BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 14:53

Username Protected wrote:

Are you saying that I am dead wrong that owner flown jets crash at a rate much higher than crew flown jets?

YUP!

How many "owner flown" turbines are out there?

Hop in crash talk. There are a bunch of "crew flown" turbines having incidents. I've flown with enough "commercial" guys to know that "commercial certificate" is NOT what separates the men from the boys. Some are great. Some suck. So I'm not sure what aspect of "PRO" you're comparing.

I've never had a problem getting insurance. It's a non-factor.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 14:54

Username Protected wrote:

And why? Well, that's pretty simple. A few posts back I said that anyone who flies an aircraft themselves is severely lacking in the risk management department to begin with. Owner flown turbines crash at twice the rate of of pro single pilot flown turbines, which in turn crash at 3.7 times of rate of turbines flown by a crew. That is a fact.

Insurance rates do not lie and anyone who's ever been in the insurance business on the underwriting end understands that in most states an insurance company is severely limited in its annual profit potential as in the rates have to make sense in both directions.

This is not true. Where are you finding this data?

I love it when people on BT say "this is a fact". You're dead wrong bro.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

Are you saying that I am dead wrong that owner flown jets crash at a rate much higher than crew flown jets?

YUP!

How many "owner flown" turbines are out there?

Hop in crash talk. There are a bunch of "crew flown" turbines having incidents. I've flown with enough "commercial" guys to know that "commercial certificate" is NOT what separates the men from the boys. Some are great. Some suck. So I'm not sure what aspect of "PRO" you're comparing.

I've never had a problem getting insurance. It's a non-factor.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 15:08

Username Protected wrote:

William-
Great question - and one which i seem to address frequently with my clients who are very liability limit sensitive.

As a preface and right, wrong or indifferent - for an owner flown CJ with a well qualified owner pilot flying single pilot (commercial pilot/MEL/IFR rated etc...good turbine time...good SP time etc) expect the ceiling at $10m limits. Certainly there are those owners that might be flying with $25m or even $50m in liability SP but I can guarantee you those are exceptions and not the norm. Certain underwriters even per capacity can't write more than $10m or won't write more than $10m SP for ANY risk (pro-flown even). So the owner pilot who for instance obtains the Comm or ATP , has exellent overall turbine experience, and does simulator based training at least every 12 months (some even every 6 or 8 months) is going to have the higher probability of securing those upper limits. Before anyone says well so and so has this or that - there are exceptions and accomodations possible for everything. All this said - plan on about $10m limits max if you are an owner pilot flying SP in a CJ or other light jet or turbo-prop.

On the proflown side (and not to spark a debate on owner versus pro or why they are viewed differently by insurers - i'm merely the mesenger here) - the limits available can be up to $100m or more provided the pro-pilot is well qualified in turbine overall and type. Simulator recurrent trained every 12 months or even 6/8 months (some guys with full service contracts may or will train every 6 or 8 months).

I can tell you however that there are very few insurance underwriters willing or able to quote a $100 policy for a single-pilot - even if it is pro-flown. Actually only about 3-4 total can or will do that limit SP. So the field is very narrow at high limits and even narrower if you are an owner/pilot wanting a $10m or higher policy.

I carry $25MM and attend SimCom every 12 months.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 15:11

Jason,

You just simply cannot tell me that a single pilot doing both the flying and working the radar on approach down to minimums in convective weather is just as safe than when the task is split between two people, with one strictly focusing on monitoring the autopilot (I didn't say flying) and the other monitoring the weather and calling out headings and altitudes.

