Paid pilots safer?

[weilke]

I posted the data earlier. On average that corporate turboprop pilot with all his external pressures and the single pilot IFR part 135 operation with their marginally maintained piston twins are a lot safer than the average pilot engaging in 'personal flying'.
It is the professional pilot who flies a lot and for whom flying is all that he does that makes the difference.

What is chiefly needed is skill, not machinery. (Orville Wright)

 

[EdFred]

If you're one of the six or one of the hundred and I offer you 2:1 odds or 16:1 odds on a live/die bet, which do you want?

I'd rather die in a spam can, than die sandwiched between two "spillers" in 24E. I'll take the 2:1 odds please.

 

[wabower]

If a frog had wings . . .

But I think you're probably right. A high percentage wouldn't ever pass the required training. You'd probably be surprised by the number of pilots that are sent home without completing their hoped-for training at the centers.

If unpaid pilots got "free" training every 6 months, and didn't have to pay for fuel, I bet the accident rate would go down.

 

[EdFred]

If a frog had wings . . .

But I think you're probably right. A high percentage wouldn't ever pass the required training. You'd probably be surprised by the number of pilots that are sent home without completing their hoped-for training at the centers.

I have no idea what recurrent costs at the various centers, but I'm guessing without some sort of deal worked out, it is probably a significant amount (or more) of my yearly flying budget. Of course if fuel was free (like it is for paid pilots), I would be flying a lot more (and so would everyone else) and our skills - whatever they are - wouldn't degrade as much.

Why are paid pilots safer? Simple answer: They fly more.

 

[wabower]

I have no idea what recurrent costs at the various centers, but I'm guessing without some sort of deal worked out, it is probably a significant amount (or more) of my yearly flying budget. Of course if fuel was free (like it is for paid pilots), I would be flying a lot more (and so would everyone else) and our skills - whatever they are - wouldn't degrade as much.

Why are paid pilots safer? Simple answer: They fly more.

They've seen more, flown more, trained more and in most cases have become qualified to fly more capable equipment. If the question is whether the deck is stacked in their favor, the answer is yes. Whether they were the sharpest guys in PPL school hasn't been asked or answered.

 

[Ted]

I have no idea what recurrent costs at the various centers, but I'm guessing without some sort of deal worked out, it is probably a significant amount (or more) of my yearly flying budget. Of course if fuel was free (like it is for paid pilots), I would be flying a lot more (and so would everyone else) and our skills - whatever they are - wouldn't degrade as much.

Why are paid pilots safer? Simple answer: They fly more.

One comment here - while fuel is free for professional pilots, it isn't unlimited. The boss definitely limited training flights to the minimum required to pass, because training flights cut into profits.

 

[EdFred]

One comment here - while fuel is free for professional pilots, it isn't unlimited. The boss definitely limited training flights to the minimum required to pass, because training flights cut into profits.

True, but if you are flying correctly - and often - and in 96.459374% of the cases more than someone paying for their own fuel, you're just in better practice. I'm of the school that you don't need to be on a specific training flight to be training. Of course you don't put a 135 op in the book as training, but you can be learning.

 

[Ted]

True, but if you are flying correctly - and often - and in 96.459374% of the cases more than someone paying for their own fuel, you're just in better practice. I'm of the school that you don't need to be on a specific training flight to be training. Of course you don't put a 135 op in the book as training, but you can be learning.

Agreed fully, and the fact that pro pilots deal with worse weather and approaches more often, and just generally fly more is the biggest safety aid. From the time I got my instrument rating until the second half of last year, I never had to worry about my approaches for currency.

But when you look at training on paper, that helps, too. I knew some pilots who were good about regular training even when not necessary, and others who aren't interested. Tony's practice of an IPC every 6 months regardless of need is a good one, and ends up bringing you more or less to what 135 pilots do.

 

[ronnieh]

Wayne has pretty much summed it up. As far as "Free fuel"?, what has that got to do with it? None of my training has anything to do with fuel, well the fuel it takes to drive a car to a training center.
One of the problem with the small 135's is that training, such as it is, is done in the plane. I am firmly in the school that training in a quality sim or FTD is the best you can get.

Most of us flying corporate know how to fly a plane by reference to instruments. This is assumed at the training centers. I can't remember the last time I was allowed to shoot an approach in training without something wrong. Engine out, gear won't come down, electrical failure and so on. Nor the last time I got to do a normal take off, loss of engine, engine fire and so on. And the weather is always IMC. We get to practice the things that can cause us a problem. Most of us can make an instrument approach to minimums with little stress when everything is working, it is the surprises you have not seen or EXPERICNCED that will put you in the bottom of a smoking hole.

You can not get this kind of training in a plane. You can see the instructor pull a breaker or reach for the controls. In the sim the instructor is behind you and he WILL catch you sleeping if he is any good. He can make you multi task and prioritise problems. Again back to what Wayne said. Again to the OP, which paid pilots?

It is this kind of training that the insurance companies encourage/require. This is one of the reasons that the small 135 piston don't fare as well. No sims for what they fly.

Experience, training, equipment

 

[EdFred]

As far as "Free fuel"?, what has that got to do with it? None of my training has anything to do with fuel, well the fuel it takes to drive a car to a training center.

Are you paying for your recurrent? Are you paying for the fuel on your flights you are getting paid for? When you aren't paying for your training, or your flying, it's a little easier to accomplish the training. I didn't think it was that hard of a concept to grasp.

Experience, training, equipment

$$$, $$$, $$$. Easier to get all of those when someone else is providing the $$$'s.

