GA again shown more demanding than Airlines by Nall Report to

[Dave Krall CFII]

copied from 2010 Nall Report page 40-41



Appendix




General Aviation Safety vs. Airlines GA accident rates have always been higher than airline accident rates. People often ask about the reasons for this disparity. There are several:
Variety Of Missions: GA pilots conduct a wider range of operations. Some operations, such as aerial application (crop-dusting, in common parlance) and banner towing, have inherent mission-related risks.
Variability Of Pilot Certificate and Experience Levels: All airline flights are crewed by at least one ATP (airline transport pilot), the most demanding rating. GA is the training ground for most pilots, and while the GA community has its share of ATPs, the community also includes many new and low-time pilots and a great variety of experience in between.
2010 NALL REPORT: APPENDIX
Limited Cockpit Resources and Flight Support: Usually, a single pilot conducts GA operations, and the pilot typically handles all aspects of the flight, from flight planning to piloting. Air carrier operations require at least two pilots. Likewise, airlines have dispatchers, mechanics, loadmasters, and others to assist with operations and consult with before and during a flight.
Greater Variety Of Facilities: GA operations are conducted at about 5,300 public-use and 8,000 private-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 600 of the larger public-use airports. Many GA-only airports lack the precision approaches, long runways, approach lighting systems, and the advanced services of airline-served airports. (There are also another 6,000 GA-only landing areas that are not technically airports, such as heliports and seaplane bases.)
More Takeoffs and Landings: During takeoffs and landings aircraft are close to the ground and in a more vulnerable configuration than in other phases of flight. On a per hour basis,
GA conducts many more takeoffs and landings than either air carriers or the military.
Less Weather-Tolerant Aircraft: Most GA aircraft cannot fly over or around weather the way airliners can, and they often do not have the systems to avoid or cope with hazardous weather conditions, such as ice.
What Is General Aviation?

Although GA is typically characterized by recreational flying, it encompasses much more. Besides providing personal, business, and freight transportation, GA supports diverse activities such as law enforcement, forest fire fighting, air ambulance, logging, fish and wildlife spotting, and other vital services

 

[jspilot]

It seems really hard to compare airline flying with general aviation. Flying an a320 with two pilots, 150 passengers and several crew members from New York to Florida is completely different than flying 60 miles to get lunch with friends. I've never flown an airliner except on flight simulator games so it's tough to say that is inherently more difficult. I'll say this, put an airline pilot in a 172 in crummy weather with only airports with short runways and crosswind components as possible landing spots and I'd bet that guy or girl would be just as nervous and in just as tough a spot as the guy who has flown general aviation his or he whole life.

One part of the report that is interessting to me is the demands placed on the pilot. It does make sense that the general aviation model of mostly single pilot operations does place more emphasis on a wide range of skills on every flight( flying, talking to ATC, preflight operations, navigating) while in the airline world it's often not the case where one pilot would be flying, talking to ATC, and navigating all at the same time.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It seems really hard to compare airline flying with general aviation. Flying an a320 with two pilots, 150 passengers and several crew members from New York to Florida is completely different than flying 60 miles to get lunch with friends. I've never flown an airliner except on flight simulator games so it's tough to say that is inherently more difficult. I'll say this, put an airline pilot in a 172 in crummy weather with only airports with short runways and crosswind components as possible landing spots and I'd bet that guy or girl would be just as nervous and in just as tough a spot as the guy who has flown general aviation his or he whole life.

One part of the report that is interessting to me is the demands placed on the pilot. It does make sense that the general aviation model of mostly single pilot operations does place more emphasis on a wide range of skills on every flight( flying, talking to ATC, preflight operations, navigating) while in the airline world it's often not the case where one pilot would be flying, talking to ATC, and navigating all at the same time.

You can't compare the two. The OP does not have the experience or background to even begin to make a comparison thus why he keeps making the same inane assertion over and over. If he would carefully read and try comprehension he would see the Nall Report isn't saying that either.

No one in the Air Safety side of the MMAC or the TSI would even try to suggest something so silly as this. They understand the differences because they have the backgrounds and credentials to back them up.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You can't compare the two. The OP does not have the experience or background to even begin to make a comparison thus why he keeps making the same inane assertion over and over. If he would carefully read and try comprehension he would see the Nall Report isn't saying that either.

No one in the Air Safety side of the MMAC or the TSI would even try to suggest something so silly as this. They understand the differences because they have the backgrounds and credentials to back them up.

The Nall Report doesn't have difficulty comparing the two, why do you? Especially with all your "credentials" of which elementary objectivity needs to be attained soon and added.

