Why Lear and not Cessna

mikecweb said:
I think it would be pretty hard to say one pilot is more safe than two but is two safer than one?
Click to expand...

Obviously it depends on who they are, in all combinations and permutations. I fly markedly more poorly with another pilot in the cockpit, because I'm not used to the distractions another guy causes me (farting loudly, plotting their death, bringing up uncomfortable subjects to see how they react, talking about how "I just don't see the point in it all anymore"). Actuary tables don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth, either. Statistically, I'm sure two heads are better than one, etc etc, but that's a probability, not a fact.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Obviously it depends on who they are, in all combinations and permutations. I fly markedly more poorly with another pilot in the cockpit, because I'm not used to the distractions another guy causes me (farting loudly, plotting their death, bringing up uncomfortable subjects to see how they react, talking about how "I just don't see the point in it all anymore"). Actuary tables don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth, either. Statistically, I'm sure two heads are better than one, etc etc, but that's a probability, not a fact.
Click to expand...

Well said.

-mini
 
You guys are right, I'm wrong. Hopefully all the airlines can figure it out and recertify all the airplanes for single pilot ops, safety isn't improved the slightest by having another pilot so time to do away with them.
 
400A said:
You guys are right, I'm wrong. Hopefully all the airlines can figure it out and recertify all the airplanes for single pilot ops, safety isn't improved the slightest by having another pilot so time to do away with them.
Click to expand...

Easy chief it's not a right or a wrong thing. I think Boris clearly stated that. It depends on crew make up. Throw two private pilots with "ideas" in a plane or a 4000 hour freight dawg single pilot and tell me whose safer?
 
fly22 said:
Why own or operate a small to mid size Lear 24 -50 that require 2 crew when you can have a Cessna 501's and that only requires one on payroll?

I'm sitting here and thinking about it hard. Other than climb out how does the Lear out perform the Cessna 525's to the point of justifying another payroll employee.

A guy I know real well is looking at buying a close to defunk charter company. Problem I have with it is the cost structure. Curious as to why people would operate Lears.
Click to expand...

Speed. That's the only thing I can think of.
 
minitour said:
Well, in the 525B we're lucky to pull .66 at 410. In the 525A we were right up on the barberpole at 450, but I think that was still only .7.
Click to expand...

Really? Wow... Our 525B (CJ3) will hit 0.737 (around 406 ktas) pretty much every time at FL450 while burning just under 800 PPH in the cruise detent (usually have to pull it back from that even). In about 250 hrs, the only time I've seen it not do that was the other day when we were up north and high into the stratosphere, ISA+8 FL450 and we were heavy. In the mid-30s, we'll easily hit 425 ktas but burn more obviously. Definitely not Lear speeds, but not bad for a straight wing citation. We pretty much never have to level off all the way to FL450 either, and can be up there in less than 20 mins usually.

This plane works for our company for a couple of reasons... The short field capabilities are excellent. We operate out of some fairly short fields (kspg, kvll, etc.) that are around 3,000'. We like the economy of operating a citation, and the reliability is hard to beat with the simple systems (DC electrical system, no reversers, etc.). We always fly 2 pilots with pax, but sometimes operate it single pilot if we're taking it somewhere for maintenance. The AFM permits either 2 crew or 1 crew operations for part 91.
 
mikecweb said:
Easy chief it's not a right or a wrong thing. I think Boris clearly stated that. It depends on crew make up. Throw two private pilots with "ideas" in a plane or a 4000 hour freight dawg single pilot and tell me whose safer?
Click to expand...


My frustration doesn't come from the debate, it comes from the "what ifs" that people throw in to make their argument valid. Of course two ill-trained and un-qualified pilots are not any safer than one seasoned freight pilot. BUT, BUT, two well trained and qualified pilots will always be safer than a single pilot any day of the week. If you can afford the jet you can afford to pay for that. If you can't and still buy the jet, what other corners are going to be cut. Saying that "affordability is irrelevant" is just another way of saying, adding a layer of safety is beyond or economic means. That should throw a red flag up to anyone.

A well trained pilot is the best safety device you can put in an airplane, why skimp on it?
 
400A said:
If you can afford the jet you can afford to pay for that. If you can't and still buy the jet, what other corners are going to be cut. Saying that "affordability is irrelevant" is just another way of saying, adding a layer of safety is beyond or economic means. That should throw a red flag up to anyone.
Click to expand...
So your whole argument is that Spending $ automatically = safety?

So is it safer to fly with an SIC making $40,000 than it is with an SIC making $30,000?

Maybe it's Jepps are safer than NACO plates since they're slightly more expensive. Visiting Signature is safer than visiting "Ma 'n Pa Aviation" since you'll pay more in ramp fees and per gallon of Jet-A. I mean, the owner can afford it...

A well trained pilot is the best safety device you can put in an airplane, why skimp on it?
Click to expand...
I agree. But the point you were trying to make is .....

400A said:
If you can afford a 5 or 6 million dollar jet, you can afford the second pilot.
Click to expand...

