Help me convince employer to buy company airplane

[Everskyward]

I wouldn't advocate putting two pilots in a 185.
That said, although there are certainly exceptions, a King Air is more likely to fly a complex arrival into IAD or LAX than a C185 is.

It might be slightly more likely but certainly not a given, especially on a regular basis. I don't think that's any reason to necessarily have two pilots, and a King Air is a single pilot airplane.

 

[Kritchlow]

It might be slightly more likely but certainly not a given, especially on a regular basis. I don't think that's any reason to necessarily have two pilots, and a King Air is a single pilot airplane.

But... When the folks see a King Air, and are paying KA prices, I believe the expectation is two pilots.

 

[Everskyward]

But... When the folks see a King Air, and are paying KA prices, I believe the expectation is two pilots.

Whose expectation, yours? Most customers were fine with only one pilot. If they weren't they paid for the second.

 

[Kritchlow]

Not the clientele we flew. We advertised two pilots and the people loved that.
We flew King Airs in the early days, but also flew CJ's that were single pilot airplanes as part of our fleet until the end. Many high name companies required it.

 

[Kritchlow]

Regardless, anything bigger is required two pilots.
But, I do agree. If the company is not set up for a two pilot operation that poses a problem. Once standardization is in place, it flows like silk.

 

[Everskyward]

Not the clientele we flew. We advertised two pilots and the people loved that.
We flew King Airs in the early days, but also flew CJ's that were single pilot airplanes as part of our fleet until the end. Many high name companies required it.

Some customers require it, some don't, but that doesn't make it unsafe or unwise. Some customers prefer jets over turboprops too. Props scare a certain segment of the population. A King Air was designed to be a single pilot airplane.

 

[Kritchlow]

Regardless, anything bigger is required two pilots.
But, I do agree. If the company is not set up for a two pilot operation that poses a problem. Once standardization is in place, it flows like sil

Some customers require it, some don't, but that doesn't make it unsafe or unwise. Some customers prefer jets over turboprops too. Props scare a certain segment of the population. A King Air was designed to be a single pilot airplane.

You can design it that way all you want. That doesn't mean operating it with two pilots isn't safer than one.

 

[James331]

Not the clientele we flew. We advertised two pilots and the people loved that.
We flew King Airs in the early days, but also flew CJ's that were single pilot airplanes as part of our fleet until the end. Many high name companies required it.

That's just sales and marketing.

I sold cars as a kid, had one guy completely sold on the saftey of the projector headlights on one truck (higher commission on that one), well turned out the truck got sold from under me, soooo I had to put him in the exact same truck but without projectors, oh my gawd, you would have thought I was trying to switch him into death trap without seat belts and shards of glass and razors instead of airbags. It's amazing what a little sales skills can do, especially when the customer isn't well educated on the topic.


Flying single pilot into some busy airspace, utilizing the autopilot properly and all our other equipment, it's really not hard to stay ahead of the plane even with lots of traffic, STARs, SIDs and fast talking controllers.

 

[Kritchlow]

That's just sales and marketing.

I sold cars as a kid, had one guy completely sold on the saftey of the projector headlights on one truck (higher commission on that one), well turned out the truck got sold from under me, soooo I had to put him in the exact same truck but without projectors, oh my gawd, you would have thought I was trying to switch him into death trap without seat belts and shards of glass and razors instead of airbags. It's amazing what a little sales skills can do, especially when the customer isn't well educated on the topic.


Flying single pilot into some busy airspace, utilizing the autopilot properly and all our other equipment, it's really not hard to stay ahead of the plane even with lots of traffic, STARs, SIDs and fast talking controllers.

Not really. I'm guessing you've never been formally trained in crew operations.
Now you have two pilots plus an AP.

 

[Everskyward]

You can design it that way all you want. That doesn't mean operating it with two pilots isn't safer than one.

Not necessarily. Two pilots can be braver than one which might not be a good thing. Two pilots can get in the way of each other. Two pilots can have personalities like oil and water.

Yes, more complex airplanes require two pilots, not to mention that fact that in physically bigger airplanes not everything can be easily reached from the left seat, but all but the King Air isn't large enough or complex enough to meet that bar, or it would have been certified that way.

 

[James331]

Not really. I'm guessing you've never been formally trained in crew operations.
Now you have two pilots plus an AP.

Lots of training, but always been in a single pilot role, probably should get a side job one of these days 2 crew, at least I could say I did it.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Depends on a lot of things. How old is the single pilot?. Often times a single makes the owner, not to mention his wife very nervous with one pilot and she demands two. Often times insurance rates are better with two. Lots of variables. If I owned something like a beech 200 I'd sure have two, especially going into busy large airports as many of them do. . Wives and family often fly on company aircraft to vacation destinations and two pilots are wanted. If a company can afford a modern up to date twin then two pilots is not a financial concern. They are writing it off to boot.

 

[James331]

Perhaps we should also include a flight engineer? If two is safer, three is saferer

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Even six would not be enough if the left seat has his head up his azz as happened with the Gulfstream take off not long ago. " nature abhors an idiot" H.L. Mencken.

 

[Kritchlow]

Lots of training, but always been in a single pilot role, probably should get a side job one of these days 2 crew, at least I could say I did it.

You will see it actually works like a ballet. Strong standards and SOP's are what it's all about.
Not sure how you trained for it but never did it, but that's another story I guess.

 

[Kritchlow]

Perhaps we should also include a flight engineer? If two is safer, three is saferer

Apparently you don't know the role of an engineer??

