All,
--------Don’t confuse me with facts, my prejudices are already made up----
If one were to examine the facts on engine failures, and we exclude all the big pistons, ie R-3340’s and R-4360’s, etc, Aaaamazingly enough, we will discover that engine failure, as a cause of accidents is miniscule, regardless of whether it is a small turbo prop, or a piston engine.
Also, don’t confuse the reliability of the big turbo fans with small turbo props, it ain’t the Jet-A.
In fact, the engine failure rate for small turbo props and small pistons, caused by other than finger trouble, is very similar, ie not statistically different.
“Tis all on the various web sites that have the stats., particularly FAA and various NTSB and related.
In some areas pistons have fewer problems, no turbine likes stones and small babies, particularly little Garrets and Allisons ( or should I say Allied Signals and Rolls Royce)
The Australian Campaign Against Safe Aviation ( CASA) have topped and tailed JAR-OPS 1 for A Part 121A and done it again, more or less, for under 5700 kg, and called it Part 121B.
I am wondering how long before the penny drops, because they have ( amongst some truly amazing nonsense --- full ICAO Operational Control for everything “Public Transport” except local day VFR ,within 20 nm and no away landings, sightseeing.) built in a requirement for a quasi Pans-Ops Doc. 8168 obstacle clearance requirement---- engine out---- and I have yet to see any single with a (sustained) positive rate of climb engine out.
I wonder what we in Australia are going to do with all the Royal Flying Doctor Service and Ambulance PC-12s, sundry Caravans ets, won’t be much of a service limited to day VFR, after ALL THESE YEARS of H 24 IFR ---- and all the serious accidents have been with the King Airs, and engine failure has NOT been the cause of any.
Tootle pip !!