As duly noted, not all two pilot crews are safer than single pilot crews. Even your precious airlines (ref. the remark in your "woe is me" post above) have crew pairings that probably aren't as safe as some single pilot operators. Even if it's only one pilot of the two that isn't up to speed, that could make the situation less safe than a single pilot that knows what he's doing. Obviously if you have two folks up front that know what they're doing as individuals and on the same page as a crew, avoiding "two heads down" time, staying ahead of the plane, yadda yadda, yeah you're going to add a layer of safety over a single pilot operator. Two sets of eyes and all. But that has nothing to do with "if they can afford....".

I'll ask it this way, what does spending the money have to do with safety? Period. Er, question mark.

-mini
 
Spending money ON safety = safety. "Oh the battery is getting weak we won't replace it because it cost money" "Tires are starting to wear, don't replace them, it cost money" etc It isn't the "amount" of money, it is the mentality that something will cost a bit more so we won't do it even though it pays in spades in the long run. The step over a dollar to save a penny mentality.

I realize this hurts some people's egos that they aren't super pilot and can fly safer solo than in a crew environment. If you can honestly look me in the eye and say one pilot is safer than two pilots (trained and qualified) then so be it. If you think it is cost effective to run one pilot vs two over the long run, so be it. I don't, just my opinion.
 
400A said:
Spending money ON safety = safety. "Oh the battery is getting weak we won't replace it because it cost money" "Tires are starting to wear, don't replace them, it cost money" etc It isn't the "amount" of money, it is the mentality that something will cost a bit more so we won't do it even though it pays in spades in the long run. The step over a dollar to save a penny mentality.

I realize this hurts some people's egos that they aren't super pilot and can fly safer solo than in a crew environment. If you can honestly look me in the eye and say one pilot is safer than two pilots (trained and qualified) then so be it. If you think it is cost effective to run one pilot vs two over the long run, so be it. I don't, just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree.

I'll give another extreme example.

We have a well trained two pilot crew with no "pilot rated" pax in the back. One of the pilot kicks the bucket in flight, wouldn't this be safer than having only one pilot?

I can think of very few, maybe just one accident, where having one less pilot would have been better. And that as the PCL accident and since it's not possible to fly the CRJ with 1 pilot, it's a moot point.

You can pretty much blanket statement that a two man crew is ALWAYS better than a one man crew. Taxiing, doing RNAV departures/arrivals (verifying they're doing it right), another set of eyes in the busy terminal environments (think VNY, ADS, HOU, PWK, APA, ect), keeping the other pilot awake, etc. Too many reasons to list.
 
400A said:
BUT, BUT, two well trained and qualified pilots will always be safer than a single pilot any day of the week.
Click to expand...

400A said:
I realize this hurts some people's egos that they aren't super pilot and can fly safer solo than in a crew environment. If you can honestly look me in the eye and say one pilot is safer than two pilots (trained and qualified) then so be it.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm making no assertions regarding which of these hypothetical cockpit-occupancy situations is "safer". I'm simply asserting that totally unsupported categorical statements like yours (quoted above) are sort of childish, and that getting in a snit about it when people fail to simply accept them is more childish still. It's not that you're "wrong". The question is ridiculous on its face, so "wrong" doesn't even enter in to it.

To wit. You say "A therefore B (there are two pilots in the cockpit, it's safer)". I say "there is no evidence that B necessarily follows from A (I do not accept your assertion that in all cases two pilots are safer than one. NOTE: I also do not refute it, I simply don't believe that there is any evidence to support the statement) can you offer some evidence?" You say "it's totally obvious that A therefore B plus you're a cowboy/hotdog/jerkface/poopyhead, hah!"

Can you spot the logical fallacy?

PS. I am SuperPilot, and you should capitalize my name.
 
There was a time when some airplanes were so complex, they could not be flown without a crew of 3 or 4. Most of those airplanes are gone and replaced by airplanes that are much simpler to operate. However, we have not evolved to go from 0-450 knots for a few hours and then slow to 150 knots and find a runway with 1800 rvr, by ourselves, safely, enough of the time- according to insurance companies. There are a few jets out there that are certified to be flown by one pilot, but a lot of the things that made flying a "jet" dangerous have been improved. The one thing that remains is basic proficiency. The insurance companies believe that is very important and make single pilots of jets pay because of that.

I'm a firm believer in single pilot proficiency, though. I believe in the right environment, it can be done.
 
400A said:
Spending money ON safety = safety. "Oh the battery is getting weak we won't replace it because it cost money" "Tires are starting to wear, don't replace them, it cost money" etc It isn't the "amount" of money, it is the mentality that something will cost a bit more so we won't do it even though it pays in spades in the long run. The step over a dollar to save a penny mentality.
Click to expand...

Yes! yes yes! I'm glad I'm not alone! We can all understand why someone doesn't want to buy a tiny part that costs, say, 5000$. When people start squawking over a part that costs 50$ is where I have serious problems. There are a lot of things that can be repaired, rather than replaced, but there comes a time when enough is enough.

