Paid pilots safer?

[Everskyward]

Common in Pt 135. The exception would be a two man crew Pt 135, if only for IFR.

Here is the autopilot in lieu of SIC exception for IFR.

§ 135.105 Exception to second in command requirement: Approval for use of autopilot system.

(a) Except as provided in §§ 135.99 and 135.111, unless two pilots are required by this chapter for operations under VFR, a person may operate an aircraft without a second in command, if it is equipped with an operative approved autopilot system and the use of that system is authorized by appropriate operations specifications. No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command under this section of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that person has at least 100 hours pilot in command flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be flown and has met all other applicable requirements of this part.

(b) The certificate holder may apply for an amendment of its operations specifications to authorize the use of an autopilot system in place of a second in command.

(c) The Administrator issues an amendment to the operations specifications authorizing the use of an autopilot system, in place of a second in command, if—

(1) The autopilot is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and maneuver it about the three axes; and

(2) The certificate holder shows, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that operations using the autopilot system can be conducted safely and in compliance with this part.

The amendment contains any conditions or limitations on the use of the autopilot system that the Administrator determines are needed in the interest of safety.

[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-3, 45 FR 7542, Feb. 4, 1980; Amdt. 135-58, 60 FR 65939, Dec. 20, 1995]

 

[ClimbnSink]

Are the pros safer flying GA for themselves? The data might not be out there, but I'd guess not, or not by much. No doubt they are safer at work, some of that is training and some of that is no/less opportunity for improv skits.

Start the discussion with the required amount of experience, training, testing, recurrent training, accountability, standard operating procedures, and other related factors, then ask yourself why the differences might be obvious.

One hour of flight and ground training (often pencil-whipped) every two years for the personal PPL vs four-six full sim training sessions with checkrides and orals to FAA specs during the same time period for the commercial crew and we're wondering if the pilots are better? Really?

 

[wabower]

The training is tailored to the clients' needs.

The centers prefer that two pilots train at the same time for obvious cost and time efficiencies, but single-pilot training (similar to John's training in his Ce-550) is obviously limited to one pilot at a time.

Almost all of the singles and piston twins and a very high percentage of the turbo-props are flown as single-pilot crew, so only one pilot per operation shows up for training. All of the King Airs, Conguests, Merlins and other turboprops (other than the odd-balls like Gulfstream I's) and Citations up through the 560 V/Ultra/Encore are eligible for single-pilot ops as well, as are the CJ's, Premiers and some of the Embraers and others.

When pilots show up as singles (as most do unless they fly as a two-pilot crew at home) they will typically be paired up, since the centers assume they will learn something by sitting in the right seat during the time they're not flying as PIC.

What would you estimate their typical single pilot IFR training time compared to their working 2 pilot IFR time, in this pilot training school?

 

[weilke]

When pilots show up as singles (as most do unless they fly as a two-pilot crew at home) they will typically be paired up, since the centers assume they will learn something by sitting in the right seat during the time they're not flying as PIC.

So how does that work, the guy in the right seat just sits on his hands or do they fly some sort of 'single pilot light' profiles ?

Pretty much all of my flying so far has been single-pilot. A couple of weeks ago, I had an opportunity to fly cross-country with one of my partners who skippers a 737 in his day-job. I said 'sure, you do the radios'. Took me a couple of hours to get used to not reflexively twirl knobs and not to step on his transmissions when we were called by center. Was an interesting experience for sure, a way of flying I could get used to.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The training is tailored to the clients' needs.

The centers prefer that two pilots train at the same time for obvious cost and time efficiencies, but single-pilot training (similar to John's training in his Ce-550) is obviously limited to one pilot at a time.

Almost all of the singles and piston twins and a very high percentage of the turbo-props are flown as single-pilot crew, so only one pilot per operation shows up for training. All of the King Airs, Conguests, Merlins and other turboprops (other than the odd-balls like Gulfstream I's) and Citations up through the 560 V/Ultra/Encore are eligible for single-pilot ops as well, as are the CJ's, Premiers and some of the Embraers and others.

