Are single pilot jets safe?

Great informative post David, and welcome to EuroGA

Peter wrote:

Great informative post David

Agreed, great post David – I’ve been considering a lot of the same options recently myself. Interesting how you found the Phenom more of a handful than the Mustang…

Finding the sweet spot in terms of mission fit gets real critical for private jets as the general opex are so high. (USD500,000/year and up) For pistons or single engine turboprop, fewer people downgrade from a DA42 to DA40 or Bonanza to a PA28 because of “high fuel costs”….

Hodja wrote:

For pistons or single engine turboprop, fewer people downgrade from a DA42 to DA40 or Bonanza to a PA28 because of “high fuel costs”….

Not from a DA42 to a DA40 but what has happened in recent years in abundance is that people who operated piston twins went to piston singles or possibly turboprop singles for a number of reasons. For people in the lower segment however, going from a light twin to a piston single in many cases had direct financial considerations.

The big difference to the class of airplane we are talking about is however that by moving from a light twin to a single people will save a substantial amount of money for fuel, maintenance and so on BUT stay with the same kind of performance and speed, in some cases even see substantial performance increases. Someone who moves from, say, a Seneca II to a Mooney Acclaim or even a 252 will see a 30-50 kt speed increase at half the fuel flow and half the maintenance costs. There are lots of people who mostly fly alone or two up even in 6 seat twins or expensive to maintain larger singles and eventually realize they do not need the payload but they would like the range and speed for less money. I’ve recently seen several moves in that direction where people who flew legacy light twins moved back to high performance SEP’s like Mooneys or Cirrus. There are quite a few FIKI singles around which outperform most light twins quite easily.

That however won’t work with your last example of the Bonanza to PA28, as the PA28 is a lot slower than most Bonanzas. In flying, speed is money. For travelling, the hour price is a secondary consideration but the cost of the actual sector is what defines which airplane is more economical. A 200 kt turbo single can be more economical to use on a 500 NM leg as a 160 hp Warrior, simply because it gets there twice as fast. Hence, between maintenance intervals and TBO you can fit a lot more milage onto a SR22T, a Cessna 400 or a Mooney Acclaim and even an Ovation than onto a 100-120 kt SEP with fixed gear and prop.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I’ve recently seen several moves in that direction where people who flew legacy light twins moved back to high performance SEP’s like Mooneys or Cirrus.

The reason for two engines is foremost to have a spare in case one stops. Only a turboprop can start to match that. A Cirrus also, but in a more awkward manner.

Unfortunately we got ourselves yet another disguised advertisement here. “davidfabry”, based on his profile, turns out to be a TBM dealer.

I will let this sales pitch stand because it does seem to contain useful information but in accordance with our Guidelines further posts will not be allowed unless he participates generally and helpfully in the forum (which means not just one-liners etc to get the business name visible, etc).

Stating on the topic, twin jets have to be safer. As pilots we all like redundancies so I see no reason than an isolated bad design to make a jet less safe. Safety records should also reflect a higher proficiency level for a crew of two and even single. As Jason was pointing out, the barriers to entry are higher so it is a natural skimmer.

Now to operate these safely, it appears to me you have to higher limitations. To duplicate the type of flying we do in pistons and turboprops is not realistic so it is a different compromise that can fit some and not others: My older friend flying twice a month from Cannes to Lille in his CJ is not affected by these limitations. My other friend who was flying the Phenom from Paris to a short runway Brittany was hit twice: Paris ATC kept him so he was burning a lot of Jet A and hen wet the runway was not accessible to his jet so he went back to his TBM. (Sadly the Phenom crashed in Virginia afterwards on a sloppy VFR approach)

The safety record of the single pilot Turboprop is interesting too: You will see that is much better on the PC12 than others. I view this again as a matter of pilot profile. The owner of a meridian or a TBM is flying his own plane is most likely acting a private pilot regardless of his certificate: Flying is not his job where the vast majority of PC12 pilots are professionals with the owner riding in the back.

