BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:25

Username Protected wrote:

Any of the above. :cheers:

Tim

That doesn't make sense.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:38

Username Protected wrote:

Any of the above. :cheers:

Tim

That doesn't make sense.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:39

Username Protected wrote:

Then why the SFAR?

Too many freight operators doing inadequate training, too many newbies getting no training, both a consequence of low acquisition cost and very high performance.

Now, less freight dogs, everyone gets training, safe airplane. It wasn't a machine thing, it was a pilot thing.

BTW, the owner operators who got insurance, and thus had mandated yearly training, were NOT having a problem prior to the SFAR.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:41

Username Protected wrote:

Yes it does. The fundamental assumption is the continuation of the species and adaptation to the current environment allows for the species to thrive and grow.
The key for the adaptation is the amount if risk/change must prove to be at acceptable levels to allow the species to thrive.

Therefore, if you get in a plane which is "too dangerous" you are increasing the odds you will be eliminated from the gene pool. Which may teach a lesson to those which follow, and also reduces the proclivity for passing on the risk gene.

If you get in a "safer plane" you are increasing the odds you will pass on your relatively risk adverse gene to your progeny which insures the continuation of the species.

Further analysis also stipulates that flying is inherently dangerous, as such it can be hypothetically stated that a safer plane encourages some level of risk/change without enough risk to eliminate the species.

Tim (I love the art of pontification)

You just wrote what I originally said.

Your original post suggested "extra training to overcome a design flaw ion one plane that doesn't exist in another makes one a better pilot".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:43

Username Protected wrote:

Then why the SFAR?

Too many freight operators doing inadequate training, too many newbies getting no training, both a consequence of low acquisition cost and very high performance.

Now, less freight dogs, everyone gets training, safe airplane. It wasn't a machine thing, it was a pilot thing.

BTW, the owner operators who got insurance, and thus had mandated yearly training, were NOT having a problem prior to the SFAR.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:45

Username Protected wrote:

If you get in a "safer plane" you are increasing the odds you will pass on your relatively risk adverse gene to your progeny which insures the continuation of the species.

Your theory suggests the human race should be a collection of wimps carefully bred that way by death from risk taking. Fortunately, it is not.

Pilots who feel comforted by being in a "safe" airplane are probably more at risk than the pilot who pays attention to his "dangerous" airplane.

In any case, the airplane is the least important factor in accidents. The shallow end of the gene pool will kill themselves with any airplane.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:46

Flying right now on Flightaware:

52 PC12
13 KA 350
3 MU2

I'm not buying there are 60+ MU2 flights a day. I'm also not buying that MU2 operators are "just more private" than all other aircraft operators.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:47

Username Protected wrote:

Pilots who feel comforted by being in a "safe" airplane are probably more at risk than the pilot who pays attention to his "dangerous" airplane.

So it's assumed those flying a plane with a better safety record than an MU2 (which is every airplane) are staring into space and drooling while at the controls?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:48

Username Protected wrote:

Why doesn't every plane have a SFAR then?

Because few of them are good at hauling freight cheaply.

Cessna 208 was also looked at for an SFAR at one time.

The FAA is purposefully blind to the purpose of use as a factor in accidents, yet that has far more impact than the airplane itself.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:51

Username Protected wrote:

The FAA is purposefully blind to the purpose of use as a factor in accidents, yet that has far more impact than the airplane itself.

Mike C.

How does the cargo on an airplane dictate the quality of the pilot? Are you suggesting cargo pilots don't care if they die?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:52

Username Protected wrote:

So it's assumed those flying a plane with a better safety record than an MU2 (which is every airplane) are staring into space and drooling while at the controls?

Seems that way for some.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:54

Username Protected wrote:

So it's assumed those flying a plane with a better safety record than an MU2 (which is every airplane) are staring into space and drooling while at the controls?

Seems that way for some.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 10:59

Username Protected wrote:

How does the cargo on an airplane dictate the quality of the pilot?

Because freight pilots are airline pilot wannabees waiting for a call.

Because freight pilots are paid next to nothing and often have a day job.

Because cargo aircraft are maintained to the lowest legal standard, or often below.

Because freight pilots are minimally trained and fly single pilot.

Because freight flies in all weather all the time on schedule mostly at night.

You should be a cargo pilot for a night.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 11:01

Username Protected wrote:

How does the cargo on an airplane dictate the quality of the pilot?

Because freight pilots are airline pilot wannabees waiting for a call.

Because freight pilots are paid next to nothing and often have a day job.

Because cargo aircraft are maintained to the lowest legal standard, or often below.

Because freight pilots are minimally trained and fly single pilot.

Because freight flies in all weather all the time on schedule mostly at night.

You should be a cargo pilot for a night.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 11:04

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not buying there are 60+ MU2 flights a day.

The MU2 fleets flies about 30,000 hours/year, average flight is just under 1 hour. You do the math.

I'm not buying that a Ferrari is less of a car than a Camry because I see less of them on the road.

Mike C.

Cirrus SF50