When pilots show up as singles (as most do unless they fly as a two-pilot crew at home) they will typically be paired up, since the centers assume they will learn something by sitting in the right seat during the time they're not flying as PIC.

I have no doubt your school that pilots go to is rigorous and of high quality. You see the pilots' log books with recent hours -any estimate of the ratio of IFR hours I asked about?

 

[wabower]

See rule #1. If the pilot wants to train as a single, they will try to accommodate him/her, but their default schedule is to rotate between left and right seats and fly as a crew.

Unless you started flying as a crew-member (military, etc.) having a right seater to read checklists, move the gear lever and twirl the knobs takes some getting-used-to but has its advantages. Next time tell your buddy that you want to run the trip like he does at work, just so you know the extent of the differences.

So how does that work, the guy in the right seat just sits on his hands or do they fly some sort of 'single pilot light' profiles ?

Pretty much all of my flying so far has been single-pilot. A couple of weeks ago, I had an opportunity to fly cross-country with one of my partners who skippers a 737 in his day-job. I said 'sure, you do the radios'. Took me a couple of hours to get used to not reflexively twirl knobs and not to step on his transmissions when we were called by center. Was an interesting experience for sure, a way of flying I could get used to.

 

[wabower]

Hey Bock,

You're the poster boy for crew vs single-pilot. How do you do it?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Monetary reward isn't a very accurate gauge of safety. Safety is between the headphones and has its roots in self-discipline and proven procedure. I never flew single pilot when I was a "professional" pilot. We were trained to operate as a team and had very strict protocols for most every evolution. When I would be off duty and flying my personal plane it felt like I had one hand tied down. Of course I never flew in anything like the environments I sometimes had to on duty, but it took a while to learn how to multitask in IMC and it was more than a little humbling.

 

[bobmrg]

Also not necessarily true. I was single pilot IFR legal on the 135 Navajo.

Me too...and on the 402, and the 421, and the BE-55, and C-310/320, and.....

Two-pilot crews are an anomaly in piston 135 twin work, to the best of my knowledge.

Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

If I can condense all of the replies in this thread to a sentence or two: Required training, required checkrides, stricter medical standards and more frequent physical exams. On the mechanical side, 100-hour inspections in addition to annuals. No comparison with non-commercial pilots.

Bob Gardner

 

[ronnieh]

I would like to add one thing to what Wayne and Bob has said. Let us just take paid pilots flying corporate part 91. This catagory consists largely of turbine aircraft. These aircraft normally require a more rigerous maintenance regimen, more intense training and often are better equipped than lesser aircraft.

In part 135, especially piston, I doubt it has as good a safety record as the corporate turbine. Low time pilots, poor equipment, poor training, short cuts in maintenance is seen in much of the low end 135 business. Not all 135, there are some good ones that operate at a high standard. Most corporate turbine programs are held to a pretty high standard. The people who can afford these turbine corporate programs are pretty concerned about their safety.

You might want to add the question , which paid pilots? All of part 91 is lumped together. If you pulled out just corporate part 91 turbine operations leaving all other GA in a group I think you would be shocked at the safety record of that group.

Corporate aviation skews the statistics to make GA look better than it is for non commercial operations. I think a better answer MIGHT be that paid pilots are safer in a corporate turbine setting. As Wayne, Bob, and others have said it is about training, experience and I would add equipment.

 

[Everskyward]

I think it has more to do with carrying paying passengers than getting paid. There have been studies which show that more accidents happen on empty repositioning legs than legs with passengers. Pilots are more likely to experiment or try yankin' and bankin'. Remember the 121 crew who tried to take their CRJ up to 41,000', stalled it and flamed out both engines? I can also remember reading accident reports about botched attempts at rolling.

I've also thought that the reason why many professional pilots come to grief in their personal small airplane is that they are used to going flying in bad weather conditions in their work airplane so they try it in their less capable small airplane.

