4 fatals in 5 months

[kmead]

We lost another PA46 and couple the other day, possible stall/spin on approach. The other three were 1 departure and 2 approach. I had worked on this PA46 a couple years ago and the new owner was scheduled for his annual here at the end of may. The last owner of their Jetprop and long-time friend of mine, committed suicide about 2.5 years ago.

I don't know were the insurance companies are going to go with our bad and getting worse safety record of the PA46. I've been in aircraft service for 33 years, I have worked exclusively on the PA46 since 1984 and never seen anything so discouraging. Piper's parts problems don't help things either. I guess the price of GA flying is about to go up again.

Retirement is looking like an even better option these days. Then there's always tomorrow!

Kevin

 

[weilke]

Sorry to hear about the loss of your friend.

You seem to follow the PA46 safety record. Do you think that the jetprops are involved in a larger share of accidents than their share of the fleet would suggest ?

 

[flyersfan31]

Setting aside the loss of life, which is sad, traumatic, and far more important, I'll address the PA46 side of things.

A stall/spin can happen in any airplane. I'm very aware that the PA46 has wings that are optimized for high altitude. I fly the pattern accordingly. I'm no Top Gun, but I am careful. I assume that my fellow pilots train and plan for their particular airframe. I don't know what more insurance companies, training companies, and aircraft manufacturers can do. Change the weather???

If it's pilot error, let it be known far and wide. Airplanes don't kill people....

 

[SCCutler]

I have never heard anything to suggest that the PA46 is a dangerous airplane; only that some pilots make the mistake of presuming that single-engine = simple.

Is there something I am missing, something that a persistent commitment to recurrent training and high standards would not fix?

 

[wabower]

I managed the acquisition of a new one for a friend in '87, then trained him to fly it (along with Piper's road-show pilot school conducted by Rev. Bob) and have flown them since. The PA-46 has been plagued with more mechanical problems than you'd think a new airplane should have, after the real test flying of first batch is done by the initial owners.

Some of it was due to Piper's approach of using FL250 for almost any flight and their LOP dogma that allowed the engine to run (but not for long as it turned out) on 16.x gph. The engine failure/flight hour ratio was horrible on the Continental 520's, and only slightly better on the Lyc's. I think they put 550's in them now, but have lost interest and don't care.

Some of their decisions didn't set well with pilots. The O2 sticks under the co-pilot seat weren't particularly comforting, and many prospects balked at owning one. They are runway-lovers and short of useful load when topped off, but since they hold 120 gal you can trade fuel for at least one pax and still have a lot in the tanks. For grins, check the next one you see on the ramp and determine how much of the prop blade protrudes past the diameter of the cowling. It ain't much.

I was never impressed with the quality of the design, and to this day their frequency of expensive shop visits seems to be higher than most. How long should it take for a manufacturer to figure out the geometry and rigging of a cowl flap handle?

I don't think the accident rate is the fault of the airframe, however, the PA-46 crashes are pilot-induced just like those in all the other airplanes in the GA fleet.

I have never heard anything to suggest that the PA46 is a dangerous airplane; only that some pilots make the mistake of presuming that single-engine = simple.

Is there something I am missing, something that a persistent commitment to recurrent training and high standards would not fix?

 

[SCCutler]

Well, anyway, I still want to do Henning's idea of taking a P-Baron fuselage and wings, and plant a Walter turbine on the front.

 

[wabower]

Birds of a feather.

Well, anyway, I still want to do Henning's idea of taking a P-Baron fuselage and wings, and plant a Walter turbine on the front.

 

[gismo]

Well, anyway, I still want to do Henning's idea of taking a P-Baron fuselage and wings, and plant a Walter turbine on the front.

I know someone who did just that but failed to get it certified. He's flying a King Air now. Also FWIW, the 58P has a rather low pressurization differential which means you have to (or at least should) use O2 in the flight levels.