I realize this hurts some people's egos that they aren't super pilot and can fly safer solo than in a crew environment. If you can honestly look me in the eye and say one pilot is safer than two pilots (trained and qualified) then so be it. If you think it is cost effective to run one pilot vs two over the long run, so be it. I don't, just my opinion.
Click to expand...


I don't know... "None of us is as dumb as all of us!" haha
 
falconvalley said:
There was a time when some airplanes were so complex, they could not be flown without a crew of 3 or 4. Most of those airplanes are gone and replaced by airplanes that are much simpler to operate. However, we have not evolved to go from 0-450 knots for a few hours and then slow to 150 knots and find a runway with 1800 rvr, by ourselves, safely, enough of the time- according to insurance companies. There are a few jets out there that are certified to be flown by one pilot, but a lot of the things that made flying a "jet" dangerous have been improved. The one thing that remains is basic proficiency. The insurance companies believe that is very important and make single pilots of jets pay because of that.

I'm a firm believer in single pilot proficiency, though. I believe in the right environment, it can be done.
Click to expand...


Yep! It definitely can be done. If it couldn't, we wouldn't have single pilot operated fighter aircraft. The arguement is always that the workload is much greater single pilot. True, but all that means is that you just plan further ahead and everything will be fine. Some of these jets are so automated that the actually "flying" is more system managment than anything. I'd take flying single pilot in one of these highly automated jets as being safer than flying the metro single pilot any day!
 
Ok, maybe I took some peoples tone incorrectly. I read the responses as disagreeing just to disagree, ie not offering anything of substance just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. If I am wrong, I apologize. If not, get bent :).


My simple point is this. There is no more valuable safety item in an airplane (automation, TAWS, FMS, Autopilot, etc) than well trained and qualified pilots. Even the most automated airplanes can have an incredible workload when something goes wrong. To say that an operation can do without a layer of safety because of cost and that would be the only reason not to have 2 pilots, to me smacks of not caring about safety and leads me to wonder what other corners will be cut in the name of $$. That isn't to say just because an operation has two pilots that corners are not cut as well.
 
stuckingfk said:
Wholeheartedly agree.

I'll give another extreme example.

We have a well trained two pilot crew with no "pilot rated" pax in the back. One of the pilot kicks the bucket in flight, wouldn't this be safer than having only one pilot?

I can think of very few, maybe just one accident, where having one less pilot would have been better. And that as the PCL accident and since it's not possible to fly the CRJ with 1 pilot, it's a moot point.

You can pretty much blanket statement that a two man crew is ALWAYS better than a one man crew. Taxiing, doing RNAV departures/arrivals (verifying they're doing it right), another set of eyes in the busy terminal environments (think VNY, ADS, HOU, PWK, APA, ect), keeping the other pilot awake, etc. Too many reasons to list.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. For the most part 2 pilots is way safer, but there can be times where that isn't ALWAYS the case. If you have a guy that is a complete jackoff in the seat next to you, that has the potential for making things worse. There always are guys that make it through training that makes one wonder "how the hell did this get allowed to happen?" and that can increase the workload of the other pilot considerably. Sometimes the CRM in the cockpit can be crappy too. Or when the guys is fresh out of training and still getting used to the plane, that too can make it harder on the captain initially. Granted, training is supposed to take care this issue, but that isn't always the case.

Like I said, MOST of the time 2 pilots is WAY safer IMO, but there are always exceptions.
 
KLB said:
Yep! It definitely can be done. If it couldn't, we wouldn't have single pilot operated fighter aircraft. The arguement is always that the workload is much greater single pilot. True, but all that means is that you just plan further ahead and everything will be fine. Some of these jets are so automated that the actually "flying" is more system managment than anything. I'd take flying single pilot in one of these highly automated jets as being safer than flying the metro single pilot any day!
Click to expand...

... as long as thing occur within the envelope of expectations. Although the airplanes are highly automated, events occur that can not be planned for.. ie United at KSUX or most recently USAir at LGA.

Stick and rudder skills have always been assumed and thus it has always been information management. If you can't keep it blue side up, it doesn't matter about information processing.

As for automation reducing workload, that will continue to be debated. One argument is that most automation reduces workload in already low workload regimes while increasing workload in peak periods. Reprogramming the FMS near the airport is not intuitive and requires quick dexterity with the keys.

So, maybe the correct statement would be workload in a highly automated aircraft in the normal environment (no systems failure, no handling problem, no severe wx situation) is not some super-task, it quickly gets to be a challenge to priortize tasks, complete them properly especially when it is a compound problem. A second meatsack helps if nothing but keeping blue side up while the first meatsack deals with the problem. :D
 
Are you guys really debating whether one pilot is safer than two, what when we're talking about everything else being equal? I.E. Training to the type of operation being the same, equipment being the same, yada yada?

It's a no brainer, two pilots are safer than one. Amflight has a pretty good record of guys that made real simple mistakes being put into mountains because there wasn't somebody there to check their work.

Somebody else being there, watching you like a hawk, is why (IMO, and in my experience, which involves training people to fly single pilot, doing a bit of it myself and then flying in a crew environment) having two pilots is safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top