 

[Ted]

I think it has more to do with carrying paying passengers than getting paid. There have been studies which show that more accidents happen on empty repositioning legs than legs with passengers. Pilots are more likely to experiment or try yankin' and bankin'. Remember the 121 crew who tried to take their CRJ up to 41,000', stalled it and flamed out both engines? I can also remember reading accident reports about botched attempts at rolling.

I've also thought that the reason why many professional pilots come to grief in their personal small airplane is that they are used to going flying in bad weather conditions in their work airplane so they try it in their less capable small airplane.

Both good points, I concur.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I think it has more to do with carrying paying passengers than getting paid. There have been studies which show that more accidents happen on empty repositioning legs than legs with passengers

Very true. This is incorporated into our safety management system. When we fill out risk assessments, empty legs are given greater weight in terms of risk.

 

[John Baker]

As the larger commercial aircraft become more and more dependent on their computers, such as the Airbus has, and the Dream liner seems to be headed, in the future, you can probably expect to hear of more incidents and accidents as the folks piloting those things surrender their piloting skills over to computers.

I'm of the opinion that the more a person actually hands on flies the airplane, the safer you would be flying with them.

Employed commercial pilots, along with advanced students, or those who have just received their tickets in the last few weeks, are the safest pilots to fly with. ATPs of course, at least for now, are also in that group. That is primarily because they are putting in a lot of hours on a regular basis.

For my own part, I have not piloted an airplane in about five months, It would be downright scary to fly with me...being religious would probably help.

-John

 

[bbchien]

So Jim, I think it is not about being paid or not. But, if you're going to be paid, and continue to be paid, you do have some concern to NOT acquire an operating blunder on your record.....because you may soon not be payable again.

The equivalent to that is the pilot (regardless of pay status) who is always thinking, "I wonder what the accident report is going to look like".

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I'd suspect it is mostly a systems issue. Professional pilots fly by systems and learn to work as a team and every member of a team knows his job.

Too it helps if they fly more than 24 hrs a year and have 1000+ hrs but I'd say it mostly is related to systems and systems training.

When two guys go flying together even if both are ATP's what happens is both abdicate a certain amount of responsibly turns out no one is responsible.

So when I fly front seat with another pilot whether his plane or mine, whether he is more experienced than I or not we establish who will do what in an emergency, who is PIC and will do what, and what if anything the 2nd pilot will do such as tune in frequencies or radio work....

I like you, early in my training noticed the same thing that high time CFI or ATP with four pilots on board do something terribly stupid and kills all....

So I decided when I am flying I do not let my guard down. Your plane or mine, I keep a watchful eye as if my ass depends on it.

I think too that pilots sometimes take comfort flying with someone else.."oh he can handle this." so no red lights go off. where if you were alone you would constantly be challenging yourself can I do this? Can I do that? If you believe the other guy has it, you are less likely to throw up your defenses. You all are lulled into a bad situation.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Paid pilots are safer because:

We have experience before we even got hired. Between regulatory and insurance minimums, we've been around.

We receive better training. While everything varies, we receive better initial training and regular recurrent training. Don't pass, don't fly.

We have safety systems in place. Someone, in some fashion, is looking over my shoulder and will fire me if I don't do things right.

We have our careers and our reputation to think of. This is my livelihood and I protect it. When I was younger and dummer, maybe less. I still cared about not being able to get a job. Even when I fly for fun, I'm still cautious.

Regulations for the 135 and 121 crowd help keep us out of trouble. Things like takeoff minimums and approach bans help reign in the operation. SOP's and standardization really help when tired or the chips are down.

Multi pilot operations are safer because positive peer pressure keeps us in line. CRM helps keep negative peer pressure from contaminating the cockpit. Two sets of eyes are better than one, especially flying IFR. I flew extensive, single pilot IFR without an autopilot. Trust me, a co-pilot is great.

 

[wabower]

"Tail-end part-91 legs" are an accepted part of 135 operations, without regard to any factors other than getting the plane home in order to sell another trip tomorrow. It would be difficult to create a more accident-prone environment.