 

[Kritchlow]

This is soooo bush league. Everyone thinks the single pilot GA non CRM model is the best.
Whatever... Look at the accident stats.

 

[RotorDude]

This is soooo bush league. Everyone thinks the single pilot GA non CRM model is the best.
Whatever... Look at the accident stats.

The accident stats are somewhat misleading. If you removed the low-time bad-attitude pilots and poorly maintained aircraft from the GA fleet, and gave each aircraft a dispatch facility and other help with logistics, the stats would get much closer. I don't disagree that having more eyes on the ball can help -- and generally does -- but it can also go the other way, as many airline accidents reveal.

 

[evapilotaz]

That's why they are a $7B company

They lease space in thier AZ location with usage rights to the heli pad. They don't have a helicopter either.

 

[Kritchlow]

The accident stats are somewhat misleading. If you removed the low-time bad-attitude pilots and poorly maintained aircraft from the GA fleet, and gave each aircraft a dispatch facility and other help with logistics, the stats would get much closer. I don't disagree that having more eyes on the ball can help -- and generally does -- but it can also go the other way, as many airline accidents reveal.

Many, many, many stats show that well trained crews that have high levels of standardization and CRM training (airlines) have a safety record far better than GA. It's not even close.

 

[RotorDude]

Many, many, many stats show that well trained crews that have high levels of standardization and CRM training (airlines) have a safety record far better than GA. It's not even close.

Can you point me to any study that removes the low time and/or bad-attitude GA pilots from the comparison, and gives the remaining ones dispatch facilities as in an airline? There is no doubt the airlines have many safety advantages over GA, my point is to focus only on the multi-crew aspect (which is being discussed here).
I am not disputing the advantages of CRM and standardization, just pointing out that the vast majority of GA accidents follow a very predictable pattern, and would likely happen regardless of crewing.

 

[Everskyward]

Can you point me to any study that removes the low time and/or bad-attitude GA pilots from the comparison, and gives the remaining ones dispatch facilities as in an airline? There is no doubt the airlines have many safety advantages over GA, my point is to focus only on the multi-crew aspect (which is being discussed here).
I am not disputing the advantages of CRM and standardization, just pointing out that the vast majority of GA accidents follow a very predictable pattern, and would likely happen regardless of crewing.

CRM and standardization also applies to single pilot airplanes which is what we are talking about here. No one is suggesting that 737s or Citation Xs can be flown safely single pilot. We are only talking about small turboprops.

 

[James_Dean]

My transition instructor and I were able to fit into a very nice flow quickly. We both took time left and right seat in the first 25 hours of flight time and clearly defined who was doing what and callouts. I have no doubt that the two of us were safer than either solo, however just how much so is very difficult to define as so many other factors are in play.

 

[RotorDude]

CRM and standardization also applies to single pilot airplanes which is what we are talking about here. No one is suggesting that 737s or Citation Xs can be flown safely single pilot. We are only talking about small turboprops.

I agree. I also think that even for small single engines, the same standardization and CRM concepts can be applied. I personally believe that, as I mentioned in the other thread, a "professional pilot" or "professional crew" doesn't mean you are paid to fly, or wear a fancy uniform. Safety is all about attitude, of the individual(s) and corporation, as applicable.

 

[StinkBug]

it's all about knowing who is doing what. If one pilot is doing everything, they might as well be flying solo. If both pilots are working together, know their roles and responsibilities then it's that much less likely something will be missed. How many times has a passenger spotted traffic you didn't? If you're looking for traffic, and the other guy is watching the panel indications don't get missed, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion.

That said, I've flown in aircraft designed for single pilot operations, and in ones certified only for 2. The way things are laid out is quite different, and it's clear that the number of pilots is heavily considered in the design. In the Citation I was pretty much reading a checklist and running radios, as the majority of the controls were located on the other side, and I'd be getting in the way of the PIC reaching across him. In the Gulfstream a good deal of the controls were on the right side, obviously put there to be in easy reach for the right side pilot. In these planes the roles and responsibilities of each pilot would be a little different because of this, but if equally understood the benefits are the same.

 

[James331]

This is soooo bush league. Everyone thinks the single pilot GA non CRM model is the best.
Whatever... Look at the accident stats.

What I am saying is it depends on the plane, 2 crew in a plane built for single pilot isn't really a saftey increase, 1 person in a multi crew plane is also a bad idea, just depends on the plane.

Pilot, FO and flight engineer in a 172 is stupid

Single pilot in a 747 is stupid.

You will see it actually works like a ballet. Strong standards and SOP's are what it's all about.
Not sure how you trained for it but never did it, but that's another story I guess.

Never trained for dual crew, that was what I was saying, lots of single pilot training and rides, and what I said about the engineer was along with what I said above, it's not ALWAYS better, it's airframe specific, just like a kitchen, sometimes too many cooks spoil the stew, sometimes it's needed.

 

[Kritchlow]

What I am saying is it depends on the plane, 2 crew in a plane built for single pilot isn't really a saftey increase, 1 person in a multi crew plane is also a bad idea, just depends on the plane.

Pilot, FO and flight engineer in a 172 is stupid

Single pilot in a 747 is stupid.
Yes it is a safety increase. It's not about the number of switches one pilot can push, it's about redundancy.... Verifying altitudes and double checking everything. I would not expect you to understand all of that if you were never trained in crew CRM.



Never trained for dual crew, that was what I was saying, lots of single pilot training and rides, and what I said about the engineer was along with what I said above, it's not ALWAYS better, it's airframe specific, just like a kitchen, sometimes too many cooks spoil the stew, sometimes it's needed.