> best record in the business for non-failure.
>
> The sheer ability of this aircraft, with low stall and approach speeds,
> gives more comfort than higher landing speed, asymmetric operation after
> one engine failure, in a twin and I think a higher survivability factor
> in REAL terms. The power-off, feathered, glide performance is a eal
> eye-opener. The vastly increased cabin room for passengers and crew
> alike is a great bonus as well. My tone may be moderate but I hold these
> views very strongly, and it is my neck and the necks of family and
> friends. Is there perhaps a multi versus single snobbery at work in the
> opposition?
>
> Keith Webb
> Isle of Man

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Dawson" <graham@frgrjl.force9.co.uk

To: <office@singleturbine.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: Two engines safe?


I have a cpl/multi IR with around 900 hours instructing on singles. I am not a young one looking to count expenses across miles and miles of blue and I have had my hands on a number of different types and a couple of turboprop sims (B200. ATR42) Then I was fortunate enough to learn more about the C208B, and with Airmed, I did a rating a few months ago. I sincerely believe that this aeroplane is the future of small commercial operations.

There is a terrible snobbery in some aviation circles that seems to say that unless you can juggle six balls in the air, drink a cup of tea and make the lunch whilst pressing X lbs of force against a dead engine in a cross wind whilst full of fuel and other payload you have not climbed to the top of the zigurat. I say that is b*****. The greatest designs are simple to operate, washing machines or aeroplanes and I know which aeroplane I would rather be flying in a