As the president of TBMOPA Europe, my group and I focus a great deal of attention to safety issues around the owner pilot profile since it represents 95% of TBM owners. Most have upgraded from a piston such as Cirrus for the younger ones, a Beech twin for the older crowd and of course from Piper turboprop. Minimum PIC time to get into a TBM is 500 hours. Insurance companies in Europe will ask you an initial training and perhaps 25 hours with a safety pilot if you are low time… and that is it. No recurrent as in the US and no more hours than that. Looking at the statistics, it is clear that the risk goes down significantly after 100 hours but competition is fierce and no one wants to impose this number. I had 2 friends who crashed moving up from a Cirrus to a TBM. Both elected to fly alone before reaching the 25 hours of extra dual time after the initial training. My most recent example of the successful TBM transition took place when another friend who was moving up from a Cirrus so I made sure he knew about the 2 accidents and we took the time to train right. It took 6 months but we flew about 100 hours. We did all sorts of flights: We ferried TBM 900 from the US back to Europe, did very short (15 minutes) VFR flights in heavy traffic or bad weather, night time ones to groom him to the point that he was ready and I believe this with some recurrent training afterwards is keeping him proficient as a flying business man, no less.

Now safety is not the only aspect as Jason hinted that as well: Mission access and cost are other decision making factors.

Regarding mission access, if the majority of your flights are in Europe, I find runway access is a bigger deal as we have so many airports we can use if we access the smaller ones, payload and range come next. In a nutshell, I would rather land a turboprop 10 miles from my destination than parking my jet an hour away or be able to make a return trip without having to wait for a fuel truck before flying home.

On cost, let me share with you my reasoning: If my flying was purely for sunday morning entertainment, I would get a warbird (and be very, very happy with a P51…Very happy but I got carried away from the cost issue right there!…A Cub then.) If flying was simply about going for lunch once or twice a month, I would keep a Mooney for 2 or a Bonanza with kids (I like metal, overbuild machines). If I want to do business with the airplane, I would get no less than a TBM (still the overbuild syndrome) and then if I could find some reason to justify it I would aim at a mid size jet like a Phenom 300 with a crew and I will stop there as I am sure no one is interested in my dreams about a Falcon 5X…

Cessna has sold only 2 Mustangs last year at heavy discounts and is pushing the M2 now so you are right the TBM is heads on with the M2 on price.
A used TBM 850 will also be heads on with a used Mustang.
A PC12 is 1M more and it is a sound choice when you need to carry a lot all the time.

A TBM 850 owner sold his plane for a Cessna M2. When the TBM 900 came out, he bought one about a year ago. He has compared cost or running both and I was surprise by the magnitude of the extra cost for the M2. He flies a lot: around 400 hours a year and saw a difference of $400K with only a very marginal gain on flight time and this mattered to him enough that he stepped down.

Mustangs carry a lot of the disadvantages of a jet with little of their benefits but it is a proven machine. however, I would still prefer a used TBM 850 over them to do more.

Now between a used TBM 700 or 850 and a 900. It is a matter of borrowing capabilities (or opportunity cost) as you will either pay the same money on maintenance on a used one or interest on a new 900 that comes with 5 year maintenance.

The Cirrus jet is an interesting concept but I am concerned about payload: It is announced at 275 Kg with full fuel and it is slow but you can say you own a jet…I am sure Cirrus will market this well too but I would want to see them fly for a while anyway. It is a new design so it will need to mature.

Well, I have some work to do so I will stop there but this is entertaining!

Kind regards,

TBM salesman are the best ! I think they teach cirrus how to sale airplane when they first came out.

In the matter of fact as pilot (not owner) I prefer to fly in a plane that 2 engine and a toilet.
You said 1500nm range for the TBM900 nice… It’s a 5 hour ride without toilet.

Regards

Romain

But you cannot use the toilet anyway if you fly alone, unless it’s a “Number Two” and you have eaten some rotten eggs

In a TBM or a KA, with a toilet, flying alone, you still pee into a bottle.

And the European IFR environment is so busy on the radio that ATC will go crazy if you pop into the loo for a few minutes.

Good morning Peter,

I just noticed your post…My post is not disguised advertising but the description of a process I went through. David Fabry is my full and real name and I have nothing to hide. Anyone looking up my details will be fully informed.

I am only saying a couple things here on a specific matter of single pilot jet operations:

Twin jets have to be safer as they carry more redundancies.
Their pilots have to be safer as they go through more training however in my personal experience of using airplanes to fly for fun and business, I recognized they require more than turboprops and that in my case, I felt it was better for me to stick to the simplicity of a turboprop which also requires proper training.

In addition, costs and versatility were strong aspects of my decision but again, this was just valid for my case as I also described others who took other routes and are very satisfied.

And yes I have now started a company involved in Aviation and more specifically around the TBM. It is clearly stated in my profile. No disguise here either.
I am sure we can all take and share information from each other even if I have started this business. These posts reflect my personal viewpoint and experience as a pilot, aircraft owner for more than 15 years. I don’t think readers can be fooled that easily.