. I've flown over that terrain a few times in my SEPP Comanche. A lot higher risk than the M600. Much more comfortable with the extra engine the Aerostar provides. I pretty much stick to airways and roads. Thank goodness most accidents are not due to engine failures. Twin engine jet seems like it would be much safer over that terrain, at least in regards to engine failures and successful outcomes.

One of my buddies had a successful CFIT incident in the Colorado mountains. No injuries, and very fortunate to have a rescue team reach him within 24 hours. February/March timeframe, doubtful they would have survived much longer without a rescue team.

I think all the above is relevant, but I would also add that we worry way too much about engine failures when those kinds of failures represent a tiny amount of accident causes.

Mechanical accidents are around 10-15% of all accidents. Out of those, I don't know how many are due to engine failures, but it's not the majority. Total power loss is very rare.

That's the kind of argument that says Chevy is better than Lexus because more people chose Chevy.

I think the market basically says singles are cheaper, not safer, and the numbers represent money than safety.

I'll note almost all the jets are twins, so more twin turbines are sold each year than single turbine.

Mike C.