Their points are titled for you, so go ahead and enlighten us all on them individually, instead of remaining conspicuous in your pompous and tedious avoidance of them.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

It seems really hard to compare airline flying with general aviation. Flying an a320 with two pilots, 150 passengers and several crew members from New York to Florida is completely different than flying 60 miles to get lunch with friends. I've never flown an airliner except on flight simulator games so it's tough to say that is inherently more difficult. I'll say this, put an airline pilot in a 172 in crummy weather with only airports with short runways and crosswind components as possible landing spots and I'd bet that guy or girl would be just as nervous and in just as tough a spot as the guy who has flown general aviation his or he whole life.

One part of the report that is interessting to me is the demands placed on the pilot. It does make sense that the general aviation model of mostly single pilot operations does place more emphasis on a wide range of skills on every flight( flying, talking to ATC, preflight operations, navigating) while in the airline world it's often not the case where one pilot would be flying, talking to ATC, and navigating all at the same time.

You're right, they are different but, not completely different because both are pilots flying aircraft, as compared in the Nall Report appendix copied above.

Just the Airline's preference for dual pilots in itself reduces the demands on the PIC immensely, as well as providing highly desireable safety overseeing and backup, which is exactly why they typically endure the added expense of the helper-pilot.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The Nall Report doesn't have difficulty comparing the two, why do you? Especially with all your "credentials" of which elementary objectivity needs to be attained soon and added.

Their points are titled for you, so go ahead and enlighten us all on them individually, instead of remaining conspicuous in your pompous and tedious avoidance of them.

I'm not going to continue debating your little diatribe on the Nall Report since you want to interject your own feelings as there's.

Go out and get some real training on the subject, I have. Placing "CFII" after your name doesn't make you a safety expert.

 

[j1b3h0]

Airline flying is SOOOOO much safer than GA. Like 1000 times safer. Light airplane flying is much closer to motorcycles with regard to safety. Airlines are much more strictly regulated, fly much more capable equipment and are flown by very experienced pilots who do it every day. Heck, plenty of airline pilots contribute to general aviation statistics. When you don't have many rules, sometimes it is more demanding.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The Nall Report doesn't have difficulty comparing the two, why do you? Especially with all your "credentials" of which elementary objectivity needs to be attained soon and added.

2010 NALL REPORT: APPENDIX
Limited Cockpit Resources and Flight Support: Usually, a single pilot conducts GA operations, and the pilot typically handles all aspects of the flight, from flight planning to piloting. Air carrier operations require at least two pilots. Likewise, airlines have dispatchers, mechanics, loadmasters, and others to assist with operations and consult with before and during a flight.

Typical GA pilot goes out to the airport, he may or may not get a weather brief. He preflights his airplane and launches off to his destination. He may or may not have talked with a mechanic before hand. Chances are he flies VFR and just follows the GPS. he lands at destination and ties down the airplane, again not necessarily talking to a mechanic or anyone else.

The airline pilot shows up at Flight Operations. He gets his flight package from dispatch, reviews the weather, forecast, notams and aircraft status which includes any MEL items. He also checks passenger load and cargo load numbers. He then makes any necessary changes such as additional fuel or rerouting based upon ATC flow and weather. He then makes any changes with the dispatcher. Then he briefs the flight deck crew and the cabin crew on the flight.

The crew goes out to the airplane, one crewmember begins prepping the flight deck while the other does the external "walk around" (preflight). Once back inside the Captain reviews the flight log and previous maintenance write ups, verifies all flight information was properly entered into the FMS, computes the W&B and verifies the information, computes the takeoff information and verifies it. He then briefs the crew (or co pilot) on the start, taxi out, takeoff, departure and SOP's that are relevant to this departure plus contingencies. once this is complete he then does the before start checklist after completing flows.

Once pushed back and starts complete another checklist is completed and the aircraft taxi's out to the departure. Both pilots are monitoring the taxi due to the large size of the aircraft compared to the taxi way width and obstacle clearance. More checklist are done to verify configuration and initial clearance is entered and understood.

On take off clearance the aircraft is lined up, take off thrust applied (either TOGA or FLEX) and the flying pilot flies the aircraft through the takeoff (hand flown, no autopilot although autothrust is armed) The takeoff considers precise airspeeds be flown, precise profile be maintained. Also considered is possible windshear, wake turbulence, weather avoidance and possible traffic conflict. Gear and flap retraction speeds are monitored to and adhered to. During the climbout from the terminal area clearances change and the crew must be ready to adapt quickly.