 

[SCCutler]

I know someone who did just that but failed to get it certified. He's flying a King Air now. Also FWIW, the 58P has a rather low pressurization differential which means you have to (or at least should) use O2 in the flight levels.

I know that there is a siginificant difference in the diff between earlier and later P-Barons. In any event, the P_Baron owner I (and you) know uses O2 when really high.

It's all out of reach for me, in any event, but I can dream...

 

[kmead]

In our own simple way my wife and I have been looking in to any ties. In the 4 accidents it was Meridian, Jetprop (Mirage airframe), Malibu, and a Mirage. In the case of the two turbines one owner was new to the airframe and the other was new to the Avidyne panel. In the Recip. airframes they either had them for some time or had owned others. I can't seem to keep myself current in the 172, I probably never will in the Malibu and never feel proficient in an aircraft with my available time. So can the owner flying their Malibu, lets say flying 50 hours a year be real sharp for that approach to minimums. It's not uncommon that many of the PA46 airframes that come through here each year have flown less than 100 hrs. The pilots that fly for us are in the 500-600 hrs per year area.

I guess what may be interesting is if the insurance companies follow through with a possible 200 % increase in premiums on the PA46.

The smith 58P conversion was at KHUT recently. It's a beast, I think it has the PT6A-42 engine installed. He has been quiet over the years.

 

[Ted]

Setting aside the loss of life, which is sad, traumatic, and far more important, I'll address the PA46 side of things.

A stall/spin can happen in any airplane. I'm very aware that the PA46 has wings that are optimized for high altitude. I fly the pattern accordingly. I'm no Top Gun, but I am careful. I assume that my fellow pilots train and plan for their particular airframe. I don't know what more insurance companies, training companies, and aircraft manufacturers can do. Change the weather???

If it's pilot error, let it be known far and wide. Airplanes don't kill people....

I tend to like to fly a fast pattern in any plane. Being slow and low to the ground I don't like as a rule. Take a plane with hot wings, makes it worse. A lot of stall/spin accidents in Lancairs seem to be similar problems - pilot gets too slow, and then makes a small crater in the ground. I was talking to one of the guys who trained the pilot who crashed his Lancair (forget the model) coming into Osh a few years ago. The trainers told him he wasn't ready and not to do it. Got too slow, stall spin, bam. Osh is a bad place to take a hot plane (or any plane) that you're not proficient in.

I think patterns end up being a difficult transition point for many people. As one friend of mine who flies a Cherokee pointed out, my speed on final is only a bit lower than her cruise speed. When I stepped up to the Aztec, I did have a tendency to get a bit slower than I should, and my instructor kept on beating me over the head on it. Now I carry more speed in through the entire pattern. It's much more stable, and gives more options if something goes wrong. Besides, it's not like my plane has any problems losing speed or altitude...

Some of it was due to Piper's approach of using FL250 for almost any flight and their LOP dogma that allowed the engine to run (but not for long as it turned out) on 16.x gph. The engine failure/flight hour ratio was horrible on the Continental 520's, and only slightly better on the Lyc's. I think they put 550's in them now, but have lost interest and don't care.

Answering the question you don't care about, it's currently powered by a Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A. 350 HP @ 2500 RPM, twin-turbo, twin-intercooled. I was talking to a mechanic at a Piper dealer I end up visiting fairly frequently, and he told me how they operate their Malibus, commenting how they were idiots and the engines kept on breaking. Yeah, after hearing their operating practices it's no wonder they break.

 

[flyersfan31]

I guess what may be interesting is if the insurance companies follow through with a possible 200 % increase in premiums on the PA46.

That's what I'm worried about.

 

[Ted]

That's what I'm worried about.

Andrew, you certainly know more about this than I do, so I'm curious.

Before I bought the Aztec and was in the searching process for what I wanted, I had conversations with a couple of different insurance companies. Since I was painting with a pretty wide brush and looking at about everything from a Lancair 360 up to a 400-series twin Cessna (and the 340 caught my eye for a while) I wanted to get some ideas on what the requirements were.