I think it has more to do with carrying paying passengers than getting paid. There have been studies which show that more accidents happen on empty repositioning legs than legs with passengers. Pilots are more likely to experiment or try yankin' and bankin'. Remember the 121 crew who tried to take their CRJ up to 41,000', stalled it and flamed out both engines? I can also remember reading accident reports about botched attempts at rolling.

I've also thought that the reason why many professional pilots come to grief in their personal small airplane is that they are used to going flying in bad weather conditions in their work airplane so they try it in their less capable small airplane.

 

[Skylane81E]

Paid pilots are safer because:

We have experience before we even got hired. Between regulatory and insurance minimums, we've been around.

We receive better training. While everything varies, we receive better initial training and regular recurrent training. Don't pass, don't fly.

We have safety systems in place. Someone, in some fashion, is looking over my shoulder and will fire me if I don't do things right.

We have our careers and our reputation to think of. This is my livelihood and I protect it. When I was younger and dummer, maybe less. I still cared about not being able to get a job. Even when I fly for fun, I'm still cautious.

Regulations for the 135 and 121 crowd help keep us out of trouble. Things like takeoff minimums and approach bans help reign in the operation. SOP's and standardization really help when tired or the chips are down.

Multi pilot operations are safer because positive peer pressure keeps us in line. CRM helps keep negative peer pressure from contaminating the cockpit. Two sets of eyes are better than one, especially flying IFR. I flew extensive, single pilot IFR without an autopilot. Trust me, a co-pilot is great.

I will buy this.

All but the multi pilot applies to our 135 operation. The pilots are better trained and more experienced. The planes are better maintained. The operating limitations are more conservative. All adds up to more safety.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

While there is some truth in the above comments, they all significantly ignore a major component of paid v. non-paid flying. GA is MUCH more demanding than the vast majority of paid piloting, including but not limited to charters, freighting and airlines, in fact usually, they are not really even in the same league of flight in degree of difficulty.

In addition, non-paid GA in general has the accepted and well known challenge of lower overall training and currency requirements, per the people that have properly examined it and published in ongoing Nall Reports:

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.

 

[EdFred]

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.

 

[Ted]

While there is some truth in the above comments, they all significantly ignore a major component of paid v. non-paid flying. GA is MUCH more demanding than the vast majority of paid piloting, including but not limited to charters, freighting and airlines, in fact usually, they are not really even in the same league of flight in degree of difficulty.

I'm not sure where you get this idea, but most of my toughest flights were paid. Some of my easiest as well, but that generalization misses a lot.

Boss doesn't care what the weather is, boss wants to go.

You've made a lot of generalizations in this thread that seem to disagree with experienced pilots on this forum have found in their careers. I'm curious as to your background, because it seems clear that it's different than many of ours.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I wonder what the stats on professional pilots would be if you factored out their day job. IOW, what would their accident rate be in their personal flying?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm not sure where you get this idea, but most of my toughest flights were paid. Some of my easiest as well, but that generalization misses a lot.

Boss doesn't care what the weather is, boss wants to go.

You've made a lot of generalizations in this thread that seem to disagree with experienced pilots on this forum have found in their careers. I'm curious as to your background, because it seems clear that it's different than many of ours.

It helps a lot if you read the second paragraph onward in my post you quoted from....

 

[Everskyward]

It helps a lot if you read the second paragraph onward in my post you quoted from....

Looking at that paragraph it seems as if you have a different definition of GA or paid pilots. There are paid GA pilots who are non-airline.

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.

 

[Ted]

It helps a lot if you read the second paragraph onward in my post you quoted from....

I did, but I didn't see a point in quoting all of it and making a long post with a short response since the most relevant portion was the first paragraph.

 

[EdFred]

Looking at that paragraph it seems as if you have a different definition of GA or paid pilots than Ted or I do. You seem to be considering all non-airline flying GA.

Um, all non airline flying is GA. However, you can get paid to fly many GA ops.