Once through 10,000 feet and departing the terminal area one pilot completes the takeoff climb checklist and the other contacts company with departure information. At this point the cockpit environment pace slows down and becomes more routine.

However enroute the crew must contend with changing weather, weather avoidance, and changes in routing for ATC. While these factors are playing in the crew must consider fuel burn against remaining fuel and also be considering alternate considerations for contingency (weather, aircraft problems). The crew must also deal with the occasional malfunction of a component which could affect the outcome of the flight.

Before descent back into the terminal area the crew prepares by getting ATIS, computes landing information (speed, runway conditions, etc) and briefs the arrival and approach. During descent the crew will deal with weather avoidance, ATC rerouting, possible holds which entail more fuel planning and contingency and proper management of the aircraft to maintain profile. Entering the approach phase the aircraft is configured using SOP observing slat, flap and gear speeds that also insure against early deployment and using additional fuel. Also approach speeds are changing due to traffic flow and also must be considered. Once outside the FAF the aircraft must be in a very narrow band of altitudes and speed through several "gates" to insure a "stabilized" approach are being adhered to which sometimes depending on airport and traffic is threading a fine needle. The approach can be flown by hand depending upon weather and pilot or can be automated (in Airbus terms "managed/managed, managed/selected or selected/selected).

Touchdown, rollout and clearing the runway are typically hand flown (depending upon many factors) and now the aircraft is reconfigured and a taxi route to the assigned gate which must be carefully monitored by the crew.

Parking in the gate area is usually very cluttered with ground equipment and taxiing an aircraft of a very high weight means a slow and careful movement into the gate area.

Shut down requires a flow and checklist, filling out aircraft logs and maintenance logs, meeting with maintenance to discuss any aircraft problems and configuring the cockpit for the incoming crew.

This is just a very small example. There are multitudes of other factors. My point here is trying to say the airline cockpit is "less demanding" is pure bunk and nowhere in the Nall Report do they make that claim.



Greater Variety Of Facilities: GA operations are conducted at about 5,300 public-use and 8,000 private-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 600 of the larger public-use airports. Many GA-only airports lack the precision approaches, long runways, approach lighting systems, and the advanced services of airline-served airports. (There are also another 6,000 GA-only landing areas that are not technically airports, such as heliports and seaplane bases.)

Again does not support the claim of "GA is more demanding than airline flying". Only points out the differences

More Takeoffs and Landings: During takeoffs and landings aircraft are close to the ground and in a more vulnerable configuration than in other phases of flight. On a per hour basis,
GA conducts many more takeoffs and landings than either air carriers or the military.

Again, does not make the claim "GA is more demanding than airline flying". Only points out the differences.

Less Weather-Tolerant Aircraft: Most GA aircraft cannot fly over or around weather the way airliners can, and they often do not have the systems to avoid or cope with hazardous weather conditions, such as ice.

Most GA has the option of simply not going. And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it.

Again, not stated here nor does it say this makes airline flying "less demanding"

 

[RotorAndWing]

Just the Airline's preference for dual pilots in itself reduces the demands on the PIC immensely, as well as providing highly desireable safety overseeing and backup, which is exactly why they typically endure the added expense of the helper-pilot.

That statement alone shows you haven't a clue as to what you have been writing.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm not going to continue debating your little diatribe on the Nall Report since you want to interject your own feelings as there's.

Go out and get some real training on the subject, I have. Placing "CFII" after your name doesn't make you a safety expert.

You're right, I'm not a safety expert, that's why I deferred to the simply written Nall Report conclusions done by people who are experts. Here, I cut just 2 of their titled conclusions out for you so you won't have so many words to struggle with:

Greater Variety Of Facilities: GA operations are conducted at about 5,300 public-use and 8,000 private-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 600 of the larger public-use airports. Many GA-only airports lack the precision approaches, long runways, approach lighting systems, and the advanced services of airline-served airports. (There are also another 6,000 GA-only landing areas that are not technically airports, such as heliports and seaplane bases.)
More Takeoffs and Landings: During takeoffs and landings aircraft are close to the ground and in a more vulnerable configuration than in other phases of flight. On a per hour basis,
GA conducts many more takeoffs and landings than either air carriers or the military.

Surely even you can spend 10% of the energy you've spent on your repeated (poorly written) ad hominem and actually address the Nall Report's statements specifically?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Variability Of Pilot Certificate and Experience Levels: All airline flights are crewed by at least one ATP (airline transport pilot), the most demanding rating.

