This is a general question and explicitly not aimed at this forum, where people are a lot more level headed than elsewhere.
I keep noticing that in some aviation fora people react to accidents and incidents with a rabid rush of demands for restrictions or prohibitions they think suitable to avoid future similar accidents, which quite often go way beyond the safety recommendations and actual regulations imposed by even the most restrictive CAAs
Some examples.
In recent times there were two rather prominent accidents involving single pilot operated airplanes: a Citation2 crashed after loosing cabin pressure and flying all across Europe into the North Sea. The other was a Piaggo Avanti crashing off Costa Rica, piloted by a prominent Swiss CFI/Examiner.
In both cases, there was a vocal crowd of pilots, some out of the corporate scene, some ppls, who massively criticize both the certification of those airplanes as single pilot capable and the age of the pilots in question (one was in his 70ties, the latter was 66.)
Lots of talk that airplanes like jets and turboprops "belong exclusively into the hands of AOC operators with 2 paid crews and so on, clearly pointing towards operators like NetJets e.t.c.
Similar talk of hindering or banning owner/pilots for the fact that they are “unprofessional”, “too old”, “suffer from get-there-itis” e.t.c.
This is only one example where posters in aviation fora who are known pilots go way beyond what any CAA would suggest, questioning stuff AOPA and others had to fight for for decades and basically take these high profile accidents to badmouth whole sections of GA.
Then add self appointed experts who appear on TV or put up their own youtube channels slagging off other pilots for accidents which unfortunately happened. While we all want to learn from accidents and most of us are full supporters of Annex 13 and it’s spirit to deal with accidents, Annex 13 explicitly excludes judging and appointing guilt in favor for lessons learnt. So why do those people feel the need to expose their fellow pilots in this way?
I wonder if some of those big mouths are ever considering what will happen to THEM if they ever are unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident?
Amonst the things those pilots have criticized as beeing “too dangerous” and “should be banned” is stuff like
- Single engine night flying
- Single engine IFR
- Single pilot ops (of any airplane but particularly light biz jets and turboprops)
- Owner-pilots flying with any passengers at all
The list goes on.
The question which keeps coming up in my mind is what is wrong with those people? While lots of pilots and their orgaisations spend time and money to see that GA does not get regulated to death, those guys openly propose the opposite.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The question which keeps coming up in my mind is what is wrong with those people?
Self-appointed regulators, managing flying risks by regulations 
So why do those people feel the need to expose their fellow pilots in this way?
Two things:
If you dig into it, it’s all emotions. They let their emotions speak instead of reason. It works, it’s the oldest trick in the ancient science of rhetoric. A little bit of reason/logic, a reference to some undisputable authority (EASA etc) but relevance is not important. Then a whole bunch of emotions smeared in thick layers. Works every time
Lawyers are often very good at this, but also very good at seeing through such open display of unprofessionalism. This is why it’s a good thing that aviation authorities have lawyers on board (lawyers can go in all directions though).
I didn’t read
Lots of talk that airplanes like jets and turboprops "belong exclusively into the hands of AOC operators with 2 paid crews and so on, clearly pointing towards operators like NetJets e.t.c. Similar talk of hindering or banning owner/pilots for the fact that they are “unprofessional”, “too old”, “suffer from get-there-itis” e.t.c.
anywhere. Care to share an example?
What I did read in some forums was that single pilot „airline emulation“ does bring with it some peculiarities, and in some cases, passenger owners aren’t made aware of what they are getting into, compared to a bog standard airline flight.
What I did read in some forums was that single pilot „airline emulation“ does bring with it some peculiarities, and in some cases, passenger owners aren’t made aware of what they are getting into, compared to a bog standard airline flight.
What is “airline emulation”?
Isn’t this the same that is happening in society?
In the past your own health / life was your own responsibility, nowadays everyone has an opinion how you should live your life.
This results in more and more regulation is coming to prevent people from doing things that other perceive dangerous / not healthy.
Often those proposed things are smart to do, but that doesn’t mean it has to be laws / regulations. Someone should have the freedom to decide for them self, as long as they don’t harm others.
Only that doesn’t work for a certain group of people, as they want to show on social media how much better they are.
This will result in the behavior described in this topic.
What is “airline emulation”?
Imitating or even surpassing* what airlines commonly do but privately at one’s own disposal.
*eg in the sense that actually more challenging flying is done with less capable equipment and support structures.
Single pilot/NCO/NCC is fine from a regulatory point in my opinion but a little more education wouldn’t hurt.
On the other hand, the “so what, life is dangerous” argument is pretty backwards, especially when the topic is multi million dollar private turbine aircraft.
Insurance companies do the regulation when third party is required by law.
Demands for regulation by law after accidents are not new and not confined to aviation.
RikB wrote:
Isn’t this the same that is happening in society?
I share this sentiment. As far as the Western world goes, the value of individual life has certainly increased a lot in the last couple of decades, most notably since birthrates declined under the replacement level, following the introduction of contraceptive pills in the 1960s.
This coincided with a society less willing to risk those lives and thus becoming more risk-averse in general, especially since there were no longer any great political ideologies around who had previously seemed like risking lots of lives for (think of fascism or communism for example).
Also, there is a general trend to solve conflicts through legislation and judiciary action, which in former decades might simply have been solved by violence or an “authority” deciding how things should be.
All these trends converged to create a “perfect storm” of regulation and risk-intolerance.
THY wrote:
What is “airline emulation”?
I interpret this as using a personally developed Standard Operating Procedures for single crew operations, ideally with a clear description of the SOPs and the limitations. Obviously, a typical single crew puddle jumper is going to operate under more restrictive conditions than airline SOPs. (No weather radar, no FIKI or puddle jumper FIKI, possibly single engine, piston performance, currency, etc).
As private crew operations move into turbine, there probably is a risk shift because of the increased capability of the aircraft, but possibly not an increase in currency and adherence to SOPs. Although no requirement for documented SOPs under Part 91 etc, although professionally flown Part 91 the crews/operators will typically have developed and documented SOPs.