Most of the companies I talked to said that the pressurized and cabin class twins I would be completely uninsurable in until 500 hours, and that I would be best off getting something like the Aztec that I'd be insurable in. Now on my second year of insurance and having made a substantial increase in my total time with almost all of it in type, my insurance has dropped significantly.

The interesting thing was regarding the pressurized piston singles, Malibu and P210 being the big ones. They said that those planes were just about impossible to get initial insurance in unless you already had time in type. Seems odd to me since Piper is still selling Malibus. I know your Matrix doesn't have the pressurization (which was a big deal to them), but is otherwise more or less the same aircraft. Do you have any insight here?

 

[flyersfan31]

The PA46 is the PA46 is the PA46. Matrix/Mirage/Meridian are pretty much the same in the Insco's minds. I had expensive insurance yr 1 because of hull value and only maybe 50ish hrs complex (but 400ish High Perf), but at least 3 companies quoted coverage. The insurance dropped by about a 1/3 yr 2. Part of that was the insurance mkt strengthening, fewer hull losses, and part was my experience.

After 200hrs in the PA46 Matrix, I got a quote for insurance on a new PA46 Meridian turboprop. No turbine time. No pressurized time. Just PA46 time. Only slightly more than my Matrix insurance, again because of hull value. No extensive dual requirements, just SimCom.

AFA the airplane goes -- it's designed for high altitude flight. Nothing wrong with that. Takes a while to get motivated to get off the ground because of those long thin wings. Any pilot with common sense will plan departures and airport choices accordingly. They are also more squirrely in the pattern when you're flying "slow" like 90kts. Maybe it's just me, but I just make sure I keep my airspeed up. I'm not rocketing around the pattern --110 on downwind, 90 on final, but NO LOWER than 90 until short short final. It's not a STOL bird and shouldn't be flown like one.

Common sense.

 

[Ted]

The PA46 is the PA46 is the PA46. Matrix/Mirage/Meridian are pretty much the same in the Insco's minds. I had expensive insurance yr 1 because of hull value and only maybe 50ish hrs complex (but 400ish High Perf), but at least 3 companies quoted coverage. The insurance dropped by about a 1/3 yr 2. Part of that was the insurance mkt strengthening, fewer hull losses, and part was my experience.

After 200hrs in the PA46 Matrix, I got a quote for insurance on a new PA46 Meridian turboprop. No turbine time. No pressurized time. Just PA46 time. Only slightly more than my Matrix insurance, again because of hull value. No extensive dual requirements, just SimCom.

All interesting. For reference, my insurance has dropped by about 45% after year 1, going from virtually 0 hours multi, but about 80 hours complex (that was their big issue) to close to 3x the total time and about 400 hrs MEL (which is all in type).

AFA the airplane goes -- it's designed for high altitude flight. Nothing wrong with that. Takes a while to get motivated to get off the ground because of those long thin wings. Any pilot with common sense will plan departures and airport choices accordingly. They are also more squirrely in the pattern when you're flying "slow" like 90kts. Maybe it's just me, but I just make sure I keep my airspeed up. I'm not rocketing around the pattern --110 on downwind, 90 on final, but NO LOWER than 90 until short short final. It's not a STOL bird and shouldn't be flown like one.

Common sense.

All makes sense, thanks for the info. Your speeds are still a bit faster than mine, but not by a lot. Generally I run 120 mph on downwind, slow to 100 mph on final, and then pull power back and start slowing when I have the runway made.

 

[wabower]

Sure, easy for you to say. Especially when your airplane is the industry leader at slowing down.

All makes sense, thanks for the info. Your speeds are still a bit faster than mine, but not by a lot. Generally I run 120 mph on downwind, slow to 100 mph on final, and then pull power back and start slowing when I have the runway made.

 

[Ted]

Sure, easy for you to say. Especially when your airplane is the industry leader at slowing down.

I keep on telling people that there are advantages to having the aerodynamics of an office building. I think that's the future of aviation.