The only place that speaks to "most demanding". BTW I notice you have yet to achieve this "most demanding" rating.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

2010 NALL REPORT: APPENDIX
Limited Cockpit Resources and Flight Support: Usually, a single pilot conducts GA operations, and the pilot typically handles all aspects of the flight, from flight planning to piloting. Air carrier operations require at least two pilots. Likewise, airlines have dispatchers, mechanics, loadmasters, and others to assist with operations and consult with before and during a flight.

Typical GA pilot goes out to the airport, he may or may not get a weather brief. He preflights his airplane and launches off to his destination. He may or may not have talked with a mechanic before hand. Chances are he flies VFR and just follows the GPS. he lands at destination and ties down the airplane, again not necessarily talking to a mechanic or anyone else.

The airline pilot shows up at Flight Operations. He gets his flight package from dispatch, reviews the weather, forecast, notams and aircraft status which includes any MEL items. He also checks passenger load and cargo load numbers. He then makes any necessary changes such as additional fuel or rerouting based upon ATC flow and weather. He then makes any changes with the dispatcher. Then he briefs the flight deck crew and the cabin crew on the flight.

The crew goes out to the airplane, one crewmember begins prepping the flight deck while the other does the external "walk around" (preflight). Once back inside the Captain reviews the flight log and previous maintenance write ups, verifies all flight information was properly entered into the FMS, computes the W&B and verifies the information, computes the takeoff information and verifies it. He then briefs the crew (or co pilot) on the start, taxi out, takeoff, departure and SOP's that are relevant to this departure plus contingencies. once this is complete he then does the before start checklist after completing flows.

Once pushed back and starts complete another checklist is completed and the aircraft taxi's out to the departure. Both pilots are monitoring the taxi due to the large size of the aircraft compared to the taxi way width and obstacle clearance. More checklist are done to verify configuration and initial clearance is entered and understood.

On take off clearance the aircraft is lined up, take off thrust applied (either TOGA or FLEX) and the flying pilot flies the aircraft through the takeoff (hand flown, no autopilot although autothrust is armed) The takeoff considers precise airspeeds be flown, precise profile be maintained. Also considered is possible windshear, wake turbulence, weather avoidance and possible traffic conflict. Gear and flap retraction speeds are monitored to and adhered to. During the climbout from the terminal area clearances change and the crew must be ready to adapt quickly.

Once through 10,000 feet and departing the terminal area one pilot completes the takeoff climb checklist and the other contacts company with departure information. At this point the cockpit environment pace slows down and becomes more routine.

However enroute the crew must contend with changing weather, weather avoidance, and changes in routing for ATC. While these factors are playing in the crew must consider fuel burn against remaining fuel and also be considering alternate considerations for contingency (weather, aircraft problems). The crew must also deal with the occasional malfunction of a component which could affect the outcome of the flight.

Before descent back into the terminal area the crew prepares by getting ATIS, computes landing information (speed, runway conditions, etc) and briefs the arrival and approach. During descent the crew will deal with weather avoidance, ATC rerouting, possible holds which entail more fuel planning and contingency and proper management of the aircraft to maintain profile. Entering the approach phase the aircraft is configured using SOP observing slat, flap and gear speeds that also insure against early deployment and using additional fuel. Also approach speeds are changing due to traffic flow and also must be considered. Once outside the FAF the aircraft must be in a very narrow band of altitudes and speed through several "gates" to insure a "stabilized" approach are being adhered to which sometimes depending on airport and traffic is threading a fine needle. The approach can be flown by hand depending upon weather and pilot or can be automated (in Airbus terms "managed/managed, managed/selected or selected/selected).

Touchdown, rollout and clearing the runway are typically hand flown (depending upon many factors) and now the aircraft is reconfigured and a taxi route to the assigned gate which must be carefully monitored by the crew.

Parking in the gate area is usually very cluttered with ground equipment and taxiing an aircraft of a very high weight means a slow and careful movement into the gate area.

Shut down requires a flow and checklist, filling out aircraft logs and maintenance logs, meeting with maintenance to discuss any aircraft problems and configuring the cockpit for the incoming crew.

This is just a very small example. There are multitudes of other factors. My point here is trying to say the airline cockpit is "less demanding" is pure bunk and nowhere in the Nall Report do they make that claim.



Greater Variety Of Facilities: GA operations are conducted at about 5,300 public-use and 8,000 private-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 600 of the larger public-use airports. Many GA-only airports lack the precision approaches, long runways, approach lighting systems, and the advanced services of airline-served airports. (There are also another 6,000 GA-only landing areas that are not technically airports, such as heliports and seaplane bases.)