 

[wabower]

Lots of contract pilots (me included) pay for our own recurrent training. Customers know that and expect to pay us a higher day rate so that we can recover the cost that they would pay if we were on the company tit.

Whether you think that we're paying for it or the plane owner is paying for it, I will testify that it sure as hell feels like I'm paying for it when I write that big check to SFI or FSI.

Are you paying for your recurrent? Are you paying for the fuel on your flights you are getting paid for? When you aren't paying for your training, or your flying, it's a little easier to accomplish the training. I didn't think it was that hard of a concept to grasp.


$$$, $$$, $$$. Easier to get all of those when someone else is providing the $$$'s.

 

[ronnieh]

Face palm: Of course Ed. This thread is about WHY professional pilots seem to be safer than non professional. It is because of and I repeat, experience, TRAINING, rquipment.

There is a pilot on this board, not a paid pilot, that flys a C90. He flys a lot like a corporate pilot even though he does not fly professionally (as far as I know). He gets the training, flys often (experience) and flys turbine equipment. I suspect he is not your average non professional pilot. What is the difference? Would he be safer if someone was paying him?

I am not down on low time, pilots with little training. Everyone started there. It is what it is. The OP asked why and some of us believe the above reasons are why. Now do you grasp the concept?

Flying is expensive, safe flying is more expensive.

 

[EdFred]

Lots of contract pilots (me included) pay for our own recurrent training. Customers know that and expect to pay us a higher day rate so that we can recover the cost that they would pay if we were on the company tit.

Whether you think that we're paying for it or the plane owner is paying for it, I will testify that it sure as hell feels like I'm paying for it when I write that big check to SFI or FSI.

But like you said, you are passing the costs. Me, I'm not getting paid. If I pay for recurrent training, that money is just, well, gone. It's not coming back, ever. Remember, you are getting paid for some of your flying, so it's either a deduction, or a recoup at some point.

 

[EdFred]

Face palm: Of course Ed. This thread is about WHY professional pilots seem to be safer than non professional. It is because of and I repeat, experience, TRAINING, rquipment.

There is a pilot on this board, not a paid pilot, that flys a C90. He flys a lot like a corporate pilot even though he does not fly professionally (as far as I know). He gets the training, flys often (experience) and flys turbine equipment. I suspect he is not your average non professional pilot. What is the difference? Would he be safer if someone was paying him?

I am not down on low time, pilots with little training. Everyone started there. It is what it is. The OP asked why and some of us believe the above reasons are why. Now do you grasp the concept?

Flying is expensive, safe flying is more expensive.

As I said, if I got additional training paid for, I'd absolutely be safer. Why, because I actually GOT the additional training. But when someone only has x as a a flying budget, and recurrent costs a high percentage of or more than x, the training isn't going to happen. Make recurrent and experience "free" for non-paids, and I guarantee the safety improves - because they will be able to get both.

 

[ronnieh]

Ed, I guess I am just slow. You asked if it was that difficult a concept to grasp. However, it seems you are beating the drum in support of what Wayne, Ted, myself and others have been saying.
The question was WHY are paid pilots safer? What concept did I not grasp?
It certainly is not because of the pay it is again, experience, training, equipment.
Now if you want to start a thread: Would private pilots be safer if they had the experience, training, and the equipment of the corporate pilot? We can have that discussion but, I suspect it will be a short discussion.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You back up your ridiculous statement first. Then go be a 135 on-demand pilot for a while.

Remember, the OP asked about two of the HUGEST populations of pilots, in which there is bound to be overlap and sub-populations that are exceptions to the overlying rule.

My statements just are a restating of the many pilots and statisticians that put together the Nall report from which I quoted, much more valuable than any one pilot's individual experiences obviously.

I thought I'd use one or two of the most important points previously quoted from the Nall Report below but, in reality they are all of high importance.

Take a few, they're free :



GA 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 (air- line 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 vari- ety of experience in between.
• 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 opera- tions 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 5,000 public-use and 8,000 pri- vate-use airports, while airlines are confined to only about 750 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.

 

[ronnieh]

Dave, the OP's question was paid verses unpaid not part 121 verses GA. Part 135 is paid pilots and much of part 91 ops are by paid pilots. Part 121 is just one segment.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You back up your ridiculous statement first. Then go be a 135 on-demand pilot for a while.

As expected, you have not followed up your challenge with anything of any substance, although the difficulty of dealing with the 135 boredom is considerable.

Since the first passengers and freight were hauled, the status quo for paid pilots has generally been for a large segment of them to confuse the slightly more complex aircraft they fly, with a more demanding overall flying activity.

In addition to the previous comments made, the demands of most paid pilots are now and have always been typically mitigated by their increased training, by typically flying the same routes over and over, by typically flying many more total hours per month, and by huge numbers of paid pilots having a co-pilot with them to help them out at all times. It all reduces demands of the flight activity and safety improves, as it was designed to do, in order to maximize reasonably safe generation of sustainable profits.

Non-paid flyers could also pay for their additional expenses for more training, fly more hours of routine routes into larger airports over and over, and take along a helper co-pilot but, that would hardly be sporting now would it.

 

[kgruber]

Again. You do not have the experience to back up any of your ridiculous claims. Go get a job and report back at 10,000 hrs.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

My observations are based on statements by paid pilots that I've instructed or talked with, combined with the ongoing, properly researched conclusions of the Nall Report.

None of the above had the need to attempt self-inflation of their egos though, so it was easy for them to look at it more objectively than your kind. My flight hours as a paid pilot in various roles also confirmed the opinions of those above long before 10K hours. In fact all one really has to do is read.