Folks,
It is a very interesting exercise to do a comparison of engine reliability, piston v. small turbo-prop.
The subconscious bias is always towards "turbines", because we all "know" how reliable they are. And if "they" happen to be big turbo-fans on large aircraft, that is true. For little turbo-props the picture is somewhat different.
The facts, as presented to a Regional Airlines Association meeting, some years ago, presented a totally different picture, "little" turboprops are not really more reliable than properly operated and maintained piston engines. Indeed, on unsealed strips, they are more prone to engine damage from FOD than any piston engine.
Ask the (now) Regional Aviation Association for a copy of the paper, rather than any knee-jerk reaction that "that can't be right". At the time, the paper was accepted by the NSW Tourism Task Force, when the then CASA DAS was threatening to ban piston engine aircraft from RPT.
The then DAS had much to say about "old" piston engine aircraft, he was wanting to replace 35 year old piston twins with 35 year old turbo-props, because we all know jets are much never and more modern than pistons.
When you take a look at dollars per HP per hour, up to about 7-800 HP(total, not per engine) cost wise the turbo-prop doesn't get a look in.
Whoever takes Hart's recommendations is in for a $$$ shock, for no factually demonstrable risk reduction.
Tootle pip!!