Again does not support the claim of "GA is more demanding than airline flying". Only points out the differences

More Takeoffs and Landings: During takeoffs and landings aircraft are close to the ground and in a more vulnerable configuration than in other phases of flight. On a per hour basis,
GA conducts many more takeoffs and landings than either air carriers or the military.

Again, does not make the claim "GA is more demanding than airline flying". Only points out the differences.

Less Weather-Tolerant Aircraft: Most GA aircraft cannot fly over or around weather the way airliners can, and they often do not have the systems to avoid or cope with hazardous weather conditions, such as ice.

Most GA has the option of simply not going. And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it.

Again, not stated here nor does it say this makes airline flying "less demanding"

Well at least your actually trying now.

Consider just one of the easier points from Nall Report above and your comment to it on weather:

"Most GA, has the option of simply not going."

Well, the Airlines have this option too, delaying and even canceling flights as most of us know from personal observation.

This has been pointed out to you before, and they use the option often enough. But for some reason you also make statements such as, "And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it."

Lighter and less powerful, the typical GA aircraft can not as easily or safely handle as much turbulence as can the heavier, more powerful ones typical of Airlines can, therefore, it is more demanding to fly the lighter aircraft in such turbulent conditions. See how that works?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well at least your actually trying now.

Consider just one of the easier points from Nall Report above and your comment to it on weather:

"Most GA, has the option of simply not going."

Well, the Airlines have this option too, delaying and even canceling flights as most of us know from personal observation.

This has been pointed out to you before, and they use the option often enough. But for some reason you also make statements such as, "And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it."

Lighter and less powerful, the typical GA aircraft can not as easily or safely handle as much turbulence as can the heavier, more powerful ones typical of Airlines can, therefore, it is more demanding to fly the lighter aircraft in such turbulent conditions. See how that works?

You are conveniently twisting things to attempt to make an ill conceived point.

Go back to trying impress those that don't know the differences.

 

[Dav8or]

So, if we take the NALL report to say that GA flying is more demanding as the OP suggests, what then? What is the point? Are they suggesting two pilot ops for all GA? GA and airline flying are different and... ?

 

[RotorAndWing]

So, if we take the NALL report to say that GA flying is more demanding as the OP suggests, what then? What is the point? Are they suggesting two pilot ops for all GA? GA and airline flying are different and... ?

The OP wants you to believe he has the "most demanding" flying in aviation.

Different facets of aviation each have their challenges and demands. A pilot in a piston twin at night flying cargo on a 135 run through convective weather, an ag pilot spraying fields in rolling terrain, a helicopter long line pilot moving heavy equipment or an airline pilot flying 6000 miles through various FIR's and weather systems are demanding.

Trying to convince people flying your single engine homebuilt to a small remote airstrip on the weekend for fun is not that demanding.

 

[ebetancourt]

Flying final at speeds above the cruise speed of the majority of GA airplanes might ought to be mentioned.

I have never bought in to the idea that anyone can be taught to fly. I do believe with enough effort many pilots could do most flying jobs. But I continue to be amazed at the number of posters who project infinite knowledge of things they have zero experience with. I consider myself currently an average pilot. I have on occasion, in some circumstances, considered myself a little above average. I do, in fact, have a lot of different aviation experiences. (Even a taildragger checkout.) Yet, for all that, I don't consider myself nearly as "expert" as some of the posters here.

Honestly, you can't project much meaningful knowledge into the /H world with experience flying stuff that doesn't even require a type rating. (For the record, I do not have a type rating, although I have a fair amount of /H PIC time.) Yes, people from the /H world prove that the reverse is frequently true. Different kinds of flying, are, well, different. Not harder, not better, not (fill in the blanks) just different. Comparing them really provides very little useful knowledge. We can learn from all of it without trying to rate one as better/harder/easier/requiring higher kinesthetic IQ/etc. I've never been in Taylorcraft, but my perception is that it is an easy airplane to fly. It probably is if all you do with it is basic stuff. But having watched, enthralled, Duane Cole fly it, I know that flying a Taylorcraft well would require serious effort. Ditto Hoover and the Shrike.

I come here for entertainment occasionally, but mostly I am here to learn. The tips I got about flying acro in a big biplane over in that section have gotten me to the point where I think I can do the primary sequence in my Waco. Several threads here lately are entertaining for awhile, then I quit reading them. We'll never change the nature of the Internet and I don't mean to try, but I would encourage people pilots to open their minds a little.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Flying final at speeds above the cruise speed of the majority of GA airplanes might ought to be mentioned.

