jrh
Well-Known Member
Well said.
I see exactly where you're coming from and I agree, to a large extent. If I always got to pick what type of plane I had under a given set of conditions, your advice completely makes sense.
The problem I have with your logic is that you're basically giving the single-engine pilot a free pass to do whatever he wants, because if his engine quits, he's along for the ride. You're not saying, "This is dangerous, this pilot should not do this," when it comes to departing short strips in a single. However, put a twin in the exact same scenario and all of a sudden you're saying the pilot would be using bad judgement to make the takeoff. To me, that doesn't seem logical. The pilot would be safer if he got out of his twin, walked across the ramp, hopped in a single, and blasted off? I don't think so.
Maybe try looking at it from this theoretical scenario: You're hired to be a forest service pilot and are asked to fly a load of equipment in to and out of a mountain strip. You can have your pick between using a Cessna 182 or a Piper Aztec. You're current and proficient in both models. Theoretically speaking, you look at the performance charts and find each plane has identical takeoff ground rolls and climb rates for the conditions (I know the Aztec would normally perform better, but let's say if you choose to take the Aztec your boss will throw in more equipment and increase your gross weight). However, neither plane will be able to accelerate and stop using the given runway. Which plane do you take? Or do you just refuse to make the trip on the grounds that it's inherently an unsafe operation?
I'd take the Aztec in a heartbeat.
But really, I think we're getting too caught up in this single/multi issue. My original point that I keep trying to make is that risk management is a very dynamic skill. "Safe" is a very relative term from pilot to pilot. Obviously there are things that are very safe, things that are very unsafe, and I believe there is a huge grey area in the middle. That's all I'm trying to say.
Ok, I see where you're coming from, and I'm not saying you're wrong. The only reason 91/121 got drug in to this conversation was because there are some things (accelerate-stop, for example) that are absolutely, positively, legally, limiting factors to a flight under 121, while in part 91 the rules are much more open to utilizing pilot judgement. I believe there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to flying, and most cats can be skinned *reasonably* safely as long as the cat skinner knows what he's doing. Using the issue of accelerate-stop performance as my example was probably a lousy idea.
How about we agree to disagree on certain specific points and both have a nice day?
, but it doesn't work here. 
)
He believes he droves down the German autobahns faster than I did. (I think he's probably right.) I think he's a Pilsner guy, and I'm a Hefe Weizen kinda person.
Going to Moscow in October is still like going to Siberia for her.