Why Lear and not Cessna

John asked for my opinion as I have indeed flown basically the same type of flying, single pilot in barons and caravans, two pilot as captain and copilot in lears, and single pilot again in a two pilot airplane, the metro. Below is my first thoughts and are written with a decent hangover so yeah....
I would like you to consider the following..... Safety in regard to number of crew and training is limited MOST by the training, currency, and experience of any ONE member of the crew. The military has proven that single pilot operations can be conducted with highly trained and qualified individuals. Face it, in a two crew environment the captain is the ultimate decision maker. Co-Pilots can and should add input and double check the captains decisions but if the Captain himself was trained and current to a high proficiency level he/she wouldn't need a double check or any input. And honestly thats all it comes down to, decision making. With the right motor skills and enough practice a well trained ape could manipulate the controls of an airplane. Airplanes are simple to fly but the decisions made up there are complex and need to be correct every time all the time. I believe that if you need two people to make one decision someone up there isn't proficient enough to be up there.

As far as types go, the lear would be TEN times easier to fly single pilot then the metro. Ergonomics alone would make the Lear easier. I'll never be convinced that at four hundred feet leaning over taking my eyes completely off my instruments and outside to flip on the bleed valves is safe. Besides that a second person helps you stay awake, but if you need someone else to help you stay awake should you really be flying?
 
Sorry to butt in and don't mean to get off topic, but!

Just in case anyone on here is looking for a Lear 40XR, the company I work for has a 2006 model for sale. 471 TT and currently on a 135 cert.
The owners are asking $7.2m but frankly, given the market, they are open to offers.

Its on controller.com and the tail # is N176CA


Thanks!

BP244
 
I find it interesting that everybody here keeps saying, almost, the same thing and no one really cares to realize it. Boris, Mikecweb, MikeD, Jtrain, 400A, everybody says that a PROFICIENT two pilot crew is much better than a single-pilot op. I fly single-pilot like many have or do currently fly. There are sometimes that I wish a second set of eyes were there to back me up but is not going to happen. I love flying freight and last time I checked boxes don't complain about a second pilot not being up front.

So this entire thread, Single-Pilot v. Crew, boils down to yes, a crew aircraft can be safter than a single-pilot operation, however, there are many things that get in the way of both to make them seem less than advantagous. So what? If you don't want to be single-pilot, don't do it. If you don't want to be 121, don't do it. That is what makes America awesome, the fact that you have a choice with your feet. Presently, my feet, and hands, are the sole manipluators of the aircraft because I make WAY more money than I would if I took just about any other job, NO ALL JOBS. Most freight pilots know that they want to end up in a two crew aircraft as well. I have spent the last 1700 hours single-pilot so yes it will take me a little time to adjust to a two crew operation. Doesn't mean anybody fears it or doesn't want to but some things like flying AND talking on the radio the WHOLE flight are something that I am used it. I am sure that when I get to the two pilot aircraft that I will enjoy it so that someone can back be up and vice versa.

Least of all.........ENJOY THE FLYING THAT YOU ARE DOING, I know that Jtrain isn't, but a lot of people are on furlough and hopefully the economy will turn around soon so that people will get their jobs back and we can go back to singing kumbya. Just my $0.02, take it with a grain of salt or however.
 
I certainly agree with braun that the upshot of the whole thing is that you should just try to enjoy/be safe at whatever you're doing.

I do find it curious, though, that the solicited opinion of the one guy on the thread (to my knowledge) who has done both (hi, mike), has left in its wake this total silence from the "crew is the only way to fly" crowd. A mystery!

PS. My solution to the "turning on the bleeds" problem is to just take off with them on (winter) or wait until I'm at a safe altitude to turn them on and suffer the cabin bump (summer). Screw the SOP. If the FAA asks, I was just kidding.
 
MikeD said:
Single pilot ops aren't that difficult or unsafe, IMHO. I've flown single pilot nearly all my career, from cargo to military, and while it can get taxing at times, it isn't unsafe. Having been in the cockpit of a number of Lears, they don't appear that difficult to fly single pilot so long as the pilot can reach everything he needs. Only flown in the 35 version, and it seemed the same.
Click to expand...

Boris Badenov said:
I certainly agree with braun that the upshot of the whole thing is that you should just try to enjoy/be safe at whatever you're doing.

I do find it curious, though, that the solicited opinion of the one guy on the thread (to my knowledge) who has done both (hi, mike), has left in its wake this total silence from the "crew is the only way to fly" crowd. A mystery!

PS. My solution to the "turning on the bleeds" problem is to just take off with them on (winter) or wait until I'm at a safe altitude to turn them on and suffer the cabin bump (summer). Screw the SOP. If the FAA asks, I was just kidding.
Click to expand...

So, let me understand this. Mike comes in, puts words into "my mouth", ie, I don't recall ever saying single pilot ops is dangerous, just that two pilots increases safety, or in my words, is more safe. You take my lack of response to his misreading of my words as me tucking my tail between my legs?

Are you really that immature? Does someone have to respond to every post or they curiously become "silent"? Orange Anchor summed it up best.
 
400A said:
So, let me understand this. Mike comes in, puts words into "my mouth", ie, I don't recall ever saying single pilot ops is dangerous, just that two pilots increases safety, or in my words, is more safe. You take my lack of response to his misreading of my words as me tucking my tail between my legs?

Are you really that immature? Does someone have to respond to every post or they curiously become "silent"? Orange Anchor summed it up best.
Click to expand...

Hee. Wrong Mike, dude. mikecweb posted a very D I C K-sizing-free explanation of his thoughts on flying single pilot in a "two pilot airplane" vs. flying crew. And, no, you certainly didn't make a claim that single pilot ops are "unsafe", but you did make the claim that two pilot ops are always, regardless of the circumstances or the certification of the aircraft, safer, a claim with which a number of people seem to disagree. I, too, dispute that claim. It's not my intention to be disagreeable about it, just to disagree, and if possible, explain why. If I've come across as a profanity-filter-word, that wasn't my intention. Relax. We're all on the same team here. I just think you're wrong on this one. Cheers.
 
braunpilot said:
Just fine I guess. Busy with all of the new policies.
Click to expand...

New policies? That sounds Bad. What are they going to start printing out ancillary information like "where you're supposed to go on the field" and "oops, this isn't the FBO we use anymore"?

But every time that I talk to him, says cheers at the end of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Same as it ever was. Everything that was old is new again. IIRC, Brad took a lot of heat, but you have to remember that A) He's answerable directly to the Nordic God, which would scare any mere mortal and B) At least he generally knew WTF was going on, unlike some of his underlings. He was ok in my book. Cheers! ;)
 
Boris Badenov said:
How can there be diminishing return in SAFETY? If it saves one more life, isn't it worth it? Can you really put a price on human life?
Click to expand...

With safety, you don't prevent accidents. You reduce risk by eliminating or mitigating hazards. And yes, there are diminishing returns with safety.

Eliminiating hazards is always the best option, but is not always the most practical or cost effective. So in that case, we try to reduce the risk to a level as low as reasonably practical.

The easiest way to keep aviation safe would be to park all the planes in hangars. By doing this, we eliminate the hazard (or potential for hazard). However, this isn't reasonable. We bought airplanes to go places and do things.

So, we reduce risks. Approach minimums, pilot qualifications, aircraft certification standards, etc. However, all of these mitigations are compromises. Compromises between safety and cost effectivness/real world practicality.

This is the basis of risk management and the economics of safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top