I have never bought in to the idea that anyone can be taught to fly. I do believe with enough effort many pilots could do most flying jobs. But I continue to be amazed at the number of posters who project infinite knowledge of things they have zero experience with. I consider myself currently an average pilot. I have on occasion, in some circumstances, considered myself a little above average. I do, in fact, have a lot of different aviation experiences. (Even a taildragger checkout.) Yet, for all that, I don't consider myself nearly as "expert" as some of the posters here.

Honestly, you can't project much meaningful knowledge into the /H world with experience flying stuff that doesn't even require a type rating. (For the record, I do not have a type rating, although I have a fair amount of /H PIC time.) Yes, people from the /H world prove that the reverse is frequently true. Different kinds of flying, are, well, different. Not harder, not better, not (fill in the blanks) just different. Comparing them really provides very little useful knowledge. We can learn from all of it without trying to rate one as better/harder/easier/requiring higher kinesthetic IQ/etc. I've never been in Taylorcraft, but my perception is that it is an easy airplane to fly. It probably is if all you do with it is basic stuff. But having watched, enthralled, Duane Cole fly it, I know that flying a Taylorcraft well would require serious effort. Ditto Hoover and the Shrike.

I come here for entertainment occasionally, but mostly I am here to learn. The tips I got about flying acro in a big biplane over in that section have gotten me to the point where I think I can do the primary sequence in my Waco. Several threads here lately are entertaining for awhile, then I quit reading them. We'll never change the nature of the Internet and I don't mean to try, but I would encourage people pilots to open their minds a little.

 

[Dav8or]

Trying to convince people flying your single engine homebuilt to a small remote airstrip on the weekend for fun is not that demanding.

Depends on how well that homebuilt is built!

 

[RotorAndWing]

Depends on how well that homebuilt is built!

Well, there's that for sure.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well, the Airlines have this option too, delaying and even canceling flights as most of us know from personal observation.

Cancellations due to weather are rare in the airline business. The sheer number of operations vs weather cancellations are rare, probably below 2% of total operations.

This has been pointed out to you before, and they use the option often enough. But for some reason you also make statements such as, "And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it."

Lighter and less powerful, the typical GA aircraft can not as easily or safely handle as much turbulence as can the heavier, more powerful ones typical of Airlines can, therefore, it is more demanding to fly the lighter aircraft in such turbulent conditions. See how that works?

You don't really have much IFR experience do you? I mean actual IFR, not hood time and not under the hood practicing approaches in VFR. The above statement from you is indicative of your lack of experience yet again.

 

[Ted]

Actually, when you look at the maximum G loadings allowed for transport category aircraft, they are significantly lower than for normal category GA piston. The heavy weight has plusses and minuses. I've found that when airliners are complaining of wind shear, I have no issues even in a little piston single. Why? Piston single accelerates and decelerate with the wind changes easier.

In fact, I've had no issues getting in on rotten days when airliners are going around.

 

[Clark1961]

Well at least your actually trying now.

Consider just one of the easier points from Nall Report above and your comment to it on weather:

"Most GA, has the option of simply not going."

Well, the Airlines have this option too, delaying and even canceling flights as most of us know from personal observation.

This has been pointed out to you before, and they use the option often enough. But for some reason you also make statements such as, "And airline flying does deal with weather as they must takeoff, climb and navigate through and around it, and descend through and fly approaches and land in it."

Lighter and less powerful, the typical GA aircraft can not as easily or safely handle as much turbulence as can the heavier, more powerful ones typical of Airlines can, therefore, it is more demanding to fly the lighter aircraft in such turbulent conditions. See how that works?

You are conveniently twisting things to attempt to make an ill conceived point.

Go back to trying impress those that don't know the differences.

Cancellations due to weather are rare in the airline business. The sheer number of operations vs weather cancellations are rare, probably below 2% of total operations.




You don't really have much IFR experience do you? I mean actual IFR, not hood time and not under the hood practicing approaches in VFR. The above statement from you is indicative of your lack of experience yet again.

Perhaps you two should get a room and, ahem, *work* it out between yourselves...

I've heard that you should be advised to use plenty of lube.

 

[bbchien]

The Statistics say whatever I say that they say, I tell you!!

Dave, seriously, the Nall report has good numbers but the rest is fluff. Saying that the operations are more varied (I agree) doesn't make it so. Gotta repeat, that what I see in GA operations makes my eyes tear.

Here's one from two weeks ago, about 300 yards from my office.....and another 50 yards from my office. Lots of activity, but not the kind we want, and all in the last 4 weeks.