 

[Everskyward]

Um, all non airline flying is GA. However, you can get paid to fly many GA ops.

Yeah, what I typed didn't come out right so I edited my post.

 

[kgruber]

While there is some truth in the above comments, they all significantly ignore a major component of paid v. non-paid flying. GA is MUCH more demanding than the vast majority of paid piloting, including but not limited to charters, freighting and airlines, in fact usually, they are not really even in the same league of flight in degree of difficulty.

I've never read more complete nonsense!

 

[ClimbnSink]

I wonder what the stats on professional pilots would be if you factored out their day job. IOW, what would their accident rate be in their personal flying?

That is what I wonder. I'd guess their numbers are better but not by much.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, what I typed didn't come out right so I edited my post.

OK, seems we are on the same page now.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I've never read more complete nonsense!

Go ahead and back up your statement here, so it's of some value to all of us.

 

[kgruber]

Go ahead and back up your statement here, so it's of some value to all of us.

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

 

[EdFred]

Yup we're absolutely safer and better in every way.

What's that one hazardous attitude? Overconfidence?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Can we have a death pool? I'll put 20 on Muttley.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The following is total ********

Well, actually, it is pretty accurate, as far as the bullet points go. And the commentary isn't TOO far off.

 

[EdFred]

Not overconfidence
Truth based on experience.

If an unpaid flight crashes, it kills maybe 6 people max. If a paid flight crashes it can kill hundreds. How is that better in every way?

 

[ronnieh]

Re: David Krall response. The OP asked about paid pilots verses un paid, not 121 verses 91.
I suspect part 91 corporate flying may be more demanding than 121 for a major carrier. I do not know this and have no experience in any 121 flying. However, if you are hinting that private pilots flying for their own use has a more demnanding job than the corporate pilot then I must call BS on that.

I see threads on here a lot concerning whether a trip should or could be made. If you do not want to go then just don't go. Nobody else matters. I would think the pressure would be quite low. Of course many accidents for this group comes from poor decision making.

In the corporate world this is a little different. In the large departments with turbojets most are two pilot operations with a lot of support and aircraft that can get over a lot of weather. In the smaller departments as in turbo props it is normally a one pilot operation. You handle dispatch, ground transportation, maintenence, catering, fueling, weight and balance and the list goes on. In addition the pilot is very aware that the owner has spent $millions on the aircraft, perhaps another $30K per year on fixed costs, including the expense of sending at least one pilot to 3 days of sim school each year and another $1K per hour in DOC.

What this means is the owner wants to go when he wants to go. You get a call today that his wife and kids want to leave Friday afternoon to XYZ and return Sunday afternoon, you know you are going. You know she will be late, putting you into a strange airport at night, IFR and the FBO will be closed. No use even looking at the weather untill Friday morning because you are going. On top of that the turbo prop pilot gets to fly at the worst altitudes 180-280. You may be dealing with ice and/or convection, many times both at any time of the year. I see people talking about doing practice approaches, heck once I get to the approach I can relax, unless there is a thunderstorm over the airport of course. None of the above matters, you are going and you are going to land at XYZ. If you want to feel some pressure get a corporate gig flying a turbo prop.

So, back to the OP's question: Why is this safer (or is it?) than private pilots in small planes. As I and others have said, equipment does play a part. Look at the insurance requirements for the rest of the answer. There is a reason they require a MINIMUM of 3 days a year in a simulator, require at least a couple thousand hours of flight experience and a few hundred in make and model. Also frequency of flying can be a factor. I recently retired from a great part time job because we were not flying enough for me to stay proficient. We were down to less than 100 hours per year. I suspect most fly 100-200 per year and this of course helps.

So to the OP I think in general (they are exceptions like some small piston 135 ops) the professional pilots will have a better safety record for a variety of reason that have been well stated in this thread by others.

 

[wabower]

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?

If an unpaid flight crashes, it kills maybe 6 people max. If a paid flight crashes it can kill hundreds. How is that better in every way?