It's called task saturation. Eventually even folks as bright and sharp as you will run out of brain power and hit a brick wall. Granted, you might recognize that and not fly in that type of weather where 110% of what's available between your ears is needed to make it safely to the ground. Many do not. And then many do, but then the autopilot starts acting up and the gear won't come down on the first try, and they go from using 50% of their brain to 100% and start making mistakes and it usually takes a few stacked up mistakes to cause a fatal accident. Another person in the cockpit assures they don't start stacking up. At least ideally, when proper CRM procedures are in place. I'm big on CRM.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 15:28

Another example, not aviation related:

700 people lost their job in early 2000s when an insurance company I did business with did not follow CRM and misplaced one single zero in their actuarial tables dealing with rice in Arkansas. It was a penny and half extra in liability that killed an entire multi million dollar company that wrote 700 million in premium that year. Because nobody reviewed and stress tested the tables. Two actuaries might not have made the same mistake. Selling stress testing software has been a lot easier since then.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 15:58

Username Protected wrote:

I have clients with $50m limits operating a CJ3/CJ4 flying single pilot with under 1500 hrs total time and a Private/MEL/IFR and also doing recurrent every 12 months.

You forgot to mention that they instinctively bend over every year at renewal time.

In that kind of situation, I have a hard time thinking that the extra cost of the insurance is less than hiring a pro pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 16:09

Username Protected wrote:

I love it when people on BT say "this is a fact".

Provide facts to support your assertion.

Statistics should be considered the weakest of "facts" because they so easily hide assumptions and bias. They can be true and terribly misleading all at the same time.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 16:13

Username Protected wrote:

I have clients with $50m limits operating a CJ3/CJ4 flying single pilot with under 1500 hrs total time and a Private/MEL/IFR and also doing recurrent every 12 months.

You forgot to mention that they instinctively bend over every year at renewal time.

In that kind of situation, I have a hard time thinking that the extra cost of the insurance is less than hiring a pro pilot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 16:23

Username Protected wrote:

Data from 1972 thru 2007, on SP certified Citation Jets states accident and incident rate on single-piloted Citations is 2.7 times greater than that of two-crew Citations—and that the fatal accident rate is 3.7 times greater than two-crewed Citations.

So this means, all other things being equal, if you take a second pilot along, you are roughly 3 times safer, right?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. That's because there are many other variables in play here, such as the fact that 2 crew airplanes are more likely to be professionally dispatch, FAR 25 certified, better equipment, more money spent on training, more powerful airplanes, and so forth.

That being said, taking a second pilot along does improve safety IF the two pilots are trained to operate as a crew. If they aren't, it can be worse than being alone. There can be no ambiguity over who does what when.

A second set of eyes can see things one pilot can miss.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 16:33

Username Protected wrote:

Data from 1972 thru 2007, on SP certified Citation Jets states accident and incident rate on single-piloted Citations is 2.7 times greater than that of two-crew Citations—and that the fatal accident rate is 3.7 times greater than two-crewed Citations.

So this means, all other things being equal, if you take a second pilot along, you are roughly 3 times safer, right?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. That's because there are many other variables in play here, such as the fact that 2 crew airplanes are more likely to be professionally dispatch, FAR 25 certified, better equipment, more money spent on training, more powerful airplanes, and so forth.

That being said, taking a second pilot along does improve safety IF the two pilots are trained to operate as a crew. If they aren't, it can be worse than being alone. There can be no ambiguity over who does what when.

A second set of eyes can see things one pilot can miss.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 17:02

Username Protected wrote:

When %#$@ hits the fan, it's nice to have another head in the cockpit. %#$@ is less likely to hit the fan with two heads in the cockpit. Simple act of flying down to minimums becomes that much more simple with on person on instruments and another person with their head looking out of the window and calling for either missed or continued approach at minimums. Many a single pilot died right there, well, about 20 seconds later.

Snore

Let's talk about that Phenom that slid off the runway a couple weeks ago.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 18:10

Tom,

How much is the premium for a CJ3/CJ4 owner/pilot with the times and limits you described?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 18:13

Username Protected wrote:

Tom,

How much is the premium for a CJ3/CJ4 owner/pilot with the times and limits you described?

I believe it was/is $23-$24k last renewal and included some charter leaseback as well. Why it is relevant?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Dec 2014, 18:21

Tom, that was the point I was trying to get across. Someone here, seems to think the parachute makes for more accidents so there should be a negative credit for it. Totally stupid.

Cirrus SF50