 

[steingar]

Were we all flying every day for our jobs the GA accident rate would be far less. Likely more crashes than the airlines (lots of vintage single engine ships...) but better than it is. But we aren't. Most amateur GA pilots fly weekly at best, not daily. And often our missions are more varied and even more challenging. The challenge of getting a multiengine pressurized airliner into a class bravo on time is a very different one from getting a VFR ship into a grass strip like 6Y9.

 

[Dav8or]

Were we all flying every day for our jobs the GA accident rate would be far less. Likely more crashes than the airlines (lots of vintage single engine ships...) but better than it is. But we aren't. Most amateur GA pilots fly weekly at best, not daily.

And that's the truth right there. The vast majority of us in the air, are amateurs. As long as our country allows ordinary citizens to take to the air, there will be pilots of mediocre to lousy skill taking to the skies and doing dumb things and making bad choices just as they do in their cars, their boats, their motorcycles and even their bicycles.

At some point we have to accept that there will always be pilots running out of gas, flying into terrible weather and putting on personal airshows for their friends and family. It comes with the territory of letting Mr. John Q Public learn to fly and buy an airplane. The number of stupid pilot tricks per year will never be zero.

So how low can the accident rate go? Who knows. We might have to except that this might be it. Right now. The only good way to dramtically decrease the accident rate is to do what other countries do and not allow amateurs to fly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Signed off another Airline Pilot off recently for a BFR and remembered this thread. After we were done flying and taxiing I asked, and without hesitation the 20,000+ hour Captain confirmed my OP along with the conclusions of the Nall Report once again. Still, I decided to take the bold and radical action, seldom seen in forum discussions, of actually contacting the source! And it was confirmed yet again by another Airline Captain/GA pilot that it is as I interpreted it and as the safety experts plainly state year after year in the Nall Report summary.

 

[mscard88]

I've flown GA, 135 single pilot, CFI'g, and regional airline flying the Brasilia, ATR72, and the CRJ200,700, & 900. I think the biggest difference is Duty days, which can be as long as 16 hours. In the regional world some days you were flying 8-10 legs a day, in low IFR some days. Fatigue is a big factor in 121, and 135, flying and let's just say you're encouraged to fly your schedule. Calling in fatigue is discouraged and gets you a visit to the chief pilots office usually.

All flying is demanding. But there is more pressure in the 135 and even more in 121 flying. GA you can decide not to fly that particular flight and/or day. 121 you're going almost 100% of every flight. Approaches are sometimes Cat II and Cat III ILSs, while GA is Cat I.

Overseas 121, no experience myself, I can only imagine the challenges and planning for that flying.

I hate these back n forth arguments about GA vs 121 but I guess we have to compare sizes every few months. But I think one has to experience both to truly know the differences.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Cancellations due to weather are rare in the airline business. The sheer number of operations vs weather cancellations are rare, probably below 2% of total operations.




You don't really have much IFR experience do you? I mean actual IFR, not hood time and not under the hood practicing approaches in VFR. The above statement from you is indicative of your lack of experience yet again.

Amazingly, you're actually citing GA's single pilot IFR duties in a lame attempt to advance your case, structured as another of your poorly conceived Ad Hominem? Actual IFR in Seattle? Approximately 15-25% of the time it's IMC during May through Oct to get in or out of or on top of the west-side airports when our private scheduling dictates a high priority to make the flight. If it's too much, we cancel just like the airlines do.

Winter months the percent age of IMC goes way up but, typically cold temps demand Known Ice aircraft only which I rarely fly. ALL of my actual IFR is SINGLE Pilot IFR, as opposed to Airlines, which is generally accepted by the experts in the Nall Report as ~99% DUAL pilot IFR. Lost on you is the realization that GA flights' Go/No Go pressures are no less than the airlines for private business people/pilots when the buck stops with them.

 

[mscard88]

. Lost on you is the realization that GA flights' Go/No Go pressures are no less than the airlines for private business people/pilots when the buck stops with them.

Disagree. Flying corporate and individual owners that I have experience with, majority didn't want to take chances with weather and usually would say we can go tomorrow, or not. Big difference in the 121 world. Sure, you're the PIC but one most likely will experience repercussions for a no-go decision. It's your job on the line, more so than GA flights.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What is the goal, when people bring up airline vs GA safety?
Do these people want the GA accident rates to be the same as the airlines or something?
I hope anyone with that goal realizes that it would gut GA in order to achieve that.
The burden placed upon us to get the accident rate that low would decimate our day to day flying with restrictions and regulations. Bye-bye GA.

To those, I say please look at the big picture of all recreational activities from driving, GA flying, motorcycling, open water diving, rockclimbing, skydiving etcetc and realize that the people doing it want to keep doing it and are willing to accept the current level of risk each activity entails whether it be at the low end or the high end of that continuum.

It boils my blood when people want to "make improvements" without considering the outcome. Just go away.

 

[Ravioli]

I'm trying to understand this necro-thread.

If recurring Nall reports continue to support an original supposition the settled matter remains settled.

Quoting R&W with a counter argument is odd. He has not posted on PoA in at least a year IIRC. (which is unfortunate)

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

We can get a big angry red warning when starting up a necropost - but nothing, nada when subsequent posters are sucked into contributing. Yes I see the date of the OP. Now. Xenforo fail.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What is the goal, when people bring up airline vs GA safety?
Do these people want the GA accident rates to be the same as the airlines or something?
I hope anyone with that goal realizes that it would gut GA in order to achieve that.
The burden placed upon us to get the accident rate that low would decimate our day to day flying with restrictions and regulations. Bye-bye GA.

To those, I say please look at the big picture of all recreational activities from driving, GA flying, motorcycling, open water diving, rockclimbing, skydiving etcetc and realize that the people doing it want to keep doing it and are willing to accept the current level of risk each activity entails whether it be at the low end or the high end of that continuum.

It boils my blood when people want to "make improvements" without considering the outcome. Just go away.

Can't speak for others but, my personal goal is pilots realistically comparing risk assessment scenarios on an ongoing basis which happens to coincide withe FAA goals as well. Knowledge goes along way towards good decision making in any endeavor, especially aviation. Personally I certainly don't want anymore regs from anybody. They are fine just about where they are, and will always involve casualties for a number of different reasons in any realm of aviation no matter how good or bad any realm of pilots are.

Besides being fun, except for some, just talking about the wheres and whys of various safety demands makes some pilots more aware and then some will be safer, whether they agree or disagree with a given premise. The issue's validity in my original post is nothing new, having been restated every year for decades by The Nall Report and lately the Air Safety Foundation as well. So put a little ice on that blood of yours, this discussion aint gonna make any regs tighter for us but it will raise some pilot's awareness.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm trying to understand this necro-thread.

If recurring Nall reports continue to support an original supposition the settled matter remains settled.

Quoting R&W with a counter argument is odd. He has not posted on PoA in at least a year IIRC. (which is unfortunate)

The fact that new and old posters alike participate and add, in addition to numerous non-posting readers demonstrates the thread's ongoing value. It's better to continue a thread of any age rather than start a new one so that people can see what's been said by whom. In this case, I hadn't seen to reply to R&W's post and it has significant errors in it. Since some think that experience is mandatory to understand the academics of this subject I'm going to follow up with more data directly from pilots that have done both. Experience can help, only if it doesn't cloud ones perceptions. Although anyone closely examining the written material can easily see the realities without ever flying an aircraft.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Disagree. Flying corporate and individual owners that I have experience with, majority didn't want to take chances with weather and usually would say we can go tomorrow, or not. Big difference in the 121 world. Sure, you're the PIC but one most likely will experience repercussions for a no-go decision. It's your job on the line, more so than GA flights.

Just to be clear for all:
Are you saying 121 pilots routinely take more risks to protect their jobs and "GO" than the small sample of GA corporate and individual owners that you mention? Or something different?

 

[James331]

Makes sense.

 

[GlennAB1]

Customers expect airlines to keep to their schedule.

 

[Katamarino]

Customers expect airlines to keep to their schedule.

Airlines in the USA have never seemed to have "pleasing the customer" very high on their list of priorities in my experience...!

 

[GlennAB1]

It's all about expectations, they've never disappointed me

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Airlines in the USA have never seemed to have "pleasing the customer" very high on their list of priorities in my experience...!

Customers expect airlines to keep to their schedule.

GA flight students and passengers expect the flight to be made as scheduled too. If Wx or maintenance or scheduling confilicts occur then it is explained to them why a flight should be canceled and they are NOT pleased. Future scheduling may not be booked. Caring explanations may or may not be understood by landlubbers.

The pilot or owner loses revenue (out of their own pocket usually) and the flight’s mission objectives are lost. Those lost objectives may or may not be achievable by attempting to go another day. 30-50% lost flights in winter MVFR can be devastating to a CFI or FBO. No airline is going under because of any number of flights they may cancel due to Wx.